Oil Spill Cleanup

The Mexican Gulf oil spill has put pressure on the oil industry. Oil produces the most profitable business operations worldwide because people highly demand oil, allowing high prices. Oil spill occurrences continue to increase. Arne Jernelöv argues in her article, “How to Defend against Future Oil Spills”, we must discover ways to stop oil spills. Another oil spill aspect deserves more attention. I agree that oil spill prevention demands more research, but accidents are inevitable. Therefore, the oil cleanup process needs more preparation, research, and devices to ensure a more efficient and timely cleanup.

People must be prepared for unusual circumstances because accidents come unexpectedly. The recent Gulf of Mexico’s accidental oil spill unveiled the industries poor preparation towards the cleanup process. James Grundvig’s article, “Gulf Oil Spill Cleanup Hampered by Lack of Preparation” describes the lack of preparation which led to a disastrous cleanup process. Grundvig said, “The single truth that has come out of this calamity is how woefully unprepared the oil industry and U.S. government have been in dealing with the oil spill.” The oil industries and the government must work together in order to accomplish a more effective cleanup. Also the Use today article, “Despite previous spills, oil cleanup research falls short,” covers the lack of preparation. In the article Richard Charter, an oil spill expert and conservation group member of Defenders of Wildlife, addresses the recent oil spill by claiming that, “We failed at preventing the spill. Now we’re failing in the response simply because we’d never gotten ready.” Both Grundvig and Charter obviously believe that oil cleanup requires more preparation. Therefore, the environment’s future relies on the cleanup team’s oil spill preparation.

The lack of research also affects the oil cleanup process. Julie Schmidt’s article, “Despite previous spills, oil cleanup research falls short”, describes why the oil spill cleanup process lacks success. Schmidt primarily blames the lack of research. She believed the tactics and equipment such as booms, dispersants, burners, and skimmer boats have barely changed since the Exxon Valdez oil spill due to the poor research. The lacking research has led to little change in cleanup methods. The government cut the federal funding for oil cleanup research in half between 1993 and 2008. How can a more efficient cleanup take place without the proper research? Well it cannot. Without the proper research new technology cannot be created. While little improvements have been created since the Exxon accident in Alaska, the greater improvements have been haltered According to Henry Fountain’s article, “Advances in Oil Spill Cleanup Lag Since Valdez” he believes, “More significant advances have been hampered by a lack of money for research and laws and regulations that make it difficult to test new ideas and introduce improved equipment.” Without proper funding, research will always be lagging. Marine Spill, a non-profit organization, has received 80 million dollars for equipment and for salaries. Of the 80 million dollars, zero goes to research. The success in oil spill research depends on funding. Thus, no money equals no research.

Last, the lack of devices causes problems with oil cleanup. The poor number of cleanup tools has caught the attention of many people. Kevin Costner, a famous movie star, decided to help the oil companies by designing new machines. Costner helped in the Alaskan Exxon crisis, and he currently assists in the Gulf cleanup. He has introduced numerous devices that have had great success. Costner’s help proves that there is a lack of devices being produced. Trained professionals need to solve this problem. Instead a movie star seems to be our vital source. In the article, “Kevin Costner’s oil spill cleanup idea interests BP”, Costner quotes, “We all make decisions about what we want to be a part of. I’m just one person focusing on a specific problem and throwing a little resources to do a lot of talent and man power… to come up with what is a [solution]”. Costner cares for the environment and helps protect it.

I believe that accidents cannot be avoided. Over the years the oil industry has suffered from many oil spills that have damaged the environment tremendously. Because of the unpredictable accidents, the oil industry needs to focus more on the spill cleanup. They need to be more prepared, more research needs to be done, and more devices need to be produced. Thus, when that devastating accident happens the oil companies can be ready to act fast for a more efficient and timely cleanup.

WHERES NEMO?!?!

The childhood fishing trips that your dad or grandpa took you on are now at risk because Nemo disappeared and cannot be found. Preservationists believe that a rise in the fisherman population caused an increase in overfishing over the past ten years. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recently declared a program that cuts back the fisherman quota allowed to set sail. The data collected by NOAA brought forth detailed fish population surveys explaining the need for grounding vessels. Current surveys however show that the quota’s enforcement needs more regulation. The fisheries populations are now struggling more than ever thanks to overfishing. I however, have a new solution that explains exactly what needs fixing and how both fisherman and the ecosystem can expect a productive future.

