It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TriHealth fires 150 employees for not getting flu shots

page: 12
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Artistic
 


We're going to go 'round and 'round on this, but, a dispute between labor and management and labor leaving has nothing to do with a dictatorship. You mention WWII. The great dictatorships we fought against were the governments: the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese. Where is the connection between strict workplace rules that a worker can walk away from at will and a government mandating every aspect of your life? How would you see this situation turn out differently? The government step in? That is closer to the WWII dictators than the initial issue, no?




posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

and that is the kind of rhetoric that gives ATS a bad name.
carry on.


What? Facts? I thought the motto of ATS was "deny ignorance?"
edit on 27-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by Artistic
 


We're going to go 'round and 'round on this, but, a dispute between labor and management and labor leaving has nothing to do with a dictatorship. You mention WWII. The great dictatorships we fought against were the governments: the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese. Where is the connection between strict workplace rules that a worker can walk away from at will and a government mandating every aspect of your life? How would you see this situation turn out differently? The government step in? That is closer to the WWII dictators than the initial issue, no?




I believe what you are doing for the country is great; you should be proud and thank you for your service.

But ; You missed the point.

Or I didn't make it well enough.

By a company forcing its workers to get a potentially harmful shot in order to keep their job; is what one might find happening in dictatorships like North Korea or China.

EVENTUALLY , ALL companies might one day require this mandate or something akin to it...

What you say is; a person has the freedom to leave and go somewhere else but

1. someday ALL companies in america might require this

2. why should we as americans ; living in this free country allow ourselves to be treated in this manner??
this is like they treat cattle having to be immunized


The men and women in the past fought against ALL forms of inhuman treatment by governments and others...

I think your military service has made you unable to understand this fundamental concept; sadly

I am not trying to be mean here

but in the military; you have to do what you are told by your "superiors" no questions asked

THis is not the military

and I think you are too used to giving and receiving orders you will never understand

an Outsiders point of view



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

did you mean these facts ?

Here are the facts:
1.) the flu vaccine reduces the chance of a flu infection. It does not eliminate it, it reduces it. 100% risk reduction is almost impossible.
not according to this study.
those who received vaccines showed an INCREASE in symptoms and development of treatable illness.

www.plosmedicine.org...
as expected, the 2008–09 TIV provided protection against seasonal influenza. However, estimates from all four studies (which included about 1,200 laboratory-confirmed pH1N1 cases and 1,500 controls) showed that prior recipients of the 2008–09 TIV [color=amber]had approximately 1.4–2.5 times increased chances of developing pH1N1 illness that needed medical attention during the spring–summer of 2009 compared to people who had not received the TIV.



3). People at risk of complications: the immunocompromised, COPD, very old, and so forth should get the vaccine because their risk of dying from complications of an influenza infection outweigh the risks of the innoculation.
and the studies you, yourself posted, indicate otherwise.
besides the ineffective results for those MOST compromised, the overall study of this group is extremely limited.

the act of forcing innoculations is not a noble one, ever.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Artistic
EVENTUALLY , ALL companies might one day require this mandate or something akin to it...

What you say is; a person has the freedom to leave and go somewhere else but

1. someday ALL companies in america might require this

2. why should we as americans ; living in this free country allow ourselves to be treated in this manner??


In my locality, there is a law that requires the workers in food industry wash their hands after they visit the bathroom. To me, this makes an enormous amount of sense. Pretty much every food industry company enforces this lest they lose their license. Of course, not everyone will find this obligation convenient.

Anyone who thinks this is an infringement of liberties and all that, is a nut.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Artistic
EVENTUALLY , ALL companies might one day require this mandate or something akin to it...

What you say is; a person has the freedom to leave and go somewhere else but

1. someday ALL companies in america might require this

2. why should we as americans ; living in this free country allow ourselves to be treated in this manner??


