- Roberto Sciffo
- Nicosia
- Cyprus
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Debate: Do vaccines work or are they just another money making tool in a trillion dollar industry?
There is much debate regarding vaccination; imposing on an individual's rights, questionable proof as to their effectiveness, and possible links to neurological diseases like epilepsy and autism.
Vaccines act like a type of homoeopathic remedy in the sense that the 'bug' is introduced into the body so that the autoimmune system may produce anti-bodies to protect against the 'bug'.
But, as far as I can tell, the germ theory was debated in early 1900's and disproved in the 1950's, therefore voiding all need for fighting 'bugs'.
So do vaccines actually work? What proof is there? Or is it more for big profit for big pharma?
I am open to all sides of the story!
Closing Statement from Roberto Sciffo
Thank you all for your contributions. It was a great learning experience, and I am sorry to have missed the last day of commenting due to work. I would have enjoyed commenting on you all individually.
We have heard both sides of the story. Pro-vaccination are happy because it provides safety to us and our children, and the statistics that indicate the effectiveness of the vaccine, and Stephan's comments as to how they work.
We are faced however with a 'small' number of people who have had their children come about with symptoms of reduced development progress through to epilepsy and autism.
We have also wondered whether so many vaccines so soon in life a a great idea, considering the fact that the aluminum levels exceed the 'allowed' amount.
The fact that the heavy metals are toxic and are known to promote dis-ease in the body, is something that I can not stress the importance of enough.
The World Health Organization noted as early as 1974 that heavy metal and chemical toxicity were at the cause of most chronic degenerative diseases.
I appreciate Linda Taylor for her research into what I have stated, and her challenges, will add:
1) the mean size of the zeolites are 0.3 microns therefore able to pass into the blood stream.
2) if you are to perform a detox, it needs to be done in stages so as to make it safe. Little of this information is available online.
3) the study you quote done on zeolites, please send me the link to the study as I would like to investigate it and see what the company has to say. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
4) You quote ' Rock that absorb toxins especially ammonia, might be of value' - Zeolites as well as chlorella have been
use since the 80's I believe, in waste water treatment plants for that very reason, both performing as far as I can tell, equally well at about 50% removal. Both are being used as detox mediums as well.
Thank you all and I hope we have all learned a great deal from this debate. Wishing us all the best!
Rita Tell
And anyway, a top scientist--sorry, I can´t remember who--said once that we only know about 10% of reality. So, if that is true, then scientific research is like making a person who was born blind differentiate colours.
Science is a very small account of a very small portion of reality. By that I don´t mean it´s worthless at all. I think it should be taken off its pedestal, though.
If that was not your question, or if it was a rhetoric one, then forget all of the above stuff.
Anyway, the important question for you should be: what am I going to do about it?
peter lindsay 30+
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full
Rita Tell
If it´s only research with a positive outcome that see the light in the majority of cases, I think that no one really knows if they do or don´t have a side effect, and if they do, iif it´s serious or negligible. And what if 5 out of 10 studies showed that they do have side effects, and the other 5 showed that they do not have side effects, which ones should be believed? How´s that for the objectivity of science! Of course you can always argue that one is wrong and the other one is right, according to your own way of thinking, of course. The other scientist, or reseacher, or whatever will disagree. Yep, very objective, just as any talent TV show--I´m exaggerating, I know, but I´m enjoying it so much!!
So Entropy, you hold the truth and nothing but the truth? Based on what? On what research, the first 5, or the second 5 out of 10 studies? At the end of the day, I think that science requires a leap of faith.
Oh, and since there are only 6 hours left before this conversation shuts down, I´d like to point out that engineers do think, if they think the bottle is the wrong size, well, that´s another way of thinking. We see the straw in our neighbour´s eye and not the beam in ours...(read this with a lilt)
Linda Taylor 50+
What are you going to do about it?
Fernando Angeles
Liran Udi
peter lindsay 30+
Rita Tell
Cheers!!
Entropy Driven
Rita Tell
"Humanities are boring and dull. Who cares who did what to whom and when and what arose from it. There is no practical application to any of it outside it's own little world and little thinkers" OMG!! No wonder the world has only evolved technologically!! This is sooooo very sad to read. I really don´t have the strength to convince you otherwise, because, yes, you are not prepared to see some things, sorry. Keep questioning your own beliefs and perhaps one day you´ll see the light. No disrespect intented, just a lot of sadness.
And again you´re falling in the trap: "try to get a job with a humanities degree", as if getting a job was the ultimate goal of human existence. Please listen to Ken Robinson´s talks. He puts it so much better than me. You might start to change your mind a tiny tiny tiny tiny little bit. Good luck!
Gordon Barker 10+
Humanities are boring because they are not science. They are soft wishy washy descriptive "somethings" that are not rigorous, can't predict anything and seem only to know what happens in the past tense.
The reason why we have developed technologically and not socially (much) is because of this failing of the humanities. It's not our fault (scientists), its your fault (humanitists).
Read a math textbook and get to work.
Sir Kenneth is saying that education's ultimate goal was to get you a job when you got a degree. It should not be and probably isn't any more (we just haven't realized it yet). He is also saying that this particular approach stifles creativity and I agree with him. That still does not make the humanities interesting
Rita Tell
Gordon Barker 10+
I have read everything the Chomsky has written and listened to most of his lectures. I have read most of what Pinker has written (he's a little long winded). Yes I know they work at MIT.
No, I am not interested in linguistics because my brain is not wired in that way (I have no talent in that regard)
History is boring in the way that it is taught. As a research topic it is facinating and I study History all the time. (you cant listen to Chomsky without being dragged there regardless).
Both Kenneth Robinson and Noam Chomsky have interesting things to say on Education (Chomsky more pessimestic, Robinson more optimistic). I agree that the current model was created to support the industrial revolution and it is becoming more and more useless as a measurement of achievement, etc.
