THW make vaccines mandatory

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...