I don't think most people think about how crucial it is these vaccines get pulled off the market completely. Like you said it's not just enough that they don't mandate them. The crucial point to find was how exactly is it or would have been that some people died as a result of the vaccines while others remained relatively untouched. (up to this point, but it's this point that is the cause of the divide between the vaccinated and unvaccinated) It was finding that "key" to start forming a viable debate as to how they could possibly make a vaccine that harmed some while left others untouched. In the current post I am doing I think I will be touching upon that matter quite well. In patent records of one of the most genius minds in science is something called an nanotube, which he successful developed to go into cells, those nanotubes can tell how old or young a cell is, if a cell is diseased among other things. I am not saying this particular scientist did this as a nefarious thing, he's done some miraculous stuff that would or has helped toward the development of being able to repair signals to and from the brain that one day could see paralyzed people walk again....the thing is though patented work only needs to be noted back to the original inventor, meaning those with nefarious minds or intents can use this same technology nefariously. Those same nanotubes I was talking about are capable of delivering drugs to individuals, so say someone(s) with nefarious intent use these nanotubes to deliver drugs only to old and diseased cells. I am not trying to say this is really happening, what I am saying is it opens up the debate as to how it can be done considering that there's been a lot of focus on the issue of the 2030 economic worldwide crash caused by the coming retirement of the baby boom generation whereas world governments have squandered the social retirement accounts of these people and are unable to pay them back. Moving forward with the fact there is only going to be two workers for every four retirees there was simply no way this was going to be sustainable to world governments. So the big question is/was how could a vaccine be used to kill off a large segment of people without having multiple different vaccines formatted. Someone would surely catch onto that eventually. Though Dr McCullough has said there is a lot of variation in these vaccines. So if this was or is a move that would ultimately lead to mainstreaming these shots towards the older and more vulnerable, as in like flu shots, exactly how would/could they use these shots to eliminate a large swath of the elderly population between now and 2030. You have to prove there was/is an avenue for it to be done, an avenue where something injected into individuals could single a old cell vs a new cell, a healthy cell vs a diseased cell, once something of that nature could be detected a drug could be delivered to hasten that persons demise. I had already written a post on how they'd moved from also curing epidemic disease, which is costly, to moving forward in a quest of a individuals being healthy, healthy individuals are economically productive individuals, unhealthy people, whether through genetics or bad choices are not economically productive and there's to much economic lost due to these individuals. Anyway this is my whole point, we cannot stop at everything is okay because it's not mandated toward us individually, these types of vaccines have to be completely removed to protect everyone involved.