TriHealth fires 150 employees for not getting flu shots

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

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.

www.livescience.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

In addition: the livescience article you posted did not say anything of the sort. JAMA put the number of studies that were deficient at 1/3, not 90%.

Absolutely disgusting!
Nothing else is necessary to say. Take heavy metal metal injection or get lost.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by NavyDoc


this sounds like the same theory applied to US elections ...

Fraud and errors do not necessarily invalidate the process itself

reply to post by NavyDoc


Some say 30 %, some say 70 %, some say 80 %

Here are some links - do your own googling!

When medical studies are found to be 30 % outright FRAUDULANT and another percentage are found to be BIASED....how can you trust ANY of them?

What is the magic number for you NavyDoc? The percentage that will convince you that medical research is unreliable...is it 1/4, 1/3, 1/5...what?

I have tried to show you have to do at least a preliminary screen where bias and fraud can be spotted. The first study showing that there was 5/100 less patient deaths when HCW were vaccinated there. Except they never examined the age of the patients (risk of dying of flu rises to 5 % when the patient is over 80 but is about 1.5 percent when the patient is 70), they assigned a nurse to determine if the patient had the flu but failed to do anything to confirm, if in fact the patient had the flu at all

Yet in your mind - with no thought whatsoever - you decided it was a good study???

The Potter study failed to reach a difference in relative risk that was CLINICALLY significant (the point at which people should sit up and take notice) or just statistically significant (a blip in the sample, a fault of the mathematics perhaps).

Different people say different things about the magnitude of the fraud but the fact is - nobody can deny its happening. (except you).

healthfreedoms.org...

www.energeticforum.com...

www.skepdic.com...

ourhealthcaresucks.com...

www.overcomingbias.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
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.

I have two observations:

a) there is apparent progress in treating a variety of conditions, new surgery techniques and what not. In view of this, I'm sorry to say your statement is incorrect, even ridiculous. If studies didn't work, the medicine now would be at the same level it was in the Middle Ages. It's not.

b) I know someone who does clinical studies for novel pharmaceuticals. They seem to be doing their homework quite diligently. They would seriously be in trouble if they missed in 90% cases. Not that it never happens, but these are smart, motivated and intelligent people

c) I know someone who does document review for pharma litigation. Again, the amount of documentation is impressive and a lot of effort goes into the studies. I don't believe for a second it's 90% fake. That's just silly.

d) I know people whose medical condition saw dramatic improvements once the regimen of the drugs they were taking was adjusted, again based on studies.

Facts are a stubborn little thing.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Some say 30 %, some say 70 %, some say 80 %

Here are some links - do your own googling!

When medical studies are found to be 30 % outright FRAUDULANT and another percentage are found to be BIASED....how can you trust ANY of them?

What is the magic number for you NavyDoc? The percentage that will convince you that medical research is unreliable...is it 1/4, 1/3, 1/5...what?

I have tried to show you have to do at least a preliminary screen where bias and fraud can be spotted. The first study showing that there was 5/100 less patient deaths when HCW were vaccinated there. Except they never examined the age of the patients (risk of dying of flu rises to 5 % when the patient is over 80 but is about 1.5 percent when the patient is 70), they assigned a nurse to determine if the patient had the flu but failed to do anything to confirm, if in fact the patient had the flu at all

Yet in your mind - with no thought whatsoever - you decided it was a good study???

The Potter study failed to reach a difference in relative risk that was CLINICALLY significant (the point at which people should sit up and take notice) or just statistically significant (a blip in the sample, a fault of the mathematics perhaps).

Different people say different things about the magnitude of the fraud but the fact is - nobody can deny its happening. (except you).

healthfreedoms.org...

www.energeticforum.com...

www.skepdic.com...

ourhealthcaresucks.com...

www.overcomingbias.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

"Some say" That's not really any evidence that the system is bogus. As for your links: "our healthcare sucks" "skepdic" "healthfreedoms" do you really think that they are going to have a rational discussion of the situation?

Are their errors in academia? Sure. Do some researchers cheat to get credit? Sure. This happens throughout the academic world.

However, to point out a few problems and then declare teh entire medical system null and void is downright silly. What error rate will make a system acceptable? Nothing is 100%. That is impossible. The trouble is with binary thinking...you cannot ferret out the nuances or gradiations. Your understanding of the literature comes from a video from a guy justifying his dietary decisions and medical conspiracy websites. I can't help you understand if you already have a firm belief that everyone is corrupt and conspiring against you.

Since you think scienctific study is bogus, how do you propose to determine the efficacy of treatments?

