Forced flu shot at work

1Tim4v8

Not to mention the people who wnat to link SIDS with vaccines

Ruthe8

Little known fact, in most states, children don't need all those shots to get in school. Ask for the exemption paper and you will see that I speak truth.

Yes, and that's why we are seeing outbreaks of whooping cough all over the place now.

oh never mind the rise in Autusm

Are you freaking serious? No intelligent person believes there is a link between vaccines and autism. One FALSIFIED study found a link.

Not ture there are plenty of drs and scentist who beleive it

Whatever. This is an outdated, completely ignorant argument that is not worth my time. Anyone who believes this is an idiot.

1Tim4v8

you might want to check and see if they give a provision for phylosical reasons why you don't want to,

What word is that supposed to be?

my spell check is out, I meant, phil li sophical reasons

Are you trying to say "philosophical"?

yes thank you

agentscully514

Not to mention the people who wnat to link SIDS with vaccines

there are people who want to link earthquakes with the US government ... we call them "wrong"

1Tim4v8

Little known fact, in most states, children don't need all those shots to get in school. Ask for the exemption paper and you will see that I speak truth.

Yes, and that's why we are seeing outbreaks of whooping cough all over the place now.

oh never mind the rise in Autusm

Are you freaking serious? No intelligent person believes there is a link between vaccines and autism. One FALSIFIED study found a link.

Not ture there are plenty of drs and scentist who beleive it

Whatever. This is an outdated, completely ignorant argument that is not worth my time. Anyone who believes this is an idiot.

one could argue your an ignorant sheep, but I agree I don't want to waist my time

1Tim4v8

Not to mention the people who wnat to link SIDS with vaccines

there are people who want to link earthquakes with the US government ... we call them "wrong"

are there two of you in your head "we"

ARDuBaie

It DOES NOT mean that some magical anti-flu force field surrounds you and makes you immune and/or keeps any virus from entering your system. In other words, you can still get sick, and you can definitely still spread it even if you have not gotten very sick.

So the argument that it's for the sake of the patients is B.S. It only protects the individual who received the shot. So you see, the real motivation for making all staff take shots is to make sure you don't miss any work due to flu related illness during the season.

sorry, but that is not true. There is lots of research that shows vaccinating healthcare workers really does reduce case of flu in patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15566025

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8985189

http://sphhs.gwu.edu/departments/healthpolicy/influenza/Influenza Vaccination of the Health Care Workforce Lit Review UPDATED 06 15 11.pdf

The first thing that you need to ask in regard to these studies is if the patients/residents were swabbed for the influenza. In most studies, the researchers look at the symptoms, but there are many diseases that mimic flu symptoms. The only definitive way to determine if the patient had the flu is to swab their nose. So, were all the patients in the comparison year swabbed to see if they had the flu? If not, these are not legitimate studies. Additionally, once the patient dies, the flu virus in their body dies. So swabbing after death cannot determine if a patient died from the flu. Those patients that died may have had pneumonia. In most cases, in the wintertime, doctors will label anyone who died with pneumonia type symptoms as having died from the flu, when that may be far from the truth.

Additionally, what was the flu like during the research year. Was it a mild flu season or a terrible flu season.

Who controlled for other factors, like family member coming in with colds or the flu or nurses not washing their hands well the comparison year. These studies are worthless because there was no control over outside factors and the patients with symptoms were not swabbed for the flu. They only used symptoms for diagnosis.

agentscully514

Whatever. This is an outdated, completely ignorant argument that is not worth my time. Anyone who believes this is an idiot.

one could argue your an ignorant sheep, but I agree I don't want to waist my time

list some LEGITIMATE doctors and scientists who believe it. Mercola doesn't count.

miacatherine

Just claim religious conviction. They cannot ask you what religion you are or any questions at all about your religion or why you choose not to get the vaccine, period.

ARDuBaie

Little known fact, in most states, children don't need all those shots to get in school. Ask for the exemption paper and you will see that I speak truth.

Yes, and that's why we are seeing outbreaks of whooping cough all over the place now.

oh never mind the rise in Autusm

Are you freaking serious? No intelligent person believes there is a link between vaccines and autism. One FALSIFIED study found a link.

Not ture there are plenty of drs and scentist who beleive it

Whatever. This is an outdated, completely ignorant argument that is not worth my time. Anyone who believes this is an idiot.

one could argue your an ignorant sheep, but I agree I don't want to waist my time

Actually, they are now saying that Wakefield may have been on to something in regards to MMR and autism. Not a direct cause, but the children affected may have a genetic propensity that is then triggered by the MMR.

