Seven Year Old Girl Dies in Custody at the Border

It was cited where the mayo clinic stated otherwise. Dehydration does not cause sepsis, rather sepsis is caused by an infection in the body going untreated. Dehydration has nothing to do with such.

Because it does not. Dehydration does not cause the body to develop sepsis, nor does it cause the body to develop sodium poisoning, as the human body simply does not produce sodium.

Thus meaning the accusation on the part of yourself is that the minor in question was murdered by the united states government. There is simply no other way to interpret such charges being leveled on the part of yourself.

 

The girls father should be charged with child abuse.

 

And yet for everything presented on the part of yourself, nothing can actually be presented to indicate just what this initial screening actually involved, that would serve to alert anyone of the actual condition of the minor in question.

 

Indeed, all Iv'e seen about the "initial screening" says there's this form and an "observation" (to observe is to look at). As has been reported, 4 agents "initially screened" 164 illegal aliens (I surmise in the 45 minutes between their apprehension at 9:15 and call for a bus at 10 pm). It seems sensible to figure the illegal aliens were 'looked at' to determine their health, we know the BP collected these health check forms and that this was done by 4 BP agents (who are not described as "medical doctors", "medical technicians" or even "healthcare professionals"), but not much more. We know an injury, vomiting or blood can be readily "observed", this doesn't take a doctor or medical professional, but the child wasn't bleeding and didn't vomit until about 7 hours and 15 minutes after she was "initially screened" (for health).

The facts we have are simple; 164 illegal aliens screened in about 45 minutes by 4 agents who collected I-779 health check forms and sent them in batches by bus. They sent a first batch about 2 hours and 20 minutes after catching them, then another about 4 hours later and then this child presented "observable" symptoms (she vomited on the bus just before it left). With nothing more, only when the child vomited can we honestly say anyone was alerted to an actual condition or any problem. At this point one would look into any negligence by BP. Should the BP have concluded there was a life-threatening problem due to this child's vomiting? Evidently there was concern (they contacted the destination for emergency medical personnel to be available when the bus arrived) but my guess is that they didn't deem this vomit evidence of a life-threatening condition, evidently they we're mistaken.

The BP sent the child on the bus for a 2 hour ride to medical help, an ambulance might take 2 hours to get her (and another 2 to get her to medical help) so this seems like a good decision. Once the child reached medical help her condition was much worse and she was revived twice and taken by helicopter to a hospital. Unless there was an actual "medical" professional at hand for this "initial screening" and this child exhibited symptoms readily evident thereto I wouldn't conclude there was any negligence

 

Dude... I sourced that this is how it happens.
You're not qualified to dispute this. And I do not care about your opinion.

I don't care about your conclusion. I only care about my point that the US authorities failed to give adequate care to a child who was in their care.

 

That's just moving the goalpost after you and poster-boy here denied it was in essence a medical thing. I proved you both wrong,... and now you're childishly pushing the goalpost to the point that you refuse to prove your own argument and demand I go find it.

 

You sourced that the human body produces high levels of sodium within itself, that need to be flushed out through the consumption of sufficient quantities of water, and that failure to do so will result in the body actually poisoning itself from this unchecked production of sodium?

The qualifications possessed on the part of myself are the same qualifications that are possessed on the part of yourself.

It is not a matter of opinion, but rather an opinion of fact.

"Adequate" does not translate into either "immediate" or "infallible" in the united states, meaning the united states government did not fail the minor in question on the subject of medical care.

Beyond that fact, the above statement on the part of yourself is nothing more than an admission to caring about narrative rater than facts, especially when said facts undermine the presented narrative. This demonstrating nothing more than yet another social justice warrior, demonstrating manufactured outrage about a perceived injustice in a cold and uncaring world. It is not even legitimate outrage being demonstrated on the part of yourself, but rather imitation outrage.

 

Where was it proven on the part of yourself that the "initial screening" was indeed a medical test, that required trained and authorized medical personnel to conduct properly?

 

3 sources in post 1575, and yet you still dare to post that troll question if it was medical.

 

All three citations on the part of yourself repeat that an initial screening took place, but not one of them explains what an initial screening actually amounts to and involves, or if it even amounts to a medical procedure. Therefore nothing has actually been proven on the part of yourself.

 

Yup, since I already sourced
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration
Dehydration can cause hypernatremia (high levels of sodium ions in the blood) and is distinct from hypovolemia(loss of blood volume, particularly plasma).

And here you are again showing your completely ignorant. After ALL THIS TIME... you got NO CLUE how you die from dehydration, but your made up your mind that it can't cause sepsis shock. How utterly retarded.

