The Instigator
Leugen9001
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Akhenaten
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

THW make vaccines mandatory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 763 times Debate No: 82987
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Leugen9001

Pro

All around the world, human lives are being lost due to preventable diseases whose spread could be slowed through immunization. As such, I am proud to, as Pro, support legislation that would make immunization mandatory.

Model

For this debate, “this house” refers to first world nations such as the United States or Canada, where the infrastructure necessary for creating and distributing vaccines is already present and well-maintained; this means that issues such as the economical burden vaccination places on health care systems will not be discussed in much detail. I believe that all people should be legally obligated to be vaccinated, except for those who can have severe allergic reactions to vaccines. The possible consequences of refusing vaccination include fines and forced vaccination.

Signpost

For this round, I will be making three points: firstly, that vaccines are safe and effective, and secondly, that the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens—even if it may result in less opportunities for people to choose personally, and finally, that vaccination should not be a choice since herd immunity means that one’s decision not to vaccinate can affect others as well.

Safety and effectiveness of vaccines

Scientific research has shown vaccines to be safe and effective. As this debate has limited space, I will not list all of the vaccines that exist, and talk about the effectiveness of each one; instead, I will provide examples of safe and effective vaccines.

Flu vaccines are an example of an effective vaccine. In a 1998 study involving children published by the New England Journal of Medicine showed that the intranasal flu vaccine increased antibodies in the bodies of its recipients, and decreased the likelihood of flu. Results showed that the vaccine was more effective than placebo. (1) A 2012 study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases showed that flu vaccines “was associated with a three-quarters reduction in the risk of life-threatening influenza illness in children.” (2)For older adults, however, flu vaccines may have a lower efficacy—but they still prevent 61.2% of flu hospitalizations. (3)

At the same time, the flu vaccine is safe. Side effects are usually mild and short-lasting; they are generally limited to mild, flu-like symptoms, and may involve mild pain around the injection site. Severe reactions may, however, rarely occur. (4)

MMR vaccines are also safe and effective. It has an efficacy of around 85-95% with one dose and 100% with two. In addition, the risk of getting hurt by the vaccine is low: there is a 0.65 to 1.8/1000000 chance of getting anaphylaxis from a shot.(6)(7)(8) Compare this to the dangers of the actual diseases: measles has a 2000/1000000 chance of causing death, and the rubella virus—but not the vaccine—has a chance of causing autism. (8)

As you can see from above, scientific evidence has shown vaccines to be safe and effective in preventing diseases; as such, they provide a net benefit to society as a whole.

Governmental responsibility

One way someone can object to mandatory vaccinations is freedom of choice: people have the right to choose what they’d like to do with their bodies, don’t they? However, this objection falls apart as soon as one considers the issue of governmental responsibility. The government has the responsibility to keep us safe; this is why they us the law to require seat belts to be worn, and why we aren’t allowed to drink and drive. Since vaccines keep us safe, the government ought to make them mandatory, just like how seat belts are mandatory.

Why Vaccination should not be a choice

When you drive without a seatbelt on, you are only compromising your own safety. However, when you refuse to be vaccinated, you are also harming those around you. Vaccines help protect us from disease, but that can only be the case if enough people get vaccinated; this is called herd immunity. With the MMR vaccine, for instance, 95% of a population needs to be vaccinated for it to have any effect. (5) Since one should not legally get the right to choose when one’s choices can harm others, and choosing not to be vaccinated harms others, vaccination ought to be legally obligated.

Conclusion

In this debate, I have shown that firstly, vaccines are safe and effective, that secondly, the government has the right to protect people from themselves, and vaccines do just that; and finally, that the government has the right to protect people from eachother, and vaccines do that also. As such, I have shown that we ought to make vaccination mandatory. Thank you.