In my locality, there is a law that requires the workers in food industry wash their hands after they visit the bathroom. To me, this makes an enormous amount of sense. Pretty much every food industry company enforces this lest they lose their license. Of course, not everyone will find this obligation convenient.

Anyone who thinks this is an infringement of liberties and all that, is a nut.

Star for that reasonable post. Thank you.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Artistic
EVENTUALLY , ALL companies might one day require this mandate or something akin to it...

What you say is; a person has the freedom to leave and go somewhere else but

1. someday ALL companies in america might require this

2. why should we as americans ; living in this free country allow ourselves to be treated in this manner??


In my locality, there is a law that requires the workers in food industry wash their hands after they visit the bathroom. To me, this makes an enormous amount of sense. Pretty much every food industry company enforces this lest they lose their license. Of course, not everyone will find this obligation convenient.

Anyone who thinks this is an infringement of liberties and all that, is a nut.
ANyone

who cant see there is a difference between hand washing and something being put directly into your blood stream

without one's own approval is

a complete idiot
edit on 27-11-2012 by Artistic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

did you mean these facts ?

Here are the facts:
1.) the flu vaccine reduces the chance of a flu infection. It does not eliminate it, it reduces it. 100% risk reduction is almost impossible.
not according to this study.
those who received vaccines showed an INCREASE in symptoms and development of treatable illness.

www.plosmedicine.org...
as expected, the 2008–09 TIV provided protection against seasonal influenza. However, estimates from all four studies (which included about 1,200 laboratory-confirmed pH1N1 cases and 1,500 controls) showed that prior recipients of the 2008–09 TIV [color=amber]had approximately 1.4–2.5 times increased chances of developing pH1N1 illness that needed medical attention during the spring–summer of 2009 compared to people who had not received the TIV.



3). People at risk of complications: the immunocompromised, COPD, very old, and so forth should get the vaccine because their risk of dying from complications of an influenza infection outweigh the risks of the innoculation.
and the studies you, yourself posted, indicate otherwise.
besides the ineffective results for those MOST compromised, the overall study of this group is extremely limited.

the act of forcing innoculations is not a noble one, ever.




Yet, in your abstract, you conveniently missed to quote three very important points:



The occurrence of bias (selection, information) or confounding cannot be ruled out. Further experimental and epidemiological assessment is warranted. Possible biological mechanisms and immunoepidemiologic implications are considered.




Risk of pH1N1 hospitalization was not further increased among vaccinated people when comparing hospitalized to community cases.


They were considering one strain of the virus (pH1N1, a new strain described in 2009)


In 2009, a new strain of influenza emerged which is being referred to as pH1N1 Influenza. The "p" is a reference to the fact that the World Health Organization has categorized the H1N1 strain as having reached pandemic status
and not ALL strains. No kidding that a vaccine administered in 2008-2009 was not resistant to a strain described in 2009. Back to my harping on the lack of understanding that the layman has in the subject of immunology--you have to be exposed to the pathogen, a portion of it, or a closely resembled analogue to get immunity from it. Here is a brief summary that is simple to understand. It is not a complete microbiology course, but is covers the basics:science.howstuffworks.com... man-biology/immune-system.htm

The vaccine is known not to be protective of all strains. That is the point: the vaccine is not proof against ALL strains but reduces the risk of getting a strain.

My references actually had a very broad study group. They focused on the immunocompromised because. that. was. the. point. of. the. study. That immunocompromised patients are saved by inoculated careworkers has very grounded support.

I agree that forced immunizations are wrong. That is why those who did not want them were able to walk away. Win-win. Patients were not forced to be exposed to increased risk (I wonder why no one seems to care about the patients in this debate?) and the careworkers who did not want the shots did not get them.

It is quite noble to take risk upon yourself to help others. I do everything I can to protect those people I care for. If I was not in this field, I would not get a vaccination every year.
edit on 27-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Artistic

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Artistic
EVENTUALLY , ALL companies might one day require this mandate or something akin to it...

