query: Should any vaccines be required for children?

positive: Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. Not a full case yet.. Just some little points I put together... Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion. Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory. Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barrï¿½ Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can lead to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimerosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flu vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. Children should not be required to receive the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine. Some studies have shown that children who receive the DPT vaccine exhibit shallow breathing which has been associated with sleep apnea and may be a causal factor in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Studies of infants whose deaths were recorded as SIDS show a temporal relationship with DPT vaccination (these infants tended to die at similar time intervals in relation to when they were vaccinated). Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis. Young girls should not receive mandatory vaccination for HPV (human papilloma virus). The vaccine was approved in 2006 and the long-term effects are unknown. Since approval, adverse side effects such as severe allergic reactions, Guillain-Barrï¿½ syndrome, spinal cord inflammation and pancreatitis have been reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Although these adverse reactions may be rare, they are not worth the risk since the vaccine only protects against two of the 15 strains of HPV that may cause cancer of the cervix (20-40 years after an individual is infected). Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies.

positive: There should not be Mandatory Vaccinations The fact that vaccines cause autism is a fallacy and should not be treated as fact. I see that you are one of those people that believe that, unfortunately. Vaccines can be helpful for the body. They prevented smallpox, measles, and other dangerous diseases. I wonder what your counter-argument will be.

positive: The Thimerosal found in vaccines causes autism "Indeed, looking at the odds ratios the authors report""in which 1 means no effect of vaccine or other variable on odds and less than 1 means reduced odds""the data suggest reduced autism risk among children who received the MMR vaccine." forbes.com "Some other vaccines, including the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) never contained any preservative or any mercury. " cdc.gov As you can see the MMR vaccine never contained any Thimerosal. Thus Thimerosal cannot be the cause of Autism. My opponent's argument relies upon a sole source. "According to Hooker, the data on over 400,000 infants born between 1991 and 1997, which was analyzed by CDC epidemiologist Thomas Verstraeten, MD, "proves unequivocally that in 2000, CDC officials were informed internally of the very high risk of autism, non-organic sleep disorder and speech disorder associated with Thimerosal exposure." prweb.com This is a bare assertion on Hooker's part. Where is the proof? I'm looking at the gpo.gov link. This a pdf. How do I know its really a congressional record? It could just as easily be forgery. Also autism is talked a lot in the link, yet I'm not finding this unequivocal proof Hooker speaks of. I argue that my opponent is using scare tactics to market a low-carb diet. What would be the incentives for this? Who would profit? The meat industry. This industry will stop at nothing to promote their diets. Taking away from the fact that meat production is cruel and harms the environment is devastating ways. Also the funeral homes benefit from this misinformation. As you can see food is big money, 2.45 trillion. 27% of which is processed meat. http://www.forbes.com... http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.gpo.gov... http://www.foodmanufacturing.com...

positive: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. I think that if kids are required to get vaccines that there shouldn't be religious exemptions. The parents risk getting their kids seriously sick for there personal beliefs.

positive: Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines. Due to the character limit of 10,000 characters, simply refuting my opponent's case (as it is quite short) would take up very little space. As such, I will go ahead and defend my points. Please note that this doesn't give any advantage to me, but actually allows my opponent to refute my arguments in the next round. Thus, this allows more debate without imposing any unfair advantage to either opponent. -- I will begin with my opponent's case, and then move on to my own.Observations:1. "Required by public schools" will remain.2. I also agree you don't have full BoP. I explained this. 60-40 sounds fair, if that's how my opponent wishes to distribute it.However, it would be typical for the full weight to rest on my opponent, as he is promoting a shift from the status quo. Argument I: "I think that if kids are required to get vaccines that there shouldn't be religious exemptions."1. My gives not logical reasoning behind his argument for this point.2. Religious exemptions should be permitted, as I have and will demonstrate.Argument II: "The parents risk getting their kids seriously sick for there personal beliefs."1. It is a parent's job to do what they see best for their children.2. Their job description is as follows: "Fill bellies, maintain home, cradle, protect, teach, guide, listen, empathize, communicate, accept, trust, check up on, love, discipline, role model, doctor, clean and wash, (and then clean and wash some more) tolerate . . . and enjoy." [1]3. They are the parent and subsequently have the authority to do what they feel is best for their children. If they feel that vaccinations are uneccesary for religious reasons, it is their choice.4. The correct use of "there" would be "their" in the context of the sentence my opponent used. [2]With my opponent's case refuted, I will move to my own, and his arguments against it.Contention I: Religious exemption is already permitted."There isn't really much to debunk here you basically just pointed out that most places allow religious exemptions. Just because most places allow it doesn't make it correct."1. Given that it is of a majority accepted lends evidence towards the idea that it *should* be accepted.2. My opponent proves nothing with his argument and uses no evidence. Thus, we remain with the only side that provided an argument. (Pro)3. I have and will demonstrate in other contentions as to how exemption should be permitted, and there should not be a change to the status quo.Contention II: Some vaccinations contain components which can violate religious beliefs."Yes it's true that there are ingredients that can violate the parents religious convictions. However when you are talking about getting first graders vaccinated, it's irrelevant. Because first grader don't have a religion. They have whatever there parents tell them they have. A first grader hasn't but any thought into it. He's whatever his parents tell him to be."1. My opponent concedes that these vaccinations violate religious freedom, whether of the parent or the child.2. My opponent earlier agreed that the resolution should refer to what is "required by public school." By default, this would include every grades from kindergarten to senior year.3. Individuals are capable of choosing their religion in a majority of those grades.4. Moreover, children are often products of their environment. Logic demonstrates that, on general, if the parent is religious, the child will be religious as well.5. Parental guidance is necessary to help children grow and mature. Teens, and even children aren't fully matured until they are older. [3][4] Thus, parents can and should guide their children based on their beliefs (including religion)."However my bigger issue with it, is that I don't think the religion of the parents of one kid should be allowed to endanger the health of all the other kids in that school. You address this later in your argument saying something along the lines of " If my kid doesn't get vaccinated it doesn't matter if your kid is. The issue with this is that vaccines are not 100% effective. They work very well and everyone should get them, but sometimes they fail. So if one kid doesn't get vaccinated because his parents don't want him to and he gets say chicken pox, well he is a danger to other kids even if they have there vaccination because if the vaccination they got didn't work, well now that kid has gotten someone else sick because his parents don't personally like that vaccination."1. My oppnent has yet to mention a single instance in which religious exemption has resulted in getting other children fatally sick.2. My opponent also concedes that vaccines are not 100% effective, and that they sometimes fail.3. My opponent has only established a correlation between sickenss and non-vaccination, but has not linked the cause to religious exemption.4. Because of the lack of examples supporting his/her reasoning, you would vote for the status quo (including religious exemption)."However even that isn't my biggest issue with religious exemption. My biggest issue is that parents are legally allowed to put there kid's health in danger because they personally don't like what's in the vaccine. If the parents don't want to get there kids the measles vaccine because they're religion doesn't like it and the kid gets measles then the parents religion put the child in danger. ColeTrain would you honest say that parents should be allow to risk getting there five and six year old children getting sick and even possibly dying all because the parents don't like it. It's the same reason i don't think faith healing should be allowed. Because the parents religion can't be used as a justification to put a child in danger."1. My opponent has not established the link between correlation and causation.2. Correlation =/= Causation3. Thus, my opponent cannot continue to say that religious exemption has *any* effect on others getting sick.4. Most religious individuals who decline vaccinations either believe in divine healing or still go to the doctor to treat diseases.5. Putting children at risk does not fit into this model if the children are actually still treated at the doctor or believe in divine healing already.6. His claim that I support putting 5-6 year olds in danger is totally bogus. I support divine healing, but these people also sometimes go to doctors. Moreover, it is not only 5-6 year olds that are affected. Net benefit is utilitarian, and thus, so is my position.Contention III: Religious exemption is protected under the US Constitution."You say religious exemption is protected under the first amendment. Well I disagree. Here is why. The first amendment protection is only when religion doesn't conflict with other peoples freedom or harm others. As I showed above not vaccinating your kid puts that kid and others around him in danger. So your religion is harming others and so is not protected under the first amendment."1. My opponent cites no interpretation except his own.2. I provided my interpretation, backed by Cornell University.3. The first amendment protects the free exercise or religion. Prohibiting that in any manner is an infringement on individual rights.Contention IV: Vaccinations aren't totally safe."Yes it's true vaccines can cause side effects. For most people it doesn't but it can. I am in favor of medical exemptions. If getting a vaccine poses a significant risk to a kids health and safety then yes they can be exempted. However that is rare and for everyone else they should get vaccinated. Also you bring up the vaccine and autism link. This has been disproved many times and in fact the author of that study lost his medical license and got thrown in jail because the study was so bad. So that's invalid."1. My opponent concedes; vaccinations do cause side effects and aren't totally safe.2. Medical exemption is irrelevant. This debate is about religious exemption. Presenting a counterplan in the Pro position, in the 2nd round, is not allowed.3. I was only referencing the RETRACTED study to show that there have been studies conducted about the topic.Contention V: Flawed arguments envelop anti-exemption."I have addressed everything in this argument. But I will address one thing. You say that if people accept the risks then let them take them. However this doesn't work because we are talking about kids. So the parents are not the one who are taking the risk. They are forcing there kids sometimes as young as six to accept life threatening risks. If a adult doesn't want to get vaccinated I don't care. However parent forcing little kids to take life threatening risks is unacceptable and should not be allowed."1. As I've said before, it is the parents moral and social responsibility to care for and guide their children as they see fit.2. If religious exemption is what the parents see best fit for their child, then that is what should happen.3. As I have demonstrated multiple times, in multiple ways, religious exemption should be permitted.Conclusion:I have explicitly demonstrated both moral and pragmatic grounds to preserve religous exemption in regards to vaccinations for students attending public schools. Thus, I have fulfilled my burden of proof and upheld my side of the resolution.Sources:[1] http://www.easternflorida.edu...[2] http://wsuonline.weber.edu...[3] http://hrweb.mit.edu...[4] http://www.livescience.com...

positive: Vaccinations are necessary Thank you for accepting and good luck. I will post my sources at the end. I would like to start off by talking about different types of vaccination, their ingredients, and how they are administered/ work. There are a few different types of vaccines. There are attenuated (live virus), inactive, subunit, toxoid, and conjugate vaccines. Each serves a different purpose and is extremely beneficial. The attenuated vaccine contains microbes of a certain disease or bacteria that has been weakened in a lab so the disease is strong enough so the body can fight back, but not so strong any damage is done. These vaccines are the closest to natural infection so they are able to essentially teach the body how to overcome it. Though these vaccines are extremely effective, there is the slight chance (as with anything) that the microbe will mutate and cause disease. These anomalies generally occur in people with extremely weak immune systems. In a healthy person, the body learns how to fight the disease but doesn't get sick. Inactive vaccines are created by using heat and chemicals to destroy the microbes. These vaccines are not as strong as live vaccines but they work better for those with weaker immune systems. Because they elicit a weaker immune response, these shots are administered over a period of time with several boosters. They don't require refrigeration so they can be shipped anywhere, essentially. Subunit vaccines only contain certain antigens of a microbe, the ones that will cause the strongest immune reaction. As it does not contain the whole microbe, there is a severely decreased chance of a complication. Recombinant subunit vaccines were created and tested to treat hepatitis B. Scientists testing this vaccine inserted specific antigens into bakers bread and the yeast reproduced the antigens allowing them to collect more. Doctors and scientists are currently testing similar techniques to treat hepatitis C. Toxoid vaccines are used when a toxic bacteria is concerned. When the body is introduced to the toxoid created in a lab (harmless to the body) it learns to fight it off, creating an immune response. The body produces antigens that lock onto and block the toxoid. These vaccines have been used to treat diphtheria and tetanus. Conjugate vaccines are used to fight against bacterium with a polysaccharide coating. Many harmful bacteria have this coating, and the immune system, especially those of infants and young children, do not recognize it immediately, allowing the body to become sick. These vaccines are administered in small doses so the immature immune system becomes familiar with these bacteria and learns to fight it. When being made, scientists use antigens and microbes of the bacteria that the body will recognize and be able to fight. Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib) is a conjugate vaccine. Many people have recently been refusing to get their children, or themselves, vaccinated. Their theories about vaccines are wrong. For example, many people believe that if other people are getting vaccinated, then they don't need to be. Skipping vaccinations can put children or babies at risk for possibly fatal diseases. In order for vaccines to work, there needs to be a certain number of people vaccinated. Scientists estimate that, "Unfortunately, the level of immunization required to prevent diseases such as measles from spreading from child to child is high as 95 percent." (Thomas Saari, M.d., Wisconsin Medical School) With many people refusing to vaccinate themselves and their children, there is not enough people vaccinated to provide "herd immunity." Approximately 80% of elementary school children are vaccinated. Though many people believe that because major likenesses are rarely seen in America anymore we don't need vaccines, that is a very dangerous misconception. Though for the most part major disease such as polio are not seen anymore, many America communities still have outbreaks of disease such as pertussis and other respiratory diseases. The goal of vaccinatons is to prevent the spread of infectious diseases such as measles and mumps. They protect the public health. When vaccines first became prevalent we saw the eradication of disease like polio. Vaccinations provided protect against diseases that can lead to other serious health complications, and even death. These diseases include rotavirus, hep B, pneumococcal, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hep A, varicella, meningococcal, and influenza. As with any medication, vaccinations can cause a minor reaction like redness or soreness or a low grade fever. None of these side effects result in long term damage, only discomfort for a few days. Professionals have stated that "the proven preventive benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks of the minimal side effects associated with them." Vaccinations have been proven to be 90-100% of infections, and people who are 100% immune protect those with weaker systems. Many say that because we have eradicated many disease through vaccines, there is no need for immunizations. This misconception can cost lives, as those diseases are gone because of immunizations. Another myth people have about vaccines is that there is a connection between vaccinations and autism. People say the MMR vaccine contains thimerosal, a chemical that causes the brain disorder. In fact, the MMR virus has never contained thimerosal, and neither have the vaccines for chicken pox or inactive polio. If these vaccines were not administered we would see a rise in diseases that can be contagious and fatal. Though you say you receive vaccines and still get sick afterwards there is no way you do. It is impossible. Let's take the flu virus for example. The flu vaccine is an inactive immunization, so there are antigens from the virus in it. The sick feeling you may get after a shot is only the body fighting the vaccine after being introduced to it. That feeling is only your immune system growing stronger and protecting you but also the people you sit next to and the person you see on the bus or the person who gives you change at a convenience store. Vaccinations are necessary. They may seem like they do nothing because we do not see diseases like polio anymore but we don't see those anymore because we have vaccines. If we didn't have vaccines, we would see an uncontrollable rise in disease and death.

positive: vaccinations should be mandatory I believe vaccines should be mandatory as since they have been used, they have helped to save the population from a various number of microbes, and have even eradicated numerous diseases including smallpox in 1979, and Rinderpest (a viral disease that infected cattle). Without vaccines a huge percentage of the population would be handicapped or die unnecessarily. Your first point about not guaranteeing 100% efficiency from a disease is irrelevant. If I was faced with a large number of diseases, then I would still take a vaccine even if it only granted 50% efficiency. This is like saying: I can't get to work on time in a car, so I'll walk. As for your argument about vaccines containing mercury, I don't think you've done enough research here. Vaccines contain Thimerosal, a mercury containing compound. The purpose of which prevents the growth of the dangerous microbes. Thimerosal has been used safely since 1930, and has never shown any signs of harm throughout the 8 decades of it being used. Now, your argument about vaccines causing severe allergic reactions and having side effects that may lead to death is also irrelevant. Think about it this way: Even if it did cause an allergic reaction in for example 5 in 100 people, then removing the vaccines would mean killing ten times as much people as vaccinating them would. Furthermore, in the article you used, they say that they have no idea whether or not these reactions are related to the vaccines or not. So not only is it silly to remove vaccines for a 5 in 100 death rate, but there is no evidence to support the claim. Probably my greatest problem with those who refuse to take vaccines is that you are not only putting yourself at risk by exposing yourself to countless diseases, but you also put the world at risk by letting yourself be a carrier and letting the disease roam free and evolve. This is not just a personal matter, it is not just about you because you are putting the surrounding population at risk. Examples of this would be those who think that vaccines causes autism, which it obviously doesn't. Or the Taliban who still think that vaccinations is a plan by the west to eradicate them, which it isn't. And thanks to the Taliban, we have failed to eradicate the disease Polio. Your last argument seemed a bit strange, vaccines have protected our civilization from dangerous diseases and have even eradicated two, and almost eradicated several others. In my view, I see absolutely no point in refusing to take a vaccine. In choosing to not take one, you are condemning yourself and others to a disease that could be eradicated.

