Healthcare workers should get a flu shot or lose their jobs, two health groups say

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

No it works for PharmaCorp, that's why you're upset.

Nope, it sure doesn't. Most of my patients are under-insured or uninsured, so most of the scripts I write are generics. Pharma gets pretty much nothing for that, considering generic manufacture is outsourced to smaller companies now.

Of course that's all predicated on the assumption that you're even a doctor. For all anyone here knows you're a dude with a beer in his hand who got laid off from his day job. You seem to have alot of time on your hands to be on ATS all day. Nuff said.

Quite honestly, I don't care if you believe me or not. My post history shows a very firm understanding of medical and genetic science. I have time to post on here because (and I know this will come as a shocker to you), doctors don't actually live at the hospitals. We have days off, free time, and even vacations. I'm not married and I don't have children, so any time I'm not working is time of my own.

Again, why do you have to stoop to personal attacks rather than making a point?

Is it because you HAVE no points to make?

As I said, the precedent WOULD be set IF your crazy ideas were brought to reality. What part of that do you not grasp?

So, you're worrying about something that may or may not happen, based on a precedent which has not occured yet?

Let's look at another situation using that same logic, then. I'm worried that my favorite food (sesame chicken) may become a thing of the past. Now, there hasn't been any indication that this is going to happen other than one restaurant mentioned one time that it might stop serving it. Obviously,i if this one restaurant stops serving it, I will NEVER be able to get sesame chicken again.

Does that seem logical in any way?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
... Most of my patients are under-insured or uninsured, so most of the scripts I write are generics. Pharma gets pretty much nothing for that, considering generic manufacture is outsourced to smaller companies now. ...

Ranbaxy is a smaller company? Ranbaxy can't afford lobbyists?

Before the H1N1 debacle happened, most people would not have put up too much fuss about getting a flu shot...

But the reason you see it being fussed over so much now is because of all the hyper-promoting by the government, by some drug companies, other corporate entities, all going bonkers for the swine flu shot.....

Which started making a lot of people nervous... And then...

Stories of tainted vaccines... low quality and even dangerous quality materials being used...

when it was over people were wiping their brows saying "wow I'm glad I didn't get that junk"

People will never EVER forget these stories about shoddy quality vaccines and even more fearful hearing "you must get this" bombarding them from every direction, only to find out later their worries were well founded...

And this doesn't even include the part about microchipping and whatever else..


I have absolutely no problem at all about getting shots for anything... What I do have a problem with is companies colluding with corrupt politicians to make it legislated or mandated upon unsuspecting citizens to get their tainted product...

When that didnt work here they dumped it overseas or in some countries in Europe and a lot of people paid the price--

(According to the stories).

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


People like yourself are working to make it occur. Thus your day long attempt to convince others. I hope you all fail miserably and the precedent is never set. I get the feeling that the american people won't stand for it and will send in the lawyers on constitutional grounds that the rights of others end where my body begins.

reply to post by oniongrass


Compared to Pharma corporations? Yes, it is very small.

[edit on 9/1/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by HimWhoHathAnEar


So, you're not going to address any points from any posts in this thread, and are instead going to rant against something that isn't happening, then?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by oniongrass

 

Compared to Pharma corporations? Yes, it is very small.

[edit on 9/1/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

I'm sure it's a good team player. But how do you measure size? It makes a large %age of the generics, and generics are a large %age of the prescription drugs sold in the USA and I guess in other countries too (otherwise they're getting better stuff than we are, an outcome that wouldn't surprise me very much.) So how can they be so small?

I have not looked at your links yet, I will do so. But I have some general observations, if your training is good enough to understand them:

(1) Medical statistics is a poor relation to actual statistics. I've studied the latter sort at graduate level (mathematical statistics, econometrics.) When I formed my opinion 10 or 15 years ago medical statistics was awful, pathetic. Maybe it's improved now, probably not much with the pharma companies funding the research, and statistics being a great place to lie.

(2) The scientific method involves a hypothesis, then a test. The hypothesis requires a theory of how a system operates, at least at some level. A valid null hypothesis, one we're allowed to believe has been tested, is "the vaccine does no harm" and that hypothesis is reduced to observables: this isn't hurt, that isn't hurt, etc. These observables are then tested.

(3) We don't understand enough about the system to make an adequate list of observables. We cannot be complete in our testable hypotheses. This is the scientific community that, when it doesn't understand 90% of the genome, decides it must be redundant and calls it "garbage DNA". People who do that are "garbage scientists."

(4) Some practitioners lack the humility to take that uncertainty into account if they are even aware of it. Or they've been trained by MPH type programs that there are more important priorities.