What you say is; a person has the freedom to leave and go somewhere else but

1. someday ALL companies in america might require this

2. why should we as americans ; living in this free country allow ourselves to be treated in this manner??


In my locality, there is a law that requires the workers in food industry wash their hands after they visit the bathroom. To me, this makes an enormous amount of sense. Pretty much every food industry company enforces this lest they lose their license. Of course, not everyone will find this obligation convenient.

Anyone who thinks this is an infringement of liberties and all that, is a nut.
ANyone

who cant see there is a difference between hand washing and something being put directly into your blood stream

without one's own approval is

a complete idiot
edit on 27-11-2012 by Artistic because: (no reason given)


Please show us where anyone had anything placed in their blood stream without their approval in this case?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Artistic
ANyone

who cant see there is a difference between hand washing and something being put directly into your blood stream

without one's own approval is

a complete idiot


Washing hands and inoculation (specifically in the context of a medical and healthcare organization), while technically two very different methods of fighting the spread of infection, serve exact same purpose, which is to prevent (hopefully) people from becoming sick. I'm typing this especially for the benefit of individuals with diminished mental capacity.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


NavyDoc

I have already posted my critique of the first study you provided. The reason why the study was crap included statistically significent but clinically insignificant results. Failure to account for confounding factors and failure to account for the fact that the US may have lower rates of parents bringing toddlers to ER due to money issues.

The first study that you have provided in the above post shows that there was some reduction of mortality in seniors in residential homes when 48 % of the staff were immunized.

May I point out that it is unnecessary to vaccinate every staff member in order to achieve this protection. Actually, less then half were needed. This study also had weakness, chief of which that the study relied on the lead nurse to determine if the patient had the flu. The biggest difference between a cold and flu is the high fever. The study authors admit that seniors rarely get fevers. So its a real weakness. Now why weren't tests done to determine if it was the flue?

However, if you were to accept the results of this study -there is little justification in imposing the shot on those who want it.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


NavyDoc

I have already posted my critique of the first study you provided. The reason why the study was crap included statistically significent but clinically insignificant results. Failure to account for confounding factors and failure to account for the fact that the US may have lower rates of parents bringing toddlers to ER due to money issues.

The first study that you have provided in the above post shows that there was some reduction of mortality in seniors in residential homes when 48 % of the staff were immunized.

May I point out that it is unnecessary to vaccinate every staff member in order to achieve this protection. Actually, less then half were needed. This study also had weakness, chief of which that the study relied on the lead nurse to determine if the patient had the flu. The biggest difference between a cold and flu is the high fever. The study authors admit that seniors rarely get fevers. So its a real weakness. Now why weren't tests done to determine if it was the flue?

However, if you were to accept the results of this study -there is little justification in imposing the shot on those who want it.

Tired of Control Freaks

Actually, if you look at the rest of the studies, you will see that the most benefit is seen when the staff who deal with the at risk patients are immunized.

Even in that study, mortality rates dropped with as little as a 48% compliance rate. One could consider that mortality rates could have dropped even further as inoculation rates in staff increased.

I see that you are only addressing the studies that have an easy clickable link--I understand, wading through the literature can be a tedious process. One paper leads you to another that leads you to another. Let's do this one together, shall we?

Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases



Vaccination of HCWs has been shown to reduce serologically confirmed influenza and influenza-like illness among the workers, as well as total mortality in the patients for whom they care (10,17-19).