positive: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines Not only are vaccines possible to cause fatal (life-taking) results in certain children http://www.uptodate.com... it's also an issue of wasting vaccine biogenetic material for the mere purpose of vaccinating children.For example no typhoid is found in USA, Canada, Australia and most of Europe and Russia (including its Asian half) http://tinyurl.com..., so why waste resources causing this to be a mandatory vaccination if the family aren't taking the child on holiday to africa/asia Additionally hepititis B is very rarely found in USA http://tinyurl.com....It should be up to parents for the issues their child will face, not mandatory for all children.

positive: vaccinations yes allergies can happen and yes they can be bad but that's when you have to think about the single person over the whole population. weigh the risks for getting and not getting vaccinations. Not getting vaccinated leaves a big chance for infections to happen and from one person the infection spreads more and more till it can get as bad as a epidemic. Making vaccinations mandatory is also a god think what happens when someone from a foreign country comes into ours and they are carriers to some disease. If we make vaccinations mandatory then that immigrant who carries a disease can be cured and treated before it gets to be a big problem. www.healthychildren.com

positive: Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. I'd like to start right away. Refutations "However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested." Exactly. That's the problem. Their child will have the sickness. They think they're safer off without the vaccination, however, that is untrue. They will obtain diseases, spread it onto other children who think they're safe without the vaccination, and then spread it to the kids who were going to get a vaccination. One child can get infected, due to a careless or careless parents, and then spread the danger to all his classmates or friends. The argument is not that the vaccinated kids will be sick, it's that one child can spread it to many others. The only ones who, in a sense, "benefit," are the vaccinated ones. "Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly" Who are you to judge me as such? If you did research, you would have found that in many of my recentd debates, I decided to use the brackets and the number. I found it a very useful tool to ensure that you are not lying, and I am not. So please refute my argument that vaccinations actually benefit people, as seen in previous argument. "Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition." Plagarized from here [4]. Vaccines are very necessary, even if percentages of death is small. Vaccine deaths are even smaller. The sicknesses I previously listed out are all very harmful and potentially death-threatening diseases. They cause an extreme amount of suffering. Imagine if you were a child, suffering from a very horrible disease, and you know you could've been saved if you just took one needle in the arm. That's it. Whooping cough (pertussis) was the cause of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths in the United States a year [1]. Tell me that's not small. As my source states, pertussis was a deadly killer BEFORE VACCINES WERE CREATED [1]. The annual amount of deaths are now only 30 [1]. Measles is a much less serious circumstance, however, there are 20 million cases each year when children get them [2]. That could be stopped with one vaccination! Also, this rash is contagious and can be spread among kids. Why would these diseases just suddenly decrease in numbers before vaccines became available? Why would there suddenly be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? Where is the source for this? "Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening." Plagarized. The "risk" is most certainly worth taking, as the percentages of problems are very, very, very, very small. Most diseases cause huge amounts of suffering among children, and all that could be ended with a vaccine. "Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders." Plagarized as well from previous site. However, no vaccines means a child can obtain these numerous diseases: Anthrax Chickenpox Diphtheria Hepatitis A and B Hib HPV Japanese Encephalitis Lyme Disease Measles Meningococcal Mumps Pertussis Pneumococcal Polio Rabies And many, many more [3]! "Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma." Plagarized from the same site, as well. I have to once again weigh down on this one refutation. The good of the vaccination far outweighs the bad of the vaccination. There is a very small chance you will obtain such diseases. "All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist." Plagarized. What's the argument here? "Over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009." Plagarized. However, vaccines do not cause autism. Researchers at the John Hopkins University School of Public Help and Centers for Disease Control reject the idea that vaccine and autism are linked. The US Court of Federal Claims has said that, "theory of vaccine-related causation [of autism] is scientifically unsupportable." My opponent has listed several facts to "support" his case. They are all plagarized, but nonetheless, they are very strong supporting evidence... until you read the fifth argument from the site he copied from. "According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. [4]" Clearly, this benefit outweights so many of the numbers my opponent has listed. Arguments 1. Because of a few ignorant parents, their children are at risk, putting even more children at risk of being infected with a horrible disease. 2. Most childhood vaccines have a 90-99% success rate in stopping disease [5]. When children who have been vaccinated do get sick, they usually have milder symptoms with less serious complications than an un-vaccinated child that gets the same disease. For example, an un-vaccinated child with mumps can become permanently deaf and spread the disease to more students, but the vaccinated child won't. 3. Children especially need to get vaccinated. Children have weaker immune systems than adults and thus, are more susceptible to various diseases than adults. The Proposition should currently be winning this debate due to the reason that I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and he has never completely refuted all of mine and some were left untouched. All of my opponent's arguments are plagarized and they are not his own work. Sources: 1. http://kidshealth.org... 2. http://kidshealth.org... 3. http://www.cdc.gov... 4. http://vaccines.procon.org... 5. http://www.healthychildren.org...

positive: Children should receive vaccinations. Children should receive vaccinations? Well, some vaccines are untrustworthy, and may even be harmful to children.

positive: Vaccines are needed and do not cause Autism Abstract Although child vaccination rates remain high, some parental concern persists that vaccines might cause autism. Three specific hypotheses have been proposed: (1) the combination measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism by damaging the intestinal lining, which allows the entrance of encephalopathic proteins; (2) thimerosal, an ethylmercury-containing preservative in some vaccines, is toxic to the central nervous system; and (3) the simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms or weakens the immune system. We will discuss the genesis of each of these theories and review the relevant epidemiological evidence. A worldwide increase in the rate of autism diagnoses"likely driven by broadened diagnostic criteria and increased awareness"has fueled concerns that an environmental exposure like vaccines might cause autism. Theories for this putative association have centered on the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, thimerosal, and the large number of vaccines currently administered. However, both epidemiological and biological studies fail to support these claims. MMR On 28 February 1998, Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, and colleagues [1] published a paper in The Lancet that described 8 children whose first symptoms of autism appeared within 1 month after receiving an MMR vaccine. All 8 of these children had gastrointestinal symptoms and signs and lymphoid nodular hyperplasia revealed on endoscopy. From these observations, Wakefield postulated that MMR vaccine caused intestinal inflammation that led to translocation of usually nonpermeable peptides to the bloodstream and, subsequently, to the brain, where they affected development. Several issues undermine the interpretation by Wakefield et al. [1] of this case series. First, the self-referred cohort did not include control subjects, which precluded the authors from determining whether the occurrence of autism following receipt of MMR vaccine was causal or coincidental. Because W64;50,000 British children per month received MMR vaccine between ages 1 and 2 years"at a time when autism typically presents"coincidental associations were inevitable. Indeed, given the prevalence of autism in England in 1998 of 1 in 2000 children [2], W64;25 children per month would receive a diagnosis of the disorder soon after receiving MMR vaccine by chance alone. Second, endoscopic or neuropsychological assessments were not blind, and data were not collected systematically or completely. Third, gastrointestinal symptoms did not predate autism in several children, which is inconsistent with the notion that intestinal inflammation facilitated bloodstream invasion of encephalopathic peptides. Fourth, measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine viruses have not been found to cause chronic intestinal inflammation or loss of intestinal barrier function. Indeed, a recent study by Hornig et al. [3] found that the measles vaccine virus genome was not detected more commonly in children with or without autism. Fifth, putative encephalopathic peptides traveling from the intestine to the brain have never been identified. In contrast, the genes that have been associated with autism spectrum disorder to date have been found to code for endogenous proteins that influence neuronal synapse function, neuronal cell adhesion, neuronal activity regulation, or endosomal trafficking [4]. Although no data supporting an association between MMR vaccine and autism existed and a plausible biological mechanism was lacking, several epidemiologic studies were performed to address parental fears created by the publication by Wakefield et al. [1] (table 1). Fortunately, several features of large-scale vaccination programs allowed for excellent descriptive and observational studies"specifically, large numbers of subjects, which generated substantial statistical power; high-quality vaccination records, which provided reliable historical data; multinational use of similar vaccine constituents and schedules; electronic medical records, which facilitated accurate analysis of outcome data; and the relatively recent introduction of MMR vaccine in some countries, which allowed for before and after comparisons. Table 1 Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. Table 1 Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. Ecological studies.Researchers in several countries performed ecological studies that addressed the question of whether MMR vaccine causes autism. Such analyses employ large databases that compare vaccination rates with autism diagnoses at the population level. In the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated 498 autistic children born from 1979 through 1992 who were identified by computerized health records from 8 health districts [5]. Although a trend toward increasing autism diagnoses by year of birth was confirmed, no change in the rates of autism diagnoses after the 1987 introduction of MMR vaccine was observed. Further, MMR vaccination rates of autistic children were similar to those of the entire study population. Also, investigators did not observe a clustering of autism diagnoses relative to the time that children received MMR vaccine, nor did they observe a difference in age at autism diagnosis between those vaccinated and not vaccinated or between those vaccinated before or after 18 months of age. These authors also found no differences in autism rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated children when they extended their analysis to include a longer time after MMR exposure or a second dose of MMR [6]. Also in the United Kingdom, researchers performed a time-trend analysis using the General Practice Research Database"a high-quality, extensively validated electronic medical record with virtually complete vaccination data [7]. More than 3 million person-years of observation during 1988"1999 confirmed an increase in autism diagnoses despite stable MMR vaccination rates. In California, researchers compared year-specific MMR vaccination rates of kindergarten students with the yearly autism case load of the California Department of Developmental Services during 1980"1994 [8]. As was observed in the United Kingdom, the increase in the number of autism diagnoses did not correlate with MMR vaccination rates. In Canada, researchers estimated the prevalence of pervasive developmental disorder with respect to MMR vaccination in 27,749 children from 55 schools in Quebec [9]. Autism rates increased coincident with a decrease in MMR vaccination rates. The results were unchanged when both exposure and outcome definitions varied, including a strict diagnosis of autism. Additional population-based studies considered the relationship between MMR vaccine and the "new variant" form of autism proposed by Wakefield et al. [1]"specifically, developmental regression with gastrointestinal symptoms. Although it is difficult to analyze such a phenomenon when it is unclear that one exists (which complicates the formulation of a case definition), conclusions may be gleaned from the data with respect to developmental regression alone (i.e., autism irrespective of coincident bowel problems). In England, researchers performed a cross-sectional study of 262 autistic children and demonstrated no difference in age of first parental concerns or rate of developmental regression by exposure to MMR vaccine [10]. No association between developmental regression and gastrointestinal symptoms was observed. In London, an analysis of 473 autistic children used the 1987 introduction of MMR to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts [11]. The incidence of developmental regression did not differ between cohorts, and the authors observed no difference in the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms between vaccinated and unvaccinated autistic children. Two conclusions are evident from these data. First, the explicit consideration of developmental regression among autistic children does not alter the consistent independence of MMR vaccine and autism. Second, these data argue against the existence of a new variant form of autism. Retrospective, observational studies.Four retrospective, observational studies addressed the relationship between MMR vaccine and autism. In the United Kingdom, 71 MMR-vaccinated autistic children were compared with 284 MMR-vaccinated matched control children through use of the Doctor's Independent Network, a general practice database [12]. The authors observed no differences between case and control children in practitioner consultation rates"a surrogate for parental concerns about their child's development"within 6 months after MMR vaccination, which suggests that the diagnosis of autism was not temporally related to MMR vaccination. In Finland, using national registers, researchers linked hospitalization records to vaccination records in 535,544 children vaccinated during 1982"1986 [13]. Of 309 children hospitalized for autistic disorders, no clustering occurred relative to the time of MMR vaccination. In Denmark, again using a national registry, researchers determined vaccination status and autism diagnosis in 537,303 children born during 1991"1998 [14]. The authors observed no differences in the relative risk of autism between those who did and those who did not receive MMR vaccine. Among autistic children, no relationship between date of vaccination and development of autism was observed. In metropolitan Atlanta, using a developmental surveillance program, researchers compared 624 autistic children with 1824 matched control children [15]. Vaccination records were obtained from state immunization forms. The authors observed no differences in age at vaccination between autistic and nonautistic children, which suggests that early age of MMR vaccine exposure was not a risk factor for autism. Prospective observational studies.Capitalizing on a long-term vaccination project maintained by the National Board of Health, investigators in Finland performed 2 prospective cohort studies. Researchers prospectively recorded adverse events associated with MMR-vaccinated children during 1982"1996 and identified 31 with gastrointestinal symptoms; none of the children developed autism [16]. A further analysis of this cohort revealed no vaccine-associated cases of autism among 1.8 million children [17]. Although this cohort was analyzed using a passive surveillance system, the complete absence of an association between gastrointestinal disease and autism after MMR vaccination was compelling. Thimerosal Thimerosal"50% ethylmercury by weight"is an antibacterial compound that has been used effectively in multidose vaccine preparations for >50 years [18] (thimerosal is not contained in live-virus vaccines, such as MMR). In 1997, the US Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act mandated identification and quantification of mercury in all food and drugs; 2 years later, the US Food and Drug Administration found that children might be receiving as much as 187.5 "g of mercury within the first 6 months of life. Despite the absence of data suggesting harm from quantities of ethylmercury contained in vaccines, in 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service recommended the immediate removal of mercury from all vaccines given to young infants [19]. Widespread and predictable misinterpretation of this conservative, precautionary directive, coupled with a public already concerned by a proposed but unsubstantiated link between vaccination and autism, understandably provoked concern among parents, which led to the birth of several antimercury advocacy groups. However, because the signs and symptoms of autism are clearly distinct from those of mercury poisoning, concerns about mercury as a cause of autism were"similar to those with MMR vaccine"biologically implausible [20]; children with mercury poisoning show characteristic motor, speech, sensory, psychiatric, visual, and head circumference changes that are either fundamentally different from those of or absent in children with autism. Consistent with this, a study performed by scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention years later showed that mercury in vaccines did not cause even subtle signs or symptoms of mercury poisoning [21]. Despite the biological implausibility of the contention that thimerosal in vaccines caused autism, 7 studies"again descriptive or observational"were performed (table 2). Four other studies have been reviewed in detail elsewhere [28] but are not discussed here because their methodology is incomplete and unclear and, thus, cause difficulty in drawing meaningful conclusions. Table 2 Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Table 2 Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. View largeDownload slide Studies that fail to support an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Ecological studies.Three ecological studies performed in 3 different countries compared the incidence of autism with thimerosal exposure from vaccines. In each case, the nationwide removal of thimerosal"which occurred in 1992 in Europe and in 2001 in the United States"allowed robust comparisons of vaccination with thimerosal-containing and thimerosal-free products, as follows: In Sweden and Denmark, researchers found a relatively stable incidence of autism when thimerosal-containing vaccines were in use (1980"1990), including years when children were exposed to as much as 200 "g of ethylmercury (concentrations similar to peak US exposures) [22]. However, in 1990, a steady increase in the incidence of autism began in both countries and continued through the end of the study period in 2000, despite the removal of thimerosal from vaccines in 1992. In Denmark, researchers performed a study comparing the incidence of autism in children who had received 200 "g (1961"1970), 125 "g (1970"1992), or 0 "g of thimerosal (1992"2000) and again demonstrated no relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism [23]. In Quebec, researchers grouped 27,749 children from 55 schools by date of birth and estimated thimerosal exposure on the basis of the corresponding Ministry of Health vaccine schedules. School records were obtained to determine age-specific rates of pervasive developmental disorder [9]. Thimerosal exposure and pervasive developmental disorder diagnosis were found to be independent variables. Similar to previous analyses, the highest rates of pervasive developmental disorder were found in cohorts exposed to thimerosal-free vaccines. The results were unchanged when both exposure and outcome definitions varied. Cohort studies.Four cohort studies that examined thimerosal exposure and autism have been performed, as follows: In Denmark, researchers examined >1200 children with autism that was identified during 1990"1996, which comprised W64;3 million person-years. They found that the risk of autism did not differ between children vaccinated with thimerosal-containing vaccines and those vaccinated with thimerosal-free vaccines or between children who received greater or lower quantities of thimerosal [24]. They also found that the rates of autism increased after the removal of thimerosal from all vaccines. In the United States, using the Vaccine Safety Data Link, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examined 140,887 US children born during 1991"1999, including >200 children with autism [25]. The researchers found no relationship between receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. In England, researchers prospectively followed 12,810 children for whom they had complete vaccination records who were born during 1991"1992, and they found no relationship between early thimerosal exposure and deleterious neurological or psychological outcomes [26]. In the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated the vaccination records of 100,572 children born during 1988"1997, using the General Practice Research Database, 104 of whom were affected with autism [27]. No relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism diagnosis was observed. Too Many Vaccines When studies of MMR vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines failed to show an association with autism, alternative theories emerged. The most prominent theory suggests that the simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines overwhelms or weakens the immune system and creates an interaction with the nervous system that triggers autism in a susceptible host. This theory was recently popularized in the wake of a concession by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program with regard to the case of a 9-year-old girl with a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency whose encephalopathy, which included features of autism spectrum disorder, was judged to have worsened following the receipt of multiple vaccines at age 19 months [29]. Despite reassurances by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program's action should not be interpreted as scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism, many in the lay press and the public have not been reassured. The notion that children might be receiving too many vaccines too soon and that these vaccines either overwhelm an immature immune system or generate a pathologic, autism-inducing autoimmune response is flawed for several reasons: Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system. Although the infant immune system is relatively naive, it is immediately capable of generating a vast array of protective responses; even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously [30]. Consistent with this theoretical exercise, combinations of vaccines induce immune responses comparable to those given individually [31]. Also, although the number of recommended childhood vaccines has increased during the past 30 years, with advances in protein chemistry and recombinant DNA technology, the immunologic load has actually decreased. The 14 vaccines given today contain <200 bacterial and viral proteins or polysaccharides, compared with >3000 of these immunological components in the 7 vaccines administered in 1980 [30]. Further, vaccines represent a minute fraction of what a child's immune system routinely navigates; the average child is infected with 4"6 viruses per year [32]. The immune response elicited from the vast antigen exposure of unattenuated viral replication supersedes that of even multiple, simultaneous vaccines. multiple vaccinations do not weaken the immune system. Vaccinated and unvaccinated children do not differ in their susceptibility to infections not prevented by vaccines [33,",35]. In other words, vaccination does not suppress the immune system in a clinically relevant manner. However, infections with some vaccine-preventable diseases predispose children to severe, invasive infections with other pathogens [36, 37]. Therefore, the available data suggest that vaccines do not weaken the immune system. Autism is not an immune-mediated disease. Unlike autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, there is no evidence of immune activation or inflammatory lesions in the CNS of people with autism [38]. In fact, current data suggest that genetic variation in neuronal circuitry that affects synaptic development might in part account for autistic behavior [39]. Thus, speculation that an exaggerated or inappropriate immune response to vaccina-tion precipitates autism is at variance with current scientific data that address the pathogenesis of autism. No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines. Conclusions Twenty epidemiologic studies have shown that neither thimerosal nor MMR vaccine causes autism. These studies have been performed in several countries by many different investigators who have employed a multitude of epidemiologic and statistical methods. The large size of the studied populations has afforded a level of statistical power sufficient to detect even rare associations. These studies, in concert with the biological implausibility that vaccines overwhelm a child's immune system, have effectively dismissed the notion that vaccines cause autism. Further studies on the cause or causes of autism should focus on more-promising leads. Acknowledgments Potential conflicts of interest.P.A.O. is a coinventor and patent coholder of the rotavirus vaccine Rotateq and has served on a scientific advisory board to Merck. J.S.G.: no conflicts.

