Why should vaccinations be highly encouraged, but not compulsory?
Steven Fowkes
Steven Fowkes, Organic chemist familiar with the redox chemisty of the immune system
Vaccinations lower public health risks and increase personal health risks. This is a trade off that answers both sides of your question.
The government will tell you, and is telling everybody, that vaccines are perfectly safe. Or at least that they are highly safe. This is not true.
Do you know the old joke, "How do you know that a politician is lying?" The answer: their lips are moving. This joke also works for government bureaucrats, public health officials, FDA spokespersons, cigarette-industry expert witnesses, and industry public-relations agents. Most of the information on the Internet is provided by commercial interests; feel free to believe it at your own risk.
In a free society, there is a fundamental requirement that people be able to make veracity determinations without restriction, except, for example, in an emergency situation, like a police action, fire-fighting situation, automobile accident, or fill in the blank. According to the US Supreme Court, government agents can lie and mislead all they want to; the government is not (NOT!) in any way financially or legally liable. Recently, policy has extended this to government lies under oath, and to ignorance of the law.
So this is the rub. Compulsory vaccinations are a violation of the US Constitution, US-signed treaty (the Helsinki Declarations), and of Common Law. It is also medically unethical to administer a treatment without consent, and if you want to get legally technical, it is supposed to be informed consent. It is never informed consent in practice, but it is supposed to be.
How each person reacts biochemically to the adjuvants in the vaccine (aluminum salt, or mercury chelate) changes the degree of amplification of the antibody response. Most people are unaware of their sensitivity to adjuvants, and 99% of physicians do not know how to assess it. And certainly the government's vaccinators are not assessing it. But it could be assessed if public health officials were willing to make vaccination policy a "kinder and gentler" policy designed to minimize collateral damage to the most sensitive portion of the population.
Vaccines would then come in "strengths" designed to semi-quantifiably compromise the antioxidant defense system without overwhelming it. But that would be admitting, overtly or tacitly, that vaccination is inherently dangerous, at least to some minority of people, and many additional people might start to question vaccination policy and start asking embarrassing questions.
Given the history of the US wholesale violations of the Constitution regarding the theft of native-American lands, the internment of US Citizens of Japanese ancestry, deliberate and uninformed infections of African-American citizens with syphilis, the witch trials of suspected communists, and uncountable other heresies, travesties, injustices and crimes (take your pick), IMHO it is unreasonable to expect that vaccinations will NOT become compulsory. It is the current madness (or fadness) of this age.
Self defense?
If you want to know whether you are such a vaccination "sensitive," consider your basal metabolic rate (BMR). If it is low, your risks are higher than average. And if it is high, your risks are lower than average. People with insulin resistance have a higher risk, unless they are in ketosis at the time of the vaccination. People who supplement vitamin C are also of lower risk. People under oxidative stress (sunburn, heavy metal poisoning, toxic chemical exposures, chronic adrenal stress, hypothyroidism, alcohol hangover, etc.) are at higher risk.
But keep in mind that as you lower your risk of a complication and injury, you simultaneously lower the degree of vaccination response by your body. In other words, the shorter your vaccination will last; the shorter your vaccination will give you protection.
Vitamin C taken a couple of hours before the vaccination, and for 48 hours after the vaccination will greatly attenuate the redox challenge of the adjuvants in pretty much anybody. Vitamin C is the most common redox-limiting agent in humans because of our inability to make it metabolically. We tend to have about 1% of the vitamin C level that other mammals make, so repleting it (raising it to maybe 10%) makes a huge difference, at least in the average person.
There is also a deeper mechanism involved regarding host resistance that is not addressed by vaccinations. But this answer is already long enough.
