Resolved: Vaccination is Beneficial

Unfortunately, we've seen a horrondous display of poor conduct and sportsmanship in this debate from the opposition. He has not presented a single substantiated argument. Con wishes to win the debate because he says that I have not yet presented any real argumentation as my previous set was incorrectly cited (although much of it actually still links correctly). I did not inccorectly cite my sources. Everything that I did to cite them, I did in the normal expected fashion, and I can't tell you why they didn't link correctly, but as you can observe, I have done the exact same thing with the brackets in the previous round and they linked correctly. Technical faults or whatever this may be is hardly my responsibility and basing our entire debate on this issue is fraudulent and wasteful of you. My opponent then struck his only argument against vaccination from the record. So ostensibly his entire argumentation period will exist in his final round, where I can't make any useful rebuttals. This kind of trickery is a clear example of misconduct. Not a single point on the subject of vaccination has been raised by my opposition since he struck his only point.He then misattributed statements to me. Could you kindly supply evidence of where I said "unrefuted points stand"?My opponent then clearly conceded defeat: "I have never contended vaccinations are not beneficial, or a critical public health measure." So either you're saying that I've won, or you just haven't provided these arguments yet, since this is the topic of the debate.Actually, that's not what I said in my introduction as the point of this debate. What I actually said was, "I expect evidence to back up your BoP in demonstrating that, on balance, vaccinations are not safe and beneficial".Con condedes the debate, because although (as I have clearly addressed) side effects do exist, on balance, it is safer to be vaccinated than not vaccinated. On balance, vaccines are safe. He has also conceded that they are effective. I mean, what more is there to this debate?Regardless, let's try a new approach. Here are my NEW arguments! I will open with three key arguments:1. Vaccination is demonstrably effective. I will illustrate this point by discussing the eradication of smallpox, the near-eradication of polio, and various other trends in disease reduction upon implementation of public immunisation programs.2. Vaccination is safe. In order to avoid being accused of constructing a straw-man of the anti-vax position, I will begin by explaining why vaccinations can be considered safe for the vast majority of the population.3. Failure to vaccinate elucidates measurable counter-benefits to both individuals and the wider community_______________________ Vaccination is demonstrably effective.Study(1) after publication(2) has demonstrated that vaccines are effective in their basic function; stimulating an individual's immune system to develop adaptive immunity to a given pathogen. In simple terms, this means that vaccines reduce the incidence of disease. And, of course, historical data demonstrates this(3)(4). As can be seen in the graphs(3,4), the implementation of vaccination corresponds to a rapid decrease in death and incidence of various diseases, and is supported by evidence of statistical significance (i.e. not simply a case of correlation not equalling causation). Meta-analyses of some types of influenza vaccines have shown reduced effectiveness during some seasons, however, this is almost ubiquitously a result of the rapidly mutating nature of the influenza virus, and notthe efficacy of the vaccines themselves. Individuals may still become ill after being vaccinated, as individual vaccination effectiveness is, of course, only approaching 100% (about 98% for measles, for example)(1). However, the absolute majority of individuals achieve functional immunity once immunised against the most diseases, and it is this vast majority that, when coupled with high community vaccination rates, confers the additional benefits of herd immunity and the eventual eradication of disease.The eradication of poliomyelitis in the Western world and smallpox globally is one of the greatest public health achievements to date. This came about through a disciplined vaccination schedule and years of research and dedication; the almost-total destruction of these diseases is testament to the efficacy of vaccination(5).Vaccination is demonstrably effective in reducing the incidence and death rates associated with disease. Vaccination is safe.As a rule-of-thumb, no biological agent can ever be considered 100% safe, and all types of medicine have side-effects. However, the propensity of the evidence towards their safety is absolutely clear and except in a very limited number of exceptional cases, are almost always safe. I will demonstrate this assertion here, first discussing the ingredients in vaccines and then using the example of the autism controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine. IngredientsSome children (and adults) have medical conditions which cause them to be immunocompromised, or may have a specific allergy to an ingredient in a vaccine. These individuals should not be vaccinated; however, these individuals provide even more reason for others in the community to become vaccinated; immunocompromised children relyon the heard immunity of their immediate and extended community to prevent them from becoming ill.Controversial ingredients include:- Thimerosal, what most anti-vaxxers claim as the origin of autism, is an organic mercury-based compound that consists of just under 50% ethyl mercury(6). Thimerosal is not in the MMR vaccine(9). It has been omitted from almost all vaccines since 1999(6), there is no evidence of it causing any adverse health effects with the exception of minor swelling and redness at the site of injection(6), and it has never been implicated in causing autism. It was used as a preservative, but the amount was so thoroughly insignificant that one's of mercury bioaccumulation from theentire childhood vaccination schedule is nine-times less than a single tuna sandwich(7). And anyway, if it did cause autism, you'd expect autism to drop after it was taken out of vaccines. Which it didn't.- Formaldehyde, also used as a preservative and to prevent runaway pathogen replication. 70-80 times more can be found in the human body by natural production than in a jab(8).- Aluminium Hydroxide is in such small quantities in vaccines that you can literally get 1000 times more of it from a single ant-acid tablet and is the most common metal in nature(7)[around 9:00]. Breastfeeding puts a child at greater risk(8). MMR and AutismThe MMR vaccine does not cause autism. In fact, none do(7)(10)(11)(12)(13).Time and time again, studies and meta-analyses have found no correlation between vaccination and autism. In 1998 Andrew Wakefield conducted an illegal test (it wasn't even an experiment) on 8 children (which is a pitifully small sample), doctoring the evidence of those measurements, and presenting them to be published in the Lancet(12). The paper was later retracted and Wakefield lost his licence to practice medicine. Before looking for more evidence, frightened readers and the 24-hour news cycle regurgitated the hokum and established the current fear of vaccines. What the public didn't know was that Wakefield had been hired to find evidence of the correlation for a lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company responsible for the production of the vaccine; and Wakefield was developing his own vaccine which he wanted to force into the market as a competitor(12). Follow the money.Failure to vaccinate elucidates measurable counter-benefits. Decreasing vaccination rates have been implicated in the recent resurgence of measles(14). In fact, failure to vaccinate has caused hundreds of thousands of preventable cases; this interactive map is absolutely critical in examining the extent of diminished benefit due to failure to vaccinate(15). This topic will be explored more thoroughly in the following rounds. Best of luck to my opponent. Vaccination is, given the propensity of the evidence, both safe and effective. ___________________________(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...]_______________________Best of luck to you in the polls, I hope you treat future debating opponents with a little more respect.