positive: Mandatory childhood vaccination Vaccinations should be mandatory to eligible children before reaching adolescence not just to protect them, but to protect the health within the community. Vaccines are safe and effective. They are cost-effective compared to medical treatment. Severe reaction from vaccines occurs rarely. Deaths due to vaccine-preventable diseases are undeniably high. Preventing this deaths through vaccinations does not only save lives, but it is also beneficial for the growth of the community. Stories that lacks scientific evidence continues to spread and if this continues to happen, future generations will be unvaccinated and can lead to a big outbreak. Take an action. Parents will do everything to keep their children safe. Protect them. Vaccinate them.

positive: should kids in public school be allowed to not get vaccines for religious reasons I can't faceplam Hard enough. Yes vaccines used to have trace amounts of mercy. two things though 1. They don't anymore. All modern vaccines no longer have mercy. 2. Even when they did it was such a small amount you are literally getting more mercy from a can of tuna fish then all your childhood vaccines combined. So no they don't have mercy and they never had enough for any sort of harm. I'm going to link a short video that I want you to watch and respond to.

positive: All negative points A vaccine controversy is a dispute over the morality, ethics, effectiveness, and safety of vaccination. The medical and scientific evidence is that the benefits of preventing suffering and death from infectious diseases outweigh rare adverse effects of immunization.[1][2] Since vaccination began in the late 18th century, opponents have claimed that vaccines do not work, that they are or may be dangerous, that individuals should rely on personal hygiene instead, or that mandatory vaccinations violate individual rights or religious principles.[3] Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern: some investigators suggest that a medical condition is an adverse effect of vaccination; a premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect; the initial study is not reproduced by other groups; and finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.[1] Mass vaccination helped eradicate smallpox, which once killed as many as every seventh child in Europe.[4] Vaccination has almost eradicated polio.[5] As a more modest example, incidence of invasive disease with Haemophilus influenzae, a major cause of bacterial meningitis and other serious disease in children, has decreased by over 99% in the U.S. since the introduction of a vaccine in 1988.[6] Fully vaccinating all U.S. children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves an estimated 33,000 lives and prevents an estimated 14 million infections.[7] Some vaccine critics claim that there have never been any benefits to public health from vaccination.[8][9] They argue that all the reduction of communicable diseases which were rampant in conditions where overcrowding, poor sanitation, almost non-existent hygiene and a yearly period of very restricted diet existed, are reduced because of changes in conditions excepting vaccination.[9] Other critics argue that immunity given by vaccines is only temporary and requires boosters, whereas those who survive the disease become permanently immune.[3] As discussed below, the philosophies of some alternative medicine practitioners are incompatible with the idea that vaccines are effective.[10] Children who survive diseases such as diphtheria develop a natural immunity that lasts longer than immunity developed via vaccination. Even though the overall mortality rate is much lower with vaccination, the percentage of adults protected against the disease may also be lower.[11] Vaccination critics argue that for diseases like diphtheria the extra risk to older or weaker adults may outweigh the benefit of lowering the mortality rate among the general population.[12] [edit] Population health Lack of complete vaccine coverage increases the risk of disease for the entire population, including those who have been vaccinated. One study found that doubling the number of unvaccinated individuals would increase the risk of measles in vaccinated children anywhere from 5–30%.[13] A second study provided evidence that the risk of measles and pertussis increased in vaccinated children proportionally to the number of unvaccinated individuals among them, again highlighting the evident efficacy of widespread vaccine coverage for public health.[14] [edit] Cost-effectiveness Commonly-used vaccines are a cost-effective and preventive way of promoting health, compared to the treatment of acute or chronic disease. In the U.S. during the year 2001, routine childhood immunizations against seven diseases were estimated to save over $40 billion per birth-year cohort in overall social costs including $10 billion in direct health costs, and the societal benefit-cost ratio for these vaccinations was estimated to be 16.5.[15] [edit] Events following reductions in vaccination In several countries, reductions in the use of some vaccines were followed by increases in the diseases' morbidity and mortality.[16][17] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, continued high levels of vaccine coverage are necessary to prevent resurgence of diseases which have been nearly eliminated.[18] Stockholm, smallpox (1873–74) An anti-vaccination campaign motivated by religious objections, by concerns about effectiveness, and by concerns about individual rights, led to the vaccination rate in Stockholm dropping to just over 40%, compared to about 90% elsewhere in Sweden. A major smallpox epidemic then started in 1873. It led to a rise in vaccine uptake and an end of the epidemic.[19] In a postwar poster the Ministry of Health urged British residents to immunize children against diphtheria.UK, DPT (1970s–80s) A 1974 report ascribed 36 reactions to whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine, a prominent public-health academic claimed that the vaccine was only marginally effective and questioned whether its benefits outweigh its risks, and extended television and press coverage caused a scare. Vaccine uptake in the UK decreased from 81% to 31% and pertussis epidemics followed, leading to deaths of some children. Mainstream medical opinion continued to support the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine; public confidence was restored after the publication of a national reassessment of vaccine efficacy. Vaccine uptake then increased to levels above 90% and disease incidence declined dramatically.[16] Sweden, pertussis (1979–96) In the vaccination moratorium period that occurred when Sweden suspended vaccination against whooping cough (pertussis) from 1979 to 1996, 60% of the country's children contracted the potentially fatal disease before the age of ten years; close medical monitoring kept the death rate from whooping cough at about one per year.[17] Pertussis continues to be a major health problem in developing countries, where mass vaccination is not practiced; the World Health Organization estimates it caused 294,000 deaths in 2002.[20] Netherlands, measles (1999–2000) An outbreak at a religious community and school in The Netherlands illustrates the effect of measles in an unvaccinated population.[21] The population in the several provinces affected had a high level of immunization with the exception of one of the religious denominations who traditionally do not accept vaccination. The three measles-related deaths and 68 hospitalizations that occurred among 2961 cases in the Netherlands demonstrate that measles can be severe and may result in death even in industrialized countries. UK and Ireland, measles (2000) As a result of the MMR vaccine controversy vaccination compliance dropped sharply in the United Kingdom after 1996.[22] From late 1999 until the summer of 2000, there was a measles outbreak in North Dublin, Ireland. At the time, the national immunization level had fallen below 80%, and in part of North Dublin the level was around 60%. There were more than 100 hospital admissions from over 300 cases. Three children died and several more were gravely ill, some requiring mechanical ventilation to recover.[23] Nigeria, polio, measles, diphtheria (2001 onward) In the early 2000s, conservative religious leaders in northern Nigeria, suspicious of Western medicine, advised their followers to not have their children vaccinated with oral polio vaccine. The boycott was endorsed by the governor of Kano State, and immunization was suspended for several months. Subsequently, polio reappeared in a dozen formerly polio-free neighbors of Nigeria, and genetic tests showed the virus was the same one that originated in northern Nigeria: Nigeria had become a net exporter of polio virus to its African neighbors. People in the northern states were also reported to be wary of other vaccinations, and Nigeria reported over 20,000 measles cases and nearly 600 deaths from measles from January through March 2005.[24] In 2006 Nigeria accounted for over half of all new polio cases worldwide.[25] Outbreaks continued thereafter; for example, at least 200 children died in a late-2007 measles outbreak in Borno State.[26] Indiana, USA, measles (2005) A 2005 measles outbreak in the US state of Indiana was attributed to parents who had refused to have their children vaccinated.[27] Most cases of pediatric tetanus in the U.S. occur in children whose parents objected to their vaccination.[28] [edit] Safety Few deny the vast improvements vaccination has made to public health; a more common concern is their safety.[29] All vaccines may cause side effects, and immunization safety is a real concern. Unlike most other medical interventions, vaccines are given to healthy people, and people are far less willing to tolerate vaccines' adverse effects than adverse effects of other treatments. As the success of immunization programs increases and the incidence of disease decreases, public attention shifts away from the risks of disease to the risk of vaccination,[1] and it becomes challenging for health authorities to preserve public support for vaccination programs.[30] Concerns about immunization safety often follow a pattern. First, some investigators suggest that a medical condition of increasing prevalence or unknown cause is an adverse effect of vaccination. The initial study, and subsequent studies by the same group, have inadequate methodology, typically a poorly controlled or uncontrolled case series. A premature announcement is made of the alleged adverse effect, resonating with individuals suffering the condition, and underestimating the potential harm to those whom the vaccine could protect. The initial study is not reproduced by other groups. Finally, it takes several years to regain public confidence in the vaccine.[1] Controversies in this area revolve around the question of whether the risks of perceived adverse events following immunization outweigh the benefits of preventing adverse effects of common diseases. There is scientific evidence that in rare cases immunizations can cause adverse events, such as oral polio vaccine causing paralysis. Current scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis of causation for more-common disorders such as autism.[1] Although the hypotheses that vaccines cause autism are biologically implausible, it would be hard to study scientifically whether autism is less common in children who do not follow recommended vaccination schedules, due to the ethics of basing experiments on withholding vaccines from children, and due to the likely differences in health care seeking behaviors of undervaccinated children.[31] [edit] Vaccine overload Vaccine overload is the assertion that giving many vaccines at once may overwhelm or weaken a child's immune system, and lead to adverse effects. It has been presented as a cause for autism. Although no scientific evidence supports this idea, it has caused many parents to delay or avoid immunizing their children.[32] The idea has several flaws.[31] For example, common childhood conditions such as fevers and middle ear infections pose a much greater challenge to the immune system than vaccines do.[33] Also, because of changes in vaccine formulation, the number of immunological components in the fourteen vaccines administered to U.S. children in 2009 is less than 10% of what it was in the seven vaccines given in 1980.[31] Numerous studies have tested the assertion that "vaccine overload" damages the immune system, generally by studying whether vaccination increases the risk of acquiring other (non-vaccine-preventable) infectious diseases. These studies have repeatedly found that vaccine burden does not compromise overall immunity.[34] The lack of evidence supporting the vaccine overload hypothesis, combined with these findings directly contradicting it, have led to the conclusion that currently recommended vaccine programs do not "overload" or weaken the immune system.[35] [edit] Thiomersal Main article: Thiomersal controversy In 1999, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) asked vaccine makers to remove the organomercury compound thiomersal from vaccines as quickly as possible, and thiomersal has been phased out of U.S. and European vaccines, except for some preparations of influenza vaccine.[36] The CDC and the AAP followed the precautionary principle, which assumes that there is no harm in exercising caution even if it later turns out to be unwarranted, but their 1999 action sparked confusion and controversy that has diverted attention and resources away from efforts to determine the causes of autism.[36] Since 2000, the thiomersal in child vaccines has been alleged to contribute to autism, and thousands of parents in the United States have pursued legal compensation from a federal fund.[37] A 2004 Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee favored rejecting any causal relationship between thiomersal-containing vaccines and autism.[38] Currently there is no accepted scientific evidence that exposure to thiomersal is a factor in causing autism.[39] [edit] MMR vaccine Main article: MMR vaccine controversy In the UK, the MMR vaccine was the subject of controversy after publication in The Lancet of a 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield, et al., reporting a study of 12 children mostly with autism spectrum disorders with onset soon after administration of the vaccine.[40] During a 1998 press conference, Wakefield suggested that giving children the vaccines in three separate doses would be safer than a single vaccination. This suggestion was not supported by the paper, and several subsequent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show any association between the vaccine and autism.[41] It later emerged that Wakefield had received funding from litigants against vaccine manufacturers and that Wakefield had not informed colleagues or medical authorities of his conflict of interest;[42] had this been known, publication in The Lancet would not have taken place in the way that it did.[43] Wakefield has been heavily criticized on scientific grounds and for triggering a decline in vaccination rates,[44] as well as on ethical grounds for the way the research was conducted.[45] In 2009 The Sunday Times reported that Wakefield had manipulated patient data and misreported results in his 1998 paper, creating the appearance of a link with autism.[46] In 2004 the MMR-and-autism interpretation of the paper was formally retracted by 10 of Wakefield's 12 co-authors.[47] The CDC,[48] the IOM of the National Academy of Sciences,[49] and the UK National Health Service[50] have all concluded that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. A systematic review by the Cochrane Library concluded that there is no credible link between the MMR vaccine and autism, that MMR has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, that the lack of confidence in MMR has damaged public health, and that design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies are largely inadequate.[2] A special court convened in the United States to review claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled on 12 February 2009 that parents of autistic children are not entitled to compensation in their contention that certain vaccines caused autism in their children.[51] [edit] Prenatal infection There is evidence that schizophrenia is associated with prenatal exposure to rubella, influenza, and toxoplasmosis infection. For example, one study found a seven-fold increased risk of schizophrenia when mothers were exposed to influenza in the first trimester of gestation. This may have public health implications, as strategies for preventing infection include vaccination, antibiotics, and simple hygiene.[52] When weighing the benefits of protecting the woman and fetus from influenza against the potential risk of vaccine-induced antibodies that could conceivably contribute to schizophrenia, influenza vaccination for women of reproductive age still makes sense, but it is not known whether vaccination during pregnancy helps or harms.[53] The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend routine flu shots for pregnant women, for several reasons:[54] their risk for serious influenza-related medical complications during the last two trimesters; their greater rates for flu-related hospitalizations compared to nonpregnant women; the possible transfer of maternal anti-influenza antibodies to children, protecting the children from the flu; and several studies that found no harm to pregnant women or their children from the vaccinations. Despite this recommendation, only 16% of healthy pregnant U.S. women surveyed in 2005 had been vaccinated against the flu.[54] [edit] Aluminum Aluminum compounds are used as immunologic adjuvants to increase the effectiveness of many vaccines.[55] Although the quantities of aluminum ingested in this way are much smaller than the quantities ingested from other sources such as infant formula,[56] questions have been raised about the safety of aluminum used in vaccines.[57] In some cases these compounds have been associated with redness, itching, and low-grade fever,[55] and aluminum as such is considered neurotoxic for humans, but its use in vaccines has not been associated with serious adverse events.[58] In some cases aluminum-containing vaccines are associated with macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF), localized microscopic lesions containing aluminum salts that persist up to 8 years. However, recent case-controlled studies have found no specific clinical symptoms in individuals with biopsies showing MMF, and there is no evidence that aluminum-containing vaccines are a serious health risk or justify changes to immunization practice.[58] [edit] Individual liberty Further information: Vaccination policy Compulsory vaccination policies have provoked opposition at various times from people who say that governments should not infringe on the freedom of an individual to choose medications, even if the choice increases the risk of disease to themselves and others.[3][59] If a vaccination program successfully reduces the disease threat, it may reduce the perceived risk of disease enough so that an individual's optimal strategy is to refuse vaccination at coverage levels below those optimal for the community.[60] If many exemptions are granted to mandatory vaccination rules, the resulting free rider problem may cause loss of herd immunity, substantially increasing risks even to vaccinated individuals.[61] [edit] Religion Main article: Vaccination and religion Vaccination has been opposed on religious grounds ever since it was introduced, even when vaccination is not compulsory. Some Christian opponents argued, when vaccination was first becoming widespread, that if God had decreed that someone should die of smallpox, it would be a sin to thwart God's will via vaccination.[62] Religious opposition continues to the present day, on various grounds, raising ethical difficulties when the number of unvaccinated children threatens harm to the entire population.[61] Many governments allow parents to opt out of their children's otherwise-mandatory vaccinations for religious reasons; some parents falsely claim religious beliefs to get vaccination exemptions.[63] [edit] Alternative medicine Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies that oppose vaccination and have practitioners who voice their opposition. These include anthroposophy, some elements of the chiropractic community, non-medically trained homoeopaths, and naturopaths.[10] Historically, chiropractic strongly opposed vaccination based on its belief that all diseases were traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore could not be affected by vaccines; Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."[64] Vaccination remains controversial within chiropractic.[65] Although most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects,[64] antivaccination sentiment is espoused by what appears to be a minority of chiropractors.[65] The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractic Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease.[65] While the Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination,[64] a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% against, vaccinating themselves or their children.[66] Although most chiropractic colleges try to teach about vaccination responsibly, several have faculty who seem to stress negative views.[65] A survey of a 1999–2000 cross section of students of Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, which does not formally teach antivaccination views, reported that fourth-year students opposed vaccination more strongly than first-years, with 29.4% of fourth-years opposing vaccination.[67] Several surveys have shown that some practitioners of homeopathy, particularly homeopaths without any medical training, advise patients against vaccination.[68] For example, a survey of registered homeopaths in Austria found that only 28% considered immunization to be an important preventive measure, and 83% of homeopaths surveyed in Sydney, Australia did not recommend vaccination.[10] Many practitioners of naturopathy also oppose vaccination.[10] [edit] Financial motives Critics of vaccines state that the profit motive explains why vaccination is required, and that vaccine makers cover up or suppress information, or generate misinformation, about safety or effectiveness.[3] Some vaccine critics allegedly have financial motives for criticizing vaccines.[45] Legal counsel and expert witnesses employed in anti-vaccine cases may be motivated by profit.[69] In the late 20th century, vaccines were a product with low profit margins.[70] The number of companies involved in vaccine manufacture declined, with only Merck, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi continuing major production. In addition to low profits and liability risks, manufacturers complained about low prices paid for vaccines by the CDC and other U.S. government agencies.[71] In the early 21st century the vaccine market greatly improved with the approval of the vaccine Prevnar (a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine), along with a small number of other highly-priced blockbuster vaccines such as Gardasil and Pediarix that each provided sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008.[70] [edit] Dispute resolution Main article: Vaccine court The U.S. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created to provide a federal no-fault system for compensating vaccine-related injuries or death. It is funded by a 75 cent excise tax on vaccines sold in the country and was established after a scare in the 1980s over the DPT vaccine: even though claims of side effects were later generally discredited, large jury awards had been given to some claimants of DPT vaccine injuries, and most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production. Claims against vaccine manufacturers must be heard first in the vaccine court.[37] By 2008 the fund had paid out 2,114 awards totaling $1.7 billion.[72] Thousands of cases of autism-related claims are pending before the court, and have not yet been resolved.[37] In 2008 the government conceded one case concerning a child who had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder and whose autism-like symptoms came after five simultaneous injections against nine diseases.[73] [edit] History Edward JennerReligious arguments against inoculation were advanced even before the work of Edward Jenner; for example, in a 1772 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation" the English theologian Rev. Edward Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation".[62] Some anti-vaccinationists still base their stance against vaccination with reference to their religious beliefs.[74] After Jenner's work, vaccination became widespread in the United Kingdom in the early 1800s.[75] Variolation, which had preceded vaccination, was banned in 1840 because of its greater risks. Public policy and successive Vaccination Acts first encouraged vaccination and then made it mandatory for all infants in 1853, with the highest penalty for refusal being a prison sentence. This was a significant change in the relationship between the British state and its citizens, and there was a public backlash. After an 1867 law extended the requirement to age 14 years, its opponents focused concern on infringement of individual freedom, and eventually a 1898 law allowed for conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination.[3] In the 19th century, the city of Leicester in the UK achieved a high level of isolation of smallpox cases and great reduction in spread compared to other areas. The mainstay of Leicester's approach to conquering smallpox was to decline vaccination and put their public funds into sanitary improvements.[76] Bigg's account of the public health procedures in Leicester, presented as evidence to the Royal Commission, refers to erysipelas, an infection of the superficial tissues which was a complication of any surgical procedure. In the U.S., President Thomas Jefferson took a close interest in vaccination, alongside Dr. Waterhouse, chief physician at Boston. Jefferson encouraged the development of ways to transport vaccine material through the Southern states, which included measures to avoid damage by heat, a leading cause of ineffective batches. Smallpox outbreaks were contained by the latter half of the 19th century, a development widely attributed to vaccination of a large portion of the population.[77] Vaccination rates fell after this decline in smallpox cases, and the disease again became epidemic in the 1870s (see smallpox). 1904 cartoon opposing the mandatory vaccination law in Brazil. "The Congress", depicted as a Roman Caesar, threatens "the People", in rags, with a sharp object and shackles.Anti-vaccination activity increased again in the U.S. in the late 19th century. After a visit to New York in 1879 by William Tebb, a prominent British anti-vaccinationist, the Anti-Vaccination Society of America was founded. The New England Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League was formed in 1882, and the Anti-Vaccination League of New York City in 1885. John Pitcairn, the wealthy founder of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (now PPG Industries) emerged as a major financer and leader of the American anti-vaccination movement. On March 5, 1907, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he delivered an address to the Committee on Public Health and Sanitation of the Pennsylvania General Assembly criticizing vaccination.[78] He later sponsored the National Anti-Vaccination Conference, which, held in Philadelphia on October, 1908, led to the creation of The Anti-Vaccination League of America. When the League was organized later that month, Pitcairn was chosen to be its first president.[79] On December 1, 1911, he was appointed by Pennsylvania Governor John K. Tener to the Pennsylvania State Vaccination Commission, and subsequently authored a detailed report strongly opposing the Commission's conclusions.[79] He continued to be a staunch opponent of vaccination until his death in 1916. In November 1904, in response to years of inadequate sanitation and disease, followed by a poorly-explained public health campaign led by the renowned Brazilian public health official Oswaldo Cruz, citizens and military cadets in Rio de Janeiro arose in a Revolta da Vacina or Vaccine Revolt. Riots broke out on the day a vaccination law took effect; vaccination symbolized the most feared and most tangible aspect of a public health plan that included other features such as urban renewal that many had opposed for years.[80] In the early 19th century, the anti-vaccination movement drew members from across a wide range of society; more recently, it has been reduced to a predominantly middle-class phenomenon.[81] Arguments against vaccines in the 21st century are often similar to those of 19th-century anti-vaccinationists URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccinationist

positive: Lots of Problems I want to warn you in advance folks that tonight I am going to do a lot of reading; I'm going to quote a lot of different people, and I want you to understand from the start that I am not making up anything from what I'm going to be saying here tonight, but that everything I mention here is scientific fact which I have discovered in my own research. I make this warning because you are not going to want to believe what you are about to hear. I'm going to talk to you tonight about vaccinations. Most of you out there have probably received some form of vaccination at one point or another in your life, or you may have children who are in the process of receiving vaccinations. Well, I have some very bad news for you folks; you, once again, have been conned. I am sure, that you, like myself, have been raised to believe that doctors know what is best for you, that everything that comes out of the medical industry is done to help you and that everything that doctors do is safe and well-tested and proven, vaccinations included. unfortunately, we have all been lied to, and once again, me and all of you are responsible because we would rather put the responsibility of our health into someone else's hands, instead of taking charge of our own lives and our own well-being. I'm going to say this bluntly, so that it will make an impact on you and so that you will hear me. You and your children are being poisoned, folks, and you are making pharmaceutical companies incredibly rich, and you are also unknowingly helping along the progress of what is going to become the greatest epidemic that the human race has ever seen, namely AIDS. With ignorance and foolish trust in the experts, you have been had. Now, the theory of vaccinations is based on four basic principles. Number one: Vaccinations are relatively harmless; Number two: Vaccinations are effective; Number three: Vaccinations are responsible for the decline of infectious diseases, and Number four: Vaccinations are the only practical and dependable way to prevent both epidemics and potentially dangerous diseases. But, ladies and gentlemen, every single one of these assumptions is totally false. The theory of vaccinations states that by giving a person a mild form of the disease, by the use of an immunizing agent, specific antibodies are produced that will protect the organism when the real thing comes along. it sounds plausible enough, but it is totally wrong. No greater lie has ever been told to you, and believe it or not, vaccinations will not protect you from any disease and you can still get, and many people are getting measles, small pox, polio, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and other common diseases even after they have been vaccinated. This is a matter of public record, and I will give you some statistics later on that will truly shock you. Let me read you a little portion from Walene James' book, Immunizations; the Reality Behind the Myth. But before that, write down this author and title; that's Walene James, W-a-l-e-n- e, last name James, J-a-m-e-s, and the title is Immunizations; the Reality Behind the Myth. Most of what I'm reading from here tonight comes right out of that book, and it's very well footnoted and documented, but to save time, I'm not going to read you all the references, but you can get the book and you can check it out and you can check out the references. Here we go... Besides introducing foreign proteins and even live viruses into the bloodstream, each vaccine has its own preservative, neutralizer and carrying agent, none of which are indigenous to the body. For instance, the triple antigen, DPT, which is the Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus vaccine, contains the following poisons: Formaldehyde, Mercury, and aluminum phosphate, and that's from the Physician's Desk Reference, 1980. The packet insert accompanying the vaccine, lists the following poisons: aluminum potassium sulfate, a mercury derivative called Thimersol and sodium phosphate. The packet insert for the polio vaccine lists monkey kidney cell culture, lactalbumin hydrozylate, antibiotics and calf serum. The packet insert for the MMR vaccine produced by Merck Sharp and Dhome which is for measles, mumps and rubella lists chick embryo and neomycin, which is a mixture of antibiotics. Now chick embryo, monkey kidney cells and calf serum are all foreign proteins which are biological substances composed of animal cells which because they enter directly into the bloodstream can become part of our genetic material. They can become part of our genetic material, folks, remember that, it's going to be important later. These foreign proteins, as well as other carriers and reaction products of a vaccine are potential allergens and can produce anaphylactic shock. Folks, anaphylactic shock is a nice word for brain damage. Reading on... Another problem with vaccines is that they go directly into the bloodstream without filtering by the liver. Dr. William Albrecht tells us the following, "If you take water into your system as a drink, it goes into your bloodstream directly from the stomach, but if you take in fats, they move in through your lymphatic system. When you take other substances like carbohydrates and proteins, they go into the intestines and from there are passed into the liver as the body's chemical filter. Before they go out into the blood and circulate in the body. Most of your vaccination serums and proteins are not filtered by the liver, consequently vaccinations can be a terrific shock to the system. Injections of foreign substances like viruses, toxins and foreign proteins into the blood stream via vaccinations, have been associated with diseases and disorders to the blood, brain, nervous system and skin. Rare diseases such as atypical measles and monkey fever as well as such well- known disorders as premature aging, allergies, etc. have been associated with vaccines. Also linked to immunizations are such well-known diseases as cancer, leukemia, paralysis, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and sudden infant death syndrome." Folks, I'm not making this up. This is mostly out of Physician's Desk Reference, 1980, and Organic Consumer Reports of 1977. Now, let me tell you some of the effects of vaccinations that the medical profession admits to as expected side effects of various vaccines, again from Walene James' book. The insert for the DTP vaccine, which is for Diphtheria, Pertussis and Tetanus, under side effects and adverse reactions are listed the following: 1.Severe temperature elevations 105 degrees or higher. 2.Collapse with rapid recovery. 3.Collapse followed by prolonged prostration in shock-like state. 4.Screaming episodes. 5.Isolated convulsions with or without fever. 6.Frank encephalopathy, which is brain damage, with changes in the level of consciousness, focal neurological signs, convulsions with or without permanent neurological and/or mental deficit. Nice big words,folks, but it's talking about brain damage, shock and severe temperature. The occurrence of sudden infant death syndrome, which is SIDS, that's the acronym, has been reported following the DPT vaccine. Now, the whooping cough vaccine which is a component in the DPT vaccine has such a high percentage of neurological complications, including death, that several physicians have decided not to give it at all. And that is quoting Dr. Robert Mendelsohn. He goes on to say, Dr. Edward B. Shaw, a distinguished university of California physician has stated in the Journal of the American Medical Association in March, 1975, "I doubt that the decrease in pertussis is due to the vaccine, which itself is a very poor antigen, and an extremely dangerous one, with many very serious complications." Reading on from Walene James' book: "A recent study at UCLA estimates that as many as 1 in every 13 children had persistent, high-pitched crying after the DTP shot. This may be indicative of brain damage in the recipient child," says Dr. Bobby Young. And later on he says, "You know, we start off with healthy infants, and we pop them not once, but three or four times with a vaccine. The probability of causing damage is the same each time. My greatest fear is that very few of them escape some kind of neurological damage out of this." An even more recent figure on the reaction to the DTP vaccine indicates that 1 in every 100 children react with convulsions or collapse or high-pitched screaming. One out of every 3 of these, that is 1 out of every 300 will remain permanently damaged. Now, according to the testimony of the Assistant Secretary of Health, Edward Grant, Jr., before the u.S. Senate Committee on May 3rd, 1985, every year 35,000 children suffer neurological damage because of the DTP vaccine. Bet your doctor didn't tell you that, folks. It just makes you wonder why he never told you this, doesn't it. It also makes you want to run out and get your kids vaccinated, doesn't it? Well, it gets worse. Here are some of the long term effects of vaccines. This brings us to perhaps the most serious charge against vaccination, the subtle long-term effects. And again, I'm reading from Walene James' book. Evidence suggests that immunizations damage the immune system itself. By focusing exclusively on increased antibody production, which is only one aspect of the immune process, immunizations isolate dysfunction and allow it to substitute for the entire immune response, because vaccines trick the body so that it will no longer initiate a generalized response. They accomplished what the entire immune system seems to have been evolved to prevent. That is, they place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it. The long-term persistence of viruses and other foreign proteins within the cells of the immune system has been implicated in a number of chronic and degenerative diseases. In 1976 Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers university addressed science writers at a seminar of the American Cancer Society, and pointed out the following. "Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio and so forth may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form latent pro viruses in cells throughout the body. These latent pro viruses could be molecules in search of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Parkinson's disease, and perhaps cancer." Remember that, folks, seeding humans with RNA to form latent pro viruses in cells throughout the body. That's important. Moving on... Live viruses, the primary antigenic material of vaccines, (don't be scared by antigenic, folks, it just means any agent that will stimulate antibody production) the primary antigenic material of vaccines, which are live viruses, are capable of surviving or remaining latent in the host cell for years, without provoking acute disease. They attach their own genetic material as an extra particle or episome to the chromosomes of the host cell and replicate along with it. This allows the host cell to continue its own normal functions for the most part, but imposes on it additional instructions for the synthesis of viral proteins. This presence of antigenic material in the host cell can not fail to provoke auto immune phenomenon, such as herpes, shingles, warts, tumors, both benign and malignant, and diseases of the central nervous system such as various forms of paralysis and inflammation of the brain. So what we're actually talking about here, folks, is viral genetic material being incorporated into your cells, and laying the groundwork for auto immune diseases. And we're going to get into this right now. Reading on... If the components of the immune system were designed to help the organism discriminate self from non-self as a number of researchers believe, then latent viruses, auto immune phenomenon and cancer would seem to represent different aspects of chronic immune failure, wherein the immune system cannot recognize its own cells as unambiguously its own, or eliminate parasites as unequivocally foreign. By the same token, we might say that the inability of the immune system to distinguish between harmful and harmless substances in the environment, such as allergies, constitutes another aspect of chronic immune failure. Folks, what they're saying here is that vaccines encourage chronic immune failure, by virtue of the genetic material that you get shot up into your bloodstream whenever you get vaccinated. The well-known author, lecturer and health activist, Betty Lee Morales, writes that her parents who were naturopathic doctors predicted 50 years ago that cancer would be epidemic in her lifetime as a result of mass vaccinations. Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, who is an authority on vaccinations, and truly one of the most heroic medical doctors in this century... [Because he is telling the truth]... extends this idea when he says, "I think that most of the degenerative diseases are going to be shown to be due to x-rays, drugs and polluted food, additives, preservatives, and immunizations. With all of our discoveries about the effects on the human body of ingesting substances not found in nature, one thing we ought to know by now, is that many of these toxins, and vaccinations are toxins by definition, kill slowly, or kill only after the lapse of significant periods of time. And that's a quote from Nicholas von Hoffman in his Washington Post column. Now from around the world. From West Germany, we read of more vaccination casualties. A reader writing to Organic Consumer Report, June 13, 1968 mentions an article which appeared in Medical World which stated that about 3,000 children each year suffer varying degrees of brain damage as a result of the small pox vaccination. This same writer mentions another medical journal in which Dr. G. Kotel reported that in the previous year, small pox vaccination damaged the hearing of 3,296 children in W. Germany and 71 became totally deaf. Hearing loss was reported by Dr. William Albrecht, who said in the article that I quoted earlier, that a typhoid shot he received made him stone deaf in one ear as well as deathly ill at the time of the shot. Now listen to this, folks, because this is where the big con starts. In case after case of deaths which are really deaths from vaccinations, the cause of death is never listed as the vaccine. Asthma, however, acute lymphatic leukemia, streptococcal cellulitis, tubercular meningitis, and infantile paralysis are just a few of the fake causes of death listed on the death certificate of people who are dying from vaccinations. So much for these poisons being safe, now let's see how effective they are. Statistics from around the world show unequivocally that infectious diseases like small pox, diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, etc., began to disappear long before vaccinations ever came on the scene. Now I'm quoting World Health Statistics Annual 1973-1976, Volume II. "There has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries." I'll bet you didn't know that, folks, and I'll bet you didn't know this either, but I do know this from my research and from my own experimentation; personal hygiene and diet stop diseases, folks, not injecting virulent free-floating genetic material into your veins with all kinds of poisonous cancerous carrying agents which is what vaccines are. I'm going to now give you a key as to why you've been conned into believing that vaccines do stop diseases. I'm looking at a chart from Australian Nurses Journal from June of 1981. A top chart shows a curve of deaths per million children under 15 attributable to scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles. We're looking at a graph here. The graph runs the years from 1860 to 1965, and the death rate just goes down, having peaked in 1860 at 6,000 fatalities per million, and bottoming out near zero in 1965. So, it's just a downward sloping line going down from 6000 to 0 from 1860 to 1965. It looks really impressive, like could all of these communicable diseases have been wiped out. However, the only problem is that immunizations were introduced into this picture in the 1940s when the number of fatalities per million had already dropped from 6000 to 1000, thus from looking at the nearly straight line of the curve, you see that the vaccinations did absolutely nothing, because there is no alteration in the rate of disappearance of these diseases from the vaccinations, at the time when the vaccinations first started to be administered. A similar chart below it refers to tuberculosis and typhoid from 1900 to 1960, and again the line's a straight slopes downward, and you can see that the epidemics simply ran their course naturally, and are totally unaffected by the vaccination programs, but the medical industry wants you to believe that vaccines are what wipe out diseases and that is totally a bold-faced lie. If you've never read the book, How To Lie With Statistics, by Daryl Huff, I strongly suggest you do because you will get a much better idea of how you've been tricked. Now, I want to tell you about a much bigger lie that you've been fed. I want to talk to you about polio, because polio is a disease that most people think was the great success story of vaccinations. Let me read again from Walene James' book. Jonas Salk, the discoverer of the Salk polio vaccine has been called the 20th century miracle maker, and the savior of countless lives. We read glowing reports of the dramatic decrease in polio in the u.S. as a result of the Salk vaccine. For instance, the Virginia State Department of Health distributes a folder which tells us that polio vaccines reduced the incidence of polio in the u.S. from 18,000 cases in 1954 to fewer than 20 in 1973-78. A recent article in Modern Maturity states that in 1953 there were 15,000 some odd cases of polio in the u.S. and by 1957 due to the Salk vaccine, the number had dropped to 2499. However, during the 1962 Congressional hearings on HR10541, Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics at the university of North Carolina, School of Public Health, testified that not only [now listen to this, folks...] not only did polio increase substantially after the introduction of mass and frequently compulsory immunization programs, but statistics were manipulated and statements made by the Public Health Service to give the opposite impression. You have been lied to folks. The polio vaccine caused more polio than it protected people from. Moving on... For instance, in 1957, the North Carolina Health Department made glowing claims for the efficacy of the Salk vaccine, showing how polio steadily decreased from 1953 to 1957. These figures were challenged by Dr. Fred Klenner who pointed out that it wasn't until 1955 that a single person in the state even received the polio vaccine injection. Even then, the injections were administered on a very limited basis because of the number of polio cases resulting from the vaccine. It wasn't until 1956 that polio vaccinations assumed inspiring proportions. The 61% drop in polio cases in 1954 was credited to the Salk vaccine, when it wasn't even in the state yet. Nevertheless, by 1957, when the massive vaccination program had taken place, polio was again on the increase. Digest that for a minute, folks, let Bill flip the tape over, and we'll be back in a minute......... Okay, back to the Salk vaccine. Other ways polio statistics were manipulated to give the impression of Salk vaccine success follow: 1.Redefinition of an epidemic. More cases were required to refer to polio as an epidemic after the introduction of the Salk vaccine. In other words, you needed 20 cases per hundred thousand to have an epidemic before the vaccine was introduced, and after the vaccine they changed that number to 35 cases per hundred thousand per year to require the definition of epidemic. 2.Redefinition of the disease. In order to qualify for classification as paralytic polio mytolitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. Now that's after they started the vaccination programs, folks. Before the vaccination program started in 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. What this means folks, is that if you walked into a doctor's office before the vaccine was introduced, and you said, "Oh, I have paralytic symptoms here. I've had them for about 2 weeks." They'd say, "Oh, that's polio. You've had it for more than a day." But after the vaccine, if after the vaccine, you walked into that same doctor's office, and you say, "Oh, I've had these symptoms for 2 or 3 weeks, now." They'd say, "Oh, wait two months, then we can call it polio." That's how the statistics get manipulated, folks. Moving on... Doctor Greenberg said, "This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely paralytic poliomyelitis, with a longer lasting paralysis. The third way statistics were manipulated was mislabeling. After the introduction of the Salk vaccine, cocsacci virus and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis," explained Dr. Greenberg, "and in 1954 large numbers of these cases were undoubtedly mislabeled as paralytic polio." Now, another way of reducing the incidence of disease by way of semantics or statistical artifacts, as Dr. Greenberg calls it, is to simply reclassify the disease. Now, I have my own version of this here, folks. From the Los Angeles County Health Index Morbidity and Mortality Reportable Disease Data, I'm looking at a chart of cases of viral or aseptic meningitis and polio from 1955 to 1966, and lo and behold, what do I find. From 1955 to 1966 cases of polio dropped from 273 cases to 5. Ah, but, the number of cases of aseptic meningitis from 1955 to 1966 increases in almost the same proportion from 50 cases to 256 cases. They simply changed the name, same disease, and you thought polio was wiped out at that point. Now, folks, the reality is this. Diseases, like everything else in nature, follow cycles. They come in, they reach their peak and leave, and no vaccination program on Earth has ever been able to change that. Polio disappeared in Europe between 1940 and 1950 without any vaccination programs, whatsoever. In 1958, Israel had a massive type 1 polio epidemic after mass immunizations. And from the same hearings on HR10541, that I talked about earlier, we find out that Massachusetts had a type 2 polio outbreak and there were more paralytic cases in people who were triple vaccinated than in the people who were unvaccinated. Surprise, surprise! You thought the vaccine protected you, didn't you? Well, most of those cases of polio came from the vaccination. And that's fact, folks. Even Jonas Salk has admitted it now that more than two-thirds of the polio in this country [then] came from his vaccine. From Coutler and Fisher's book, DPT: A Shot in The Dark, we learn: There is a natural tendency for doctors to under-report whooping cough when it occurs in a vaccinated population, and to over report it when it appears in an unvaccinated population. Which means that if you go into a doctor's office and you are allegedly vaccinated, and you have whooping cough, they won't call it whooping cough. They'll call it something else, and that's how they keep all our statistics nice and safe and clean. Same thing's been done with measles, folks; reading from Walene James' book: 1.From 1958 to 1966, the number of measles cases reported each year dropped from 800,000 to 200,000. The drug industry claimed this was due to vaccinations. However, there are some very interesting discrepancies. Number one, the incidence of measles had already been declining steadily for the past 100 years and was totally unaffected by the immunization programs for measles. 2.It wasn't until 1967 that the live virus vaccine, which is presently used, was introduced, because the killed virus vaccine which came out in 1963 was found to be ineffective and harmful, and yet, the vaccine which was good, and which they alleged did the job, did not even come out during the time that they are trying to take credit for wiping out the diseases in. 3.A survey of pediatricians in New York City revealed that only 3.2% of them were actually reporting measles cases to the Health Department, and 4.in 1974 the Center for Disease Control determined that there were 36 cases of measles in all of Georgia. But the Georgia State Surveillance System reported 660 cases that same year. Folks, you can't believe anything you read, because every single statistic out there has been manipulated and twisted, and that's a fact that I can tell you unequivocally, from my own research. Let me read a little bit about rubella here: A large proportion of children are found to be sero-negative (which means they show no evidence of immunity in blood tests) 4-5 years after receiving the rubella vaccination. In another study, 80% of army recruits who had been immunized against rubella, came down with the disease. Once again, folks, evidence that these vaccinations will not even protect you against the disease they are supposed to protect you from. And it goes on to say here that the same results were shown in a consecutive study that took place in an institution for the mentally retarded. Now, could the real reason vaccination promise and performance seem so contradictory be that the vaccination premise itself is faulty? As stated earlier, the theory of vaccination postulates that the use of immunizing agents produces a mild form of the disease for which specific antibodies are formed that will protect the body when the real thing comes along. But as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't work that way and Dr. Alec Burton, who is another brave doctor out there, points out the following: That there are children with what is called A Gamma Globulin Anemia [which means that they cannot produce antibodies], and yet these same children develop and recover from measles and other diseases as spontaneously as other children. Now what this means is that there are children out there who can't produce antibodies. Nevertheless, antibodies are the things that vaccines are supposed to stimulate in you against the particular diseases they're designed for, and yet, as shown here by Dr. Alec Burton, even without those antibodies, you will get cured or you will naturally become healthy again after having this disease without any vaccination. So, folks, so much for the idea that vaccinations are the only way to protect you, and the basic premise that they are built on, namely stimulating antibodies, is totally wrong. Okay. Another quote from Walene James' book. The mystery begins to unravel when we look at the work of Drs. Dettman and Kalikerinos. In one of their articles, they quote Dr. Wendall Bellfield of San Jose, California, who says the following. "Antibodies are not needed when the primary immunological defense which is leukocytes and interferon, etc. is functioning at maximum capacity. Interferon production appears to occur only when the ascorbate level [and ascorbate is just a big word for vitamin C] and the primary defense components are at low levels, thereby permitting some viruses to survive the primary defense. What this basically means, folks, is that the premise that vaccinations are built upon are totally false. Vaccinations are allegedly designed to stimulate antibody production for the specific diseases they're designed for, and yet, as Dr. Burton showed earlier, antibodies are not even necessary for your body to properly and effectively combat diseases. In short, folks, this means that vaccines do not protect you against the diseases they are supposed to protect you from. Diseases, in this day and age have become self-fulfilling prophecy because doctors tend not to diagnose specific diseases if the subject has already been vaccinated against those specific diseases. Vaccinations, unquestionably, do not guarantee you any protection, their side effects are disastrous, and often worse than the disease, itself, and worse still, the premise that vaccines are built upon, are pure, unadulterated nonsense. You've been taught that antibodies, are the little shock troops of your immune system, that they go out and kill all the nasty germs that are attacking you day in and day out, and the reality, however, is that antibody production is not your primary immunological defense, and that the idea of stimulating them by injecting you with poisons, serums, and free-floating genetic material, and all kinds of poisonous agents and stabilizers and vaccines, is completely absurd. Okay, let me read you a little bit about immunity here, because it's going to become important over the next few minutes in what I'm talking about. When immunity to a disease is acquired naturally, [and again, from Walene James' book] the possibility of reinfection is only 3.2%, according to journalist Marion Thompson. If the immunity comes from a vaccination, however, the chance of reinfection is 80%. Did you hear that, folks? Eighty percent chance of reinfection from unnaturally acquired immunity from vaccinations. Dr. William Howard Hay has pointed out that in any epidemic of communicable disease, only a small percentage of the population contracts the disease. Most people are naturally immune, so if a man who has been vaccinated does not contract the disease that really proves absolutely nothing. If he had not been vaccinated, the chances are he would not have contracted the disease, anyway. We have no way of knowing. Further, Just because you give somebody a vaccine and maybe get an antibody reaction doesn't mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. And that's from Dr. Dettman in an interview with Jay Patrick. Natural diseases are a lot safer than acute artificial complications from vaccinations. And that's a quote from Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, whom I mentioned earlier. However, perhaps the strongest statement against the effectiveness of artificial immunization comes from Dr. William Howard Hay. It is nonsense to think that you can inject pus, which is most of the serums that we're talking about, into a little child, and in any way improve its health. There is no such thing as immunization, but we sell it under that name. If we could, by any means, build up a natural resistance to disease through these artificial means, I would applaud it to the echo, but we cannot do it. The body has its own methods of defense. These defense methods depend upon the vitality of the body at the time. If it is vital enough, the body will resist all infections. If it isn't vital enough, it won't and you can't change the vitality of the body for the better by introducing poisons of any kind into it. And those poisons of any kind he's referring to are vaccines. Vaccinations are poisons, they do not protect you, they are weakening our immune systems, and my research indicates that allergies are the direct result of large scale immunization programs foisted upon us in the last fifty years, and isn't it weird how right now, there is such a big push on to force every child and every person in the u.S. to be vaccinated for all kinds of diseases. Thanks, Bill Clinton. Now, be logical, folks. The only person you put at risk, even by the medical industry's own stupid logic is yourself, if you refuse to be vaccinated. Think about it; if everyone else is vaccinated, then they shouldn't get the disease, right? Then the only person that you're putting at risk by not being vaccinated is you. Makes sense. Then how does the government dare to justify forced vaccination? I can assure you that even without any intentionally created diseases, many Americans will be dying over the next ten to fifteen years, and AIDS will be blamed. Be careful. Wouldn't it be ironic if AIDS as we know it, did not exist at all. >From my own research I can tell you with complete confidence that the vaccines being foisted upon us can weaken our immune systems to the degree that AIDS-like symptoms and reactions will be all too common with or without AIDS. Do you remember what I read earlier about the genetic material being introduced into our bloodstreams from vaccinations, and producing auto-immune diseases. Folks, we don't even need a government-created disease to have massive epidemic rates of auto-immune failure, because that's what these vaccines are promoting. Now you've been conned another way, and this is by the word virus. Because you think you know what a virus is, and you do not. Rest assured viruses are not what you think they are, and I'm gonna quote you a little bit more from Walene , to give you a hint. All living organisms, including bacteria and viruses contain genetic material, which is DNA and RNA. In fact, live viruses themselves are genetic messages. Live bacteria and viruses can transfer their genetic information through animal cells, including human cells which are taken up by other cells in the body. Although the body generally will not make antibodies against its own tissue, it appears that slight modifications of the antigenic character of tissues will cause it to appear foreign to the immune system, and thus a fair target for antibody production. [Remember what I said earlier, about how vaccines give us genetic material that can incorporate into our cells.] Thus vaccines lay the foundation for auto-immune diseases and other disorders of the immune system such as rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatic fever, lupus, sclerodema, and a lot of other nasty diseases. It is reasonable to assume that our contemporary "epidemic of allergies" has at least some of its roots in the practice of vaccination. And again, that's from Walene James. Now beware, folks, I have saved the best for last. The Clinton Administration has buckled under the pressure to implement a stepped up mass vaccination program. Every day I see stories of the various state laws forcing Americans to inject these poisons into their veins and don't buckle to the pressure, because you don't have to because no one, absolutely no one, can force you to inject anything into your blood, and no one can force you or your children to be vaccinated. I've avoided vaccinations, and you can, too. They will threaten you with not letting your kids go to school, or not get a job, or anything else they can think of, but it is all, excuse this folks, it's all bullshit. However, if enough people do not speak up now, we may all be forced to take in these horrible poisons. Often, all it takes to avoid vaccinations, is a simple form you can type up by yourself, referring to Senate bill 942 #3380, under the title, Exemption From Immunizations, and let me read that bill right now, it's really interesting. 3380. Immunization of a person shall not be required for admission to a school or other institution if the guardian parent or adult has assumed responsibility for his or her custody or care in the case of a minor, or the person seeking admission themselves, files with the governing authority a letter or affidavit stating that such vaccination is contrary to his or her belief. The other thing you can do is go to your doctor and ask for a vaccination guarantee. Basically, what you're saying in this little form is that, you're guaranteeing me that this vaccination will protect me and not cause any nasty side effects, or you will give me a million dollars. And if a doctor refuses to sign that you can refuse to get the vaccination. Now, even better, there's a book written by a lawyer who's done a lot in this area and has a lot of first-hand experience in circumventing vaccination laws. It's called, Dangers of Compulsory Immunizations; How to Avoid Them Legally, by Tom Finn. Your best bet is also to get a copy of a little booklet called, Vaccinations Do Not Protect, by Eleanor McBean. Get a pen, folks. You won't find these books in Barnes and Noble. You can call 203-929-1557, that's 203-929-1557, and ask for Jo Willard, because the only place I know you can get any of the books I talked about today, is from an organization called Natural Hygiene, in Connecticut. That's 203-929-1557, and ask for Jo Willard. In the McBean book are the forms that I mentioned earlier. It'll be four bucks, or maybe ten bucks, if you get both of them. You can even learn how to travel abroad without getting vaccinated, folks. Get educated and let your representatives in Congress know, and let your family doctors know that you know what's going on, because you have to protect yourself and your kids. Your congressmen and doctors may not have any clue about any of this, and you have to educate them, because most doctors are woefully ignorant of these things, and have also, like you and me, abdicated their responsibilities for most of their life. URL: http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/vaccinations-the-hour-of-the-time.html

