Experts from around the U.S. have put together a series of stories showing how one vaccine given to middle schoolers can cause serious harm to […]
Get the news corporate media won't tell you.
Get caught up on today's must read stores!
By submitting your information, you agree to receive exclusive AG+ content, including special promotions, and agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms. By providing your phone number and checking the box to opt in, you are consenting to receive recurring SMS/MMS messages, including automated texts, to that number from my short code. Msg & data rates may apply. Reply HELP for help, STOP to end. SMS opt-in will not be sold, rented, or shared.
Continue the discussion at community.amgreatness.com
Participants
I always chuckle at the medical disclaimer in commercials for [fill in the blank] medicines that state, do not take this if you are allergic to the ingredients." How is one to know if there is no prior testing BEFORE taking the medicine? For any new prescriptions, I’ve yet to see any allergic testing done. I’m not even sure such testing exists.
As long as the CDC and FDA only focus on general reactions and ignore acute reactions, stories like these will only continue. What little I’ve read of the literature regarding acute reactions, there seems to be growing evidence that those acutely affected come from groups with certain blood types or certain groups with specific DNA codings. And while not always the case, it seems to me that these acute reactions are more than just a random bit of chance.
I’m guessing that some bean counter in Big Pharma has determined with a cost benefit analysis, that it is cheaper to deal with the tragedies than develop (much less apply) allergic pretesting. But numbers are not people, and people are not numbers. It is real mothers and daughters, sons and fathers that pay an awful price for protecting the corporate bottom line.