The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

the concept of herd immunity is a fraud

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 102617
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




The concept of herd immunity is a fraud. It is totally illogical and has never been proven to exist. The idea of herd immunity comes from the pharmaceutical industry which needs to sell lots of drugs to the the public. They do this by instiling fear and distrust in the community with concepts like 'herd immunity'.


The concept of herd immunity is a very real, and basic one. when you have a group of 1,000 individuals in a test environment and 5 of those people get sick with an infectious disease, for our model let's say Measles. Without vaccines to protect the majority of the population from contracting Measles, the number of infected individuals would sky rocket tremendously, from 5 people infected with such an infectious, but preventable disease would quickly infect up to over 1/2 of the population with Measles. That model combined with actual accounts of isolated Measles in non-vaccinated children proves the effectiveness of Vaccines in protecting the herd (A group of mammals living together for protection).
Debate Round No. 1


Vaccinated children are carriers of disease. Thus, your statement is false. Note - You only need one exception to a rule to disprove a rule. The rules of acquistion by Robert Distinti.

Those pushing mandatory vaccination for an ever-growing list of diseases are a mixed bag. Some are quite sincere and truly want to improve the health of the United States. They believe the vaccine-induced herd immunity myth and likewise believe that vaccines are basically effective and safe. These are not the evil people.

A growing number are made of those with a collectivist worldview and see themselves as a core of elite wise men and women who should tell the rest of us what we should do in all aspects of our lives. They see us as ignorant cattle, who are unable to understand the virtues of their plan for America and the World. Like children, we must be made to take our medicine – since, in their view, we have no concept of the true benefit of the bad-tasting medicine we are to be fed.

I have also found that a small number of people in the regulatory agencies and public health departments would like to speak out but are so intimidated and threatened with dismissal or destruction of their careers, that they remain silent. As for the media, they are absolutely clueless.

I have found that “reporters” (we have few real journalists these days) rarely understand what they are reporting on and always trust and rely upon people in positions of official power, even if those people are unqualified to speak on the subject. Most of the time they run to the Centers for Disease Control or medical university to seek answers. I cannot count the number of times I have seen university department heads interviewed when it was obvious they had no clue as to the subject being discussed. Few such professors will pass up an opportunity to appear on camera or be quoted in a newspaper.

One must also appreciate that such reporters and editors are under an enormous economic strain, as vaccine manufacturers are major advertisers in all media outlets and for an obvious reason – it controls content. A number of excellent stories on such medical subjects are spiked every day. That means we will always be relegated to the “fringe media” as our media outlets are called. Despite the high quality of the journalism in many of the “fringe” outlets, they have a much smaller audience. And despite this we are having an enormous effect on the debate.



Actually, with all do respect if you would have read your source it states as follows:

"However, vaccine-induced immunity wanes after 5 to 10 years, making the vaccinated host vulnerable to infection."

'The effects of whole-cell pertussis vaccine wane after 5 to 10 years, and infection in a vaccinated person causes nonspecific symptoms "

This makes your argument against herd immunity nill, if the definition of wane in this context was to decrease in vigor, power, or extent; become weaker than that means that the vaccine simply wears off to an extent, and that fact alone does not disprove herd immunity, nor does it prove true for other diseases.

The study also states that the vaccine in some cases does not even last into early childhood, and can be ineffective at preventing infection, but stops disease. Again I will say, this does not prove true with other diseases, if you can cite me a source to an article that concludes that a well known disease that the general public is protected against with vaccination has a vaccine that is ineffective, you could change my entire viewpoint.
These quotes were both obtained in the link that Akhenaten cited in his argument, the first quote was taken from the second paragraph of the main text and the second quote was taken from the first paragraph of the "Conclusions" section
Debate Round No. 2


If vaccine wears off after 5 to 10 years, then, vaccination itself, is a fraud, because the vaccine doesn't work effectively.

Note - Herd immunity relies on the fact that vaccination works. Thus, my opponent has just admitted that vaccination is ineffective and wears off over time. Thus, if vaccination doesn't work, then, it only stands to reason that there can be no herd immunity if the herd is not properly protected 100 percent of the time.

Studies by Weston A. Price Foundation have found that individuals that have been vaccinated can be carriers of disease.

This reference shows numerous cases where vaccinated people contracted and spread disease.

