Vaccine DA — Impact Defense

Vaccine DA — Impact Defense

Anti-science

There is science behind anti-vaxxer’s claims.

It is not reasonable to assume that manipulation of the immune system through an increasing number of vaccinations during critical periods of brain development will not result in adverse neurodevelopment outcomes(1)

Post-Vaccine Neurological Complications

Research has shown that there is a direct relationship between thimerosal and the rate of autism. The paper determined that there was also a correlation between the number of measles-containing vaccines and autism prevalence during the 1980’s. A couple of years ago, an Italian court ruled that the MMR vaccine was the cause of Autism in the case presented. A recent study by the University of British Colombia came out exposing the HPV vaccine as being dangerous to health as well. UBC doctors also exposed a Vaccination cover-up, demonstrating through official documents that vaccine manufactures have been aware of their adverse effects for a number of years.

Adverse Effects

Reports in many Polish and foreign medical journals lead us to conclude that postvaccinal complications among children can be observed in sporadic cases and that they are disproportionate to the benefits of vaccination in the elimination of dangerous diseases in childhood(1)

This study and many others leave little doubt that vaccines can be extremely hazardous to human health.

They first illustrate the adverse effects that occur shortly after vaccination as they are acknowledged by Polish law. These include:

Local reactions, including:

local reactions after the BCG (tuberculosis) vaccine

swelling

lymphadenopathy

abscess at the injection site

Postvaccinal adverse events of the central nervous system:

encephalopathy

febrile convulsions

non-febrile convulsions

paralytic poliomyelitis caused by vaccine virus

encephalitis

meningitis

Guillain-Barré syndrome

Other adverse events following immunization:

joint pain

hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode

fever above 39°C

thrombocytopenia

continuous inconsolable crying

Next they explore the fact that the vaccine schedule has increased dramatically since the time of these studies and antigens are being injected again and again.

Doctors and researchers point to the worsening state of the health of the child population since the 1960s, which coincided with increasingly introduced vaccinations. Allergic diseases, including asthma autoimmune diseases, diabetes and many neurological dysfunctions-difficulty in learning, ADD, ADHD, seizures, and autism – are chronic conditions, to which attention has been brought(1)

As far as immune system effects, they go on to state that the common practice of administering more than one adjuvant at a time or repeatedly injecting the same antigen can produce autoimmune disorders. They also point out that the toxicity of adjuvants can produce a range of adverse reactions. The hepatitis B vaccine has been known to cause Fatal Auto-Immune Disorder.

Often times, Doctors are not fully aware of the dangers associated with vaccines nor the ingredients and studies available to show they can be hazardous. Doctors should be encouraged to independently seek out a variety of sources and look at a variety of journals on the subject. It is quite possible that they would realize the vaccine world is not black and white and serious consideration needs to be taken when looking at the current vaccine schedule.

Ableism — No solvency

The neg’s narrow focus on autism in the vaccination debate is insufficient – a complete critical examination of ableist structures and mindsets should be the priority.

Choicewords 14 – Choicewords is a blog that highlights the young people’s views on issues related reproductive justice and gender equity, 2014 (“Challenging Ableism: Autism and the Conversation About Vaccines”, Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equality, March 24, Available Online at http://urge.org/challenging-ableism-autism-and-the-conversation-about-vaccines/, accessed 7/21/15, KM)

Recently there has been a debacle in the public health field about the connection between vaccines and autism. The Center for Disease Control will tell you there is no connection, while plenty of Americans and Jenny McCarthy believe that there is a definite link between the two. First off, there is such a range of autism. I will be using the term autism spectrum disorders (ASD) to cover the range of them, including Asperger syndrome, since there is rarely the distinction around this conversation. If you are not familiar with ASD, check out what information the Center for Disease Control has. But I am not here to debate with you about whether vaccines “cause” ASD. But here’s the thing: Why are we so afraid of autism and children with disabilities? One of the problems I have with this debate is how we talk about oppression and autism. Why is it that we talk about being afraid of having children with autism, rather than ways to change ableist mindsets? I acknowledge that the quality of life with autism is not high for a number of reasons beyond social circumstances; but why aren’t we focusing on eliminating oppression, rather than the disorder itself? Why is our biggest debate about whether or not autism is caused by vaccines, rather than why kids with ASD are more likely to grow up to be unemployed, or why children of color with ASD are less likely to have access to services? Ableism and ableist language is a huge problem in public health communities, with language about “eliminating” particular disabilities being very prominent. While the intentions of folks in the public health field are to improve the well-being of the community, it ignores how this language impacts how people with ASD are perceived. When we put down ASD, we are putting down people with ASD. When we talk about “preventing” ASD, we are creating a hierarchy of, able bodies >disabled bodies. It perpetuates oppression of people with ASD. In social justice, we also must ask the question to ourselves: why are we so obsessed with “curing” disabilities, instead of focusing on making life easier for folks with disabilities? Why are we so content with putting expensive prosthetic limbs on people with an amputated leg, instead of making the 2nd floor of a building accessible? This is especially true in reproductive justice movements, when we consider the ethics of terminating pregnancies with fetuses with disabilities and predicting them in utero. In the end, our obsession with curing and preventing disabilities comes down to internalized ableism, and people being terrified of themselves or their children being diagnosed with a disability. Ultimately, creating accessible and accepting spaces, uplifting voices of folks with ASD and other disabilities, and dismantling an ableist mindset should be our priority, rather than dueling out how to prevent autism in the battle of the vaccines.

