Patient Registration - All Children'S Hospital: Fill & Download for Free

Because there are numerous studies that debunked the original finding by Andrew Wakefield, whom had been disbarred from practicing medicine.For example, a meta study has found numerous studies, listed in the table depicted above, that have failed to find the relationship between autism and MMR vaccines.Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting HypothesesAlthough child vaccination rates remain high, some parental concern persists that vaccines might cause autism. Three specific hypotheses have been proposed: (1) the combination measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism by damaging the intestinal lining, ...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388/The OP has also claimed that there are no studies that compare the rate of autism in vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. This is not true.From the study linked above:In Denmark, again using a national registry, researchers determined vaccination status and autism diagnosis in 537,303 children born during 1991–1998 [14]. The authors observed no differences in the relative risk of autism between those who did and those who did not receive MMR vaccine. Among autistic children, no relationship between date of vaccination and development of autism was observed.Link to the study :A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism - PubMedAbstractBackground: It has been suggested that vaccination against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) is a cause of autism.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all children born in Denmark from January 1991 through December 1998. The cohort was selected on the basis of data from the Danish Civil Registration System, which assigns a unique identification number to every live-born infant and new resident in Denmark. MMR-vaccination status was obtained from the Danish National Board of Health. Information on the children's autism status was obtained from the Danish Psychiatric Central Register, which contains information on all diagnoses received by patients in psychiatric hospitals and outpatient clinics in Denmark. We obtained information on potential confounders from the Danish Medical Birth Registry, the National Hospital Registry, and Statistics Denmark.Results: Of the 537,303 children in the cohort (representing 2,129,864 person-years), 440,655 (82.0 percent) had received the MMR vaccine. We identified 316 children with a diagnosis of autistic disorder and 422 with a diagnosis of other autistic-spectrum disorders. After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risk of autistic disorder in the group of vaccinated children, as compared with the unvaccinated group, was 0.92 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24), and the relative risk of another autistic-spectrum disorder was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07). There was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development of autistic disorder.Conclusions: This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism.

The Quora World Meetup 2019, Nigeria held on the 22nd of June in Ipaja a bustling town in Alimosho local government area of Lagos.The meetup was led and hosted by Debo Kayode Ogunranti. In our quest to give back to the community we decided to incorporate a free medical outreach programme with the meetup, this was led by one of us, Dr. Okey Ekemezie who apart from been a medic is very popular on Quora as a football/soccer pundit.Before 9:00am, residents of the community were seated in readiness for the free medical services they were to receive (which included hypertension, diabetes and glaucoma/cataract screening).The medical outreach kicked off at exactly 9:00am with registration of the patients.After registration, each participants/patients got their vitals checked. Those that required special medical attention were treated accordingly with the aid of medication. Those with eye defects and problems with vision were thoroughly screened by the eye doctor that was present.Free drugs, eye drops and glasses were also given to those who needed them.A total of 115 adult patients were attended to. 73 were female and 42 were male.The children were also not left out as 21 were given free medical services.The meetup proper was quite a unique experience as it allowed Lagos Quora members bond and network with each other. Although online communication between members is quite regular, nothing beats a face to face meeting.The conversations and debates were vibrant, riveting and enlightening. We discussed almost everything from politics, the economy, feminism, sex, careers and health.Lunch was a sumptuous affair with copious amounts of cold palm wine to wash it down with.We all tentatively agreed to meetup again unofficially sometime in August 2019.

