The article:
Speaking up for autism
My initial ommentary:
Posted by Zemack on 06/02/09 at 6:11PM
Senate bill s1940, which I believe is still pending, "Requires health insurers and SHBP to provide certain mental health benefits for eating disorders..." Mr. Roberts' bill will force insurers to cover autism treatment. Put another way, both of these laws would make it illegal for any insurer to sell a policy in New Jersey that does not include coverage for these ailments. This means that the cost of insurance premiums will have to rise, forcing everyone to buy coverage for something that they may not want or be able to afford. If you want a peak at one of the culprits that are driving insurance costs up, this is it.
However heart-wrenching the circumstances of a particular medical condition may be on family and patient, it has to be said. All such mandates are driven by special interests and their political surrogates seeking to use the power of government to stick everyone else with their medical bills. They are really wealth redistribution masquerading as insurance. They are immoral and unjust because they violate the rights of insurers and their customers to contract voluntarily with each other to mutual advantage.
Having said that, I also believe there is a genuine injustice suffered by parents of autistic children. While they struggle to pay the cost of their own children's treatment, they themselves are victims of a myriad of other government mandates, programs, and policies.
For example, they are forced to pay the cost of similar insurance mandates such as New Jersey's soon to be (or already) enacted Senate bill S1940. In addition, that same couple that is struggling to afford treatment for their own autistic child is paying, through their taxes, the healthcare expenditures of: the elderly (Medicare), the poor (Medicaid), other peoples' children (SCHIP), other uninsured people ("charitable" government aid to hospitals to cover "free" emergency room care, including for illegal aliens, imposed under the federal law EMTALA), etc., etc., etc. In addition, there are medical research grants to universities and colleges. And don't forget foreign aid healthcare spending, including President Bush's $50 billion Aids relief package to Africa. Undoubtedly, there is more. Such is the unjust nature of a system where everyone is forced to pay for everyone else's healthcare.
Our system of health insurance is an absurd, government-created Rube Goldberg concoction, administered by quasi-private companies forbidden to tailor policies to market demand; i.e., the choices and pocket books of the actual, individual consumers of healthcare. The absurdities are not hard to find. For example, my policy covers a myriad of routine medical procedures such as doctor's visits, eyeglasses, dental fillings, medical exams, etc. (after co-pays and deductibles). Yet I can be stuck with massive bills for something like Autism treatment. And I don't have a choice, since my health insurance is purchased by a third party...spending my own money to boot.
A real insurance policy would cover only the major, unforeseen, catastrophic healthcare expenses above a high deductible, such as those cited in the article. That is the real purpose of insurance. In a free market, most medical care would undoubtedly be paid for directly by the consumer with his own out-of-pocket money. It is unlikely, given the choice, that many people would hand over wads of money to insurance companies year after year for routine care or even for such things as mammograms, colonoscopies, moderate amounts of prescription drugs, etc. What we have today is pre-paid healthcare that creates mountains of administrative expenses, empowers insurance company and government bureaucrats to impose decisions properly belonging to the people, and drives up the cost of healthcare and insurance premiums.
The proper role for government is an important one; to protect against fraud and breech of contract, and to mediate contractual disputes. Beyond that, and rather than compound the problem with more mandates, the politicians should get out of the insurance business altogether. Health insurance is properly a contractual matter to be decided between the individual and his insurance company, as a matter of unalienable right. They should not be at the mercy of every politician and special interest group seeking to impose their will on others.
jlsmith June 02, 2009 at 7:56PM
Wow, we must have some victims of the public education system here. Zemack and Givmeliberty, do you know what insurance is? Seems you don't. It is a vehicle for spreading risk. Any medical insurance policy, to be meaningful, should address all medical issues requiring significant expenditures. Do you know anything about autism? Guess not. Because as the #1 children's major health condition (a biologically based medical condition more common than childhood cancer, diabetes and AIDs combined), it fits cleanly into the category of "major, unforeseen catastrophic healthcare expenses". Do you understand the magnitude of expenses associated with major conditions that are always covered by medical insurance, like cancer, diabetes, heart conditions, rheumatoid arthritis, trauma care, etc.? Obviously not, as autism treatment is absolutely not more expensive than these conditions. Have you priced out a stay in an intensive care unit lately? Do you know what we pay for end-of-life expenses for people on life support? Have you looked at the costs of the newer biotechnology agents used against cancer that often extend life by only a few months? It doesn't take long to amass a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars or even more for a major medical condition these days. Please do your homework before making inaccurate statements and engaginig in poorly reasoned analyses.
