Crazy sh it.

[stuffin]

Also again: when thimerosal is metabolized by the body, the mercury it creates is ethylmercury, which does not bioaccumulate (the body excretes it).  Finally, even if the mercury in the flu vaccine did bioaccumulate, the amount of thimerosal in the flu vaccine is so small that being concerned about it is simply silly.  A typical flu shot contains approximately 25 micrograms of mercury.  The FDA's recommended daily limit on the intake of mercury is 0.4 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. 

I wasn't contesting the facts, was just identifying where I got my info. I like your explanation better, thanks. I will keep watch though, part of my job as a medical professional.

[stuffin]

I was at Wal Mart today and the section with meds was full of people coughing and hacking.  I got away from it as fast as I could.

YUP, they touched and read every box, bottle and carton on those shelves, then the cashier did the same. Wouldn't want to be the next person in line on that check out. 

[Azdgari]

Again:  Thimerosal is a molecule that has an atom of mercury as a constitutive element.  It is therefore not really proper to say that the vaccine "contains mercury".  You cannot treat a molecule with an atom of mercury in its structure the same as elemental mercury, which is what the quote you give above is trying to do.

...

Frankly, I think all the attention that some people pay to the mercury in the flu shot is pretty ridiculous.  Healthwise, most people should be worrying about things that are much more pressing, such as the amount of sodium and fat they're getting every single day, instead of the amount of mercury they're getting in their flu shot, which you get only once a year.

Case in point:  I ate food that contained both chlorine (a toxic hallogen) and sodium (a dangerously reactive metal) today.

It tasted salty.

[12 Monkeys]

Again:  Thimerosal is a molecule that has an atom of mercury as a constitutive element.  It is therefore not really proper to say that the vaccine "contains mercury".  You cannot treat a molecule with an atom of mercury in its structure the same as elemental mercury, which is what the quote you give above is trying to do.

...

Frankly, I think all the attention that some people pay to the mercury in the flu shot is pretty ridiculous.  Healthwise, most people should be worrying about things that are much more pressing, such as the amount of sodium and fat they're getting every single day, instead of the amount of mercury they're getting in their flu shot, which you get only once a year.

Case in point:  I ate food that contained both chlorine (a toxic hallogen) and sodium (a dangerously reactive metal) today.

It tasted salty.

The sodium and fat they ingest or sodium chloride are personal choices,if they so choose not to ingest these,again a choice THEY make,why should wether or not you take a shot be different?
 You want to kill yourself slowly,you have that right
 Remember when doctors told pregnant women thalidomide was safe?,Viox? Accidental death from prescriptions is now the leading cause of death in America. The accidental cause is more likely abuse or overdose,the only difference between the two above deaths is the amount of time it takes to die. One is immediate,the other slow and painful

 You people don't have an interest in protecting the health of others with this mandatory flu vaccine crap,your interest is for self preservation at the expense of others freedoms to choose

[12 Monkeys]

I was at Wal Mart today and the section with meds was full of people coughing and hacking.  I got away from it as fast as I could.

YUP, they touched and read every box, bottle and carton on those shelves, then the cashier did the same. Wouldn't want to be the next person in line on that check out. 

 While you were at Wal-mart did you get your flu shot Nick?

[William]

Remember when doctors told pregnant women thalidomide was safe?,

That event changed the standards and methods of pharmaceutical appoval processes for pregnant women forever.   You can't carry on blaming medical science for something that it corrected and took permanent corrective action over.

Furthermore, thalidomide is now being very effectively used to treat myeloma.  Thanks to science

Viox?

Vioxx was and still would be a very effective product.  Many patients are really pissed off that it was withdrawn.  The downside was 6% increase in heart attack risk over placebo with 18 months continuous high-dose usage - a risk that occasional users of the drug with acute debilitating arthritis pain (like my father) will happily accept if they know about it and how to manage it.  Other companies with similar acting drugs did not even study that risk and so got away with no adverse publicity leaving MSD to take the flack.  The mistake MSD made was to suppress the findings initially - irony of which is that if they hadn't tried to hush it the drug might still be available for use in safe dosages.