Citations 10, 17-19 are these:10. Wilde JA, McMillan JA, Serwint J, et al. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in healthcare professionals: a randomized trial.JAMA 1999;281:908-13. [PubMed]
17. Odelin MF, Pozzetto B, Aymard M, Defayolle M, Jolly-Million J. Role of influenza vaccination in the elderly during an epidemic of A/H1N1 virus in 1998-1999: Clinical and serological data.Gerontology 1993;39:109-16. [PubMed]
18. Potter J, Stott DJ, Roberts MA, et al. Influenza vaccination of healthcare workers in long-term care hospitals reduces the mortality of elderly patients.J Infect Dis 1997;175:1-6. [PubMed]
19. Carman WF, Elder AG, Wallace LA, et al. Effects of influenza vaccination of health-care workers on mortality of elderly people in long-term care: a randomised controlled trial.Lancet 2000;355:93-7. [PubMed]

Let's look at #18:
It's a PDF at the link
but here is a cut and paste of the abstract:


Abstract
Background: This study aims to determine side effects in healthcare workers receiving influenza vaccination, and to scrutinize the opinion of and attitude toward vaccination of healthcare workers.
Methods: Five hundred forty-seven hospital personnel employed by the Eskişehir Yunus Emre State Hospital were included in the study which was conducted in November 2006,. Hospital personnel were administered 0.5 ml inactivated influenza vaccine consisting of 2006/2007 strains. Inoculations were given intramuscularly into the deltoid muscle. A specially designated area in the emergency unit was used for the procedure.
Results: An evaluation on Day 10 following influenza vaccination demonstrated at least one adverse effect in 197 (36%) hospital personnel. There was no statistical relationship between side effects and age or gender (p=0.860, p=0.929), while side effects were significantly more frequent among subjects receiving their first vaccination (p=0.008) and nurses (p=0.021). The reasons for the lack of prior immunization in 420 (76.8%) HCWs included not considering influenza a serious disease in 124 (29.5%), disbelief in the efficacy of vaccination in 109 (26%), the lack of reimbursement of vaccination in 105 (25%), fear of the side effects of vaccination in 45 (10.7%), preference for other methods of protection in 75 (17.9%), and fear of injection in 29 (6.9%).
Conclusions: The increase in the rate of influenza immunization among healthcare personnel is possible



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Back to original article:



A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was conducted over three successive epidemic seasons to determine the effectiveness of influenza vaccine given to health care professionals working in two American, acute care, urban teaching hospitals. Vaccine efficacy against serologically defined infection among HCWs was 88% for influenza A and 89% for influenza B (10). A recent randomized trial of influenza vaccination of HCWs in urban, geriatric, long term care facilities (LTCF) in Glasgow showed significant reductions not only in influenza-like illness among the vaccinated HCWs but also in the total mortality of the patients for whom they cared (18). Influenza vaccine programs for HCWs may also result in the saving of health care dollars and reduced work absenteeism, depending on factors that include the match between infecting strain and vaccine, strain virulence, and the presence of disincentives for staff to take sick time off work (11,13,16,20-22).



Notice that they used blood tests to determine infection, unlike the study you critqued:


serologically defined





Duty of care includes helping our patients (beneficence), doing no harm (nonmaleficence), and obtaining informed consent (autonomy). The use of the influenza vaccine to prevent illness in ourselves and transmission to others is part of this duty of care. Efforts to foster and promote the vaccination of HCWs must involve educational programs, monitoring and support for those experiencing adverse events, incentives for and removal of obstacles to vaccination, and above all, the ethical practice of health care.



Interesting aside:


In a recent British study 59% of HCWs with serological evidence of recent influenza infection could not recall having influenza (16).


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
So you see, calling in sick if you think you have the flu is not really protecting your patients.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Anyone who thinks this is an infringement of liberties and all that, is a nut

and likewise, anyone that continually insists injection of known poisons into your bloodstream under the threat of financial consequence isn't a violation of individual freedom and liberty, must be a complete fruitcake.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Let's look at this one:
www.immunizeadultga.org...