I believe that education should be self directed, discovery based without peer groups and age buckets for students to live in. The arts should be as important as math in school
Without realizing it at the time, my own education followed that path and I found it very rewarding.
My poor opinion of the humanities does not come from a low opinion of it because it is useless, but rather that it is vital but could do better.
We need engineering thinking in social interaction and education and history. We need help to deal with 7 billion people on this planet, political forces beyond our current understanding, and economic system in tatters and astrophysics will not help that.
The humanities will but they need to step up to the plate. If you are getting a degree in the humanities then its up to your generation to fix what my generation has screwed up.
I am sorry, I will never see the movie you mention as I have no hope of ever speaking spanish.
Roberto Sciffo
We have covered this point if you read the other conversations.
They do work. All good there.
It is the combined long term effects that are of concern. Should so much aluminium be given at the same time to children under 5 or 6 years of age when their brain and immune sytems have not yet developed fully?
There are no studies done for combined effects, nor long term effects.
So ultimately, are they protecting us from one virus yet causing damage that opens us to more problems later in life.
If so, then they need to be looked at and amended. And if the damage is great, then their use should be questioned too. There are alternatives.
Rita Tell
Stefan H. Farr
I did read the conversations, but I thought I add my point of view as well.
The aluminum and the sort that you are referring to are so called adjuvants. They are intended to boost the immune response because only if there is an immune response to the vaccine will the vaccine do its job (train the immune system to respond to certain markers found in certain pathogens). Unoforunately not all markers are easy to recognize, and so not all vaccines work as easily as smallpox vaccine. HIV, Ebola, Malaria and other horrible sickneses still have no cure and no vaccines because of this very reason. That is why people try different techniques like vaccines augmented to give hightened immune response.
For scientists this is a challange, a way to affirm themselves, for farmaceutical companies a business opportunity and for people who live with these pathogens on a daily basis it represents a great deal of hope.
Unfortunately, medical science is not an exact scienct, what works on paper not always works in lab and what works in lab not always works in the field. People are different, they react differently to various external factors. It is hard work and sometimes it goes wrong.
But the payoff is high. If the smallpox vaccine hadn't been invented, smallpox would probably kill tens of millions of people each year. Flu kills approximately 500 thousand people each year because we only have a partial vaccine for it. Malaria kills even more each year. Maybe 50 years from now, people will look back and say: "This year 500 thousand people didn't die because we have a defence against flu".
Some people do have adverse reaction to vaccines, it is a proven fact, what we don't know is how many of those would have an even worse reaction to the actual disease? These are questions impossible to respond and the are highly subjective. Vaccines do have the potential to cause harm, but they also have a vastly superior potential to prevent it.
peter lindsay 30+
There are no studies done for combined effects, nor long term effects."
I refer you once again to the list of references I posted below. Many of the studies deal with multiple vaccines and cover over 20 years.
Roberto Sciffo
I believe your theory of needing heat to cause an ionic exchange is questionable. Ever magnetized iron?
That one assumption is causing the rest to fall. And placing such theories online is not a good idea.
Do you actually think that there are a group of individuals running about with autistic kids or skin disorders or a host of other symptoms who just want to make money off volcanic rock? Are you serious?
Rather than just working online, and making assumptions about how things work, contact Touchstone Essentials directly, and ask to talk to Dr. Tracy Holdford the Chief Science Officer who holds the following degrees:
Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry
Ph.D. Organic Chemistry
Ph.D. Biochemistry
Ph.D. Nuclear Physics
Ph.D. Theology & Philosophy
Then talk to the people who have had their lives change from eating rock.
Unless you really know how the body works, and that includes biochemistry and bio-energy (biological terrain management) to start with, and add to that the states of mind etc., then stop, listen, get educated, and even try the product (as it is so inert that it should do nothing to your system).
Then comment.
Linda Taylor 50+
Absolutely.
"Unless you really know how the body works, and that includes biochemistry and bio-energy"
Actually I do. That is why I am relatively sure you are simply exchanging Na+ and K+ for H+ in gastric contents. Haven't done any experiments but that would be my hypothesis.
If you notice, NONE of the websites say that Dr. Holdford endorses the product. Only that he is a consultant.
Did you notice what his research is on?
Ph.D. Theology and Philosophy
Honors Dissertation: “The Spiritual Gap between Culture and Religion.”.............. 1991
Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry
Honors Dissertation: “The Role of Sulfites in Manufacturing
Submicron Geometries for the Electronics Industries.”............................................ 1981
Ph.D. Biochemistry
Honors Dissertation: “Krebs Cycle Failure in Null Gravity.”.................................. 1981
Ph.D. Nuclear Physics
Honors Dissertation: “Isotope Stabilization Options for
Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Charged Atmosphere Conditions.”............................. 1980
PhD Organic Chemistry
Honors Dissertation: “The Role of Organic Sulfur
in the Manufacturing of Polymer Isolates.”............................................................. 1979
Not a SINGLE one has to do with humans except perhaps the Krebs cycle. He worked for the department of defense and does NOT hold a medical degree.
And even then, he states that the product probably does not work.
"If the zeolite can’t enter the bloodstream then it has to stay in the colon where it is limited to the
exposure to toxins for removal. Our bodies are extremely efficient at storing toxins in the
fatty tissues of our bodies."
Which I noted several postings ago.
Magic beans.
Linda Taylor 50+
"More recently, Pavelic et al have demonstrated that the lymphocytes from lymph
nodes of mice that were fed for 28 days with micronized zeolite clinoptilolite
provoked a significantly higher allogeneic graft-versus-host reaction than did
lymphocytes in control mice. After the mice were administered clinoptilolite
intraperitoneally, the number of peritoneal macrophages increased significantly, as
did their superoxide anion production."
