whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Religion & Society => Topic started by: Nick on January 02, 2013, 05:07:49 PM

Title: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Nick on January 02, 2013, 05:07:49 PM
8 people were fired from IU Health Goshen Hospital in Northern Indiana for refusing to get a flu shot.  The hospital put in a new policy for everyone, even volunteers and vendors.  They stated that patients with poor immune system would be at risk otherwise.  One of the 8, a lady named Joyce Gingrich...who is an oncology nurse, said it was against her religious beliefs.  She said she was a nondenominational Christian.  Another lady who was a hospicevolunteer said she could not get a flu shot because she was God-led.

Crazy sh it, but if I'm in the hospital I don't want sick people around me.  I would think they would welcome being protected from the flu.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: rev45 on January 02, 2013, 06:24:35 PM
My mother is a non-denominational Christian and a nurse and she always gets a flu shot.  Mostly for herself but for those that she works with also.  It was never an issue that I can remember in my church going days.  Why would it be?  What would be the religious hurdle in the way?  I think those nurses who were fired are just afraid of getting a shot.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: William on January 02, 2013, 07:34:07 PM
Crazy sh it, but if I'm in the hospital I don't want sick people around me.  I would think they would welcome being protected from the flu.

Exactly right Nick. 

Makes me wonder about the training the nurses got on infectious diseases - probably had to read the book of Job for theory and practice mixing saliva in the dirt ...
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 02, 2013, 08:48:11 PM
The facepalm / jawdropping thing for me about this is that some of these morons were nurses :o That is some good cognitive dissonance they've got, to get their degrees and work in their field for even a few years and still find getting a flu shot on behalf of the people they're serving untenable.

If it was in my power, I'd bar them from using any technology more advanced than what we had in the Bronze Age from now on. I feel sorry for anyone who ends up under their care, if they're so distrustful of 21st-century medicine.

Here's a link:http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/236052/158/Hospital-in-Goshen-Ind-Fires-8-Workers-Who-Refuse-Flu-Shot (http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/236052/158/Hospital-in-Goshen-Ind-Fires-8-Workers-Who-Refuse-Flu-Shot)
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: screwtape on January 03, 2013, 08:37:02 AM
Any bets on whether they will sue?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Hatter23 on January 03, 2013, 09:46:48 AM
Any bets on whether they will sue?

No I am not that kind of sucker
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 06, 2013, 04:52:09 AM
SOOOO you say anybody and EVERYBODY needs a flu shot?try reading the side effects for any and all vaccinations/medicine your "health provider" may want to put you on .......some scary shit there

 They could easily mask any patients at risk of the flu because of serious illness.........why don't they?

 The nurses in BC Canada are refusing here too,it is not just religious nuts avoiding the flu shots
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Nick on January 06, 2013, 08:11:30 AM
I don't think everyone should have to get a flu shot...even though they should.  But people working in medical facilities should.  You could easily be putting others at risk and in some cases high risk of death.  Your rights in such cases should end at the hospital door.  You are not forced to work at a hospital.

Why not stop getting polio and smallpox shots also.  Who knows what is in them?  Lets bring back smoking in hospitals also.

There must be limits when your choice affects the lives of others.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: naemhni on January 06, 2013, 08:49:51 AM
Why not stop getting polio and smallpox shots also.

I do get your point here, and I agree with it for the most part, but just for the record, smallpox vaccinations have been discontinued; they were stopped some time ago because smallpox has been eradicated.  We're very close to wiping out polio as well, and it can safely be assumed that once it has been, polio vaccinations will also be discontinued.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Ambassador Pony on January 06, 2013, 02:59:30 PM
Any bets on whether they will sue?

Somehow, in America, sueing is never against someone's religion.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 06, 2013, 03:15:36 PM
I don't think everyone should have to get a flu shot...even though they should.  But people working in medical facilities should.  You could easily be putting others at risk and in some cases high risk of death.  Your rights in such cases should end at the hospital door.  You are not forced to work at a hospital.

Why not stop getting polio and smallpox shots also.  Who knows what is in them?  Lets bring back smoking in hospitals also.

There must be limits when your choice affects the lives of others.
So after flu shots what is next ..... what happens when the government starts deciding what they can do to you,take the abortion hoops they want to make women go through in some states,is that wrong?....like mandatory drug testing or abstention from alcohol or you will be fired. There is always a line in which they will expect you to cross at one time or another,will you conform or be fired?

 What about the suggestion those at high risk wear masks? there,that is an easy inexpensive alternative.....no?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 06, 2013, 03:18:33 PM
I don't think everyone should have to get a flu shot...even though they should.  But people working in medical facilities should.  You could easily be putting others at risk and in some cases high risk of death.  Your rights in such cases should end at the hospital door.  You are not forced to work at a hospital.

Why not stop getting polio and smallpox shots also.  Who knows what is in them?  Lets bring back smoking in hospitals also.

There must be limits when your choice affects the lives of others.
Getting the flu shot reduces your risk it does not mean you can't get the flu.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Nick on January 06, 2013, 04:10:08 PM
Masks don't always work.  You can be sick for days before signs show.  I don't understand why this is a big deal.  Kids can't start school if they don't have all their shots. It's a flu shot for Thor's sake.  Work in fast foods if you don't want to get one.  If I'm in the hospital I want them to wash their hands,use clean knives on me, and not touch my food if they are sick.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 06, 2013, 05:51:01 PM
Masks don't always work and neither does the flu shot 100% of the time and the risks of these shots come with dangerous side effects.

 Like I asked you will you line up for the next Government mandated "shot"?...You get your bird and swine flu shots? How about the probing of women before they have an abortion they want to "mandate" before a woman can have a procedure?......YOUR NEXT,for the next big thing.....of course unless you have a penis
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Quesi on January 06, 2013, 06:24:08 PM
My understanding is that there are 3 categories of people who should not get flu shots.  Chemo patients, transplant patients, and people who have had Guillain-Barre Syndrome. 

People who come in regular contact with people in any of those categories, especially the first two, really need to be vaccinated to protect chemo patients and transplant patients. 

Failure to be vaccinated means that you are putting vulnerable people at risk.  And there is no way that an oncology nurse should be allowed NOT to get the vaccine unless s/he falls into one of the rare, exempt categories.

If someone I loved were going through chemo, I would like to feel secure in knowing that all medical professionals treating my loved one had been vaccinated, and were not putting my loved one at risk. 
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 06, 2013, 06:24:33 PM
Masks don't always work and neither does the flu shot 100% of the time and the risks of these shots come with dangerous side effects.

Vaccines are an incredible advance in medicine. There are certainly legitimate reasons why some individuals shouldn't get them (mostly issues with allergies and the like). But even the non-immunized minority benefit from a majority of their fellows getting vaccinated, because a given disease then has far less vectors to harbor it. The side effects of vaccines are far outweighed by their benefits.

Like I asked you will you line up for the next Government mandated "shot"?...You get your bird and swine flu shots? How about the probing of women before they have an abortion they want to "mandate" before a woman can have a procedure?......YOUR NEXT,for the next big thing.....of course unless you have a penis

Seriously, you equate a hospital's policy of immunization for its care providers with the anti-choice lobby's attempts to shame women out of having control over their own bodies?

I find your distrust of vaccines surprising, given that European diseases decimated your Native American ancestors.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 06, 2013, 09:29:42 PM
I do not have a distrust....the issue is the making it mandatory or lose your job......I have had many immunizations over the years and except for the ones in my infancy they were all VOLUNTARY

 I do not discount the benefits of vaccinations,I disagree they should take them or be fired,it is a flu shot not a smallpox vaccination........do you understand for religious or other reasons it is a CHOICE.

 The fact that I pointed out that certain LAWMAKERS and various idiots on the fringe want to do this to women is to point out YOU may be next in this. There may come a day when your employer demand something of you against your will or be fired (mandatory drug and alcohol tests for example)will everyone you work with line up voluntarily?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 06, 2013, 09:38:40 PM
My understanding is that there are 3 categories of people who should not get flu shots.  Chemo patients, transplant patients, and people who have had Guillain-Barre Syndrome. 

People who come in regular contact with people in any of those categories, especially the first two, really need to be vaccinated to protect chemo patients and transplant patients. 

Failure to be vaccinated means that you are putting vulnerable people at risk.  And there is no way that an oncology nurse should be allowed NOT to get the vaccine unless s/he falls into one of the rare, exempt categories.

If someone I loved were going through chemo, I would like to feel secure in knowing that all medical professionals treating my loved one had been vaccinated, and were not putting my loved one at risk.
A mask could be worn in these situations could it not? Flu vaccine is NOT 100% effective against the flu virus......it is always evolving,why do you think Influenza is still here?

 Do you see what you are saying in a FREE society,DO IT OR ELSE,if this were a disease like small pox you would be stupid not to get vaccinated.....but it is not.

 What would you do if your work demanded you did something not related to your job,and because they told you do it ,or be fired......you would want all the information first .....no?

here the CDC says it is only effective in 9 out of 10 people,so the tenth nurse would risk all patients even with the flu shot

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257984/Fears-flu-vaccine-CDC-officials-confirm-treat-cases-disease-continues-spread-rapidly.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 06, 2013, 10:50:34 PM
I do not have a distrust....the issue is the making it mandatory or lose your job......I have had many immunizations over the years and except for the ones in my infancy they were all VOLUNTARY


And you really see this case as an unwarranted intrusion? These are people who come into close contact with others who have compromised immune systems, or are too young to have been vaccinated themselves. That's what I find so astonishing about this incident: that nurses would balk at doing something that involves little or no risk to themselves and lowers the risk to those in their care.

