TriHealth fires 150 employees for not getting flu shots

reply to post by NavyDoc

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

well sure, as soon as someone does the story/study on those who took the vaccine under duress and against their will, simply because they prefer to be continually employed.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
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

What do you mean? I posted a study that was a multi-centered, large (over a 1000 patients), where mortality dropped significantly. See, this is worthless, because you are just going to play the "no it isn't" game. I've put up what I said I would. I put up the literature: peer reviewed and in respected journals and you cannot even contradict them and are playing the old ":it's a consipracy" and "manipulated data" canard as suspected.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

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

well sure, as soon as someone does the story/study on those who took the vaccine under duress and against their will, simply because they prefer to be continually employed.

Well, let's see it then.

reply to post by NavyDoc


NavyDoc

I suggest you read what the CDC has to say about vaccination studies

www.cdc.gov...

BTW - presuming that 100 % vaccinations will result in further decrease in mortality rates is a hypothesis. Since the vaccine is itself less that 100 % effective, its a hypothesis that needs to be tested and proved by studies. Real scientists make no such presumptions

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by NavyDoc


ummmm, a 12yr old study, this is your foundation ??
well ok then ... i guess we'll just go with your seiously out-dated information as current factual anaysis

tis a shame you cannot locate any CURRENT studies to support this nonsense.

Originally posted by Honor93
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.

Trying to keep it simple for you since you obviouysly lack the basic understanding.

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 ?

Do you even understand what makes one "most infectious", whatever the hell that means? C'mon, you haven't a clue.

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

Nor should they. Better people that you wil be happy to take care of you when your ignorance hurts you.

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

See? You prove my point for me...that you do not understand how disease, infection, or immunolgy works.

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.

Your surely not equating the act of washing ones hands with being coherced into injecting mercury. aluminum, surfactants, formaldahyde, unkown foreign proteins, "trade secrets", into ones body are you? I hope not.

Seriously there are much much much better ways to stay healthy and protected from viruses But obviously they don't stand to make billions for their creators. The vaccine industry would love to push this snake oil (and more) into every human body they can, the time to fight this in now before they get their hooks in so deep nobody will eventually have the liberty of choice and control over their own bodies, it gets closer and closer every day.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

NavyDoc

I suggest you read what the CDC has to say about vaccination studies

www.cdc.gov...

BTW - presuming that 100 % vaccinations will result in further decrease in mortality rates is a hypothesis. Since the vaccine is itself less that 100 % effective, its a hypothesis that needs to be tested and proved by studies. Real scientists make no such presumptions

Tired of Control Freaks

And yet, from the same CDC page you posted:

Adults 65 years or older in long-term care facilities
All residents of long-term care facilities s (e.g., nursing homes) should receive annual influenza vaccination, as outbreaks of influenza can be explosive and result in substantial morbidity and mortality among residents of such facilities. There is evidence that vaccination prevents respiratory illnesses during periods of influenza circulation for elderly nursing home residents. For example, one study conducted during the 1991-1992 influenza season found that vaccination was associated with a 34% reduction in total respiratory illnesses and a 55% reduction in pneumonia during the two-week peak of influenza activity (Monto, 2001). In addition, one study conducted in UK nursing homes found that vaccinating health care workers decreased deaths during periods of influenza activity during one season with substantial influenza circulation, but not during the next year, when influenza activity was low throughout the winter (Hayward, 2006).

If you will only accept a treatment that is 100% effective and 100% safe, you will accept no treatments.

Is further study warrented? Heck yeah--that is what science is about. Does the major proportion of scientific study to date give evidence that MHCW vaccination reduces morbidity and mortality? Also yes.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.

which of these is NOT poison to the bloodstream/body ... thimerasol, formeldyhyde. aluminum, MSG or latex ??
all of the above are ingredients in said vax. (dependant on the manufacturer)
www.cdc.gov...

yes, nonsensical dismissal is very ... juvenile indeed.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

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

well sure, as soon as someone does the story/study on those who took the vaccine under duress and against their will, simply because they prefer to be continually employed.

