Instigator / Pro
Nevets's avatar
2
Nevets
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Topic
#1847

Over reliance on vaccinations may lead to profiteering and poor sanitation

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

TheJackle
Tags
Science
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
TheJackle's avatar
7
TheJackle
1476
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Description

Now this debate comes with a "disclaimer". This in no way supports those with vaccine denialism.
I am not supporting vaccine denialism. I am supporting that there "are" genuine concerns regards to vaccinations, and that our current reliance on vaccination could be considered an "over reliance" with the importance of sanitation being deminished.
I will also argue that it may be a tad naive to assume that the pharmaceutical industry.is not a corporation with maximum profits being one of their main corporate policies.

Advisory

I would also like to add. While my opponent has freedom to express their own free-will regards to how they conduct the debate, the debate should be conducted by someone that already has a strong belief in this subject, before taking on the debate.
It should be evident in my opponents argument that this is a subject they are knowledgeable about. And that they would have been of the opinion they are assuming during the debate, before they accepted the challenge. My opponent should already be of the pre-conceived notion regards to his argument.

Ultimately, it should be an honest debate. And the main factor on how the debate is judged should not deflect away from the title.

The debate may verge in to sub-branches, or sub-topics, but there should be no pleas for voters to assume arguments revolving around sub-issues, have became the main argument.

The main argument is "Over reliance on vaccinations may lead to profiteering and poor sanitation".

My opponent would also be expected to try and also provide some proof for his or her arguments. Even though i do not specifically set this as a rule, as i am not my brothers keeper, and i believe everyone has free-will, it would however be expected,

"All cards should be on the table"
Also quotes with links should be clear. If my opponent is providing a limk for something, then at least one or two lines from the link should be provided as a quote, so that everyone can see what the source they are linking too says.

And if they cannot provide the quote, because the link is to a 535page book, then perhaps they should find a way of proving their source says what they say it says, by taking the time to surf the internet and find a copy they can quote from, or find another source that says this, rather than leave it to the opponent to do their research for them, and go searching for their links, and scowering the internet for their opponents claims.

It would be expected my opponent also has an argument of their own to present to the audience. And simply standing arms folded purely trying to deminish my argument, should somehow be considered a better argument, may be considered questionable. But again, this is just an advisory, and not explicitly demanded.

And of course my opponent should attempt to deminish my argument. But they should also have an argument of their own to present.

So ultimately, the voter should have at their discretion the ability to vote for an argument not being substantial enough.
By this i mean a "lazy" argument. Where-by" the Con assumes only the position of the defence, but appears to assume no need for also "proving" their side of the argument, with their entire argument revolving around purely disproving Pros claims.
This may be mistaken for a good argument.
But a voter has at their discretion the ability to decide it is not, and that Con also had the responsibility to prove their counter argument.

And this is not a wordplay debate.
There is no room in this debate for a debater that wishes to accept the challenge thinking they have spotted a loophole in the title or description that they can jump on and make this the main focus, and try to somehow persuade the voters that theirs was the better argument based upon a play on words that the instigator likely did not even mean.

Common sense must also prevail, and an argument such as this, does not even require responding too.
Failing to respond to certain types of arguments, or make any suggestion to the voters, does not equate to the opponents bad argument, or error, becoming validated.

The voter has the right to punish a debater for errors, even if the error was not highlighted by the other debater. It should be assumed that the other debater did in fact spot the logical fallacy, or the inaccuracy, or general misdemeanor, but chose not to highlight it and allow it to be self explanatory to the readers.

But ultimately, my opponent should have a good solid counter argument that can be weighed up against my own.

In the event my opponent fails to comply with any of my advisories, then the voters have at their dicretion the ability to enforce my advisories

And all my advisories apply to me aswell. Regardless of the word term i used above.

Round 1
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
Pro
#1
Welcome TheJackle.

I am the same author that authored the other thread "Pediatric study shows tdap does not cause Autism in under 6 year olds" where i aim to provide the information that was requested during a different debate, with, coincidentally, my opponent.

Now the debate i am having here, in no way contradicts my belief in the good, and importance, of vaccines.
It does not contradict the fact that on the other thread i will likely be tackling a full on vaccine-denialist, should one turn up.

So if my opponent thinks i will be debating for alternative treatments, aids denialism, hidden cancer cures, then this is not the case.

I will be dealing with only "one" conspiracy theory, and that being that "big pharma" suppress negative research about their drugs by financially pressuring researchers and journals. And they do this because it is in their best financial interest to sell drugs.