positive: It eliminates diseases and prevents them from returning Above all else this is a question of basic human rights. I have the right to decide whether to medicate myself or my children, and the government does not have the right to force medicate a population, especially when known dangers are present. This is not about disease eradication, it is about "Big Pharma" and the billions given to them to come up with an endless and ever increasing supply of inoculations. That being said, the yes points are highly inaccurate. Immunization does not eliminate disease. The truth is that vaccines are a deadly cocktail of foreign proteins, and there has been a dramatic increase in auto-immune diseases since mass inoculations were introduced. Some 40-50 years ago children were not vaccinated until they were ready for the first grade at age six. Neurological disorders were very uncommon then. Today, children are vaccinated at birth for HiB and begin their long vaccination-journey at 2 months of age, before the blood brain barrier is fully developed. Before the 1940s, autism was extremely rare or unheard of. Then in the mid-1940s we began a massive vaccination programs and autism was "born". At first, it only occurred in the children of wealthy parents, since vaccinations were not free or government sponsored like today. Later autism became a disease of all classes (with government-sponsored vaccine programs). Currently, the rate of autism is staggering, with some estimates as high as one in fifty-six children. Compare this with Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, a well respected American pediatrician, who has 40,000 non-vaccinated patients since the 1970's, with almost no incidents of autism. Diseases such as Polio had been on a steady decline prior to the introduction of the vaccine. According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. Infectious disease deaths in the U.S. and England declined steadily by an average of about 80% during this century (measles mortality declined over 97%) prior to vaccinations. In Great Britain, the polio epidemics peaked in 1950, and had declined 82% by the time the vaccine was introduced there in 1956 and the rate of decline remained virtually the same after vaccines were introduced. Furthermore, European countries that refused immunization for small pox and polio saw the epidemics end along with those countries that mandated it. The final point is correct. People have not experienced the dangers of disease, but we have experienced the dangers of the poisons in the vaccines. The CDC knew about the mercury in the vaccines and the dangers but decided to cover it up. Dr. Mendelsohn states the following, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease. While it is true that some once common childhood diseases have diminished or disappeared since inoculations were introduced, no one really knows why, although improved living conditions may be the reason. If immunizations were responsible for the diminishing or disappearance of these diseases in the United States, one must ask why they disappeared simultaneously in Europe, where mass immunizations did not take place." Historically, homeopathy has been more effective than "mainstream" allopathic medicine in treating and preventing disease. In a U.S. cholera outbreak in 1849, allopathic medicine saw a 48-60% death rate, while homeopathic hospitals had a documented death rate of only 3%. According to the NVIC, there are over 250 new vaccines being developed for everything from earaches to birth control to diarrhea, with about 100 of these already in clinical trials. Researchers are working on vaccine delivery through nasal sprays, mosquitoes (yes, mosquitoes), and the fruits of "transgenic" plants in which vaccine viruses are grown. If you start mandating forced immunization you are traveling down a slippery slope. Even if you are a supporter of immunizations I would hope that you would also be a supporter of the Constitution and respect the rights of the citizens to decide for themselves what goes in their bodies. Governments have always used fear to suspend the rights of the people. Your government does not have the right to force medicate, especially when they have taken away your right to sue if your child has been vaccine injured. They don't want to tell you that you have the right to opt out of immunizing your child via a waiver. Educate before you vaccinate! There is a reason that many medical personnel refuse to vaccinate themselves and their families. Ignorance is not bliss, it is dangerous! Not necessarily in some diseases like smallpox or flu the shots dont work all the time. People as americans have a right to choose if the want the vaccination or not. You take away that choice you take away what makes America america. Your wasting money on stuff that not everybody wants. The worlds econimic stabilty is going down. Soon were all gonna be third world countries. If you waste money on something that not everybody agrees on. The people that want it get it but dont force anyone to take it. What if it doesnt work? What happens if the side effects are worse then what you were trying to get away from? If you got the Chicken Pox immuization when you were little, what happen if you dont get it through childhood but adulthood? Childhood you would be a little sick and itchy but most likely not be able to remember it. Now if you were an adult you get very ill, and if your pregant it could kill your child. Just remember with all this techonolgy advancement sometimes things are better basic. Vaccines are dangerous because they can cause negative side effects. According to the ProCon article, about 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death. According to the CDC, infants (children less than one year old) are at greatest risk for adverse medical events from vaccination including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome.