On May 1^st 2010, the National Marine Fisheries Service started its new system in order to monitor serious overfishing populations. As specifically broken down in the article Campaign to End Overfishing in New England, there are three voluntary sectors that, with time, “will help rebuild fish populations while fishermen reap the benefits of market demand”. This seems to be the overall goal of the managing system. There are more things that the program is trying to do. The program will do a better job to track how many fish are caught and discarded so fisheries managers can set better catch limits. Also, with this part of the process more jobs are put in place for unemployed fishermen, because they can perform and regulate this part of the spectrum. In order to cut back on some of the overfishing population the program will increase monitoring to eliminate vessels that have not joined these organized sectors. Repercussions of these vessels that catch and exceed limits are that the fish populations have trouble rebuilding. In return, this means less fish that the legal sectors can catch. This program also implements more updates of scientific data. With updated information, the sectors will know how many fish are available to be caught. I think that with the implementation and strict order of the National Marine Fisheries Services there is hope for a more grossly fish populated future.

New regulations and the cut back on actually commercial fishing will affect anyone and everyone who eats fish, plans to eat fish, or just recreationally fish. Due to the economic system that we have, common market demand directly effects cost. Once smaller amounts of fish are being produced by the fisheries, the costs of fish based on an increased demand of fish, will increase dramatically. If you plan on going to the market to get fish for dinner, expect an increase on the amount you will pay per pound. The NMFS are not exactly sure how much of an increase, but based on economical trends, it is going to happen.

One main reason that this program has to become a serious part of the fisheries services is because the ecosystem has taken a immense hit in the amount of fish it produces related to the amount of fish that are taken from the water. The oceans are under extreme stress and at risk of collapse. Here are some numbers recorded by NOAA: 52% of fish stocks are fully exploited, 20% are moderately exploited, 17% are overexploited, 7% are depleted, and 1% is recovering from depletion. As you can see, the amount of fish that are being exploited is a serious problem. This means that in the near future, definitely in my lifetime, even the most common fish like bass, salmon and cod could be put on the endangered species list. As mentioned in the opening paragraph, recreational fishing trips with friends and family will rapidly decrease.

Technology plays a major role in the preservation of the economy. One technological advance that the NOAA has already begun to use out on the water is a new survey vessel called “Bell M. Shimada”. This new vessel has put the NOAA in direction for a significant achievement for the agency and show that they have taken their efforts to help with overfishing to a new level. This new vessel produces so little background noise that we can count fish and asses the health and behavior of marine species with highly sensitive acoustic devices. With this new advance in survey taking, the NMFS can monitor specific groups of the environment and therefore know more accurately which populations have taken more of a hit. Then the limits can be made and strict observations will help these damaged populations rebuild.

Fleets of overfishing vessels have increased to where there is about two or three times as much fishermen to where we could successfully cover at least four Earth like planets. The awareness of the National Marines Fisheries Service program must continue to grow and the new sectors have to step up and function together to try and save our natural marine habitats. I believe that with the technological advances and the observation of commercial fishing, there is hope to regulate overfishing. On the other hand, if something is not done soon our ecosystem will continually degrade from bad to worse; a lifeless body of water.

Moral Evolution

“Moral goodness is what gives each of us the sense that we are worthy human beings. We seek it in our friends and mates, nurture it in our children, advance it in our politics and justify it with our religions,” explains Steven Pinker in an article titled The Moral Instinct published in the New York Times magazine. Many psychologists spend their entire careers studying moral behavior’s causes, influences and results. Many theories have formed concerning morality. The fact that our judgments of good and bad derive from our initial emotional reactions to an idea or action is widely accepted. When a person romantically kisses their sibling, society views them as morally unjust. You initially react with disgust and deem the action immoral and shameful. Disgust stems from the gut reaction and rationalization follows. Today, society believes some actions reproachable that were previously widely accepted, such as slavery, sexism, and animal abuse. Many scientists believe emotional responses control right and wrong; however, an article in Nature science journal, titled How Do Morals Change?, argues that gut reactions alone cannot explain how our morals have evolved over time. Paul Bloom, author of the Nature article, argues that the morality theory concerning gut reactions and not according to principles is erroneous; it completely rejects reason. He theorizes that morals change over time because individuals contemplate ideas about rights, the minority treatment, and other vital issues, and use them to produce stories to deliberately persuade the public to join their cause. Works like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and its influence on the abolition of slavery support the concept, but I cannot accept that monumental changes in widely accepted practices happen as a result of one or two people publicizing the cause. I believe the author’s psychological theory explaining changing morals to be because it lacks regard for human sympathies, cultural education, and the progression of scientific research as means of morphing popularly accepted ideas.

