The Instigator
Batman2020
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The vaccine empire has collapsed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,778 times Debate No: 26132
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Batman2020

Pro

You may not have heard the explosion, but it happened.

A review from The Cochrane Collaboration, a widely respected research-analysis team, went over all the evidence, and entered its conclusion:

In healthy adults, no flu vaccine delivers protection from the flu.

Boom!

It doesn't protect against transmission of flu viruses from person to person, either.

Boom!

So all the promotion and all the pandering and all the scare tactics and all the "expert medical opinion" and all the media coverage...useless, worthless, and irrelevant.

Billions of dollars of financed lies about flu vaccines were just that: lies.

It gets worse, because the entire theory about how and why vaccines work is sitting on a razor's edge, ready to fall into the abyss of discarded fairy tales.

We've been told that vaccines stimulate the immune system with a "rehearsal" of what will happen when an actual disease comes down the pipeline. When the disease does show up, the immune system will be locked and loaded, ready to destroy the attacking germ.

But since flu vaccines don't protect against flu or even stop the transmission of flu viruses from person to person, the so-called "rehearsing" of the immune system is merely somebody's fancy story. A legend. A myth.

Also, you can forget about the widely sold herd-immunity tale. How can the group be immune when vaccines are doing nothing to prevent the free movement of germs from person to person?

As always, The Cochrane Collaboration did an exhaustive review of all previous studies on flu vaccines they could discover. They rejected the studies that were badly constructed. In some cases, to expand available data, they contacted individual researchers who had conducted studies.

Therefore, Cochrane's findings represent the best of the published literature on flu vaccines. However, because the Cochrane team owes nothing to pharmaceutical companies, they analyzed the literature with sober eyes and minds.

Here is an interesting comment from the analysis: "The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions..."

Now who in the world would benefit from such manipulating?

Oh yes. One other thing.

The Cochrane review, published by John Wiley and Sons, appeared online on July 7, 2010.

Over two years ago.

We must have missed the massive mainstream media coverage. Perhaps we were fishing that day, or buying tires for the car, or vacationing on our yachts in the Mediterranean.

What? There was no massive media coverage? Impossible. I mean, surely...

Sources: http://gaia-health.com...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... (registration required)
imabench

Con

Normally I dont accept one round debates, but anyone who yells "Boom!" after their arguments is just asking for an a** whipping..... As for the Pros arguments:

"A review from The Cochrane Collaboration, a widely respected research-analysis team, went over all the evidence, and entered its conclusion that in healthy adults, no flu vaccine delivers protection from the flu........The Cochrane review, published by John Wiley and Sons, appeared online on July 7, 2010."

This is the article the review published on July 7th 2010.
http://summaries.cochrane.org...

If you click "PEARLS- Practical Evidence About Real Life Situations" tab and read "Bottom line" you read that:

"There is insufficient evidence to decide whether routine vaccination to prevent influenza in healthy adults is effective. Influenza vaccination did not affect the number of people needing to go to hospital or to take time off work (the follow up period was up to 3 months post vaccine)."

Basically, the study only found that the effectiveness of vaccines against the Flu cannot be proven to be effective or ineffective in healthy adults, and that there is not enough evidence to even DECIDE if routine vaccinations are effective. It says nowhere that the vaccines offer zero protection from the Flu.

Now the debate resolution is "The Vaccine empire has collapsed" not "Vaccines cannot be proven effective against the flu in healthy adults"

Lets look at the rest of Pro's arguments though:

Evidence the Pro has offered saying there was a vaccine empire = 0
Evidence the Pro has offered saying that such a vaccine empire collapsed = 0

So what evidence has the Pro even offered to support his outlandish claims?
- 1 - His first source is a link to the home page of gaia-health.com which shows nothing in relation to what is being argued in this debate.
- 2 - His second source is a link to a page about the original study that under "Authors' conclusions" even states states that

"The results of this review seem to discourage the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure. As healthy adults have a low risk of complications due to respiratory disease, the use of the vaccine may be only advised as an individual protection measure against symptoms in specific cases."

So all in all. The pro has misread his own evidence, the study itself never says that Flu vaccines do not work at all and that they can even be useful, the pro provides no evidence at all suggesting that a vaccine 'empire' even exists, and the pro doesnt even provide evidence reinforcing his claim that this imaginary vaccine empire has somehow fallen.

The resolution is negated, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
BOOM! Plagiarism!
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Son. Of. A. Bench.....
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Here's the link proving my RFD http://www.naturalnews.com...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Batman2020imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: In R1, Pro launched into a clumsy rant against vaccinations, which I am certain, led Con (the always ruthless Imabench) to mercilessly ravage almost every aspect of Pro?s dissertation. Imabench plays the part of the staggering buffoon, but underestimating his significant prowess is ill-advised. This was on display here. I was happy that Imabench more or less used his considerable command of classic debate skills in this contest: he often resorts to the most hysterically blatant fallacies?
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Batman2020imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's entire argument is plagiarized.