The Cruel Autism Trick Played On Vaccine-Damaged Children

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 10, 2017

I’ve covered this subject in various ways. Here I’m going to use a Q & A format to highlight vital points.

Q: What do people need to know about names for diseases?

A: A disease-label of any kind is something you need to look at the way you’d look at a scorpion on your porch.

Q: Why?

A: Because the label is meant to make you think there is a specific condition.

Q: Isn’t that the case?

A: Not necessarily. For example, autism.

Q: Isn’t autism a specific condition?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Well, start with this. There is no defining diagnostic test for autism. No defining physical test. No blood test, saliva test, urine test, brain scan, genetic assay.

Q: That’s impossible.

A: It’s true.

Q: How can that be?

A: Autism is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the bible of the psychiatric profession. The definition of autism is basically a menu of behaviors. There is no defining diagnostic test. You’ll find, in the official lexicon, other names for various so-called “developmental neurological disorders,” too. And none of them in the DSM have defining diagnostic tests, either.

Q: What are you driving at? Are you saying autism is some kind of illusion, that there is no damage or problem?

A: Of course not. Of course there is damage.

Q: So what is your point?

A: If a parent applies to the US federal vaccine court, for compensation, because her child was severely damaged by a vaccine, and if she or her doctor calls that damage “autism,” there is almost no chance the government will award her compensation.

Q: Why?

A: Because the government is committed to saying, come hell or high water, vaccines don’t cause autism. But if that same parent says her child developed “encephalopathy”—a generalized term meaning a condition that adversely affects the structure or function of the brain—her chances of receiving compensation increase by a small percentage.

Q: Even if she says a vaccine caused the encephalopathy?

A: Yes. It’s all a word game, and if the parent doesn’t know how to play it, she’ll almost certainly lose.

Q: That’s ridiculous.

A: Indeed it is.

Q: If none of these neurological disease-labels in the DSM has a specific and defining diagnostic test, then why doesn’t the parent just tell the vaccine court, “My child’s brain was damaged by a vaccine”?

A: Because the rules demand that she present evidence that the vaccine caused a known and officially accepted disease condition with a disease label.

Q: But the truth is, the vaccine caused brain damage.

A: Truth is not the goal of the government’s game.

Q: Are you saying there is no such thing as autism?

A: I’m saying there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of autism as a specific condition. Otherwise, there would be a defining diagnostic test for it, and there isn’t. There are various causes for neurological and brain damage. When a vaccine is the cause, it should be called VACCINE DAMAGE, and compensation should be awarded on that basis. Period. Stop the fiddling and game playing.

Q: But the government doesn’t want to admit that vaccines cause severe damage.

A: That’s why they play their word games.

Q: What are some causes for neurological damage?

A: A blow to the head, a fall, almost drowning in a pool, oxygen deprivation at birth, severe and long-term nutritional deficits, toxic pesticides, toxic medical drugs, vaccines.

Q: Why are these and other causes hidden under fancy medical names?

A: Because, for example, for each disease-name, drugs can be developed and sold.

Q: What are some names for neurological disease or damage?

A: Fragile X syndrome, Asperger, Rett syndrome; Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, Intellectual Disability, autism.

Q: Are there overlaps of symptoms?

A: Yes.

Q: Is it possible that any of these could be caused by vaccines?

A: The actual DAMAGE that is at the heart of these disease-labels could be caused by vaccines. Or other factors. Each child must be assessed uniquely.

Q: You’re suggesting that, in a sane world, parents and doctors and government officials would call vaccine damage VACCINE DAMAGE, and forget all the rest of it.

A: Neurological vaccine damage, yes. Because that’s what it is. You can say, “Well, we think this group of nerve cells is affected or that group is affected, or possibly this part of the brain is affected or that part,” but when a vaccine is the cause, it’s vaccine damage, plain and simple.

Q: Any other medical tricks people should be aware of, relating to autism?

A: Yes. Researchers can say they know vaccines don’t cause autism, because there are children diagnosed with autism who have never been vaccinated. That assertion is a hoax. The label and the definition of autism are worthless, to begin with, because there is no specific test that invariably diagnoses autism. Instead, as I keep saying, vaccine damage is real and it should be labeled as such. Then, there is no argument about what is and isn’t autism, or what does and doesn’t cause it. There is just naked straightforward truth.

Q: So when a doctor tells a parent, “Your child has autism…”

A: He’s really saying, “Your child has suffered some kind of neurological damage. We have a general label for it. Autism. The label doesn’t tell us what caused your child’s damage.”

Q: But the doctor wouldn’t admit that.

A: No, he wouldn’t.

Q: Suppose he did admit that. Suppose all doctors admitted that.

A: Then there would be a whole new world. Doctors would be tasked with trying to find out what caused the damage in each child. And in talking to a parent, who was there and saw the radical change in her child after vaccination, a doctor would realize that a vaccine was the cause.

Q: It sounds like the government is leading a parent with a vaccine-damaged child into a blind alley with its vaccine court.

A: That’s right. The parent is seeking compensation to pay for her child’s care. The court is essentially saying, “If you claim your child was damaged by a vaccine and call that damage autism, even though the word “autism” is just a meaningless label, we’ll deny compensation. We’ll deny it because we’ve arbitrarily decided that vaccines can’t cause autism.”

Q: This is pure insanity.

A: Yes, cruel insanity.