(5) You're free to dismiss my anecdotal evidence as stories and my reasoning as being from the era of the Black Plague. And I'm free to dismiss the paid-for medical research as being agenda driven and creating ridiculous situations like we have this year, when we're asked to take a flu shot component for last year's flu that is not expected to be a problem this year, I guess because they have a bunch left over or they want something in my bloodstream. No thanks.

reply to post by adjensen


If you are concerned that a healthcare worker may give you the flu because they have chosen not to risk their health and lives by taking a toxin ridden, greed manufactured product then I suggest that you remain locked inside you home until the flu season is over. By the way if you have children make sure that you keep them inside with you.

You stand a better chance of getting the flu from a child, especially one of preschool age than a healthcare worker. Also don't forget, movie, theaters, mass transit, your place of work and yep even the supermarket.

I am a healthcare worker. I have been a healthcare worker for over 40 years. I have not had a flu vaccine. I have not had the flu since college. I think that too many people are buying into the hype and I think it is down right ridiculous for you or anyone else to force anyone to be injected with a poison just because it will make "you" feel better.

So you want to throw healthcare workers under the bus? Good. See how well served you will be with or without the flu when you are sitting in the ER for 2 to 3 days waiting to be seen because there are no healthcare workers available.

By the way, I can assure you that you stand a much better chance of getting that dreaded flu sitting in the ER than you would have from a healthcare worker.

dont shots also carry some mercury in them? i am aware of the autism factor

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by LAinhabitant


ANYONE ANYWHERE could pass the flu on to someone else.

The difference being, people in the hospital are there seeking treatment, which usually means their case is already fairly severe.

No one seeks medical treatment at the grocery store, the ballpark, the mall, or any place like that. As such, there is no assumption that universal precautions are being taken in those places. The hospital is a special circumstance, where EVERY employee (janitors, nurses, doctors, file clerks, EVERYONE) is expected to understand and participate in infection control. If this is too hard of a task for someone, they shouldn't be working in patient care centers. It's as simple as that.

Your statement is not necessarily true. Everyone that is seen in the ER is not there because they are presenting with a severe medical condition. In fact, in the hospital were I work, more than half are there because they do not have insurance and can't be seen in a doctor's office for routine care. Also most people that do present with a severe condition are usually triaged fairly quickly to an area for immediate medical care and if they are immuno-compromised they are placed on the appropriate infection precaution.

By the time the average person does present to the ER with symptoms severe enough to require immediate attention they have already spent huge amounts of time spreading their germs in "the grocery store, the ballpark, the mall, or any place like that."

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

Who said anything about "guinea pigs"? That suggests I'm making them victims of an experiment. No one is suggesting anything of the sort. Flu vaccine is proven to reduce the number of nosocomial infection.

Could you please attach a link to data supporting this claim?

I have seen more doctors handle charts and run from one patient's room to another, touching patient's bedding, removing dressings and not once washing their hands or wearing gloves.

I have offered hand sanitizer and gloves only to have them look at me with indignation. So, in my experience it is the doctors that are more lax in the utilization of universal and infection precaution. In fact the hospital where I work is inundated with cameras and this has been proven as fact by observation. The percentage of adherence to proper hand-washing and universal precautions were 60% for doctors and 93% for nurses.

I would liked to have seen a 100% by nurses but nothing and no one is perfect. Emergencies and time constraints can make meeting that 100% extremely hard to do at times.

You seem to be one of those doctors that have a disdain for nurses. I am sure that God complex they issued with your license makes you think that you have the right to control the lives of others.

I am sure your patients are secure in the fact that you will be there to provide your excellence in care when all those ignorant, disease ridden nurses that you have saved them from have been thrown out of the hospitals. Nurse; who needs them?

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
Could you please attach a link to data supporting this claim?

No problem.

Flu vaccine decreases nosocomial infections
Flu vaccine and nosocomial infections
Flu vaccine and nosocomial pneumonia

I can provide more, if need be.

I have seen more doctors handle charts and run from one patient's room to another, touching patient's bedding, removing dressings and not once washing their hands or wearing gloves.

And those doctors should be admonished/penalized for breaking universal precautions. I know they think it's tedious, but as I've explained to students and colleagues, washing your hands a few times per day is less of a hassle than dealing with a new infection in a patient.

So, in my experience it is the doctors that are more lax in the utilization of universal and infection precaution. In fact the hospital where I work is inundated with cameras and this has been proven as fact by observation. The percentage of adherence to proper hand-washing and universal precautions were 60% for doctors and 93% for nurses.

I wouldn't dispute that. Doctors tend to be a bit more rushed by necessity, while nurses tend to have more work per patient.

