TriHealth fires 150 employees for not getting flu shots

Originally posted by Honor93

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.

Ah, you said it. Compounding effect. There is no way a dose can make any difference when you look at the numbers. Obviously nobody ever thought of injecting other with mercury on daily bases, so what's your point?

If you have valid argument against the studies conducted on

a) efficacy of vaccines
b) toxicity of compounds used in manufacture of same
c) what's statistically expected of a+b

Feel free to write a paper and influence the public opinion. So far I see that people have done studies, and all you have done is hand waving and woo-woo fear mongering. By the way people are harmed on annual basis by toxins found in common beef. Just saying.

Originally posted by Honor93

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.

Oh, man. YOU brought it up, I was just pointing out that it didn't exist. Here, let me quote you:

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.

You are wailing and moaning about people being forced to take poison against their will, I said I'd like to see the proof.

Rationalilty. You have lost it.

Originally posted by Honor93
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

Actually it does. From the beginning foolish people have been going on about being forced to take deadly poisons that don't work anyway. Part of disspelling the hysteria is pointing out that they are neither deadly nor ineffective. Thanks for trying, please go back to logic 101.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
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

Well, you have done what I said you would at the very beginning of our interaction, as predicted, so it really is a waste of both our time, isn't it? I've been doing what you have asked all along, please come back with your own literature that proves the opposite point so I can play the same game back.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Please please - stop and view this video

cagecanada.blogspot.ca...

OK, I "stopped" and watched the video. What do we see there? A person who sticks with a low-carb diet. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, but its effects on health are open to dispute just like the items he discusses in his lecture, in terms of observational, clinical and all sorts of studies. Statistics and all. So I just don't see much consistency between what he preaches (be critical of absolutist statements) and what he practices (i.e. "red meat is good for you").

And since low-carb diets work through the process of ketosis, they result in elevated levels of acetone in the body, to the extent that some can smell it. Some people in this thread obsess about miniscule amounts of formaldehyde found in vaccines, now how about going around reeking of acetone? What's your pick?

reply to post by buddhasystem

Ah, you said it. Compounding effect. There is no way a dose can make any difference when you look at the numbers. Obviously nobody ever thought of injecting other with mercury on daily bases, so what's your point?

If you have valid argument against the studies conducted on

a) efficacy of vaccines
b) toxicity of compounds used in manufacture of same
c) what's statistically expected of a+b

Feel free to write a paper and influence the public opinion. So far I see that people have done studies, and all you have done is hand waving and woo-woo fear mongering. By the way people are harmed on annual basis by toxins found in common beef. Just saying.

well of course i said it.
mercury in the bloodstream is a poison, always has been, always will be.
regardless the minimal amount that may be delivered in a vax (provided it's administered correctly - in a busy establishment or pharmacy, good luck) you are still receiving a poison (and voluntarily at that )

for anyone to say differently is a lie.
hmmm, had an adult Oscar that bit an internal thermometer in half and was dead within 12 hrs ... nope, no danger there at all

haven't seen any valid studies in this thread, are you offering any ?

and since my opinion doesn't stand alone, why pick at me in particular ?
when a valid study is presented, i would be happy to consider its merit.
until then, it is what it is ... poison.

ppl are harmed everyday by their own ignorance, what makes this any different ?

reply to post by NavyDoc

no, no ... "Here, let me quote you"

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

perhaps you meant this rhetorically, but i answered it ... you're inability to follow the conversation is not my problem.

blah, blah, blah ... personal attack ... is that really all you have to offer ?

logic 101 ?? you actually had a class for that ??
not surprising.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

no, no ... "Here, let me quote you"

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

perhaps you meant this rhetorically, but i answered it ... you're inability to follow the conversation is not my problem.

blah, blah, blah ... personal attack ... is that really all you have to offer ?

logic 101 ??

you actually had a class for that ??

not surprising.

That is exactly right. "Please show me where anyone had anything placed in their bloodstream without their approval." You can't show me because it didn't happen. No one in this case was held down and forced to ahve anything introduced into their bodies. Those who did not want it, did not get it. Show me otherwise.

Logic 101 was sarcasm because obviously you don't have it.

reply to post by NavyDoc

That is exactly right. "Please show me where anyone had anything placed in their bloodstream without their approval." You can't show me because it didn't happen.

it happens every dang day ... what proof do you need ?

No one in this case was held down and forced to ahve anything introduced into their bodies.

to my knowledge, this has never been done to free persons in any country, what's your point ?

Those who did not want it, did not get it. Show me otherwise.

no, those who did not want or get it are now unemployed. that is not freedom by any stretch of the imagination.

there is no accessible report of the % of employees who got the vax against their better judgement. until you have proof to dismiss the likelihood, it is still relative.

forced consent, via coercion, extortion or duress is equal to legitimate rape.
oh, lemme guess, you believe legitimate rape is possible too, right ?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

That is exactly right. "Please show me where anyone had anything placed in their bloodstream without their approval." You can't show me because it didn't happen.

it happens every dang day ... what proof do you need ?

No one in this case was held down and forced to ahve anything introduced into their bodies.

to my knowledge, this has never been done to free persons in any country, what's your point ?

Those who did not want it, did not get it. Show me otherwise.

no, those who did not want or get it are now unemployed. that is not freedom by any stretch of the imagination.

there is no accessible report of the % of employees who got the vax against their better judgement. until you have proof to dismiss the likelihood, it is still relative.

forced consent, via coercion, extortion or duress is equal to legitimate rape.
oh, lemme guess, you believe legitimate rape is possible too, right ?

So you don't have any proof at all, you just have your belief system and evidence is not required as long as you feel it's true.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Buddasystem

You have completely, absolutely misinterpreted my post.

This video is NOT about diets or smoking. It is about HOW TO INTERPRET MEDICAL STUDIES!!!!!!

I also posted link from George Mason University that tells you that a result of less than 2.0 is a strong indicator the the relative risk is NOT REAL and merely an artifact of manipulating data using statistical analysis and perhaps a subtle bias in the study.

There is very very little indication that when a study results in a relative risk ratio of less than 2.0 that the result is REAL. Its is theoretical only.

And if you produce 100 or 200 or 1000 studies that all result in a relative risk of less than 2.0 then all that you have really done is prove that there is NO CORRELATION.

In short - of the studies that NavyDoc as pointed out to me - there is no correlation between the rate of vaccination of the staff and any decrease in the incidence of flu in their patients.

It doesn't matter if the subject of the study is diet, smoking, drinking, vacinations, exercise, eating red meat, being a vegetarian, being white, black, green or blue.

A study that shows NO CORRELATION between point A and point B (ie has a relative risk where the difference between the study group and the control group is less than 2.0) merely confirms that there is no connection between those two things. Repeat the same study a 1000 different ways and it still means the same thing - there is NO CORRELATION

Tired of Control Freaks
Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by NavyDoc


OK NavyDoc

I absolutely give up here. If you can't understand that mathematics and statistics and proper way to interpret them is not a consipiracy theory but rather a discussion of scientific methodolgy - you go on with your bad self!

I am done!

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

OK NavyDoc

I absolutely give up here. If you can't understand that mathematics and statistics and proper way to interpret them is not a consipiracy theory but rather a discussion of scientific methodolgy - you go on with your bad self!

I am done!

Tired of Control Freaks

I can and I have. The fact that you focus on 2.0 as the be all and end all of a study indicated that you have a very superficial knowlege of how this works. Now, please post your evidence of refuation.

Originally posted by Honor93

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 ?

Your compounding effect is simply a restatement of the principle that dose makes the poison, but with the added assumption of significantly large doses being absorbed over time. Without evidence for this assumption, your conclusion is unwarranted.

Let's exercise a little critical thinking. You have narrowed your claim from "thimerasol, formeldyhyde, aluminum, MSG, [and] latex" to a "mercury compound ... present in most vaccines." That ought to make things easy. First, let's establish that your premise is correct. Is there a mercury compound present in most vaccines? Assuming you are correct that there is a mercury compound in most vaccines, which compound is it? You mentioned thimerosal earlier, so let's go with that. Does thimerosal have a "compounding effect toward toxicity," and if so, does it actually reach toxic levels?

That last question is important. You didn't actually claim thimerosal ever reaches toxic levels, only that it moves toward toxicity. That's a meaningless statement. Drink a glass of water. Now drink another. Your dihydrogen monoxide levels are now moving toward toxic levels (hyponatremia). Are you going to stop drinking water and give up the health benefits of hydration, just because too much water would be bad for you? Of course not, because you don't plan on ever drinking enough to cause harm to yourself. Every time you drink a glass of water, you are affirming that the dose makes the poison.

Here is some research to address your specific claims:

Thimerosal in Vaccines -- Most vaccines in the US do not contain thimerosal. No thimerosal-free vaccine contains any mercury, so we can rule out other mercury compounds, as well. I couldn't research all vaccines everywhere in the world, but given the US's role in producing many vaccines, I suspect it is representative. So "most vaccines" do not contain a "mercury compound."

Toxicokinetics of mercury after long-term repeated exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine. "The results indicate that mercury from thimerosal is not accumulated in blood in adults. This is in accordance with short half-lives and rapid metabolism of EtHg to inorganic mercury." Thimerosal does not "compound" over time.