Accidental death from prescriptions is now the leading cause of death in America.

What is the source of this data please?  My information is that heart disease tops the list of causes of death. 

You may be talking about "accidental deaths" as a category  - which is an order of magnitude lower than non-accidental causes.  And of the accidental prescription deaths the vast majority are due specifically to pain killers.

Misuse or abuse of prescription drugs, including opioid analgesic pain relievers, is responsible for
much of the increase in drug poisoning deaths

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db81.pdf

It's unethical to deny a patient effective pain relief just because some fools OD on the stuff.

[Nick]

I was at Wal Mart today and the section with meds was full of people coughing and hacking.  I got away from it as fast as I could.

YUP, they touched and read every box, bottle and carton on those shelves, then the cashier did the same. Wouldn't want to be the next person in line on that check out. 

 While you were at Wal-mart did you get your flu shot Nick?

I got my flu shot several months ago.  Still don't like being around the infected.  They are like zombies.  You never know when they are going to come after you.

[12 Monkeys]

William.....the point I was making about thalidomide was that it was unsafe for certain uses,tell the mothers of children with birth defects that it is now used for other purposes

 The second point death by food or drugs,overdose in BOTH cases(or otherwise) was it was a PERSONAL choice made to or not to take either in excess.

 Who said anything about the ethics to give pain treatment for those in need,should these narcotics be given out in such a way to avoid overdose deaths? For example going to the pharmacy for daily doses?

 Yes it was accidental deaths,link to CDC here

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/

[William]

William.....the point I was making about thalidomide was that it was unsafe for certain uses,tell the mothers of children with birth defects that it is now used for other purposes

I got your point thanks   
I made a new point that medical science has moved on and improved.  It's not like that anymore.  The thalidomide mistake is not a valid criticism of current medical science.

The second point death by food or drugs,overdose in BOTH cases(or otherwise) was it was a PERSONAL choice made to or not to take either in excess.

Infectious disease control is clearly not a "PERSONAL" issue.  Exercising a "personal choice" to be germ vector puts others at risk.   

Who said anything about the ethics to give pain treatment for those in need,should these narcotics be given out in such a way to avoid overdose deaths? For example going to the pharmacy for daily doses?

I said something about the ethics.  I introduced it because it has to be balanced against the biased uninformed anti-pharma hysteria going round.  Prescriptions (in my country) have dosage instructions clearly printed on the bottle.

Yes it was accidental deaths,link to CDC here

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/

Thanks for that clarification

[William]

..,should these narcotics be given out in such a way to avoid overdose deaths?

You may have a good point here - from your reference:

More than three out of four people who misuse prescription painkillers use drugs prescribed to someone else

Fucking idiots screwing it up for everyone else!

[12 Monkeys]

..,should these narcotics be given out in such a way to avoid overdose deaths?

You may have a good point here - from your reference:

More than three out of four people who misuse prescription painkillers use drugs prescribed to someone else

Fucking idiots screwing it up for everyone else!

Funny good ole Rush said we should put all drug addicts in prison......and the whole time he was abusing drugs

[12 Monkeys]

William.....the point I was making about thalidomide was that it was unsafe for certain uses,tell the mothers of children with birth defects that it is now used for other purposes

I got your point thanks   
I made a new point that medical science has moved on and improved.  It's not like that anymore.  The thalidomide mistake is not a valid criticism of current medical science.

The second point death by food or drugs,overdose in BOTH cases(or otherwise) was it was a PERSONAL choice made to or not to take either in excess.

Infectious disease control is clearly not a "PERSONAL" issue.  Exercising a "personal choice" to be germ vector puts others at risk.   

Who said anything about the ethics to give pain treatment for those in need,should these narcotics be given out in such a way to avoid overdose deaths? For example going to the pharmacy for daily doses?

