Wilber Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Typhoid Mary was a great patriot don't cha know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Yes...it is defined in the U.S. Constitution. Keep your medical morals away from me please. Wow... what a retarded argument. Seriously. First of all, the fact that you are covered under the US constitution does not mean you don't have contact with others. Duh.... Secondly, even if the constituation meant you didn't have to get vaccinated, that does not make it morally right not to do so. After all, you also have the right to free speech, but if you ran around spouting racial bigotry you would be considered amoral, regardless of your right to express such repugnant views. The fact that you might have a right to do something does not make it morally correct to exercise that right. Actually, the US CDC requires proof of vaccination/immunization (documentation) at entry, or receive such age appropriate immunizations regardless of what their immunization status may actually be. See "Mexico": ...Many of the nation’s recent Mexican immigrants are characterized by the risk factors above. There are over 11 million individuals of Mexican origin in the US, representing about 25% of the US Hispanic population.[xvii] US Hispanics are the most uninsured ethnic group in the US, and within Hispanic subpopulations, Mexicans have the highest rate of uninsurance at 39%.[xviii] Over one-fourth of recent Mexican immigrant households live below the federal poverty level, and at least six million are without insurance.[xix] Currently, Mexico does not provide a Tdap booster, so recent immigrants will be unfamiliar with and unprotected by this vaccine. The Mexican Ministry of Health reports that a study of 13,000 adolescents in Mexico City schools showed pertussis to be a common cause of persistent cough, highlighting the need to include booster dosing into the country’s immunization regimen Yet in 3 of the past 4 years the incidence of vaccination against measles was higher in Mexico than in the US. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.IMM.MEAS/countries Edited January 26, 2015 by segnosaur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Wow... what a retarded argument. Seriously. First of all, the fact that you are covered under the US constitution does not mean you don't have contact with others. Duh.... Secondly, even if the constituation meant you didn't have to get vaccinated, that does not make it morally right not to do so. After all, you also have the right to free speech, but if you ran around spouting racial bigotry you would be considered amoral, regardless of your right to express such repugnant views. The fact that you might have a right to do something does not make it morally correct to exercise that right. This is a stronger attack than the usual rants for the many immunization and epidemic threads on this forum that spark your interest. Sir, you have no idea what my immunization status is or will be....my stance is simply not to insist that anyone has a "moral obligation" to "society" in this regard. My right to free speech is not hindered by your perceived "amorality" or "immorality". For the record, as reported in another thread, I was part of an involuntary group used to test Swine Flu vaccine in the 1970's for the elderly. I did my duty thank you very much without a fuss, and would appreciate if you would now let me enjoy free choice as a civilian in the United States. I apologize for offending your mandatory sensibilities in Canada, or any sense of moral outrage. Perhaps you should direct your turgid moral authority at those who are, in fact, not immunized. Edited January 26, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "recent anti-vax moviement". There is still a large contingent of people who say "no vaccines at all". By recent I mean the Jenny McCarthy movement. The people who say no vaccines....I would think are mostly religious folks who have always said it. Secondly, it is possible to be an anti-vaxer but still approve of SOME vaccines. Probably the best example is the influenza vaccine... many people claim they support vaccines against measles, mumps, etc. but not influenza. Well, that's still being "anti-vax". Lol. I guess that would be me. I think the influenza vaccine is junk. What is it at this year....23% effective in the US? Until they get something that actually works then why even bother. At least the other vaccines are 99% effective for the first x amount of years. And this would be my case in point....because I don't accept the vaccines veribage through and through, I would be considered an anti-vaxer even though I have prevented a logical argument. As for Jenny McCarthy, she may claim that she is not anti-vax, but she has made such wildly irresponsible claims about how vaccines cause autism, and contain "toxins". Such misinformation is clearly anti-vax. Its like the guy saying "I'm not a racist, but..." knowing that everything they say after the word "but" will likely be filled with rants about "bad minorities". I think you and I have been though this one before but I'll have another go. The research that I have seen which is pushed through by DAN doctors and other Jenny McCarthy like sources doesn't say