When I was little, one of my favorite films was a little local thing called A More Perfect Union: America Becomes a Nation.

There is a brilliant(again #biased) little interchange between the man portraying John Adams and the British Ambassador, Lord Carmarthen. Adams is furious because Great Britain is "obstructing their shipping." I promise this connects.

Lord Carmarthen smirks and says, in a slight tenor voice: "Cui bono?" He then translates his Latin phrase: "Who benefits?"

And that is what I think it is worth asking in most circumstances (and certainly medical ones).

Who benefits from allergies? Who benefits from mandated, 100% covered, medical procedures? Who benefits from the law that you cannot sue any vaccine creating company if you experience the side-effects (so long as you have been given the list of potential side effects in advance)? Someone besides the patient must benefit in all these scenarios.

In all honesty, this question taints my opinions.

I'm not sure where I stand on the vaccine question.

I don't see much in her argument that vaccines cause allergies.

But she has a point about how vaccines, if administered in peanut oil (as they were in WWII), will probably not create a great reaction in people with a pre-existing peanut allergy.

I get woozy, horrifically sick when we study the black plague and smallpox in school units. I'd prefer to not have it. And would probably take any vaccine for that.

However, I've seen (with a close-ish view) the turmoil that seizures, one of the potential side-effects of vaccines, can cause in a life.

I've read about the horrors of the influenza epidemic. Keep the sanitation companies in business, baby.

But, I've seen people get the flu shot and, two months later, get the flu. Explainable, I know.

Vaccines probably don't cause autism (oh! you're probably seething with fury at me right now for that "probably").

But the CDC says that a side effect could be brain damage(check the site. Also check the site for information on how to report adverse side effects online. Right now it says "Page Not Found").

I've seen the side effects of polio and I don't want any child of mine to have them.

But I've met a person who is in a wheelchair because of a polio vaccination that didn't work the way it was supposed to.

I think that it is interesting that we are at a time when government and medical corporations can dictate what treatment a child must receive but I, as a potential parent, often can't dictate what is taught to my children. Could the government's interest in my (hypothetical) children be stronger than a parent's? Scary if it's true. Scary if it's not. No way to win, basically.

I think, in the long run, that I am for vaccines. But I am also for vaccine companies(basically all medical companies) that must be responsible and accountable for side effects. I am for vaccines that have no side effects, other than immunity. I am for accurate reporting of those side effects, for accurate reporting of the amount of people who get a shot and then get the sickness. I am for transparency (give me a list of those dratted ingredients and put those conspiracy theorists to shame) and accurate studies (the Canada and Japan studies in the book, folks!*). I don't think enough studies have been done on what age a child should be vaccinated. I am also for larger studies, done by independent entities with no bias, done over years and years. We should have better long-term data that covers more time.

* as much as some reviewers have commented that she lacks sources and accurate facts I would say that the bibliography and notes section puts those comments to shame. But yes, she is not a dr.