I said something about the ethics.  I introduced it because it has to be balanced against the biased uninformed anti-pharma hysteria going round.  Prescriptions (in my country) have dosage instructions clearly printed on the bottle.

Yes it was accidental deaths,link to CDC here

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/

Thanks for that clarification

The American and Canadian Governments used TB,smallpox and influenza to destroy populations of indigenous. Why is it now that they are concerned about nurses getting flu vaccines? Because it could kill them?

[William]

The American and Canadian Governments used TB,smallpox and influenza to destroy populations of indigenous. Why is it now that they are concerned about nurses getting flu vaccines? Because it could kill them?

You nailed it!

[screwtape]

The sodium and fat they ingest or sodium chloride are personal choices,if they so choose not to ingest these,again a choice THEY make,why should wether or not you take a shot be different?

Do you really not see the difference?  Because no one is going to catch obesity or high blood pressure from anyone else.  If you want to kill yourself, I mainly don't care.  But if you are going to do it by burning down the whole neighborhood, then I definitely have a problem with it.

You people don't have an interest in protecting the health of others with this mandatory flu vaccine crap,your interest is for self preservation at the expense of others freedoms to choose

What is the problem with that?

[12 Monkeys]

Read my above statement^^

[screwtape]

Read my above statement^^

to whom is this addressed?  And which above statement?  there are several.

[12 Monkeys]

The fact that you worry now because it may kill you or a loved one.....and you need someone to blame if that happens. So why allow an exemption at all for religious or medical reasons?  Take the shot or be fired,no reason or excuse. You have allergy to eggs,to bad,Gullian-Barr syndrome,tough luck,religious reasons,no,you are all fired.

 So what you are saying is you respect the rights of these people but not the people who just say NO,or do you agree ALL FIRED?

 If the protection of people in care of the hospital are your only concern,there should be no exemptions period.

[screwtape]

12 M, you're acting like a tard.  Most of your last post has been said already.  And the stuff that hasn't - like the little gem about needing to blame someone - is insulting and more than a little stupid.  I'll join the conversation again when there is something worth responding to.

[12 Monkeys]

 Tard is you being nice,thanks

 Should anyone who refuses a shot for any reason be fired? The point of the tirade was that anyone left unprotected from refusal to take the vaccination is a risk to sick patients.......after all that is what this arguement is all about

[wheels5894]

We could argue all day long,and get nowhere,I happen to be on one side,you on the other. As a Canadian,can you be a libertarian? (joke)

 If there were not long term risks,why would anybody be against it,hell there is even an American agency compensating victims of vaccination side effects

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

Yet what area the risks really? Sure if you do anything to a large enough group of people something will go wrong but it is the measure of the problem that counts. For healthy people the risks are minimal compared with the risk of disease. Following on from the ridiculous false claims of autism caused by the MMR vaccine we had children in the UK dying of measles - a disease that is avoided by a vaccine. That was very sad but, now that the truth has come out, people are now using vaccination and these deaths are in the past.

The fact is that people ignore the actual risk and act on the basis of the most tiny risk (say avoid an immunisation) whilst driving a car, an occupation with a much, much higher risk of death. Avoiding immunisation by the hospital workers, on the other hand could cost some of the patients in the hospital their lives.

We have to understand risk and act on the real risks of things and not perceives risks.

[wright]

Tard is you being nice,thanks

 Should anyone who refuses a shot for any reason be fired? The point of the tirade was that anyone left unprotected from refusal to take the vaccination is a risk to sick patients.......after all that is what this arguement is all about

AFAIK, no one on this thread has said all hospital workers should be vaccinated or fired, no exceptions, full stop. Why do you keep asking the question, then?

There are sound medical reasons why some health care providers won't or can't be immunized; in such cases hospital administrators have to decide if an exemption is warranted. As you and others have pointed out, it's impossible to eliminate all possible paths of infection, but it's certainly possible to minimize them. Having as many staff as is practical immunized at least provides a degree of herd immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity) within the hospital and greater community.