It is a direct quote from one of the research articles. What might work is the fact that this study placed the rocks within the peritoneal space. When the liver is overloaded or malfunctions, excess fluid accumulates in the peritoneal space. Rock that absorb toxins especially ammonia, might be of value. If it could be made into a mesh of some sort or if it was instilled and withdrawn. Hypovolemia would be the make or break on this one.
But I do not know how to tell you there is no chance that ingested volcanic rock is going to remove heavy metals from the body tissues when ingested via the gut. Even the white paper states the heavy metal has to come in direct contact with the zeolyte to bond with it. The body just does not work like that.
Stefan H. Farr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox. This highly contagious diseases has has killed millions and millons of people along the history. Once caught, there is no cure, one either fights if of or one dies. Various strains have different mortality rate but in general they move around 30% (In every 100 sick people 30 will die). Thanks to vaccination howerver, this disease was erradicated so not a single person dies in our days out of the 7 billion potential candidates that exist out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio. This one can cause horrible growth defects and paralises, but thanks to vacciences, nobody has it nowadays in the developped world. It could actually be eradicated too, if we would have the discipline and will to do it.
And finally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies. One can only catch this if an animal with rabies bites you (dog, cat, bat, etc) but if you do cacth it, you better pray to God that vaccines are available before the symptoms occur, because once they do the mortality rate is 99% and the and the way to go is not pretty. With vaccination however, the success of curing is almost 100% (it mostly depends on how early the treatment starts).
Vaccines do work. There are countless other examples, some less impressive, but they are there. People doubt vaccines because there is a commercial aspect to them, but this is the capitalistic way of living. We don't trust it, we don't like it? let's change it. Let's donate money to science and to scientist so that they don't have to work for farmaceutical companies but to NGO's, because they are the people who actually develop the vaccines and whatever their motivation (helping people, fame) their success rate is measured in the success of the vaccines, so you can rest assured that their goal is to make them work.
Yuddandi Sivasubramanyam
how ever medicines are for cure and better health, not a barrier to death.
making money is the slogan of the day..
Yuddandi Sivasubramanyam
patients are made and vaccines are experimented. diseases are invented vaccines are introduced.
there is no humanitarian approach. 99% doctors are deaf. 99% people are deaf. any one feels/hurt with my comment, they come under !% lot.
Roberto Sciffo
Tyler Hopkins
Roberto Sciffo
There is no evidence or study done that I know of that was made for multiple vaccinations over the first 5-6 years of life, and their effects.
There are cases of severe side effects, whereby neurological damage is done, appearing after a vaccine shot, so there is certainly cause for thought.
Rita Tell
Rita Tell
Rita Tell
I think I read on this site someone saying something along these lines: I understood the importance of science at school, but whenever I would finish a science lesson, the only thing I got was a sort of reward for having solved this or that problem. When I left a humanities lesson, I would feel inspired to think, I wondered about loads of things, my imagination would begin to work and stretch...
That above expresses something that happens for real: the study of science, I would venture to say especially maths, kind of narrows the intellect; whereas the arts and humanities kind of expand it. Now, if you happen to be an "expanded" or rather ""expanding" thinker, you´re gonna find it difficult to be understood by a "narrower" or "narrowing" thinker. Such is the state of education nowadays where everything has been separated from all things human.
I´m not implying that one itype of thinking is good and the other is bad or the other way round. I´m implying that arts and humanities are extremely important to our human nature, one that we seem to be forgetting more and more everyday; one that people in the Renaissance, centuries ago, had very clear in their minds. So, have we really evolved, despite all our technological development? I sincerely doub it. Sorry, I´m ranting and derailing this conversation. My mind is over-expanded... (laughs)
Anyway, I´ve always found that the most eminent experts are usually the most humble and the most open to new ideas.
Linda Taylor 50+
It's too bad you don't understand how mind-blowing science is. It says a lot that you think it narrows the intellect. It is actually very exciting and creative. To create new knowledge is what science is all about. It is that creation that is so exciting, as exciting as creating new music or new art. Only less subjective. And scientists get to share it with other people too :)
Personally, if I ever have to sit through another damn history class I will pull my hair out.
Oh by the way, if anyone calls themselves an expert, they aren't. I don't think you need to rebel against experts. Just take the new information and integrate it with a grain of salt.
It's usually not the experts that are to blame for the state of the earth but the financial backers. Like the decision to make buses run on gasoline instead of electricity.
Roberto Sciffo
I so appreciate the fresh air of ideas you have joined in with!
I think we are all so different and that expansion for one may be contraction for the other, as it seems to indicate above! That is beautiful!
How about the combination of science and art?
Would you say cooking is an art? Or a science?
I invite you both to enjoy this video below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCBxGwzNhmg
Rita Tell
If I dared answer your next two questions I´d be dangerously entering the world of definitions. I´ve raved enough for one day!
Thanks for your kind comments.
Linda Taylor 50+
It is how you wield the medium that creates the art.
Just like paint is paint until applied to canvas.
(Rita - an expert is just paint, a researcher is just paint, a journal article is just paint - get it?)
Some of it is very very good, and some of it very very bad, but all of it contributes to new understanding of the world.
Rita Tell
Sure, in your definitions of things, only a few scientists perform art, just like I assume you believe that only a few artists perform science.
They say maths and poetry are closely link together, and so is music.
Linda Taylor 50+
And doesn't experimenting belong with science?
Rita Tell
My point isn´t “let´s not do science because it´s very concrete—it is, sorry—, and let´s only do humanities, because they make you think about everything—they do, sorry—. My point is we can´t continue to think that humanities are folklore, because they are not. They make us see different things. As you pointed out, we can only see, what we are prepared to see. Well then, if we only give importance to one type of knowledge, we´re missing out on a big chunk of reality and of humanity. We´re missing out on a way of looking at things from different angles. I remember hearing a top engineer say that her take on engineering was different from other colleagues of hers, because when she finished her degree, she decided to travel the world and learn about other stuff (folklore!). Apparently she was one of the best in her field of expertise.
