The Sanders Vaccine Principle
A Logically Closed Debate
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Cell Biology
Rutgers University
September 22, 2025
On September 9, 2025, Senator Bernie Sanders stood before the press in Washington, D.C., and declared with characteristic clarity:
“Vaccines work. Period.”
This pronouncement, which we may call the Sanders Vaccine Principle (SVP), crystallized decades of evidence into a soundbite. But as the subsequent debate with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed, the logic of vaccine discourse often collapses nuance into extremes.
The problem is not only scientific but also logical: how we frame the possibilities of vaccine safety and efficacy.
1. The Four Logical Statements
All vaccine debates, when reduced to their logical structure, map onto only four possible statements:
(9/22/2025/1) Not all vaccines are safe and effective. (True)
(9/22/2025/2) Some vaccines are unsafe and ineffective. (True)
(9/22/2025/3) All vaccines are safe and effective. (Sanders’ SVP)
(9/22/2025/4) All vaccines are unsafe and ineffective. (Opposite of SVP)
These four exhaust the logical space of claims about vaccines. No other formulations are possible without contradiction or redundancy.
2. Mapping the Logical Space
Left circle: “Safe & Effective.”
Right circle: “Unsafe & Ineffective.”
(3) fills the entire left circle.
(4) fills the entire right circle.
(1) excludes the full-left claim but allows partial overlap.
(2) anchors the right-side existence claim.
The contradiction zone is the overlap—vaccines cannot be simultaneously all safe and all unsafe.
This diagram shows why debates often generate more heat than light: collapsing (1) into (3) or (2) into (4) is not only misleading but logically invalid.
3. False Disjunction Bias in Action
When Sanders implied that Kennedy’s nuanced position—“vaccines do not work for every patient”—was equivalent to “vaccines do not work”, he committed a False Disjunction Bias. The nuance of statement (1) was collapsed into the extremity of (4).
This error fuels polarization: the public is asked to choose between two absolutes when the truth lies in recognizing variability.
4. Toward a Resolution: Personalized Vaccinology
To escape this logically closed circle, we must introduce a third path:
Universal principle (SVP): Vaccines work for the majority.
Acknowledged exceptions: Not all patients respond safely or effectively.
Scientific resolution: Personalized vaccinology, using tools like RNA QR codes [1], to predict who benefits and who may be harmed.
By extending beyond the four static statements, personalized vaccinology reframes the debate—not as Sanders vs. Kennedy, but as public health plus precision medicine.
5. Conclusion
The Sanders Vaccine Principle gave us clarity. The Kennedy critique gave us nuance. The logical map shows us the boundaries. The future lies in transcending false disjunctions and adopting a science that is both universal and personal.
In other words: vaccines work, and they must work for everyone who needs them.
👉 Takeaway for Readers: The vaccine debate is logically closed within four statements—but the path forward opens only when we move beyond extremes, toward personalized, evidence-based vaccinology.
Reference:
[1] Ji, S. (2025). Announcing the Human Transcriptome Project: Unlocking the Hidden Language of Our Cells. https://622622.substack.com/p/announcing-the-human-transcriptome.