Well, let's see it then.

gladly, where's your byline ?
i know i haven't submitted such a study, i presume you must have, right ?

There really needs to be a very very large class action lawsuit against anyone attempting to force these poisons on those who choose to stay healthy by taking car of their health rather than injecting toxins. I have a real suspicion if these drug pushers get their way and get their hooks into "obamacare' people are going to find it virtually impossible to opt out of 'forced injections'.

reply to post by NavyDoc


NavyDoc

Here is a quote from your post

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



This is the Potter study you referred to. The abstract itself says that the only people who were vacinated were HOSPITAL STAFF

What are you talking about when you say the study you referred me to were patient studies?????????

Tired of control Freaks

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

ummmm, a 12yr old study, this is your foundation ??
well ok then ... i guess we'll just go with your seiously out-dated information as current factual anaysis

tis a shame you cannot locate any CURRENT studies to support this nonsense.

See, now you are just getting laughable and it is getting on the verge of being really, really sad.

Want some more?
2010 do? Jackson LA, Gaglani MJ, Keyserling HL, Balser J, Bouveret N, Fries L, Treanor JJ. Safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of an inactivated influenza vaccine in healthy adults: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial over two influenza seasons. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:71. PDF Link Large group (almost 4k, 44 centers, seropositive evaluation, placebo controlled.)

2006?
Vaccine. 2006 Jul 7;24(27-28):5609-14. Epub 2006 May 6.
Decreasing invasive pneumococcal disease in the elderly: a state-level analysis.
McBean AM, Jung K, Hebert PL.
SourceDivision of Health Services Research and Policy, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, MMC 97 A369 Mayo Memorial Building, 420 Delaware St., S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. [email protected]

Abstract
Evidence has accumulated supporting the relationship between the use of 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) in children and a decline in invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) in the elderly. We conducted a state-level analysis of vaccination coverage rates among children 19-35 months of age and IPD hospitalization rates among elderly Medicare beneficiaries. Simple correlations were suggestive of a negative relationship. Multivariate analysis using a state fixed-effect model which helped control for the time invariant factors at the state level also indicated a negative relationship, and it was statistically significant, p = 0.035.

2000?
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: 93-97

2008?
A total of 1952 subjects were enrolled and received study vaccines in the fall of 2007. Influenza activity occurred from January through April 2008, with the circulation of influenza types A (H3N2) (about 90%) and B (about 9%). Absolute efficacy against both types of influenza, as measured by isolating the virus in culture, identifying it on real-time polymerase-chain-reaction assay, or both, was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46 to 81) for the inactivated vaccine and 36% (95% CI, 0 to 59) for the live attenuated vaccine. In terms of relative efficacy, there was a 50% (95% CI, 20 to 69) reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza among subjects who received inactivated vaccine as compared with those given live attenuated vaccine. The absolute efficacy against the influenza A virus was 72% (95% CI, 49 to 84) for the inactivated vaccine and 29% (95% CI, -14 to 55) for the live attenuated vaccine, with a relative efficacy of 60% (95% CI, 33 to 77) for the inactivated vaccine.”

2004? (notice the smaple size in this one, 66K people)
Inactivated parenteral vaccines were 30% effective (95% CI 17% to 41%) against influenza-like illness, and 80% (95% CI 56% to 91%) efficacious against influenza when the vaccine matched the circulating strain and circulation was high, but decreased to 50% (95% CI 27% to 65%) when it did not. Excluding the studies of the 1968 to 1969 pandemic, effectiveness was 15% (95% CI 9% to 22%) and efficacy was 73% (95% CI 53% to 84%). Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work, but there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local tenderness and soreness and erythema. Spray vaccines had more modest performance. Monovalent whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE 93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%) against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

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

well sure, as soon as someone does the story/study on those who took the vaccine under duress and against their will, simply because they prefer to be continually employed.