that that vaccines cause autism, rather that the chemicals in the vaccine aggrivate the condition. Just like stress doesn't cause MS but it aggrevates the condition. The vaccines of past and current do contain heavy metals such as alumnium which when injected in the blood stream can act as a toxin....for certain people. Those people being the ones with kidney or liver malfunction and can't eliminate the heavy metals. So yes...in those cases....these chemicals become toxic as they build up in the system and are never released. The ironic thing is that anti-vaxxers aren't any better....they used the recent court cases (Hannah Poling for one) where they misused courts decision to say that vaccines do cause autism however if you read the actual court ruling it says the vaccines 'aggrevated' the condition. The science does actually show that side effects do happen and they are constantly monitioring if there any changes in side effects. Even arguments like "we should give fewer vaccinations at a time" are of questionable mentality. Even though the person making that claim may think they are "pro-vaxination", delays in giving needed immunizations might mean children are left at risk. Why? You are adding more heavy metals at once, heavy metals that are know to be toxic. Do you not think its accpetable to question the long term effects of this? Do you honestly believe that science is 100% right all the time and should never be questioned? How do you define "questioning the chemicals"? If you have concerns, by all means do some research. But if widespread testing has determined "chemical X as used in vaccines causes no harm", then follow the science. It may be imperfect, but it still is more accurate than following your own "gut instincts". Questioning the chemicals means exactly that. If you have alumnimum as your adjuvant and you increase the number of times its directly injected in your blood stream then you have to question what effect that chemical will have on your system. Again... for most people it will have little to no effect. However for some with preexisting biological conditions, it will have an effect. As such, I feelt that more research and studies need to be done on tests that can show who is susceptible to such doses. Let's face it...everyone thought that penicllian was the wonder drug until they found out that certain people were allergic to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Lol. I guess that would be me. I think the influenza vaccine is junk. What is it at this year....23% effective in the US? Until they get something that actually works then why even bother. Well even though it is a year with record low effectiveness it still means 23% fewer of those vaccinated will be subject to infection and those 23% will be unable to infect someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Well even though it is a year with record low effectiveness it still means 23% fewer of those vaccinated will be subject to infection and those 23% will be unable to infect someone else. And what is 23% going to do for herd immunity? I thought the purpose of vaccines was to gain herd immunity to protect those who can't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 And what is 23% going to do for herd immunity? I thought the purpose of vaccines was to gain herd immunity to protect those who can't get it. The purpose of vaccines is to save lives. Only idiots make it an all or nothing issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 The purpose of vaccines is to save lives. Only idiots make it an all or nothing issue. Thanks for the personal attack. Greatly appreciate it when I see that someone has no sense of debate. With that said, I'm curious what you think of a few of these studies suggesting the flu vaccine isn't as great as you want it to be. http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/rccm.200802-282oc Mortality Reduction with Influenza Vaccine in Patients with Pneumonia Outside “Flu” SeasonPleiotropic Benefits or Residual Confounding? Dean T. Eurich1, Thomas J. Marrie2, Jennie Johnstone2, and Sumit R. Majumdar1,2 + Author Affiliations 1Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public Health, and the 2Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Abstract Rationale: Observational studies suggest a 50% mortality reduction for older patients receiving influenza vaccination; some deem this magnitude of benefit implausible and invoke confounding by the “healthy user effect” as an alternate explanation. Objectives: To evaluate unrecognized confounding by hypothesizing the presence of a 50% mortality reduction with vaccination for patients with pneumonia outside of influenza season. Methods: Clinical, laboratory, and functional data were prospectively collected on 1,813 adults with community-acquired pneumonia admitted to six hospitals outside of influenza season in the Capital Health region (AB, Canada). Vaccination status was ascertained by interview and chart review. Outcome was in-hospital mortality. Influenza-vaccinated patients were matched to a nonvaccinated control using propensity scores, and then multivariable regression was used to determine the independent association between vaccination and mortality. Measurements and Main Results: The