Vaccinations are more beneficial than harmful

I welcome Pro back into the debate.First off, rebuttals."As Ivan Illich demonstrates in his treatise on the inefficacy of modern medicine: "The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization." [1] Thus, vaccines did not cause diseases to go away. The diseases were already going away by the body's natural ability to fight off invaders and through improved living conditions."Con makes the mistake of comparing mortality rate and incidence rate. A decrease in mortality does not mean a decrease in incidence rate. Better hygiene and sanitation is a huge reason why mortality rates were going down. Take a look at this graph. Yes, measles rates were going down. But the moment the vaccine of '63 was introduced, measles rates dropped dramatically. It wasn't just some lucky incident either, or else measles rates would have gone back to where they were. Instead, as you can see, the incidence of measles stayed down. Due to all this, it is safe to say that measles have gone down not solely because of better hygiene. NOTE: Before someone tries to hit me with a "causation doesn't mean correlation" argument, I would like to say that all this was simply refuting Con's argument. (http://www.software3d.com...) "it is acknowledged that vaccines do not really accomplish anything except to keep the same number of people uninfected in society."Incorrect. During a diseases incubation period, vaccines can be used to prevent already-infected people from suffering even more. The main disease I'm thinking about here is rabies. Rabies postexposure vaccines are used after someone has been infected, and it's a good thing that it exists. If you do a Google search inquiring how many people have survived rabies without a vaccine, the numbers may range from about 8-10. 8-10! Only 8-10 people, of all the people who were infected with rabies without a vaccine, survived. (http://abcnews.go.com...). Admittedly, rabies is not very common, but neither is vaccine failure for rabies (about 47 in 15 million vaccinations. http://www.livescience.com...). "These folks argue that somehow "herd immunity" might provide continuing justification for subjecting people to infection by vaccine chemicals since it is believed that if a greater number of individuals have immune protection against a disease, then it may confer benefit on others in the "herd." [2]"I am confused. Are you saying that vaccine chemicals cause diseases, or that the "folks" you are talking about are medically inapt? If I may shed some light onto this, herd immunity works by surrounding people with a disease with people who have been vaccinated for the disease. It's almost like a medical buffer zone. The disease has nowhere to go, and if it's not very severe, it will die without infecting anyone else. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) That's not to say that vaccines work 100% of the time. Vaccine failure is a thing. However, it is also very rare, and varies among vaccines. "In a great number of cases, it has been determined that not vaccinating may be better for people, particularly in case of the chicken pox vaccination where there are greater risks to adults who had been vaccinated as children than it would have been had they never been vaccinated at all. [3]"Your logic is not backed up by statistics. According to this website (http://www.cdc.gov...), mortality rates went down by about 100 deaths annually (meaning that 100 deaths were prevented per year, to avoid confusion). I assume that by "there are greater risks to adults who had been vaccinated as children than it would have been had they never been vaccinated at all.", you are talking about lifelong immunity. However, you are seeing things in the short run and not considering that, if everybody was infected to gain lifelong immunity, many people would die instead getting the golden reward. With vaccines, the death rates have decreased as well as more people getting immunity. It's an almost perfect upgrade. I predict that you will say that "vaccines don't give lifelong immunity." It may not always give lifelong immunity, but it sure does give more people a chance."Moving onto that dreaded connection between the Mumps-Measles-Rubella vaccine and autistic manifestations, medical journals do like to dismiss very quickly the connection. There has been much controversy swirling around the figure of Andrew Wakefield. [4]"This is possibly because the "connection" has been disproven many, many times. There's also the factor that Wakefield's study got retracted for falsification. Here are some sources:http://www.cnn.com...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org..."Thus, there is a connection between the MMR vaccination and the autism disorder."If you are using the higher ratio as a proof that the MMR vaccine causes autism, then that is an example of a false-cause fallacy. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...) Statistics can only go so far to strengthen an argument. Using statistics as a proof is a logical fallacy. For example, I could say that "As ice cream sales go up, so does the rate of drowning. Therefore, ice cream causes drowning" and convince a few people. The main reason for this situation is that, in the summer, more people buy ice cream and go swimming. Therefore, the incidence of drowning and ice-cream buying goes up. When looking at the "link" between autism and the MMR vaccine, the statistics you provided may have strengthened your case. However, I don't really see any actual proof that there is a link. You have the burden of proof now. Have fun. Here's a website that links to a whole bunch of other studies saying that there is no link: http://justthevax.blogspot.com..."The polio vaccine has been produced in rhesus monkeys and after researchers realized that this vaccine cultured within the monkey flesh was generating cancer in other animals injected with the vaccine, they still refused to pull the vaccines from the market. [8]"Despite all this, polio has been eradicated from the US, and soon from the world. Which side you believe is worse is more or less opinionated. Obviously, they should find a new way to prevent any possible cancer being done, but until then, the polio vaccine is probably the best we have against polio."Therefore, if we cannot guarantee that the the link between the M-M-R vaccine and the onset of autistic disorders is merely coincidental and if we cannot guarantee that the government and other scientists who are being driven by pharmaceutical profits are not removing tainted vaccines such as those cultured in monkeys with the SV40 virus, then, in all honesty, we cannot maintain that more benefit is being done by vaccines than harm."Your argument would make sense if we discredited the total amount of lives they have saved. Take smallpox, for example. According to http://www2.cdc.gov..., As late as the 18th century, smallpox killed every 10th child born in Sweden and France. During the same century, every 7th child born in Russia died from smallpox. Today, after many vaccinations, smallpox is completely gone. Choosing between a "possibility" of autism against a very high likelihood of death, the decision should be very obvious. Which confused me until I watched this YouTube video (you should look at it, it's very interesting! I recommend it for both pro- and anti- vaxxers).