I do not discount the benefits of vaccinations,I disagree they should take them or be fired,it is a flu shot not a smallpox vaccination........do you understand for religious or other reasons it is a CHOICE.

If those nurses couldn't be vaccinated for some legitimate reason, then fine. But that's not the case; they decided their religious beliefs trumped the hospital's goal of protecting patients. Let them choose employment elsewhere, then.

The fact that I pointed out that certain LAWMAKERS and various idiots on the fringe want to do this to women is to point out YOU may be next in this. There may come a day when your employer demand something of you against your will or be fired (mandatory drug and alcohol tests for example)will everyone you work with line up voluntarily?

In fact, I once had to choose between mandatory drug testing and looking for another job. I chose to be tested; I judged that an acceptable compromise.

A mask could be worn in these situations could it not? Flu vaccine is NOT 100% effective against the flu virus......it is always evolving,why do you think Influenza is still here?

The influenza viruses are notoriously mutable; that's why new vaccines are constantly needed. That fact in no way changes that vaccinations are among the best methods for controlling the spread of easily transmitted diseases like flu.

Do you see what you are saying in a FREE society,DO IT OR ELSE,if this were a disease like small pox you would be stupid not to get vaccinated.....but it is not.

What would you do if your work demanded you did something not related to your job,and because they told you do it ,or be fired......you would want all the information first .....no?

Neither Quesi or I are insisting that vaccination be made mandatory for everyone, everywhere. I do agree with her that health-care providers like the nurses in question should be. I really don't see why that's a big deal for those in professions dedicated to caring for sick people.

I just don't.


here the CDC says it is only effective in 9 out of 10 people,so the tenth nurse would risk all patients even with the flu shot

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257984/Fears-flu-vaccine-CDC-officials-confirm-treat-cases-disease-continues-spread-rapidly.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

First, the "common" flu can still kill. Even when it doesn't, it still results in suffering and losses at the individual and societal level every year. A population where the majority that can be immunized are is far better off, even with a "mere" 90% effectiveness of treatment.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 06, 2013, 11:19:49 PM
  The Flu kill regardless of someones medical conditions,it can easily kill a healthy person in any circumstance,and SO can the flu shot. What part of being a free person DON'T you understand about this argument?

 Hep A,B,C are  easily transmittable and vaccines are available for A and B,there are other transmittable and diseases that kill,where a vaccine is available,Whooping cough as an example,very DEADLY. Should these be mandatory as well? Where does the slippery slope of Big Brother stop? These vaccines are available but not mandatory,so why the flu shot?

 You guys sure dont like your freedoms being infringed upon,but it sure is ok to infringe on others
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 06, 2013, 11:29:55 PM
And as Nick mentioned it was EVERYBODY in the hospital MUST get it not just care providers
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 06, 2013, 11:31:30 PM
I don't think everyone should have to get a flu shot...even though they should.  But people working in medical facilities should.  You could easily be putting others at risk and in some cases high risk of death.  Your rights in such cases should end at the hospital door.  You are not forced to work at a hospital.

Why not stop getting polio and smallpox shots also.  Who knows what is in them?  Lets bring back smoking in hospitals also.

There must be limits when your choice affects the lives of others.
Why do you think someone has a freedom while someone else does not? there are more deadly diseases than the flu,why stop at one vaccine?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 07, 2013, 12:00:06 AM
Why do you think someone has a freedom while someone else does not? there are more deadly diseases than the flu,why stop at one vaccine?

Again, we are talking about a very specific case. It looks like the hospital in question does require that those working there be vaccinated against measles/rubella, chickenpox, hepatitus B, tetanus/pertussis, flu and be screened for tuberculosis. http://iuhealth.org/search/results/vaccination%20policy (http://iuhealth.org/search/results/vaccination%20policy)

This seems very reasonable for a health professional / student / volunteer in such a workplace. Do you really see this as an infringement of human rights? What about the rights of the patients who are there to get better?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 07, 2013, 12:00:54 AM
The facepalm / jawdropping thing for me about this is that some of these morons were nurses :o That is some good cognitive dissonance they've got, to get their degrees and work in their field for even a few years and still find getting a flu shot on behalf of the people they're serving untenable.

If it was in my power, I'd bar them from using any technology more advanced than what we had in the Bronze Age from now on. I feel sorry for anyone who ends up under their care, if they're so distrustful of 21st-century medicine.

Here's a link:http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/236052/158/Hospital-in-Goshen-Ind-Fires-8-Workers-Who-Refuse-Flu-Shot (http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/236052/158/Hospital-in-Goshen-Ind-Fires-8-Workers-Who-Refuse-Flu-Shot)
Why does it in your opinion need to be religious grounds they refuse the flu-shot?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 07, 2013, 12:08:25 AM
Why do you think someone has a freedom while someone else does not? there are more deadly diseases than the flu,why stop at one vaccine?

Again, we are talking about a very specific case. It looks like the hospital in question does require that those working there be vaccinated against measles/rubella, chickenpox, hepatitus B, tetanus/pertussis, flu and be screened for tuberculosis. http://iuhealth.org/search/results/vaccination%20policy (http://iuhealth.org/search/results/vaccination%20policy)

This seems very reasonable for a health professional / student / volunteer in such a workplace. Do you really see this as an infringement of human rights? What about the rights of the patients who are there to get better?
MASKS OR FLU SHOT.........could be given to anyone at risk.....why or why not? if there are 500 employees at a hospital and the vaccine does not work in 50 of those people there is STILL a high risk no? The vaccine in best case is only 90% effective and that leaves 10% still a threat. The 10% can easily spread the flu virus nullifying your argument.

 The American ideal of going to work sick is another problem. How exactly is it not an infringement?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 07, 2013, 12:20:13 AM
The facepalm / jawdropping thing for me about this is that some of these morons were nurses :o That is some good cognitive dissonance they've got, to get their degrees and work in their field for even a few years and still find getting a flu shot on behalf of the people they're serving untenable.

If it was in my power, I'd bar them from using any technology more advanced than what we had in the Bronze Age from now on. I feel sorry for anyone who ends up under their care, if they're so distrustful of 21st-century medicine.

Here's a link:http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/236052/158/Hospital-in-Goshen-Ind-Fires-8-Workers-Who-Refuse-Flu-Shot (http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/236052/158/Hospital-in-Goshen-Ind-Fires-8-Workers-Who-Refuse-Flu-Shot)
Why does it in your opinion need to be religious grounds they refuse the flu-shot?

Did you read the article I linked to?

Quote
Joyce Gingerich, who was fired from her job as an oncology nurse at IU Health Goshen Hospital for refusing to get a flu shot, said she understands the hospital's position, but she couldn't get a flu shot because it would have gone against her religious beliefs, which she describes as nondenominational Christian.

"I knew that I could not compromise my personal belief system for a job," said Gingerich, who had worked at the hospital on and off since 1987. "It was really sad to leave that job. In all my years of nursing, it was my favorite."

Quote
Sue Schrock, who had worked at the Goshen hospital as a hospice nurse on and off for the past 40 years, also had her exemption application rejected. She said her decision to decline the vaccination was, in part, "God-led."

Schrock said she believes people can stay healthy by taking natural vitamins, eating well and exercising, and they don't need to get a flu shot.

"I'm a pretty quiet, spiritual person, and for me, it was a big decision, but it was something that was very meaningful for me not to have in my body," she said.

So at least two of them had religious objections, which were rejected by the hospital. This does not seem unreasonable: the hospital has to be concerned with treating patients and keeping them and other staff healthy. Non-immunized staff would present an opportunity to spread an entirely preventable sickness around.

MASKS OR FLU SHOT.........could be given to anyone at risk.....why or why not? if there are 500 employees at a hospital and the vaccine does not work in 50 of those people there is STILL a high risk no? The vaccine in best case is only 90% effective and that leaves 10% still a threat. The 10% can easily spread the flu virus nullifying your argument.

At the very least, having so many immunized vastly reduces the chances of spreading disease. By your argument we shouldn't immunize, period. That's ludicrous.

The American ideal of going to work sick is another problem. How exactly is it not an infringement?

No argument from me. I always stayed home when I was sick, and sometimes caught flack from my employer because of it (never so badly as to be fired, fortunately).
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 07, 2013, 12:24:05 AM
so the 50 or 10% it is not effective on is not a big deal right? Not to mention the long term effects of having a mandatory flu shot.....you have the internet,do some research

 We had this fight in BC Canada.....and nurses have refused,the Government so far has backed off....they can't all be doing it for religious reason. It was the unions fighting it
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 07, 2013, 01:04:02 AM
so the 50 or 10% it is not effective on is not a big deal right? Not to mention the long term effects of having a mandatory flu shot.....you have the internet,do some research

 We had this fight in BC Canada.....and nurses have refused,the Government so far has backed off....they can't all be doing it for religious reason. It was the unions fighting it

So you really think vaccines are essentially ineffective, and mandating them for hospital workers and similar people is an infringement of civil liberties? That seems to be your argument. Do you consider yourself a Libertarian?