How Do Morals Change? questions why recent decades have increased charitable donations to “long distance charities,” or charities where the donator has no connection to the gift recipient. The American Red Cross website states 15 million people each year in the United States donate blood. This number represents people that generously contribute their own blood to complete strangers with no compensation. How Do Morals Change? notes giving blood to be a fairly modern procedure and that using solely emotional reactions, you cannot explain why a person would do such a favor for someone they will never meet. I believe medical research caused long-distance charities like blood donations to begin; science proved blood transfusions possible and practical as treatment for various ailments. Afterwards, millions of unrecognized people have donated because they recognize the scientific achievement and connect it with a personal experience. When someone has personally experienced a problem or disease or know someone that has, they tend to feel empathetic for the cause. People give charitably to strangers because they believe that they understand how that person feels and can help the situation by giving something of themselves or donating money. The notion of empathy in addition to advanced public knowledge explains why someone would freely give their own money, time, or blood to a stranger without any material compensation. In this example, giving to charity was not previously viewed as immoral, rather the concept that giving to charity supports good morals occurs because the cause was invented and the donors experienced sympathy.

As briefly introduced above regarding blood donations, progressing scientific knowledge shapes the way people feel about moral subjects. In the excerpt above from the Nature article, the author states that abusing animals for entertainment evolved from deliberate persuasion. Considering that the public did not believe animals were capable of feeling pain or suffering until as little as twenty years ago, it seems improbable to say that older decades felt emotionally obligated at all concerning animals. It is unfair to say that the deliberation of any human concerning the morality of animal abuse caused a revolution; however, scientific research caused humans to change their actions to comply with their emotions regarding purposeful animal mistreatment. Scientific research applies to other beliefs as well. If we revisit the issue of slavery, we can note that in the 18th century, many settlements believed that people of other “races” were genetically different than they. Though this belief is obviously invalid, it explains how the idea of one human enslaving another arose as science revealed that all colors and genders of people are genetically and fundamentally equal. Generally speaking, science leads moral evolution. When science proves that animals feel pain, people feel hurt at the idea of inflicting pain on another being. When science proves that all people are equal, slavery disgusts people because the person enslaved could just as easily be them. Research sets the stage for numerous other alterations in moral beliefs and will continue to do so as scientific theories morph based on the most modern research.

“Contemporary readers of Nature, for example, have different beliefs about the rights of women, racial minorities and homosexuals compared with readers in the late 1800s, and different intuitions about the morality of practices such as slavery, child labour and the abuse of animals for public entertainment. Rational deliberation and debate have played a large part in this development,” the author of the Nature article expands on his thesis. Though this statement lacks tangible explanation and support, I feel confident stating that the author omitted cultural education as a key factor regarding altered beliefs about women and minority treatment. Saying that previously it was morally acceptable to mistreat women or a certain race and today we believe the opposite must be biased. The concept of gender and race today are very different than they were in the 1800s. Race was not materialized until many years after slavery began; therefore, slavery was not based on race and physical appearance as it is today. Rather, slavery was a culturally acceptable practice because it existed to maximize the survival of the society. PBS explains, “Throughout human history, societies have enslaved others due to conquest, war or debt, but not based on physical difference.” These enslaving societies’ members did not contemplate whether or not mistreating others was morally sound, nor did they experience a gut reaction that persuaded them for or against slavery; for the purpose of survival, historical societies taught their members from birth that they were superior and that the way to survive was through war. Feelings concerning child labor are also comparable. In and around the 1800s, everyone that was capable of performing manual labor did so in order to profit the family unit. Children were born with the knowledge that it was their duty to work and contribute to the family that raised them. Today, we think of child labor as morally unjust because it is forceful, often dangerous, and usually unnecessary; however, in the original days of child labor the conditions were completely different. Facts lend toward the belief that no one contemplated whether or not children working was an ethical issue and then suddenly it went from moral to immoral. The process of changing a group’s feelings regarding a practice is gradual and affected by many different factors such as the environment of work, the need for survival, and modernization. Saying that morality is universal and that a universal moral code encompasses the whole earth is unrealistic given that, historically, each population has developed a code of conduct that best promotes its survival.