My second child died from the MMR. I got to hold him while he had uncontrolled seizures that were slowly destroying his brain. He died in my arms. So I know firsthand that vaccinations can kill. You cannot tell me otherwise.

agentscully514

sorry, but that is not true. There is lots of research that shows vaccinating healthcare workers really does reduce case of flu in patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15566025

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8985189

http://sphhs.gwu.edu/departments/healthpolicy/influenza/Influenza Vaccination of the Health Care Workforce Lit Review UPDATED 06 15 11.pdf

The first thing that you need to ask in regard to these studies is if the patients/residents were swabbed for the influenza. In most studies, the researchers look at the symptoms, but there are many diseases that mimic flu symptoms. The only definitive way to determine if the patient had the flu is to swab their nose. So, were all the patients in the comparison year swabbed to see if they had the flu? If not, these are not legitimate studies. Additionally, once the patient dies, the flu virus in their body dies. So swabbing after death cannot determine if a patient died from the flu. Those patients that died may have had pneumonia. In most cases, in the wintertime, doctors will label anyone who died with pneumonia type symptoms as having died from the flu, when that may be far from the truth.

Additionally, what was the flu like during the research year. Was it a mild flu season or a terrible flu season.

Who controlled for other factors, like family member coming in with colds or the flu or nurses not washing their hands well the comparison year. These studies are worthless because there was no control over outside factors and the patients with symptoms were not swabbed for the flu. They only used symptoms for diagnosis.

You didn't actually look at the links, I see. The cases of influenza were laboratory confirmed with swabs and PCR.
it was right there in the abstracts.

Rhea30

Little known fact, in most states, children don't need all those shots to get in school. Ask for the exemption paper and you will see that I speak truth.

Yes, and that's why we are seeing outbreaks of whooping cough all over the place now.

oh never mind the rise in Autusm

The rise in autism isn't from the immunization shots. That was a very very false claim when it was made. There are studies done that are showing older men having a high risk of having children with autism but there has been no link what so ever to the immunization shots.

christine24t

I would absolutely refuse. Contains thimerosol.

The Flumist does not contain it if you're worried about thimerosol.

ARDuBaie

sorry, but that is not true. There is lots of research that shows vaccinating healthcare workers really does reduce case of flu in patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15566025

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8985189

http://sphhs.gwu.edu/departments/healthpolicy/influenza/Influenza Vaccination of the Health Care Workforce Lit Review UPDATED 06 15 11.pdf

The first thing that you need to ask in regard to these studies is if the patients/residents were swabbed for the influenza. In most studies, the researchers look at the symptoms, but there are many diseases that mimic flu symptoms. The only definitive way to determine if the patient had the flu is to swab their nose. So, were all the patients in the comparison year swabbed to see if they had the flu? If not, these are not legitimate studies. Additionally, once the patient dies, the flu virus in their body dies. So swabbing after death cannot determine if a patient died from the flu. Those patients that died may have had pneumonia. In most cases, in the wintertime, doctors will label anyone who died with pneumonia type symptoms as having died from the flu, when that may be far from the truth.

Additionally, what was the flu like during the research year. Was it a mild flu season or a terrible flu season.

Who controlled for other factors, like family member coming in with colds or the flu or nurses not washing their hands well the comparison year. These studies are worthless because there was no control over outside factors and the patients with symptoms were not swabbed for the flu. They only used symptoms for diagnosis.

You didn't actually look at the links, I see. The cases of influenza were laboratory confirmed with swabs and PCR.
it was right there in the abstracts.

From the third article:

"A prospective study was conducted to estimate the relative risk of hospital-acquired influenza-like illness (ILI), based on exposures to other contagious individuals. Surveillance of influenza was conducted over 3 seasons."

I don't know about you but 'hospital-acquired influenza-like illness' tells me that they didn't swab them.

Additionally, things like the following statement mean that it is not conclusive that the infections where caused by staff:

"The likely source of influenza transmission for the outbreak was from health care worker contact, as only 15% of the unit staff had been immunized against influenza."

From the abstract for the second article:

"Vaccination of health care workers (HCWs) is recommended as a strategy for preventing influenza in elderly patients in long-term care. However, there have been no controlled studies to show whether this approach is effective. During the winter of 1994-1995, 1059 patients in 12 geriatric medical long-term-care sites, randomized for vaccination of HCWs, were studied. In hospitals where HCWs were offered vaccination, 653 (61%) of 1078 were vaccinated. Vaccination of HCWs was associated with reductions in total patient mortality from 17% to 10% (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80) and in influenza-like illness (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.94). Vaccination of patients was not associated with significant effects on mortality (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.64). Results of this study support recommendations for vaccination against influenza of HCWs in long-term geriatric care. Vaccination of frail elderly long-term-care patients may not give clinically worthwhile benefits."