My Response to jlsmith:
Posted by Zemack on 06/02/09 at 8:52PM
The hugely inflated cost of medical care exists under a system of massive government interference. That should be a strong clue. The third-party-payer system, the thousands of mandates, restraint-of-trade state policies, socialist government programs, all of the controls, taxes, and regulations; all of this inverts the normal market incentives that would lead to higher quality and lower prices. Of the $7500 per capita America spends on healthcare, almost 90% of that represents people spending other people's money.
But even in a free market, some healthcare expenses will be very expensive, and there will be those that will be unable to afford them. That is where insurance comes in, as I stated above, or private charity.
But my main point is, no one has the right to force another. This is something you pointedly ignore. Free people have a right to act on their own judgement...consumers, patients, insurers, providers...so long as they don't violate the rights of others. No one...not politicians, nor special interests, nor you...has the right to use the legalized force of government impose his own judgement on others.
A government either protects individual rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, or it is a predator. It's freedom or tyranny. Thanks to those who believe that force is a legitimate means of dealing with one's fellow citizens, we're heading in the direction of tyranny.
Others' Commentary:
njerseymom3 June 02, 2009 at 10:19PM.
Zemack, you do not have to have medical insurance. It's your choice. The reality is, almost no one can afford to have something medically go wrong, or even right. Just don't have a baby, not even a healthy one. Don't have an accidental fall and whatever you do, don't develop any chronic illness because you will be begging for charity care or living on the street. Yes, the cost of services is over the top, but the point of this article was the societal costs and long term benefits of providing intervention early on to help produce productive adults who are not a drain on the system. That is the ultimate goal of every parent who has a child with these brain based ailments and we will do everything that we can to make that happen
blarneyboy June 02, 2009 at 10:44PM
Funding for these families is a moral necessity. Jersey, with the highest rate of autism in the land, and highest concentration of drug companies in the world, needs to find the link between the two that appears to be causing this developmental disaster. If we don't, "the fix" is in, so look to see which drug companies, and their individual big wigs, are giving the most contributions to the skethier politicians slithering around the state.
jlsmith June 03, 2009 at 11:21AM
Zemack-
We don't live in your utopian libertarian reality. "Mandates" are already in place on a mass scale. About sixty percent of our healthcare system is already socialized (the Medicare and Medicaid systems are funded by tax dollars), and that is never going to change. Ever. Because most illness occurs in the elderly, and it is politically impossible to pull the rug out from our elderly who on limited incomes and will never be able to afford the care they need. So I understand your philosophical leanings, but they really aren't relevant.
We parents in the autism community are sick to death of having our children "nickled and dimed" with pretentious, condescending neighbors and school board members deciding if our children are "worth" the expense of treating their condition, (and medical insurance companies slamming the door in our faces and providing nothing. These EXACT SAME PEOPLE of course are spending my money every day on their health problems. They have cancer, they have diabetes, they have lupus, they have heart problems, they get trauma care for a car accident. Their parents have alzheimers or congestive heart failure or need kidney dialysis. Their children have asthma, life threatening allergies, or were born needing the services of a neonatal intensive care unit. And I do not EVER say to them, you know, I know your dad has alzheimers and I feel great compassion for him and for you, but as a taxpayer and payor into the into the insurance premium pool, by gosh, I have to tell you that your dad is costing me a lot of money, and I just don't think the we as a society can afford to take care of him. I recently had lunch with a woman who was going through chemo, and has been hospitalized 8 times this year, including undergoing 3 surgeries (imagine the expense). She got onto the subject of how her school district is being financially ruined by the special needs students, knowing full well my child has autism. It took every bit of restraint I possessed to not say to her "I'd love to run the numbers on how much the public has spent on my child versus how much the public has just spent on your care." This woman, just like many others in society who resent our children, are total and complete hypocrites, and their arguments about cost (and "mandates") with respect to autism are utterly invalid, when cost and mandates are not on the table for other conditions.
We need to get out of our survival of the fittest, dog eat dog mentality and aspire to a higher moral ground. We need to respond to illness with help, not resentment, and one irrational excuse after another as to why we won't pay.