References

  1. http://www.nejm.org...
  2. http://jid.oxfordjournals.org...
  3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
  4. http://www.livescience.com...
  5. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca...
  6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
  7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
  8. http://rationalwiki.org...
Akhenaten

Con

The concept of herd immunity is based on many false assumptions -

1. Humans are not herd animals for a start. Humans are tribal and family orientated. Herds are only herbivorous animals that graze on grasses.

2. Herd immunity is based on a live or active virus which kills the weak members and leaves the stronger members. Vaccine is not a live or active virus, thus the concept is false by its own definition.

3. Assuming that vaccination does protect against disease; the concept is still false. This is because those that are vaccinated would still be carriers of the disease.

4. Animals in the wild don't get disease. Disease is only a human problem which is caused by humans changing their diet to an unnatural one which nature never intended. Not to mention the many dangerous chemicals which can infect their food and water supply.

5. I have shown on many previous posts that disease occurs because of improper diet and chemical poisoning and has nothing to do with germs. As Antoine Bechamp said, " germs are the result of a disease, not the cause of it".

6. The human immune system is iodine based. The immune system only works if the humans has an adequate supply of iodine in their diet. The 5 vitamins groups (A, B, C, D & E) are also important in preventing disease.

7. Eating grain, sugar and dairy products is unnatural for humans. If you eat these products in large amounts you will get sick. Grain causes leaky gut syndrome which allows bacteria from the gut to enter the blood stream. This is what makes people sick. Thus, it is not the germs that are the primary cause; it is the fact that the grain foods have caused an inflammation in the gut which has opened the walls of the gut.

8. Bad halogens can disrupt and replace iodine which causes a break down of the immune system. These chemicals include chlorine, bromine and fluorine. Many medications, anti-depressants, drinking water, tooth paste, fire retardants, pesticides, fungicides and cleaning agents contain these dangerous chemicals.

9. I have previously proven that formaldehyde and DDT is responsible for the Ebola out break in Africa. People have been caught dumping formaldehyde in wells in Africa. These people then sell bottled water at inflated prices. Thus, the so called 'Ebola outbreak' is just a man-made disaster caused by unscrupulous individuals who are profiteering from other peoples misery.

http://beforeitsnews.com...

https://thepeopleschemist.com...

http://inner5pac3.blogspot.com.au...

Thus, we can see that immunisation is just a big money making scam and that vaccines should be banned entirely.
Debate Round No. 1
Leugen9001

Pro


1. Humans are not herd animals for a start. Humans are tribal and family orientated. Herds are only herbivorous animals that graze on grasses.



Herd immunity has nothing to do with whether or not humans are herd animals. Instead, it’s about how having a large portion of the population immunised would mean diseases are less likely to spread both to those who have been immunised and those who have not. As long as large groups of humans come into contact with eachother, it can occur regardless of whether or not humans are in families. I don’t see your point.



2. Herd immunity is based on a live or active virus which kills the weak members and leaves the stronger members. Vaccine is not a live or active virus, thus the concept is false by its own definition.



I think that your claim is wrong. Herd immunity happens when, say, 99% of the population gets vaccinated. The fact that a large population is vaccinated means that diseases would have a hard time making its way through the population, including to unvaccinated people, since people are less likely to come into contact with other people who have not been vaccinated. It has nothing to do with killing people with viruses to leave only the strong. Instead, it has to do with making most people strong by training their bodies with dummy threats, so that those who are allergic to said dummy threats would come into contact mostly with strong people, and therefore would have a harder time catching an illness.



3. Assuming that vaccination does protect against disease; the concept is still false. This is because those that are vaccinated would still be carriers of the disease.



Again, your claim appears to be factually unsound. When people are vaccinated, they would be less likely to catch illnesses in the first place, and vaccination would prepare their immune systems to deal with diseases, making them last for a shorter period of time. This means that they would be less likely to be disease carriers, and therefore less likely to pass on diseases to other people.



4. Animals in the wild don't get disease. Disease is only a human problem which is caused by humans changing their diet to an unnatural one which nature never intended. Not to mention the many dangerous chemicals which can infect their food and water supply.