A common claim among proponents of the conspiracy theory is that pharmaceutical companies suppress negative research about their drugs by financially pressuring researchers and journals. 
Now i am not even alleging that this financial conflict of interests is even as serious as conspiracy theorists make out. But i would argue that it is not even a conspiracy theory, it is contemporary understanding.

There are in fact papers critical of specific drugs published in journals on a regular basis.  A prominent and recent example was a systematic review published in the British Medical Journal showing that paracetamol is ineffective for lower back pain and has minimal effectiveness for osteoarthritis.



Now while i agree that alternative medicine proponents gain from promoting vaccine denialism so they can sell their ineffective and expensive alternative remedies

Alternative medicine proponents gain from promoting vaccine conspiracy theories through the sale of ineffective and expensive medications, supplements, and procedures such as chelation therapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapy, sold as able to cure the 'damage' caused by vaccines.
Such as homeopaths and their water injections

Homeopaths in particular gain through the promotion of water injections or 'nosodes' that they allege have a 'natural' vaccine-like effect.
Other bodies that suffer from this same conflict of interest, are  lawyers and legal groups, that can finance greatly from vaccine hesitancy.

Additional bodies with a vested interest in promoting the "unsafeness" of vaccines may include lawyers and legal groups organizing court cases and class action lawsuits against vaccine providers.
But another industry that suffers this same conflict of interest, is the global pharmaceutical industry.
In fact back in the old days when vaccines were a low profit margin buiseness, the manufacturers actually "complained" about low prices paid for vaccines by the CDC and other US government agencies.

 In addition to low profits and liability risks, manufacturers complained about low prices paid for vaccines by the CDC and other US government agencies.
And now, today, we have the likes of Prevnar, Gardasil, Pedarix, which each had sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008.

I would argue that no humanitarian organisation should be making billion, nor multi billion pound profits. This causes "conflicts of interests".



Now on to my next claim regarding Sanitation.
Sanitation may be one of the most important practises in combating certain diseases, or illnesses.

Now i will begin with providing a humanitarian article. I do not actually like quoting from sources outside of wikipedia, as unlike wikipedia, which is a platform that does not assume the copyright of the material it publishes, and encourages it's free use for research and educational purposes, outside sources are subject to copyright, and their aim is maximum profits. They encourage a couple of lines to be shared. That is good advertising and bait for their websites. But they frown upon the article being totally stolen and rewritten on another platform, so i avoid outside sources as much as possible.

But i do believe that it is not the job of the voter to go through comment sections searching for the links and scowering copious amounts of material to pinpoint a needle in a haystack. And nor should this be the job of the opponent.

All cards should be face up on the table.
So i will quote a couple of lines from the Humanitarian, and after that i will most likely use wikipedia where possible.

Only weeks away from the launch in India of an oral cholera vaccine significantly cheaper than available vaccines, community workers and health officials are still sceptical of whether a vaccine is the best way to control cholera, according to the International Vaccine Institute (IVI).



IVI’s director John Clemens told IRIN some water and sanitation programme managers argue that the focus in cholera control should be on safe water access rather than vaccine development.
Now from the above article that i believe readers and my opponent should read, even "the Who" and the IVI, agree about the importance of sanitation. Though the IVI does mentain that this does not diminish the importance of vaccination.


So let us look at what my saviour wikipedia says about this

Sanitation refers to public health conditions related to clean drinking water and adequate treatment and disposal of human excreta and sewage.  Preventing human contact with feces is part of sanitation, as is hand washing with soap. Sanitation systems aim to protect human health by providing a clean environment that will stop the transmission of disease, especially through the fecal–oral route.
Now a hardcore conspiracy theorist would say that Sanitation is not really in the best interests of the IVI, that currently are making billions in corporate profits.

Now on to a list of diseases directly caused by poor sanitation

, diarrhea, a main cause of malnutrition and stunted growth in children, can be reduced through sanitation. There are many other diseases which are easily transmitted in communities that have low levels of sanitation, such as ascariasis (a type of intestinal worm infection or helminthiasis), cholera, hepatitis, polio, schistosomiasis, and trachoma, to name just a few.
Now while it is true, since 2010, sanitation has became goal number 6 by the UN assembly

The Human Right to Water and Sanitation was recognized by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 2010. Sanitation is a global development priority and the subject of Sustainable Development Goal 6.
There are still 4.5 billion people that do not have safely managed sanitation

 The estimate in 2017 by JMP states that 4.5 billion people currently do not have safely managed sanitation. Lack of access to sanitation has an impact not only on public health but also on human dignity and personal safety.
However even the UN could be criticised in my opinion for only focusing on one type of sanitation. And that being the industrial type. The type that "makes money".