Well, let's see it then.

gladly, where's your byline ?
i know i haven't submitted such a study, i presume you must have, right ?

I don't think the event exists, you do, therefore the onus of proof is on you, bucko.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

NavyDoc

Here is a quote from your post

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



This is the Potter study you referred to. The abstract itself says that the only people who were vacinated were HOSPITAL STAFF

What are you talking about when you say the study you referred me to were patient studies?????????

Tired of control Freaks

What do you mean? The whole point was a discussion of the efficacy of inoculating staff in preventing spead of disease and ensuing morbidity and mortality in their patients. That is the whole issue surrounding this thread.

From Potter:

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).

"HCW" refers to Health Care Worker.

Originally posted by Honor93which of these is NOT poison to the bloodstream/body ... thimerasol, formeldyhyde. aluminum, MSG or latex ??

It's a cliche, but it's worth repeating here: The dose makes the poison. That is, if the dose is insufficient to cause harm, it's not a poison. So unless someone finds evidence that these compounds, in the amounts present in vaccines, are causing harm, none of them are poisons.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

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

well sure, as soon as someone does the story/study on those who took the vaccine under duress and against their will, simply because they prefer to be continually employed.

Well, let's see it then.

gladly, where's your byline ?
i know i haven't submitted such a study, i presume you must have, right ?

I don't think the event exists, you do, therefore the onus of proof is on you, bucko.

no bucko, you brought it up ... where's your evidence ??

i already knew such a study doesn't exist ... shame on you for demanding it.
you want one, produce one.

reply to post by NavyDoc

That is the whole issue surrounding this thread.

acutally, it's not.
this thread is about the unlawful requirement being demanded in order to practice in a given industry ... ie... medicine.

this thread has nothing to do with efficacy of the supposed vaccine.
perhaps you should read the OP again

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by Honor93which of these is NOT poison to the bloodstream/body ... thimerasol, formeldyhyde. aluminum, MSG or latex ??

It's a cliche, but it's worth repeating here: The dose makes the poison. That is, if the dose is insufficient to cause harm, it's not a poison. So unless someone finds evidence that these compounds, in the amounts present in vaccines, are causing harm, none of them are poisons.

since the mercury compound in most vaccines has a compounding effect toward toxicity, this argument fails on all levels of reason.
got a better one ?

reply to post by NavyDoc


NavyDoc

We are speaking at cross-purposes here.

What I am about to say has NOTHING to do with conspiracy theories. It has to do with the proper interpretation of medical studies. It is the mathematical science of using probability and statistics to draw conclusions from observational studies.

This is a link to George Mason University

www.stats.org...

two (better yet, three or four) is the magic number
It is a matter of opinion as to how much of an increase in risk “means” that this risk is “real”. There are many subtle processes that go into making a statistical study, and many different forms of bias that can affect the results of even the best researchers. The first measure of whether a study has results you should care about is whether it is “statistically significant”.

In the Potter study - he quotes a negative relative risk to patients of 0.58 (although where he got that data, I don't know). The proper interpretation of this decrease in relative risk is that the decrease is more likely due to chance or some subtle bias in the study methodology

Now pack on 200 studies - all of them showing a decrease in relative risk of less than 2.0 and all you are really saying is that there are a bunch of scientists and all of them are unable to establish that vaccinating staff protects patients.

Saying the same thing 200 times, still doesn't make it true!

Find a study, with a reasonable methodology that doesn't fail to address factors that may create an obvious bias (like failing to determine that the patient was ill with the flu before they died or that parents may be failing to bring kids with the flu to ER due to money issues) with a decrease of relative risk of at least 2.0 and you might have something reasonable!

Please please - stop and view this video

cagecanada.blogspot.ca...

At least then we can have a reasonable discussion.

Tired of Control Freak