TriHealth fires 150 employees for not getting flu shots

Originally posted by orgone4444

wahing hands is not intrusive. the act is not objectionable to anyone.

Actually, that's wrong. I do object to washing hands, because antibacterial soaps have carcinogens and endocrine disrupters. Although I do understand why employees are forced to wash their hands in certain professions, but why can't they use something harmless like, say, H2O2?

actually, you are exaggerating. you do not have a problem with the act of washing your hands.
you have a problem with the commercial soaps/disinfectants being used.
that is entirely different than the act itself.

if you think it appropriate and it is not currently commercially available, make it so.
that is one benefit of free markets and true capitalism.

Originally posted by Artistic
What thinking ; intelligent individuals need to ask themselves is;

> how far does this go? Will it lead to other "mandatory" things dependent on employment?

> Is this all realistic? In other words, do vaccines REALLY guard against illness/disease or is there some other agenda at work here?

This s**** is never going to stop and it IS going to get worse.

There's one reason why large groups of people should be vaccinated against diseases and that's the concept of herd immunity. Essentially, it's that if a large enough segment of the population is immunized, then there's not enough people for the virus to spread and mutate. Here, you can read up on it en.wikipedia.org...

I'm all for allowing people to object based on whatever grounds they want and not suffer any repercussions other than maybe getting sick, it's their bodies. However, I also think education about what people should be vaccinated, and advertisements that promote it should be performed, without giving the anti immunization crowd much airtime at all (though it should get enough that people know it's an option... maybe 5% of the airtime?) because when two sides both make a lot of noise for their viewpoint, the facts and truth don't matter. Populations naturally split close to 50/50. You can look at almost every election in the US for proof of this concept in action.

Originally posted by kozmo
Allow me to point out the REAL fallacy behind this. First of all, IF the flu shot works at all, all that it does is prevent one from succumbing to the effects of being infected by the flu. Antibodies would eliminate the infection before it can take hold and move through its intended cycle. However, it does NOT prevent one from becoming infected and carrying the infection to another and infecting them. Ergo, even vaccinated people can and do carry and transmit flu virus and other bacterial infections. Vaccines CANNOT prevent this. Ergo, the ENTIRE premise for requiring medical personnel to accept the flu shot is pure FICTION! It does NONE of the things the hospital claims.

What it DOES DO, however, is allow for a modicum of control over their employees and promotes subservience. Like freaking lemmings, mankind will likely jump to their own deaths without ever wondering "why"!!!!

This is incorrect. If you are carrying the flu at all (with the exception of on your skin), your cells have been infiltrated by the influenza virus and you are infected. You cannot be infected if your antibodies are successful from preventing the virus from entering your cells. A virus is a non-living entity which injects its DNA or RNA into a host cell, which then begins to build more viral particles until it lyses (explodes, essentially), releasing many copies of the virus to infect more cells. This is in contrast to bacteria, which can colonize asymptomatically without causing an infection. That is why patients with histories of MRSA or VRE are isolated from other patients: they may still be colonized by the bacteria, but not showing outward signs of infection. Viruses can remain dormant in cells (herpes only sheds once in a while), but there is still an infection regardless of symptoms. The flu shot does not just prevent the virus from causing symptoms, it prevents cells from becoming infected in the first place.

I am an RN, and my hospital encouraged us to get flu shots. I just took it and didn't argue. There were no repercussions for not getting one, but if there's a chance it could protect me or my patients I figured what the hell. A private company has the right to fire people for not getting them (although I think it's pretty awful of them to do so), and I respect anyone's wish to not get one. We are required to offer them to all patients during flu season, and if they don't want one I am quite fine with it.

you have a problem with the commercial soaps/disinfectants being used. that is entirely different than the act itself.

Thanks for the reminder; I also have a problem with hand-washing at all because just about every business you work in will use toxic tap water, containing fluoride, drug residues, and volatile organic compounds, just to name a few.

I'm all for allowing people to object based on whatever grounds they want and not suffer any repercussions other than maybe getting sick, it's their bodies. However, I also think education about what people should be vaccinated, and advertisements that promote it should be performed, without giving the anti immunization crowd much airtime at all (though it should get enough that people know it's an option... maybe 5% of the airtime?) because when two sides both make a lot of noise for their viewpoint, the facts and truth don't matter. Populations naturally split close to 50/50. You can look at almost every election in the US for proof of this concept in action.