My Response to njerseymom3, blarneyboy, and jlsmith:
Posted by Zemack on 06/03/09 at 9:14PM
jlsmith
Your argument seems to be: We're 2/3 of the way to totalitarian socialism, so we may as well accept it and go the rest of the way. Well, how do you think we got to "sixty percent socialized"? We got where we are by the same incremental, predatory, dog-eat-dog process that you despise but that is actually epitomized by Speaker Roberts' bill and S1940. It was made possible by the blind pragmatism of people seeing only the small steps and ignoring the ominous trend. It was made possible by the belief that a little bit of rights-violating of our fellow Americans was OK...then a little bit more and a little more...
I agree with you that autism parents are victims of a system that forces them to pay tens of thousands of dollars toward other peoples' healthcare, while leaving them out in the cold. I made that injustice plain on 6/2/09 @ 6:11pm. Your point that we are where we are, it's not going to change, so give me my due is understandable. But I do not accept that freedom is doomed, America is dead, and we should not fight back. The consequences are too dreadful. What do you think it will be like when the "worth" of not just autism treatment but all medical treatment is at the mercy of not "pretentious, condescending neighbors and school board members", but of unknown government bureaucrats wielding dictatorial powers over all of medicine?
When the American government stepped wholesale outside of its constitutional constraints of being a protector of individual rights, beginning in the 1930s, it unleashed the predatory gangs called special interest pressure groups; each seeking to gain control of the legislative process to extract some economic advantage at the expense of the rest of the country. You want dog-eat-dog? Well, there it is in all of its glory. The armies of lobbyists that swarm around the state capitols and Washington, D.C., is a consequence of government's massive control over all economic activity. They wouldn't exist in a free, rights-respecting society.
I do not single out the autism mandate for opposition. I oppose all mandates. The counter-revolution against America's founding ideals of unalienable individual rights, limited rights-protecting government, and justice that began in the Hoover-FDR era is reaching its climax. We are at a tipping point where not only does a line have to be drawn but statism has to be rolled back. Healthcare is currently the central front. The current system is unsustainable, and the choices are either capitalism and individual rights or totalitarian socialism. I do not believe the latter is inevitable, as you do.
I believe in every individual's right to his own life, to act on his own judgement, to his property and earnings, and to the pursuit of his own welfare and happiness, so long as he respects the same rights of others. This is not "survival of the fittest". This is not "dog-eat-dog". This is not libertarianism (which I certainly do not subscribe to!). This is the original ideal of liberty envisioned by the Founding Fathers. I am trying to sound the alarm here...to get people to look up and see where we are headed and to see that no one will benefit from tyranny except the government.
Maybe I and others like me are whistling past the graveyard. Then again, maybe not.
njerseymom3
"Zemack, you do not have to have medical insurance. It's your choice."
I don't have a choice of which insurance company to choose or the policy options. That is determined by a third party...in this case, my union. Changes are constantly made as to the insurer, the co-pays, and the coverage. I have no choice in any of that. Yet, my money...and that of the other members...pays for it.
"The reality is, almost no one can afford to have something medically go wrong, or even right."
Not true. See my post of 6/2/09 @ 6:11pm. Even uninsured people pay plenty in healthcare expenses, just not their own. If healthcare is unaffordable, then where does the more than $2 trillion come from that America currently spends annually on it? We all pay it in a myriad of ways, but most of it is spent by someone else. If we can't afford healthcare, then we can't afford "universal healthcare" either.
The issue is not the wisdom of treatment for autism. The issue is in the "we can make that happen". Who is "we"? By advocating this new law, you are claiming the right to dispose of the earnings and violate the rights of others. This is immoral, and no one has any right to speak for others. Each of us is responsible for his own expenses, not that of others unless we as individuals choose to be, voluntarily. It is the right and responsibility of each of us to decide when and in what capacity to help others, based upon our own values and affordability. No one has the right to force their views and values on others.
Blarneyboy
On what basis is this moral? Let me be unequivocal here. The easiest thing in the world to do is to profess concern for some cause, legitimate or not, then seek a law to force others to pay for your concern with their money and their rights. You get no moral sanction from me. There is no compassion in trampling the rights of others.
