I can certainly agree with you that the research should not be falsified to ensure passage of the vaccine (or medications, treatments, etc.). But that point should apply equally to research DISPROVING vaccines, meds, etc.
Another problem is that despite rigorous clinical trials prior to bringing a med or vaccine to market, there is always the possibility of some major side effect occurring AFTER the vaccine/med is marketed and has received FDA approval. A good example of this would be the Rotavirus vaccine in the late 90's(?). After it was approved and on the general market, it was found to cause a potentially life-threatening abdominal disorder in children receiving it, and was pulled off the market. Of course, the shark lawyers pounced on it right away.
As far as forcing people to get vaccines, that is part of both "standard of care" as well as past experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics as well as the CDC offer guidelines on suggested immunizations. Most of these guidelines are sound (how many cases of Tetanus are there in the US each year vs. any third world country?). Some can be construed as overboard (Hepatitis B as a mandatory vaccine). The AAP certainly has Socialist leanings I will admit. However, in order for a vaccine to reach it's maximum effectiveness from a public health point of view, it needs widespread use (e.g. the Oral Polio Vaccine was effective in controlling polio in the US; the last case of "in the wild" polio was sometime in the 70's).
As for the experience part, if you have ever seen and taken care of children with the diseases that the vaccines prevent, you would understand why the Pediatricians "push" vaccines. However, from a conservative standpoint, I understand the point of wanting to, as a parent, make that decision yourself.
"But that point should apply equally to research DISPROVING vaccines, meds, etc."
Truth is truth. It should go both ways.
"A good example of this would be the Rotavirus vaccine in the late 90's(?). After it was approved and on the general market, it was found to cause a potentially life-threatening abdominal disorder in children receiving it, and was pulled off the market."
There's always some risk, I agree. But the problem is that the pharm companies have seriously hurt their own credibility because they have delayed taking certain meds off the market even when they knew there were potentially serious side effects. This was the case for Vioxx or Bextra, I think. Very serious stuff, and a company producing a product like this needs to be held to a higher standard, I believe.
"in order for a vaccine to reach it's maximum effectiveness from a public health point of view, it needs widespread use"
Yeah, I know, the herd immunity thing. I understand that concept, but human nature is such that if people really thought it was a great idea and the benefits outweighed potential risks there wouldn't be any need for coercion. That has certainly been true in past years for many vaccinations. I mean, if Osama finds a way to start a dangerous flu epidemic or something like that then they won't need to coerce anyone to take the vaccine, people will be fighting over the existing supply.