Q: Let me see if I can sum all this up. First, we have a meaningless label called “autism.” It’s meaningless because there are no defining diagnostic tests for autism. Therefore, there is no proof that autism is a specific condition, beyond the fact that a child has been neurologically damaged in some way. But most people, and the government, and the medical system, ALL BUY INTO THE IDEA THAT AUTISM IS REAL AND SPECIFIC…AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT TURNS AROUND AND SAYS: A PARENT WHO IS SEEKING COMPENSATION FOR VACCINE DAMAGE, ON THE BASIS THAT A VACCINE CAUSED HER CHILD TO “DEVELOP AUTISM,” WON’T BE COMPENSATED, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF THAT ANY VACCINE CAUSES AUTISM. THE GOVERNMENT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING: THERE IS NO PROOF A VACCINE CAN CAUSE A CONDITION WHICH HASN’T BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST.

A: Yes, that’s correct.

Q: This is even crazier than I thought it was.

A: You can add in one more factor. There are parents with vaccine-damaged children, and these children have been diagnosed with autism. If you tell these parents there is no proof that autism exists, and their child simply has devastating neurological vaccine damage, they will protest. They’re caught in a situation they don’t fully understand, and they’re determined to hold on to the idea that their child “has autism.” They want that label to be applied to their child. For them, it provides an “explanation” for what happened to their child. They won’t let it go. And THEN, they will go to the federal vaccine court and ask for compensation, not realizing that if they use the word “autism,” that’s doom. The court will deny their claim.

Q: It’s like being caught in a maze.

A: That’s exactly what it is.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Advertisements

Study: Psychiatrists Now Prescribing Dangerous Antidepressants For Unhappy Marriages

[Editor’s Note]

As Dr. Kelly Brogan has postulated with overwhelming evidence, depression is a symptom, not a disease.  And if that’s the case, then doctors prescribing antidepressants are not getting to the root of the problem. Of course, not treating the root of the issue predictably/unfortunately means more profits for Big Pharma/Big Medica.

For more information regarding this the countless issues with antidepressants please read:

A Mind Of Your Own: The Truth About Depression & How Women Can Reclaim Their Lives by Dr. Kelly Brogan
Toxic Psychiatry – Dr. Peter R. Breggin

Marriage counseling
Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
July 12, 2016

Being in an unhappy marriage can hugely impact your daily life and make you depressed. Depression and marital conflicts often go hand in hand. And it’s a vicious cycle; not only will an unhappy relationship make you depressed, but being depressed can in turn negatively impact your marriage or relationship.

According to a new study published in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, many psychiatrists today opt for the easy way out and prescribe antidepressants, rather than couple therapy, when clients complain about an unhappy marriage or other domestic issues.

Is that really the thing these couples need to solve their problems? Jonathan M. Metzl, the Frederick B. Rentschler II professor of sociology and medicine at Health and Society at Vanderbilt, and the study’s lead author, isn’t so sure about that.

He said that the assumption that people who struggle with their marriage or other domestic issues are depressed, is not supported by the way depression is defined medically.

Unhappy marriage seen as a psychiatric illnesses

For the study, Metzl and his team used the records from 1980 to 2000 of a Midwestern medical center. He notes that the period of the data followed a 1974 decision to remove the term “homosexuality” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The DSM is the standard reference book that describes all psychiatric illnesses.

“As it became less acceptable to overtly diagnose homosexuality, it became increasingly acceptable to diagnose threats to female-male relationships as conditions that required psychiatric intervention,” Metzl said.

Back then, doctors and psychiatrists increasingly began to prescribe antidepressants to patients experiencing problems with heterosexual love and its discontents. Not surprisingly, the researchers also report that this is the same time-frame in which Prozac and other SSRI antidepressants were introduced and heavily marketed by pharmaceutical companies.

Unfortunately, the trend of prescribing dangerous antidepressants for unhappy marriages or marital issues is still continuing today.

Cultural pressure and insecurity

Relationships can be very challenging. When somebody is spiraling out of control and not entirely sure about the relationship he or she is in, it is much harder to be fully present in the relationship. This often comes with out-of-control feelings of despair and depression.

After analyzing the data, the researchers discovered a pattern. Metzl said that attaining or maintaining heterosexual relationships was often seen as a symptom of depression. However, these marriage woes have little or no connection to the current DSM criteria for depression.

Metzl said it has much more to do with the picture society paints of how men and women should behave. Nonetheless, cultural pressure and couple insecurity are decisive factors when making a diagnosis and prescribing antidepressants.

Isn’t that just making things worse? What happened to couple talk therapy or other natural solutions like diffusing essential oils in combination with meditation to ease feelings of insecurity, depression or anxiety?

Instead of suppressing feelings through the use of harmful antidepressants that may induce suicidal thoughts, therapy provides a long-term solution.

Talk therapy vs. antidepressants

Under pressure from Big Pharma, antidepressants have become the first line treatment for a broad range of ailments and conditions, including both unhappy marriages and binge eating. Addictive antidepressants should be reserved for only the most severe cases of mental disorders. And even then, they should only be prescribed as a last-resort when therapy or other treatments have failed.

A person with a binge-eating disorder often uses food to suppress negative emotions such as anxiety and depression. While antidepressants have proven their effectiveness in treating these people, a review published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine found that talk therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy is as effective as most antidepressants on the market.

Nonetheless, harmful antidepressants are still the preferred way to go to treat binge-eating disorders and other conditions that can more safely be remedied with therapy or other natural approaches.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com