Serologic studies suggest that up to 25% of HCWs have evidence of influenza infection each season.2,3 Influenza can be transmitted while asymptomatic – allowing HCWs to spread the infection to patients and other staff before they know they are ill.4 Fifty percent of HCWs who have influenza infections are asymptomatic or have only minor symptoms.5
A review of nosocomial

References cited:2Carman WF, Elder AG, Wallace LA, et al. Effects of influenza vaccination of health-care workers on mortality of elderly people in long-term care: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000 Jan 8;355(9198):93-7.
3Potter J, Stott DJ, Roberts MA, et al. Influenza vaccination of health care workers in long-term-care hospitals reduces the mortality of elderly patients. J Infect Dis. 1997 Jan;175(1):1-6.
4Ludwig-Beymer P, Gerc SC. An influenza prevention campaign: the employee perspective. J Nurs Care Qual. 2002 Apr;16(3):1-12.
5Stott DJ, Kerr G, Carman WF. Nosocomial transmission of influenza. Occup Med (Lond). 2002 Aug;52(5):249-53.

Next point:


Immunizing health care workers safely and effectively prevents a significant number of influenza infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among the patients they care for, as well as preventing workplace disruption and medical errors by workers absent from work due to illness, or present at work but ill.7,8,9
Influenza vaccination of HCWs lowers

Since this is the most important point, lets explore these references a bit further.
jama.jamanetwork.com...



< Previous ArticleNext Article >
.Original Contribution | March 10, 1999
Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Health Care Professionals:

A Randomized Trial FREE
James A. Wilde, MD; Julia A. McMillan, MD; Janet Serwint, MD; Jeanne Butta, RN; Mary Ann O'Riordan, MS; Mark C. Steinhoff, MD
JAMA. 1999;281(10):908-913. doi:10.1001/jama.281.10.908. Text Size: A A A .Published online
ArticleFiguresTablesReferences.ABSTRACT.
ABSTRACT | METHODS | RESULTS | COMMENT | REFERENCES ..Context Data are limited and conflicting regarding the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals.

Objective To determine the effectiveness of trivalent influenza vaccine in reducing infection, illness, and absence from work in young, healthy health care professionals.

Design Randomized, prospective, double-blind, controlled trial over 3 consecutive years, from 1992-1993 to 1994-1995.

Setting Two large teaching hospitals in Baltimore, Md.

Participants Two hundred sixty-four hospital-based health care professionals without chronic medical problems were recruited; 49 participated for 2 seasons; 24 participated for 3 seasons. The mean age was 28.4 years, 75% were resident physicians, and 57% were women.

Intervention Participants were randomly assigned to receive either an influenza vaccine or a control (meningococcal vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, or placebo). Serum samples for antibody assays were collected at the time of vaccination, 1 month after vaccination, and at the end of the influenza season. Active weekly surveillance for illness was conducted during each influenza epidemic period.

Main Outcome Measures Serologically defined influenza infection (4-fold increase in hemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies), days of febrile respiratory illness, and days absent from work.

Results We conducted 359 person-winters of serologic surveillance (99.4% follow-up) and 4746 person-weeks of illness surveillance (100% follow-up). Twenty-four (13.4%) of 179 control subjects and 3 (1.7%) of 180 influenza vaccine recipients had serologic evidence of influenza type A or B infection during the study period. Vaccine efficacy against serologically defined infection was 88% for influenza A (95% confidence interval [CI], 47%-97%; P=.001) and 89% for influenza B (95% CI, 14%-99%; P=.03). Among influenza vaccinees, cumulative days of reported febrile respiratory illness were 28.7 per 100 subjects compared with 40.6 per 100 subjects in controls (P=.57) and days of absence were 9.9 per 100 subjects vs 21.1 per 100 subjects in controls (P=.41).

Conclusions Influenza vaccine is effective in preventing infection by influenza A and B in health care professionals and may reduce reported days of work absence and febrile respiratory illness. These data support a policy of annual influenza vaccination of health care professionals.

