The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Debating about whether OIT is practical or not
Ay, you waive every single first round. Fine, then I'll cite my sources and set up the definitions.
OIT (Oral Immunotherapy) is a method of giving immunotherapy by mouth. It is used to increase tolerance rates (desensitizing the person to the allergen) by feeding the allergen to the patient.
Good luck mate!
I was waiving to see your points. Well then, OIT is very beneficial to the patient as it may cure lethal, or near-lethal allergies. Some may say a risk is taken, but doesn't every good thing take risks? Like chemotherapy, surgery, and vaccines. There is currently no way else to cure these allergies except for shots, which cure different allergens that are not ingested, so this brings up the nirvana fallacy. There's barely any reason why OIT is bad, like there's barely any reason that Vaccines are bad.
OIT is very beneficial to the patient as it may cure lethal, or near-lethal allergies.
OIT can only cure IgE related allergies which are only one type of allergy causes.
Some may say a risk is taken, but doesn't every good thing take risks?
There is no risk within OIT, there is only the fact that most of the time it has an 80% success rate, meaning that it works only 4/5 times.
There is currently no way else to cure these allergies except for shots
This is false. There is another type of immunotherapy known as sublingual immunotherapy which, similar to OIT, uses the mouth but uses tablets.
so this brings up the nirvana fallacy
Do you understand what the nirvana fallacy is? The nirvana fallacy is comparing real things with a perfect idealized counterpart that isn't real. So no this does not bring up the nirvana fallacy.
There's barely any reason why OIT is bad, like there's barely any reason that Vaccines are bad.
Firstly there are reasons OIT is bad, and secondly vaccines? Excuse me but I thought we were talking about OIT here not vaccines. Forgive me if you misunderstood me somewhere and thought I was going against vaccines but I wasn't.
shots, which cure different allergens that are not ingested
which cure different allergens that are not ingested
Environmental allergies (allergens that are not ingested) are not curable by OIT, so I'd say it's a fair tradeoff.
OIT isn't a "cure" for allergies as many make it out to be. It is just a form of desensitization that allows the patient to eat the food without getting an allergic reaction. But here's the catch, the patient has to eat the allergen daily even if he/she is desensitized to the allergen, and this isn't even accounting for the ~40 weeks to get there! Also, to my knowledge, OIT does not even cure my allergy, seafood. Another thing is, as aforementioned, OIT does not work for patients with Eosinophilic Esophagitis, which is another form of allergy, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and Celiac disease. OIT isn't completely safe either. Severe allergic reactions occur in 1-10% of patients on OIT. Also, the rate of anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction that may cause death from severe swelling, is 5%! And on top of all that to even start OIT, the patient needs to be 4 years old! These are the reasons why OIT is not a good option when taking allergy medications.
Additional Sources used: