I think Lex's (and Joe's understanding of the issues are pretty surface level).<br><br>Why should a person be mandated to take a substance which appears to be:<br>1. rushed/poorly tested with no long-term studies,<br>2. paid for by taxpayer money (we assumed all the risk)<br>3. all the profits go to Big Pharma (they get all the benefits)<br>4. exempt from all legal and financial recourse (most important)<br>5. is not working as originally advertised<br><br>If Pfizer and co were legally and financially responsible for any damage caused by the jabs (as is everyone who tries to make a profit with a product in a capitalistic market), then maybe we can talk about mandates.<br>If you take this thing and anything happens, even the government won't help you and even if it were to help, it would be coming out of taxpayer pockets and not Pfizer.