I know for a fact that not all the people who work in scientific fields are able to think beyond the test tube in front of their eyes. But I have to give you that the greatest scientists have ended up being somewhat philosophers. I´ll keep with my rant down below.
Linda Taylor 50+
Science is only concrete at implementation. I know you probably don't understand that but it is true. Before that it is almost completely theoretical. An artform if you will. That is where the creation part comes in.
Humanities are boring and dull. Who cares who did what to whom and when and what arose from it. There is no practical application to any of it outside it's own little world and little thinkers. Ever try and get a job with a humanities degree? Yeah, unless you plan on teaching it as a career, good luck cause none of it matters. And heaven forbid you talk about some type of phenomena without someone else taking credit for having discovered it, or written it, or thought it first.
And engineers don't think at all. They measure stuff. One engineer friend of mine said there are people who think the glass is half empty, and people who think the glass is half full. An engineer thinks the glass is the wrong size. (OK I admit this is tounge in cheek so please all you wonderful engineers and humanities people forgive the exaggeration)
Tyler Hopkins
Rita Tell
As Linda pointed out, we “see” only what we are prepared to see. That´s why it is so essential to give an immense importance to the teaching—proper teaching—of arts and humanities in childhood and adolescence. But perhaps the powers that be are only interested in us seeing one side of reality to make us more productive… Sad. Do you think that George Orwell was subjective? Well, bring it on then. What´s wrong with subjectivity anyway? Do you think that objectivity is everything? Science is a very partial, limited take on reality. Newton said one thing, and years later along came Einstein to mess things up, and now some scientists claim that the universe is just "information"...And then again if we take into account what Ben Goldacre at TED says that some of you guys share, then what type of science are you talking about? It´s not only partial but biased. Besides iIn science you guys know some of the whats, wheres, how of a teeny tiny portion of realit,.. but many a time don´t know a tad about the whys. Partial, limited.
But of course you can be creative within science, I never said otherwise. And I´m positive it is mind-blowing. And yes, Tyler, science could have been my thing, I loved maths and physics, but not as much as other stuff.
Linda Taylor 50+
And really, sometimes I think we only see what money tells us to see. Money even trumps ethics.
peter lindsay 30+
Roberto Sciffo
I would not state that there is a correlation between the two, but I would also not state that vaccines have been properly tested and that are safe.
To my knowledge, there have been no studies with the combined effects of all the vaccines. Single studies are fine, even if they show safe.. but what are the combined effects?
The vaccine show promise in defending us for a certain viruses, but what are the side effects? Does it do damage at the same time? If so then this too need to be looked at.
Chemotherapy works sometimes too, but the effects are devastating.
Thanks for the feedback
Colleen Steen 500+
The effects of chemotherapy USED to be devastating, and if you do some research, you may discover that there are many new chemotherapy drugs, and drugs to deal with side effects. The chemotherapy mixtures used today are pretty advanced and have many different applications.
Unfortunately, my "research" started from practical application. In the past year, I have been involved with the care of 2 relatives who are on chemotherapy maintenance programs, and they are functioning pretty well in spite of serious cancer.
While accompanying my brother to chemotherapy sessions, we often talked with many people in the waiting room who are having similar results with chemotherapy. To make the statement that the effects of chemotherapy are devastating, suggests that any information you have may not be current.
One of your statements regarding vaccines, is based on information you have from the 1900s?
You state..." But, as far as I can tell, the germ theory was debated in early 1900's and disproved in the 1950's, therefore voiding all need for fighting 'bugs'."
Using outdated information for any argument doesn't make much sense....does it?
Roberto Sciffo
Firstly I wish your relatives well and hope it all works out; I lost my brother to liver cell carcinoma in 2003.
Regarding chemo, different individuals have different doses for different types of cancers and their state of health.
I will refer to the National Cancer institute link, for a list of side effects:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/chemo-side-effects
These possible side effects side effects do not indicate a therapy that is 'safe' even though it may be the best available. I hope anyone undergoing chemo does not have any side effects, but in order to have these reactions, there is some serious chemicals being introduced into the body.
Body chemistry is a very complex, and in many cases, unknown territory. To me it does not make sense to introduce a hazardous liquid into a body, and expect only one part of the body to be affected. And this does not include post chemo effects - what is the state of the body after chemo?
For some, chemo is the best solution as I hope it is for your relatives, and would I would not argue with you over it. I respect people's decisions and only am curious to a more broader view rather than case view.
Regarding the 1900's: This is about the germ theory, first found in 1500's and later developed in the 1700's (smallpox) and 1800's (Pasteur).
What I am hoping to have this audience understand is a paradigm shift. Many drugs and therapies (including alternative therapy) are made to tackle a bug or ailment. In the 1930's for 50 years following, tests were made on Russian conjoined twins (at hip) who shared a common blood stream. The same virus would circulate throughout their bodies, yet one would get sick and the other would not. It did not depend on the bug, but on the health of the body. (research Masha and Dasha - it is fascinating!).
This brings me back to my initial question: do vaccines do more harm than good? Do they protect us from one virus, yet reduce the immune system?
Colleen Steen 500+
I am sorry about the loss of your brother.
Regarding chemo: I agree with your statement..."different individuals have different doses for different types of cancers and their state of health",
Please read my comment, in which I state..."The chemotherapy mixtures used today are pretty advanced and have many different applications". I think we're saying the same thing, so you don't need to lecture me on that one....thanks....I've done quite a bit of research on the topic, and am aware of the many possible side effects.
I agree that with chemo there are "some serious chemicals being introduced into the body", which is exactly why it is used to treat and/or manage cancer. It's ok if you choose not to introduce chemo into your body...hopefully, you will never have to make that decision. I don't know what my decision might be either, and I will weigh all relevant information if that ever occurs.
