The lamest Soviet propagandist couldn't have made this up. Yves Smith:
It should come as no surprise that those at the top of the food chain get preferential treatment on all levels. But this still stinks to high heaven. Employees of the Goldman, the Fed, Citigroup, and other banks are getting H1N1 vaccine allotments out of proportion to what can be justified from a public health standpoint. In particular, Goldman has gotten more than Lenox HIll hospital, which needs it not just for the sick but more important, for workers (not only does the public need to keep front-line health care workers in as good shape as possible, but if they get the infection, they become disease vectors fast, given the number of people they see).Then again, banks have become parasitic, so why should we expect anything different?
Can there be a more fitting illustration of something deeply wrong with our country and its government? I mean, for frack's sake, major banks are getting proportionally more flu vaccine than hospitals! It's almost a parody, with top-hatted Monopoly men smoking seegars at the front of the line, with their sleeves rolled up ready for their flu jab. But this is reality.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I believe everyone should get a flu shot except anyone who's ever had a severe reaction to a flu vaccination, infants under 6 months old and anyone with a fever. If your child does need a flu shot, your pediatrician is the best place to start looking, but if they aren't offering flu vaccine this year, you might check with your local health department, hospital, or pharmacies, and get one wherever you can.
Autism is a complex genetic condition, not an environmental disorder brought on by exposure to heavy metals or vaccinations.
H1N1 is both less severe and more infectious than seasonal flu. The public health emergency is a result of the high infection rate. A flu can be less deadly yet still kill more people.
I'm late to the pile-on, but this may be one reason newspapers are dying: what passes for trained professionals in the field can't get the story right, but volunteer blog-commenters can comprehend and analyze the story.
"These shots don't work, and they have the possibility of causing harm to boot, as they all contain thimerosol, a mercury-derived preservative. (Witness the effectiveness the DAN! doctors have had in curing autistic children by helping them to detoxify the heavy metals--like mercury--out of their systems...)"
You are an uneducated idiot. Even the pushers of this "theory" have started to finally abandon it given the dozens of studies that discredit and fail to support a link. The one study that did was deeply flawed (likely intentionally by a paid anti-vax crusader who ignored evidence that the subjects had autistic symptoms prior to being vaccinated, used a small carefully selected sample, misanalysed data, and failed to disclose his huge conflict of interest). The coauthors were lied to and have asked to have their names removed from the paper - which was with drawn by the publishing journal. This discredited work is the ONLY "evidence" for the autism-vaccine connection.
These lies are only harming autistic children by pushing parents toward cheap false "cures" and away from the hard reality that helping their kids, while possible, isn't so easy. I know it's nice to have "someone to blame" but the truth is, there's not big evil conspiracy causing autism.
Also, as to the "diet cure" ahem: "The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve an aspect of their behavior being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they are being studied, not in response to any particular experimental manipulation."
@ The stupid Chris and the very brave "your name":
Autism is a complex genetic condition, not an environmental disorder brought on by exposure to heavy metals or vaccinations.
This comment is based on your own firsthand research, of course, which you might be so generous as to share with us?
As it happens, the case studies that I have read contradict this popular viewpoint. (Yes, I have been known to wade through the medical equivalent of legalese to decipher actual case studies...) Perhaps you can provide me with case studies that prove otherwise.
You are an uneducated idiot.
How kind of you. Unfortunately, I do have a degree from a well-respected institute of higher learning, so if I am found to be an idiot, it is a comfort to know at least I am not an uneducated one.
In addition, my statement is made based on firsthand knowledge, as I have a son with autism who has benefited very significantly from these techniques--especially diet. So thank you very much for trotting out those studies, but based on the experience of treating my son, and the experience of countless other parents I have come into contact with while doing so, I would have to say that your "studies" directly contradict our concrete firsthand experience.
So unless you would like to make the case that that my son's ability to speak clearly--instead of stammering and squeaking--is a figment of my imagination (or a side effect of being an educated idiot...) then I guess perhaps you are not as educated as you think?
(I could give you a whole list of other improvements he has made, but doubtless you've no interest in the lunatic ravings of an idiot who was brave enough to move mountains to help heal my son instead of waiting around for defeatists like you to do it for me...)
Oh, and interestingly enough, I have found almost invariably in cases where people tried these methods without success, it was because they were unwilling (or quite simply unable) to swallow the bitter pill of the complete lifestyle change it requires. That may sound unfair, but it is equally unfair to use those cases as "proof" that the method is ineffective.
For example, you could go to great lengths to cure a smoker from lung cancer, but if they won't stop smoking, you're wasting your time. Likewise, you can inject a child with DMSA and Methyl b-12 but if you don't also heal the damage done by making other changes, you won't see a very marked effect.
I'm not discounting the fact that these "lifestyle changes" are one of the hardest things in the entire world to accomplish. But the difficulty of achieving it does not negate the possibility of doing so.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.