Herd immunity is fraud which relies on another fraud which is the germ theory of disease. Thus, herd immunity is a double fraud.
Disease ican only be caused only by inappropriate diet, fecal material contamination, food poisoning and chemical poisoining. Germs are the result of a disease and are not the cause of a disease as stated by Antoine Bechamp.
the human

Note - Neither Luis Pasteur or Antoine Bechamp had any knowledge of the human hormones system; leaky gut syndrome or the role of vitamins in maintaining good health. Thus, all these old theories are redundant nonsense and shouldn't still used as reference material for any health related issues. The fact that the medical system clings on to germ theory after recent discoveries regarding leaky gut syndrome is totally illogical and dangerous to the community.

The problem is that alternative theories to germ theory and herd theory of disease are not profitable to the pharmaceutical industry and have not thus been adopted. The machery of profit making is too strong and there is no incentive for universities to drop a system which has been so profitable for them in the past.

Note- You can't make any money out of logical health practices like giving up grain, sugar and dairy products. These three unnatural food items are the cause of most disease. Germs have nothing what-so-ever to do with why people get sick. Germs are just scavengers that enter the blood stream via leaky gut syndrome. They are not the cause of disease.

Refer to Dr Axe's article - Inflammation is at the root of most disease.



I will again say, no offense, but I don't consider Wikipedia pages primary or reliable sources. We are not debating germ theory and we are not debating the effectiveness of vaccines, we are determining the effectiveness of herd immunity. I happened to have read your debate on germ theory and it appears as though you lean on a sort of McCarthyism where you accuse scientific theories {1} of being "hoaxes" and "frauds". There is not a single person that you could ask that would be surprised to hear that pharmaceutical companies make fortunes, it's called supply and demand. The pharmaceutical industry relies on there always being a need for something, which is wrong, as I will agree but you can not just blow off scientific theories as lies.

I would like to associate this debate with a quote that a man by the name of Ben Shapiro has said on numerous occasions

"Facts don't care about your feelings"

The herd immunity concept is meant to prevent the entire population from dying, which it has effectively done for a long time, and is to me an unarguable fact. I don't need to cite any sources because it's based on common sense for the most part.

1: If you don't have vaccines, the entire population becomes susceptible to a pandemic that could wipe out huge chunks of human population

2: with vaccines, even if some vaccines are faulty and don't always work properly you're still almost completely stopping it from turning into a pandemic, the florida incident involved 67 cases of measles. That number could have been 67 million without herd immunity.

Another thing i'd like to point out is a contradiction in your first round argument

I have found that “reporters” (we have few real journalists these days) rarely understand what they are reporting on and always trust and rely upon people in positions of official power, even if those people are unqualified to speak on the subject. Most of the time they run to the Centers for Disease Control or medical university to seek answers.

You cited a source to the Center for Disease Control in that very same argument as proof. This is where i will leave it for now, as i feel i've properly repsonded to the last round.

{1} Scientific Theory: a theory that explains scientific observations
Debate Round No. 3


1. No offence, but Wikipedia is as good a source of information as any other source. Note - The source of any information is irrelevant. Its whether the information from that source is correct or not that matters. Thus, if the government issues reports which are full of mistakes and errors, you would most likely ignore all those mistakes and errors because you have been blinded by the governments authority and power. I used to work fro the government, so I know from personal experience that governments are full of nincompoops who know very little about anything. Governments are communist organisations which are full of people that will do almost anything to get ahead or to fit in with the status quo. Thus, governments can't be trusted. Governments control the health care industries and dictate what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

2. Con -"Facts don't care about your feelings"

That's right! Con is getting very upset and emotional about germ theory. He is emotionally attached to his beloved but old and dedundant theories because they represent his past and future. When you attack the basis of a person's beliefs, they will always take it personally. This is called human nature. Regardless, all the facts fit in with bad diet being the cause of most disease. Whereas, herd immunity, is just a knee jerk reaction theory based on primitive fears and emotions. Note - The government harnesses people's fear of alternate thought processes by creating concepts which herd people into rigid thinking patterns. Thus, herd immunity is just an expression of a collectivist government that needs people to act like cattle so that they can be herded. By herded, I mean manipulated and forced to go into places that are convenient for government purposes. George Orwell would understand this concept. He wrote about such concepts in his books like 1984 and Animal Farm.