Counterplan

CP Card

Enforcement of DO NOT TRACK solves

Strauss, Spring 2014 (Benjamin, JD Candidate 2014, “ONLINE TRACKING: CAN THE FREE MARKET CREATE CHOICE WHERE NONE EXISTS?” Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property Lexis)

Any legislation aimed at protecting Internet privacy should aim at shedding light on what information is being collected, and provide some enforceable mechanism for consumers to opt out of Internet tracking. A Do-Not-Track regime should grant consumers the opportunity to voice their opposition to being tracked, and require that the preference be honored. Thus far, any attempt for the market to establish voluntary compliance with Do-Not-Track headers has failed. Critics argue that advertisers have no incentive to provide robust privacy protections for consumers because they derive much of their revenue from Internet tracking and profiling. n243 I disagree. The incentives have simply not been sufficient so far. People are still using Google even though they (should) know that their online activity is being tracked. Presumably it does not bother a significant number of consumers enough to stop or switch services. If companies are not losing visitors due to their tracking policies, why change? One solution is to implement a legally-binding Do-Not-Track regime. As outlined above, the technology is simple. Users may simply activate the Do-Not-Track preference in their browser or mobile device. This preference, however, must be universally applicable to cookies, mobile apps, in-store mobile analytics software, and traditional web browsing. It should also be simple, with clear instructions provided by the software or device provider. A legally-binding Do-Not-Track regime would only require a law mandating that webhosts (or $=P568 controllers) honor the users' preference. There does not need to be, nor should there be, a centralized Do-Not-Track list. A government-controlled centralized list carries privacy risks of its own. n244 The legislation should permit the FTC or FCC to impose fines or other administrative sanctions similar to those in China's draft amendments discussed above. n245 In addition, the legislation should also provide individuals with a legal claim against companies who do not honor their preference to not be tracked. However, administrative enforcement is likely to be more successful as many individuals will lack the time and resources to litigate against information-collecting giants such as Google. Some argue the system should be Do-Not-Track by default, thus requiring individuals to opt in if they do not mind being tracked. n246 This, however, is not necessary and poses greater consequences than an opt-out system. Any opt-out regime runs the risk of fundamentally altering the economic paradigm of the Internet. If enough people opt out, service providers will be stripped of the economic incentive to offer free services. Without advertising revenue, it is unlikely that Google will continue to offer free services such as Gmail, Google Drive, and Google Docs. If everyone is automatically opted out, it is likely far fewer people would opt in, thus exacerbating this problem. n247 A Do-Not-Track by default system might even cause behavioral advertising to "wither to insignificance," even though it offers value for many customers, "most of whom don't mind the practice." n248 Additionally, the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) argues against Do-Not-Track as the default setting because it purportedly does not represent user choice. n249 The DAA even declared it would ignore Internet Explorer's Do-Not-Track header because Microsoft (by way of Internet Explorer 10) was essentially making the Do-Not-Track decision on behalf of its users. n250 An opt-out regime would likely suffice so long as it permits privacy-concerned individuals to browse anonymously at their election, and the DAA would have no argument against the choice manually activated by the user. $=P569 Enforcement legislation might not be the best solution to the problem. Critics, including Michigan Congressman Fred Upton, are highly skeptical of Congress' or the government's ability to "keep up with the innovative and vibrant pace of the Internet without breaking it." n251 Upton believes that "[c]onsumers and the economy as a whole will not be well served by government attempts to wrap the Web in red tape." n252 As detailed above, the E.U. Directive has already been criticized for failing to keep up with innovation as the rules on data exportation and transfer to third countries were deemed "outmoded" by the RAND Corporation. n253 This is perhaps a compelling argument considering the government's inability to build a functioning health care website after throwing $ 600 million at it. n254 Enforcement legislation also fails to address the global nature of the Internet. As seen with the E.U. Directive, enforcement outside the sovereign's jurisdiction is impossible without international cooperation, thus inhibiting the effectiveness of the privacy program. The world, along with the Internet, will only become increasingly more globalized. Considering the United States has yet to institute an opt-out protocol on a national scale, it is very unlikely a global consensus will be reached to establish an international standardized opt-out protocol. The free market, however, can traverse international borders. Enforcement legislation may not be required if the market can incentivize companies to honor Do-Not-Track requests by users or alter their profiling practices to dissuade consumer discomfort. Transparency or "right of access" laws (as seen in the E.U. Directive and PRC Decision) could provide this incentive. If users are permitted access to what information is collected about them, and how that information is used, perhaps we can indeed shed light on the largely hidden, highly lucrative world of the personal data market. If users object to the type of information collected or the way in which the information is used, consumers can opt out. If the opt-out preference is not honored, consumers can voice their opinions in other ways. Users can essentially "vote with their feet" by switching to services that have less intrusive tracking policies or to companies that honor tracking requests. When companies begin to experience a loss in revenue by way of fewer active users, they will be forced to alter their practices. Twitter has recently announced it will honor Do-Not-Track settings in $=P570 users' browsers when it launches its ad exchange. n255 Perhaps this is evidence that the market is gradually adapting to consumer preference in this area. Google and other "free" service providers could incentivize individuals to forego opting out in exchange for access to these free services. Additionally, Google could offer these same services for a fee to consumers who choose to opt out of tracking. This would place a value on an individual's privacy on the Internet. If users place a value on their Internet privacy that is higher than the fee charged for these services, they will continue to opt out. However, if users wish to continue to use the free services, they can do so in exchange for their consent to tracking by the service provider. Essentially, this places a monetary value on a user's browsing profile and can at least provide some return to the users whose data is being collected and exploited. It is perhaps a utopian idea of market economics, and it is unclear whether such a system would be sustainable, but it is an alternative solution to a stagnant legislature who has failed to seriously address online privacy.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 0.51 Mb.

Share with your friends: