Connect with us

Health

New study finds the developmentally disabled are vulnerable in Ontario

Editor

Published

on

[ad_1]

Michelle McQuigge, The Canadian Press


Published Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:04AM EST

TORONTO — People with developmental disabilities are more likely than the non-disabled to encounter problems with Ontario’s health-care system regardless of age, sex or class, a new study suggests.

The research from the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences found the developmentally disabled were significantly more likely to die young, languish in hospital without plans for appropriate aftercare, spend time in long-term care, or have repeat hospitalizations and emergency room visits than their non-disabled peers.

The study, compiled by researchers from ICES, the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, said the findings held true regardless of what disability was specifically at play. They also transcended a variety of boundaries that usually serve as strong predictors of poor health outcomes, such as age and socioeconomic status.

Elizabeth Lin, CAMH scientist and co-lead author of the study, which was released Thursday, said the data suggests the presence of a developmental disability is the factor that leaves people most vulnerable.

“There’s something about developmental disabilities in and of itself that appears to be contributing to these higher rates of the outcomes that we looked at,” Lin said in a telephone interview.

The researchers surveyed the medical records of more than 64,000 Ontario residents with a range of developmental disabilities, including autism and Down syndrome, and analyzed data compiled between 2010 and 2016.

In each of the negative health outcomes the researchers analyzed, they found a disproportionate impact on the developmentally disabled population.

Lin said what shocked her the most during the course of the research was the early mortality rate, which researchers defined as dying before the age of 75.

Across all age groups, income brackets and sexes, the early mortality rate of 1.6 per cent prevailing in the non-disabled population soared to 6.1 per cent for the developmentally disabled. That number doubled to 12.3 per cent for those with Down syndrome.

The study found 34.5 per cent of disabled people had to visit an emergency room more than once in a 30-day stretch compared to 19.6 for the non-disabled. The pattern held for repeat hospital stays in a 30-day period, where the findings showed 7.4 per cent for the disabled and 2.3 per cent for those without a disability.

The data indicates a phenomenon known as alternate level of care, in which someone spends at least one day in hospital despite being medically cleared for release, only impacts 0.7 per cent of the non-disabled population. That figure jumped to 4.6 per cent for those with developmental disabilities.

In the age groups included in the survey, which ranged from 19 to 64, only 0.2 per cent of non-disabled people spend at least a day in a long-term care home. For the disabled, that figure was 3.5 per cent.

One of those impacted was Teresa Pocock, who spent a brief stint in an Ontario nursing home despite being just 49 at the time.

“It was terrible,” said Pocock, who now lives with family and pursues art in Vancouver. “I don’t like it.”

The report did not explore the causes of the numerous gaps in care, but researchers and those with lived experience of navigating the health system with a developmental disability said the reasons are complex.

Yona Lunsky, director of CAMH’s Azrieli Adult Neurodevelopmental Centre, said there’s widespread ignorance in the medical field about the ways developmental disabilities manifest themselves.

In sessions she’s conducted with emergency room staff, for instance, she’s repeatedly heard that disabled patients are rare arrivals. After viewing teaching videos of common scenarios, however, session participants say they come across such situations more often than they realized.

Lunsky said society’s disproportionate focus on developmentally disabled children may be at the heart of some of the misconceptions.

Health-care professionals are not trained to recognize developmental disabilities and provide appropriate care in adulthood, she said, adding they often expect their patients to show symptoms and behaviours based on stereotypes they’ve long grown past.

But stigma also plays a role, she said, adding people with invisible disabilities may not be willing or able to communicate their situations in environments they’ve found unsupportive in the past.

“I don’t think we’ve been as accommodating as we can to give that message to people that says, ‘we want to know about what your unique needs are so that we can accommodate them,” she said. “Some people, at least, are thinking, ‘I’m going to be treated worse if I make it obvious that I have this disability, or I’m not going to get the care that I need.”‘

The report contains numerous recommendations for the health-care and social sectors, including giving disabled people a more prominent voice in their own care, establishing more supports to keep people out of long-term care for longer, and setting up reviews in early mortality cases to determine the causes.

