TED Conversations

Roberto Sciffo

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!

0
Share:

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.

  • thumb
    Nov 12 2012: Can we please put the autism thing to bed? There has not been one study that showed a correlation between vaccines and autism. Autism rates have increased in the time since vaccines became in common use, but the studies that have been done show the same increase in autism rates amongst those that aren't vaccinated.
    • thumb
      Nov 12 2012: Thank you Peter. Can you provide the source of information.

      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
      • thumb
        Nov 12 2012: Roberto,
        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?
        • thumb
          Nov 12 2012: Thank you Colleen.

          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?
      • thumb
        Nov 12 2012: Roberto,
        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.
        • thumb
          Nov 12 2012: Dear Colleen,

          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.
      • thumb
        Nov 12 2012: Roberto,
        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?
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2012: Thank you Colleen - I see where I am misunderstood.

          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.
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2012: Here is a link to an analysis of several investigations into a link between autism and vaccination http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full
        It's from 2009 and has about 40 references at the bottom of the page. It seems pretty conclusive.
        • thumb
          Nov 13 2012: Thank you Peter.
          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!
      • thumb
        Nov 13 2012: Dear Roberto,
        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:>)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.