Show me where it says they were swabbed. Where are there controls regarding other factors? The fact is that other factors were not controlled.

The first study does state that the patients were swabbed. Where is the proof that the patients from the previous year got the flu from staff? Where are other factors being controlled? What was the flu like during the research year? One year of study does not mean squat.

I hold a Masters in Nursing Education and do research. These studies are meaningless unless they control factors that can and will affect the outcome. Additionally, I would like to see the actual results and plug them into my own statistical analysis graph. Statistics can be skewed to show whatever the researcher wants, which is why I like to see how they come up with the conclusion.

On top of that, who are the researchers doing the study for? In other words, who is financing the study? That makes a difference. Many universities will give the results that a corporation wants by skewing their research in order to obtain funding.

pdworkman

So sorry to hear this, Jade. My son got aseptic encephalitis from his MMR, but we did not lose him. How many of his disabilities and issues were caused by this, I don't know. But it's pretty scary, and especially frustrating when you deal with doctors and public health professionals who won't even report it on the adverse reaction database so that proper stats get back to the vaccine companies (and the public, for that matter.)

Most people don't realize that vaccine lots sometimes get recalled because a particular strain has caused too many deaths or emergency room visits. Small consolation for those who have had to deal with the fallout of those "incidents".

My second child died from the MMR. I got to hold him while he had uncontrolled seizures that were slowly destroying his brain. He died in my arms. So I know firsthand that vaccinations can kill. You cannot tell me otherwise.

ARDuBaie

The first posted above is WRONG! The flu shot prevents you from getting that strain of the flu bug that the shot is aimed at. You can get other flu strains but the shot itself is the flu bug that the CDC predicts will be the "BIG" one for that year.

The shot actually prevents three different flu strains.

Wrong - it's four.

The way they decide what strains to use is that they look at what is prevalent in Asia in the early spring and then predict what three top strains will be the ones that will hit the U.S. Problem is, it's a virus. So it mutates. By the time it gets to the U.S., it may be three entirely different strains. They may predict strains A, B, and C, but then the U.S. will get hit with strains A, S, and T. (Making those up, by the way.) That means that the only one you are protected against would be strain A. Never have the pharmaceuticals gotten all three of the major strains that hit the U.S. correct. Only a handful of times did they get two of them right. The past couple of years, they missed on all three. On top of this, it is not an exact science. It is more like a pot-shot in the dark.

Oh, the fourth strain: All influenza vaccinations have H1N1. So there are now four strains covered in the vaccination.

ARDuBaie

So sorry to hear this, Jade. My son got aseptic encephalitis from his MMR, but we did not lose him. How many of his disabilities and issues were caused by this, I don't know. But it's pretty scary, and especially frustrating when you deal with doctors and public health professionals who won't even report it on the adverse reaction database so that proper stats get back to the vaccine companies (and the public, for that matter.)

Most people don't realize that vaccine lots sometimes get recalled because a particular strain has caused too many deaths or emergency room visits. Small consolation for those who have had to deal with the fallout of those "incidents".

My second child died from the MMR. I got to hold him while he had uncontrolled seizures that were slowly destroying his brain. He died in my arms. So I know firsthand that vaccinations can kill. You cannot tell me otherwise.

That is what my son died from. You are lucky. The thing is, when I called the doctor and took him to the ED, the doctors said it couldn't be from the MMR. Finally, I had a doctor who listened and checked for encephalitis, saying that sometimes it occurs post-vaccination. He diagnosed my son with it, but my son died the next day due to delayed treatment. Doctors just don't want to believe that vaccinations have such awful side-effects because pharmaceuticals tell them that there are only mild side-effects or none at all. And now the pharmaceuticals can't be sued if a vaccination caused damage or death. It is a sad state of affairs.

AZKristi

A measels outbreak spread by unvaccinated hospital staff cost the State of Arizona millions of dollars. If you want to be in healthcare, you can't put your patients at risk.

penrbrown

Violated.

Flu shots should NOT be mandatory. No vaccines should be mandatory.

There are a LOT of misconceptions about the flu shot.

It will not STOP you from getting the flu. At the most it will lessen any symptoms if you DO get the flu. What's the point of that? Why should that be mandatory?

oregonzoo

What's the unemployment rate these days?

Personally I'm not opposed enough to the flu vaccination I wouldn't get it. Especially considering the amount of people struggling to find work.

But if you are, either come up with a lie or deal with the consequences and really fight it.