positive: The strength of vaccines is an empirical question So if vaccines are good, then we should all get them to protect against infectious diseases.

positive: Vaccines cause autism. (Disclaimer: Based on my name, I'm am a Pro-Vaccinate. Just for clarification, I sided with the Affirmative because these arguments are what I think are the strongest arguments against vaccines and I wanted to do an experiment to strengthen what I'm actually siding with) According to the scientific consensus, many peer reviewed studies have found no correlation between vaccines and autism. Plus, there are no other studies that say the opposite. However, this statement is just an oversimplification that the pro vaccine movement overuses. And yes, there is evidence that vaccines cause autism, or will give you a higher risk at developing autism. Reason #1 There is evidence of vaccines causing autism. These studies have proven the connection and they are from peer reviewed journals and have great credibility. https://www.researchgate.net... http://ebm.sagepub.com... http://www.ane.pl... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://link.springer.com... This one is flawed due to the use of urine test but they were able to make this observation - "Mothers of ASD children showed a higher percentage of dental amalgam restorations compared to the mothers of healthy controls suggesting that high Hg levels in children with ASD may relate to the increased exposure to Hg from maternal dental amalgam during pregnancy and lactation." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org... https://www.researchgate.net... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...; Reason #2: Pro Vaccine studies are flawed They are considered flawed right here. http://www.ageofautism.com...

positive: are vaccines safe vaccines are safe they protect the body against diseases. they work by giving the body a mild or similar case of the disease.

positive: Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines Medical exemptions These are allowed when a child has a medical condition or allergy that may make receiving the vaccine dangerous. All 50 states allow medical exemptions. For school entry purposes, these exemptions require a physician's note supporting the medical necessity of the exemption. Religious exemptions These are allowed when immunizations are not in agreement with the parents' religious beliefs. Forty-eight of the 50 states allow these exemptions. Philosophical exemptions These are allowed when non-religious, but strongly held beliefs, prevent a parent from allowing their child to be immunized. Twenty states allow these exemptions. In certain situations an exemption can be challenged by the state. These situations include those that would put the child at a higher risk of disease than is reasonable (medical neglect) or those that would put society at risk (e.g., epidemic situations). Also, in some states, if an unvaccinated child is found to transmit a vaccine-preventable disease to someone else, the parents may be liable in a civil suit. Because vaccines are considered medically necessary (except in the medical cases mentioned above), they are considered to be "best-care" practices. Therefore, if parents choose not to immunize their children, doctors will often have them sign a statement that they have discussed the risks and benefits of the vaccines and they understand that they are taking a risk in refusing vaccines for their children. Risking disease Many people incorrectly assume that a choice not to get a vaccine is a risk-free choice. But it isn't. The choice not to get a vaccine is a choice to risk the disease that the vaccine prevents. Studies have shown that unimmunized children are more likely to get vaccine-preventable diseases if there is an outbreak than those who have been immunized. Unimmunized children will be barred from school during an outbreak to protect them from the disease. Here are some things to consider before making a decision not to immunize a child: Vaccines are considered the best way to protect your child against diseases that could cause liver damage, liver cancer, suffocation, meningitis, pneumonia, paralysis, lockjaw, seizures, brain damage, deafness, blindness, mental retardation, learning disabilities, birth defects, encephalitis or death. Vaccines are studied extensively for their safety before being recommended for children and continue to be monitored after recommendation (see How Are Vaccines Made?). Because vaccines are given to healthy children, they are held to the highest standards of safety. Vaccines are considered by some to be a civic duty because they create "herd immunity." This means that when most of the people in a community are immunized, there is less opportunity for a disease to enter the community and make people sick. Because there are members of our society that are too young, too weak, or otherwise unable to receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on "herd immunity" to keep them well. Harm to others There are four ways that others in the community may be harmed by a parent's decision not to immunize their child: If the unimmunized child gets a preventable disease, he or she may pass that disease to other unimmunized people in the community. Even when people are immunized, there is always a small percentage of them for whom the vaccine did not work or their immunity has waned; so these people will also be at increased risk if an unimmunized child gets a preventable disease. If a person cannot receive vaccines for medical reasons, they rely on those around them for protection from the diseases. Families that have received vaccines and contract a vaccine-preventable disease from an unimmunized person will need to pay the medical costs incurred by the disease. Treatment for the diseases cost much more than the vaccines, so the unimmunized child's family or society will bear these costs. Those who choose not to immunize their child may be considered to be "free riders" by those who have immunized their children. For example, a mother whose son recently experienced a severe bout with pertussis was angry that other children in the classroom were not immunized. In discussing vaccine safety as the reason that many parents give for not wanting to immunize, she wondered why their children should be protected by herd immunity when her child and all of the other immunized children bore the small risk of side effects. In addition, she wondered why she wasn't made aware that so many of the children in the school weren't immunized due to personal beliefs. She concluded by saying, "Had I known . . .I would never have enrolled him in that school." BACK TO TOP Requirements versus recommendations Are requirements and recommendations the same thing? No. Recommendations made by the CDC are based on health and safety considerations. Requirements, on the other hand, are laws made by each state government determining which vaccines a child must have before entering school. To use an example, consider smoking. Experts tell us that smoking is bad for our health, but it is still our choice whether we smoke or not; that is like a recommendation. In contrast, no-smoking laws prohibit people from smoking in certain places and vary from state to state; this is similar to a requirement. It is important to remember that even if a vaccine is not required, it may be the best health choice. Talk to your doctor about vaccines that are available and whether they are important for you or a loved one to receive. BACK TO TOP Vaccine recommendations and package inserts I understand that the information included with a vaccine sometimes differs from more commonly available information. Can you explain why? While a package insert provides information about the vaccine, it is important to realize that it is being provided by the company and, therefore, has legal requirements that must be followed in its preparation. During the development of a vaccine, safety studies are completed by comparing a group of people who received the vaccine to a group of people who did not, called the placebo group. If a side effect occurs more times in the vaccine group, it may be a result of the vaccine. However, the company, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), must report any side effects that occurred in the vaccine group, even if the number of occurrences was similar to those in the placebo group. All of these side effects are then listed in the package insert. Groups that make recommendations about vaccines to healthcare professionals, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), don't use the same criteria as the FDA to determine whether a side effect is caused by vaccines. When these groups make recommendations, they review the data in the context of whether a particular side effect occurs significantly more often in the vaccine group than the placebo group. If it does, these side effects are listed in educational materials to physicians. For this reason, the number of side effects listed in the package insert is much greater than that listed by the CDC and AAP. https://www.chop.edu...

