They used to define a vaccine as a substance that prevents a disease. Now to qualify as a vaccine it only needs to reduce the chances of developing a serious case of a disease. On that basis, can vitamin D be considered a vaccine for Covid-19? What about Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Zinc, et al. If not, why not? Are we just splitting hairs?

Why are people who took the "vaccine" more afraid of contact with unvaccinated people than they were before they took it? Shouldn't just the opposite be true?

You claim there is no evidence that anyone died from the vaccine. What exactly would constitute evidence? Be specific.

How does "evidence" that someone died from Covid-19 differ from your answer to the above question?

Since when is a healthy person considered a murderer for refusing to take an experimental drug, or any drug, for that matter? Since when does speculating that someone might get sick and get others sick render someone a murderer who should be preemptively punished with less due process and presumption of innocence than an actual murderer?

If you believe such people are murderers, what punishment would be too great for them? Why would you stop there? Explain. Please also provide historical parallels that did not directly coincide with tyranny.

Do you consider smokers murderers? Should smokers be isolated from society, denied medical care, and otherwise punished?

If we care so much about human life above all other considerations, why is smoking still permitted? Why is it acceptable to remove a mask to smoke a cigarette?

If a healthy person who never got anyone sick is considered a murderer, what would you call a person in authority who orders Covid-19 patients to be placed in nursing homes, directly leading to the death of many elderly captives? Is it fair to call such a person a mass murderer?

If a drug is safe, effective, and just glorious, why can't it sell itself? If you claim "anti-vaxxers" are so powerful and influential, why is it only with this particular drug that they have fooled such a high percentage of people?

By what right do you smear people who have concerns about this experimental vaccine, and only this vaccine, as "anti-vaxxers"? Is this not just a dishonest effort to put them on the defensive, discredit them, and silence criticism? Since this can potentially lead to the loss of life, would it be fair to refer to those who engage in this rhetorical device as murderers?

Why is "anti-vaxxer" a smear altogether? Is there not legitimate cause for people to be concerned about other such drugs and to prefer alternative treatments? On what moral basis can you defame people who have different views of medicine, especially when they have evidence to back up their positions?

Do you believe it is to the benefit of science or the public good for those whose beliefs do not align with the establishment to be slandered, bullied, and marginalized? Does the establishment have a 100% "truth" rate to merit such blind adherence?

What would it take for you to change your position on masks, lockdowns, and the "experimental vaccine"? Please be specific. Would you accept "evidence" and studies from outside the establishment? If not, why not?

Do you really believe that there were literally zero cases of flu in the UK and Israel this year, as the establishment "experts" claim? If so, how do you explain this in scientific terms, especially because they also claim the flu spreads more easily than Covid-19? If not, why do you believe them about anything else, when they tell such preposterous lies with a straight face?

They keep saying there are new strains of Covid-19. We are told that they are "more deadly, more dangerous, spread more quickly, and will require endless new vaccines". Lots of fear-mongering. Can you explain in specific scientific terms what is actually different about these strains?

Being that children are at virtually no danger from Covid-19, how is it ethical to force them to wear masks – which damages them physically and psychologically – be kept in solitary confinement for weeks at a time, and inject them with an experimental drug, merely for the presumed benefit of preventing them from spreading it to others? Since when does the government own them and their bodies?

In hindsight, knowing all that we know now, would you agree that the situation should have been handled very differently from the beginning? If not, why not? If yes, would you agree that those in charge have either been grossly incompetent or criminally deceitful? In light of that, why should they be entrusted with continuing to manage the situation? What do they have to do to deserve getting fired and replaced?

Why do you believe it is ridiculous that rich and powerful people, most of whom are godless, would conspire with one another to become more rich and more powerful? Isn't that the way it's always been? Why is it crazy to believe that now?

What have the rich and powerful people of the world, the establishment media, and large corporations done to earn your loyalty and blind trust in the past year? What could they possibly do to lose it?

Is it possible that no matter how much information comes to light you will refuse to rethink your beliefs because the ugly truth you would be forced to accept is unbearable? Is your position truly based in science, or human psychology? What would it take to make you step back and humbly reflect on your beliefs and your behavior over the past year?