It is very difficult to get a "more broader view", if you fail to look at case reviews...is it not? You don't seem to want to have a discussion, as much as you want to "have this audience understand" your own perspective.
I have read all the comments, including the ones that are now deleted. You continue to bring up outdated information, and in my humble opinion, outdated information does not support your agenda.
OF COURSE the health of one's body impacts outcomes Roberto....that is not a secret!!!
You are "hoping to have this audience understand" YOUR perspective, and so far, that is not happening, because evidence tells us something different. Your introduction says that you are open to all sides of the story, and that does not appear to be true.
Roberto Sciffo
I don't understand your 'outdated' issue. Please explain.
I think you are reading my message and taking it on the wrong way.
I am looking at health and what interferes with it. I have to consider environment, psychology, habits, history, studies, etc. You want to look at case reviews pertaining to a single factor, in this case chemo. We are just looking differently and that is ok.
I am not trying to 'lecture you on that one' or anything else. Sorry if it became personal, as it is not meant to be.
Colleen Steen 500+
I do not have an "outdated issue". YOU are the one who offered information regarding experiments and case studies from 1900, 1930, & 1950. This is 2012, and there are certainly studies and research that have been done since the 1900s. That might mean that information learned in the 1900s may be considered "outdated".
I think I am "reading and taking your message" as it is meant.
I am also looking at health, what interferes with it, considering environment, psychology, habits, history, studies, etc.
YOU brought up the topic of chemotherapy with your statement:
"Chemotherapy works sometimes too, but the effects are devastating".
I simply addressed your statement.
You accuse me of wanting to look at case reviews pertaining to a single factor, and YOU offer for consideration, a test done "In the 1930's... on Russian conjoined twins (at hip) who shared a common blood stream."
Do you not see your contradictions?
Roberto Sciffo
What is developed today is based on our belief of how we understand how things are. If we believe we have to fight the bug (germ theory), then we develop drugs/therapies/etc around that core belief. If we believe that we have to enhance the body's ability to fight the bug, then we will take a different drugs/therapies/etc.
The question would be if the basis of pharmacology is to reduce a symptom, attack a bug, release/suppress a chemical, and in doing so, interfering with the body's ability to function on every level (chemical, biological, bio-energetic/metabolic/etc), with foundations on the 'old' theory, without taking into consideration the effect (long term / combination) on the body.
If we are to approach health from the viewpoint of removing the pollution/interference etc from the body so that the body would be at its best to perform against the outside environment, then again we follow a different route. That is the basis of the 'newer' paradigm toward healthcare, the 1950's.
I hope this provides clarity.
peter lindsay 30+
It's from 2009 and has about 40 references at the bottom of the page. It seems pretty conclusive.
Roberto Sciffo
I am not convinced that they are the sole cause of autism.. by far. I am also not convinced that that are 100% safe either.
I believe they are safer from 1999 onwards.
There are however contributing factors that if not found, may predispose a child to autism.
And certain vaccines containing aluminium I would not consider a safe design, just due to the fact that it is aluminium.
Thank you for the reference, I appreciate it!
Colleen Steen 500+
I do not think/feel that you are misunderstood. I personally am not misunderstanding you.
As you state in a previous comment..."What is developed today is based on our belief of how we understand how things are. If we believe we have to fight the bug (germ theory), then we develop drugs/therapies/etc around that core belief. If we believe that we have to enhance the body's ability to fight the bug, then we will take a different drugs/therapies/etc."
You seem to make this an either/or decision...."fight the bug" with "drugs/therapies/etc." OR "enhance the body's ability to fight the bugs". In my humble perception, it is beneficial to use everything available for good health, and research indicates this to be a beneficial practice.
My children were vaccinated, because with the information available 40+ years ago, it was the best decision in my perception. I was vaccinated for childhood diseases 60+ years ago, and in fact, because of my travels, I have been vaccinated for yellow fever, cholera, typhoid, hepatitis, at least two different strains of polio, etc. etc. There are many places in our world where these diseases are still very common, and for me to ignore the information available regarding these diseases and the benefits of vaccinations, could be a death sentance.
We are seeing an emergence of measles and pertussis in the USA because some folks do not believe in vaccinations, and prefer to count on the body to "fight the bugs". Is it working? Not always.
We all need to investigate, and use current, relevant information appropriately. Those who believe all vaccinations compromise the systems of the body, are not looking at ALL information. I strongly believe in a holistic approach, which includes using everything available to support the mind and body systems:>)
I hope this provides clarity:>)
Roberto Sciffo
As I initiated this discussion, I am also responsible and therefore I will also like to add that during this debate, some feel they have a right to criticize and belittle others in the debate.
Please keep it clean. I.e. If you have nothing to say that will assist the other party to understand, then stay off the channel.
I am open to hearing both sides and listening to both as well and learning, as that is the original idea. I am also hoping that we all take something +ve away from this.
Otherwise, I appreciate everybody's feedback and please keep it coming!
Rita Tell
Noreena just expresses what has always been on my mind: we have to doubt/question everything; which is a scary thought for many people; don´t know why.
I´ve questioned myself about the use of vaccines in the past, and decided to use them, weighing pros and cons. I hope people keep doing so, experts included.
Roberto Sciffo
The question proposed was not mean to be taken personally or to be against the 'medical institution' or any other way. It is simply to find out if anyone has investigated the use of vaccines, especially as a combination, and weather they are doing more harm or not.
Many points of view have developed from the question, and I have learned much more, as I hope we all have.
It is healthy to question, for that is how we develop as humans... from early on in years of life as well as a society, and as humankind.
Entropy Driven
I agree that people have to question the experts. But they have to be willing to study very carefully before doing so. Otherwise their questioning is meaningless, and can also be, as is the case with anti-vaxers, stupidly dangerous. Following sensationalist press won't cut it. Would you agree to that much?