positive: should kids be vaccinated should kids at school have to be vaccinated. Yes! if the kids are not safe it could cause them to no be going to school because they are sick. do you want your child to have a good education. vaccination should be mandatory

positive: Vaccines do not cause autism. I would like to open again thanking my opponent for this debate. While I am sure it did not go as he originally pictured, it has been a fun debate. Gratitude aside, my opponent opened up his argument to attack on several fronts in his last round, and so I shall try to capitalize on as many of those opportunities as possible. =====Rebuttals===== "Although it is always tempting to dismiss arguments one cannot refute as irrelevant, my examples in this case are completely relevant, because they reveal where the burden of proof lies." Disregarding the presumptuous nature of this first statement, my opponent seemingly has yet to grasp the fundamental basics of the debate structure. Pro has the burden of proof unless the debate is specifically set up with other conditions. This debate was not set up with those conditions, thus my opponent must take on the burden of proof. "These examples explain exactly how ridiculous it is to place the burden of proof on me to disprove the link between autism since as yet none has been observed, and so the link takes its due place among the invisible unicorns, teapots, and Flying Sphagetti Monsters of the universe." Once again, no matter how "ridiculous" it may seem to place the burden of proof on the person making the claim, the burden remains the same. Furthermore, my opponent has brought forth a logically flawed argument on two fronts. First, simply because a connection has not been observed does not negate the existence of such a connection. "In common usage, existence is the world of which we are aware through our senses and persists independently without them." [1] The classic example of my opponent's logic failing is the lack of knowledge in regards to the harms and dangers of smoking. For decades, the problems of smoking were not understood or ever realized. It was until further inspection that a connection was revealed. Second, my opponent's connection from vaccination side effects to invisible unicorns and other such examples is equivocation in that they are not relationally the same, thus rendering his comparison is void making is initial examples non-topical. Now moving away from the more semantical working of debate to the substance of the debate, my opponent presented three studies regarding the lack of observable link from vaccination to autism. While they are neat reports, my opponent's argument here is far from sound on many fronts. First, my opponent's reports only address the MMR vaccination. This limitation in study simply underscores the lack of information in regards to the studies of vaccines and their potential link to autism. Due to this lack of information, no conclusions can be drawn from the existing information, rendering my opponent's arguments immaterial. Second, assumptions are the single greatest flaw in any sound argument. "... it should be assumed that this link does not exist." Until it is scientifically proven that no link exists between vaccination and autism, it cannot and should not be assumed that there is no possible link. Third, two of my opponent's sources are far from conclusive by their own admission. From my opponent's second resource; "No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed." [2] In the report's synopsis, it is concluded that more reports are needed to reconcile the conflicting data that was found. Then, in my opponent's third source, it is brought forth that autism and it's risk factors are not completely understood and that while genetics seem to play a significant role in the onset of autism, a number of other factors may also be involved. [3] Furthermore, the third study is a population based study, meaning that the data was collected from patients that devolved autism and their vaccination status. This again underlines the fact that no study has been undertaken to seriously consider the potential of vaccines causing autism. This lack of information and the conflicting information all serve to render my opponent's claim baseless and thus void. Finally, from the Autism Society of America, "There is no known single cause for autism..." "...It also appears that some children are born with a susceptibility to autism, but researchers have not yet identified a single "trigger" that causes autism to develop." "Still other researchers are investigating problems during pregnancy or delivery as well as environmental factors, such as viral infections, metabolic imbalances, and exposure to environmental chemicals." [4] It is clear that despite our current level of medical science, we are still unable to determine the cause(s) of autism. It is again this lack of understanding that simply demonstrates that no conclusions can be drawn as to the potential link between autism and vaccination. =====Conclusion===== Disregarding the first two rounds in which my opponent begrudging took up his role as the affirmative in this debate, when the debate boiled down to actual information, my opponent was unable to present a solid argument to support his claim. It is the lack of information coupled with conflicting results and assumptions that prevents my opponent from creating a sturdy backing for his resolution. Due to the lack of support for my opponents claim, it is only natural for it to fail, and thus the resolution "Vaccines do not cause autism" is negated." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [3] http://books.google.com... [4] http://www.autism-society.org...

positive: Edible Vaccines But edible vaccines can save lots of lives and really the people we have been testing it has been giving good responses and they can even prevent dieases.

positive: Fat kids should be required to diet No, if kids want to be fat they should be fat, if parents only feed their children McDonalds then theres a problem, that's different. But don't force fat kids to do exercise, why can't i force you to paint your own house? Because I cant force you to do anything because it's wrong so don't make fat kids do exercise if they dont want to. Motivate them instead. But they should get mandatory vaccines, that is for the good of all of us, being fat isn't bad for anybody except the fat person. (& the person next to them on the bus lol)

positive: Cases prove that vaccines have bad consequences for children’s health Every single medicine has some side effect, but we don’t ban all medicine. In most cases vaccinations may have some mild side effects:   “DTaP/IPV/Hib: The vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio and Hib may cause redness and swelling on the site of vaccination, which lasts a few days. Babies may have a mild fever for up to ten days following the jabs.PCV: Redness and inflammation at the injection site affects about one in seven children. Mild symptoms of irritability, raised temperature and digestive disturbance may occur.MenC: Swelling and redness at the injection site is common. Some toddlers have disturbed sleep and some a light fever within a few days of their jab. Older children may complain of a mild headache. MMR: Cold symptoms, a fever and swollen salivary glands may be noticed in children any time from a few days to three weeks after their MMR jab. Some may develop a rash or lose their appetite for up to ten days.”[1] The side effects are very low compared with those associated with the diseases themselves. Mild versions of the symptoms associated with the disease being vaccinated against are occasional side effects. Allergic responses are very rare. [1]Babies and immunization, BBC Health http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/child_development/babies_immunisation.shtml,accessed 06/13/2011

negative: There are other options to a cull A vaccine for cattle does not yet exist in a form where it is possible to tell the difference between a vaccinated cow and a cow infected by bovine TB. This means that vaccinated cattle would have to be treated the same way as infected cattle so would not be salable. Vaccination is not 100% effective and would run the risk of other countries banning exports.[1] Vaccination of badgers on the other hand is costly with the first phase of the welsh trials having amounted to £662 per jab despite the vaccine itself costing much less.[2] [1] ‘Cattle Vaccination’, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 24 January 2013, http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/a-z/bovine-tb/vaccination/cattle-vaccination/ [2] ‘NFU Cymru slams bovine TB vaccination costs’, NFU Cymru, 29 January 2013, http://www.nfu-cymru.org.uk/sectors/cross-cutting-issues/bovine-tb/nfu-cymru-slams-bovine-tb-vaccination-costs/

negative: Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. No,the debate is not only about ethics. All arguments are accepted because we want to reach a conclusion and we cannot take into consideration only the ethical side. Of course,we will talk about morality as the main reason why people oppose to animal testing is because they think that it is not right to use innocent animals to test drugs and other substances. Ok, to start with, I would like to mention what animal testing offers*: Improving the health and well-being of people. Improving the health and welfare of entertainment, recreational, sport, and service animals, and of animals used to provide therapeutic support. Improving the health, welfare and productivity of farm animals and other production animals Finding better ways to preserve, protect and manage a range of animal species (especially endangered and native animals) to maintain a balance that is ecologically stable and well adapted to the Australian environment. Developing more humane and effective pest control methods to protect endangered animals and plants from the species that threatens them and to prevent damage to the environment. Broadening the foundations of biological science,including our knowledge and understanding of life processes in all animal species. I think that we should use animals for scientific or commercial testing because: 1)Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments: The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. [1] Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. "Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury,childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis,and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes,and anesthetics. Chris Abee,Director of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility,states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees,"and says that the use of chimps is"our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C,a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States. [2]2)There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system: Whenever possible,researchers do use non-animal models for research. Computer models, tissue and cell cultures,and a number of other non-animal related research methods are used today in biomedical research. However, animal testing remains a necessity. For example, blindness cannot be studied in bacteria and it is not possible to study the affects of high blood pressure in tissue cultures. The living system is extremely complex. The nervous system, blood and brain chemistry, gland and organ secretions, and immunological responses are all interrelated, making it impossible to explore,explain,or predict the course of diseases or the effects of possible treatments without observing and testing the entire living system of a living organism. In the meantime,scientists continue to look for ways to reduce the number of animals needed to obtain valid results,refine experimental techniques,and replace animals with other research methods whenever feasible. [1]3)Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing: The same methods that have been developed to prevent and treat diseases in human have improved thelives of countless animals. More than 80 medicines and vaccines developed for humans are now used totreat animals. Animal research has helped develop many animal vaccines to fight diseases such as rabiesand distemper in dogs and cats,feline leukemia,infectious hepatitis virus,tetanus,and has assisted in thedevelopment of treatments for heartworm. In addition,animal research has helped preserve nearly extinct species such as the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil due to new reproductive techniques being applied to endangered species[1]. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 4)Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment: In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1965. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size,temperature,access to clean food and water,and others),the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians. All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). All institutions receiving funding from the US Public Health Service(PHS)must comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. [3]Furthermore, animal researchers treat animals humanely both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. According to the journal Nature Genetics, because "stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results, and many phenotypes are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues. "[7] 5)The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing: A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. "[4]The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society,National Association for Biomedical Research,American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.6)Relatively few animals are used in research, which is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress: People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle,pigs and sheep annually,yet we only use around 26 million animals for research,95% of which are rodents,birds and fish. We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research,and we consume more than 340 chickens for every research animal. [5]Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year. The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every year[6] But why don't we use humans instead of animals? : This is something that almost of all us have questioned about. If we can use people instead of animals and have the same results why don't we try it? Some people believe that this is because we don't want to harm our species and we prefer to exploit animals as we are more powerful. But the answer is not that simple. First of all,animals have a shorter life circle than humans,so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan,or across several generations,which would be infeasible using human subjects. The more research that can be done in the shorter amount of time means that new drugs can be produced more rapidly. In addition,scientists can easily control the environment around animals(diet,temperature,lighting),which would be difficult to do with humans. Moreover,animal testing,particularly with rats and mice is very cheap in addition to testing with human beings who would probably need to be highly compensated. Finally,rats and mice breed very quickly which means that supplies can be replenished qickly. All the above contribute to a sucessful and effective research. Moreover,this claim is not right. Drugs are tested on humans,too. Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings. They cannot do that. Instead,they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people. Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous. If a drug passes the animal test it's tested on a small human group before large scale clinical trials. "(primates) are used only when no alternative approach can provide the answers to questions about such conditions as Alzheimer's, stroke, Parkinson's, spinal injury, hormone disorders and vaccines for HIV" Colin Blakemore,former CEO of the Medical Rsearch Council [6] SOURCES:*. http://www.adelaide.edu.au... [1]. http://ca-biomed.org...[2]http://www.khou.com... [3. http://www.aphis.usda.gov...[4]http://www.nature.com...[5]http://speakingofresearch.com...; [6]. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk... [7]. http://www.nature.com...

negative: Should parents be able to kill their autistic grown up ((child)) Children are supposed to become functional members of society and not a burden. They're supposed to spread your genes into future generations and if not, they at least should help society in any way.Of course not all autistic children should be executed only severe one.Also, if your a single you need to work and make sure your child is safe at the same time, but how? the simple question is, you can't.There are still two option sending your child: put your autistic to care or kill your child. If you had the chance you would probably choose to put your autistic ((child)) to care.but think about it, the government pay allot for autistic people ($29 million Quebect alone) it would be cheaper to just kill him. imagine what you can do with the 29 million dollars, you could donate it to the veterans, to child who have cancer and health care.

negative: should kids have a dress code for school . should kids have dress codes .

negative: Animals should be tested on Introduction The status quo is that animals are widely and generally used to be experimented on with certain chemicals and products to find out if those certain chemical and products are safe and effective to humans. Thus, it is the burden of the Con to prove why this status quo should change. He must provide strong arguments supported by evidence and alternatives as to why his proposal should be accepted. On other hand, I will be defend the status quo by also providing good arguments backed by pieces of evidence. The proposal of Con is ambiguous as he fails to set the parameters of this debate as to what extent the ban on animal testing should be, whether it is absolute or not. Because of that, I would assume that it is an absolute ban that he wants. Rebuttals: a. Animals should not be tested on because animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Response: It is given that animals do experience cruelty and pain to some extent. However, the question is not whether they experience pain, but whether that pain is justified. I would say that it is justified because the benefits outweigh the cost. Take note that scientists inflict pain on animals not for fun but for research. Consequently, this research would greatly enhance both human and animal lives and welfare. (I would elaborate this later) b. A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. Response: Con, thank you for giving this statistics that would support my case. c. Other alternatives to animal testing exists. Response: Living systems like human beings and animals are extremely complex. Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, while sometimes useful, does not provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system. Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs. Also, conditions such as blindness and high blood pressure cannot be studied in tissue cultures. Computer models can only be reliable if accurate information gleaned from animal research is used to build the models in the first place. [16] Furthermore, even the most powerful supercomputers are unable to accurately simulate the workings of complex organs such as the brain.1 In short, those alternatives you stated are not as effective as animal testing. With your alternatives, it would only endanger the lives of humans for producing inaccurate results. Arguments: a. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. [Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility, states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees," and says that the use of chimps is "our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States. 2 Moreover, because animal research, many diseases that once killed millions of people every year are either treatable or have been eradicated altogether. Immunizations against polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis save countless lives, and the survival rates from many major diseases are at an all-time high, thanks to the discovery of new drugs, medical devices and surgical procedures. According to the American Cancer Society, the fight against cancer has seen 24 significant biomedical advances in the past 30 years.3 Similarly, Animal research for animal health also has resulted in many life-saving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife and endangered species. Pacemakers, artificial joints, organ transplants, freedom from arthritic pain, and vaccines for rabies, distemper, parvo virus, infectious hepatitis, anthrax, tetanus and feline leukemia contribute to longer, happier and healthier lives for animals. New treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer and hip dysplasia can save, extend or enhance the life of a beloved pet, and new reproductive techniques are helping to protect threatened species.4 b. Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. [] Animal testing has also been instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil. [Koalas, ravaged by an epidemic of sexually transmitted chlamydia and now classified as endangered in some regions of Australia, are being tested with new chlamydia vaccines that may stall the animal's disappearance. [The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 5 c. Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. [All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. 6 Sources: 1 2Animal testing. URL: http://animal-testing.procon.org... 3 4 Trull, F. Animal-test research has saved many human lives. URL: http://www.mofed.org... 5 6 Animal testing. URL: http://animal-testing.procon.org...

negative: The strength of vaccines is an empirical question It can't be resolved by debate (this debate is invalid) only by empirical measurements.

negative: Animal experiments have helped develop disease vaccines "Animal Experiments". BBC.co.uk. Updated August 17th, 2004 - "Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB".

negative: Vaccines do not cause autism I accept and look forward to this debate with you. You have failed to provide definitions so I am just going to assume the general public denotation of the words.

negative: Vaccines do not cause autism To begin I would like to reiterate the framework of this debate. Namely, as the resolution specifies that vaccines do not cause autism, I simple need demonstrate some pathway by which autism can come about as a result of a vaccination. The negative is not required to demonstrate a direct link by which a vaccination directly leads to autism. Secondly, the negative need only show one instance in which a vaccination could bring about autism as the affirmative has already agreed with this proposition. High fevers in pregnant women can lead to autism In a recent landmark study "A team of UC Davis researchers has found that mothers who had a fever during pregnancy were more than twice as likely to have a child with autism " than mothers who did not have a fever or who took medication to counter its effect" [1] With this in mind let's look at some of the side effects associated with several vaccines. According to the center of Disease control[2] vaccines which have a possible side effect of high fever include but are not limited to, the vaccine for Haemophilus influenza type b, the vaccine for, Diphtheria, Tetanus, and acellular Pertussis and Gardasil the vaccine used to prevent HPV. Responses: My opponent makes that claim that the redacted 1998 Andrew Wakefield study implemented a poor methodology and fabricated data. I completely agree, this study was poorly conducted. However, this does not negate the fact the high fevers in women who are pregnant can result in autism and that vaccination can result in such fevers. Conclusion: I have demonstrated that high fever, a side effect of three different vaccinations can bring about autism as specified in the resolution. I have thus fulfilled my burden of proof and ask that you negate this resolution. 1) http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu... 2) http://www.cdc.gov...

negative: vaccines I shall assume my opponent has nothing more to say? Very well, I shall conclude my debate in the last round...

negative: Edible Vaccines Well, another debate with no arguments and all forfeits. I leave it to the judges to afford conduct points accordingly, and to my opponent, I wish him well in whatever endeavors kept him from engaging in his own debate.

negative: Edible Vaccines Why am I not surprised? Another science debate that someone starts and isn't even prepared to argue. Fantastic.

negative: School Uniforms Should not be Required I will be pro, you will be con. (You will argue that school uniforms should be required) Round one is for acceptance only.My opening statement: School uniforms shouldn't be required because they create a sense of anti-individuality, going against the Freedom of Expression, being forced to choose clothing can help prepare children for the adult world, and requiring school uniforms causes rebellion among the general student population.