I don't think religious objections to vaccination are valid, because health care workers should be putting the physical welfare of their patients before their own religious faith. But ultimately that call is up to the administrators who have to decide such cases.

[Mooby]

Accidental death from prescriptions is now the leading cause of death in America.

No, it isn't.

Prescription-caused deaths and all other healthcare related deaths would fall under the "accident" umbrella (the technical term is "iatrogenic.")

Should anyone who refuses a shot for any reason be fired?

No there are legitimate medical reasons, called contraindications, for not receiving a vaccine.  When compliance with vaccines is high, the immune persons slow the spread of the disease, protecting the unvaccinated from being exposed to it.  This is called herd immunity.  When compliance with vaccines is low, herd immunity falls apart and outbreaks can occur more easily.

Workers who document a legitimate medical reason for not getting a vaccine are exempt from getting fired, much as you are exempt from getting fired if you have a legitimate medical reason for missing work.  If you were to skip work tomorrow and then claim on Wednesday that you did it for religious reasons, you probably would not have the same exemption.  Of course, science is all about testing hypotheses, so feel free to verify that.

[12 Monkeys]

Tard is you being nice,thanks

 Should anyone who refuses a shot for any reason be fired? The point of the tirade was that anyone left unprotected from refusal to take the vaccination is a risk to sick patients.......after all that is what this arguement is all about

AFAIK, no one on this thread has said all hospital workers should be vaccinated or fired, no exceptions, full stop. Why do you keep asking the question, then?

There are sound medical reasons why some health care providers won't or can't be immunized; in such cases hospital administrators have to decide if an exemption is warranted. As you and others have pointed out, it's impossible to eliminate all possible paths of infection, but it's certainly possible to minimize them. Having as many staff as is practical immunized at least provides a degree of herd immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity) within the hospital and greater community.

I don't think religious objections to vaccination are valid, because health care workers should be putting the physical welfare of their patients before their own religious faith. But ultimately that call is up to the administrators who have to decide such cases.

It was not just the nurses they wanted to vaccinate it was every employee at the hospital

[Azdgari]

Wright said "hospital workers".  He didn't specify nurses.  So why are you responding as though he did?

I suggest you begin reading the posts to which you are replying.

[12 Monkeys]

Accidental death from prescriptions is now the leading cause of death in America.

No, it isn't.

Prescription-caused deaths and all other healthcare related deaths would fall under the "accident" umbrella (the technical term is "iatrogenic.")

Should anyone who refuses a shot for any reason be fired?

No there are legitimate medical reasons, called contraindications, for not receiving a vaccine.  When compliance with vaccines is high, the immune persons slow the spread of the disease, protecting the unvaccinated from being exposed to it.  This is called herd immunity.  When compliance with vaccines is low, herd immunity falls apart and outbreaks can occur more easily.

Workers who document a legitimate medical reason for not getting a vaccine are exempt from getting fired, much as you are exempt from getting fired if you have a legitimate medical reason for missing work.  If you were to skip work tomorrow and then claim on Wednesday that you did it for religious reasons, you probably would not have the same exemption.  Of course, science is all about testing hypotheses, so feel free to verify that.

I clarified in a later post accidental deaths

[12 Monkeys]

Wright said "hospital workers".  He didn't specify nurses.  So why are you responding as though he did?

I suggest you begin reading the posts to which you are replying.

They even wanted the gift shop employees to be vaccinated or be fired

[Azdgari]

Yeah, you're not even reading the replies.  Bye.

[Bagheera]

Sometimes the government has to take action in response to people's irrationality.  Not long ago, for example, NOAA (the agency that I happen to work for) issued a public statement stating that there was no evidence for the existence of mermaids.

I am suddenly getting flashbacks to the 2012 apoca-lulz. I think even NASA had to make several press releases explaining why there was no planet hurtling towards the earth that was going to destroy us in December.