Fifteen years ago vaccines were not seen as profitable by the drug companies. Then Gardisil was released and the pharmaceutical lobbyists went around urging governments to require this vaccine. Regardless of its effectiveness, it was a drug the pharmaceutical companies were telling government's that it needs to be mandatory, and coincidentally guarantee profits.

My concern has always been the capitalist conundrum with vaccines. If you are a drug company and create a vaccine, the natural business question is "how can we make this vaccine a requirement" to guarantee profits? We should NOT want drug companies to view vaccines as a profit generating drug, because then they will find ways to make them mandatory, regardless if they are effective or even needed.

There is very little to stop a drug company from creating a vaccine out of thin air, regardless of its efficacy, convincing government that it must be mandatory, and then sitting back as the profits roll in.

I wonder if this is really true or just an excuse. Certainly the argument "if the government needs to tell you to get vaccinated then it can't be that good" has been made but one could just as easily imagine the opposite argument: "if the government isn't recommending the vaccine it must not be that important".

These backlash arguments also lead into a very cynical place where bad ideas either can't be countered at all or can only be countered through reverse psychology.