- 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!
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Comment deleted
Roberto Sciffo
Though I am not completely convinced that vaccines work, or at least do no damage, I would stress your point on when they are administered. the brain develops in the first 5-6 years of life, as does much of the body.
To my knowledge, vaccines can be administered at any age, so why in the critical years of life?
I concur with the breastfeeding as well. It is not only the benefits of breast milk but also the connection between mother and child that is important.
If a mother or parents want to breast feed for the first few years, and not have immunizations performed, then that ought to be their right. Do we really believe that our bodies do not know how to survive after a multitude of millennium and that we think we know better?
Thank you for raising this point.
John Frum 30+
Comment deleted
John Frum 30+
"that these are unnecessary if women are breast-feeding"
Breast milk does provide some immunity against a few of the diseases (like measles), but by no means all of them. For example, mothers with Hep B must vaccinate their children as soon as they are born, otherwise there is a risk of the disease going from the mother herself to the child.
The child in a developed, western country may still be unaffected despite not following the guidelines... because there are fewer carriers of the endemics of the east. But that is only a matter of chance. In general, I'd advise taking that chance only after being fully aware of the risks in each socio-geographic region.
Comment deleted
John Frum 30+
I definitely will sue companies that make sub-standard vaccines. Did you get the impression that I wouldn't? When they sell me something, there is a contract between us. I expect the goods to meet their claimed quality criteria. But of course, if I know before-hand that some company has a bad track-record for quality, I prefer to avoid that company entirely (J&J, for example) until they improve that record.
Human breast milk has 0.1% IgA, 0.001% IgG, and none of the other immunoglobulins. Milk can only protect against the range of diseases covered by these. In other words, breast milk is no panacea.
Doctors doing more to gain trust is definitely part of the equation. I have seen a few incompetent doctors too. I walk away from them, and tell all the people in my circle exactly why. My friends trust my own competence at this. I do wish someone creates an online doctor review/rating service soon. There isn't one, at least in my country.
Linda Taylor 50+
Of course. This is common knowledge and that is why we rarely give the live attenuated virus (OPV) anymore. It does not always 'take' and there are too many instances where the live virus has actually resulted in disease (iatrogenic).
Even in the US we have switched to using the 'killed' virus (IPV) since 2000 unless contraindicated . Nobody uses Salk's stuff anymore which is probably why they are trying to use it up in 3rd world countries.
Comment deleted
John Frum 30+
Thanks for the heads up about Consumers Report.
I did read the abstract of the article you linked to. The article, in its abstract, seems to recommend delaying breast-feeding. I'm not sure I agree with that entirely. (I'd have to read the rest of the paper too.) If I had to make a decision, I'd probably prefer to keep the child on breast-milk and then repeat the vaccinations that have a track-record of being ineffective on breast-milk-drinking-children.
Linda Taylor 50+
Now you're talking. But the bigger problem does not lie with the doctor. There are too many moms who are super busy or forget. At one point some vaccines where on a 1-3-5 month rotation and 2-4-6 month rotation. That means the mom would have to have an appointment every month with the doctor and the health dept to get the shots. You can see why compliance was an issue. Many doses were missed and the series needs to be restarted from scratch. So they decided to cluster the vaccinations to increase compliance.
This is the overall reason so many vaccinations are given at once. I think there may be other reasons but I wish they would offer moms the option of the cluster or repeated visits. I would opt for repeated visits. But I also know a little about immunology.
A truly unreported problem with vaccination schedules are among 1 gen immigrant children. Their parents rarely speak English and follow the crops. That means children can attend as many as three schools per school year. If the new school asks for a vaccination record and the parents do not understand, the child gets the entire series over again. Each school.