A study was carried out in 2018 to compare the lifecycle costs of full sanitation chain systems in developing cities of Africa and Asia. It found that conventional sewer systems are in most cases the most expensive sanitation options,

But what about standard everyday hygiene practises? Humanity is evolved to consider this worthy of a trip to the doctors to be certified OCD.

So what is OCD?

Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is a mental disorder in which a person feels the need to perform certain routines repeatedly
And what is one typical symptom?

Common compulsions include hand washing, 
And what is the treatment for hand washing?

The medications most frequently used are the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Clomipramine, a medication belonging to the class of tricyclic antidepressants, appears to work as well as SSRIs but has a higher rate of side effects.
However i would put it to the jury, that is we as humans did not consider obsessive hand-washing, and other obsessive hygiene practises, a mental illness, COVED-19 would likely have never taken hold to the extent that it now requires a vaccine to fight it. And my claim is backed by "studies".

 Studies have suggested that the impact of hygiene practices have as great an impact on sanitation related diseases as the actual provision of sanitation facilities. Hygiene promotion is therefore an important part of sanitation and is usually key in maintaining good health.
What we "as humans" need to promote, is "Hygiene promotion".

Hygiene promotion is a planned approach of enabling people to act and change their behaviour in an order to reduce and/or prevent incidences of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) related diseases. It usually involves a participatory approach of engaging people to take responsibility of WASH services and infrastructure including its operation and maintenance. The three key elements of promoting hygiene are; mutual sharing of information and knowledge, the mobilisation of affected communities and the provision of essential material and facilities.
We need to obsessively clean our worktops

Sanitation within the food industry means the adequate treatment of food-contact surfaces by a process that is effective in destroying vegetative cells of microorganisms of public health significance, 
But it is not just the food industry that should be doing this. We should all be doing this, using "sanitary equipment"

In the food and biopharmaceutical industries, the term "sanitary equipment" means equipment that is fully cleanable using clean-in-place (CIP) and sterilization-in-place (SIP) procedures: that is fully drainable from cleaning solutions and other liquids. The design should have a minimum amount of deadleg, or areas where the turbulence during cleaning is insufficient to remove product deposits.
On cruise-ships there are soap dispenser machines at every doorway. And one is encouraged to wash ones hands at every doorway.
Much the same in hospitals.
This should also be practised at the doorways of all shops, restaurants, businesses.
It certainly should not be considered OCD to wash your hands repeatedly throughout the day. It should not be considered embarrassing to do so in public before walking in, or out, of a supermarket.

An over reliance on vaccinations, and corporate conflicts of interests, has resulted in humans neglecting the importance of good sanitisation practises, to the extent, it is actually possible to be sold drugs to help stop you cleaning your hands too often.

This has to stop.
TheJackle's avatar
TheJackle
Con
#2
It is pretty rich when the other guy says he is not into conspiracies and fake cures, and the first reference is for a conspiracy theory.

It is not that complicated.  Pharmaceutical companies make money.  Its part of a capitalist system.  (I don't think I need reference for that.  We agree that pharma makes money from vaccines.

But you know who else makes money.  The CDC!   The government makes money, because they own the patents and then license them to the pharma companies.

Here is just one of dozens of patents owned by the CDC.  So to claim that this is big pharam costing the government is wrong.  The government invests in research and then licenses it to companies to use for better health.  They recover the investment from license fees.



  • Sanofi Pasteur
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Protein Sciences Corporation
  • Novartis AG
  • Seqirus
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp
  • Astellas Pharma US, Inc
  • Pfizer Inc
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Lanzhou Institute of Biological Products Co., Ltd
  • AstraZeneca
  • Emergent BioSolutions Inc

Thats seems like pretty good old fashion competition.  If they make profit, what is wrong with that?
If they come up with new products which are healthy whats wrong with that.

Profiteering means make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit.  Why is making a profit of something that helps people profiteering  Are companies who sell bandages, or any medical equipment not allowed to profit.  Food is for human value, and human benefit.  Can food companies make profit?

Your profit argument make no sense.

Now sanitation.  You go on an on about it.  Yes it is important and we agree.  But you showed no relationship between vaccine use and poorer sanitation.  Just because people get vaccinated does not mean they start eating with shit on their hands.

