Resolved: Vaccination is Beneficial

Naturally, my opponent has gotten himself into very deep water. As he has made no point of refuting any of points, so they stand, and I will post the links that were truncated here. I will then go on to add further points and rebuttals to your argument. You will then have to do two rounds worth of rebuttals in your next round, otherwise all my points from round 1 stand. I acknowledge that my links became truncated. No, I do not concede my points, and they are not plagiarised, so they are not stricken, and I don't automatically lose. Very nice attempt, though! Here are the links proper:(1) New England Journal of Medicine, Markowitz, L. (et. al), Immunisation of Six-Month-Old Infants[. .. ]accessible at: . http://www.nejm.org...(2) Journal of Infectious Diseases, Weindberg, G & Szilagyi, P, Vaccine Epidemiology: Efficacy, Effectiveness, and the Translational Research Roadmap, accessible at: [. http://jid.oxfordjournals.org...](3) [. https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com...](4) [. http://www.cdc.gov...](5)Polio timeline: [. http://www.historyofvaccines.org...](6) [. http://www.ncirs.edu.au...](7) [] {go to time 10:30}(8) [. http://www.chop.edu...](9) [. http://www.cdc.gov...](10) [. http://www.cdc.gov...](11) [. http://www.immunize.org...](12) [. http://theincidentaleconomist.com...](13) [. http://www.health.gov.au...](14) [. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...](15) [. http://www.cfr.org...]You must have known I would just post them here, so why would you not rebut in your last round? Or did you think I didn't have any actual sources and was hoping you wouldn't check? Anyway, on to rebuttals. My opponent claims that vaccines cause the diseases they prevent. He clearly does not have a year 9 level understanding of biology. And neither does the physicist (read: not doctor/biologist/chemist) he cited, and all of his points are entirely fabricated. Not only that, he almost exlcusively cites anti-vax propaganda material, instead of peer-reviewed science. Let's take a quick look at how a vaccine works. There are four common types of vaccine(1) although more do exists.1. Live, attenuated type(2). These vaccines contain live, but modified, versions of the virus against which you are immunising, for example chickenpox and rotavirus. The modifcation either renders the virus harmless or less virulent. Unless specifically cultured incorrectly or contaminated (as with anything else), or if you are immunocompromised, these types of vaccines are harmless.2. Killed/inacctivated type(3). This is where the pathogen is cultured, then killed. The antigens on the surface of the pathogen stimulate the immune system in the same way as if the pathogen were alive. Obviously, these can not harm you, because the pathogen is dead. Examples include Polio, whooping cough, plague and flu.3. Toxoid type(4). This is where a pathogen's toxin is taken and neutralised (usually with heat but also chemically). However, because the structure remains in tact, it is still useful in providing immunity against the toxin. Examples include diptheria and tetanus.4. Subunit/conjugate type(5) This is where only selective antigens/fragemnts of the pathogen are used, instead of the whole thing. Examples include Hep B and menigococcal. None of these can "give you" the disease it was attempting to vaccinate you against. None. This is because vaccines are not simply a live shot tetanus going into your muscles or blood stream. There is no medial mechanism by which a vaccine can give the disease, unless you are immunocompromised. Although some time ago when the first batch of polio vaccines came out, there was a containment breech and some of the polio vaccines did in fact contain live, unattenuated virus, this was a problem in the manufacturing process and not a function of the vaccine itself. Vaccines are demonstrably safe and effective. Refusing to vaccinate children amounts not only to negligence and child abuse, but puts other people's children and safety at risk. It is selfish, unusual and more importantly, completely unsubstantiated. If vaccines really did cause sickness, don't you think there would be people scrambling left right and centre to get the Nobel Prize for blowing the top off this thing? Don't you realise that the only way for academics to make money is prove something that is currently held as true to be false? Imagine how much money you could make if you proved that vaccines were dangerous and ineffective. The reason that this hasn't happened is because it's just not true. Why would I vaccinate myself if I thought that these things were dangerous but I was just tricking you because apparently I work for a 'big pharma'? Don't you think that people who "know the truth" and work for the big pharmas would refuse t oget vaccinated themselves if this was true? Would they vaccinate their children? This entire argument is absurd. This is what the anti-vaxxination movement has done to the human species: . http://www.cfr.org...This is appauling, reprehensible and inexcusable, and Andrew Wakefield and the other "truthers" who founded the movement ought to be held accountable for the murder of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children and adults. _____(1) [. http://www.historyofvaccines.org...](2) [. http://en.wikipedia.org...](3) [. http://en.wikipedia.org...](4) [. http://en.wikipedia.org...](5) [. http://www.niaid.nih.gov...]