Thanks for the tip about the controversy in British Columbia. Here's a link for anyone interested:http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/b-c-nurses-union-continues-fight-over-mandatory-flu-shots-1.1039192 (http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/b-c-nurses-union-continues-fight-over-mandatory-flu-shots-1.1039192)

Agreed, it looks like at least some of those quoted in that article had objections that weren't religious. I'll be looking into this Cochrane Collaboration.

As to these supposed negative long-term effects of flu vaccination, I haven't seen (as yet) anything to change my mind about the overall benefits. That sometimes people have adverse reactions to immunization is true, but it's a very rare thing.

I doubt it'll change your mind, but here's a link to some studies about the efficacy and long-term effects of vaccination: http://www.vaccinetimes.com/scientific-evidence/vaccine-efficacy/ (http://www.vaccinetimes.com/scientific-evidence/vaccine-efficacy/)
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 07, 2013, 11:11:50 AM
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? :laugh:(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
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 07, 2013, 02:14:24 PM
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? :laugh:(joke)

True enough. It would take pretty compelling evidence to get me to change my stance; I imagine you feel the same way.

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

Well, two of those nurses in Indiana had religiously-motivated objections, and you object on the grounds of personal freedom. So there's two reasons. Others are all too easy to find; parents seeking a reason for their child's autism, or even sheer ego / greed, like the human cockroach Andrew Wakefield:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield)

The "Vaccine Court" in the US exists because such objections were posing a serious threat to national health. Lawyers like to dot "i"s and cross "t"s; that is their job on behalf of their clients. Here's an overview of the founding of the agency involved and the circumstances:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court)
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: naemhni on January 07, 2013, 02:31:21 PM
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

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.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/mermaids.html
This is not because anyone at NOAA believes that mermaids actually exist, or even that the matter has been under investigation.  Rather, it was because a television show a month or so earlier had claimed that mermaids do exist, and since most people don't have an adequate education in how to think skeptically, a lot of people fell for it.

The case is not dissimilar with the "vaccine court".  There are a lot of people out there who believe that Jenny McCarthy is qualified to speak about the dangers of vaccination, and they listen to her rubbish.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 07, 2013, 06:51:28 PM
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

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.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/mermaids.html
This is not because anyone at NOAA believes that mermaids actually exist, or even that the matter has been under investigation.  Rather, it was because a television show a month or so earlier had claimed that mermaids do exist, and since most people don't have an adequate education in how to think skeptically, a lot of people fell for it.

The case is not dissimilar with the "vaccine court".  There are a lot of people out there who believe that Jenny McCarthy is qualified to speak about the dangers of vaccination, and they listen to her rubbish.
Alzheimer's and other dementia related diseases are on a rapid escalation in people who are still young,can this be explained?.....and there is nowhere (and nobody) in the medical profession willing to say anything because it may make them liable. The society's for these diseases even dismiss heavy metal poisoning as cause.

 Of course unhealthy diet and other factors are at play but 50 years ago these diseases were rare and 50 years from now people in their 40's may be in danger but we won't be here to know will we

 And as for people who may think mermaids exist,these are the same people who attribute all things to God?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Mooby on January 07, 2013, 07:52:44 PM
Hep A,B,C are  easily transmittable and vaccines are available for A and B,there are other transmittable and diseases that kill,where a vaccine is available,Whooping cough as an example,very DEADLY. Should these be mandatory as well? Where does the slippery slope of Big Brother stop? These vaccines are available but not mandatory,so why the flu shot?
Good question.

When I got accepted into medical school, I had to prove I was immune via blood test to everything given in childhood vaccinations, and was up-to-date on my tetanus booster (which also contains diphtheria and whooping cough.)  Incidentally, my childhood Heb B had not taken (a small percentage of people are non-responders,) so I was required to get another booster and get tested for immunity again.

When I was hired by my hospital, I had to prove the same thing as a prerequisite for employment.  "Before we hire you, we'll have to get a urine sample for a drug test and, oh, stop by the lab so we can check your immunity."  So yeah, I'd say those are mandatory, or at least they were for me.

Flu shot isn't mandatory here yet, but we do have to sign a waiver if we don't get it.  Of course, it's so easy to get one for free that there's really no reason not to get it if you're not allergic to the ingredients.

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
The site you pasted lists no known long-term risks (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html) for any of the vaccines, other than the catchall "and anything resulting from the above."  So, if you had an allergic reaction to a vaccine, were unable to breathe, and suffered brain damage before the doctors could open your airway, that would be covered under that clause.  Though, that would not be the vaccine causing brain damage; it would be the vaccine causing an allergic reaction that led to brain damage.

Alzheimer's and other dementia related diseases are on a rapid escalation in people who are still young,can this be explained?.....and there is nowhere (and nobody) in the medical profession willing to say anything because it may make them liable.
Therefore...

*Draws from hat*

C'mon obesity/diet/exercise/rectal exams/tv/internet/number of blockbuster movies per year/percentage reality tv programming...

VACCINES!  YAY!

You can't just pick two things at random you think are trending and logically conclude one influences the other.  When you do that, you get this:

(http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/2941/piratesarecool4.gif)


Not to mention that Alzheimer Disease is not rapidly escalating in the young.  We're getting better at diagnosing it early, but the disease is still one of the elderly.  About 5-10% of cases is in people under 65, and over half of that 5-10% is due to one genetic disease.  Where is there any evidence at all, anywhere, that vaccines cause any type of dementia?

If you want to refuse a vaccine, that's your right once you've heard the risks/benefits.  But there's no need to hide behind paranoid thoughts about long-term effects not known to researchers, dubious correlations, or a conspiracy of medical professionals hiding the truth to protect their wallets.  That's just not rational.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: stuffin on January 07, 2013, 08:59:35 PM
I am a nurse and never get a flu shot.

If I get the flu, I will go to the MD (if needed), and call out sick. I will rest, drink Gatorade and other fluids, rest, eat what I can, rest and take medication for fever or other symptoms.

The efficacy of the flu shots is not always predictable, nor completely effective.

People come to work every day with all kinds of sickness, what is the difference between and intestinal virus and the flu? I don't really want either but will use my sick time if I get either. I recently had to call out because of an intestinal issue all thanks to someone who came to work sick and sickened 2 other employees.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 07, 2013, 10:59:08 PM
Thanks for a nurse's direct perspective, stuffin. I'm curious, though. Even if the annual flu vaccine specifically isn't always effective, why forgo it? What about it do you see as not worth the trouble?

Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Mooby on January 07, 2013, 11:52:13 PM
I am a nurse and never get a flu shot.

If I get the flu, I will go to the MD (if needed), and call out sick. I will rest, drink Gatorade and other fluids, rest, eat what I can, rest and take medication for fever or other symptoms.
That may work for you, but what about your patients?  The flu becomes contagious about 1 day before you develop symptoms, which means you get to go an entire shift spreading the love around before you call out sick.

The people at most risk from the flu are also those who need more frequent healthcare: elderly, pregnant women, weakened immune systems, etc.  It's great that you'll be ok if you get sick, but what if you give it to someone for whom the flu is more serious than feeling miserable for a few days?  What if someone dies?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Graybeard on January 08, 2013, 02:47:03 AM
They could easily mask any patients at risk of the flu because of serious illness.........why don't they?
Because basically, masks are completely useless. Even the finestly woven ones present holes that to a virus are the equivalent of aircraft hanger doorway to a golf-ball. The really efficient hepamasks  filter 99.97 per cent of all particles that are 0.3 of a millionth of a meter in diameter; but viruses go down to 80 billionths of a metre.

On top of that, if the patient is wearing a oxygen mask or has breathing difficulties or has restricted movement, a mask is impractical. Added to that, patients tend to be stationary and their infective range is very small compared with a nurse who walks around many wards and meets many other staff and visitors all of whom also walk around.

If the above is not enough, 'flu is passed on mainly by contact, not so much by airborne viruses.

Finally, the job of medical staff is not only to cure illness but to prevent illness, that's why they wash their hands a lot. If you have the flu shot, you are preventing illness.

The only objection to this compulsory injection would be if those who had had the injection could, nevertheless produce viruses yet be unaware that they were ill. However, I suspect that the number of viruses that they might produce would be immensely reduced - small amounts of a virus are not as dangerous as large amounts.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 08, 2013, 10:58:25 AM
GB and the flu shot is only 90% effective if it is a similar strain,,,useless if its not so what about the 10% of employees who carry the flu virus because the vaccine fails?

 You are hardly reducing the risk if one in ten nurses on a ward gets the flu......or they ALL get the flu if the vaccine fails to be of the same strain. That is why influenza has not been eradicated,it evolves and has MANY different strains. If it were sure fire to wipe out the flu,but its NOT.

 I understand your want to protect patients......but if that were the case,why not make the flu shot mandatory for all citizens?

 Gb also the Government of BC Canada wanted to make it compulsory for nurses to take the injection OR wear a surgical mask if they refused the injection. The nurses Union stepped in and refused either

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/14/bc-flu-shot-policy-nurses-mandatory_n_2133509.html
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 08, 2013, 11:08:03 AM
Mooby,once you have assessed the risk,YOU have the right NOT to take the vaccine. These people do not,they take it or get fired. Hardly OK in a "free" country

 I am not speaking out against vaccines here,but about an individuals right to decide for themselves.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: screwtape on January 08, 2013, 11:37:03 AM
You are hardly reducing the risk if one in ten nurses on a ward gets the flu

eh, no.  You are reducing the risk by 90%.  Nothing is 100%.  You take the best precautions you can.

but if that were the case,why not make the flu shot mandatory for all citizens?

