The Instigator
debater12332
Pro (for)
The Contender
paintballvet18
Con (against)

Vaccines are Dangerous!

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
paintballvet18 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 433 times Debate No: 101453
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

debater12332

Pro

I will be arguing that vaccines are dangerous and have not been the blessing people think they are.

Con will argue that they are safe, and that they work as well as we are told.

Con may choose to use the first round as acceptance or use it to give his/her defense of vaccinations.

Safe: not threatening danger
Dangerous: involving possible injury, pain, harm, or loss: able or likely to inflict injury or harm.
https://www.merriam-webster.com...
paintballvet18

Con

Vaccines have a net-positive benefit.
Debate Round No. 1
debater12332

Pro

You stated that vaccines had a "net-positive benefit." This means that what they give to society has to be better than what they take away. I disagree. Even though vaccines may offer some protection and may help some people, humanity as a whole has been hurt by vaccines.

Definitions:
ASD: Autism Spectrum Disorder
SLI: Speech and Language Impairment

We are told that vaccines are safe and yet studies done have shown otherwise.

A survey of 1997-2002 data showed that those never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month were 200% less likely to have autism. [1]

According to the Journal of inorganic biochemistry aluminum adjuvants in vaccines correlates with the rise in ASD. Hill's criteria to the data indicates that Aluminum in vaccines may cause ASD. [2]

Mystery of of the rise autism from the 1990's. A 1% increase in vaccination a is associated with 680 children having ASD or SLI [3]

We are told that vaccines led to the decline of diseases such as smallpox, when the truth is that these diseases were already declining and would have been eradicated anyways. [4]

Vaccines are a multi billion dollar industry so if anyone is really benefiting it"s the pharmaceutical companies, not the people.

In conclusion I don't think that vaccines are safe and I don't think that they are very effective.

[1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2]http://omsj.org...
[3]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4]https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com...
[5]https://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.globalresearch.ca...
paintballvet18

Con

Vaccination has decreased the rate of disease dramatically.
DiseaseBaseline 20th Century Annual Cases2006 CasesPercent Decrease
Measles 503,282 55 99.9%
Diphtheria 175,885 0 100%
Mumps 152,209 6,584 95.7%
Pertussis 147,271 15,632 89.4%
Smallpox 48,164 0 100%
Rubella 47,745 11 99.9%
HiB 20,000 29 99.9%
Polio 16,316 0 100%
Tetanus 1,314 41 96.9%

Data from http://www.immunizeforgood.com...

This data shows that on an net-benefit analysis, vaccines have done more good than bad for the world. Therefore, I am winning this debate right on the offset. If we look at a net-benefit anaylysis, giant reductions in diseases outweigh the mere possibility that autism may be created by vaccines, therefore you should Vote Con off that

In regards to autism, the CDC has roundly rejected this claim. The studies brought forth by the Pro were largely discredited amongst the academic community.

https://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.iom.edu...
http://www.jpeds.com...(13)00144-3/pdf?ext=.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.iom.edu...
https://www.cdc.gov...
https://www.cdc.gov...
https://www.cdc.gov...

I'm going to ask my opponent to read these articles before he continue spouting random fallacies in his refutation rounds.

Thank you.

Moving along to the rest of the Con case:

According to "Immunize for good," Vaccines are cost effective.
Not only do vaccines save lives, they save money too. It is always cheaper to prevent a disease than to treat it. The routine childhood immunization program in one birth cohort saves $13.6 billion in direct costs. Every dollar spent on childhood immunizations saves $18.40. In Colorado, the cost of treating 538 children hospitalized for vaccine-preventable diseases in one year totaled $29.2 million.
Vaccines are safe.
Vaccines undergo rigorous safety testing prior to being approved by the Food and Drug Administraton (FDA) and are continually monitored for safety. Vaccines are also studied to be administered together to protect children.

In January 2013, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published the most comprehensive examination of the immunization schedule to date, and the report uncovered no evidence of major safety concerns associated with adherence to the CDC-recommended childhood immunization schedule. (end quote)

Simply put, it is riskier to not immunize. Vaccines are both cost-effective and bring more good than bad.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
debater12332

Pro

I am going to start out by addressing some of the claims that Con made.

Con said "Vaccination has decreased the rate of disease dramatically." and the source was immunizeforgood.com. I read the link and it gave no proof that vaccines were the cause in the decrease of these diseases. Anyone who has studied statistics knows that correlation does not imply causation. Did you actually read this link before posting it on this debate?

Con stated that "The studies brought forth by the Pro were largely discredited amongst the academic community." yet gave no proof. Which one of the studies I gave your has been discredited and why? Don't just make things up, if you're going to state something like that I expect some proof. Con needs to give some evidence of his claim or retract that statement.

Your first CDC link sent me to the web-page that said there was no link between vaccines and Autism. This was one of the pages sources was https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... If you read the study the problem is that it didn't test whether or not thimerosal was safe. It just said that even with the decreasing use of thimerosal in vaccines autism is still on the rise. That's because vaccines are still being used. This proves nothing, please read the study yourself.

Another study that was on the CDC page you had a link to said that kids using vaccines with thimerosal had the same chance of autism as kids using thimerosal free vaccines. This doesn't prove vaccines are safe it only proves that all vaccines are equally bad.

Your IOM link did not work. Your jpeds link didn't work for me either. The second CDC link you have said thimerosal is not dangerous, and its source was the first CDC page you sent me which makes no sense. Why did you give me the same source twice?

The second IOM report didn't work. The third CDC link sent me to a site that had a list of studies. None of the studies I read said that vaccines were safe they concluded that there was not much difference between vaccines with thimerosal and thimerosal free vaccines. Again this doesn't prove vaccines are safe.