Companies can profit from anything that benefits the public.  That means food and meds and vaccines.  That is not profiteering.  Very different

You have not made any case.
Round 2
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
Pro
#3
I need to begin this round by providing a Citation that i hair pullingly forgot to provide during my last round

In the early 21st century, the vaccine market greatly improved with the approval of the vaccine Prevnar, along with a small number of other high-priced blockbuster vaccines, such as Gardasil and Pediarix, which each had sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008.

Now. I can see from my opponents argument we have hit a brick wall already and for the most part she/he actually agrees with me.
So what are we going to do about it?
Well perhaps i should tackle the Ad Hominen, and personalisation, that is attacking the poster, instead of the post, in the event i do not have any real objections to deal with.


TheJackel wrote.....
It is pretty rich when the other guy says he is not into conspiracies and fake cures, and the first reference is for a conspiracy theory.
My opponent wants to win an argument by insisting i believe in something i do not believe in.
I feel no more needs to be said on my part.

However my opponent then continues to almost contradict her assertion that what i am propogating is a conspiracy theory, in her very next sentence

TheJackel wrote....
It is not that complicated.  Pharmaceutical companies make money.  Its part of a capitalist system.  (I don't think I need reference for that.  We agree that pharma makes money from vaccines.
And this is correct, they make billions, as i revealed at top of my page. 

TheJsckel wrote...
Here is just one of dozens of patents owned by the CDC.  So to claim that this is big pharam costing the government is wrong.  The government invests in research and then licenses it to companies to use for better health.  They recover the investment from license fees.
There are in fact also legitimate political concerns about the government. And the government in the passed have been found to suppress cures when there is no profit to be made

An argument against the U.S. government taking part in the suppression of cures is the Orphan Drug Act of 1983 wherein incentives are created for developing treatments for disease which the treatments have no profitable outcomes for the companies involved.

TheJackel wrote....
There are 12 major companies that make DTAP.
Yes, all of which do not cause autism. I have a thread on the subject right now.
I question whether the Dtap conspiracy theory even exists.
I have nothing more to say about "Dtap" on this thread. It is irrelevant. Though the irrelevance is also irrelevant. I do not think our branching off need be considered worthy of comment by any voter. It is what it is.


TheJackel wrote....
Thats seems like pretty good old fashion competition.  If they make profit, what is wrong with that?
If they come up with new products which are healthy whats wrong with that.
What is wrong is that they may become reliant on this profit, and fear losing it, causing them to act immorally, as i stated in my previous round.

A common claim among proponents of the conspiracy theory is that pharmaceutical companies suppress negative research about their drugs by financially pressuring researchers and journals. 
Now in order to spark this debate back in to life, and conjure up some disagreement between us, as we are almost batting for the same team here, please use round 2 to show why this is just a "conspiracy theory".

I have reason to suggest it is not. And is genuine political concern.

There are in fact papers critical of specific drugs published in journals on a regular basis.
Whether it points to a dark shadowy nefarious conspiracy, i doubt, but there are genuine concerns to be had. They are even written about in medical journals


A prominent and recent example was a systematic review published in the British Medical Journal showing that paracetamol is ineffective for lower back pain and has minimal effectiveness for osteoarthritis.

TheJackel wrote...
Profiteering means make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit.  Why is making a profit of something that helps people profiteering  Are companies who sell bandages, or any medical equipment not allowed to profit.  Food is for human value, and human benefit.  Can food companies make profit?
You answered your own question in your own definition of profiteering

TheJackel wrote...
Profiteering means make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit.
Now here is a little factoid for people to digest.
Despite the "billions" big pharma already make from vaccines, as shown at top of this round, profit from vaccines only amounts to 2-3% of big pharmas total profits

Despite high growth rates, vaccines represent a relatively small portion of overall pharmaceutical profits. As recently as 2010, the World Health Organization estimated vaccines to represent 2–3% of total sales for the pharmaceutical industry
I may actually argue, that my personal opinion on this, is that this could be considered unhumanitarian. I don't know if excessive and unfair quite cuts it.

TheJackel wrote....
Your profit argument make no sense.
Please elaborate on why it makes no sense.


TheJackel wrote...
Now sanitation.  You go on an on about it.  Yes it is important and we agree.  But you showed no relationship between vaccine use and poorer sanitation.  Just because people get vaccinated does not mean they start eating with shit on their hands.
Again, my opponent "agrees" with me.
And i deny that i showed no relation between "over reliance on vaccines" or "over dependency".
The issue may be you "do not agree" with it. But i certainly showed in round 1 what brought me to that conclusion.
And it was written about in the Humanitarian article i provided.

In fact, i don't even know if the IVI reporter committed a "freudian slip", but the campaigner for vaccines actually agreed in the article that Sanitisation is the "ultimate".