cohort consisted of 352 vaccine recipients and 352 matched control subjects. Most (85%) patients were 65 years or older, 29% had severe pneumonia, and 12% died. Influenza vaccination was associated with a 51% mortality reduction (28 of 352 [8%] died vs. 53 of 352 [15%] control subjects; unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30–0.79; P = 0.004) outside influenza season. Adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidities did not alter these findings (adjusted OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.27–0.76). More complete adjustment for confounding (e.g., functional and socioeconomic status) markedly attenuated these benefits and their statistical significance (adjusted OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.35–1.85; P = 0.61). Conclusions: The 51% reduction in mortality with vaccination initially observed in patients with pneumonia who did not have influenza was most likely a result of confounding. Previous observational studies may have overestimated mortality benefits of influenza vaccination. Confounding meaning that the people who naturally get flu shots are more likely to be healthier in the first place. Here's a more recent study: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1108809 Estimating Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Community-Dwelling Elderly Patients Using the Instrumental Variable Analysis MethodFREE Kenny Wong, MPH; Michael A. Campitelli, MPH; Thérèse A. Stukel, PhD; Jeffrey C. Kwong, MD, MSc Background Estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in elderly individuals are largely from observational studies, which are susceptible to bias. Instrumental variable (IV) methods control for overt and hidden biases in observational studies. Methods We used linked health administrative databases in Ontario to examine the association between influenza vaccination and all-cause mortality among community-dwelling individuals older than 65 years for 9 influenza seasons (2000-2001 to 2008-2009). We examined the composite of hospitalization for pneumonia and influenza and all-cause mortality as a secondary outcome. We used logistic regression modeling and IV analysis to remove the effect of selection bias. Results We included 12 621 806 person–influenza seasons of observation. Logistic regression produced adjusted odds ratios of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72) for all-cause mortality during influenza seasons and 0.85 (0.83-0.86) during post–influenza seasons when influenza is not circulating, suggesting the presence of bias. In contrast, IV analysis yielded adjusted odds ratios of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.03) during influenza seasons and 1.13 (1.07-1.19) during post–influenza seasons. For the composite of hospitalization for pneumonia and influenza and death, logistic regression produced adjusted odds ratios of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.70-0.78) during influenza seasons and 0.88 (0.87-0.90) during post–influenza seasons, whereas IV analysis produced adjusted odds ratios of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and 1.02 (0.97-1.06), respectively. Conclusions Influenza vaccination is associated with reductions in the composite of hospitalizations for pneumonia and influenza and all-cause mortality during the influenza season but not mortality alone. Compared with standard modeling, IV analysis appears to produce less-biased estimates of vaccine effectiveness. Influenza causes substantial mortality in people 65 years or older.1- 4Annual vaccination is recommended to reduce the burden of influenza in this age group.5,6 However, the evidence in support of vaccinating older adults against influenza stems primarily from observational studies, which are susceptible to bias.7 Past observational studies suggest that influenza vaccines reduce all-cause mortality in the elderly by approximately 50%.8 Recent studies observing similar mortality reduction among vaccinated individuals during non–influenza seasons suggest potential bias in such studies.9- 13 Because influenza has been estimated to account for less than 10% of all deaths during winter periods, it seems implausible that vaccination could reduce all-cause mortality during influenza seasons by approximately 50%.14A recent Cochrane review concluded that the available evidence is of poor quality15; thus, the true effectiveness of influenza vaccination in the elderly population is uncertain.16 Individuals who engage in health-promoting behaviors may be more likely to get vaccinated, whereas very sick individuals may be less likely to receive vaccine.9,10,17 This difference in underlying health status between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals may artificially overestimate vaccine effectiveness.9,17,18 Traditional analytical strategies (eg, stratification, restriction, matching, and regression modeling) cannot adjust for unobserved confounders or control for nonrandom treatment allocation.19 No randomized controlled trials to examine the effectiveness of influenza vaccines against mortality have been conducted. The objective of this study was to use instrumental variable (IV) analysis, a method designed to control for unmeasured confounding, to obtain unbiased estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness against all-cause mortality and hospitalizations for pneumonia and influenza (P&I) in the elderly population. But I guess these guys must be idiots too.