Moody already addressed that.  Because the risk to all citizens is not as great.  Many patients who are potentially exposed to it in the hospital have already weakened immune systems or have other issues.

12M, I do not mean this to be derogatory, so I hope it does not sound that way.  Do you think doctors and immunologists have an understanding of the virus, how it spreads and the risks that is inferior to yours?  If so, why?

Mooby,once you have assessed the risk,YOU have the right NOT to take the vaccine. These people do not,they take it or get fired. Hardly OK in a "free" country

I am not speaking out against vaccines here,but about an individuals right to decide for themselves.

What about the sick people?  Do they not have a right to not get infected with the flu by hospital staff?  Whose rights matter matter more?  Who has more at risk, in the balance?  In order to have the stability and protections of a social group, we individuals must surrender some of our rights.  Thems the breaks.

Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 08, 2013, 12:31:41 PM
So where does the rights of an individual end,for the "greater good"? This could be a wedge issue,no?.... the "greater good" says only police and military have guns so people are not put at risk from lunatics with guns......citizens have the "right" to refuse things that are for the greater good. There are lots of things that should be BANNED for the "greater good",booze and cigarettes for example.As I do not partake of either,I do not care.

 Medicine is an evolving thing what did not work or was not feasible even 50 years ago is now practiced,and common practice then is now barbaric now by today's standards. An individuals right NOT to be fired should be considered. What about a mandatory flu shot for all citizens?  Would that be an infringement for the "greater good"?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: screwtape on January 08, 2013, 02:54:25 PM
So where does the rights of an individual end,for the "greater good"?

This is always the question of society and it is always up for debate.  It is decided by a culture and the times.  It is why we have the supreme court.  Right now Americans think it is worth throwing away half the Bill of Rights (ie, individual freedoms) for perceived safety from "terrorists" (the Greater Good).  I would personally prefer to have my individual right to not have my phone tapped and my emails read.  But that's just me. 

the "greater good" says only police and military have guns so people are not put at risk from lunatics with guns 

That certainly is an argument, though not the only one, for more severe restrictions on private gun ownership.  There are also arguments to be made on the other side.

......citizens have the "right" to refuse things that are for the greater good.

You lost me here. I don't know what that means or what point you are trying to make.

There are lots of things that should be BANNED for the "greater good",booze and cigarettes for example.

there is an argument to be had there too. 

 
An individuals right NOT to be fired should be considered.

First of all, I do not think any such right exists.  It is called "[wiki]at-will employment[/wiki]".  It means you can be fired at any moment for any reason or no reason at all.   

I think immunization is not so much a rights thing as it is part of the job.  Like those doctors who want to have the right to not treat patients if they feel it conflicts with some part of their religion or morality.  If that is the case, they should not have become doctors in the first place.  Part of being a healthcare worker means being immunized.  If you don't want that, you should chose a different line of work.

Same with being an airline pilot and being drug tested.

What about a mandatory flu shot for all citizens?  Would that be an infringement for the "greater good"?

Sure.  For certain some people's lives would be prolonged, millions in healthcare treatment would be saved, etc.  But we as a society have decided the risk and cost of the flu does not outweigh the cost of individual rights.  We don't even say kids have to be immunized against MMR.  We just say if they want to attend public schools, they need to be immunized.

Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 08, 2013, 05:37:38 PM
This "at-will" employment is just one of the reasons we need unions

 The Nurses Union here in BC Canada(and its collective who elected them) where I live is refusing to be immunized,and NOT for religious reasons

As far as citizens rejecting things for the greater good....the civil rights movement comes to mind,thanks Rosa Parks....it was also meant to show how a small number of the population can push the Government around(NRA,tobacco,alcohol lobbies) can effect Government policies that go against the greater good of the citizens.

Again its a personal rights issue,not a vaccination issue.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 08, 2013, 06:31:51 PM
Dirty drinking water kills 170 million people a year......there is much more important issues to worry about......but then again if it is not your relatives at risk who cares right
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: stuffin on January 08, 2013, 07:51:52 PM
Thanks for a nurse's direct perspective, stuffin. I'm curious, though. Even if the annual flu vaccine specifically isn't always effective, why forgo it? What about it do you see as not worth the trouble?

I got sick back about 1992 after I got a flu shot, had all the symptoms (fever, chills, cough) my doctor shrugged it off.
I wasn't impressed and stopped getting the shot.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: stuffin on January 08, 2013, 08:15:09 PM
I am a nurse and never get a flu shot.

If I get the flu, I will go to the MD (if needed), and call out sick. I will rest, drink Gatorade and other fluids, rest, eat what I can, rest and take medication for fever or other symptoms.
That may work for you, but what about your patients?  The flu becomes contagious about 1 day before you develop symptoms, which means you get to go an entire shift spreading the love around before you call out sick.

The people at most risk from the flu are also those who need more frequent healthcare: elderly, pregnant women, weakened immune systems, etc.  It's great that you'll be ok if you get sick, but what if you give it to someone for whom the flu is more serious than feeling miserable for a few days?  What if someone dies?

That works both ways, I had to Quell(sp) once because we had a patient with scabies (I was assigned to the patient for 2 days). They notified those of us who took care of the patient 2 days after discharge. Furthermore, it has been entered into my employee health record at least 5X that I have been exposed to tuberculosis patients, always days after exposure.

Anyway, Gereral Precuations will prevent transmission pretty well. You need to very cognizant though, sneeze into tissue and discard, disinfect hands or wash thoroughly afterwards, cough into elbow, again clean your hands; you can never clean your hand enough. A patient was very impressed with me one day and was nervous about the oncoming nurse; she asked me how she could tell if she was a good nurse. I told if she washes her hands at least twice while in the room that is a sign of a good nurse.

General preventive measures include:
•    Standard hygienic measures like
    o    Regular thorough hand washing.
    o    Regular disinfection of surfaces and instruments
    o    Sterilisation of instruments
    o    Prohibition of eating and drinking (and smoking) at work site
•    Isolated dressing room, eating and drinking facilities and lavatory for personnel;
•    Avoiding of aerosols
•    Use of safe devices whenever possible
•    Appropriate dangerous waste management
•    Appropriate information provision and training;
•    Use of protective clothing;
•    Vaccination (if applicable);
•    Good ventilation, ventilation systems;
•    isolation of highly infectious patients;


Work should be organised in such a way that as few staff as possible are in contact with highly infectious patients.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 08, 2013, 09:28:28 PM
Thanks for the reply and professional perspective, stuffin.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Mooby on January 08, 2013, 10:48:55 PM
Mooby,once you have assessed the risk,YOU have the right NOT to take the vaccine. These people do not,they take it or get fired. Hardly OK in a "free" country

 I am not speaking out against vaccines here,but about an individuals right to decide for themselves.
Yes, you have the right not to take the vaccine.  You also have the right to free speech, and freedom of the press.  If you choose to exercise these rights within the confines of the law, the government can't punish you for it.  If, however, you decide to curse your boss out and circulate a flyer about why the company sucks, the company can and will fire you.  This is because a private corporation is not the government.  Your rights are irrelevant to a private company unless the government enacts specific regulations that require a company to abide by them (such as anti-discrimination laws.)

Hospitals have the right to enforce measures to maintain the hospital at an appropriate level of sanitation for treating patients.  If they feel that people walking around for entire shifts shedding a potentially lethal virus (yes, the flu is a potentially lethal virus), they should have the right to take measures to reduce that risk, and require staff to comply.  Yes, firing may seem a bit extreme, but that's where the new standards are headed.  My own hospital isn't 100% there yet: it's technically compulsory, but we can sign a waiver without penalty so in practice it's not compulsory.  But I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years they required a documented medical reason to waive.

The same thing's happening with smoking.  It used to be no smoking in the hospital, then no smoking anywhere on the hospital premises (even inside your car in the parking lot.)  Now many hospitals are straight up asking if you smoke during your interview, and some are even checking nicotine levels on potential employees.  If you smoke, you're out.  Is that legal?  Yeah, as long as the government doesn't pass a law preventing discrimination against smokers.

My point is that every company has its own policies.  Unless the government says those policies are illegal, they can force you to follow them under threat of termination.  If you don't like it, it's your right to refuse employment there.

GB and the flu shot is only 90% effective if it is a similar strain,,,useless if its not so what about the 10% of employees who carry the flu virus because the vaccine fails?

Flu virus is seasonal, like weather patterns.  A 90% chance of rain tomorrow does not mean that 1 out of every 10 houses in your neighborhood will have a dry roof at the end of the day.  It means that there's a 90% chance that the front carrying rain will move through your area.  Likewise, 90% effectiveness on the flu means there is a 90% chance that the vaccine will cover the strains in your area during the flu season.  To compare, seat belts reduce your risk of injury or death in a car accident by about 50%.

That works both ways[. . .]
Yes, it definitely does.

Your earlier post made me think of a patient we had in the ER once.  She was drunk, high, belligerent, demanding... I'm sure you know the type.  Anyways, a nurse was trying to draw blood from her, she jerked her arm and the needle came out, and he was like, "Whoa!"  Another nurse immediately asked, "Did you get stuck?"  And the patient replied, "HIM?  You're asking if HE got stuck?  WHAT ABOUT ME?"