 Improved water and sanitation is the ultimate, but still far-off, goal for impoverished [endemic] countries. 
Please also use round 2 to challenge this claim if you feel i have misquoted, or quoted out of context. I do not feel i have.


TheJackel wrote...
Companies can profit from anything that benefits the public.  That means food and meds and vaccines.  That is not profiteering.  Very different

You have not made any case.
I believe i have presented a case. And that you have things to disprove in round 2.



TheJackle's avatar
TheJackle
Con
#4
People are way too long winded.  I am keeping this puppy tight.

Profiteering argument

  1. We agree big pharma can make money
  2. Opponent said vaccines are only 2-3% of profit for pharma.
  3. Opponent agreed with my definition of profiteering.
  4. Opponent does not say how or why 2-3% profit would qualify as excessive.
Sure companies gouge, and can be evil and self serving, selling snake oil, steaks and fake business university courses.

But if you own patents, and can distribute and give a competitive environment, that should water out the profiteering.  You can also legislate the profit, and markup like some governments do for certain projects.  )(ttps://ipvm.com/forums/video-surveillance/topics/is-there-a-law-that-on-government-bids-that-a-bidder-can-not-mark-up-an-item-more-then-x-percent_)

I do not see a clear profiteering argument.  A few links to a wikipedia page on pharma  does not make your case.

Your only reference to sanitation is one report that says focus should be on clean water and not vaccines  But your topic says that vaccines would lead to poor sanitation.  How does having vaccines cause poor sanitation?  If people are living in a shit hole before getting vaccinated, then that is the litter box they liv in after.  Its not like giving them vaccines caused their house to fill with shit and poor sanitation.

Thats what I understand you meant.  vaccines lead to poor sanitation.  Your article says the focus should be on vaccines second.  Maybe that makes sense in fly on your face Africa or shit in the streets India.  I dont know  All I know is that vaccines dont make something less clean.

So again I dont see your argument.  I ain't try'n to be rude.  Just direct.


Round 3
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
Pro
#5
TheJackle wrote...
People are way too long winded.  I am keeping this puppy tight.
I have nothing in my advisory that states arguments cannot be puppy tight

TheJackle wrote..... 1 We agree big pharma can make money
Billions

TheJackle wrote...
2 Opponent said vaccines are only 2-3% of profit for pharma.
Yes, i did

TheJackle wrote....
Opponent agreed with my definition of profiteering.
From previous round

TheJackel wrote...
Profiteering means make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit.
So yes, i definitely agree with that

TheJackel wrote.....
Opponent does not say how or why 2-3% profit would qualify as excessive.
The answer is in the post i made at top of round 2.

In the early 21st century, the vaccine market greatly improved with the approval of the vaccine Prevnar, along with a small number of other high-priced blockbuster vaccines, such as Gardasil and Pediarix, which each had sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008.
If the billions they make from Prevnar, Gardasil and Pediarix, only amounts to 2 - 3% of their total profits after the sale of all pharmaceutical sales have been taken in to consideration, then this means we require a  mathematician to work out what their 100% profit is. And it is a mind boggling astranomical amount. An amount that could be considered "greed".

TheJackle wrote...
Sure companies gouge, and can be evil and self serving, selling snake oil, steaks and fake business university courses.
Yes, i mentioned them in round 1


Alternative medicine proponents gain from promoting vaccine conspiracy theories through the sale of ineffective and expensive medications, supplements, and procedures such as chelation therapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapy, sold as able to cure the 'damage' caused by vaccines.

TheJackle wrote...
But if you own patents, and can distribute and give a competitive environment, that should water out the profiteering.  You can also legislate the profit, and markup like some governments do for certain projects.
I don't think there is much debate to be had that Prevnar is produced by GlaxoSmithKline

is produced by GlaxoSmithKline.
And GlaxoSmithKline is a private company seperate from the government

GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) is a British multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Brentford, London.
And as of 2016 it was marketing at £81billion

The company has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. As of August 2016, it had a market capitalisation of £81 billion
I will keep it puppy tight however, and not bother with Gardasil or Pediarix. One example is sufficient

TheJackle wrote....
I do not see a clear profiteering argument.  A few links to a wikipedia page on pharma  does not make your case.
Of course you do not. You are my opponent. Your job is to disagree with me.
But in return i "do see" a clear profiteering argument.
I see it everywhere. On the links and sources i have provided.