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Thanks for the personal attack. Greatly appreciate it when I see that someone has no sense of debate.Only if you think is an all or nothing issue. The nature of influenze makes vaccines a yearly crapshoot when it comes to effectiveness but the flu and complications from it do kill people. If there was a 100% fatal disease going around and the only vaccine was 50% effective, would you refuse to get vaccinated because it didn't guarantee immunity? Edited January 28, 2015 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 The vaccines of past and current do contain heavy metals such as alumnium which when injected in the blood stream can act as a toxin....for certain people. Those people being the ones with kidney or liver malfunction and can't eliminate the heavy metals. So yes...in those cases....these chemicals become toxic as they build up in the system and are never released. Aluminum isn't a heavy metal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Aluminum isn't a heavy metal.Correct, they are pop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aluminum_Group Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) This is worth reading, and passing on. Too many of us give in to agenticity, too often. Something that is easier to do in the disinformation age."Dear Parents, You Are Being Lied To" - Dr. Jennifer Raff Dear parents, You are being lied to. The people who claim to be acting in the best interests of your children are putting their health and even lives at risk. They say that measles isn’t a deadly disease.But it is. They say that chickenpox isn’t that big of a deal.But it can be. They say that the flu isn’t dangerous.But it is. They say that whooping cough isn’t so bad for kids to get.But it is. They say that vaccines aren’t that effective at preventing disease.But 3 million children’s lives are saved every year by vaccination, and 2 million die every year from vaccine-preventable illnesses. They say that vaccines haven’t been rigorously tested for safety. But vaccines are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than any other medicine. For example, this study tested the safety and effectiveness of the pneumococcal vaccine in more than 37,868 children. They will say that doctors won’t admit there are any side effects to vaccines.But the side effects are well known, and except in very rare cases quite mild. They say that the MMR vaccine causes autism.It doesn’t. (The question of whether vaccines cause autism has been investigated in study after study, and they all show overwhelming evidence that they don’t.) They say that thimerosal in vaccines causes autism.It doesn’t, and it hasn’t been in most vaccines since 2001 anyway. They say that the aluminum in vaccines (an adjuvant, or component of the vaccine designed to enhance the body’s immune response) is harmful to children.But children consume more aluminum in natural breast milk than they do in vaccines, and far higher levels of aluminum are needed to cause harm. They say that the normal vaccine schedule is too difficult for a child’s immune system to cope with.It isn’t. ... I can predict exactly the sort of response I will be getting from the anti-vaccine activists. Because they can’t argue effectively against the overwhelming scientific evidence about vaccines, they will say that I work for Big Pharma. (I don’t and never have). They will say that I’m not a scientist (I am),and that I’m an “Agent 666” (I don’t know what that is, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not one). None of these things are true, but they are the reflexive response by the anti-vaccine activists because they have no facts to back up their position. On some level, deep down, they must understand this, and are afraid of the implications, so they attack the messenger. Why are they lying to you? Some are doing it for profit, trying to sell their alternative remedies by making you afraid of science-based medicine. I’m sure that many others within the anti-vaccine movement have genuinely good intentions, and do honestly believe that vaccines are harmful. But as a certain astrophysicist recently said “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it”. In the case of vaccine truthers, this is not a good thing. Good intentions will not prevent microbes from infecting and harming people, and the message that vaccines are dangerous is having dire consequences. There are outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses nowthroughout the United States because of unvaccinated children. I recommend reading the full post via the link in the title. Edited January 28, 2015 by Mighty AC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 If there was a 100% fatal disease going around and the only vaccine was 50% effective, would you refuse to get vaccinated because it didn't guarantee immunity? Do you always create strawmen when you debate? Is whooping cough or the measles 100% fatal? Is the flu 100% fatal? Far from it. Don't change the arguement just to