In previous debates and forum posts, my opponent has claimed that humans started getting ill because they started consuming grains and milk.



However, humans have historically consumed grains, and have used tools to make flour for at least 30,000 years.[1] In addition, humans started getting more amylase in their saliva to turn starches into sugar[2], and certain other evolutionary adaptations suggest that humans have adapted to the consumption of grains and other agricultural products. [3]



My opponent has claimed in previous posts that milk caused blockages—presumably in blood vessels—and that this would cause many health problems. However, while some studies show an increased risk of heart disease and cancer in milk drinkers, other studies showed a decrease; the evidence is not conclusive.[4] Most experts agree, however, that consuming one or two cups of milk a day is fine—as long as you’re lactose tolerant. [5] Even if milk did cause heart disease, it still cannot account for cholera, the flu, or anything else like that, even though my opponent may believe otherwise.



5. I have shown on many previous posts that disease occurs because of improper diet and chemical poisoning and has nothing to do with germs. As Antoine Bechamp said, “ germs are the result of a disease, not the cause of it".



Unfortunately, the only sources supporting Con’s claim appear to be really unreliable without any peer-review or actual science whatsoever. Mainstream science has shown germs to be the cause of, rather than the result of disease. Period. Koch’s experiment with anthrax, for instance, showed germ theory to be true. [6] Since then, science has come a long way, and more and more discoveries and inventions have been facilitated by germ theory. Scientists, who are always testing their own theories out, did not discover evidence contrary to germ theory.



Number 6 appears to be irrelevant; people can get iodine and vitamins with a healthy diet. We can all agree about that.



7. Eating grain, sugar and dairy products is unnatural for humans. If you eat these products in large amounts you will get sick. Grain causes leaky gut syndrome which allows bacteria from the gut to enter the blood stream. This is what makes people sick. Thus, it is not the germs that are the primary cause; it is the fact that the grain foods have caused an inflammation in the gut which has opened the walls of the gut.



The leaky gut syndrome is no more than a hypothesis supported by very little evidence; it is usually used by alternative medicine practitioners for making money. [6]



8. Bad halogens can disrupt and replace iodine which causes a break down of the immune system. These chemicals include chlorine, bromine and fluorine. Many medications, anti-depressants, drinking water, tooth paste, fire retardants, pesticides, fungicides and cleaning agents contain these dangerous chemicals.



I would like to ask why the immune system would mean anything if germ theory didn’t exist—how does the immune system protect you from a bad diet?



9. I have previously proven that formaldehyde and DDT is responsible for the Ebola out break in Africa. People have been caught dumping formaldehyde in wells in Africa. These people then sell bottled water at inflated prices. Thus, the so called 'Ebola outbreak' is just a man-made disaster caused by unscrupulous individuals who are profiteering from other peoples misery.



The claim that big drug companies are dumping formaldehyde into water wells in Africa to create the Ebola pandemic there is somewhat ludicrous. The story was attributed to a Liberian newspaper and was not corroborated by any other sources. Even if the story was true, formaldehyde most likely isn’t behind all ebola cases. In addition, the ebola pandemic won’t make people buy bottled water, as most people believe that ebola travels through contact with body fluids, not water, and as such would be more likely to buy gloves and soap than bottled water.



Addressing claims from my opponent’s blogspot citation



A blogspot link provided by con suggests that herd immunity is nonexistent and vaccines are ineffective. However, the claims from said blog appear to be dubious.



Observing the MMR vaccinated herd, we find that they get sick, often. TheNew England Journal of Medicine published that, “An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced.”



The blog misrepresented the study’s findings. The New England Journal of Medicine study found that people who have had two doses of the MMR vaccine are more likely to be seropositive (0-3.3% likelihood of seronegativity) than those who have taken just one dose (3.6-6.8% likelihood of seronegativity), and students who were seropositive were less likely to contract measles—no seropositive student contracted it at all. [8] In other words, the study showed that students who had two doses of the MMR vaccine were less likely to contract measles than those who have had only one, rather than that vaccination is a big fat fraud.