This is a good one: large, multi year, multi center, placebo controlled, randomized trial that was serologically confirmed.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Let's not forget Potter and the gang:
3Potter J, Stott DJ, Roberts MA, et al. Influenza vaccination of health care workers in long-term-care hospitals reduces the mortality of elderly patients. J Infect Dis. 1997 Jan;175(1):1-6.



Influenza vaccination of health care workers in long-term-care hospitals reduces the mortality of elderly patients.
Potter J, Stott DJ, Roberts MA, Elder AG, O'Donnell B, Knight PV, Carman WF.
SourceDivision of Virology, Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom.

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



Large trial, over a thousand patients, multi-center (12 facilities), randomized approach.

I could go on for hours, but I have to work in the morning. Still think that we lack evidence?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


NavyDoc

This study has absolutely NOTHING to do with preventing the flu or mortality among patients. This is a study of vaccinations of health care workers (why they don't want to get vaccinated and how many got side effects from the shot).

This study does NOTHING to support your point that workers getting the shot is necessary to prevent immuno-suppressed patients.

I have a great many concerns about this study but I will simply quote this:




Influenza is the sixth leading cause of death among adults in the United States, killing an average of 36,000 Americans annually [18]. Vaccination is considered to be 70–90% effective in the prevention of influenza in healthy adults under 65 years of age [19,20]. Influenza vaccination reduces otitis media in children, absenteeism from work in adults, hospitalization and mortality in high-risk groups, and the number of physician visits and influenza-related respiratory tract infections in all age groups [21].


The authors of this study collected NO DATA to support these facts. Scientists do not make assumptions. And as a matter of fact, the CDC considers the shot to be only 40 to 60 % effectiveness rate for the shots. Otitis media is generally caused by "glue ear" not the flu and there absolutely no data to support any of these statements.

When scientists start making statements that are unrelated to the study in question, what they are doing is repeating a message that public health considers desirable. This is a technique of propaganda. Tell a lie, tell it often and tell it big and repeat, repeat, repeat

The fact that these scientists are making unrelated statements in their study makes their study very very suspicious.

further the study itself noted that there were side effect to the shot in 197 out of 500 some odd staff. People were working with sore arms, sore muscles and while they suffered malaise. These people ought to have been off work but they weren't (probably due to personal dedication). This DOES NOT support the assertion that the shot reduces absentism and as a matter of fact, since there was no comparison between the vaccinated and a control group - there is absolutely no data to support such a statement.

I have posted a video in this thread that teaches you how to interpret studies - have you watched it to see how data can be manipulated to provide the desired results? When scientists serve up propaganda - there is every reason to believe that they have manipulated the data.

Would you like to try another study that proves your point that staff should be vaccinated to protect immuno-suppressed patients?

PS - and you are correct. I will not do literature searches. If you quote a study - you should provide it.

Another good tip is to follow the foot notes - quite often scientists will make a statement and provide a reference to the study that proves that statement. Just as often, I have followed the footnote and found that the reference was unrelated to the quote.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Anyone who thinks this is an infringement of liberties and all that, is a nut

and likewise, anyone that continually insists injection of known poisons into your bloodstream under the threat of financial consequence isn't a violation of individual freedom and liberty, must be a complete fruitcake.



Known poison? Silly hyperbole is silly.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

all i did was share a reference provided by another member that completely shoots your theory out the window.

you can nit-pick it all you want, that doesn't change the conclusions of the study ... which, btw, indicate MORE study needs to be done.

yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah ... they are all strains of the "disease" you call influenza.
the study is talking about the same strain that innoculations were developed and provided to prevent ... they failed.

and somehow you expect anyone with a modicum of knowledge to believe "how stuff works" is a scientific bastion of knowledge, eh ? oooook.

i do hope that once you've completed the circles you're travelling in this conversation, that someone is available to unwind you.

broad study group you say ??
yeah, i suppose 31 participants could be a broad study group ... of a daycare.

well finally, the truth comes out ... just like in most propaganda pieces, it's usually buried very near the end ... but thanks all the same


I agree that forced immunizations are wrong

because patients are not forced to obtain said "necessary and required" vaccines.

did you miss the excerpt indicating ALL persons on mediCAID are not required to be vaccinated ?? aren't they supposed to be comprised of the "the most infectious" members of society ??
why then, wouldn't they be required to submit to this policy, first ?

with that, i'm out ... i know my choice and no other is gonna make it for me.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Artistic
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Show me ONE study that shows a flu show decreased the spread of the dreaded flu ...

just one



Oh, for crying out loud.