try and make a point. In fact if you would have read the abstract of the study I posted and its conclusion you would see its possible that the vaccine doesn't even help prevent mortality. So...why would I stick a needle full of chemicals in my body when its inconclusive as to what it will do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Aluminum isn't a heavy metal. Actually it is. Heavy Metal Definition: A heavy metal is a toxic metal. There is no standard definition assigning metals as heavy metals. Some lighter metals and metalloids are toxic and thus are termed heavy metals, which some heavy metals, such as gold, typically are not toxic. Most heavy metals have a high atomic number, atomic weight and a specific gravity greater than 5.0 Heavy metals include some metalloids, transition metals, basic metals, lanthanides and actinides. Alternate Spellings: heavy metals Examples: Examples of heavy metals include lead, mercury, cadmium, sometimes chromium. Less commonly, metals including iron, copper, zinc, aluminum, beryllium, cobalt, manganese and arsenic may be considered heavy metals. http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/g/Heavy-Metal-Definition.htm Its has long considered not to be toxic which is the reason they used to make Tums with it however they have removed it in favor of Calcium. With that said, there is a difference between Aluminum that you injest versus Alumnium that you have injected directly into your blood stream. The aggregate effects of using alumnium as an adjuvant are starting to be noted. Researchers have now isolated a syndrom called ASIA (Autoimmune/Inflammation Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants.) The syndrome basically includes the acceloration of autoimmunity/inflamation after the addition of adjuvants with aluminum largely discussed. A more recent study out of UBC discusses the very topic of using Aluminum as an adjuvant. Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations AbstractImmune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity. In some developed countries, by the time children are 4 to 6 years old, they will have received a total of 126 antigenic compounds along with high amounts of aluminum (Al) adjuvants through routine vaccinations. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic. Taken together, these observations raise plausible concerns about the overall safety of current childhood vaccination programs. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, several key points ought to be considered: (i) infants and children should not be viewed as “small adults” with regard to toxicological risk as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; (ii) in adult humans Al vaccine adjuvants have been linked to a variety of serious autoimmune and inflammatory conditions (i.e., “ASIA”), yet children are regularly exposed to much higher amounts of Al from vaccines than adults; (iii) it is often assumed that peripheral immune responses do not affect brain function. However, it is now clearly established that there is a bidirectional neuro-immune cross-talk that plays crucial roles in immunoregulation as well as brain function. In turn, perturbations of the neuro-immune axis have been demonstrated in many autoimmune diseases encompassed in “ASIA” and are thought to be driven by a hyperactive immune response; and (iv) the same components of the neuro-immune axis that play key roles in brain development and immune function are heavily targeted by Al adjuvants. In summary, research evidence shows that increasing concerns about current vaccination practices may indeed be warranted. Because children may be most at risk of vaccine-induced complications, a rigorous evaluation of the vaccine-related adverse health impacts in the pediatric population is urgently needed http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/223.short Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 This is worth reading, and passing on. Too many of us give in to agenticity, too often. Something that is easier to do in the disinformation age. "Dear Parents, You Are Being Lied To" - Dr. Jennifer Raff Yes....I've seen this one posted by every Mom on facebook and say it like its the end of the argument. This article is nothing more than a regurgitation of the same facts that are posted on various health link sites. I laugh at it everytime becuase it comes across as being so absolute...as if there is zero discussion to be had. Thankfully there still are reasearchers out there that are starting to recongnize the increased side effects from such vaccines and their chemical make up. Again....vaccines are currently safe for the vast majority of people but not so much for a minority. My position is that we need to stop thinking that vaccines are unquestionable and continue to look at possible side effects. Nothing is absolute. They say that the MMR vaccine causes autism. It doesn’t. (The question of whether vaccines cause autism has been investigated in study after study, and they all show overwhelming evidence that they don’t.) They say that thimerosal in vaccines causes autism. It doesn’t, and it hasn’t been in most vaccines since 2001 anyway. Vaccines don't cause autism....it aggrevates the condition of autism. They say that