Rita Tell
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Sometimes one sentence replies can be difficult to interpret as they stand.
Entropy Driven
You are saying that most experts are unethical. That means that you think that the probability that I am unethical must be high. After all, I am an expert on something. No way around. I know lots of experts on lots of subjects, and a few are unethical at times (not constantly, though I'd prefer if they never were). So, my experience is that most experts are ethical.
To question experts without knowledge is to make a fool of yourself. It is false that you know your body better than anybody. It's like saying that because you are in it you know of every biochemical reaction going on in it. Not possible. So save the rhetoric.
Kudos for being a revolutionary educator. I try to be so too. Forcing students to think has been quite rewarding, though it's hard to make it work well for everybody. So, we have that in common. I know of many more educators who are trying very hard despite workloads that leave little time to plan for such revolutionary methods. We still try.
Anyway, that's not the issue. My issue with you (and with Roberto) is the easy way in which you declare that most experts are something you don't truly know. The faulty logic of calling most experts unethical. The problem that such thing might lead to lots of children dying of preventable diseases. That's my issue.
I never said that the press was reliable.
Rita Tell
I´m not saying I never trust doctors, I´m saying that I follow their advice when I see fit. It takes courage and thinking though, it´s not easy.
I´m human and as such, I make loads of mistakes; I admit it. Doctors and the rest of experts aren´t perfect either, so I keep my eyes open when it comes to someone else coming in contact with my body and my family´s. No
Entropy Driven
Rita Tell
One last thing, though, I don´t force children to do anything. Children are able to think better than you or me. I just show them the world in an interesting way, a way that keeps their natural joyfulness and curiosity alive.
I don´t intend to lead to lots of children to die of deadly diseases, much the contrary. I´d like to have safe vaccines and medicines, and for everybody, not just for the upper part of the globe.
Entropy Driven
Linda Taylor 50+
Roberto Sciffo
It's not exactly research.
My point is.. as I have written before.. do vaccines impair our system in any way? I.e. are they doing more harm in the long run, or even safe? Ok they work... but what studies have been done with the combination of vaccines and why so early in life?
So I had a look at the CDC web site (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm) and looked at the contents of vaccines (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf)
I picked a common one: Hep B.. just 3 simple ingredients: aluminum hydroxide, yeast protein, phosphate buffers.
OK.. further research led me here:
http://www.vaccinetruth.org/aluminum_hydroxide1.htm
The point being.. if test on animals show a vaccine safe for use an is approved, pilot studies done, etc.. and considered safe.. and released.. and then another one.. and so forth.. all taken alone - all well and good.
Where is the research on the combined effects? This is their responsibility.
You can chase studies, links between vaccination and autism, etc... and I have found plenty of evidence to indicate alternate results.. but I am more concerned with health, and protecting health.
I know from experience that heavy metals adversely effects health. Consider our lifestyles and pollution levels.. what is the critical point? The issue with vaccines is that it bypasses our immune system / defense system, and cannot be eliminated.
Entropy Driven
Why do you insist on mistaking heavy metals with vaccines? If you want to challenge something challenge the heavy metals (aluminum is not a heavy metal).
I followed on the aluminum thing (just one example):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122
More research is better, of course, but vaccines are indispensable resources against lots of previously abundant, and dangerous, viral infections. We can't afford letting children die of preventable viral infections. As I said. I won't have it.
As example of your misunderstandings: vaccines don't bypass our immune systems. If they did they would not be effective. As I said. You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Your concern with vaccines and health is misplaced and misinformed.
Rita Tell
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Just curious. I notice in your comment on her talk you write: "I find that most experts are unethical."
Entropy Driven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6AJUWFXrBI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0ZZTjChW4o
Roberto Sciffo
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)
Stage 2 coming up?
I am doing my research.. how about you?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
all false statements pass through one of the following two time evolutions:
1. proposed, tested, refuted, forgotten
2. proposed, tested, refuted, proposed again, refuted again, proposed again and so on
some bad ideas are just refuse to die
Roberto Sciffo
explain why when children develop adverse symptoms after being vaccinated, some as permanent as autism.
If the human system was a closed system then your above statement would be true. As it is an open system, they don't hold water.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Roberto Sciffo
My question is misinterpreted. Vaccines do work. But in doing so, are they making more damage than good in the long term? I should have rephrased it, sorry.
It seems vaccines are interfering with the immune system and therefore setting us up for more dis-ease in the long term. That will only increase the number of vaccines needed (3x more today than 20 years ago) further ruining our system.
Here are medical doctors discussing the different points of view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMrFV2rnHlo
I am NOT DEBATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A VACCINE. Just tell me what the consequence is for taking it? If it affects my immune system then no thank you... there are more natural ways of tackling health issues.
The World Health Organization noted as early as 1974 that heavy metal and chemical toxicity were at the cause of most chronic degenerative diseases.
I believe it comes down to healthier living standards, non GMO food, good water, a roof over our heads, a passion for something, exercise.. that keeps us healthy and well.
One doctor has stated regarding heavy metals (used in vaccines until recently I believe):
I have seen patients who had been diagnosed with illnesses including MS, Crohn’s disease, liver cancer, autism, hay fever, arthritis, gout, rheumatism, type 2 diabetes, Desert Storm syndrome, migraines, chronic candidiasis and parasite infections, psychotic “horrors” and a multitude of others end up hearing their doctors say, “It was a misdiagnosis,” after completing HM&C (Heavy Metal & Chemical) Detox successfully. Heavy metals and chemicals interfere with cellular, enzyme, endocrine and neurological function. I never “cured”any of those diseases, as the patients never had them to begin with. The HM&C toxicity manifested as those disease syndromes.
Roberto Sciffo
My question is misinterpreted. Vaccines do work. But in doing so, are they making more damage than good in the long term?