Other studies of measles spreading within mostly immunised groups also suggest a similar thing: that the measles vaccine is effective, but it is less likely to be effective when only one dose, rather than two, is injected. [9]



This failure of herd immunity was also stressed by the medical journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. Warning against using the vaccine for protection, they wrote, “Other problems arise because herd immunity is not the same as biologic (immunologic) immunity; individuals protected only by indirect herd effects remain fully susceptible to infection, should they ever be exposed.”


Translation, “Herd immunity can’t protect you. Only your immune system can.”


Actually, the journal stated that herd immunity is real and effective.



Impressive examples of indirect protection have been observed after the introduction of conjugate vaccines against pneumococcal andHaemophilus infections. Reductions in disease incidence among cohorts too old to have been vaccinated have been responsible for one- to two-thirds of the total disease reduction attributable to these vaccines in some populations. These are due to the ability of conjugate vaccines to protect vaccinees not only against disease but also against nasal carriage, and hence infectiousness



The blog took the “herd immunity is fake” quote out of context. If you analysed the actual CID source more carefully, you’d see that the journal meant that although herd immunity does not make you actually immune to anything, it does reduce your likelihood of coming into contact with infected individuals. In other words, the journal was simply warning people not to be mislead about what herd immunity actually is.



[1]http://www.pnas.org...


[2]http://rationalwiki.org...


[3]http://rationalwiki.org...


[4]http://skeptics.stackexchange.com...


[5]http://www.webmd.com...


[6]http://bigpictureeducation.com...


[7]https://en.wikipedia.org...


[8]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


[9]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Akhenaten

Con

1.Quote - "Herd immunity has nothing to do with whether or not humans are herd animals. Instead, it"s about how having a large portion of the population immunised would mean diseases are less likely to spread both to those who have been immunised and those who have not. As long as large groups of humans come into contact with eachother, it can occur regardless of whether or not humans are in families. I don"t see your point."

Answer - My opponent has chosen to ignore logic. I have logically shown that herd immunity is an illogical concept, regardless of which direction that you look at it. He has denied that the term "herd immunity" is inappropriate to humans, yet, I have clearly demonstrated that humans are not herd animals. Yet, he persists that he is right, simply by saying that it is so, and incredibly, without offering any logical reasoning to support his claims. He said "I don"t see your point" well, my opponent doesn"t want to bring logic into the argument because he knows he will immediately lose if he does. Thus, he has to avoid the use of logic so he can win. Thus, it is only through the use of deception and trickery that both my opponent and the medical system can maintain germ theory as a viable system.
Well, I don"t see the point of germ theory, either. That"s because it"s illogical!

2.Quote - I think that your claim is wrong. Herd immunity happens when, say, 99% of the population gets vaccinated. The fact that a large population is vaccinated means that diseases would have a hard time making its way through the population, including to unvaccinated people, since people are less likely to come into contact with other people who have not been vaccinated. It has nothing to do with killing people with viruses to leave only the strong. Instead, it has to do with making most people strong by training their bodies with dummy threats, so that those who are allergic to said dummy threats would come into contact mostly with strong people, and therefore would have a harder time catching an illness.

Answer - People who are vaccinated can be carriers. Thus, my opponents statement is false.
Ref - http://articles.mercola.com...

3.Quote - However, humans have historically consumed grains, and have used tools to make flour for at least 30,000 years.[1] In addition, humans started getting more amylase in their saliva to turn starches into sugar[2], and certain other evolutionary adaptations suggest that humans have adapted to the consumption of grains and other agricultural products

Answer - The Australian Aborigines are living examples of the Palaeolithic people. Why search back 30,000 years in the past when living examples are available. When Captain Cook first arrived in Australia he thought that all the aborigines were wearing false teeth, because their teeth were all shiny white and they had no missing teeth. This was in contrast to the sickly looking Europeans, who had half their teeth missing and had yellow discolouration of their teeth. The Australian aborigines had a natural diet which didn"t include much grain food. The aborigines never got sick and disease was unknown to them before the Europeans arrived. The Europeans introduced the aborigines to Western style food such as sugar, alcohol, grain flour and dairy foods. The previously healthy aborigines, who never ever got sick, suddenly became very sick after eating the western food.