Just looking at the site you posted, "Our healthcare sucks" I see dishonesty in their presentation. They claim that retractions are skyrocketing and post a like to a Journal of medical ethics article. When you look at this article, you see this little nugget:

Results Medline retractions have increased sharply since 1980 and currently represent 0.02% of included articles.

Retractions have increased twofold (OMG EVERYBODY IS CHEATING!) but all retractions amount to 0.02% of all papers.The dishonest website points out the comparable increase of retractions, neglecting to mention the tiny portion of the literature that is retracted, and then claims that the system and research as a whole is fraudulent! You talk about dishonesty yet you point to this deceptive, dishonest, fearmongering website as proof?

And of course, the hysterical reason that is given at the bottom of the page is the usual, over-used "evil corporations being all corporationy" meme. And you complain about bias.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Buddasystem

And of course you are correct or are you?

We are afterall talking about two different types of "science". One is hard science. where researchers get into the laboratories to test theories. The other epidimiology.

I was, of course, referring to epidimiology. The soft science - the malleable science - the science of observations and trying to connect one thing with another.

Epidimiology is only to be used to highlight areas to direct hard scientific research. Could there be an association between flu shots and decreased incidents of flu. Epidimiology does the soft science and if a difference of relative risk of greater than 2.0 is reached, research scientists try to determine how and why it works and to what degree it works.

Epidimiology was never supposed to be used to obtain final answers and it can never do so. but now epidimiology is being used to make policies and laws that are imposed on people so that they have no choice.

That is a problem.

Tired of Control Freaks

I observe this:

when something is challenging, or hard to figure out, some people choose to bypass the issue by declaring that "the system is fraud". I've seen it in a few different kind of threads:

a) on physics, where some claim that some nefarious authority lies to us about how nature really works, and uses "suppression" to hide sources of free and unlimited energy from the rest of us
b) on ancient world, since archeologists apparently are hiding the real secrets for themselves, e.g. that Egyptians had some super advanced technology used in building various structures (which technology mysteriously vanished, of course).
c) health issues (like this thread), where admittedly difficult subject that includes advances statistics and chemistry etc is short-circuited by declaring that all of contemporary science is a lie.

That's just human condition, I suppose. I find it sad, but that's what ATS looks like... Objectively.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Navydoc

Retractions are only imposed on those scientists who got CAUGHT!

Look - I don't know what the number of cheats, frauds, liars and bias studies. I dont think anyone does. But just because "someone did a study" is no reason to park your brain on a bench!

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Navydoc

Retractions are only imposed on those scientists who got CAUGHT!

Look - I don't know what the number of cheats, frauds, liars and bias studies. I dont think anyone does. But just because "someone did a study" is no reason to park your brain on a bench!

Tired of Control Freaks

That is not true. From the article referenced by the website you posted:

Retractions were issued by authors (63%), editors (21%), journals (6%), publishers (2%) and institutions (1%). Reasons for retraction included honest error or non-replicable findings (40%), research misconduct (28%), redundant publication (17%) and unstated/unclear (5%).

63% of papers were retracted by their own authors.
Misconduct only accounted for 28%.

So you say that 28% of 0.02% means that the entire system is corrupt and you are accusing me of not coming to realistic conclusions? How can anyone even extrapolate 28% of 0.02% to anything near a majority with the lame "'cause everybody else didn't get caught" excuse? That is beyond a logical leap and is really only based on assumptions and a preconcieved belief that the system is corrupt, rather than fact. You talk about rationality, but that is an extremely irrational position.

No one is parking their brain on the bench because someone did a study. Before a therapy becomes standard of care there are many studies, evaluations, and investigations. This is what science is about. Sometimes new information refutes old information. Again, this is what science is about. The problem is when people are convinced that everything is some sort of conspiracy and disregard any and all science because "it is all a plot" it goes from evidence based skepticism to irrational bias.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Someone who claims that a treatment reduced deaths by 5/100 but fails to confirm whether or not anybody had the flu is hardly unbiased "science"

Another study that fails to meet standards for clinical significance

I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. I am talking about statistics and mathematics and what proper mathematical methodoly is.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Someone who claims that a treatment reduced deaths by 5/100 but fails to confirm whether or not anybody had the flu is hardly unbiased "science"

Another study that fails to meet standards for clinical significance

I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. I am talking about statistics and mathematics and what proper mathematical methodoly is.

Tired of Control Freaks

NO you don't. Look at the drivel you posted. 28% of 0.02 % and you claim that this indicated that the whole system--90% you said--was false. That is the direct opposite of what "proper mathematical methodology" is.

You say you are not driven by conspiracy tin foil, but then you reference several conspiracy (and blatently deceptive) websites to support your position.