Others' Commentary:
blarneyboy June 03, 2009 at 11:34PM
What do you propose, Zemack? Leave the ill on a riverbank to be washed away at high tide? There's a lot appealing about the libertarian concept, but not its Darwinian disregard for those who are weaker, or sicker.
jlsmith June 04, 2009 at 12:43PM
Zemack-
Where to begin? Another primer on medical insurance. When you buy comprehensive medical insurance, it is supposed to cover payment for scientifically validated treatments that are generally accepted as efficacious in the medical community for the full array of medical conditions that exist. As new treatments become available, they are added to the schedule of covered expenses through various processes. Insurance companies often fight the addition of new treatments, particularly treatments that are expensive. They will argue that treatments are "investigatory" or "experimental" long after the evidence is in that they are commonly used and proven safe and effective. Some treatment providers are more effective than others at obtaining coverage for their products and services. For example, the pharmaceutical industry is extremely adept at getting their products covered by insurance companies, and indeed their markets depend on it. The same is generally true for surgical and interventional procedures performed by physicians, although that can be a little more challenging. However, in some situations, the insurance companies are able to successfully keep expensive treatments off their formularies, and that is where mandates come in. A patient base will basically come in and fight the insurance companies, lose, get frustrated, and then fight back in the legal and legislative arenas. You have to understand that in these situations the insurance industry is being sanctioned FOR WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING ALREADY IF THEY WERE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST.
In the instant case, therapy for autism should have been covered by insurance IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS SET UP BY THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY ITSELF starting decades ago, when the treatments were first developed and validated. The only reason they got away with not providing coverage is because 1/ the incidence of autism has only recently exploded and the patient base lacked critical mass to effectively fight for this coverage until now, 2/ there were no monied and politically astute pharma or AMA reimbursement professionals working on behalf of providers and patients to obtain reimbursement--just a bunch of ragtag parent groups and non-organized behaviorists crying into the wilderness; and 3/ parents could often get at least a little help (though almost always inadequate) through their school districts, which have a parallel obligation to provide behavioral therapies under IDEA.
From a legal perspective, mandates are effectively an adverse regulatory ruling against the industry--where the legislature, acting on behalf of the public, enforces the industry's own standards on itself. So there is no "forcing" here--this is what the insurance company should be doing but hasn't, because it has been able to get away with it.
I am as much as a fan of free market capitalism as anyone, but the insurance industry in it's current state is massively corrupt and functioning as an oligopoly, with no meaningful competition (and not as a result of "government interference" as you would allege and as is spewed by their pr departments). If you haven't learned that in the past few years, you've been simply asleep.
I am all for reforming our medical care system, but we are absolutely not going to start by throwing kids with autism off the cliff (not when utter crap like Viagra has been prioritized above our children's needs). We will work to accomplish order and equity in the CURRENT SYSTEM while at the same time IN PARALLEL laying the groundwork for a new system. 1 in 94 kids in New Jersey has autism (1 in 60 boys) . They cannot wait.
blarneyboy June 04, 2009 at 2:50PM
Well said, Jlsmith. Give babies dozens of shots and the immune system could react by causing autism, requiring the drug companies to create MORE shots to treat the autism caused by the original overload of shots= PROFIT.
There's so much drug lobby money in the political system, we may never get to the truth...as children suffer. 1 in 94!
My Commentary
Posted by Zemack on 06/18/09 at 6:58PM
jlsmith
I am all for reforming our medical care system, but we are absolutely not going to start by throwing kids with autism off the cliff (not when utter crap like Viagra has been prioritized above our children's needs). We will work to accomplish order and equity in the CURRENT SYSTEM while at the same time IN PARALLEL laying the groundwork for a new system.
There is a certain logic to this statement. In principle, we're closer than you think. I have made it clear that a comprehensive approach to "reforming our medical care system" is vital. But this must be more than lip service. What should the "groundwork for a new system" entail? It begins with understanding certain key points.
So there is no "forcing" here--this is what the insurance company should be doing but hasn't, because it has been able to get away with it.
"Should be doing"...according to whom? Exercising one's fundamental right to produce and trade...i.e., freedom...is not getting "away with it", or of anything. That is a primitive, tribal premise of the individual as a subject of the state, rather than the American concept of an independent being possessing unalienable rights. Freedom is an unalienable right, not a gift from the state or society.
