Yes, it is an ethical issue, isn't it?
Is it ethical to study people who voluntarily do not take vaccines (control group) versus those who voluntarily will take a vaccine under study?
Or is it ethical to declare a product safe and effective when we just don't know that to be the case?
Is it ethical for a physician to tell a person they need to have the flu shot to protect them against the flu this winter (and, oh, by the way, with the exception of the egg allergy, not mention ANY side effect)?
Or is it ethical for a physician to tell a person they need to have the flu shot to reduce the vulnerability of the three or four specific strains they estimate will impact us...so that you go from a 10% chance of getting one of these 3 or 4 varieties of flu to a 3.5% chance? And let's talk about the potential side effects and adverse reactions while we're at it...
Again, let me stress, I'm not being anti-vaccination. If you work in a hospital, a refugee camp, a pre-school, and so on, it is probably a pretty good idea to at least think about it.
But I see conflicts of interest all over the place and I see really inadequate studies being done...studies that appear almost gamed. Almost.
Frankly, the attitudes of a lot of people are just perfect examples of argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal to Authority):
That's a typical problem with critiquing science. There are no viable alternative explanations for a 40% (and growing) increase in CO2 than manmade causes. There are simple (simplistic) models and experiments showing an increase in warming from 100 ppm more CO2 in a column.
Science does not support extending the simple models (line-by-line) to a complex system of weather. For one thing the line-by-line don't have clouds or if they do they are added arbitrarily. Science certainly does not support 2016 doomsday or even 2116 doomsday. The warming is not fast enough, the models are too high, etc.
For vaccines the science supports the elimination of some diseases in some locations from vaccinations. The science does not support the safety of the vaccines, in fact it supports the opposite. But the increased risk to every individual from taking vaccines is outweighed by the decreased risk of the diseases. Down to 1 in 10,000,000 for some, whereas the risk serious injury from vaccination is around 1 in 100,000.
The problem is we can't cherry pick the science we like or ignore science we don't like. We especially can't take nonsense (Al Gore's 2016 prediction made in 2006) and pretend that it represents science.
The side effects are clearly outlined. Why are you making that up?
What other modern technology are you opposed to? Do you use a cell phone? Are there side effects?
Unvaccinated children get sick at much higher rates—check the stats in 3rd world countries. The unvaccinated sick children spread the disease to others. The goal of public health is to prevent and control epidemics. We in the U.S. are not part of the 3rd world and we should not mimic their behavior.