*snort* It’s a Mark Ward answer. Of course it won’t do squat to prevent any shootings.Let’s break it down one bullet (no pun intended) at a time:Background checks on every single gun purchase. This would include private transfers of sale.Without total, nationwide gun registration this won’t accomplish a single thing, other than annoying people. And even with nationwide registration it still won’t stop anyone from selling a gun to a criminal, which is surely the only kind of transfer the government should be preventing. All I have to do is report my gun stolen just before or after selling it. Since most guns taken from criminals have changed hands several times since their original purchase, even if the gun is traced all the way back to me there is basically no chance that I will be charged. As far as the cops will ever know, I was simply the victim of a theft.Besides, private transfers are not a significant source of criminal guns and they never have been.The two biggest sources of criminal guns, according to the ATF, are straw purchases and the black market, neither of which will be touched by “universal” background checks.frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns"P.S. California already does ban all private gun transfers, but that didn’t stop the San Bernardino killers. Explain that, Mark.Mental health checks for every single gun purchase followed by annual mental health checks for every gun owner.LOL Only someone completely out of touch with reality could think this was even possible, let alone sensible. That or someone trying to deliberately make gun ownership impossible through bureaucratic red tape. (I’ll leave it up to others to decide which category Mark Ward falls into.)First, there is no such thing as a “mental health check”. You don’t get a “check up” for your brain like you do for your body. People like Mark seem to assume there is some kind of quick and easy standardized test that therapists can give to patients to check their mental state. There ain’t. Real mental health assessments are extremely difficult, time consuming, and not cheap.Second, mental health assessments are not as reliable as you might think. Psychiatrists and psychologists are very well educated and trained, but at the end of the day the science of mental health is still a very murky one. Diagnosing someone with a mental illness is difficult as it is. Trying to guess whether the patient will become violent? Unless the signs of violence are already overt (in which case, the assessment is rather moot), that’s next to impossible to say. And suppose the doctor gets the diagnosis wrong? What happens then? Could the doctor be sued if a patient he certified as “sane” later went on to shoot someone? What if a doctor wrongfully disqualifies someone from owning a gun? How many patients do you think will start suing their doctors claiming they were misdiagnosed and wrongfully denied their Constitutional rights? This plan would either drive healthcare costs through the roof from all the extra malpractice insurance doctors will need to buy, or doctors will simply refuse to perform these mental health checks altogether.…Speaking of which, what if NO doctors are willing to perform these “mental health checks”? Does that mean everyone is de facto denied their 2nd Amendment rights?And third, even if all of the above weren’t true, there’s one simple fact that makes “mental health checks” an eternal pipe dream. There aren’t nearly enough psychiatrists and psychologists to go around. The number of guns sold every year number in the TENS OF MILLIONS. Gun owners possibly number in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. Even if every shrink in the country dropped all their other patients and spent 100% of their working hours doing nothing but “mental health checks” from sunrise to sunset, they would never cover them all. Hell, they wouldn’t even come close. The backlog of cases would stretch back for years. Maybe even decades.There are only two reasons why anyone would believe this was a good idea. Either they simply don’t know WTF they are talking about, or they are deliberately trying to make gun ownership as difficult as possible.Regular training similar to what police and military must accomplish in order to use their firearms. Organizations like ALERRT could be used.A. Most police do not receive “regular training” in firearms. Most departments require no more than a few hours of range time per month, and that’s it. Many if not most civilian shooters actually have MORE firearms training than your average police officer.B. The military and organizations like ALERRT don’t teach anything like the kind of skills that ordinary civilians need to know. No one will be asking civilians to storm a bunker full of terrorists or rescue a hostage.Yet more examples of how Mark Ward either doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or is deliberately trying to make legal gun ownership next to impossible.All restrictions removed at the National Trace Center in VirginiaI don’t know what “restrictions” he thinks he’s talking about, but as far as I know there aren’t any restrictions on the National Tracing Center. Apart from the restriction that they cannot maintain a federal registration database.(FYI, In one of his other answers Mark Ward claimed to be an “expert” in gun laws. Somehow I find that dubious.)All restrictions removed from the CDC in their research into the public health issue of gun violence.Again, no such restrictions exist.Listen carefully, everyone. There never was any ban on gun research at the CDC.The only thing the CDC was told not to do was use “research” as a cover for political advocacy. Is that the “restriction” that Mark Ward wants removed? Does he want the CDC to become a partisan political organization?I’m going to guess he probably does, but only if their research supports his views.So I guess he’ll be rather disappointed by this:CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBDInsurance required for gun ownersInsurance for what? The only thing insurance will possibly cover is accidental shootings, and those would already be covered under most homeowners insurance plans. And accidental gun deaths are a statistical non-event anyway.Again, either Mark does not know what he is talking about, or he is deliberately trying to make gun ownership more difficult.All gun manufacturer exceptions for liability removedThere are no liability exceptions for gun manufacturers.Gun makers are subject to the exact same liability laws as every other industry in the world. What Mark Ward and other anti-gun liberals call an “exception” to the law is actually a protection against the lawless actions of the anti-gun left, who would happily use the courts to bankrupt gun manufacturers with barrage after barrage of frivolous lawsuits.No other industry in the world gets sued because someone criminally misused their products. If a man beats his neighbor to death with a Black & Decker-brand claw hammer, no one sues Black & Decker. If a Mercedes owner gets drunk and mows down a crowd of children waiting for the school bus, no one sues Mercedes. So why should Bushmaster be sued because someone used one of their products to commit a crime?There’s only one reason, and it isn’t public health or safety. Anti-gun zealots want to use the courts as a weapon to destroy the gun industry. They know they can’t get their extremist anti-gun policies passed through the normal democratic process, so they’re trying to make an end-run around the will of the people.That, or they don’t know WTF they’re talking about. Again, I leave it up to the reader to decide which is the case here.