See, your first response to the hospital story was to point out how you'd be ok if you got sick.  But really, why would the hospital make a policy like that for you?  Unless they're expecting huge financial losses if you are out of work, it's probably much less about whether you'll get sick and more about whether you'll make everyone else sick.

Quote
Anyway, Gereral Precuations will prevent transmission pretty well.
Standard Precautions are great, but they're not everything.  The flu can be transmitted directly, airborne, and contact, and it can take as little as one droplet to become infected.  So even if you're following Standard Precautions 100% of the time, you still have to prevent 100% of the virus spread, and that's just not possible.  The best precaution is to not be shedding the virus in the first place, which Standard Precautions will not do.

Just look at how fast a viral gastroenteritis can spread.  I've seen them fly around hospitals, even when staff is taking proper precautions.  I managed to catch it from an infant, even though I washed my hands right after examining him.  If there's an outbreak of a flu at a hospital, it's probably already too late to do anything.

Quote
Work should be organised in such a way that as few staff as possible are in contact with highly infectious patients.
That's great for something like TB.  But in a flu outbreak, you can catch it at the mall and bring it into work.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: screwtape on January 09, 2013, 11:32:37 AM
This "at-will" employment is just one of the reasons we need unions

that's a bit of the topic and the point I was making, but I agree.

The Nurses Union here in BC Canada(and its collective who elected them) where I live is refusing to be immunized,and NOT for religious reasons

Well, I am of the opinion she should find a different line of work if she feels that way.  And the reason I feel that way is because I feel the cost of her freedom on the matter is too high for the rest of us to pay.

As far as citizens rejecting things for the greater good....the civil rights movement comes to mind,

I don't follow, but that's okay.

Again its a personal rights issue,not a vaccination issue.

That may be your opinion, but I do not see it that way.  and as Mooby pointed out, there are no rights that are absolute.


Dirty drinking water kills 170 million people a year......there is much more important issues to worry about......but then again if it is not your relatives at risk who cares right

Where?  Who is responsible for that and why are you trying to guilt us about it?  What obligation do I have to provide clean water to people on other continents?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 09, 2013, 12:09:58 PM
Who is trying to guilt you ....its just there are bigger things to worry about than your nurse being vaccinated against the flu......but like I pointed out and you upheld ....you only care if it effects you....if you or a loved one are put at risk


 These people are refusing the shot for the reason of long term unknown health effects
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: screwtape on January 09, 2013, 12:27:59 PM
but like I pointed out and you upheld ....you only care if it effects you....if you or a loved one are put at risk

I think that is fairly obvious to pretty much everyone.   We care about our monkeysphere and everyone outside it just looks like another monkey.  I do not see how that has anything to do with our discussion of vaccination and rights.  Given that, this makes you stating the obvious sound like...
1) an attempt to cast me (or whomever your statement was directed at) as some kind of callous hypocrite
2) a red herring,
3) a weird non sequitur
4) you are making some point I am completely not getting

I'm not offended.  I am just pointing out how this sounds to me.  I do not see how this makes or enhances any point you have made in this discussion so far.  Why did you bring it up?

And by the way, the chinese are holding the Ouigours as political prisoners and executing them so the political elite can use their organs.  But nobody here cares.[1]


 1. see what I mean?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 09, 2013, 01:31:59 PM
an interesting video......long but it has some good points

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03K2ONrFiYc
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Nam on January 09, 2013, 01:37:15 PM
To the OP,

Well, if I worked at a hospital I would get any shot I was required to get except those made by certain drugs I am deathly allergic to, which sadly is most of them. Including flu shots. Of course, in having such information: I wouldn't work at a hospital if the policy was to get a shot to prevent illness of the ill.

Those who refused based on being Christian: I have never heard that before unless Jehovah Witness.

They were probably afraid, and used that as an excuse.

-Nam
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Mooby on January 09, 2013, 03:48:44 PM
These people are refusing the shot for the reason of long term unknown health effects
Which effects would those be?

I'm watching your video.  Despite a promise that they were going to prove the flu vaccine was unsafe, 10 min in it's just people complaining about vaccine policies and "questioning" whether the vaccine is safe.  I don't know how much longer I can sit through.

The guy states he's a scientist, but then identifies himself as a nutritionist... so he doesn't work in the field.  And... Oh God, I just hit 12 min and he's talking about autism.  16 min he mentions it again.  And now he's implying ADHD is due to vaccines.  This is a mess.

Seriously?  The whole autism scare was because of 1 guy who lied and faked evidence in his paper.  He was promptly exposed, laughed out of the scientific community, and had his medical license revoked, and all follow-up studied found no link between vaccines and autism.  He loses 10 credibility points for stating a completely disproven claim with a straight face.

Now he's ranting about money... yeah, I'm going to stop here.  Is there anything in the video that shows vaccines are unsafe?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Nam on January 09, 2013, 04:14:37 PM
Mooby,

Perhaps it's in closed caption? ;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Nick on January 09, 2013, 04:57:35 PM
18 dead in the Boston area already from the flu.  Guess they will never know the long term effects of getting the shot.  I guess we need some population control anyhow.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 09, 2013, 05:33:32 PM
 Nick how many dead from drinking driving accidents in the Boston area

 The Fact that people die is not relavent,because people die
 
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 09, 2013, 05:37:47 PM
These people are refusing the shot for the reason of long term unknown health effects
Which effects would those be?

I'm watching your video.  Despite a promise that they were going to prove the flu vaccine was unsafe, 10 min in it's just people complaining about vaccine policies and "questioning" whether the vaccine is safe.  I don't know how much longer I can sit through.

The guy states he's a scientist, but then identifies himself as a nutritionist... so he doesn't work in the field.  And... Oh God, I just hit 12 min and he's talking about autism.  16 min he mentions it again.  And now he's implying ADHD is due to vaccines.  This is a mess.

Seriously?  The whole autism scare was because of 1 guy who lied and faked evidence in his paper.  He was promptly exposed, laughed out of the scientific community, and had his medical license revoked, and all follow-up studied found no link between vaccines and autism.  He loses 10 credibility points for stating a completely disproven claim with a straight face.

Now he's ranting about money... yeah, I'm going to stop here.  Is there anything in the video that shows vaccines are unsafe?
He is asking for studies NOT done by the vaccine companies.Remember when Aspartame was safe? I get you are on the Pro vaccine side.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 09, 2013, 05:56:28 PM
12M, I'm confused. You've said before you don't doubt that vaccines work, and most of your objections seem to be that you don't like vaccination being mandatory for anyone, period. Is that a fair statement of your position?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 09, 2013, 06:40:26 PM
I know I am pro-vaccine. I haven't had a neighbor die of tetanus since 1954. I haven't had a friend die of polio since 1955. I have a friend who is very much alive because she received the rabies vaccine after being bitten by an infected racoon. The things that don't have good vaccines, like malaria, affected many friends who ended up in SE Asia during the war and my niece, who traveled into the jungles of South America and contracted it there. But she didn't get many other diseases because there were vaccines to prevent them.

My friend Nancy is deaf because her mother contracted Rubella, a variety of measles, when pregnant. No vaccine existed at the time. Now it does. But how many cases of that disease do we get every year because people are frickin' afraid of side-effects? And how many additional deaf kids do we get? Not many, I hope. But that number could be virtually zero.

Recent studies show that people who get rubella have face numerous health risks later in life. The chances of contracting cataracts rises from .5% to 30%. The chance of contracting diabetes rises 20 times. These are serious numbers. How many people deciding not to get measles shots know that?

To be employed in the U.S. often means that certain things will be required, like drug tests and the like. Insisting that a health care worker get a shot seems relatively mild, in comparison. At least it isn't a violation of due process. And a health care worker who has more faith in god than in medicine isn't the sort of person I want drawing my blood or administering an IV for me, because they might just decide the heck with the medicine and depend on their god to save me.

The people who were concerned with mercury in vaccine causing autism weren't any happier once the mercury was taken out of the medicine. They also ignored the fact that if their kids went out and played in the dirt, they would get exposed to many times more mercury because it is a naturally occurring mineral that is more or less everywhere. And it isn't just the pharmaceutical companies that study this stuff. It is also the FDA, which has a reputation throughout the world of being tougher than it needs to be about most everything.

Our life expectancies aren't longer just because we all go out and buy the exercise equipment advertised on the Home Shopping Network. It is longer because we have made the world generally safer, provided more consistent food supplies, learned how to keep ourselves cleaner and, probably most importantly,  because of modern medicine.

I understand the freedom argument. I understand that health care workers shouldn't be required to get shots. But I also understand that I, as a person going to the hospital to get repaired or healed, should be free to not have my health condition worsened by an ill health care worker whose transmittable disease could have been prevented.

If the KKK wants to make inoculations optional, I'm fine with that. But I, for one, would prefer to be treated competent medical professionals that understand the concept of medical risk and the consequences of infecting others. In fact I demand it. If they have no respect for the process, what respect are they going to have for me?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 09, 2013, 06:49:59 PM
I have been vaccinated against tetanus recently......I work with a lot of metal objects and sometimes get cut,makes sense for me to be protected,did it on my own. I looked at the risk and assessed them....took the shot.

  As far as making somebody no,two of my kids (out of 4) that were vaccinated against Whooping cough (pertussis) contracted it. So did it work?

 I also have a 4 year old grandchild who suffers from Autism,can I say it was from vaccine,I can't know for sure,was he normal before his booster ,yes.