3. My opponent has failed to address a number of issues that I have raised. This is against debating etiquette. He refuses to acknowledge or respond to my statement about bad diet as the cause of most disease. This aviodance could be interpreted as arrogance or fear of being found out. I would take a guess and say that his avoidence of the subject is to reduce the possiblity of mistake or error.

4.Con - "If you don't have vaccines, the entire population becomes susceptible to a pandemic that could wipe out huge chunks of human population"

Large pandemics are caused mostly by volcanic activity which causes crop failure and poisonous gases to permeate the atmosphere.

Thus, the above evidence shoots down my opponemnts false claims that germs cause epidemics. Therefore, the whole combined concept of germ theory and herd immunity are both false concepts.



Let's begin this round by saying that pandemics are not cuased by volcanoes, pandemics are simply infectious disease spread through human populartions over a large region, so i'm not sure where the volcanoes argument falls into relevancy here.

Since you want me to address the issues you've raised i'll go ahead and do so.

1. We are NOT debating germ theory, you're trying to push the general purpose of this debate to something that you have already debated previous.

Pro: Disease ican only be caused only by inappropriate diet, fecal material contamination, food poisoning and chemical poisoining. Germs are the result of a disease and are not the cause of a disease as stated by Antoine Bechamp.

False: inappropriate diets cause diet-related disease, but something like measles doesn't depend upon dietary wellness to thrive. Fecal contamination simply proves germ theory, germs would lie on the feces to cause the contamination. If germs are the result of disease than what is the cause of disease? (aside from dietary wellness) Does this mean that you don't believe in viruses or bacteria?

pro: Large pandemics are caused mostly by volcanic activity which causes crop failure and poisonous gases to permeate the atmosphere.

False: Crop failure logically cannot be linked to a pandemic, that is just simply nonsense.

I would appreciate if you didn't make this debate about what you want it to be about, it is about herd immunization and you are changing the topics based solely on the fact that you want to distract from the main issue, presumably so you can recycle links and statements from your germ theory debate.

You keep calling out the government as being spreaders of false information but your entire round 2 debate was based on a link to the CDC, a government run program.

You also say i am getting angry and passionate because i said "facts don't care about your feelings", that's an unfounded assumption. I said facts dont care about your feelings because they don't. You feel that herd immunization is a fraud, the facts say otherwise but you are free to feel what you wish.

In conclusion:

A) Volcanoes cannot be attributed to pandemics

B) germ theory is not the topic of debate

C) you are making unfounded assumptions about my emotion for a seemingly unknown reason

D) You aren't citing links to any of the actual important stuff you're saying, i have 3 links about volcanoes and "plague" (one of which is from NASA, a government organization) but no links proving that herd immunity is ineffective

E) Wikipedia is not a primary source, and can be edited by anyone, it has been repeatedly shown to contain false information

F) I addressed all of the points that partain to the topic at discussion

Debate Round No. 4


1. Germ theory is a sub-set of herd immunity. Thus, they are both tied together intrinically and one can't exist without the other. Germ theory relies on herd immunity for it to be a valid theory and herd immunity relies on germ theory to make it a valid theory. My opponent keeps whinning that I keep bringing up germ theory in the discusion. This is because they are both related sub-sets. Thus, my opponent doesn't appear to understand the English language very well nor does he understand how to properly address a debate question.

2. Con - "False: inappropriate diets cause diet-related disease, but something like measles doesn't depend upon dietary wellness to thrive. "

Pro - I think my opponent is referring to the recent outbreaks of measles in Disneyland. Note- Amusement parks are junk food paradises. They generally only sell garbage food which would make anybody sick. Thus, I am not surprised that Disneyland is the centre for disease outbreaks. Thus, my opponent hasn't disproved my theory that eating inappropriiate food causes diseases.

3. Con - "Does this mean that you don't believe in viruses or bacteria?"

Viruses don't exist but bacteria does exist.

4. Con -"False: Crop failure logically cannot be linked to a pandemic, that is just simply nonsense."

Pro - The year without a summer 1816. Sorry, but Con is false here!

My opponent doesn't do any reasearch what-so-ever and expects to win a debate? He just keeps shooting his mouth off without knowing anything about the subject matter.