It seems they are interfering with the immune system and therefore setting us up for more dis-ease in the long term. That will only increase the number of vaccines needed (3x more today than 20 years ago) further ruining our system.
Here are medical doctors discussing the different points of view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMrFV2rnHlo
I am NOT DEBATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A VACCINE. Just tell me what the consequence is for taking it? If it affects my immune system then no thank you... there are more natural ways of tackling health issues.
And yes, I do know of children, not vaccinated and not getting the flu in school while their fellow schoolmates are fighting the flu.
The World Health Organization noted as early as 1974 that heavy metal and chemical toxicity were at the cause of most chronic degenerative diseases.
One doctor has stated:
I have seen patients who had been diagnosed with illnesses including MS, Crohn’s disease, liver cancer, autism, hay fever, arthritis, gout, rheumatism, type 2 diabetes, Desert Storm syndrome, migraines, chronic candidiasis and parasite infections, psychotic “horrors” and a multitude of others end up hearing their doctors say, “It was a misdiagnosis,” after completing HM&C (Heavy Metal & Chemical) Detox successfully. Heavy metals and chemicals interfere with cellular, enzyme, endocrine and neurological function. I never “cured”any of those diseases, as the patients never had them to begin with. The HM&C toxicity manifested as those disease syndrom
Roberto Sciffo
Another household fact - 100% of household in the US have elevated levels of chlorine in the air. Chlorine is a carcinogen and is what we use to disinfect our water. As it aerates from the tap source it becomes airborne and we inhale it. The question is do you create a drug to counter the chlorine or use copper to disinfect the water?
Linda Taylor 50+
But you Mr. Anti-Heavy Metal should rethink the whole copper idea:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150596
Roberto Sciffo
Good point! In the abstract it states:
1) ' And it involves only developed countries that use copper plumbing.' Does that mean the study concerned those countries?
2) The epidemic is associated with the use of copper plumbing, and the taking of copper in multi-mineral supplements - again coper plumbing and I agree that some multi-mineral suppliments are dangerous as they isolate the formula of the 'vitamin' or 'mineral' and expect it to work. I don't think the body is made to work that way..
An excess of anything can be toxic. International standards for copper in potable water are 1-2ppm depending on country or state.
Practically all viruses and bacteria (including those that chlorine can not kill) are unable to survive beyond 0.3ppm.
lake Marathonas in Greece, since 2007 has been using copper to disinfect it's water. It serves 5 million Athenians.
There are so many safe uses for copper. It has been used for millennia.
I guess it becomes a question of form and concentration. Copper is an essential trace element in plants and animals, but not some microorganisms. The human body contains copper at a level of about 1.4 to 2.1 mg per kg of body mass.[104] Stated differently, the RDA for copper in normal healthy adults is quoted as 0.97 mg/day and as 3.0 mg/day.
So we need it, yet too much of it will harm us or even kill us.
Roberto Sciffo
AS I wrote to others in this discussion...
My question is misinterpreted. Vaccines do work. But in doing so, are they making more damage than good in the long term?
It seems they are interfering with the immune system and therefore setting us up for more dis-ease in the long term. That will only increase the number of vaccines needed (3x more today than 20 years ago) further ruining our system.
Here are medical doctors discussing the different points of view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMrFV2rnHlo
I am NOT DEBATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A VACCINE. Just tell me what the consequence is for taking it? If it affects my immune system then no thank you... there are more natural ways of tackling health issues.
And yes, I do know of children, not vaccinated and not getting the flu in school while their fellow schoolmates are fighting the flu.
Yes Linda, if you undergo an unsafe detox then you will get that reaction. Just think that mercury, being the preservative in the vaccine, is holding the virus permanently in the body. It is suddenly removed.. what will happen? Yes, unsafe detox will give a reaction.
The World Health Organization noted as early as 1974 that heavy metal and chemical toxicity were at the cause of most chronic degenerative diseases.
One doctor has stated:
I have seen patients who had been diagnosed with illnesses including MS, Crohn’s disease, liver cancer, autism, hay fever, arthritis, gout, rheumatism, type 2 diabetes, Desert Storm syndrome, migraines, chronic candidiasis and parasite infections, psychotic “horrors” and a multitude of others end up hearing their doctors say, “It was a misdiagnosis,” after completing HM&C (Heavy Metal & Chemical) Detox successfully. Heavy metals and chemicals interfere with cellular, enzyme, endocrine and neurological function. I never “cured”any of those diseases, as the patients never had them to begin with. The HM&C toxicity manifested as those disease syndromes.
Linda Taylor 50+
It is the treatment of choice for many heavy metal toxicities.
Unfortunately it does nothing for autism and a lot of diseases you mention:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/autism-treatment/AN01488
Understand that in the US detox usually implies a process that uses laxatives.
Roberto Sciffo
Actually I am not too familiar with chelation therapy. Nor using DMSA or DMPS. And I agree with your idea of not putting more chemicals in the body.
The only two products I would recommend are NDF / NDF Plus (BioRay Inc.) or PureBody (Touchstone Essentials). Both are natural yet work differently. The BioRay products are more of a active detox while the Pure Body is more of a passive detox, that works with the body. Both companies have done their research and have case studies. I have found some adverse reactions with the BioRay products but would put this down to an unsafe detox performed by the individual.
I would recommend the PureBody to anyone if I don't know their case personally. Again, any detox should be ramped, so I never start on full dose but rather ramp up, to avoid symptoms.There are other changes to be in place before a detox is to be undertaken.
I know personally one child, epileptic, who is now normal using the BioRay products (in combination with other therapies), and I am following a case of an severe autistic child who started on PureBody mid Sept 12 and is about 80-90% 'better' and even showing cognitive signs.
I concur with the laxatives; bowl movement is essential to avoid reabsorption.
