If you were to publish neutral research showing that, were the US were to draft all men 18-35, then the US armed forces would grow by X% and we could fight Y major wars at once while occupying Z square miles of foreign territory, then it would seem mostly senseless to direct anger or criticism at you if your claims were factually sensible.
If on the other hand, though, you were to promote the idea that the draft was needed, that it would produce a socially useful outcome, and that people who oppose your view are being irrational and selfish, then you've entered into a moral debate.
And further, if you own a large defense contracting firm, then your claims and your moral position about the necessity of forcing people to join the military would be subjected to additional, admittedly ad hominem, scrutiny.
Instead I analogize with drunk driving -- significantly fewere drunk drivers equates to significantly fewer 3rd party injuries and deaths as a result of drunk drivers. Similarly in the vaccination case, there are 3rd parties who stand to suffer from the actions of those who do not receive vaccines.
Edit: I forgot to put my second point, which is:
I agree with your analogy in that those who stand to benefit should be closely scrutinized when advocating a position.
I suspect you are opposed to drunk driving prohibitions, as lowered reaction times and lowered inhibition do not cause fatal collisions, just fail to prevent them. Or is this some how different? (Disclaimer, this statement can be seen as inflamatory, it is not meant as such, it was just ignored from my previous post, and I see the analogy as related.)
I think it applies here, but there was a study in which they made something default. Like by default they enrolled you into some fitness program, but you have the option of not doing it. The study found that more people actually went through with the program instead of trying to opt out. Compare to when the program was optional and people had to sign up to do the fitness program.
By stating that vaccinations are mandatory, his intentions might simply be trying to get as much people as possible to take the preventive care. Again, I am just trying to state one possible reason.
What if he was not attached to any company or any entity, but just merely a doctor who advocated the vaccination as mandatory? Would things be different?
People often throw up absurd objections to factual research because they have a moral stake in the debate but limited evidence (or knowledge, time, or interest) to engage on a utilitarian front. Unfortunately, it seems to be more politically successful to fight via convolution of facts than to engage in the moral issue directly.
The public seems to undervalue legitimate moral arguments, so competing interests instead engage in a proxy war of claims about benefits and harms.