You seem to be one of those doctors that have a disdain for nurses. I am sure that God complex they issued with your license makes you think that you have the right to control the lives of others.

I don't have a disdain for nurses at all, unless the flippantly violate universal precautions or refuse vaccination because Jenny McCarthy told them to.

I am sure your patients are secure in the fact that you will be there to provide your excellence in care when all those ignorant, disease ridden nurses that you have saved them from have been thrown out of the hospitals. Nurse; who needs them?

That's quite a stretch. Can you please quote any post of mine where I called nurses in general ignorant, disease-ridden, or useless? I provided a few examples of me enforcing universal precautions, and they happened to involve nurses, simply because nurses, per "capita", are one of the larger workforces in my hospital.

IF you can't point out where I called all nurses ignorant, disease-ridden, or useless, I would appreciate either an apology, or for you to edit your post accordingly. Thanks.

Vaccine Caused “Spanish Flu” Epidemic
Medical historians have finally come to the reluctant conclusion that the great flu “epidemic” of 1918 was solely attributable to the widespread use of vaccines. It was the first war in which vaccination was compulsory for all servicemen. The Boston Herald reported that forty-seven soldiers had been killed by vaccination in one month. As a result, the military hospitals were filled, not with wounded combat casual­ties, but with casualties of the vaccine. The epidemic was called “the Spanish Influenza,” a deliberately mis­leading appellation, which was intended to conceal its origin. This flu epidemic claimed twenty million victims; those who survived it were the ones who had refused the vaccine.

elliotlakenews.wordpress.com...

I know a lot of health care workers sued so they wouldn't be forced to take the H1N1 vaccine

The HIV tests react with many different diseases and conditions, and diagnose no single disease or condition. Here we see that the tests return a “positive” result in persons who have received flu vaccinations.

reducetheburden.org...

Trust something that makes a person test positive for aids...?
I dunno


[edit on 2-9-2010 by Danbones]

Originally posted by Danbones

The HIV tests react with many different diseases and conditions, and diagnose no single disease or condition. Here we see that the tests return a “positive” result in persons who have received flu vaccinations.

reducetheburden.org...

Trust something that makes a person test positive for aids...?
I dunno


[edit on 2-9-2010 by Danbones]

No one is given a diagnosis of HIV with a single positive test. You are required to indicate a positive result with, at minimum, two different tests using two different methods (DNA test and antibody test) and then confirm with Western blot.

I don't see a problem if:

* All parties, including the manufacturer, the health district, the person administering the shot, the CDC, the FDA etc. all accept complete liability should there be any side effects.
* The manufacturer discloses all test results on any adverse reactions. This should include any independent studies. This should also include the amounts paid in damages to claimants in any previous court cases.
* A representative of the manufacturer, the health district, the CDC, the FDA, and the person administering the shot are required to take a shot at the same time from a random sampling of available vaccines.
* All adverse reactions are carefully listed in real time and posted on a social network to show transparency. This should include all historic records of the vaccine in all areas.
* That the manufacturer prove that Thimerisol and formaldehyde are not present.
* That full disclosure is given by the manufacturer and it's agents of all moneys paid by lobbyists, and any connection to the health association that is insisting on the shots.
* That an immediate escrow be opened to pay for any and all healthcare costs associated with possible adverse side effects.
* That the health district cover all associated costs without any incentive from the manufacturer.
* That a list of all parties who would gain profit from this program be published, with the amounts shown.

Easy, huh? I bet they'd never give a single shot if these were the conditions.

Frist and Hastert Let Vaccine Industry Write Its Own Multi-Billion Dollar Giveaway
Last December, Senate Majority Leader Bill First (R-TN) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert inserted a provision in the Defense Appropriations bill that granted vaccine manufactures near-total immunity for injuries or deaths (even in cases of “gross negligence”) caused by their drugs during a viral pandemic, such as an outbreak of the avian flu. The legislation was “worth billions of dollars” to a small group of drug makers.

The provision was inserted in the dead of the night, after House and Senate conferees had agreed the provision would not be included in the bill. According to Roll Call, the brazen move was completely unprecedented.

thinkprogress.org...

Trust anyine who legislates this way....?
naww, even if they take the shot first...not even then.