Ref - http://www.westonaprice.org...

4.Quote -Unfortunately, the only sources supporting Con"s claim appear to be really unreliable without any peer-review or actual science whatsoever. Mainstream science has shown germs to be the cause of, rather than the result of disease. Period. Koch"s experiment with anthrax, for instance, showed germ theory to be true. [6] Since then, science has come a long way, and more and more discoveries and inventions have been facilitated by germ theory. Scientists, who are always testing their own theories out, did not discover evidence contrary to germ theory.

Answer -Mainstream medicine has the funding of the pharmaceutical industry to support its claims. The medical and pharmaceutical industry is a multibillion dollar industry which is built on the foundations of germ theory. Thus, they are not about to spill the beans on germ theory and will devise all manner of devious spurious scientific research to support their claims. It is up to the millions of natural health practitioners around the world to fight against this tranny of deception.

5.Quote - The leaky gut syndrome is no more than a hypothesis supported by very little evidence; it is usually used by alternative medicine practitioners for making money.

Answer - This is a very hollow statement. He is accusing alternate medical practitioners of making money out of leaky gut syndrome. I am sure that mainstream medicine makes a thousand dollars to every one dollar that naturopathic doctors would make on this issue. Leaky gut syndrome is a very contentious issue for the medical system. If proven to be correct it could mean the closing down of a multibillion dollar industry. Thus, they have a lot to lose and will do whatever it takes to dismantle any alternative medical theories.

The video at the start is very convincing evidence and is supported by many fully qualified doctors around the world.
Ref -

6.Quote -I would like to ask why the immune system would mean anything if germ theory didn"t exist"how does the immune system protect you from a bad diet?

Answer - My opponent asks an illogical question. It"s the bad diet which causes disease by allowing gut bacteria to enter the blood stream. Iodine will kill the bacteria which has entered the blood stream. T-cells contain iodine which is the active agent that destroys bacteria.

Functions of Iodine in the Human Body

1.Used to make thyroid hormone in the thyroid gland.
2.Main body surveillance mechanism for abnormal cells in the body.
3.triggers apoptosis (programmed death of cells) in normal cells and abnormal cells.
4.Detoxifies chemicals.
5.Reacts with tyrosine and histidine to inactivate enzymes and denature proteins.
6.Antiseptic to bacteria, algae, fungi viruses and protozoa.
7.Detoxifies biological toxins food poisoning, snake venoms etc.
8.Anti allergic process. Makes external proteins non-allergic.
9.Anti-autoimmune mechanism by making intracellular proteins spilled into blood non-allergic.
10.Protection of double bonds in lipids for delivery to cardiovascular system and synaptic membranes in brain and retina.
11.Fetal source of apoptotic mechanisms during development in fetus and breast-fed children.
12.Protection from apoptotic diseases such as leukemia.
13.Possible initial source of thyroxine in early fetal development.
14.Antiseptic activity in stomach against helicobacter pylori.

7.Quote - The claim that big drug companies are dumping formaldehyde into water wells in Africa to create the Ebola pandemic there is somewhat ludicrous. The story was attributed to a Liberian newspaper and was not corroborated by any other sources. Even if the story was true, formaldehyde most likely isn"t behind all ebola cases. In addition, the ebola pandemic won"t make people buy bottled water, as most people believe that ebola travels through contact with body fluids, not water, and as such would be more likely to buy gloves and soap than bottled water.