More importantly, the claim that a government action is not force is an utter denial of reality...a statement that belongs on Orwell's doublespeak list, along with; War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Government, by its very nature, has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. Every governmental action involves the use of force in some manner. This is proper, but only under certain conditions. This basic fact of the nature of government is what necessitates a constitution; the only purpose of which is the protection of private individuals from government force. Proper constitutional constraints limit the power of government to the protection of individual rights. When government steps outside of those constraints, such as legally compelling some people to provide a certain type of insurance...whether on behalf of a ruler, the "public", a pressure group, a democratic majority, someone's need, or what-have-you...it is no longer acting legitimately, but as a criminal.
I am as much as a fan of free market capitalism as anyone...
No, you're not. You advocate a mixed economy...a deteriorating conglomeration of limited economic freedom corrupted by an ever-expanding mass of government controls, regulations, and interventions...i.e., force. The nature and consequences of a mixed economy is described very well...by you. Just get a big enough gang together -- or "critical mass", in your words - to gain control of the legislative process, and you get to impose on others what you couldn't get through voluntary means. On one level, I can't really blame you and others with autistic children. This game of "cold civil war", of pressure groups fighting to use government's power for the purpose of economic predation, has been going on for a long time. The big loser in the mixed economy is the individual and his rights. Note that as a "ragtag" group of individuals, you have no choice but to pay for viagra coverage. But as a political pressure group, you get to force your will on others, just as the viagra lobby was able to force theirs on you. Multiply this process by the thousands, and you have the "dog-eat-dog", Darwinian consequences of a mixed economy. The big winner in this "cold civil war" is the government, which steadily gains power over our lives no matter which pressure group happens to be "winning" at any particular time. At the end of this road lies dictatorship; that the Speaker Robertses and the Blarneyboys can claim an unearned prestige built on the phony "compassion" paid for with other peoples' money. The only solution is the separation of economics and government, a system called capitalism, which would put an end to this beggar-thy-neighbor domestic con game.
Indeed, our insurance industry "in it's current state is massively corrupt and functioning as an oligopoly", if you want to use that ridiculous term. The term "cartel" would be more accurate. A cartel is only made possible by government force. The fact that the insurers are privately owned does not make our current system "free market capitalism". Private ownership also exists under fascism. One of the dangerous fallacies widely accepted today is to equate "capitalists" with capitalism.
In a free market, individual rights...which are guarantees to freedom of action, not a claim to someone else's life or property...are protected by government. There is no "STANDARDS SET UP BY THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY ITSELF", imposed upon all insurance companies by government fiat. There are no cartels under capitalism. The industry is open to all who wish to enter the market, regardless of any "standards" set up by any group of companies calling itself "the industry". An insurer is free to ignore those standards and offer policies in accordance with its own market judgement...its judgement as to what consumers may want and be willing and able to pay for, and what is economically viable. What "is supposed" to be covered...whether established treatments or new ...is determined, properly, by voluntary contractual agreement between the consumer and the insurer. The government's role is not to dictate, but to mediate any contractual disputes through the objective medium of the civil courts and to prosecute breech of contract. But the terms of the contract are set between consumer and insurer, by mutual consent to mutual advantage. In a free market, no one is forced. That is what the "free" in free market means.
Consumers are free to choose among competing policies offered by competing companies. There is complete freedom of contract, with government protections against fraud or breech. But there is no inherent right of consumers to any particular type of policy or coverage, if no one chooses to offer it. There is no inherent right of insurers to sell any particular policy or coverage , if no one chooses to buy it. The basic principle is justice...every person is responsible for his own life, and may satisfy his needs only by means of voluntary trade and association with those who produce what he needs. When government violates rights by interfering in that contractual relationship, such as with mandates, the product ceases to be insurance. When the government uses its coercive power to dole out economic favors to some groups at the expense of others, it is engaging in fascism; the use of superficially private business as a conduit for the illegitimate exercise of government's monopoly on legal physical force. The legislature is then not "acting on behalf of the public", but on behalf of whatever groups claiming to represent "the public" happen to have their political hacks sitting in that body. The government's only real "public interest" function is to protect individual rights...everyone's rights, equally and at all times...because each and every individual is a part of "the public". If the government violates the rights of one single person, it can no longer claim to be "acting on behalf of the public".
The current problems in our healthcare are "not as a result of 'government interference' as you would allege".
