I get that the precedent-based English Common Law system is one of the foundational tenets which led to the formation of contemporary Western society, but precedent isn't everything, as this piece illustrates well. If I proclaim "well, I murdered someone last month, so what the heck", obviously the act of murder is still immoral. I don't care if corporations already mandate other vaccines, nor do I care if somehow FDA approval has formerly meant that everyone views whatever food and drug as being magically safer after that point, along with innumerable other possible examples: wrong is wrong, and each instance of some act needs to be ethically evaluated in a vacuum.

I've already tried to drive this point home before, but I think it's worth restating-- the argument to be made against the WuFlu injections is that it's morally wrong to force someone to undergo a medical "treatment" against their will: full stop. And yes, excluding them from society is "forcing against their will." Even if the WuFlu didn't have a 99.9% survival rate-- let's presume 90% of people die from it, and let's also presume that the "vaccines" actually inoculate-- forcing vaccination is not an acceptable route. There are dozens of other solutions which could mitigate people becoming ill, which are perfectly ethical.