 Can they make a safe vaccine without the risk of permanent damage,if no,why?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 09, 2013, 06:59:32 PM
 PP I am not against vaccines,making somebody take one against their will,then we have a problem. Religious or otherwise. You guys sound like the fear mongers who thought you get AIDS from a Gay man looking at you.

 Nurses around North America are refusing annual flu shots,for health and other reasons(religious)and the Unions are backing them up....and as Mooby pointed out to work in hospitals means mandatory vaccinations from various diseases,but I would think its more to protect the health care worker from the patient than the other way round.....why,because people lie
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 09, 2013, 07:25:46 PM
PP I am not against vaccines,making somebody take one against their will,then we have a problem. Religious or otherwise. You guys sound like the fear mongers who thought you get AIDS from a Gay man looking at you.

 Nurses around North America are refusing annual flu shots,for health and other reasons(religious)and the Unions are backing them up....and as Mooby pointed out to work in hospitals means mandatory vaccinations from various diseases,but I would think its more to protect the health care worker from the patient than the other way round.....why because people lie

If there are definite health reasons for nurses not to get flu shots, then there may be real reasons not to do it. But saying they aren't going to get a shot simply because it against their religion seems silly.

And of course I'm sorry about your grandson and his autism, but it has been pointed out that a) autism rates are the same for inoculated and non-inoculated children and b) the effects of preventable diseases include unnecessary death and long-term disabilities. Plus the types of long-term effects I noted in my last post, such as a huge increase in the likelihood of getting diabetes. These are not trivial matters.

I am going to take a wild guess and say that something in our environment, some new factor (presumably man-made) is causing the huge increase in autism cases. Along with perhaps a wider range of behavior disorders being labeled autism. So I've no doubt that there are things we humans can do to decrease the autism rate. I just don't see the vaccine connection.

I did some googling and see that many nurses (sometimes as many as half) don't get flu shots, but they, in exchange for not getting them, agree to wear masks while treating patients. The fired nurses didn't want to do that. Is that asking too much? Are doctors and nurses given an option in the operating room? Of course not. Like I said earlier, I have a right not to get infected by the person who is supposed to be helping me get better, don't I?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 09, 2013, 07:42:07 PM
 I understand it is way to early to blame autism on one particular cause,but I have seen the night and day behaviour(before and after vaccination )first hand. He is a happy guy,but does not talk and 99% of his awake life is in a world all his own,wish I could visit it.

 We also have fast food,soda by the gallon,designer drugs like Ecstasy,cows being fed cows and thousands of other factors that could contribute. AS I have stated,not against vaccinations as a preventive measure,but as a child,you have no choice unless a parent objects and as a health practitioner,apparently you get fired for making a choice for yourself.

 You actually pay a tax on your vaccinations that goes into the vaccine injury fund for the American government to pay-out people injured by vaccines,how F'd up is that
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 09, 2013, 07:51:37 PM
PP I am not against vaccines,making somebody take one against their will,then we have a problem. Religious or otherwise. You guys sound like the fear mongers who thought you get AIDS from a Gay man looking at you.

Bolds mine. That certainly sounds like a mischaracterization of everyone who's disagreed with you. Where, specifically, is a post that has that kind of tone?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: stuffin on January 09, 2013, 07:57:45 PM
General question for the board;

We know the flu is transferred via the airborne pathway and by contact with hard surfaces. With that in mind;
Why aren't all the cashiers in the country (Wal-Mart, pharmacies, supermarkets and so on) required to get vaccinated?

First off, you come within 5 - 10ft of them (airborne), plus they touch every item (contact) you bring home, then you and your family touch those items. Big time vector and I have never seen any hand sanitizers available to these workers.

In medicine they use the term infection control. I do not believe you can control (completely) the transmission of infective agents. For instance, they are saying this year's flu shot is about 65-80% effective. Everyone who takes a dump wipes their butt then pulls up their pants BEFORE washing their hands! Now your trousers, zipper and belt are contaminated, especially if your TP rips. Scratch your nuts then shake hands with that person you hate at work. One of my favorites was a doctor who was germ-o-phobic. He carried a hanky in his pocket and took it out whenever he had to open a door. He would put the hanky back in his pocket after each use. I never understood why he kept touching his germ infested hanky. I would love to culture his hanky after a day’s use.

My advice; Wash your hands and clean contact surfaces with the disinfectant wipes as much as possible. 

Apologize for rambling, I realize it is serious stuff, but I find this infection stuff is kind of stupid.




For those who like freedom of choice regarding their bodies.......

Flu shot cons:

It may not be safe for you: If you are allergic to eggs, then the flu shot could be no-go for you. Why's that? The flu vaccine is cultivated inside of chicken eggs.

Being flu-free isn't guaranteed: I know, it's a sucky thing. However, just because you get the flu shot doesn't mean you're in the clear.

Protection isn't immediate: It takes about two weeks for the vaccine to really kick in.

There could be some mercury in there: A seasonal flu shot has small amounts of mercury added as a preservative. Mercury has been linked to certain brain and nerve disorders and that fact alone may make those on-the-fence about getting the shot uneasy.

There can be side effects: Some people develop symptoms ranging from soreness and swelling at the area of injection to low-grade fever and achiness. The good news? Generally these clear up within a day or two.


There are single dose mercury free shots available, check with your provider.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 09, 2013, 08:55:52 PM
General question for the board;

We know the flu is transferred via the airborne pathway and by contact with hard surfaces. With that in mind;
Why aren't all the cashiers in the country (Wal-Mart, pharmacies, supermarkets and so on) required to get vaccinated?

First off, you come within 5 - 10ft of them (airborne), plus they touch every item (contact) you bring home, then you and your family touch those items. Big time vector and I have never seen any hand sanitizers available to these workers.

Cashiers typically have a lot less direct contact with people who are already vulnerable (other illness, undergoing chemo, newborns) than health care providers. It definitely would be a good idea for cashiers to use hand sanitizers regularly, but in the US at least that's usually left to the individual or their employer.

In medicine they use the term infection control. I do not believe you can control (completely) the transmission of infective agents. For instance, they are saying this year's flu shot is about 65-80% effective. Everyone who takes a dump wipes their butt then pulls up their pants BEFORE washing their hands! Now your trousers, zipper and belt are contaminated, especially if your TP rips. Scratch your nuts then shake hands with that person you hate at work. One of my favorites was a doctor who was germ-o-phobic. He carried a hanky in his pocket and took it out whenever he had to open a door. He would put the hanky back in his pocket after each use. I never understood why he kept touching his germ infested hanky. I would love to culture his hanky after a day’s use.

My advice; Wash your hands and clean contact surfaces with the disinfectant wipes as much as possible. 

Apologize for rambling, I realize it is serious stuff, but I find this infection stuff is kind of stupid.

I don't think you're making light of it. I'm just surprised a nurse doesn't see the advantage of having as many opportunities for infection as possible eliminated, including having hospital workers vaccinated when appropriate.


For those who like freedom of choice regarding their bodies.......

Flu shot cons:

It may not be safe for you: If you are allergic to eggs, then the flu shot could be no-go for you. Why's that? The flu vaccine is cultivated inside of chicken eggs.

Being flu-free isn't guaranteed: I know, it's a sucky thing. However, just because you get the flu shot doesn't mean you're in the clear.

Protection isn't immediate: It takes about two weeks for the vaccine to really kick in.

There could be some mercury in there: A seasonal flu shot has small amounts of mercury added as a preservative. Mercury has been linked to certain brain and nerve disorders and that fact alone may make those on-the-fence about getting the shot uneasy.

There can be side effects: Some people develop symptoms ranging from soreness and swelling at the area of injection to low-grade fever and achiness. The good news? Generally these clear up within a day or two.


There are single dose mercury free shots available, check with your provider.

You have some good points here, but the "mercury in vaccines" argument has been thoroughly debunked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_vaccines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_vaccines)
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 09, 2013, 09:33:03 PM
stuffin is right about hand washing, but stay away from antibacterial soaps and wipes. They appear to be creating super-germs (antibiotic-resistant bacteria) which kill more people every year than HIV/AIDS. If you are creeped out about germs, use some alcohol after washing with soap and water. But not antibacterial products.

And face it, outside of the health profession, there isn't much you can do to avoid germs. Grocery stores? How many people have handled the can of soup before you pick it up. How many folks have touched the carrot you just bought, or the potato, or the onion? Sure, you'lll wash the veggies later, but what about touching them before you wash them? How many people have pushed your cart around before you. How many people have looked at that magazine or opened the door to the dairy section.

Of course my supermarket tries to help. By offering antibacterial wipes for cart handles. I know that they have been told about how unwise that is, but they insist that customers want the wipes so they continue to offer them.

All the stores around here do that, so I can't just change stores in protest.

Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: stuffin on January 09, 2013, 09:58:09 PM

There could be some mercury in there: A seasonal flu shot has small amounts of mercury added as a preservative. Mercury has been linked to certain brain and nerve disorders and that fact alone may make those on-the-fence about getting the shot uneasy.


There are single dose mercury free shots available, check with your provider.