Dose makes the poison. Most vaccines contain no thimerosal, and those that do contain only a very small dose, which is metabolized and excreted within a few weeks. There is no "compounding effect," and routine vaccination will not poison you with mercury.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

you call that critical thinking ??
more like propadanda daze but who knows, maybe you'll learn something.

critical thinkers realize ... a toxic substance is always a toxic substance.
(in this case, the very unknown ethyl-mercury)

only a fool believes a toxic substance can ever be less toxic.
any critical thinker understands that increasing the absorbtion/consumption of any toxic substance will lead to an abundance of said substance in the body (whether accumulated in the blood or tissues) -- [for those who don't know better, accumulated compounds in the tissues aren't always indicated via blood test].

some toxic substances can be removed/eliminated, others, not so much.
ethyl-mercury hasn't been studied enough to know one way or the other.
however, findings are concerning enough to demand removal.
what does that tell ya ?

since i never altered MY argument, carry on with your confused self.

toxic is toxic is toxic ... the greater the value, the greater the toxicity.
cumulative effects have been scientifically noted and acted upon, if you believe otherwise, so be it.

your research links are bunk. - fda

all vaccines labeled "thimerasol-free" have a level of thimerasol in them, however, it is less than a specific % permitting the marketable claim to be thimerasol-free

see any vaccine ingredient list for further details
www.tetrahedron.org...

now, unlike other posters, i'm not a big fan of posting studies because they are so very often, manipulated to project a desired outcome. however, if that's your thing ... read this one ... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
and from the Conclusions ...

Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed.

while even these results are inconclusive ... there is specific evidence indicating neurodevelopmental inefficiencies in conjunction with cumulative thimerasol exposure.

there are other studies avialable but again, that isn't the point or the topic of this thread.

Dose makes the poison

think so huh ?
ok, you keep believin' it.
just wondering if you've ever heard of spouses slow-poisoning each other ?
all of these can be administered in small amounts without producing obvious or immediate effect --> oleander, arsenic, strychnine and a host of others, however, a cumulative effect of any of them is deadly.

Most vaccines contain no thimerosal

wrong again. see the ingredient lists readily available.

the body's ability to metabolize thimerasol is highly questionable and seriously lacking sufficient study. however, cumulative effects of mercury are fatal ... your body, your risk, your choice.

should you wish to know more ... vran.org...

A 2007 statement on thimerosal by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) informs us that a considerable amount is known about methylmercury, the form of mercury found in fish but little is known about the ethylmercury from thimerosal. It admits that, compared to methylmercury, “By contrast, little is actually known about ethylmercury metabolism in humans, including whether it has the same potency as a neurotoxin, whether the blood concentration is ever significant and even whether it crosses the blood-brain barrier.
- snip -
Prior to 1994, DPT vaccines containing thimerosal were injected into children and many subsequently suffered neurological disabilities.

Originally posted by xxdaniel21
Wait a minute, won't the other employees be protected from the flu? or am i missing something?

I've tried to work that out for a few years now...

Why non-vaccinated people are a serious threat to vaccinated people...

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by xxdaniel21
Wait a minute, won't the other employees be protected from the flu? or am i missing something?

I've tried to work that out for a few years now...

Why non-vaccinated people are a serious threat to vaccinated people...

I think the issue is protecting the patient. In order to have an immunity from a vaccination, you must have an intact immune system...otherwise you cannot develope an immune response by being exposed to the antigen in the vaccine. Thus, those with compromised immune systems: the elderly, the ill, AIDs, cancer patients, and so forth cannot be protected (or cannot be protected as well) by a vaccine. One way to protect them is to reduce exposure and that is where the concept of vaccinating the health worker comes in.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
This video is NOT about diets or smoking. It is about HOW TO INTERPRET MEDICAL STUDIES!!!!!!

Yes. I didn't say otherwise. What I stated was that the presenter didn't exactly follow his own advice on medical studies.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Buddasystem

You are correct - his own bias is very very clear but the presentation was very interesting was it not?

It certainly explains how people can say that 80 - 90 % of medical "studies" are absolutely meaningless and we should pay absolutely no attention to them whatsoever.

Epidimiology is a useful tool when only one thing CAUSES a disease. But its an absolute joke when it comes to making connections for diseases that have multi-factoral causes. And it is far far too biased to be used in drug trials.

www.livescience.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Buddasystem

You are correct - his own bias is very very clear but the presentation was very interesting was it not?

It certainly explains how people can say that 80 - 90 % of medical "studies" are absolutely meaningless and we should pay absolutely no attention to them whatsoever.

Epidimiology is a useful tool when only one thing CAUSES a disease. But its an absolute joke when it comes to making connections for diseases that have multi-factoral causes. And it is far far too biased to be used in drug trials.

www.livescience.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

That leads to two questions: how does it make it biased in drug trials and what other method of establishing the efficacy of a drug do you propose?

Fraud and errors do not necessarily invalidate the process itself