Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children

Thanks again to Con for the debate. I may quote him at times during my rebuttal, and so I will put his remarks in italics to distinguish them from my own.First, it is important to note though that Con drops my entire case. At this point in the debate, it is too late for him to respond to it as that would constitute making new arguments. So, that means the entire debate comes down to whether the risks of "side-effects" Con mentions outweighs the proven efficacy of vaccines (and whether it outweighs that not vaccinating leads to the spread of disease and the onset of outbreaks). I will endeavor to show that it doesn't outweigh.Secondly, Con just posts links, he doesn't post into the round the substance of those links. That is a blatant attempt to avoid the character limits of the round, and unacceptable. Nothing that has not been explicitly stated in the round should be evaluated. That means that the so-called studies Con's references cannot be evaluated, since no quotes from them were posted here. But, even so, I will address the content of the articles anyway."Well, you see, it's proved that vaccines have side effects, and I don't say this just because I saw one time in a questionablewebsite, I say this because it's all over the web."This is a blatant ad populum fallacy. Just because a lot of people say something, that doesn't make it true. For instance, most people during Galileo's lifetime said that the solar system was Geocentric, even though it was actually Heliocentric. But, if we are going to use ad populum fallacies to make arguments, we should appeal to the most informed group of individuals, i.e. medical doctors. Most major medical organizations and doctors actually support vaccinations, and that says far more about immunizations that the "web" does. [1, 2]Moreover, of Con's sources don't give information about the sample sizes or reliability of any of the studies they cite. The Health Impact News link lists 49 sources that show the harmfulness of vaccines, yet the vast majority of those sources don't even mention vaccines or immunizations. Of those that do, they suggest that vaccines bear either slight risks for autism or cause harm by spurring brain encephalization in children. Yet, according to The Encephalitis Society, "While vaccines are much safer than actually having the disease, they, like all medicines can carry a small risk of adverse reaction. The majority of adverse reactions are very mild, but can, very rarely include post-vaccination Encephalitis. The risk of developing vaccine-related Encephalitis is extremely small in comparison to the health risks associated with the diseases that vaccines prevent. Importantly, the data indicates that vaccines are in the order of 1,000 to 100,000 times safer than running the risk of contracting the disease." [3] Additionally, "Evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism in children does not support such an association between thimerosal and autism. And a scientific review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that 'the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism.' CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines and autism rates in children. Besides thimerosal, some people have had concerns about other vaccine ingredients in relation to autism as well. However, no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and autism." [4]Con's other links suggest that vaccines cause lymphoma or leukemia. Studies actually show no evidence for the notion that vaccines cause lymphoma: "A link between SV40 and NHL is biologically plausible because SV40 causes hematological malignancies in laboratory rodents. However, detection of SV40 DNA in human NHL tumors has not been confirmed by other laboratories. Casting doubt on an association between SV40 and NHL, follow-up studies of recipients of SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccines have not revealed these individuals to be at increased risk of NHL. Furthermore, 2 recent case-control studies of NHL documented only infrequent SV40 antibody reactivity among NHL cases, and the prevalence of SV40 antibodies was similar in cases and controls." [5] Regarding leukemia, "there is some evidence suggesting that hepatitis B vaccination does not cause childhood leukaemia. During the period 1991 to 1998, when the rate of hepatitis B vaccination in American 2-year-olds was climbing from zero to over 80%, there was no corresponding increase in childhood leukaemia. According to the National Cancer Institute, 'Childhood leukemias appeared to increase in incidence in the early 1980s, with rate in the preceding years at fewer than 4 cases per 100,000. Rates in the succeeding years have shown no consistent upward or downward trend and have ranged from 3.7 to 4.8 cases per 100,000.'" [6]Perhaps even more strikingly, one of the sources Con himself cites is in favor of vaccination, and reads in part: "These troubling statistics show that the failure to vaccinate children endangers both the health of children themselves as well as others who would not be exposed to preventable illness if the community as a whole were better protected. Equally troubling, the number of deliberately unvaccinated children has grown large enough that it may be fueling more severe outbreaks. In a recent survey of more than 1,500 parents, one quarter held the mistaken belief that vaccines can cause autism in healthy children, and more than one in 10 had refused at least one recommended vaccine." [7]"So imagine that you could say for sure that one of the vaccines have a bad side-effect. You are lowering the chance of having the possibility to contract some kind of disease to 0, because you have already contracted from vaccines. So you say that this is better? Doom yourself from the very start, just because "the risk" of catching something?"This is an interesting hypothetical, but it doesn't really hold up. Most side-effects of vaccines are minor, and being inflicted by a guaranteed minor side-effect while ensuring that you avoid life-threatening illnesses like measles is completely worth it. And, more importantly, side-effects of vaccines are incredibly rare, and so, for parents looking at the cost-benefits, you have an extremely low risk of mostly minor side-effects compared with the danger of contract serious diseases. It's a no-brainer."In order to be free and be moral, we have to question ourselves. I don't believe you ever thought about vaccines having side-effects for example, and because you didn't know, and didn't questioned yourself before making a decision, that makes you moral correct? Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour."This is a kind of ad hominem, and has nothing to do with the debate. But, for the record, I did research the topic, and came to the conclusion that vaccines were net beneficial, so I did consider the possibility that they weren't. Furthermore, Con talks about the importance of freedom, but what freedom is death? When we fail to vaccinate our children and that results in their death or injury, we are denying them their freedom, and, to use Con's word, we treat them like "cattle" not has human beings. The effectiveness of vaccines is an objective fact, not subjective--and Con doesn't do much to rebut this."[Y]ou only cited things from one source mostly"Actually, I cited 8 different sources. Each link led to a separate page, and each page referenced separate sources in its bibliography. Besides, quality should be preferred to quantity, and Con never contests that his primary source was riddled with errors and that some of his own sources supported vaccines. Con even writes: "I admit that the website may not be the more trusted."1 - http://www.immunizeforgood.com...2 - http://www.pbs.org...3 - http://www.encephalitis.info...4 - http://www.who.int...5 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...6 - http://www.cdc.gov...7 - http://www.scientificamerican.com...