Inevitably our moral compass evolves; it has changed drastically since time began and continues to transform to keep up with our modernizing world. Though I understand the author’s argument that more than an emotional reaction is required to fuel a worldwide moral revolution, his theory is defective because he declines to attribute any moral change to non-psychological factors. The empathetic feelings humans feel in relation to one another as a result of intermingling with different social groups compel many to act in a morally righteous manner toward those with common experiences. In addition to discovering common virtues, moral education received during childhood shapes morals. Scientific advancement shifts moral causes the most, perhaps. Since morality is such an intertwined concept, a workable theory must include every possible factor that has a known influence on feelings regarding a topic.

Fueling The Super Flu

MOO! Oh wait, I mean OINK! Oops, still not right, maybe QUACK? The scientific community constantly floods the news with every sign of the next plague. In the 90’s Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow) was reported to be popping up with a new case every couple of weeks. More recently the hospitalizing effects of swine flu and isolated international cases of bird flu are causing more people than ever to make trips to the local health clinics. Immunizations are what they flock to receive. Immunizations are marketed to most as a “cure,” or panacea for common infections and viruses. Today’s vaccinations give people a false sense of security. One author even adamantly persists, in “Vaccinate before the next pandemic?,” that pre-pandemic immunization with a cocktail of likely strains could be a cheap, practical and equitable way to protect people against the flu. I, however, politely disagree and do not believe that immunization should become so generic. If vaccination becomes too widespread, and is used to prevent every small epidemic, then the human immune system will become too reliant on medicine. By resorting to a cocktail vaccination method people are leaving themselves vulnerable against multi-drug resistant strains, weakening their immune systems, and relying on science to foresee unpredictable flu variations.

Klaus Stöhr builds a very convincing argument encouraging people to push vaccinate in his article, “Vaccinate before the next pandemic?”. Every time there is an epidemic, medical response is typically too slow in delivering relief. By the time anti-viruses can be isolated and produced in the quantities needed the disease has already run its course. Also the cost of mass-producing vaccines has been lowered tremendously in the past decade allowing even developing countries to possibly protect their people if a vaccine was offered. If an effective immunization cocktail were created it could easily be distributed to the public at an effective rate and significantly lower initial infection. In Stöhr’s research he cites that even if only 20% of the population was pre-vaccinated it could drastically affect the infection rate and the ability of the disease to spread over great distances. He also reports these cocktails have been effectively tested on pregnant women in Europe, which disproves the claims of vaccination causing health problems after injection, and shows they’re safe. Stöhr builds a convincing argument, but there are some issues he does not account for in his article.

While much of the above information is true it is unfair to leave out some important facts about the diseases cocktail vaccines are not protecting against. Many viral strains evolve extremely rapidly. A good example of this is the seasonal flu which many people get a shot against each year or every few years. Lately there have been an unprecedented number of cases shedding light on the existence of Multi-Drug Resistant viruses. These antigens have evolved somehow to resist a number of vaccines, many times requiring the strongest or last defense vaccines to terminate infection. Vaccines have created these drugs, over generations, by allowing the fastest mutating and most resistant strains to survive. The natural selection process of immune systems that are treated with powerful vaccines end up culturing the next seasons flu. With each new flu season a new, stronger, vaccine has to be manufactured. This in many ways has only made the flu stronger. Many of the conventional vaccines and antibiotics used only 10 years ago wouldn’t even reduce the fever of a strain of today’s flu. Just because it is “cheap” or can be distributed across the globe more equally does not mean the cocktail method is a good idea. The 5 -7 drugs combined in the cocktail could cause resistance and almost eliminate the future generations of flu virus or it could cause immunity for the flu virus to 5 -7 more medications, leaving a super flu plaguing Earth. Plagues don’t actually develop that quickly, but super-bugs are becoming a real problem. Long-term effects cannot be guaranteed when testing the cocktail vaccination method. Much of what is known about immunizations and microbiology as a whole has only come out in the last 20 years.

The research of one doctor, Randall Neustaedter, during this 20 year period is beginning to shed light on the negative effects of immunization on children. Neustaeder’s research has shown significant correlation between immunization and delayed immune response in infants. In his research he has found that babies show greater resistance to infection before being exposed to the two month age immunizations. Once children are inoculated they show increased infection rates and slower white-blood cell response when a pathogen enters the body. This type of effect disproves Stöhr’s claims about vaccinations being perfectly safe, enough testing has not been completed. Another piece of evidence can be found when looking at the infection rate of children 20 years ago compared to now. Before many of today’s vaccines were being pushed on infants, the infants of two decades ago show much lower infection rates. These infants of another generation did not have the exposure to the chemical inhibitors that today’s youth’s immune systems are fighting. All of these “safe” solutions scientists have to try and prevent the next epidemics are slowly draining the health of the one response drug that humans don’t pay for, white blood cells.