Said as politefully as possible - I think you should look more into the actual pros vs cons of vaccination. A diligent researcher will quickly realize that vaccines cause many serious health issues while having minimal to no benefits.

Originally posted by orgone4444

I'm all for allowing people to object based on whatever grounds they want and not suffer any repercussions other than maybe getting sick, it's their bodies. However, I also think education about what people should be vaccinated, and advertisements that promote it should be performed, without giving the anti immunization crowd much airtime at all (though it should get enough that people know it's an option... maybe 5% of the airtime?) because when two sides both make a lot of noise for their viewpoint, the facts and truth don't matter. Populations naturally split close to 50/50. You can look at almost every election in the US for proof of this concept in action.

Said as politefully as possible - I think you should look more into the actual pros vs cons of vaccination. A diligent researcher will quickly realize that vaccines cause many serious health issues while having minimal to no benefits.

I have, and for every vaccination horror story there's 400 stories where exactly what was supposed to happen, happened, and that's a good thing because herd immunity must be maintained, otherwise a virus/disease mutates and the vaccination is no longer effective then everyone is vulnerable and far more bad things happen.

Does anyone know if a study or studies have been done to show that vaccination against the flu actually helps to NOT get it? and at what percentage??

Is there a study that exists?

This flu vaccination is a mystery that occurs every year now. We are harassed in the workplace, in grocery stores, in malls by someone holding a needle wearing a white gown asking for a moment of our time to "vaccinate against" this "dangerous" flu....

Frankly, I have probably had the Flu in some form or other several times throughout my life and I am still VERY HEALTHY and had no problems.

SO, what is it these people harass me to do every year??? THIS


BS gets real tiresome because I KNOW I can figure out there is something more to it.

I have never taken a shot and never will.

I am still alive and more healthy than many 20 year old s that I know of...


I think this flu shot business is just some kind of money making ;

ALWAYS follow the money.

Originally posted by Aazadan

Originally posted by NavyDoc
No it isn't and you miss the point. An employer has certain obligations, risks, liabilities, and operational constraints. They put out the policy that they thinks maximizes their efficiency and minimizes risk. If the employee and the employer cannot agree upon the program, they should part ways. This is what freedom of choice means. If one side is forced to comply to the will of the other, then one side is not free.

What if employers decide they don't want their employees to go drinking after work because it leads to bad decisions that may impact productivity in the future? How about employees having girlfriends/boyfriends/spouses because it can take attention away from work? Sometimes an employee is going to have productivity reduced because they're thinking about what their kid did. If you want to take things to their logical conclusion maximizing productivity from employees means they shouldn't have social contact with non employees, they shouldn't have recreation time, they shouldn't have significant others, they shouldn't have kids, and they should be on very strict diets.

It's all for the benefit of the employer, they deserve the right to dictate these things to their employees right?

Why not?

There are many jobs, like the military where you have to spend months and years away from your family--or jobs like offshore fishing, or mining, or being an astronaut, or long haul trucker. Family seperation is part of the job. If it is a problem, you are free not to take the job.

Don't like not drinking before you step into a cockpit? Don't be an airline pilot. Don't like be awakened in the middle of the night to put some drunk's face back together? Don't be a trauma surgeon. There are many jobs that require some sort of compromise and sacrifice by their very nature. They are not for everyone. Currently, you are not required to do any of them. If the requirements are too onerous for you, you are perfectly free to find easier forms of employment. However, notice that the easy jobs that require little effort, thought, and sacrifice are usually full, so you may have to wait for an opening.

Off topic I'm sure.was just turned down ...why can employers use your credit history to decide if you get the job ? I was just turned down for bad credit cause I have been out of work , and my car insurance just went up for the same reason .seems like when you get poor they do everything they can to keep you down ....who ever came up with than scam needs to end up in the same boat with a big hole in the bottom .

Originally posted by JHumm
Off topic I'm sure.was just turned down ...why can employers use your credit history to decide if you get the job ? I was just turned down for bad credit cause I have been out of work , and my car insurance just went up for the same reason .seems like when you get poor they do everything they can to keep you down ....who ever came up with than scam needs to end up in the same boat with a big hole in the bottom .

Slightly off topic reply: I dunno. Depends if the job is in dealing with money or moveable property, perhaps? Someone who cannot manage money on a personal level may not be the best person to handle money for their company or they are afraid that someone with severe financial problems might be a theft risk? I dunno, just spitballing here.

A bad credit rating or too much debt can keep you from getting a TS clearence in the military for example, because the vast majority of spies in our history were people who got stuck in financial difficulty. They consider it a security risk. Shrug.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Some employers now require job applicants to take a cotinin test prior to employment to ensure that they are non-smokers and don't use any kind of quit smoking aid that contains nicotene

What is wrong with companies not wanting to hire drug addicts?

reply to post by hellobruce


hellobruce

Before you start branding smokers as drug addicts, there is a couple of things you should know.

Prior to 198, the word addiction had a very specific medical meaning. It was based on 5 criteria. The substance had to be intoxicating (thus rendering the user unable to reason properly), it had to cause life-threatening symptoms if withdrawn suddenly (for example an alcoholic could experience dt's and die, it had to require greater and greater amounts to have the same effect and a couple of more criteria that I can't remember off-hand.

under this medical definition of the word addictive, there were only 4 or 5 substances that were considered addictive. These included morphine, heroin, alcohol, opiates and a couple of others,, I also can't remember off-hand

Smoking was considered to be habitual and not addictive under this definition. obviously, nicotene does not intoxicate, withdrawal is not life threatening and you don't require greater amounts to experience the same effect

Here is an article that discusses the criteria of addiction

www.statepress.com...

At the urging of anti-tobacco, the surgeon general changed this medical definition of addiction. But the desired change had to somehow include nicotene. In order to accomodate this demand, the surgeon general broadened the definition of addiction to include any behavior or substance that caused the body to produce endorphins. This generally means that anything that causes a human being to expience the sensation of pleasure could now be considered addictive.

this is a link to the relevant surgeon general's report

profiles.nlm.nih.gov...

Anti-tobacco was very interested in branding smoking as addictive because it changed the role of the smoker from being a person making a choice to being addict with no choice at the mercy of the evil tobacco companies. This laid the stage for suing the tobacco companies. Nobody was interested in suing average citizens for so-called increased health care because the average citizen does not have very deep pockets but the tobacco companies have very deep pockets indeed.

It is at this point that food became addictive, sex became addictive, chocolate became addictive, running became addictive, shopping became addictive, coffee became addictive, arguing became addictive

I submit to you Sir that when everything is addictive, then nothing is addictive and we are ALL drug addicts. My drug of choice is smoking. Yours may be chocolate or alcohol or coffee. So perhaps ALL of us are unemployable?

In any event, there is still much debate about the so-called "addictive" properties of nicotene. Nicotene itself is a drug that does not intoxicate and is very closely related to caffeine. It has many medicinal properties, such as promoting the growth of capillaries thus promoting good circulation and healing. When oxidized (burned), a portion of it is transformed into vitamin B12 (nicotenic acid otherwise known as niacin) Niacin is extremely important for proper brain function and in fact, is considered the reason why most mentally ill people smoke. It controls their symptoms of schizophrenia and depression and bipolar.

here is an article from a scientist who disagrees that nicotene is addictive

www.statepress.com...

Addicts conjures up the image of intoxicated people living in ally and unable to function usefully in society. You are implying Sir, by your comment that employers should not hire smokers because they are drug addicts.

Please do not be fooled by propaganda showing the smokers are less productive than non-smokers. I have read those studies and they are so incredibly biased toward a pre-determined conclusion that it is laughable.

Instead I urge you to examine history. It was smokers, who comprised almost 70 % of the total male population, who fought and won the second world war. It was smokers who returned home from that war, created the baby boomer generation and built all the infrastructure that supports our current society to this day.

(so much for smoking causing infertility).

If I were inclined to lie and twist statistics by the same means that anti-tobacco does, I would argue that there is a very strong corelations between smoking and productivity.

Tired of Control Freaks

hellobruce

This is a history of smoking during world war II

www.skylighters.org...

Remember, these vets were the ones who came home and built both Canada and the US economy, as well have raising the baby boomers!

So much for smoking not being pleasurable and for smokers not being productive!

Tired of Control freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
So much for smoking not being pleasurable and for smokers not being productive!

It may be "pleasurable" to smokers, (that is one reason there are drug addicts) but it is definetely not pleasurable for those around smokers.

As to not being productive, they have more time off sick they have longer breaks at work and cost more health wise.

It is pointless to try and argue with smokers and other addicts.

reply to post by hellobruce


hellobruce

This is two of the oldest statistical tricks of all.

1. Take a group of people (smokers) count up how much time they spend outside smoking. Once you know this amount of time - compare it to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL.

The conclusion that smokers are less production is based on the assumption that while smokers are outside smoking, non-smokers are working their busy little beaver tails. In fact, they are not!