Answer - The Ebola virus could have a number of sources. First, it should be noted that the area concerned has no electricity supply, so refrigeration of food is not possible. There is no sanitation, sewerage systems, no refrigerated trucks to transport food and no radio or TV. These people are living in primitive conditions similar the early European cities when the great plagues occurred. Pesticides are being over used to keep up with population growth. Profiteers are pouring formaldehyde down wells. The place is a complete mess.

Ref - http://www.vaclib.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Leugen9001

Pro


My opponent has chosen to ignore logic. I have logically shown that herd immunity is an illogical concept, regardless of which direction that you look at it. He has denied that the term "herd immunity" is inappropriate to humans, yet, I have clearly demonstrated that humans are not herd animals. Yet, he persists that he is right, simply by saying that it is so,


Actually, I did provide logical reasoning: herd immunity has NOTHING to do with humans being herd animals. Instead, it has to do with reducing the likelihood of someone getting into contact with unvaccinated people. PERIOD. It doesn't require people to be herd animals; it just requires people to come into contact with eachother.


My opponent's logic, as far as I understand it, goes like this:


P1. Herd immunity has the word "herd" in it.


P2. Anything with the word "herd" in it has to do with herd animals


P3. People aren't herd animals


C. Herd immunity is false.


I propose a counter logic:


P1. If you have a lower likelihood of coming into contact with unvaccinated people, then you would be less likely to be infected yourself regardless of whether or not you yourself were vaccinated.


P2. Increased vaccination reduces the likelihood of you coming into contact with unvaccinated people.


C. Increased vaccination makes you less likely to be infected, regardless of whether you are vaccinated yourself.


The above sounds like sound logic, right? And it demonstrates how herd immunity works regardless of whether humans are herd animals. Whether or not humans are herd animals does not matter; instead, what matters is whether humans come into contact with eachother, and humans do come into contact with eachother.


I have explained the above to my opponent in my previous round, but it appears as if he has ignored sound logic in an attempt to push forward an agenda.


Numerous medical journals agree that herd immunity is real. The Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases said rates of influenza in non-vaccinated children dropped as other children were vaccinated; this shows that herd immunity works. The same study also showed that the same happened with the Pertussis vaccine introduced in the 1940s. [9] The Journal of Infectious Diseases said that “impressive examples of indirect protection have been observed after the introduction of conjugate vaccines against pneumococcal and Haemophilus infections.”[10] Unfortunately, the Journal of Infectious Diseases has been quote mined by alternative medicine practitioners as evidence against herd immunity; the quote mined passage actually meant that herd immunity is not a physical immunity to a virus or bacteria, but rather a phenomenon caused by people coming into contact less with unvaccinated people.


People who are vaccinated can be carriers. Thus, my opponents statement is false.


The article you cited talked about whooping cough. People who are vaccinated are less likely to get an infection and therefore become carriers in the first place, and in the rare case one does become an asymptomatic carrier, one is still less likely to spread the disease to others than symptomatic carriers—coughs, sneezes, and other symptoms of many diseases are what helps them spread. In addition, people who are vaccinated don’t stay sick for as long as their unvaccinated counterparts, so they stay as carriers for a shorter period of time. [1] Since vaccinated people are less likely to spread the whooping cough than those who have never been vaccinated, herd immunity still stands.


he Australian Aborigines are living examples of the Palaeolithic people. Why search back 30,000 years in the past when living examples are available. When Captain Cook first arrived in Australia he thought that all the aborigines were wearing false teeth, because their teeth were all shiny white and they had no missing teeth. This was in contrast to the sickly looking Europeans, who had half their teeth missing and had yellow discolouration of their teeth. The Australian aborigines had a natural diet which didn"t include much grain food. The aborigines never got sick and disease was unknown to them before the Europeans arrived. The Europeans introduced the aborigines to Western style food such as sugar, alcohol, grain flour and dairy foods. The previously healthy aborigines, who never ever got sick, suddenly became very sick after eating the western food.