the aluminum in vaccines (an adjuvant, or component of the vaccine designed to enhance the body’s immune response) is harmful to children. But children consume more aluminum in natural breast milk than they do in vaccines, and far higher levels of aluminum are needed to cause harm. Again...see post above about studies showing alumimum in adjuvants and its effects. Also, why did they remove aluminum from Tums if it was so healthy? Also, see comment above about directly injecting aluminum versus ingesting it. I can predict exactly the sort of response I will be getting from the anti-vaccine activists. Because they can’t argue effectively against the overwhelming scientific evidence about vaccines, they will say that I work for Big Pharma. (I don’t and never have). They will say that I’m not a scientist (I am),and that I’m an “Agent 666” (I don’t know what that is, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not one). None of these things are true, but they are the reflexive response by the anti-vaccine activists because they have no facts to back up their position. On some level, deep down, they must understand this, and are afraid of the implications, so they attack the messenger. Why are they lying to you? Some are doing it for profit, trying to sell their alternative remedies by making you afraid of science-based medicine. I’m sure that many others within the anti-vaccine movement have genuinely good intentions, and do honestly believe that vaccines are harmful. But as a certain astrophysicist recently said “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it”. In the case of vaccine truthers, this is not a good thing. Good intentions will not prevent microbes from infecting and harming people, and the message that vaccines are dangerous is having dire consequences. There are outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses nowthroughout the United States because of unvaccinated children. There are actually a number of scientists and credible researchers looking at this with their intent being to help children...mostly their own. There is a group called DAN doctors (Defeat Autism Now) who have directly seen the effects of vaccines and have now dedicated their lives to researching it. These guys aren't alternative or whacko doctors....they are full blow western medicine doctors who are involved. Even they advocate for vaccines but also advocate for vaccine safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Actually it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_%28chemistry%29 Criteria used to define heavy metals have included density, atomic weight, atomic number, or periodic table position.[7] Density criteria range from above 3.5 g/cm3 to above 7 g/cm3. Atomic weight definitions start at greater than sodium (22.98) to greater than 40.[n 1]Atomic numbers of heavy metals are generally given as greater than 20; sometimes this is capped at 92 (uranium). Hawkes suggested referring to heavy metals as "all the metals in Groups 3 to 16 that are in periods 4 and greater."[9] There is no widely agreed definition of a heavy metal. The origin of the term "heavy metal" is not clear. An early use dates from 1817, when Gmelin divided the elements into nonmetals, light metals and heavy metals.[10] Light metals had densities of 0.860–5.0 gm/cm3; heavy metals 5.308–22.000.[11] In 1868, Wanklyn and Chapman speculated on the adverse effects of the heavy metals "arsenic, lead, copper, zinc, iron and manganese" in drinking water. They noted an "absence of investigation" and were reduced to "the necessity of pleading for the collection of data."[12] In 1884, Blake described a connection between toxicity and the atomic weight of an element.[13] Beryllium and aluminium, although light metals, are sometimes counted as heavy metals in view of their toxicity.[14][15] Beryllium exposure can result in lung and heart disorders, and possibly death;[16] aluminium is a major inhibitor of crop growth in acid soils.[17] The term you are looking for would be "toxic metals". Using the term "heavy metal" to describe a light metal like aluminum is just silly. Edited January 28, 2015 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_%28chemistry%29 The term you are looking for would be "toxic metals". Using the term "heavy metal" to describe a light metal like aluminum is just silly. There are a number of ways used to define yhe term heavy metals. Density, toxicity, and even atomic number. The fact that you choose to use one and I'm using another doesn't make it less right. Ask the thousands of scientists and lab researchers if they think it's silly that the call aluminum a heavy metal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 There are a number of ways used to define yhe term heavy metals. Density, toxicity, and even atomic number. The fact that you choose to use one and I'm using another doesn't make it less right. Ask the thousands of scientists and lab researchers if they think it's silly that the call aluminum a heavy metal I'm in a lab with 10 scientists right now. I asked. They all think it's silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 I'm in a lab with 10 scientists right now. I asked. They all think it's silly. Wow....you're in a real lab with real scientists. Well