Vaccines aren't always cut and dry to be harmless and effective. Various proportions of a population will not have proper immune responses to vaccination making the added risk not worth it.

​

For example, what if a vaccination is given that ultimately infects a larger population than would have originally contracted that disease? That's not some far fetched scenario when you have children, the sick and elderly with suppressed immune systems.

​

I think vaccines should be used but I really think some critical thinking needs to be applied around this topic. Often times people are scared into believing herd immunity is the only answer to disease prevention. Do we punish those with suppressed immune systems? Aren't they more likely to carry and then pass disease? What about the food we eat? If I eat nutritionally poor foods, sugars and ruin my immune system. Should that be accounted for?

​

There are millions of actions that indirectly impact others but we are okay with it because it's worth the freedom. Setting a precedent of mandated vaccines and drugs is much more dangerous than the chance that people get sick without "herd immunity."

​

​

​

If I were a wealthy pharmaceutical maker, I would love all of this rhetoric. Government mandated sales? Ethical posturing? Maybe I should get into the business.