TheJackle wrote....
Your only reference to sanitation is one report that says focus should be on clean water and not vaccines  But your topic says that vaccines would lead to poor sanitation.  How does having vaccines cause poor sanitation?  If people are living in a shit hole before getting vaccinated, then that is the litter box they liv in after.  Its not like giving them vaccines caused their house to fill with shit and poor sanitation.

I have already explained repeatedly in previous rounds.
If you quoted me word for word, you would see where i have explained this. And you have as yet, not refuted it.

However i did not say "vaccines cause poor sanitation.

I said, in the title "Over reliance on vaccinations may lead to profiteering and poor sanitation".

I also said "may". Not even that it definitely does.

But...Not only do people, become so trusting in "big pharma" and the protection vaccines give us. They no longer regard other even more important factors, such as sanitation practises. If they did, they would not send a person that washes their hands excessively to the psychiatrist to be dignosed OCD, as i stated in an earlier round.

Also as there is not much profit to be made in Sanitasation, there is little motive for companies and corporations to offer much in regards to sanitation, as i can show, by the "slow progress" being made.

In December 2006, the United Nations General Assembly declared 2008 "The International Year of Sanitation", in recognition of the slow progress being made towards the MDGs sanitation target. The year aimed to develop awareness and more actions to meet the target.

And where are all those public Sanitation systems that they keep going on about creating? 

One indicator for the sanitation target is the "Proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services, including a hand-washing facility with soap and water".
Are you telling me that those multi billion pound pharmaceutical that are so concerned about our health, cannot afford to reinvest some of that money they make, on soap and water? 

We still have 4.5billion people without adequate sanitation systems?

The current value in the 2017 baseline estimate by JMP is that 4.5 billion people currently do not have safely managed sanitation
Now i can even spell it out for you why this is.
It is because, Sanitation is given no political importance. It is all "vaccination". and sanitation is not high on the international development agenda, 

There are numerous reasons for this gap. A major one is that sanitation is rarely given political attention received by other topics despite its key importance. Sanitation is not high on the international development agenda, and projects such as those relating to water supply projects are emphasised

TheJackle wrote....Thats what I understand you meant.  vaccines lead to poor sanitation.  Your article says the focus should be on vaccines second.  Maybe that makes sense in fly on your face Africa or shit in the streets India.  I dont know  All I know is that vaccines dont make something less clean.
You are championing the "correct" fight with trying to wake people up about vaccines being good and safe.
Please continue. It is the "correct" opinion, and you are doing great.

However, you need to include "Sanitation to your agenda also, and make sure your politicians and your government do not forget about the importance of Sanitation, like they appear to have.

Sanitation has been neglected, by us, government "and" corporation.

And i claim i have provided a more than adequate argument for this also.
TheJackle's avatar
TheJackle
Con
#6
I am very confused here.  I thought the debate was about you saying that vaccines  may lead to profiteering, and poor sanitation.

But you are including a bunch of other stuff that ain't connected.

Like pharmaceutical companies, you said earn 2-3% of profits from vaccines.  If they make 100s of billions of other items, and that is a problem why are you saying it is vaccines fault?  Pick a fight with their other issue, and scams.  by my math, there is still another 97% of profit to go after.

I dont understand why vaccines are the focus.  You said that I am your opponent so I wont see the argument.  Well that is fucked.  How is this supposed to be a debate if you cant tell me what your argument is.  How ya gonna be judged if ya'll cant give a clear argument.


What happened to your "All cards should be on the table"

You are making me hunt for your arguments.  And then you start the same fucking word games as DrSpy,   "may" cause.

Because some asshole doctors over diagnose OCD, you are saying that is caused by vaccines.

And if money is spent on vaccines, and not sanitation, maybe it is because you get bigger bang for your buck.

Look at this study  

Vaccination: the cornerstone of an efficient healthcare system


So you have some shithole country festering in disease, and you get limited money to put towards health,  Vaccines are not necessarily a bad thing.  For the last fucking time, I agree you need clean stuff, water, habits, facilities.    Sure 25% of the worlds population does not have access to sanitation, and 11% clean water.  I get it I get it I get it I get it.  That is not vaccines fault.

Check out this article

When the water isn’t clean, vaccines offer protection

And finally this WHO bulliten that says.

Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide

I am not on some crusade, and dont need your approval of my position.  You cant address everything at once. 

=======

3% profits is not profiteering
A few docs over diagnosing OCD is not even are remote blame that  vaccines leading to poor sanitation. Actually i showed articles that say vaccines are part of the solution.  They dont say it makes it worse.