Before European contact, Australian Aborigines had a traditional system of healing, and had to deal with eye infections, skin infections, headaches, fevers, colds, warts, ulcers, and digestive problems.[2][3][5] In addition, yams and “grass potatoes” were some of the many dietary staples of Australian Aborigines before European contact. [4][5] There is also evidence that the Australian Aborigines ate bean and the seeds of wild plants. [4][5]


From the above, we can see that neither of my opponent’s so-called facts, that the Aborigines ate no grains, and that they had no illnesses, were true. As such, my opponent’s argument was based on invalid premises, and therefore his conclusion is unsound.


Mainstream medicine has the funding of the pharmaceutical industry to support its claims. The medical and pharmaceutical industry is a multibillion dollar industry which is built on the foundations of germ theory. Thus, they are not about to spill the beans on germ theory and will devise all manner of devious spurious scientific research to support their claims. It is up to the millions of natural health practitioners around the world to fight against this tranny of deception.


Conspiracy theories are not reliable sources of evidence, as they are mainly speculation; my opponent cannot provide any sound evidence backing his claims, as they are unfalsifiable.


Germ theory is a well established scientific theory which all credible scientists can attest to.


“Big Pharma” is legally obligated to test their products for efficacy, while the multi-billion dollar alternative health industry is not as stringently regulated, and has no legal obligation—or any financial incentives for that matter—to test their products at all. Additionally, the alternative health industry has been caught adulterating some of their products with allopathic, or actually real, drugs; this shows that they themselves might not believe in the efficacy of their “drugs” at all. [6]


This is a very hollow statement. He is accusing alternate medical practitioners of making money out of leaky gut syndrome. I am sure that mainstream medicine makes a thousand dollars to every one dollar that naturopathic doctors would make on this issue. Leaky gut syndrome is a very contentious issue for the medical system. If proven to be correct it could mean the closing down of a multibillion dollar industry. Thus, they have a lot to lose and will do whatever it takes to dismantle any alternative medical theories.


The alternative health industry makes 60 billion dollars every year, or 1/5 of “Big Pharma”; as such, it is a multibillion dollar industry with its own conflicts of interest.[6] I think that you're right in that the truth about leaky gut syndrome would shut down a multibillion dollar industry; what I disagree with, however, is the claim that said industry would be the Big Pharma industry, since the alternative medicine industry is what should be shut down. Very little evidence that intestinal permeability, as the scientists call it, causes any significant problems exists.[7]


The Ebola virus could have a number of sources. First, it should be noted that the area concerned has no electricity supply, so refrigeration of food is not possible. There is no sanitation, sewerage systems, no refrigerated trucks to transport food and no radio or TV. These people are living in primitive conditions similar the early European cities when the great plagues occurred. Pesticides are being over used to keep up with population growth. Profiteers are pouring formaldehyde down wells. The place is a complete mess.


Please explain how a health care worker caring for an ebola patient who went to the United States got infected with ebola. The health care worker had access to electricity, clean food, and sanitation; in addition, they most likely did not come into contact with formaldehyde.[8]


There are places with poor living conditions everywhere; why was it that only west Africa was affected by ebola?


Conclusion


Throughout the debate, my opponent has relied on sources promoting alternative “medicine” to prove his points, neglecting to see that those sources were unreliable. They have completely misunderstood herd immunity, by thinking that it only applied to herd animals even though that’s not what herd immunity is all about; herd immunity works as long as people come into contact with eachother. As the overwhelming scientific concensus is that vaccination works and is safe, I urge you to vote for me.


[1]http://www.skepticalraptor.com...


[2]http://www.aboriginalartonline.com...


[3]http://www.friendsofglenthorne.org.au...


[4]http://www.nt.gov.au...


[5]http://www.westonaprice.org...


[6]http://rationalwiki.org...


[7]http://www.nhs.uk...


[8]http://www.independent.co.uk...


[9]http://www.tandfonline.com...


[10]http://cid.oxfordjournals.org...