You never produced any facts. You're proved ranting your ignorant opinion with no clue about dehydration.

Letting a girl pass a health check just hours before she dies from dehydration, has nothing to do with immediate or infallible... it has to do with preforming with an insufficient level.

 

I don't care. If you wonder something and want to make an argument about it,... than GO FIND OUT YOURSELF

 

The border patrol did not go to central America and snatch the girl away from her mother

When she showed up in America with her alleged father the BP agents inquired about her health which was all they could do

Many childhood diseases are on the rise in US school thanks to infected illegal aliens who should not be in this country

 

Where does the sodium come from to begin with? The human body cannot develop and produce sodium on its own. It is a biological impossibility for the human body to produce sodium. Otherwise it would be possible for yourself to produce and reference various medical papers detailing the mechanics of the human body that allows it to produce toxic levels of sodium that must be flushed out through preventative maintenance measures such as the consumption of large quantities of liquid.

Does dehydration cause sepsis to develop?

If not then be quiet on the matter.

Pray tell, exactly what facts have been produced on the part of yourself? There are none presently seen in this constant back and forth exchange.

It was not a health check, it was an initial screening. The only reason the minor in question was able to pass it in the first place, is because the supposed father obstructed the process.

 

Which, once again, demonstrates that this outrage on the part of yourself is not genuine, and is simply imitation outrage, and nothing more than the crusade for social justice against a perceived injustice in a cold and uncaring world.

Such is not how the matter works around here. If you introduce a particular point of argument to a discussion, the burden of proof is upon yourself and yourself exclusively to back it up. The claim was made on the part of yourself that the initial screening was a medical check that can only be performed by licensed medical personnel and should have detected the minor in question was seriously ill. Therefore it is yourself who is required to prove exactly what the initial screening did and did not consist of.

 

Has nothing to do with my argument

 

Dude. You're really out of this world ignorant. It comes from eating rice, bread, milk, fish, beacon, eggs, pasta etc etc etc. How about you look something up instead of expressing your stupidity? lol

I do believe I sourced dehydration, sepsis shock, that she received medical testing.
What did you do? You never even looked up what dehydration causes.... but still demanded that you know it won't cause a sepsis shock. What a fail.

Initial screening... HER HEALTH! I sourced that 3 times in 1 post.

 

Unfortunately it does. If you got a point, than you go prove it. It's not to anybody here to answer your random troll questions that you don't know the answer too. It's up to you to make an argument, and found it by a source. That's how it works

 

I honestly don't understand how anyone blames this girls death on the US. Are you so eager to blame your country (if you are American) for everything?

we are not responsible for everyone. these people were way out in the desert. what would have happened if BP had not picked them up and driven them to a better location? exactly, she would have died in the desert, maybe more of them would have. so they cross the border illegally, knowingly commit a crime, then we are responsible for their health care and safety?

about the same as if a burglar breaks into your house, breaks a leg and then it is your fault.

this type of thinking drives me crazy at times. no , we are not responsible for the rest of the world. if you break the law, you are at fault and we owe you nothing.

I have great empathy for the girl, she paid with her life because of her parents poor decision. shameful.
what happens to a US parent who put their child in danger and they die? think about it a little more than just wanting to blame BP that try to keep the borders safe.

BP wants a wall for example, because they are tired of finding dead people in the desert. by it being so easy to try to cross, many do it. a wall would slow that down.

 

The core issue is what constitutes an "initial screening" by the Border Patrol. All we know is that this is a health check and involves the completion of a I-779 form as well as an observation of the detainee. If anyone has access to the BP handbook on "initial screenings" or some authoritative information on the procedure this question would be resolved. Given that BP agents aren't required to be medical professionals and do not deploy with syringes, blood pressure cuffs or other medical equipment, it is reasonable to expect they have the same medical skills and capacities an average person has, probably have a first aid kit in the vehicle. As I've noted, the BP "initially screened" all 164 illegal aliens in about 45 minutes, this strongly suggests the procedure was quite brief, I doubt it involved much more than confirming what was on the form and checking if there was any observable injury or symptoms of any condition. What are the observable symptoms of sepsis?

The facts indicate this child had no observed symptoms until 5 a.m. when she vomited, if this is true there could be no dereliction by the BP until then. Whether the vomiting alerted the BP to a life threatening condition is a fact-sensitive question that has to do with the judgement of the BP agents and the observed condition of the child.

