When presenting this argument, you should outline its key points and main conclu

When presenting this argument, you should outline its key points and main conclusions, and provide a general idea about its potential implications or repercussions. However, do not reveal how or why the argument is debunked in the podcast. Your goal here is to present the argument as it would be advocated by its proponents, without any critique or analysis, before the podcasters present their critique. As in some of our recent discussions, your primary goal is to accurately summarize an argument to give your classmates an opportunity to practice their critical reasoning skills. *Note that you do not need to summarize the entire episode* USE THIS FORMAT. DON’T WRITE A LOT EITHER AND THE TEXT BELOW IS MERELY AN EXAMPLE BUT YOU MUST USE THIS FORMAT. Podcast: Debunkers! Episode: Debunking Anti-Vaccine Myths Conclusion: Vaccines are linked to autism, particularly the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine. Key Premises: 1. Autism Link: The proponents of this argument often refer to a study published in 1998 in The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, by a British gastroenterologist, Andrew Wakefield. The study posited a correlation between the MMR vaccine and the onset of autism and bowel disease. 2. Vaccine Ingredients: Anti-vaccine advocates also argue that vaccines contain harmful substances, such as mercury in the form of thimerosal, which they claim contribute to the development of autism. 3. Natural Immunity: They also argue that natural immunity — that is, immunity obtained by catching and recovering from a disease — is more effective and safer than vaccine-induced immunity. Implications of this Argument: If valid, this argument would have serious repercussions for public health policies worldwide. It would call into question the safety and efficacy of not just the MMR vaccine, but all vaccines that use similar compounds. This could potentially lead to a decline in vaccination rates, potentially resulting in outbreaks of diseases that were previously controlled or eradicated. It could also lead to widespread skepticism toward the importance of herd immunity in controlling the spread of infectious diseases.