Are vaccinations safe for children?
Debate Rounds (3)
Although there is much controversy about vaccination safety with children, I am a firm believer that all children, if possible, should be vaccinated. Many non-vaccinators do not vaccinate their children for multiple reasons. One main reason that people disapprove vaccinations is that they feel there are way too many chemicals added to them. I have not found this to be true.
Vaccines must have certain chemicals in order for them to work properly. One main chemical found in vaccines is formaldehyde. The main point for adding formaldehyde is in order to inactivate the virus so that it cannot further hurt the receiver. It may sound terrible, and I too thought it seemed harsh for out body, but our bodies actually create formaldehyde naturally. Our body produces formaldehyde in order to create energy and make amino acids, aka the building blocks of life. Our bodies have 50-70 times more formaldehyde at its natural state that what can be found in a single vaccination. It is a much needed ingredient of vaccinations.
Another ingredient found in vaccinations is antibiotics. They are used during the manufacturing of vaccines in order to prevent the growth of bacteria. Many people are afraid that they child will be allergic to the antibiotics contained in the vaccine during manufacturing but luckily, the main allergens are not used: penicillin, sulfa, and cephalosporin drugs. Obviously, bacteria growth would not be good for vaccinations so antibiotics are important.
Aluminum is yet another ingredient that seems questionable. The gels or salts of aluminum are used in vaccines to help them respond better through an earlier, more potent and more persistent immune response. Just like formaldehyde, we are exposed to aluminum every day. We ingest aluminum through the foods we eat and the water we drink, so why would someone be so scared of a minute amount of aluminum contained in a vaccination? The comparison in the amount of aluminum received in a vaccine versus what we ingest in everyday living is nearly impossible.
Sugars, amino acids, and proteins are also added to vaccines to help protect the vaccine from adverse conditions, such as freezing during a freeze-dry process. All the ingredients are needed in order to keep vaccinations safe. During my findings, I also saw reasons why people did not like vaccinations because they do not feel the testing of them is vigorous enough. Vaccines are tested more regularly than any other drugs out on the market.
Without vaccinations, people can suffer. Herd immunity can only be accomplished if those that are able to be vaccinated, are. The immunocompromised, premature babies, and elderly people obviously cannot receive all the vaccinations that may be necessary so it is important that those of us who can, do.
Now, I will hold off on rebuttal until the next round. This round, I will present material against the position for the vaccination of children.
First, we need to remember parental rights. Parents have the right to weight risks and benefits of medical treatment plans in a way that professional health care workers do not. Simply put, parents can determine what sort of medical care their child received and health care professionals may have a different opinion but parents make the ultimate decision.
Second, parents have noticed a link between vaccinations in young children and the onset of autism and autism-spectrum disorders. Despite the corporate-controlled media who wants to deny any linkage and acts as though parents are stupid if they make simple observations about the correlation of childhood vaccination schedules and the onset of autism, there is abundant evidence of a link between the two. 
On a personal note, when I have looked at the really scholarly and peer-reviewed journal articles on the link between vaccines and autism and how the experts try to deny the linkage is that they use the phraseology of "statistically insignificant" correlation between the vaccines and the autism but when you look at the actual figures in their study, you would be surprised that medical experts try to write off the link so quickly.
Third, the argument is made that dangerous symptoms are developed in conjunction with vaccinations to the point where the United States set up a court system which would award parents damages when their children were injured by vaccines. Now, I ask you this question and be honest in your response: If there was no real and substantial danger from vaccinations, then why is the United States government establishing a separate court to deal with all of the parents who are noticing that the vaccines have hurt or injured their children? Furthermore, why did the government seal the records of those parents who were awarded damages for the obvious and provable (in court) injuries which occurred to their children? 
I do believe that the parents of this nation have a right to know what those court cases revealed about vaccines injuries instead of relying on "experts" who glibly deny any connections which might endanger the profits of pharmaceutical companies.
Fourth, the argument is rationally presentable that pharmaceutical companies who produce vaccines have immunity from prosecution and, therefore, have an instant way to make quick cash regardless of whether the vaccines produce obvious injury or not. 
Well, I hope to explore these anti-vaccine arguments in greater detail in the next few rounds as well as the problem that vaccines may not even work. Yes, it may actually be the placebo effect combined with better hygiene in all societies.
Thank you, again, for an interesting selection of topic on this debate!
nicoleeeeeee forfeited this round.
You had written about how some people object to vaccines because of the number of chemicals
but that you believe chemicals to be acceptable.
I am just curious. How many chemicals is it acceptable to put into the human body? Is there some point that
chemicals could become counter-productive, even though they might protect against certain diseases and
contagions. I would like for you to clarify acceptable chemical levels in the human body.
Your first point about formaldehyde is very interesting. I had never heard that formaldehyde existed
naturally in the human body. Your argument seems to be: since the body naturally produces this chemical,
we can go ahead and inject more of the chemical into our body and all will be well.
There's one obvious problem with this argument. It is fallacious. Just because something occurs naturally
in the human body does not mean that scientists should inject more of it into our bodies. For instance,
adrenaline is produced in the human body. Is it acceptable to go ahead shooting up with additional adrenaline
to give yourself a high? Obviously, that would not be wise unless it's in a specific context to prevent severe
allergic reactions. 
Similarly, there are electrical impulses in the body. But zapping the body with electricity may not be safe.
So, the real question is whether the benefits of injecting the additional formaldehyde into the body is worth
the trouble of what diseases are supposedly prevented. Can you spell out that benefit in a future round?
Antibiotics used in immunizations are not necessarily healthy either. Our bodies have so many antibiotics
introduced into them from the meat and milk that we drink. We may not have an allergic reaction to a non-
penicillin type of antibiotic, but that does not mean that the antibiotics are healthy for our bodies. 
Why would people become scared about aluminum in vaccines, if some aluminum gets through the tap
water we drink? Well, that's simple. One is being injected into our bloodstream and the other is being broken
down by powerful acids in our stomach.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic.
nicoleeeeeee forfeited this round.
During this debate, I have shown that vaccines are not necessarily helpful or effective as a way of preventing
disease and that the potential harms involved in taking vaccines are often understated in the scientific community.
Often, proponents of vaccines will rely on bad arguments to make their case such that we naturally have or produce
some chemical in our body, therefore, it should be safe to introduce more of that element or chemical into the
That's not only bad logic; it's bad science. And no one should risk the health of their child for bad science.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.