You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Autism and Vaccines (Part 2 of 2)
Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you're predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.
~ Julie Gerberding, Head of CDC, on Dr. Sanjay Gupta's "House Call," CNN, 2008
No testing is done prior to vaccination to detect and protect children with these predispositions.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/29/hcsg.01.html
In those cases the problem aren't the vaccinations but the fact that children aren't tested beforehand.
Indeed, if the CDC knows this, why aren't children being tested?
The other problem is that the CDC both maintains there is no connection between adverse reactions to vaccines and autism, while simultaneously maintaining here that there is one.
It's not about "anti-vax" or "pro-vax," per se, but approaching the problem scientifically and from a place of rationality, compassion, and logic.
If we know that vaccines can and do sometimes trigger--according to the CDC--"autism-like symptoms," then we should most certainly be testing each and every child. Why doesn't the CDC or the state push for the implementation of this kind of screening? It is just common sense.
Cause Healthcare is expensive as fuck. People are already dieing for several avoidable health reasons.
Kids dying and becoming basically autistic is justified because testing is "expensive as fuck" ????
Please.
I never said it's justified. I just told you the reason why large scale testing for a rare predisposition isn't done.
I guess that's true. This is why I am a market anarchist. Things that are necessary to children not being maimed should be affordable. With the death grip the state has on everyone (assisted by the pharmaceutical industry) prices are gouged intentionally.
Still, even if children aren't regularly tested for this, vaccinations are very necessary. Because (as I let the AI say at the end of the story) a death by one of these preventable diseases is still worse than any suspected side-effects.
We tend to imagine kids 5 years and older with measles who might still pull through when discussing this topic, but it's more likely to be a newborn with whooping cough who wasn't yet vaccinated and picked it up from some unvaccinated older person.
Those who refuse to vaccinate endanger everyone who isn't able.
Not really, if you have read the actual package inserts.
Yes, and the fact that vaccine-conferred immunity generally wanes after 10 years (see vaccine package inserts) contributes to the false sense of security that leads to these tragedies. Also, we are now beginning to witness a lack of transmission of breastmilk conferred immunity as most young mothers now have never had wild-type measles, etc., and thus have no immunity to pass on, due to vaccination.
This is an assertion, and not an argument. As my immunocompromised friends and the folks at Johns Hopkins Hospital will tell you, the recently vaccinated also put these infant and immunocompromised populations at risk.
Instead of attempting to shame others (not saying you are) we should be having a discussion. Why? Because the reason the "debate" is so heated is because most genuinely care about the well-being of our inestimably precious and beautiful little ones.