I believe lawsuits should be filed over the question, ‘Can the government or a private organization, compel or coerce someone to take into his body, a product that is known to be unsafe, or where the product’s safety is unknown or in dispute?’ Lawyers could start with the hypothetical, ‘Can the government or a private company, coerce an individual into taking a substance that is known to contain sufficiently high levels of arsenic or pesticide, that is harmful to him?’ If the answer is no, lawyers could next ask the following question about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. ‘Can the government or a private company, coerce an individual into taking a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, given that the vaccines are documented to have killed over 21,000 people (4 times more than all other vaccines combined since 1990), and have caused over 1 million adverse reactions - per the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)?’ (Note: VAERS is reputed to contain reports of only a fraction of deaths and adverse reactions that have taken place. Therefore the actual death and adverse reaction numbers due to COVID vaccines, are likely much higher.) I believe lawyers should further ask the question, ‘How many products are currently on the market, that have killed over 21,000 people, and has caused over 1 million adverse events in the United States? If there is none. Why is the government and companies, allowed to coerce people into taking these deadly COVID-19 vaccines, that has inflicted so much harm on the U.S. population?’

I believe the above lawsuit should be spearheaded by lawyers like Robert Kennedy, Jr. - lawyers who can eloquently argue technical/medical issues. If need be, experts should be brought in, to underscore the lethality of the mRNA vaccines, the mechanics of how these vaccines work, and the consequences of their malfunction when they are introduced into the body. (Lawyers should bring in various doctors such as epidemiologists and pathologists, to help make their cases.) Lawyers should point out, that much safer and effective alternatives to vaccines exist in the form of therapeutics, but the government has been stifling information on this form of treatment for months. Lawyers should show that the federal government has been consistently wrong and dishonest in its management of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it is appropriate for the public to question its recommendations and have doubts about its mandates.

If courts ask why they should rule on the above issue, in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions on vaccine mandates, I believe lawyers should reply, that rulings on vaccine mandates made previously by the courts, assumed that the vaccines were safe. These cases are about mandates for the use of products that are dangerous or unsafe.