Quote
You have some good points here, but the "mercury in vaccines" argument has been thoroughly debunked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_vaccines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_vaccines)

Sorry, didn't fully explain, just cut and pasted for general knowledge. What I was referring to with the mercury in flu shots was over time (year after year of getting mercury in vaccinations) may contribute to dementia and Alzheimer's. Jury still out but there could be a link. (and damned if I can't locate it now, will look more tomorrow).
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 09, 2013, 10:01:04 PM
stuffin is right about hand washing, but stay away from antibacterial soaps and wipes. They appear to be creating super-germs (antibiotic-resistant bacteria) which kill more people every year than HIV/AIDS. If you are creeped out about germs, use some alcohol after washing with soap and water. But not antibacterial products.

And face it, outside of the health profession, there isn't much you can do to avoid germs. Grocery stores? How many people have handled the can of soup before you pick it up. How many folks have touched the carrot you just bought, or the potato, or the onion? Sure, you'lll wash the veggies later, but what about touching them before you wash them? How many people have pushed your cart around before you. How many people have looked at that magazine or opened the door to the dairy section.

Good points, PP. Putting antibacterial agents in so many consumer products is really starting to cost us, and many scientists / health specialists have been warning about it for decades.

And I agree with you and stuffin that trying to disinfect everything and everyone rapidly approaches a point of diminishing returns. It just seems to me that hospitals are one place where relatively stringent and comprehensive efforts to reduce spreading infectious disease are justified.

Sorry, didn't fully explain, just cut and pasted for general knowledge. What I was referring to with the mercury in flu shots was over time (year after year of getting mercury in vaccinations) may contribute to dementia and Alzheimer's. Jury still out but there could be a link. (and damned if I can't locate it now, will look more tomorrow).

Understood. Thanks, stuffin.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: naemhni on January 10, 2013, 08:41:25 AM
Sorry, didn't fully explain, just cut and pasted for general knowledge. What I was referring to with the mercury in flu shots was over time (year after year of getting mercury in vaccinations) may contribute to dementia and Alzheimer's. Jury still out but there could be a link. (and damned if I can't locate it now, will look more tomorrow).

First of all, a correction: the shot does not contain mercury, it contains thimerosal, which is a molecule that has mercury as a constitutive element.  That's a very different matter.

Secondly: when thimerosal is metabolized, it does create a form of mercury, specifically, ethylmercury.  However, ethylmercury does not bioaccumulate, so it is highly unlikely to have any kind of a long-lasting effect.  (Short-term effects may be possible -- the matter has not been well-investigated.)
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 10, 2013, 06:43:14 PM
Gee, science lessons! Thanks guys.

And as I mentioned in a earlier post, your kids get exposed directly to real live mercury every time they go out and play in the dirt. As do you, every time you go out and play in the dirt. Far more than is in vaccinations, regardless of the form.

Generally speaking, if one is going to be afraid of something, it should actually be scary. Otherwise it is a waste of time.

Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 10, 2013, 07:34:02 PM
Gee, science lessons! Thanks guys.

And as I mentioned in a earlier post, your kids get exposed directly to real live mercury every time they go out and play in the dirt. As do you, every time you go out and play in the dirt. Far more than is in vaccinations, regardless of the form.

Generally speaking, if one is going to be afraid of something, it should actually be scary. Otherwise it is a waste of time.
IF we are exposed to that much mercury,It is either harmless and we have nothing to worry about,or the concentrations SO low,we have nothing to worry about

 Comparing mercury in the ground to mercury in a pure form,the liquid metal we can see and touch,is that like comparing uranium in the ground and the extracted uranium that runs a power plant? I ask what your opinion is
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 10, 2013, 07:37:54 PM
Sorry, didn't fully explain, just cut and pasted for general knowledge. What I was referring to with the mercury in flu shots was over time (year after year of getting mercury in vaccinations) may contribute to dementia and Alzheimer's. Jury still out but there could be a link. (and damned if I can't locate it now, will look more tomorrow).

First of all, a correction: the shot does not contain mercury, it contains thimerosal, which is a molecule that has mercury as a constitutive element.  That's a very different matter.

Secondly: when thimerosal is metabolized, it does create a form of mercury, specifically, ethylmercury.  However, ethylmercury does not bioaccumulate, so it is highly unlikely to have any kind of a long-lasting effect.  (Short-term effects may be possible -- the matter has not been well-investigated.)
Is there a study to back that ? If the short term effects are not well investigated,are the long term effects? The Video I posted had the Doctor talking about studies done on people where the people who developed fevers after the shot were excluded from the study,does this make sense?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 10, 2013, 07:53:42 PM
Gee, science lessons! Thanks guys.

And as I mentioned in a earlier post, your kids get exposed directly to real live mercury every time they go out and play in the dirt. As do you, every time you go out and play in the dirt. Far more than is in vaccinations, regardless of the form.

Generally speaking, if one is going to be afraid of something, it should actually be scary. Otherwise it is a waste of time.
IF we are exposed to that much mercury,It is either harmless and we have nothing to worry about,or the concentrations SO low,we have nothing to worry about

 Comparing mercury in the ground to mercury in a pure form,the liquid metal we can see and touch,is that like comparing uranium in the ground and the extracted uranium that runs a power plant? I ask what your opinion is

The dosage is incredibly small. But larger than what is in inoculations. Which, as pianodwarf pointed out, contain a form of mercury that is safer than the natural stuff I'm talking about.

Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 10, 2013, 08:28:24 PM
So then it is extremely safe in your opinion to play in the dirt,but less safe than getting regular injections. Where are the health risks exactly?

 As I asked mercury in a pure form is hardly the same mercury in minute trace amounts in the dirt,if it were less safe playing in the dirt than getting injections we would ALL have some form of brain dysfunction.....no?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Mooby on January 10, 2013, 09:09:37 PM
He is asking for studies NOT done by the vaccine companies.
Good luck on finding that for most drugs, not just vaccines.  Scientific studies should be repeatable, but in reality studies cost money so unless you have a financial stake or can talk someone into giving you a grant, you're probably not going to be testing every new drug that hits the market.  The video author is welcome to publish one himself, though.

However, what he fails to mention in the video is that clinical trials are done in multiple phases. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_clinical_research#Phases)  Phase 4 trials involve monitoring the population after a drug has been approved for any adverse effects that didn't appear during research.  Some doctors like to give new drugs a little lag (usually about a year) before prescribing them for this reason, unless it's a landmark drug.  But the flu shot has been basically unchanged (other than the virus strains) for ~60 years, so the odds of some new scary new adverse effect suddenly appearing are quite low.

Quote
I get you are on the Pro vaccine side.
Yes, I am very pro-vaccine.  It's almost a shame that we're so far removed from the days where vaccines didn't exist that we have the luxury of being able to condemn them.


I also have a 4 year old grandchild who suffers from Autism,can I say it was from vaccine,I can't know for sure,was he normal before his booster ,yes.
Autism shows up as a developmental delay in the first few years of life, during which children are receiving vaccines at most appointments.  Autism is often caught in screening at one of those appointments.  Anything done during the first 2-3 years of life is going to look like it's associated with autism, because that's when autism becomes observable.


as Mooby pointed out to work in hospitals means mandatory vaccinations from various diseases,but I would think its more to protect the health care worker from the patient than the other way round.....why,because people lie
Depends on the vaccine.  For something with potentially chronic effects (like Hep B), it's absolutely to protect the employee and reduce hospital liability in case of a work-related injury resulting in exposure to a potentially chronic illness.  With stuff like chicken pox, rubella, measles, flu, etc., it's more to prevent vulnerable populations that can be seriously harmed by these illnesses.


The Video I posted had the Doctor talking about studies done on people where the people who developed fevers after the shot were excluded from the study,does this make sense?
No, the claim made by the PHD in nutrition (not trained in pharmacology) doesn't make sense.  And when things don't make sense, we should investigate.

Has an acute illness and/or an oral temperature greater than or equal to 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, within 72 hours of vaccination (This may result in a temporary delay of vaccination). (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00963430)

Oops, he lied.  When the woman showed up to be vaccinated, if she admitted to being sick or having a fever over 100.0F in the prior 72 hours, she was excluded or delayed.  In addition, temperature (and other vitals) was taken before the vaccine was administered to make sure she was below 100.0.  This was to ensure that if a fever did show up, they would know it was caused by the shot.

What actually happened in the study was that each woman was given a thermometer and was told to take her temperature daily for 8 days (Day 0 - Day 7).  1 person out of 120 reported fever after the first vaccination, and 1 person out of 103 reported fever after the second vaccination.  0 patients reported vaccine-associated serious adverse events within 180 days of receiving the first vaccination.  (Study Results) (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00963430?sect=X430125)

Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 10, 2013, 09:12:48 PM
So then it is extremely safe in your opinion to play in the dirt,but less safe than getting regular injections. Where are the health risks exactly?

 As I asked mercury in a pure form is hardly the same mercury in minute trace amounts in the dirt,if it were less safe playing in the dirt than getting injections we would ALL have some form of brain dysfunction.....no?

The point is, unless you are playing in the dirt near a large mercury deposit that has been mined carelessly, both are very safe.

I had a friend who was invited to a small private mercury mine in Oregon, and when he got there he could see little drops of mercury puddled all over the ground. The miner told him that it was hard to extract the mercury and be nice and neat about it (it was a very careless private operation). I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want your kids playing around there.

When I was young, back in the 50's, we kids loved mercury. We used to break thermometers on purpose and play with the stuff. And I'm told it is absorbed through the skin. Of course I have no baseline to measure against when I ask if the mercury affected me negatively. I probably did it three or four times, enjoyed the metal rolling around in the palm of my hand, then threw it away.