 

So then the human body does not actually produce the toxic levels of sodium on its own, but rather retains such high levels come from eating significant quantities of food that are loaded with sodium. If an individual has access to such foods, then it stands to reason they also have access to water in order to flush said sodium out of their systems as well.

Therefore there is no way the minor in question could have suffered from dehydration within the time frame of a mere eight hours when she was in the custody of the border patrol agents. Instead the minor in question must have come into the country in an already dehydrated state, thus validating the report by said border patrol agents about the minor in question having no access to food or water for days during the course of the journey. Whether or not this is due to the caravan having no supplies, or simply withholding supplies from the minor in question remains to be seen.

Does dehydration cause a person to develop sepsis? Has it been shown just what an initial screening does and does not involve?

If not, then nothing actually has been sourced or cited on the part of yourself.

Septic shock cannot develop without an individual first suffering from the condition of sepsis, which in turn cannot develop unless the individual is already suffering from an infection that has gone untreated and has been allowed to spread. Such was shown when the mayo clinic website was cited. Yet it was yourself claiming to know better than the entire mayo clinic, in maintaining the nonsensical position that dehydration causes sepsis to develop out of nowhere.

Exactly what does an initial screening entail? Can such actually be answered on the part of yourself?

And yet nothing has been presented on the part of yourself to show conclusively, that the only reason the minor in question died was because she was denied a glass of water for eight hours.

 

I .... SOURCED.... that DEHYDRATION ... causes high sodium levels.... IN YOUR BLOOD.
/facedesk

We've been through this that she never could have passed the medical check.

I sourced that dehydration causes sepsis shock does 2 weeks ago.

Are you qualified to claim that? Nope.

If you got an argument, than make it and source it yourself

 

And in the previous post made on the part of yourself, the claim was made that high sodium levels come from an individual actually consuming foods with high levels of sodium. Thus meaning it is not dehydration that causes sodium poisoning to occur, but rather a high-sodium diet.

First, it was not a medical check performed by qualified personnel, it was an initial screening performed by law enforcement officers, with no more training in medical than yourself or myself.

Second, according to the known time line, the one hundred and sixty four members of the caravan of illegal aliens were processed by four border patrol agents in a period of forty five minutes. That means each border patrol agent saw forty one illegal aliens in this time frame, meaning the minor in question was seen for approximately one minute at best, and passed over when no glaring or obvious signs of visible distress were found.

Third, one minute per individual is not anywhere near enough time to check for temperature, blood pressure, or any other medical procedure. Therefore no medical check was actually performed, therefore the claims to the contrary on the part of yourself are nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

Yet septic shock is not the same thing as sepsis. Therefore it must be cited on the part of yourself that dehydration actually causes the condition known as sepsis, not the resulting complication known as septic shock. Stop using the two terms interchangeably.

The mayo clinic, however, is quite qualified to make such a claim.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/sepsis/symptoms-causes/syc-20351214

Sepsis is a potentially life-threatening condition caused by the body's response to an infection. The body normally releases chemicals into the bloodstream to fight an infection. Sepsis occurs when the body's response to these chemicals is out of balance, triggering changes that can damage multiple organ systems.

If sepsis progresses to septic shock, blood pressure drops dramatically. This may lead to death.


Sepsis is caused by infection and can happen to anyone. Sepsis is most common and most dangerous in:

• Older adults
• Pregnant women
• Children younger than 1
• People who have chronic conditions, such as diabetes, kidney or lung disease, or cancer
• People who have weakened immune systems

The mayo clinic itself states outright that septic shock cannot come about unless an individual has already contracted sepsis. Are you qualified to refute their field of expertise?

The argument being presented on the part of myself is that you do not actually have a clue what you are attempting to talk about.

 

It has a lot to do with your argument

These foreigners show up here and demand entry

Many are carring dangerous diseases that will infect Americans

Some are so sick they cant even make it from the border station to the next stop on their journey

Which as the case with this girl

She should have remained in central Americ with her mother

The man claiming to be her father put her through hell because he hoped it would improve his chances of getting into the country

But instead of blaming him ********* at the border patrol agents

 

This shows your just trolling around.
I sourced perfectly fine that specifically dehydration causes high sodium specifically IN YOUR BLOOD.
There is a world of difference between sodium in your body, and specifically in your blood.
And here you are claiming you know it better, with no source to back it up. Utterly and utterly retarded.
This is not up for debate unless you source it.

The screening was medical, because it concluded she was in good health.
Your claim this was done by quacks is unfounded.

I sourced that dehydration causes the conditions of sepsis shock.

I already sourced that dehydration causes a freaking deadly form of a chemical unbalance.
/facedesk