Round 4
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
Pro
#7
Jackle wrote...
I am very confused here.  I thought the debate was about you saying that vaccines  may lead to profiteering, and poor sanitation.

But you are including a bunch of other stuff that ain't connected.
Can you please show the stuff you are referring too. And explain how this negates the stuff of relevance

TheJackle wrote....
Like pharmaceutical companies, you said earn 2-3% of profits from vaccines.  If they make 100s of billions of other items, and that is a problem why are you saying it is vaccines fault?  Pick a fight with their other issue, and scams.  by my math, there is still another 97% of profit to go after.
Well yes. True. But who says i wont make a thread about the other 97% of stuff? I am thinking of making a thread soon about the downside of development aid actually. But this thread is about vaccines. And what it says on the tine.

TheJackle wrote.....
I dont understand why vaccines are the focus.  You said that I am your opponent so I wont see the argument.  Well that is fucked.  How is this supposed to be a debate if you cant tell me what your argument is.  How ya gonna be judged if ya'll cant give a clear argument.

Vaccines are the focus because that is what i decided to create a thread regarding. And it is self explanatory what i am arguing for. "Over reliance on vaccinations may lead to profiteering and poor sanitation".

You are free to oppose this with a counter argument if you wish. But it is round 3 so better get moving.

TheJackle wrote
What happened to your "All cards should be on the table"
All my cards have been on the table. See round 1. Or round 2. The bits in the blue quotes with links on top. Feel free to challenge or counter those anytime you wish.

TheJackle wrote....
You are making me hunt for your arguments.  And then you start the same fucking word games as DrSpy,   "may" cause.
I am merely replying to you. When you make a serious argument i shall respond likewise.

TheJackle wrote....
Because some asshole doctors over diagnose OCD, you are saying that is caused by vaccines.
Why are you paraphrasing and not providing the quote where i said that? Because that is not quite what i said.

But...Not only do people, become so trusting in "big pharma" and the protection vaccines give us. They no longer regard other even more important factors, such as sanitation practises. If they did, they would not send a person that washes their hands excessively to the psychiatrist to be dignosed OCD, as i stated in an earlier round.
That is what i said. Meaning, if they regarded sanitation and washing ones hands frequently important, they would not send those that do to the psychiatrist.

TheJackle wrote....
And if money is spent on vaccines, and not sanitation, maybe it is because you get bigger bang for your buck.
Yes, they get bigger financial returns selling vaccines than they do soap.


TheJackle wrote...
So you have some shithole country festering in disease, and you get limited money to put towards health,  Vaccines are not necessarily a bad thing.  For the last fucking time, I agree you need clean stuff, water, habits, facilities.    Sure 25% of the worlds population does not have access to sanitation, and 11% clean water.  I get it I get it I get it I get it.  That is not vaccines fault.

I never said vaccines are a bad thing.
I said "Over reliance on vaccinations may lead to profiteering and poor sanitation".

This would suggest a "might" be saying "over reliance" on vaccines is a bad things.
That is not anywhere near the same as vaccines being a bad thing.

I even said at end of last round 

You are championing the "correct" fight with trying to wake people up about vaccines being good and safe.
And what i said is inconsistent with your claim that i think vaccines are a bad thing.

TheJackle wrote...
When the water isn’t clean, vaccines offer protection
Yes, i completely agree. And they offer protection even when the water is clean.

TheJackle wrote....
Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide

Yes i agree with this too. Vaccines have helped reduce and eradicate many diseases.

TheJackle wrote....
I am not on some crusade, and dont need your approval of my position.  You cant address everything at once.
Of course not.

TheJackle wrote....
3% profits is not profiteering
£81 billion is though

The company has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. As of August 2016, it had a market capitalisation of £81 billion

TheJackle wrote...
A few docs over diagnosing OCD is not even are remote blame that  vaccines leading to poor sanitation. Actually i showed articles that say vaccines are part of the solution.  They dont say it makes it worse.


Yes, i can find those too.

A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as a threat, destroy it, and to further recognize and destroy any of the microorganisms associated with that agent that it may encounter in the future. Vaccines can be prophylactic (to prevent or ameliorate the effects of a future infection by a natural or "wild" pathogen), or therapeutic (e.g., vaccines against cancer, which are being investigated).
And i can truelly say i agree with every word of it.
Agreeing with it, does not contradict "Over reliance on vaccinations may lead to profiteering and poor sanitation", one iota.

All my arguments from round 1 and round 2 still stand, even though they were not discussed this round.
I would have discussed them, but the subject never arose.
TheJackle's avatar
TheJackle
Con
#8
Well we don't need more rounds of this.

