I don't disbelieve that you were mistreated. I just don't support the idea that white males are more oppressed than other minorities. Statiscally it's just not representative of the majority of cases.
If there's one thing the free market did well, it was deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Well, first, it's very important and useful for kids needing help like Dillan. This video was posted earlier in the thread, I think it needs to be posted again. You might not care what other people think, but as a parent you'd certainly want to understand why your kid was acting this way so you could help him.
Okay, fine. What has this to do with autism? Nothing, as it happens. In fact, you even missed the point of the original ORIGINAL argument some 150 posts back. The original, original point was that the male autistic's lack of emotion was in line with what used to be expected of all men. But the fact that it used to be "unmanly" to cry doesn't mean that neurotypical men didn't want to cry. They could want to cry, they could need to cry, but the social order of the past didn't ALLOW them to cry. It punished them if they did. Thus, when times changed and men were "allowed" to cry if they needed/wanted to, then autistics who used to be invisible became more noticeable. Which, it was argued, explains why one sees higher numbers of autistics now. Because a little boy who doesn't cry when most are allowed to cry, and would cry, is noticed.
Yes, I agree.
Your views are entirely and unnecessarily rigid about gender roles. You also make blanket assumptions that are false. Dealing in stereotypes is not helpful to anyone including yourself. People can do and be anything they want irrelevant of their physical attributes at birth.
Actually, it IS the scientific world view which IS understanding this and EXPLAINING it to those unlikely to believe it. Most of those non-believers being anti-science types who refuse to believe scientific proofs that go against what they want to believe is true (like those who say being gay is unnatural even when science proves that it is common and natural).
I said I am a fake autistic (because I was diagnosed with it, merely because of the expanded definition, and (admittedly) being a little odd). I never declared myself as being one. I am not one, hence the "fake" part. I'm not sure where your rant about "knowing how lucky we are" comes from. I know it, most don't. That's all I'll say on that.
I think I see where you are coming from. Vaccines are completely safe and have been for a long time. No proof anywhere to the contrary. My kid doesn't count as any kind of proof, even though his doctors point to him as proof. And the similarly injured kids we've ended up helping along the way (odd how communities spring up to address non-existent problems) are not evidence to the contrary either. To round out this way of thinking, let's be sure to discount ALL of the scientific literature, including the copious literature that demonstrates how various vaccine chemicals are recognized as toxic when used for anything except vaccines.
The only things certain in life are death, taxes, and (now) vaccines. Brilliant!
You obviously believe what you've been told, have confidence in your personal powers of logic, and feel emboldened by the comon sense you are equipped with. It might surprise you, but for 40 years I held the same view as you. It was only after things went wrong, and I had to start asking uncomfortable questions, then wrestle with the inconvenient evidence, that I began to see the picture differently. You're not there yet, and you may never be. Please though, try not to think of me as thick.
Statistics, what fun! Who produced that one, and by what methodology? Did "they" clinically monitor 1 million patients and find just 1 who had an anaphylactic reaction (a mild, non life-threatening one at that!), or did they observe the entire UK population, see 65 reactions (all mild, wow!) and "math it down", or more likely did they sift through a bunch of records and take an epidemiological SWAG at it? Maybe they looked at records for all (ALL?) vaccinations given during the past 20 years (or ??) and spotted the one-in-a-million signal that way? Or maybe they have a very specific definition for "anaphylactic reaction"? I'm confident the UK has its sizable share of life-threatening reactions to Gardasil -- why should its population be any different than everywhere else in the world? So maybe they looked at just one specific vaccine in one specific population subset in one narrow age range and extrapolated from there. A citation would help, otherwise it might look like your statistic was pulled out of thin internet.
Ooh, ooh, I'll play! My daughter was fully vaccinated against measles, then she got measles anyhow. No kidding. Can I be Father of the Year, too? Maybe just for a day?
On topic: My kid, who has receptive language processing delays, used a specially written app that aided his ability to read and spell. Could it have been accomplished on different platforms and devices? Sure, but the developer wrote it for iPad, that's what we used, and we're grateful.
His doctors, for certain - blame the vaccinations? That's pretty damn unusual. You think maybe other doctors would share their opinion? Ive not seen a developmental autism diagnosis that can be linked to vax by anyone other than the parents who don't want to accept **** happens sometimes. :/ or saw a reaction/fever/whatever after a jab, then blame any developmental hurdles after that fact on the vaccination with no proof that's true.I think I see where you are coming from. Vaccines are completely safe and have been for a long time. No proof anywhere to the contrary. My kid doesn't count as any kind of proof, even though his doctors point to him as proof. And the similarly injured kids we've ended up helping along the way (odd how communities spring up to address non-existent problems) are not evidence to the contrary either. To round out this way of thinking, let's be sure to discount ALL of the scientific literature, including the copious literature that demonstrates how various vaccine chemicals are recognized as toxic when used for anything except vaccines.
You're clearly statistically very unlucky - she's literally one in a hundred in that case. Of course that doesn't in any way bring their efficacy in question, they don't claim to work in 100% of cases. Herd immunity is worth it. If nobody had been getting those MMRs a lot more people would have it too, potentially ones who it's very risky to.Ooh, ooh, I'll play! My daughter was fully vaccinated against measles, then she got measles anyhow. No kidding. Can I be Father of the Year, too? Maybe just for a day?