negative: Vaccines are a waste of time, money, and cause health problems. Do you think childhood vaccinations should become mandatory? >Yes, it protects everyone >No, it's a family decision I>'m undecided Thank you, we have already counted your vote. Yes, it protects everyone 79.08% (707 votes) No, it's a family decision 18.12% (162 votes) I'm undecided 2.8% (25 votes) Total Votes: 894 In this poll, 80% of people, 4x the people have proven that they have low intelligence. All thos people have no idea what's in the vaccines nor read the leaflets. They want 96% of people to be vaccinated where I live!!! They are forcing me to get a vaccination or they're gonna fire me!!! That's against freedom and I totally disagree with it... You think even more diseases can be cured?! Come on! You listed like 10 that we *must get* which is absurd!!!

negative: vaccines It seems my opponent has forfeited this round. No matter. We still have 2 more rounds.

negative: Infant male circumcision Parents have a right to circumcise their children.

negative: Children should be vaccinated Children should not be vaccinated because vaccinations are not safe. The Ecowatch a website who concentrates on our economy and problems in the society stated in an article titled " CDC Knew Its Vaccine Program Was Exposing Children to Dangerous Mercury Levels Since 1999", "Uncovered documents show that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) knew that infant vaccines were exposing American children to mercury far in excess of all federal safety guidelines since 1999. The documents, created by a FDA consulting toxicologist, show how federal regulators concealed the dangerous impacts and lied to the public...In 1997, Congress passed the FDA Modernization Act. A provision of that statute required the FDA to "compile a list of drugs that contain intentionally introduced mercury compounds, and provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the mercury compounds on the list." In response, manufacturers reported the use of the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, in more than 30 licensed vaccines...". Based on this article published in 2017, how do we know our children will be safe? If they have exposed our children once to dangerous chemicals, how do we know it will not happen again. This demonstrates the government does not care about our children, what are these vaccines really for? We are not experiments to simply test how many chemicals our body can intake, and neither are our children. Vaccines are not safe and neither are our children if we allow them to receive them. Kennedy, Robert. "CDC Knew Its Vaccine Program Was Exposing Children to Dangerous Mercury Levels Since 1999." EcoWatch, EcoWatch, 17 Apr. 2017, www.ecowatch.com/cdc-mercury-vaccines-kennedy-2199157054.html.

negative: Not getting children vaccinated Vaccination is a relatively new process. For this reason, there are risks to using any vaccine. However, these vaccines are not limited to the HPV vaccine. Because of the nature of our health system, these risks should be taken into account, and the risks that a parent wants expose their children to should be their own decision. Second of all, all public school systems and most private school systems already require the immunization of children. The fact that most parents send their children to school is clear sign that most children are already being vaccinated for the biggest diseases(such as hepatitis.) The few parents without children attending school would not have much risk of having their child exposed to such a diesease, as the vast majority of the population (attending public or private schools) are immunized. Therefore, it can be seen that an official mandate to REQUIRE all parents to immunize their children is unnessesary because the vast majority of our population, that attend public and private schools have already been vaccinized, and with a majority of the population immune, a spread of diesease is unlikely.

negative: You choose the topic I just realized that I wrote 'the only rule is to be a dick' rather than 'to not be a dick'. Lol. Vaccines for kids - The argument is really pretty simple: there is absolutely no reason for kids to die of preventable illnesses. Vaccines work by imitating infection and training the body to fight those infections[1]. Weak, dead, inactive and/or incomplete viruses are put into the body and the body's immune system is able to use these viruses to produce antibodies against them. It's no different than using a training simulation to teach someone how to do something in real life. [1] . http://www.cdc.gov... Vaccines are also important for protecting those who can't be vaccinated due to health reasons or age. Some vaccines require children to be a certain age before they can take them, so by making sure that other children are vaccinated on schedule we keep otherwise deadly viruses from spreading through a phenomena called 'herd immunity'[2]. When everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated, we create a sort of buffer which keeps the disease from spreading further. It would be like if you surrounded a fire pit with stones - sure there are things outside of the pit that could still catch on fire, but those stone create a buffer that makes the spread unlikely. [2]. http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk... There is rarely any reason not to vaccinate a child. Sometimes a child's specific medical history may warrant avoiding or putting of vaccination entirely if they have an autoimmune disease or some other medical problem, but these specific instances are ones that a child's pediatrician will diagnose. On balance, there is a net benefit to vaccinating children.

negative: Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk. Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard. This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases.

negative: Not getting children vaccinated I am in awe and opposed to people not getting their children vaccinated. Not getting children vaccinated is why we are suddenly having outbreaks of diseases we haven't seen in years. Since vaccines have been found, we are living longer than we ever lived in the past. There is a reason for them. To not get your children vaccinated is irresponsible. I think it should be mandated that everyone get their children vaccinated. The only vaccination that I believe should still be up to a parent is the new HPV vaccine because it is new, cost money and is not neccessary until your child starts to have sex.

negative: Mandatory Childhood Vaccines There are laws about what vaccines are required for a VISA both to certain countries and from them. Unless the African family hid in a suitcase while going to a country without the disease, taking a vaccine would be mandatory and the proof of vaccination (usually a yellow sheet of medically verified paper) would be required to get the visa. If they ALREADY had the disease they would have failed the blood tests required to get the VISA and/or vaccination in the first place. You seem to not understand that although some vaccinations should be mandatory to make all vaccinations mandatory for children would be most ridiculous and be wasting precious biological resources which could save adults and/or be used to better understand the virus as opposed to worrying about wasting it on vaccinating children in a nation where that microorganism isn't even present.

negative: Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement) Vaccinations such as hepatitis B are unnecessary because as stated by professionals on VacTruth.com, "As of March 2012, disturbingly there were over 1500 hepatitis B vaccine-related deaths reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), some of those classified also as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). In addition to a high number of deaths, there were a total of 66,654 adverse events reported to VAERS, including but not limited to brain inflammation, convulsions, multiple sclerosis, headaches, irritability, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and Guiilain-Barre Syndrome." (vactruth.com) Dr. Meryl Nass stated: "Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion." The First Amendment clearly grants all citizens of the United States of America freedom to practice whichever religion they choose. Many citizens" beliefs are against allowing people to receive vaccinations. By forcing American citizens to vaccinate their children and themselves, it is a direct violation of the First Amendment. (vaccines.procon.org/#arguments) All fifty states require vaccinations to enter public schools, but 48 of them allow exemptions for religious reasons for this very reason! When students enroll, all they have to do is have their parent or guardian fill out a form stating that they do not allow the student to receive vaccinations because of religious reasons. (vaccines.procon.org/#arguments) The college of Physicians of Philadelphia stated "Certain religions and belief systems promote alternate perspectives toward vaccination. Religious objections to vaccinations are based generally on" beliefs that the body is sacred, should not receive chemicals or blood or tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means." (Historyofvaccines.org)

negative: Children should be vaccinated Mothers need to vaccinate their children in order for them to avoid getting fatal diseases. Most diseases are prevented by getting vaccinations. Due to vaccinations diseases like smallpox have been eradicated. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) on their website wrote an Article title Smallpox writing "Thanks to the success of vaccination, the last natural outbreak of smallpox in the United States occurred in 1949." Vaccines have allowed and continue to allow protection to children from diseases that were once deadly.

negative: Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled We need to Weigh the Cost the Child Receiving a Possible "Illness" from remaining unvaccinated, against the Premise that they would be denied a Basic education. CONTENTION 1. Children Being Denied a Basic Education Vaccination is no prerequisite to anything. Regardless of Age, ethnicity, social and economic background, children should have the right to attend School. According to many Constitutional and Laws Globally, this would infringe on the Act of Liberty, and Free will, in accordance with the First Amendment of the US constitution.(1) CONTENTION 2. Denial of Free will As stated Above, this would infringe on the act of Free will, a Basic right that all Humans should have, regardless. REFUTATIONS "Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk." What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated. "Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard." No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child. "This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases." What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child "Reverses" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases? That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. " "Those children should not be intergrated with others" That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional. (1)(http://www.google.ca...)

negative: Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled I would like to clarify my viewpoint. I believe that parents have the right to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children. I also believe that those parents who decide not to vaccinate their children, should not be denied an education but should be denied the ability to integrate their children into the public school system. That being said there are other methods of learning and accessing a proper education outside of public school also this debate is nothing more than hypothetical scenario for me. I will further support my points below. Contention 1: The Constitution makes no mention of education reserving it as a right given on the state level, See the 10th amendment. The state ultimately has the power over educational institution and ultimately makes all the laws. There is a universal right to an education but there is no universal right to attend any specific public education institution. This would not infringe upon the free will of an individual at all seeing as they have the right to vaccinate or not vaccinate, but access to state regulated public schools can be restricted for good reason without infringing on rights or being unlawful. (students who have been expelled). (1)Contention 2: See my above point. No free wills are being broken here. "What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated. "By Social Contract I mean parents typically know better than to send a sick child to school because their child could infect the others. Children contract viruses and diseases from each other at school all the time. Vaccinated children are still capable of spreading diseases to the unaffected, leaving them at a very high risk and allowing that child to be a powerful vehicle for the disease. (2)"No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child. "That is a bold statement, the CDC says otherwise: "No federal vaccination laws exist, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Depending on the state, children must be vaccinated against some or all of the following diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, diphtheria, partisans, tetanus, and polio. " (3)"What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child "Reverses" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. "Measles was declared eliminated in the US by 2000 and its recent comeback can be attributed to the growing population of unaffected children. This is a reference to a CDC study supporting my point. "Sporadic importations of measles into the United States have occurred since the disease was declared eliminated from the United States in 2000 (1). During January--July 2008, 131 measles cases were reported to CDC, compared with an average of 63 cases per year during 2000--2007. * This report updates an earlier reporton measles in the United States during 2008 (2) and summarizes two recent U. S outbreaks among unaffected school-aged children. Among those measles cases reported during the first 7 months of 2008, 76% were in persons aged <20 years, and 91% were in persons who were unaffected or of unknown vaccination status. Of the 131 cases, 89% were imported from or associated with importations from other countries, particularly countries in Europe, where several outbreaks are ongoing (3,4). The findings demonstrate that measles outbreaks can occur in communities with a high number of unaffected persons and that maintaining high overall measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination coverage rates in the United States is needed to continue to limit the spread of measles. " (4)"That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional. "This is irrelevant to my argument. Back to you! 1) . http://www.departments.bucknell.edu... 2) . http://www.westonaprice.org... \3 ) . http://www.cdc.gov...4) . http://www.cdc.gov...

negative: Children should receive vaccinations. Our society needs to be healthy, we want it to be healthy.But does that mean that we start giving vaccinations to every person would help in being disease free. In olden days there were no vaccines but still the rate of getting ill was very less. there are natural ways for protecting ourselves from the diseases. Moreover the chances of getting ill have increased from the past when there were no vaccinations. Pharmaceutical Companies Can"t Be Trusted. ALL Vaccines are Loaded with Chemicals and other Poisons which make the immune system of a lad weaker and if confronted by a disease takes a longer time to heal. Fully Vaccinated Children are the Unhealthiest, Most Chronically Ill Children I Know.A Number of Vaccines Have Already Had Problems/Been Removed from the Market so you can't trust all vaccines maybe you would take the vaccine now but later you come to know that the vaccine is faulty. You Can Always Get Vaccinated, But You Can Never Undo a Vaccination. Vaccination does not guarantee even immediate immunity, and boosters are necessary for all vaccinations. I think there is no care taken of our body,immune system or our health by ourselves ... we don't want to prevent it by natural methods and take vaccinations which gradually weaken your immune system. There are new diseases which have originated recent days because of our practices. So I conclude on saying that children must not be given so many vaccinations that their body becomes weaker.

negative: Children should receive vaccinations. This debate is on whether or not children should receive vaccinations, and I am saying no.Voters think over it and vote . I strongly believe that students should not receive vacations

negative: A child has a human right to be protected from preventable diseases from birth Yes, but that is only if they want to, what if children don't want to be vaccinated, if compulsory immunizations are carried out, there could be major strikes by kids and teens, also, what if the child becomes autistic due to this? As of now, people are allowed to decide whether or not they get vaccinated. If your value is Justice, this is a major question. If this law is carried out, who knows what terrible things could happen? Also, the resolution is not asking about whether or not vaccination is a bad thing, but if the government should have to FORCE the child to be immunized. Parents should be the primary decision-makers of their child's life, as they know whether or not the child will actually be exposed to the virus. Vaccines usually are not free, they cost money, and may actually risk the baby's life by exposing the virus. Thus, parents must make the child's critical decisions. If they are inadequate at doing this, we do have a thing called child custody requirements.

negative: Should we be vaccinated Con 1 Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects. According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) in about one per million children. [49] The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States. [49] Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage may be associated with the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) and MMR vaccines, though the CDC notes the rarity of the reaction makes it difficult to determine causation. [49] The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a "small possibility" exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barr" Syndrome, a disorder in which the person"s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system, in about one or two per million people vaccinated. [49]. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) says that vaccines may be linked to learning disabilities, asthma, autism, diabetes, chronic inflammation, and other disabilities. [82] [83]http://vaccines.procon.org...

negative: Compulsory Immunization will create a herd immunity to protect those who cannot be vaccinated. Owing to vaccination campaigns, smallpox is no longer a disease that threatens man and polio, diphtheria and measles are rare in developed countries. However these diseases with the exception of smallpox still exist in other parts of the world. The aim of most developed countries including the USA is to create a “herd immunity” where those who are not vaccinated against these diseases are still protected, due to protection by “the herd.” This is the idea that if you immunize as many people as possible, then they will protect the not vaccinated. When the vaccination levels drop, so does the protection. In the UK, the debate over the MMR jab resulted in just 65% of London school children receiving the jab. The required level for a herd immunity to be successful in preventing a major measles outbreak was 95%. The consequence was that London experienced a massive rise in measles cases. It is therefore important that the numbers of those left unvaccinated remain low, as to lower the threat of a disease spreading through contact. This also shows that by vaccinating the required percentage of those who can have the jab allow means those who cannot for various reasons receive the jab will more or less be protected from such diseases. For instance, most jabs cannot be given to a child until they are between two and twelve months old. Prior to this age, these children are entirely reliant upon the herd for protection.

negative: Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. "Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan." Appeal to majority and authority, I need reasons why the Gov has no right to intervene in health decisions. "Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion." Frankly I don't care what rules the parents think they are breaking of some book written thousands of years ago, I stand for the well being of the children. If I prove that vaccines have health benifits then this point falls. "Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition." Yes I agree with you. There is a lot less disease, and the black plagues gone. It's true this isn't entirely due to vaccin ation. But the fact is there are still many infectious diseases rampant in all socieites, and hepititus is a plague. You're closing your eyes to a very important problem-disease still exists and spreads very regularly. "Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory." Yes I agree! Let's all be literal Darwinists and kill the babies who are born with deformations in the hospitals because God obviously wanted them to die! People with leprosy are being punished for sins in a past life! Oh wait this isn't the dark ages any more, if a member of our society is sick we do our best to cure them and prevent sickness. Gods plan for humanity is a future without disease. "Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening." Can I have some sources for this ourageous claim? Just because HPV isn't life threatning we don't protect our children from it? Vaccines aren't supposed to be life savers all the time-their job is to stop the spread of infectious diseases around our society. As for these reactions you talk of, first please source. Secondly, they are proabably one in a million scenerios and the child is surrounded by health proffesionals will make it a minor issue. I agree that they might happen, but we still go to surgery even though their are risks of side effects yes? Vaccines destroy an immediate risk to our health. "All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections." You're trying to prove that un-vaccinated children are more resistant then vaccinated children? Do you even know why children get vaccines? It's to protect them from the diseases thier bodies can't cope with on their own. Vaccines don't push out a natural defense-they provide the only defense. Having your child contract hep C won't toughen him up. It will kill him or her. "Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis." When the subject is children and disease, well to be honest any risk is enough to warrant vaccination. Plus, you need to source the information that shows there's more than a one in a million chance for a child to contract a disease from a vaccine. There's also a chance kids can contract bone cancer from cell phones, but that doesn't mean we outlaw cell phones-the risk simply isn't larg enough. "Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies." Of course the vaccine companies make tons of money...people buy their products because it makes them immune to diseases..supply and demand...I think there's a large market for people who want to stop the spread of disease.. MY ARGUMENT P1. Vaccines make children immune to certain diseases and illnesses p2. Being Immune to certain diseases and illnesses is good p3. Any Parent who does not want their child to be immune to certain dseases and illnesses is not acting in the childs best interests p4. It is the role of the state to act in the childs best interests C. The state should administer vaccinations