Garbage, garbage, garbage. i see a lot of misinformation here. first off, there was no "shortages" of swine flu vaccine last year. indeed, many refused them so governments were forced to dump millions. and now the elderly, who were found to be largely immune to swine flu, they are recommending triple doses for?! I wonder why. further, flu vaccine does not give 85 pc protection. according to the cdc it gives between 8 and 16 pc. and lastly, some 30k people die annually due to pneumonia and complications. healthy people who get the flu and die are actually more like 130 people a year.

furthermore, vitamin d is showing in recent studies to be our greatest protections from flu as well as cancer....but we don't see them trying to mandate that. wonder why.

and lastly, even the supreme court this year recognized vaccines role in contributing to autism, and other disorders such as kys. guess that was based off flimsy snake oil sales too.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Your first link www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... is a German article but I am not going to completely discount everything just because it is based on data outside of the United States. I do take issue with their:
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Many studies demonstrate that influenza vaccination for health-care workers lowers morbidity and mortality in their patients. Official immunization recommendations and free, voluntary immunization programs for health-care workers have been in existence for many years. “Nevertheless, influenza vaccination rates are unacceptably low.”

If for years influenza vaccinations remain low than the morbidity and mortality numbers should be through the roof.

I found this response to the article very interesting.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
This article does not speak of vaccination. It clearly states: “Except for the microorganisms listed above, the prevention of nosocomial pneumonia is not pathogen-specific. Rather, prevention of nosocomial pneumonia requires the use of infection control procedures, including patient and staff education; isolation of patients with highly contagious respiratory pathogens; vigorous hand washing; cleaning and sterilizaton of respiratory equipment; and use of sterile water in nebulizers and humidifiers. It also requires procedures to limit pooling and aspiration of secretions, such as positioning and rotation of the bed-bound patient; frequent suctioning of respiratory secretions using gloves and sterile suction catheters; and limiting enteral alimentation. Finally, selective decontamination of the digestive tract may be considered for intubated patients.”

The biggest problem I have with the whole Magilla is that everyone that reports with a runny nose, cough or sneeze is lumped into the influenza category regardless to whether it is allergy related or a rhinovirus.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

IF you can't point out where I called all nurses ignorant, disease-ridden, or useless, I would appreciate either an apology, or for you to edit your post accordingly. Thanks.

Since I didn't say that you called "all nurses ignorant, disease-ridden, or useless" I guess you don't require that apology or edit. If I misjudged you I guess it had a lot to do with the way you described how you interact with your co-workers and your demanding demeanor. It does provoke one to respond accordingly.

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
reply to post by adjensen

 

If you are concerned that a healthcare worker may give you the flu because they have chosen not to risk their health and lives by taking a toxin ridden, greed manufactured product then I suggest that you remain locked inside you home until the flu season is over. By the way if you have children make sure that you keep them inside with you.

You stand a better chance of getting the flu from a child, especially one of preschool age than a healthcare worker. Also don't forget, movie, theaters, mass transit, your place of work and yep even the supermarket.

I am a healthcare worker. I have been a healthcare worker for over 40 years. I have not had a flu vaccine. I have not had the flu since college. I think that too many people are buying into the hype and I think it is down right ridiculous for you or anyone else to force anyone to be injected with a poison just because it will make "you" feel better.

I have to wonder what sort of healthcare worker you are if you refer to vaccinations as "poison", but whatever.

You may have missed my posts above, but I have an underlying condition which finds me at the clinic quite often, more so during flu season (because of its coincidence with winter, not because I have the flu,) so, while I have a choice to go to the cinema or to the grocery, sometimes I have no choice but to go to the clinic.

Last year, when flu vaccines were not generally available, at my annual physical in November, I asked my GP whether I should keep trying to get the shots, and he looked at me and said, effectively, "What, are you kidding me? Yes! If we had any in the clinic, I'd give you the shot myself right now. If you catch the flu, there's no guarantee that we can save you."

Frankly, and this is, perhaps, selfish, I see my continued existence as being pretty important, and that's what healthcare workers are paid to do. I don't give my money to the clinic because I want to come home from there sicker than when I went in. Even if the odds of you getting me sick are minuscule, if they're based on your refusal to get immunized because of some irrational fear, you're not only not doing your job, you're potentially making it harder for people who are.

As I stated above adjensen, are you next going to heckle him for not eating enough leafy green veggies, or getting enough sunshine? Or taking vitamins? Where does it end? Because we are healthcare workers, we cant have our own ideas about what is healthy and what is not? We cant disagree with mainstream politico-science?

After all, much of our "evidence based medicine" is politically driven as much as anything else. Which is why doctors were proscribing cigarettes in the 50's, and lobotomies in the 60's. Thalidomide, avandia, fosomax, and any number of other "studied and peer reviewed" drugs that turned out to be dangerous. Much as you might like to deny it there IS a DEBATE going on about vaccines. It hasnt been proven one way or the other, and there is much evidence on both sides, and until it is, one side should not ridicule the other.....though that is what normally happens in these circumstances, because ad hominem attacks are the way that people try to add weight to their arguments.