Akhenaten

Con

1. My opponent has ignored my statement that animals in the wild don't disease. Thus, he has not provided any evidence to disprove this statement. This is because animals in the wild never get disease. Thus, the concept of herd immunity has no natural equivalent in nature. Thus,we can say that disease is only a human condition which is caused by an unnatural diet and or chemical poisoning. Therefore, both germ theory and herd immunity are false concepts because they don't occur or apply to nature. Herds of animals, which are living in pristine and unfertilized pasture, never get sick. Cows only get sick when put into limited pasture areas and are treated with pesticides. (mad cow disease)
Mark Purdey has proven in his book - 'Animal Pharm', that mad cow disease is a product of vitamin deficiency and pesticide poisoning.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com...

2. My opponent doesn't even know what logic is or how to apply it. When you use logic, you must address each statement and provide a logical counter logic. My opponent has failed to do so, despite being given adequate warning. He just uses consensus as his only defence and keeps stating that these concepts are accepted by the mainstream science community, thus, they must be correct. This is not so, because money speaks louder than logic or common sense. Would any doctor or medical researcher be silly enough to cut their own throat by disagreeing with herd immunity and germ theory? I THINK NOT!

3. Tricks that are used by the medical authorities to approve vaccination and undermine anti-vaccination.

1. False positives and double blind fraudulence
2. Short graphs which delete important data.
3. Change name of disease from small pox to chicken pox, bird flu to swine flu etc
4. Bribery of Peer-review group
5. Holidays for bogus conferences in exotic locations for doctors (reward system for conformity to the system)
6. Controlling and intimidating the media
7. Brain wash the community with false information
8. Indoctrinate young children
9. Create guilt by calling anti-vaccine people terrorists
10. Create monetary disincentives for childcare

4. In regards to item 8 in the reference section. http://www.independent.co.uk...

The below statement from this article shows the vagueness and typical lack of detail in such reports. Oh, so somebody got sick from Ebola in a hospital in America. So, what happened to this person? NOTHING! ...............apparently?

"Hospital and state health officials did not identify the healthcare worker or provide a job description"

Don't be fooled by this propaganda nonsense!

5. Aborigines in Australia. http://www.friendsofglenthorne.org.au...

Ref - (3) Quote from reference -
Before European settlement, the isolated and dispersed nature of Aboriginal
populations would have meant that there were fewer fatal
diseases than in comparison with pre-industrial agricultural
societies, which were characterised as sedentary and living in
high densities in close proximity to livestock (Cleland 1953:
399; Crosby 2004: 285; Diamond 1998: 87, 92, 164, 195-214,
330, 355, 357).

My opponent has provide further evidence to support my claims - that the Australian Aborigines experienced a far better health and well being than that experienced by typical Europeans of that time period. This is because their diet contained very little grain food, sugar and no dairy. The grain food that they did eat was soaked in running water for a number days so that the toxic chemicals could be leached out by natural processes.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Leugen9001 1 year ago
Leugen9001
Con saw that I actually did use logic in the form of a syllogism in the last round, ignored it, and subsequently proclaimed victory because "pro didn't use logic." It's like playing pidgeon chess.
Posted by Leugen9001 1 year ago
Leugen9001
I don't think this debate was a defeat on my side, since your argument about herd immunity made no sense: the fact that it has the word "herd" in it does not make it necessary for people to be herd animals, and I have shown it to be so both with logic (a syllogism in the last roung) and with facts.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
It was a crushing defeat! A tie? lol
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Anybody who doesn't thing the immune system is iodine based must be retarded.
Posted by Leugen9001 1 year ago
Leugen9001
Akhenaten: if you believe that any one of the votes appears to be biased, you can report it by clicking the red flag labelled "report this vote". I am not affiliated with any big drug company and I am not being paid to spread false propaganda about vaccinations; this means that there's no Big Pharma conspiracy prosecuting you on a random debate website.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
It looks like the geriatrics are ganging up on me now! lol
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Will vote on this soon.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Additional information -

http://www.youtube.com...
No votes have been placed for this debate.