5. Con - "You also say i am getting angry and passionate because i said "facts don't care about your feelings", that's an unfounded assumption"

Pro - People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If you accuse me of something superficial, then I can turn it around so that it is yourself who is on the receiving end.

6. I will conclude my debate with my final coup de grace.

The Deadly Impossibility Of Herd Immunity Through Vaccination, by Dr. Russell Blaylock

Is Herd Immunity Real?

In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason for this is that naturally-acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. The vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But, there was one major problem – vaccine-induced immunity lasted for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they began, silently, to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella.

Then they discovered an even greater problem, the boosters were lasting for only 2 years or less. This is why we are now seeing mandates that youth entering colleges have multiple vaccines, even those which they insisted gave lifelong immunity, such as the MMR. The same is being suggested for full-grown adults. Ironically, no one in the media or medical field is asking what is going on. They just accept that it must be done.

That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.

If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations.

When we examine the scientific literature, we find that for many of the vaccines protective immunity was 30 to 40%, meaning that 70% to 60% of the public has been without vaccine protection. Again, this would mean that with a 30% to 40% vaccine-effectiveness rate combined with the fact that most people lost their immune protection within 2 to 10 year of being vaccinated, most of us were without the magical 95% number needed for herd immunity. This is why vaccine defenders insist the vaccines have 95% effectiveness rates.

Without the mantra of herd immunity, these public-health officials would not be able to justify forced mass vaccinations. I usually give the physicians who question my statement that herd immunity is a myth a simple example. When I was a medical student almost 40 years ago, it was taught that the tetanus vaccine would last a lifetime. Then 30 years after it had been mandated, we discovered that its protection lasted no more than 10 years. Then, I ask my doubting physician if he or she has ever seen a case of tetanus? Most have not. I then tell them to look at the yearly data on tetanus infections – one sees no rise in tetanus cases. The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood infections. It was, and still is, all a myth.

Thus, we can plainly see that the concept of herd immunity is just a fraud.



The first problem with you debate is you "debunking" my idea that crop failure is not directly contributed to pandemics. There was a Typhus epidemic which is also a Wikipedia source, so I don't know if you can trust that source. There is a difference between an epidemic and a pandemic, a pandemic occurs within an entire country or the world, an epidemic is spread throughout a community. We do not see a clear map of where these epidemics happened, and Typhus is not a disease of which vaccination is currently available for. According to your source it says that the widespread crop failure was caused by major environmental changes, and not volcanoes as you stated previous, also, this has nothing to do with herd immunization, so you've essentially wasted my time with me responding to this. To respond to the Cholera incident as mentioned in China during this period, that was caused by major weather shifts, as china's monsoon season was interrupted by a volcano.

Allow me to respond to your point labeled "2."

The notion that junk food will cause a measles outbreak is simply ridiculous and it's audacious for you to say that during a debate against herd immunization, there was not one shred of evidence to back that up, so we've debunked that notion due to the fact that you should be providing these evidences

In you're point labeled "3." you say that viruses are not real, but bacteria is, but you've debunked your entire debate. Bacteria are listen under the category of a germ, so you believe in germs, but not germ theory? Also, there is a wealth of evidence that shows that viruses are indeed non fictional

and here is a little link related to germ theory just because

Now onto the main point of debate, herd immunization. You haven't given me any real proof that general herd immunization is a fraud, myth, or lie. The paper you copy pasted from Dr. Russell Blaylock doesn't have its sources listed, who knows if that's really true, what that man supposedly said. I've given you the definition of herd immunity and asked for legitimate evidence as to debunk it, not just with the whooping cough vaccine, and you can't. This debate is over, I don't need a final "coup de grace", I just need it to be known that I was using facts, and my opponent was distracting from the true purpose of the debate. He gave me no legitimate evidence against germ theory or herd immunization, and through all of that blamed volcanoes and crop failure for massive pandemics, like the Bubonic Plague. Voters, whoever is reading this debate right now, hopefully you, for yourself can see the evidence just as I am.

No hard feelings Akhenaten, it was an excellent debate, had much fun doing it. Nothing I said was meant to be disrespectful if at all taken with offense

Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Akhenaten 8 months ago
Note - Dr Axe's article here -
No votes have been placed for this debate.