With the current reliability of the human immune system hanging on to the hopes for a panacea, future epidemics seem inevitable. Bird flu is one of the best examples of a known deadly threat looming in the horizon. Most great plagues come from the flu strain of another species. Normally the flu of a bird could not infect the immune system of a human, but sometimes the flu of a bird can replicate incidentally with that of a pig. If this happens then people become in closer contact with the virus and, through recombination, get infected. This causes bird flu in people, and kills millions. Even though a lot of this process requires infinite luck and chance, it has happened before. In the research article, “1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics”, by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention this process of “luck” is documented in the 20th century. The Spanish Flu of 1918 is connected to an avian variety, which again reformed as a lethal strain in 1968. How could a cocktail of vaccines, based off human flu genomes, possibly protect against a hybrid flu full of genomes rearranged from a bird? The answer is, they can’t. Flu hybidizations are unpredictable and the only way to really prepare for them is by keeping high sanitation standards. If our immune systems are so doped up preparing for a pre-determined strain of known flu strains, then an unexpected strain could cause serious problems.

I am a supporter of many types of immunizations. Some of the work that scientists have done is directly responsible for the existence of the human race today. With the new knowledge that is being gained about Drug-Resistant viruses and super-bugs though, I find it difficult to support the concept of pre-immunization. When the speed at which diseases today can mutate is compounded with the lowering effectiveness of immune systems there has to be a safer way to protect people. The push for new, more powerful, drugs is only making the immune system of future generations weaker. Instead of advocating new cocktails or powerful drugs perhaps there should be some research put into enhancing the immune system naturally. The immune system went thousands of years without being beaten by any virus, making it’s reign over five hundred times that of any man made drug.

Pre Pandemic Vaccination

In the article “Vaccinate before the next pandemic?” published in the May 13th, 2010 issue of Nature, Klaus Stohr presents a seemingly beneficial proposition for preventing the next pandemic. Obviously, stopping the next swine flu outbreak before it becomes a threat to our lives and those we love is an idea someone would be crazy to oppose, but the ways Stohr suggests we take action are far more bizarre. Stohr’s central argument proposes that by administering the population an abundance of viral strains, predicted to be the biggest threat for the next pandemic, we will stop any future outbreaks before they occur. The problem with this proposal is the lack of medical research available to back up the efficacy or safety of these vaccines; however, there exists adequate information supporting ways these vaccines have permanently worsened people’s lives. The risks associated with the many unknowns involved with injecting untested viral strands into a population are far too abundant to advocate the pre-pandemic vaccinations.

Stohr suggests the vaccination would consists of the strains “most likely” to cause the next pandemic which were “generally agreed” to be, H2, H5, H7, and H9. It seems to be a major risk to compromise the immune systems of healthy people for something in which Stohr himself admits “there is no way of telling which influenza subtype will hit next.” Viruses are known to mutate and evolve extremely quick, resulting in an infinite number of strains with potential to cause the next pandemic. Even if the scientists somehow miraculously picked the correct strains to include in the pre-pandemic vaccination, what if the pandemic does not occur for another year? A year contains plenty of time for the strain to mutate and become resistant to the vaccine. Will the government then continue to pump our systems with new strains? The fact of the matter is, attempting to funnel this infinite number of flu viruses down to four strains to include in the vaccination is like playing cat and mouse with a higher power. This may seem like a viable attempt for a short term fix, but there is no way of predicting how the strains will react with each other or how long they will last because there is no adequate research.