Linda Taylor 50+
I looked up both of your products. One was kinda alarming because it contained aluminum. Not sure how ingesting aluminum helps decrease heavy metal toxicity. The other one, the website did not list ingredients. Big warning sign there. There was no link and I had to search the sight to find it. They did have a list of ingredients they use, assorted fungi and herbs and stuff. But they did not list amounts or the specific formulation.
They listed something called "Fulvic Acid Complex" which was new to me so I looked it up. It appears to be either dirt or crushed rock.
Neither listed how their products were distilled or placed in solution. They used both "tincture" and "tonic" it seems interchangeably. So I cannot say if they are in an alcohol based solution or some other liquid which will affect not only absorption, but the chemical structures in solution.
There is nothing on either site that I would trust these products.
http://www.bioray.com/ndf-plus/
http://www.touchstoneessentials.com/pure-body/
They may even be harmful esp. if someone is allergic. I also would not deliberately ingest aluminum.
Case studies are just cases. I notice they do not post any cases where there was no effect. Instinctively I bet there are more of those than the ones that they post. They don't even post a percentage of how many people it "works" for. My guess would be that the cases are financially reimbursed.
Sorry. Looks like snake oil at best. If you want to believe in magic beans it's OK with me. But I am no child.
Roberto Sciffo
Points well made.
I was reading the white paper on Pure Body and was surprised to find the aluminum aspect. So I kept reading, and have pasted some information for you below:
The chemical formula for clinoptilolite, a common natural zeolite is: (Na3K3)(Al6Si40)O96 • 24H2O
For clinoptilolite, atoms or cations (charged metal atoms) within the second set of parentheses
(aluminum and silicon) are known as structural atoms, because with oxygen they make up the
rigid framework of the structure. This is why the form of aluminum in zeolites is completely
inert and does not react or release in the body in any way.
Those within the first set of parentheses (sodium and potassium) are known as exchangeable
ions, because they can be replaced (exchanged) more or less easily with other cations in
aqueous solution, without affecting the aluminosilicate framework. This phenomenon is known
as ion exchange, or more commonly cation exchange.
The negative charges of the AlO4 units are balanced by the presence of four-exchangeable, positively charged metals known as cations. These cations usually consist of calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. These ions are only loosely held and can be readily displaced by other substances, such as toxic heavy metals or other organics
The clinoptilolite binds a variety of toxins. This includes heavy metals (Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, etc.), nitrosamines, and others. Cationic exchange is an entirely passive process—when the zeolite is in close proximity to these high-affinity compounds, they will be drawn to the zeolite and either absorbed into the cage or adsorbed onto the surface of the zeolite. There is no chemical activity in this process.
I have the white paper link here:
https://www.mytouchstoneoffice.com/uploads/cms/docs/White_Paper_PureBodyEX.pdf
So this is for the PureBody, that I will postulate as a passive detox substance.
The other product is NDF and would regard that as an active detox product. More later...
Linda Taylor 50+
Clinoptilolite is also used in mixing concrete. It is lava based. Zeolyte is so named because it can absorb water and you can cook the water out of the rock.
So basically it is ground up rocks. So if you put the ground up rocks in water, and they fill with water, and your body is not hot enough to boil the water off, there will be no cation exchange.
Remember it is used in some water filters so you would have to have a lot rock powder for it to absorb anything. Just because it can filter out cations in water, does not ever mean it touches your blood if you ingest it. What probably happens (and I do not have anything to base this on except a basic understanding of anatomy and chemistry) is that the sodium and potassium ions are released in the acidic gastric environments and exchanged for hydrogen ions. So you are basically neutralizing stomach acid.
Nothing I read substantiates heavy metal ion exchange within the body. There are too many other ions floating around in your system for it to ever find and attach to a single heavy metal. At best it does nothing, at worse you are messing with basic electrolyte balance between Na, K, Mg and Ca. If somehow it does attach to calcium, you could be reducing calcium stores which contribute to osteoporosis and fracture. Not to mention all kinds of hormonal and cardiac malfunction possibilities.
Outside of the industrial use of zeolyte, all the hits on my searches were sales pitches with no evidence what so ever. Even their claims to experts were carefully crafted so not to assign any results to any person.
Given that the pulverized rock is basically aluminum and sand, I really cannot see any benefit to bothering to pay that stupid amount of money to swallow rocks.
Roberto Sciffo
My question is misinterpreted. Vaccines do work. But in doing so, are they making more damage than good in the long term?
It seems they are interfering with the immune system and therefore setting us up for more dis-ease in the long term. That will only increase the number of vaccines needed (3x more today than 20 years ago) further ruining our system.
Here are medical doctors discussing the different points of view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMrFV2rnHlo
I am NOT DEBATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A VACCINE. Just tell me what the consequence is for taking it? If it affects my immune system then no thank you... there are more natural ways of tackling health issues.
And yes, I do know of children, not vaccinated and not getting the flu in school while their fellow schoolmates are fighting the flu.
Roberto Sciffo
Are they doing more harm than good? In the long run it seems to me that it is the former.
Here is a video from 2008 of doctor debating the vaccine issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMrFV2rnHlo
Roberto Sciffo
Here is a video clip from 2008, BY DOCTORS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMrFV2rnHlo
Entropy Driven
Roberto Sciffo
John Frum 30+
Roberto Sciffo
John Frum 30+
Roberto Sciffo
What I am saying is that their effectiveness does not depend on what type they are, but rather that if they are given an opportunity to propagate which depends on their environment. A health body will be able to keep them at bay while an unhealthy body will be more suseptable.
And this brings in the question of vaccination. Are the vaccines making us healthier or weakening our defenses? If it is the latter, whereby we are protected from a few but with devastating effects that we become open to different types, then that defeats the purpose.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
It is not a wrong thing for pharmaceutical companies to make profit. We should try as much as possible to ensure that these companies are run by people of integrity; but even the fact that there are some corrupt ones in the industry does not make it altogether evil and irrelevant.