then you must be right....oh...other than the fact that a quick Google easily found three labs below that call Aluminum a Heavy Metal in their testing protocol. http://www.lef.org/vitamins-supplements/ItemLC100003/Heavy-Metals-Panel-Mercury-Arsenic-Aluminum-Blood-Test http://www.greatplainslaboratory.com/home/eng/metals_hair.asp http://www.mylabsforlife.com/OrderBloodTestsOnline/heavy-metals-and-environmental-toxins-and-related-testing I'm guessing that you (and your scientists) are out junking your coal and diamonds when people tell you to reduce your 'carbon' footprint. Lol. You realize that a term doesn't need to be literal for it to apply and be used....right? Of course, if you're still caught up on the literal term of heavy metal, then I suggest you read the following from IUPAC: http://iupac.org/publications/ci/2001/november/heavymetals.html Most importantly from the link: The term "heavy metal" has never been defined by any authoritative body such as IUPAC. Over the 60 years or so in which it has been used in chemistry, it has been given such a wide range of meanings by different authors that it is effectively meaningless. No relationship can be found between density (specific gravity) or any of the other physicochemical concepts that have been used to define heavy metals and the toxicity or ecotoxicity attributed to heavy metals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Vaccines don't cause autism....it aggrevates the condition of autism. No they don't. There are rare, sporadic cases where children with a pre-existing mitochondrial disease have the condition worsened after receiving a vaccine. Some mitochondrial diseases show Autism like symptoms, depending on the area of the brain affected. Mitochondrial diseases are rare and it is even rarer for a vaccine to cause regression in a child with the disease. Doctors generally recommend children with the disorder still get vaccinated because the risk of regression from diseases like MMR are far greater than the risks from a vaccine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Yes, if you take the term "heavy metal" to mean anything you don't like, including things that are neither heavy nor metallic (as the iupac author states has been the case), that's fine. I don't like the heavy metal party with their crazy secret heavy metal agenda. I don't like heavy metal music for that matter either, it's toxic to my ears. More seriously, your IUPAC reference (which I recommend you read in full) basically says that the designation "heavy metal" is essentially meaningless and should not be used, with which I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 Do you always create strawmen when you debate? Is whooping cough or the measles 100% fatal? Is the flu 100% fatal? Far from it. Don't change the arguement just to try and make a point. In fact if you would have read the abstract of the study I posted and its conclusion you would see its possible that the vaccine doesn't even help prevent mortality. So...why would I stick a needle full of chemicals in my body when its inconclusive as to what it will do? OK, say it was only 50% fatal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 No they don't. There are rare, sporadic cases where children with a pre-existing mitochondrial disease have the condition worsened after receiving a vaccine. Some mitochondrial diseases show Autism like symptoms, depending on the area of the brain affected. Mitochondrial diseases are rare and it is even rarer for a vaccine to cause regression in a child with the disease. Doctors generally recommend children with the disorder still get vaccinated because the risk of regression from diseases like MMR are far greater than the risks from a vaccine. The mitochondrial effect is only a small subset of the actual cases but is often documented as it is shown in the court cases that have been proven in the court of law. The more common cases of aggravated autism come as a result of inflammation which is similar to the ASIA study I showed above results from adjuvants. Kids with autism notably have increased biomedical issues that get aggravated by heavy metals which then sends the immune system into dysfunction. It's not just vaccines that do this but other environmental factors. The expression they use is that genetics load the gun but toxins pull the trigger. In these cases the phase 2 liver function is impaired and these children can't get rid of these accumulated toxins in the same way regular kids do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 More seriously, your IUPAC reference (which I recommend you read in full) basically says that the designation "heavy metal" is essentially meaningless and should not be used, with which I agree.Hey...you were the one that brought up and hung up on the defintion. I just showed you that other scientists and lab researchers use it commonly. The fact that the term is used meaninglessly doesn't excuse one from having to understand the interpreted meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted January 29, 2015 Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 OK, say it was only 50% fatal? Which disease that we currently use vaccinations for is 50% fatal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.