Intent to harm? Hard to prove. And not yet known. Would you also extend this malicious prosecution to those who advocate for those with prior infections to get

Intent to harm? Hard to prove. And not yet known. Would you also extend this malicious prosecution to those who advocate for those with prior infections to get vaccines? That certainly is intent to harm if there is no provable benefit, and even a few VAERs reports. The real issue is one of timing. Some people know, understand, internalize and regurgitate truths while others take years to catch up. I'm thinking government agencies. How dangerous would it be to start throwing people in jail for being ahead of established science? How would you mind read someones comments and qualify them if they hold a dicotomy of views with varying probabilities in their head? Are they only allowed to profess what they believe to be true? What is most likely true? Do they have to present all 9 future possibilities and give them percentages and write a dissertation to back it up just to stay out of jail? I have a better idea. Stop trying to be a hero, no one needs your saving, no one wants your saving. It's this kind of talk that makes people disengage, shut their mouths and become entrenched in their ways. No longer is it about science, it's about resisting coercion. And that's where we are today. Better some die today, to save us from tyranny of the crowd tomorrow.