Here is a list of the top 10 time wasters at work (notice the smoking doesn't even make the top ten)

This is called - not having a control group!

2. As to the most sick time - I have also examined those statistics and they are also a farce. The people who take the most time off are......wait for it.....fertile woman!

Listen - come out with all the anti-smoker statements and all the statistics you want. I prefer to rely on common sense and history.

Remember Winston Churchill and FDA smoked, Hitler and Stalin DID NOT!


nsidetech.monster.com/benefits/articles/5667-10-worst-time-wasters-at-work?page=10

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Why not?

There are many jobs, like the military where you have to spend months and years away from your family--or jobs like offshore fishing, or mining, or being an astronaut, or long haul trucker. Family seperation is part of the job. If it is a problem, you are free not to take the job.

Don't like not drinking before you step into a cockpit? Don't be an airline pilot. Don't like be awakened in the middle of the night to put some drunk's face back together? Don't be a trauma surgeon. There are many jobs that require some sort of compromise and sacrifice by their very nature. They are not for everyone. Currently, you are not required to do any of them. If the requirements are too onerous for you, you are perfectly free to find easier forms of employment. However, notice that the easy jobs that require little effort, thought, and sacrifice are usually full, so you may have to wait for an opening.

There's a difference between the demands to perform a job such as being sober when operating a vehicle or being on call as a specialized medical professional and an employer having the right to dictate what the cashier in their store may and may not do in their time off from work. Social contact is ultimately the biggest distraction at work, it leads to people thinking about what they're going to do, conversations they had, conversations they will have, and even employees being exposed to more people and getting sick taking days off of work (or worse, coming in sick and getting multiple other employees sick). Under your criteria the eventual outcome is that employers should be allowed to confine each employee to a cell to prevent that contact in order to maximize productivity time. Do you seriously see that as something that's right?

reply to post by kabfighter


Thanks for the info. It was explained to me that the virus in it's contageous form was chrystalline and easily spread via contact. Whereupon the chrystilline virus would THEN act upon the cell to infiltrate the cellular wall to deposite its RNA and begin the infection process. It is HERE that the vaccine would do it's trick in recognizing the virus and deposing it. However, virus carried upon hands, clothes, environment are still very much contageous for many hours.

If those with the flu did not work, that mechanism of contagion is eliminted. BUT... a working medical professional treating someone with the flu could easily spread that bug despite their having been vaccinated. And all of that is assuming that vacination even works.

Again, I could be completely incorrect... I'm not a medical person... that is simply how a medical person explained it to me.

Flu shots work as intended, to get everyone sick. Then you run to cvs, walgreens, and supermarkets to buy over the counter medication to fix what you thought was a cold but really some jackass/grandparent/hypochondriac just got a flu shot and now you got it too yay!

Every time I see this crap at cvs, walgreens, or worse the freaking SUPERMARKET with food !!! People getting jabbed with flu shots, I just walk in turn around, and get back in car. IM not buying food with people getting arm jabbed with crap. Mysteriously within the week everyone has a sniffle in the area, gee go figure. Haven't had a shot since I got my diploma, I smoke all kinds of stuff, don't exercise and haven't been sick since, other than a small cold here and there and never in flu season.

They are complete crap, the minute I feel even a tingle in my nose I just slam 1000mg of vitamin c for a couple days and bam no sickness. I could possibly see for a hospital or something "making you" other than that, you can keep the f ing job.

Couldn't there be some law against forcing someone to endure pain? IM pretty sure that's against the law forcing someone to get stabbed and endure any amount of pain? I mean are they going to do this at large gatherings as well? Show up to a football game, concert, golf match and children's school anything and you can not enter unless you get "some" kind of jab? Also, what happens when someone does get hurt/killed from some kind of jab, who does the person sue, the company, the vaccine maker, both?

But at least we know how they will get most of us to take it, sheeple need to eat too riiiight?. If vaccinces were so great, wheres the AIDS vaccine, like to see some sucker be the first in line for that shot heh.

reply to post by JHumm


they do credit checks to see if you are poor, poor people are more likely to steal than ones that arent, well unless you work for the government.^^ my company just did credit checks on entire company and background checks after ive been here 10 + years and some over 30 lol. nice country this is shaping up to be heh?

I think I would sue them in civil court for attempted murder. there is more proof they are deadly than there is that says they are benefitial. a few billion will get their attention and probably a judgement in favor of those who were wrongfully terminated.