Such actions would be welcome to Alex Haagaard, who is autistic and uses a wheelchair. She, too, noted that stereotypes across the spectrum of abilities can lead to lasting harm.

“When you’re perceived as not competent, you’re denied autonomy and the ability to take control over your own decisions in relation to your health,” she said. “If you try to assert your own control, they assume you don’t actually need support.”

[ad_2]

Source link

قالب وردپرس

Health

BRAINWASHING THE YOUNG: Cry Babies dolls allow children to “vaccinate” their dolls, causing measles-looking red dots on their face to vanish

Editor

Published

on

By

Awareness seems to be growing about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines, so much so that a children’s doll product known as “Cry Babies” was designed to brainwash innocent kids into believing that vaccination is the way to “cure” disease.

A commercial spot for Cry Babies shows two little girls playing with a doll named “Kristal” that develops strange red spots on her face. When the girls notice the spots, their response is to immediately inject the doll with a vaccine, which makes the red spots disappear on contact.

“Look, she has spots!” the one girl says to the other.

“Give her the injection!” the other responds.

On the Cry Babies website, the description for the Kristal doll explains that she “is sick” and needs “the right medicine” in order “to help her feel better.”

“If she gets a cough, give her the medicine to help her stop coughing,” the description adds. “If she gets a fever, you will need to dab her forehead with the wet cloth to help cool her down.”

“When red spot will appear on her face, give her the injection to make them disappear!” it is further explained. “Like all Cry Babies, Kristal also cries real tears when you remove her dummy and makes realistic baby sounds. 6 accessories included; a dummy, a stethoscope, an injection, a cloth, cough syrup and a thermometer.”

Normalizing vaccines for every ailment is the ultimate goal

The Kristal doll, along with the rest of the Cry Babies lineup, is reportedly available in the United States at Target, Walmart and Amazon. The company that manufactures them, IMC Toys, is based out of the United Kingdom.

Brainwashing young kids into believing that vaccines are “science-based medicine” is only part of the agenda, by the way. The ultimate goal is to convince the next generation that vaccines are the “cure” for pretty much every ailment and addiction, whether it be plandemic viruses like Covid-19 or alcohol addiction.

Vaccines are the be all, end all “solution” to whatever ails you, in other words. This is the true agenda behind children’s products like Cry Babies, which parents need to be aware of and avoid while doing their Christmas shopping this year.

On Twitter, vaccine truth advocates jested at Kristal, pointing out that the doll probably does not come with real-life side effects such as diarrhea, asthma and seizures.

“The doll gets some autoimmune / allergic rash and they inject some high-dose corticosteroid / immunosuppressants and the rash goes away (for some time at least). Just like real doctors!” wrote one, making a great point about how the Kristal doll is ill-equipped to teach children the intricacies about how injections really work.

Another noted that such propaganda has been a mainstay of American programming for many decades, though in the past it was primarily geared towards an adult audience.

“Since the late 40s / early 50s, TV has spread the disease of excessive consumerism throughout societies worldwide,” this person wrote. “Add to that its use as a highly effective propaganda tool and it didn’t take long for the corporate world to realize the propaganda with products such as this.”

Perhaps the best advice came from one user who encouraged parents to program their children with the truth rather than allow them to be programmed with pro-vaccine propaganda.

“Show your kids the vaccine-injured babies and their parents’ stories,” this individual added, stressing that the next generation of youth need to recognize that vaccines are unsafe and harmful, and are not a risk worth taking under nearly any circumstance.

Continue Reading

Health

Johns Hopkins published, then deleted, study showing COVID-19 had no measurable effect on deaths in the United States

Editor

Published

on

By

The Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is not even close to being the threat that Anthony Fauci and others in government continue to claim it is. And Johns Hopkins University agrees – or at least it did agree before the school deleted a study it published showing that the novel virus has had “relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”

Thanks to the Wayback Machine, we were able to pull up the now-deleted original paper, which delineates that so-called “infection” with COVID-19 is really no big deal.