Efficacy is one of the major reasons pre-pandemic vaccinations is becoming such a controversial topic. How effective will they be? How long will they last? There are no definite answers to these questions. As a result of the lack in research pertaining to the effectiveness or long term advantages or disadvantages of introducing a cocktail of viral strains into human bodies, no one is able to give a definite answer on how the strains will react to one another, or how long the recipient will remain immune. Instead of taking the time to conduct adequate research, Stohr proposes the use of adjuvants to enhance the effectiveness of the antigens. Adjuvants would be a good idea, if it weren’t for the fact that they have not been tested in humans, and that a study conducted in 2000 published in the American Journal of Pathology showed that a single injection of the adjuvant squalene in rats triggered “chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation” commonly known as rheumatoid arthritis. Despite findings such as these, the World Health Organization still instated guidelines stating that “swine flu” vaccines must contain adjuvants like squalene. Ironically, the vaccines made with adjuvants are not those being tested; instead, the two vaccines being submitted for clinical trials are those containing no adjuvants and will not be used on most people. The fact that a governmental agency such as the World Health Organization, that we hope would have our safety and health in mind, is choosing to be negligent in testing the vaccines should be a huge red flag for anyone considering these vaccinations.

Squalene is an oil molecule found regularly in the human body throughout the nervous system and brain. The difference between natural squalene and the squalene included in vaccines lies in the route it enters the body. Obviously, injection is not the normal route of entry. Injecting the adjuvant can trigger the immune system to attack all the squalene in the body, not just the portion that was injected with a vaccine. The immune system will attempt to destroy squalene everywhere it is found, including areas where it is vital to the health of the nervous system. Even more shocking, is the fact that veterans suffering Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) were given a vaccine containing the MF59 adjuvant which has since been linked to the autoimmune diseases many Gulf War veterans suffered, yet the same MF59 adjuvant is being used by Novartis in their H1N1 vaccine. How is it that someone could advocate the use of these adjuvants as an effective way of extending the results of vaccines knowing that they have a history of causing severe autoimmune diseases?

In a perfect world we would assume the government would want to regulate the use of adjuvants in vaccines and ensure the safety of the human race, but it appears to be quite the contrary. The Department of Defense made every attempt possible to deny the use of squalene in the vaccines administered to the Gulf War veterans, but after testing from the FDA it was confirmed that squalene was indeed present in the vaccine. Further investigation in a study conducted at the Tulane Medical School provided statistics in a February 2000 issue of Experimental Molecular Pathology that stated “… the substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene.” The facts are indisputable backed by the fact that 0% of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans who had no signs or symptoms of the GWS had the antibodies. When studies like these are able to prove that adjuvants such as MF59 have been known to cause such detrimental effects it seems malicious that the World Health Organization is mandating its use in vaccines being administered to the public.

Safety is also in high concern when discussing pre-pandemic vaccination. Due to the quick replicating nature of viruses, those involved in the vaccine industry are forced to generate vaccines and get them out to the public in a short time span. This quick turnaround from outbreak to administration of vaccines leaves little to no time for testing regarding the safety of the recipients apart from the immunity of the virus injected. There are examples all through the media, ranging from the redskins cheerleader left paralyzed to the pregnant women and children who became severely ill as a result of the vaccines, proving how severe the effects can be. In 2008 the US Government, which has always been an advocate for vaccines, admitted that a 9 year old Georgia girl’s cellular disease had been worsened as a result of vaccines she was administered as an infant leaving her with a brain disorder with autism like symptoms. There is sufficient evidence portraying the negative outcomes that can result from vaccines reacting with the human body in ways that could not be predicted, but little evidence exists to show what is being done to understand why. Yes the recipient may now be immune to a select few viruses, but their immune system is now dependent on the vaccines and left weakened to defend itself against other diseases. The human body is equipped with a natural line of defense strong enough for the human race to survive outbreaks of the bubonic plague and avian flu. Increasing the number of vaccines administered into the human body will continue to compromise the immune system further weakening the body’s natural line of defense which could eventually turn the common cold into a potentially fatal ordeal requiring intense medical attention. If these vaccines had gone through sufficient testing, scientists could have caught these flaws and could have potentially saved the lives of many people, but instead they are still being administered regularly and in some cases even required.

Stohr argues that “vaccinating 20% of a population before a pandemic would prevent as many cases as vaccinating 60% after the first wave has struck, because it could mean that a certain number of people would never get infected and would not pass on the virus.” What about the 20% receiving the vaccination? Yes, they are helping better the world population, but is that going to matter to the family and friends of the 20% as they mourn the death of a loved one, or have to change their life to accommodate for the paralysis of a child as a result of a vaccine? The concept of pre-pandemic vaccination, on the surface, appears to be a valiant effort put forth by health and government officials to better the overall health and well being of society; however, once the façade of an immune and pandemic free universe fade and the reality of the plethora of unknowns coupled with the negative effects ranging from extreme illness and paralysis to death unfold, we can realize this concept conveys much larger potential for risk than reward.