I will never take a flu jab. I never have. I also never get the flu. If I lost my job because of my feelings on the subject, I would be outraged and want to sue. This is wrong wrong wrong...and I hope those people who did lose their jobs sue.

Many posts back, Navy Doc admitted he did not think forcing the jabs was acceptable, the rest of this has been an off topic pissing match about vaccines and studies.

Nothing could be more antithetical to the very idea of individual freedom than to have governments telling us that we must put some substance in our bodies. Without ownership of our body and the attendant right to refuse this or that medicine as we see fit, we are nothing more than slaves of the state. This is a principle that has been long understood. But the reasons against mandating medical treatments rest on practicalities as much as ideal. The plain fact is that even if we can trust that governments only ever work in the interest of the people and not the medical-industrial lobby that pumps billions of dollars a year into Washington, D.C., they are still prone to error and thus their medical judgements should never be mandated on the public.

www.corbettreport.com...

reply to post by Pilot


Sorry dude, but that's mostly a red herring that you posted. Thankfully, but it's not the "Government" who is "forcing" us to be "stabbed" at this point, at least not yet and I don't see it happening in foreseeable future. Look, an employer elected to have a policy about vaccination. It's not really an edict of the President or some law passed by the Congress. Chill. I had to pee in a cup for drug testing when I was applying to a job once. I passed.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Because you don't see it in the foreseeable future?? Ok. I guess you didn't read the link. Never mind.

Now the fight against government-mandated vaccines is coming to a head in California, where a newly-introduced bill, AB 2109, would force parents to go to their doctor to get a personal belief exemption to prevent their children from being vaccinated.

I'm trying to return to the topic of the thread, dude.

Back to the topic of having the freedom to reject a flu shot, I say it should not be mandatory.

Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Because you don't see it in the foreseeable future?? Ok. I guess you didn't read the link. Never mind.

Now the fight against government-mandated vaccines is coming to a head in California, where a newly-introduced bill, AB 2109, would force parents to go to their doctor to get a personal belief exemption to prevent their children from being vaccinated.

I'm trying to return to the topic of the thread, dude.

OK, so you can get a writ from you doctor and so elect to not have vaccination. You are not forced to have vaccination then, and your point is moot.

Originally posted by InTheLight
Back to the topic of having the freedom to reject a flu shot, I say it should not be mandatory.

Absolutely, the War on Liberty and on personal choice is by far a greater threat to the human condition than catching the flu. The collectivists will never rest from trying to force their ideas and methods for what the perceive as the 'common good' onto others, no matter how misguided, we see that smokescreen used not just in health but more in every area of society. I am happy to see so many people, more every day, fighting back against these fascist types who somehow feel they need to force or coherce everyone else into what they choose, that they alone know what choices others should make and how others should live their lives. I can easily see how if any form of 'obamacare' ever was forced on Americans, even the ability to choose control over one's own body would rapidly be lost by decree.

Originally posted by Tecumte

Originally posted by InTheLight
Back to the topic of having the freedom to reject a flu shot, I say it should not be mandatory.

Absolutely, the War on Liberty and on personal choice is by far a greater threat to the human condition than catching the flu. The collectivists will never rest from trying to force their ideas and methods for what the perceive as the 'common good' onto others, no matter how misguided, we see that smokescreen used not just in health but more in every area of society. I am happy to see so many people, more every day, fighting back against these fascist types

So, the restaurant owner who does strictly require that employees wash their hands after going to the bathroom is a vile Fascist?

I don't like washing hands. I want my liberty back! I don't care if you get some of my poop in your sandwich. I'm a free person, dammit! I'm also very smart!

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Tecumte

Originally posted by InTheLight
Back to the topic of having the freedom to reject a flu shot, I say it should not be mandatory.

Absolutely, the War on Liberty and on personal choice is by far a greater threat to the human condition than catching the flu. The collectivists will never rest from trying to force their ideas and methods for what the perceive as the 'common good' onto others, no matter how misguided, we see that smokescreen used not just in health but more in every area of society. I am happy to see so many people, more every day, fighting back against these fascist types

So, the restaurant owner who does strictly require that employees wash their hands after going to the bathroom is a vile Fascist?

I don't like washing hands. I want my liberty back! I don't care if you get some of my poop in your sandwich. I'm a free person, dammit! I'm also very smart!

Washing hands is not invasive. An injection is.
Washing hands is well proven to prevent colds and the flu. Vaccines are not.
Washing hands is nearly free, just a penny's worth of water and soap.
Vaccines enrich big pharma by millions each year.
Noboy ever got Guillain-Barre syndrome from washing hands. They do from vaccines.