You agree with everything I said.

Gonna sum up.

FIRST

2-3% of something is not excessive.  I think you are arguing that if the big number is so big, then any percentage of big is excessive.  But ya tried to imply that 81B was the 2-3% profit.  It is not.  Your definition shows 81B as the market cap of one pharma company.  in 2018 their profit was 4B.   3% of 4B is....... 120M

You are playing games with numbers.  120 million look like 81 billion.

Look at the list of largest profits and losses. No pharma on the list



You ain't shown that 2-3% or for GSK 120million is profiteering.    No evidence that pharma is profiteering.

SECOND


You said

They no longer regard other even more important factors, such as sanitation practises.
But you gave no proof.  You are saying that people think the vaccine is a superpower, but you did not give any proof.




Next round is just gonna be me saying thanks.  Lets see what da voters be sayi'n
Round 5
Nevets's avatar
Nevets
Pro
#9
TheJackle wrote....You agree with everything I said.
I agree with certain things you said of course. But none of it was to do with the subject matter. I have made it no secret i am not an anti-vaxxer, and you mistook me for such.

I especially agreed with you regarding this comment earlier

TheJackel wrote...
Profiteering means make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit.

TheJackle wrote....
2-3% of something is not excessive.  I think you are arguing that if the big number is so big, then any percentage of big is excessive.  But ya tried to imply that 81B was the 2-3% profit.  It is not.  Your definition shows 81B as the market cap of one pharma company.  in 2018 their profit was 4B.   3% of 4B is....... 120M
My opponent is simply repeating the same argument and ignoring the responses i gave in earlier rounds.

Here is where she brought it up last round

TheJackle wrote....
Like pharmaceutical companies, you said earn 2-3% of profits from vaccines.  If they make 100s of billions of other items, and that is a problem why are you saying it is vaccines fault?  Pick a fight with their other issue, and scams.  by my math, there is still another 97% of profit to go after.
And i reolied

Well yes. True. But who says i wont make a thread about the other 97% of stuff? I am thinking of making a thread soon about the downside of development aid actually. But this thread is about vaccines. And what it says on the tine.
And even in the round before that, she says

TheJackel wrote.....
Opponent does not say how or why 2-3% profit would qualify as excessive.
And i replied

The answer is in the post i made at top of round 2

TheJackel wrote....
You are playing games with numbers.  120 million look like 81 billion.

Look at the list of largest profits and losses. No pharma on the list

Great! But issues with greedy oil companies and the wars fought over oil, is a subject for another thread. I am not discussing the negatives of those companies on your list. It is not in my title. 

TheJackle wrote....
You ain't shown that 2-3% or for GSK 120million is profiteering.    No evidence that pharma is profiteering.

My opponent is even repeating on this round the same claim she has repeated every round going back to round 2.
Completely ignoring my responses.

TheJackle wrote....
But you gave no proof.  You are saying that people think the vaccine is a superpower, but you did not give any proof.
The title is "Over reliance on vaccinations may lead to profiteering and poor sanitation".
When you see the word "may" or "likely is" or "could be" it is most likely going to be a subject where absolute proof is going to be impossible to establish, as it is a matter of personal opinion and perceptions.
However in round 1 and also in round 2 i gave quite extensive arguments as to what brought me to this conclusion. Any objection you had to those arguments i responded to, but i found myself having to produce the same argument again over and over as you appeared to begin simply ignoring my responses and repeating the same question, without explaining why you do not accept the answer given to you. 

TheJackle wrote.....
You are saying that people think the vaccine is a superpower, but you did not give any proof.
Where did a say i think people think vaccines are a superpower?
Can you please provide the quotation in round 5 showing where i said this.
I know you will not be able to

My opponent seen that this thread was a thread criticizing vaccines, and mistook me for "an anti vaxxer".
My opponent for this reason has no honest argument against me. And this is why this debate took the turn it did after round 3 when she realised that i am not an anti-vaxxer and i do not hold the views she attempted to attribute to me.

My opponent obviously still wants to win the debate, by any means, so she is not going to admit to this.

However it is pretty much written in black and white that this is the case.

I have nothing else to add, apart from that all my points made in round 1, went almost unobjected.

Thanks
TheJackle's avatar
TheJackle
Con
#10
I think it is pretty funny when you keep saying you made an argument that you did not make.


Ya didn't show anything about profiteering.  Ya never showed that the profits made are excessive, or anything beyond profit.
Ya didn't show anything that says people are less sanitary because of vaccines.

So my argument stands.

Thank you.