What's worse is that Con's link to some of the studies said "there was a small association between early thimerosal exposure and the presence of tics in boys" and another said "The study found only a few statistically significant associations between exposure from thimerosal and neuropsychological functioning" so not only do these tests only compare vaccines ingredients with other vaccine ingredients, they also show that thimerosal could be more dangerous than thimerosal free vaccines.

Your fourth CDC link sent me to more of the same websites! Again, the only proof was a study of thimerosal vs thimerosal free vaccines. This only proves that all vaccines are dangerous. The fifth and final CDC link had no studies and it only gave the list of ingredients in vaccines. If anyone takes the time to read the ingredients you will quickly realize why vaccines are dangerous.

Con said "I'm going to ask my opponent to read these articles before he continue spouting random fallacies in his refutation rounds." I've read all those links and commented on each and every one of them. None of them prove that vaccines are safe or effective.

Con said that I was spouting random fallacies. I love debating people with different views, but if you're going to make a claim like that you've better have some proof. Con needs to either give an example of where I "spouted" fallacies or admit that he lied.

Then Con says that vaccines are cost effective. His example is directly out of the immunizeforgood.com link he first gave. These statistics are completely made up. They are only somewhat accurate if vaccines are exactly as effective as manufacturers claim, and if tons of people were to get sick without vaccines. Again, no evidence for this is given. All these numbers are completely fictional and drawn from hypothetical estimations.

Con has utterly failed to refute my proofs in the last round and I answered every one of his claims and links. I've showed why they don't prove that vaccines are safe, and am still waiting for Con to address the studies I gave in the last round. I think this debate goes to show that vaccines are dangerous, and I look forward to refuting any other claims that Con tries to make in the next round. Thank you!
paintballvet18

Con

So instead of a actual debate, this has become a debate of sources. Alright, let's do this. Time to discredit his sources.

First Con Source:

Correlation doesn't mean causation. Therefore, vaccines do not cause autism because the correlation between the two may exist. Therefore, Pro argument falls.

Second Con Source:

Same discreditation as the first source. The 11 page study doesn't prove causation, there Con's stance that Vaccines cause autism is untrue and is not based on facts.

Third Con Source:

Same (verbatim) as 1

Fourth Con Source:

Which doctor is credited with writing this? Oh wait. A doctor didn't write this. So this is baseless and unprofessional. You should lose conduct off that for using sources that aren't accepted scientifically. Rookie mistake.

Fifth Con Source:

Money has nothing to do with "net-benefit gain", therefore disregard these sources.

--
--
--

My medically accepted CDC sources still stand.

Therefore Vote Pro. I win this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
debater12332

Pro

Apparently Con isn't understanding what I'm trying to say so I'm going to give a quick overview of what I've said said throughout the debate, and my evidence.

Con said "So instead of a actual debate, this has become a debate of sources." Why would you think that?

In round 2 all Con really said was "Vaccination has decreased the rate of disease dramatically." and "In regards to autism, the CDC has roundly rejected this claim. The studies brought forth by the Pro were largely discredited amongst the academic community."

You were making statements about my evidence as if they were fact so of course I had to check your sources. Con is not making much sense here.

Con said "Correlation doesn't mean causation. Therefore, vaccines do not cause autism because the correlation between the two may exist. Therefore, Pro argument falls.

This is actually false. The saying is "correlation does not imply causation" what you did was a classic example of the straw man fallacy. You attempted to discredit my first link by misrepresenting what I said in that last round.

The reason I said that correlation does not imply causation is because your "proof" that vaccines worked was that many diseases were declining during the period that vaccines were being used. The problem with this logic is that those diseases were already declining before the introduction of the vaccine. Further proof that it wasn't the vaccines causing the decline would be that diseases with no vaccines were also declining at this time.

You said my second source has the "Same discreditation as the first source." but I don't even think you read what it said. The Hill's criteria used in the study is arguably the best way to find causal relationships, so no it is not discredited.

My third study Con doesn't even address, and just tries to dismiss it.

Then Con went on to say "Which doctor is credited with writing this? Oh wait. A doctor didn't write this. So this is baseless and unprofessional. You should lose conduct off that for using sources that aren't accepted scientifically. Rookie mistake."

The link was to an article that had graphs in it. Tell me, does it take a doctor compile a list of death records? Also do you even know who wrote the article in the first place? I would urge all voters to look at Con's groundless accusations and judge accordingly.

"My medically accepted CDC sources still stand." but if your sources only prove that thimerosal free vaccines and regular vaccines are the same, then your source are irrelevant in this debate. The debate isn't over which vaccine ingredient is more dangerous. It's about whether vaccines are dangerous.

"Therefore Vote Pro. I win this debate." First off, you haven't won this debate, and if you had why would you still need votes? Oh, and by the way I'm Pro so please vote Pro.

I would like to thank Con for staying in the debate and not forfeiting. I have given a few studies that show vaccines are not safe and effective. Con has not given me any studies showing that vaccines have worked or that they are safe. For this reason I would advise you to vote Pro. Thank you.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ernold 8 months ago
Ernold
Pro may want to consider reading the WHOLE NCBI study on autism and vaccines. Without taking sides, it is worth noting that this study is a "cross-sectional secondary analysis". Anyone familiar with research would note that these types of studies are associated with the weakest of the study "types".

Furthermore, if you read the entire thing, you would note that even the researchers state "Our @257;ndings do not suggest that the risks of autism outweigh the bene@257;ts of vaccination". Exactly the opposite of Pro's claims.

One must READ the research or risk falling prey to the studies short-comings.
Posted by paintballvet18 9 months ago
paintballvet18
I will post tomorrow morning.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.