20.^ Hoen AG, Buckeridge DL, Charland KM, Mandl KD, Quach C, Brownstein JS (September 2011). "Effect of xpanded US recommendations for seasonal influenza vaccination: comparison of two pediatric emergency departments in the United States and Canada". CMAJ 183 (13): E1025–32. doi:10.1503/cmaj.110241. PMC 3176865. PMID 21930745. //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3176865/.
21.^ Nicholas Bakalar (September 19, 2011). "Prevention: Flu Shots' Benefits Seen in Hospital Study". The New York Times. www.nytimes.com...
22.^ Katayose M, Hosoya M, Haneda T, et al. (February 2011). "The effectiveness of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in children over six consecutive influenza seasons". Vaccine 29 (9): 1844–9

b Jefferson T, Rivetti D, Rivetti A, Rudin M, Di Pietrantonj C, Demicheli V (2005). "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in elderly people: a systematic review". Lancet 366 (9492): 1165–74. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67339-4. PMID 16198765.
50.^ Nichol, K.L.; Nordin, J.D.; Nelson, D.B.; Mullooly, J.D.; Hak, E. (2007). "Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in the community-dwelling elderly". The New England Journal of Medicine 357 (14): 1373–1381. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa070844. PMID 17914038.
51.^ Vu, T.; Farish, S.; Jenkins, M.; Kelly, H. (2002). "A meta-analysis of effectiveness of influenza vaccine in persons aged 65 years and over living in the community". Vaccine 20 (13–14): 1831–1836. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00041-5. PMID 11906772.
52.^ Nordin, J.; Mullooly, J.; Poblete, S.; Strikas, R.; Petrucci, R.; Wei, F.; Rush, B; Safirstein, B et al. (2001). "Influenza vaccine effectiveness in preventing hospitalizations and deaths in persons 65 years or older in Minnesota, New York, and Oregon: Data from 3 health plans". The Journal of Infectious Diseases 184 (6): 665–670. doi:10.1086/323085. PMID 11517426.
53.^ Simonsen L, Viboud C, Taylor RJ, Miller MA, Jackson L (October 2009). "Influenza vaccination and mortality benefits: new insights, new opportunities". Vaccine 27 (45): 6300–4. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.07.008. PMID 19840664.
54.^ a b Osterholm, MT; Kelley, NS; Sommer, A; Belongia, EA (2012). "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis". The Lancet Infectious Diseases 12 (1): 36–44. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70295-X. PMID 22032844. Also discussed in "Efficacy and Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis". journalistsresource.org... JournalistsResource.org, retrieved February 2, 2012


And that is a fraction of the studies, from reputable SCIENTIFIC journals with proper statistical analysis and peer review in a half-minute google search.
edit on 27-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



Your first link didn't work.

Your second link was just just someones review and not an actual study.

Which study actually convinced you your lucky rabbit's foot actually works and will have no negative effects acute or chronic.

How much mercury have you had injected into your system in your lifetime? Aluminum? Formaldahyde? Surfactants? How many of these metals have you excreted or retained? Know of some good studies done on Thimerosal that provide rates of elimination? Are you current on your MSDS reading?

Quality data PROVING safety and efficacy for flu shots over time is EXTREMELY lacking. If people want to inject this trash into their bodies hoping it is going to make them 'healthier" I say go for it, do us all a favor, but don't try and force or coherce us with this snake oil.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join