I wonder if Rand Paul or another brave Patriot could write a bill that every citizen be sent an official notice that explains the downside of the shot(s) since nobody in the media or doctor's offices want to discuss it. Under the law, anyone who is asked or told to take an experimental drug must be fully informed of the upside and downside and consent or refuse which is their right, before anyone can give it to them. It shouldn't be written in jargon that reads like legalize but in plain English explaining the possible side effects both short and long term, and how the new mRNA may impact fertility, increase vulnerability to Covid variants and lead to illnesses yet unknown.
Also, make it clear to those kids in school that both students and their parents must understand the potential harms associated with the vaccine before it's given and that they cannot be discriminated against should they refuse to take it.
This should have been done immediately after the emergency use authorization was given. More lives might have been spared. But now that they want to include younger people it's more imperative that both they and their parents fully understand the risks and that they, not the school, make the choice.
Schools, employers and the military should be made aware of the legal rights we as citizens have to either accept or reject and cannot be harassed, bullied or coerced into taking it, nor discriminated against should they choose not to participate.
I'm not a lawyer but I've heard that doing intentional harm would not be protected by any immunity agreement. How could that be proven? 1) By not telling people the truth about it not being a vaccine but a biological experiment. 2) By giving people a false sense of security due to lack of information about the downside. 3) Not following proper testing procedures with animals before releasing. 4) Not putting warning labels on all advertisements, PR materials, bottles of drugs, etc.
In the absence of equally telling everyone about upside and downside of the vax and sugar coating it as beneficial without proof of long term peer reviewed studies to back it up they are committing criminal fraud. If people are harmed or killed as a result, it would be construed as intentional otherwise they would have abided by the informed consent the law requires.