Really? This doesn't jive with your previous statement that "About sixty percent of our healthcare system is already socialized", or with the facts of reality. America currently spends some $7500 per capita per year ($30,000 per family of four and rising) on healthcare. Almost that entire amount represents third parties spending other people's money. This is a fundamental part of the problem. Without government interference, we would purchase our own healthcare directly from providers, insurance directly from insurers, and be responsible for our own healthcare retirement planning, etc. Our entire healthcare financing system is a creation of government. Over the past several decades, the problems in healthcare have grown in lockstep with the growth of government interference: In other words, with the growth of force imposed on the private sector.
Your reference to "the past few years" is taken to mean the financial crisis. Good comparison. The financial sector is controlled by a central bank money monopoly. This sector is, arguably, even more controlled than healthcare...and look where we are. In similar fashion to healthcare, the crisis we are now in is entirely the result of a build-up of government interference in the banking, mortgage, and housing markets...i.e., the build-up of force.
In fact, the areas beset with the most problems...such as soaring costs, falling quality, and crazy distortions...are the three sectors most heavily dominated by government--healthcare, finance, and education (with energy closing in on fourth place).
There is much, much more to say regarding the "PARALLEL laying [of] the groundwork for a new system". Understanding the difference between government action and private action...between force and voluntary human association...and how the former corrupts the latter is crucial to finding the right reform path--individual rights in medicine.
As for blarneyboy, The issue is; who decides when and how to help another? That is a decision for each of us to make based upon our own evaluation of the worthiness of the recipient of our charity, our values, and our ability to be able to afford the time and/or resources. No one has the right to impose his idea of "compassion" on others, either at gunpoint or by supporting some government law...essentially the same thing. Those who do are phonies. The idea that "we are all our brothers' keepers" has turned America into a nation of thieves, where anyone with a "good cause" in one hand and the lever of political power in the other can pick his neighbor's pocket. That is a fundamental source of the problems in America's healthcare financing system.
I would say that the best protection that the small minority of helpless people have...the "weaker, or sicker"... is the freedom of those who they must depend on. It's no contradiction that you support both the "appealing libertarian concept" and socialism. One is anti-government, the other totalitarian government. In both cases, there is no protection for individual rights. So you are consistent here. Morality is the missing ingredient in your viewpoint. I oppose your Darwinian disregard for the lives and liberty of the strong and healthy...the very people upon whom the "weaker, or sicker" must depend. If you don't want to "leave the ill on a riverbank to be washed away at high tide", you would embrace capitalism, not socialism or libertarianism. Only a rights-respecting and protecting society is a benevolent and compassionate society.
As for blaming pharmaceutical companies for autism, I'm not that familiar with the issue. But my understanding is that there is little evidence to support your claim. It's a cheap shot (no pun intended). There's a funny thing about freedom, though...you don't have to buy the dangerous products made by the evil profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies...unless, of course, the government forces you to. (Never mind the lobbyists. No private person, group, or company can force you. Only government can, at the behest of some special interest. This is why, once again, I advocate the separation of economics and government.)
What should be investigated, but isn't, is the role of religion in the increasing incidence of autism. In the early years, a child has a desperate need and strong desire to understand the world around him, which means to learn to use his cognitive tools of logic that enable him to cope with that world. But if a small child is brow-beaten with the notions that he must blindly obey the arbitrary commands of an incomprehensible supernatural being or rot in hell; that his life is pre-determined by "God's plan"; that he is evil by nature; that humility is a virtue and self-esteem is a vice; that the quest for knowledge is sinful; that his mind is impotent before the "awesome" power of statues gazing down on him in a cathedral designed to make him feel small and inconsequential - would it be surprising if that child escaped into his own autistic world? No, most Christian parents are not holy rollers who literally practice that dogma. That would be cruel. But the rise in autism parallels the resurgence of religion in American culture over the last couple of decades.
NOTES on the CAUSES of AUTISM:
The Extremely Male Brain
" In 1998 British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield published a study in the Lancet linking autism to the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. The paper was based on only 12 subjects, and the theory has been debunked in much larger studies. Wakefield is being investigated by Britain's General Medical Council for, among other things, misrepresenting his subjects' medical records. But the vaccine theory lives on among parents who refuse to vaccinate their children, with public health consequences for the rest of the population."
1 comment:
I'm no longer surprised or upset when I see people so casually advocate that slavery (or slave labor) be imposed on fellow citizens. What else can one expect in today's culture?
Note how they summon the bogeyman of "societal costs" when confronted with serious, principled arguments.
Post a Comment