So even in somewhat larger quantities it didn't fry me so much that I couldn't write a sentence or two about it.

If one is tempted to fear vaccines for their children because of stories they've heard, they should listen to doctors talk about the issue as well. Here is a link to a podcast I heard a year or two ago that explained the medical side of the issue. Yes the doctor interviewed is highly biased, given that he co-invented a vaccine which helps prevent rotavirus-caused diarrhea. A disease that, before 2006, killed half a million kids a year (and still kills many thousands in areas where the vaccine is not yet available). The vaccine reduces deaths by 85%.  Which I assume makes him prejudiced on this issue in the eyes of some. Nonetheless, a good podcast which gives the case for the medical side of the story.

Direct link to listen in browser:
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/9/d/4/9d4e7d657746c3a9/40-books-Offit2.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01cd803fd6ca5ea68c&c_id=3099750 (http://ec.libsyn.com/p/9/d/4/9d4e7d657746c3a9/40-books-Offit2.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01cd803fd6ca5ea68c&c_id=3099750)

Link to podcast web site with link to iTunes:
http://www.virginiacampbellmd.com/blog/2011/2/28/how-the-anti-vaccine-movement-threatens-us-all.html (http://www.virginiacampbellmd.com/blog/2011/2/28/how-the-anti-vaccine-movement-threatens-us-all.html)

Edit: changed confusing wording re: the mercury mine.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 10, 2013, 10:22:53 PM
At no point have I said I was opposed to vaccines or vaccinations,my argument is about the choice,PP as your sig line is interesting as it also applies to the vaccination argument,where you think your right supersedes the rights of others.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 10, 2013, 11:06:51 PM
At no point have I said I was opposed to vaccines or vaccinations,my argument is about the choice,PP as your sig line is interesting as it also applies to the vaccination argument,where you think your right supersedes the rights of others.

Somewhere along the line I said that if half the nurses are refusing the flu shots (which is apparently the case), I trust that their reasons are good and that there must be things I don't know about the situation in general. Needless to say, I'm not impressed with the OP story, where nurses are refusing on religious grounds. I don't want to extend that choice to the operating room, however. I don't want doctors or nurses refusing to wash their hands before surgery, or refusing to wear masks while operating. Just like I don't want cops feeling free to test fire their guns in the direction of school playgrounds. Freedom is wonderful. But it doesn't apply to everything.

When it comes to kids vaccinations, I want to be sure that the parents are making their decisions based on facts, not hysteria. Now, my kids are grown, and survived their shots just fine, so I have no negative experience to draw upon. But I'm thinking that the fact that kids who get the measles have a 30 times greater risk of contracting glaucoma in the future and a 20 times risk of contracting diabetes (both being side effects that can show up in later life) is an important factor to consider. I think thato deciding not to inoculate my daughter and risk having her get her get measles 20 years later from another uninoculated child  while she is pregnant and her possibly giving birth to a deaf baby because of it is a relevant factor. That there are those that connect autism with vaccinations despite the fact that the autism rate between vaccinated and non-vaccinated children is the same seems like a no-brainer. That the onset of autism, the diagnosis of autism, happens at the same ages that vaccinations are given is coincidental.

Clearly the autism rate is going up. Clearly something is causing the problem. I assume it is environmental. I have no good reason to think it is inoculations.

Freedom is a good thing, most especially when it is used to make intelligent choices. Basing decisions related to freedom on bad info that can hurt others is not. I happen to trust the medical community when it comes to inoculating children. But I'll give nurses a pass on the flu thing, other than the religion crap that some use as an excuse.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 11, 2013, 01:28:06 AM
With the vaccinations,I do not object to someone(same as you) making a decision of their own after they do the research. Take it or get fired for any grounds is ludicrous,but that's just my opinion.

 As far as safety goes,I have seen the night and day effect on my grandson,until that happens to someone close you will never know. I know what he was like before and after the MMR.

 He will be lucky if he is ever a productive member of society,can I say for sure,no,will science uncover factors,maybe in the future. will it help him,no

 Thanks for your respectful response,and I apologize if I seem harsh here.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 11, 2013, 01:36:31 AM
Hey 12, we're talking. Not arguing. I don't think we disagree on much but it would be scarier if we agreed on everything.

There was no harshness detected or assumed. Be well, my friend, and of course I wish your grandson the best. Hopefully someone will figure it all out someday and find a way to reverse the effects. At least with science there is hope.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 11, 2013, 10:41:01 AM
Thanks PP and as science always finds new things,we may get answers. The thing is ,they have to be looking for the answers first.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 11, 2013, 11:39:21 AM
Thanks PP and as science always finds new things,we may get answers. The thing is ,they have to be looking for the answers first.

Understood. We may still be in the dark ages in some areas. And yes, money at times transcends the truth, which means there are major flaws in medicine and medical delivery. Hopefully not for long, though.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: stuffin on January 11, 2013, 10:30:18 PM

First of all, a correction: the shot does not contain mercury, it contains thimerosal, which is a molecule that has mercury as a constitutive element.  That's a very different matter.

Secondly: when thimerosal is metabolized, it does create a form of mercury, specifically, ethylmercury.  However, ethylmercury does not bioaccumulate, so it is highly unlikely to have any kind of a long-lasting effect.  (Short-term effects may be possible -- the matter has not been well-investigated.)


Here is where I saw the information regarding thimerosal, all the other information appears accurate so I accepted to thimerosal stuff.
Quote
The flu vaccine contains mercury from thimerosal, a preservative added to prevent bacterial contamination. Mercury is toxic to the brain, nerve cells, arterial linings and has been linked to an increase in the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, memory loss, depression, anxiety, ADD, heart disease, hypertension and birth defects.


http://www.truestarhealth.com/members/cm_archives07ML4P1A10.html
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: naemhni on January 12, 2013, 08:08:44 AM
Here is where I saw the information regarding thimerosal, all the other information appears accurate so I accepted to thimerosal stuff.
Quote
The flu vaccine contains mercury from thimerosal, a preservative added to prevent bacterial contamination. Mercury is toxic to the brain, nerve cells, arterial linings and has been linked to an increase in the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, memory loss, depression, anxiety, ADD, heart disease, hypertension and birth defects.

http://www.truestarhealth.com/members/cm_archives07ML4P1A10.html

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.

This is basic chemistry.  You cannot assume that a molecule will have the same properties as the atoms from which it is composed -- in fact, quite the contrary, that's almost never the case.  Perfect example: Hydrogen and oxygen are both gasses at room temperature and remain gasses unless cooled to extremely low temperatures.  However, if you combine two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, they turn into another substance that is liquid at room temperature.

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.  For a 150-pound adult, this equates to 27 micrograms of mercury, meaning that the amount of mercury in the flu vaccine is under the FDA's recommended limit for most adults.  And even if you happen to be a small woman (or a pre-teen, or whatever), and the flu shot does put you over the limit, you can compensate by staying away from fish for a few days.  Finally, if you're still worried about it after all that, there are also flu shots that are thimerosal-free, and all you have to do is ask for one.

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.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Nick on January 12, 2013, 10:43:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: stuffin on January 12, 2013, 03:28:45 PM

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.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: stuffin on January 12, 2013, 03:32:07 PM
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.  ;D
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Azdgari on January 12, 2013, 05:49:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 12, 2013, 06:56:24 PM
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
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 12, 2013, 07:20:12 PM
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.  ;D

 While you were at Wal-mart did you get your flu shot Nick?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: William on January 12, 2013, 08:04:05 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Nick on January 12, 2013, 08:14:18 PM
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.  ;D

 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.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 12, 2013, 09:04:00 PM
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/
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: William on January 12, 2013, 09:33:35 PM
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 :)
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: William on January 12, 2013, 09:37:33 PM
..,should these narcotics be given out in such a way to avoid overdose deaths?

You may have a good point here - from your reference:
Quote
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!
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 12, 2013, 10:13:22 PM
..,should these narcotics be given out in such a way to avoid overdose deaths?

You may have a good point here - from your reference:
Quote
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
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 12, 2013, 11:42:22 PM
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?

Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: William on January 12, 2013, 11:54:05 PM
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! ;)
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: screwtape on January 13, 2013, 10:36:41 AM
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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 13, 2013, 12:51:13 PM
Read my above statement^^
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: screwtape on January 13, 2013, 02:37:26 PM
Read my above statement^^

to whom is this addressed?  And which above statement?  there are several.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 13, 2013, 03:42:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: screwtape on January 14, 2013, 08:56:45 AM
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.

Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 14, 2013, 11:15:45 AM
 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
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wheels5894 on January 14, 2013, 01:04:27 PM
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? :laugh:(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.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: wright on January 14, 2013, 06:18:59 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Mooby on January 14, 2013, 11:11:27 PM
Accidental death from prescriptions is now the leading cause of death in America.
No, it isn't. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm)

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.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 15, 2013, 12:14:48 AM
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 (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
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Azdgari on January 15, 2013, 12:15:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 15, 2013, 12:17:44 AM
Accidental death from prescriptions is now the leading cause of death in America.
No, it isn't. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm)

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
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 15, 2013, 12:18:44 AM
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
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Azdgari on January 15, 2013, 12:24:02 AM
Yeah, you're not even reading the replies.  Bye.
Title: Re: Crazy sh it.
Post by: Bagheera on January 15, 2013, 01:49:53 PM
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.