When it comes to the death rate this year, there has been almost no change compared to previous years, despite the presence of COVID-19. Things are essentially the same as they have always been, the exception being all the panic, mask-wearing, and eager anticipation among some of a soon-coming vaccine.

“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” stated Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins.

After compiling and analyzing the death rate among all age groups both before and after the pandemic was declared in the United States on March 13, Briand found that the death rate among older people, who are said to be most susceptible, remained the same.

So while it is said that COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, significantly increasing their risk of death supposedly, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) disagrees.

More of the latest news about COVID-19 can be found at Pandemic.news.

No, COVID-19 has not increased the death rate among Americans

Briand further found that COVID-19 has not increased the death rate among younger people, either. In every age category, the death rate has remained roughly the same both before and during the pandemic, suggesting that all the panic and hysteria is completely unfounded.

In every year prior to 2020, the death rate from all causes has remained the same. Even this year when accounting for so-called COVID-19 deaths, the overall death total has not changed.

“This is true every year,” Briand says about the seasonal increases in death that usually occur in the fall and winter months, 2020 being no exception. “Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes.”

What has changed this year is that all other causes of death, including heart disease, respiratory illness, influenza, and pneumonia, have mysteriously declined, while COVID-19 deaths have increased.

This proves that deaths from all causes are now being categorized exclusively as deaths from COVID-19. Meanwhile, nobody is dying anymore from heart disease, respiratory illness, influenza or pneumonia.

A data chart included in Briand’s study illustrates this clearly, showing that the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.

“This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading,” the paper explains. “Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.”

In other words, if a person tests positive for COVID-19 and dies at some point in the future from any cause, that death is tabulated as caused by COVID-19 for political and financial purposes.

“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths,” Briand reiterated. “Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary.”

Continue Reading

Health

Expert points out “shaky science” behind AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine trial results

Editor

Published

on

By

An expert has warned that results from AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine trials are based on “shaky science.” Scientist-turned-writer Hilda Bastian pointed out that data on the British drugmaker’s COVID-19 vaccine, developed with the University of Oxford, has been “patched together” and excludes groups with the highest COVID-19 risk. Bastian wrote in a piece for Wired that AstraZeneca’s data came from two separate studies – one in May and another that commenced at the end of June – that were substantially different from each other. She remarked: “The fact that they may have had to combine data from [these] two trials in order to get a strong result raises the first red flag.”

Bastian mentioned that a dosing error contributed to a higher success rate: Experts accidentally gave some volunteers one and a half doses of the vaccine instead of two full doses. She added the trials were never designed to test this method of dosing, and scientists only caught the “mistake” when some participants did not exhibit the usual high rate of adverse effects. Bastian noted in her Wired article that “of the only two regimens … the mistaken first half-dose, followed by a full dose at least a month later came in at 90 percent [efficacy], and the … two standard doses at least a month apart [regimen] achieved only 62 percent efficacy.”

The expert also mentioned that the trials by AstraZeneca and Oxford appear to include only a small amount of people aged 55 and above – despite this particular age group being vulnerable to COVID-19. The June vaccine trial held in Brazil did not originally permit people over 55; on the other hand, a separate trial by Pfizer and BioNTech had 41 percent of volunteers over 55 who participated.

A number of experts have also voiced out concerns against AstraZeneca’s presented data

Former Pfizer Global Research and Development President John LaMattina raised the prospect that AstraZeneca’s vaccine may not receive approval from U.S. authorities. He tweeted Nov. 24 that it was “hard to believe” the Food and Drug Administration will issue an emergency use authorization for a vaccine “whose optimal dose has only been given to 2,300 people,” adding that “more data” was needed.

SVB Leerink investment analyst Geoffrey Porges told the Financial Times that the British pharmaceutical firm’s coronavirus vaccine candidate was likely to be rejected because it had “tried to embellish [the trial’s] results” by highlighting its effectiveness in a “relatively small subset of” participants in the study.

Continue Reading

Chat

Trending