ADVERTISEMENT

1 in 45 kids is being diagnosed with autism. And though we know the rate is incredibly high and rising even higher, we seem to constantly deny the findings any valid research protocol. In other words, we seem uneasy looking for real solutions. Autism is such a big deal in the United States right now that even our politicians are jumping into the fray, turning it into a politicized chopped onion. Hillary Clinton’s autism plan completely dismisses vaccines as being related to the cause, but she’s not shy in creating “an autism plan” to help her campaign thrive.

Clinton now has a 2016 campaign to deal with autism. But nowhere in that plan are vaccines mentioned. But let’s really dive into what’s happened here on a more micro-level. Looking at Clinton’s earlier comments, she asserts potential “links” for autism with “the environment” and other “chronic diseases.” Forget about her clear dismissal of vaccines in this and focus more on the language. Back in 2008, Clinton was speaking to look for solutions. Clinton, while she may now be asserting some semblance of disdain for pharmaceutical companies due to the recent “pharma bro” spectacle, she has always been on the good side of pharmaceutical companies. Clinton is bankrolled heavily from big pharma.

Clinton accepted $164,315 in the first six months of the campaign from drug companies, far more than the rest of the 2016 field, according to an analysis by Stat News.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now, a task force was created to decide if autism should be a part of infant pre-screening. Essentially, if approved, a pediatrician might run an autism pre-screen on children before they turn 30 months. In some ways, this seems rational, even though many of us strongly distrust Doctors, it would be helpful for early diagnosis for a plethora of reasons. But in other ways, this could be used as further evidence of causation. The earlier you diagnose, the more likely you are to collect data, whether it be environmental, chemical or otherwise. Investigators don’t want to find a crime scene weeks or months or even years later. The earlier they find the crime scene, the more relevant and fresh all of the evidence is.

The Task Force declined early autism screening based on ‘insufficient evidence.’

“There’s not enough evidence for us to recommend for or against screening in children for autism under 30 months,” said David Grossman, vice chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and a Seattle pediatrician. “Clinicians need to make a judgment on their own about whether to screen. There is no right answer on that.”

 The findings, which apply to children between the ages of 18 months and 30 months who haven’t exhibited any signs of the disorder, were published Tuesday in JAMA.
Some health officials have come forward criticizing the decisions, proclaiming that early detection could lead to a variety of off opportunities to help the situation. My position is that it could actually help us find the cause. But if that cause is vaccines, then early screening only puts that on a bigger display, something the medical community would like to avoid. The Task Force’s decision is almost non-sensical if you rule out corruption. More children are affected by autism than a host of other illnesses. We screen pregnant women for Down Syndrome in their fetuses (babies being born with Down Syndrome is 1-700, a far cry from 1-45).
So why avoid autism screenings unless you have some sort of ulterior motive? This is from the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics from the same article.
“We know from a lot of research that the earlier you can intervene with any developmental problem — including autism — the better off the child is,” said Benard Dreyer, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics and a practicing pediatrician in New York. Though much is unknown, “what we do know is that screening works. Early intervention is good.”
The AAM is without question, a corrupt group, but even they are stymied that a “Task Force” could foul up such obvious reason and logic. How could you vote against early detection? Many parents do figure it out on their own and many others really wouldn’t want the pediatricians involvement in the matter, but that is beside the point. The logic in this situation is flawed, which usually indicates something nefarious. We know autism is on the rise, so we should want to detect it as early as possible, not only for the parents and children’s sake but for the sake of finding the cause. Unless of course, we don’t want to find the cause. Imagine earlier detection leading to more parents realizing the vaccine timelines relevance?

I wonder why we can’t have a “Task Force” to help us decide if vaccines are the cause?

feature Photo by Lance Neilson



You may also like

Comments

comments

Close
Please support our efforts!
Like Us On Facebook And Never See This Popup Again!