Mandatory Flu Vaccines- How do you feel? - Page 15Register Today!
- Nov 18, '12 by dcookRNI agree with much of what you said. As nurses, we do need to be involved in this. In addition to my nursing education, I have spent much time researching drug company safety data, foreign studies regarding safety and efficacy, CDC/WHO reports, as well as details about specific ingredients, their function as part of the drug formula and credible theories as to potential consequences. As a nurse, I eel the need to do more than simply approach a patient with a syringe in my hand and say "you need your flu and pna vaccines", which I often see done. In my opinion we need to present options, along with adequate and balanced information so informed decisions can be made. Many patients listen to their nurses and depend on our advocating for them. It is amoral not to make sure true informed consent is obtained. Patients have the right to know the true risks and benefits of any drug they are given. For example, how can we tell a pregnant woman they should get a flu vaccine, that it is safe for them and their unborn child when the package insert states safety for the fetus has not been studied? What kind of world would this be if we just did what we were told, without asking questions, without seeking evidence, not basing our practice on evidence, but the very definition of what qualifies as evidence seems to be diminishing rapidly. Viox was safe, thalidamide was safe, the swine flu vaccine of the 70's was safe. But as we learned, safe can be a short-lived thing. Its getting pretty bad, so many pregnant women have been given antidepressants that caused harm to their babies, there are so many examples of these problems and it is sick. Have you ever seen the film "Generation Rx"? My statements may seem tangential, but the issue of mandated drugs is way larger than flu vaccines for healthcare workers. This is simply one indication of a larger issue, and a direction we as a nation are heading. And we don'thave to wonder how well our ways are working, as its pretty evident in health outcomes. While we have eliminated many acute diseases and decreased deaths from infectious disease etc, we have more than replaced them with preventable chronic diseases, yet instead of actually addressing the problems we seem to have a tendency to hand out drugs instead, and for lifetimes. Do you see your patients come back healthier after starting statins, maybe a beta blocker, insulin to manage DM, etc? Very few new drugs are made to treat acute illness, the vast majority of new drug research goes into making meds that people will take forever, how often do we hear "once a day, every day" etc? Do you feel sad? Try this SSRI. Still sad, ask your doc to add abilify. Overweight? Beef, its whats for dinner, you can keep eating and take this to lower your cholesterol, and cymbalta for your pain, and the one with the nice floating butterfly in the ad to help you sleep. And this company will send DM management supplies right to your door at medicares expense! Is your child distracted after watching 10 hours of TV a day and living on junk food? Maybe they need an antidepressant too. They must work, the people in the commercials are happily walking on the beach, as the guy in the background says how the drug can cause cancer, liver failure, suicidal thoughts etc. Ok maybe that was a bit off subject. The US and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that allow direct rx ads to consumers on TV. I am not saying I believe flu vaccines are dangerous, but I am saying there is ample evidence drug companies and regulatory agencies (often occupied by the same individuals) sometimes jump the gun and say something is safe when the reality is, the real safety study begins when drugs hit consumer markets. Drug companies do not exist for the honorable purpose of helping cure sick people, they exist to make money. The same companies that make many chemo and other cancer drugs also happen to be some of the largest producers of cancer causing chemicals in the world. You can buy cosmetics full of cancer causing chemicals that are endorsed with pink ribbons. Therefore, the right for all individuals to do research and make informed decisions about what medications they want or don't want is essential, as are the roles of the nurse as advocate, educator. If someone has the right to decide what drugs other people take, who is it? Those who make the drug? The government? Hospital CEO's? School employees? Should those that make the drug be allowed to be in the government?
- Nov 18, '12 by dcookRNHow do you know overstimulating the immune system is not a problem? The immune system is very intricate, and something is causing autoimmune disorders/food allergies to skyrocket. And the CDC has many people that are on the payrolls of pharmaceutical companies. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is an easily verified fact. There are certainly financial conflicts of interest among members of the CDC, FDA, USDA, universities, everywhere, its rampant. Is it also just a conspiracy theory that pharmaceutical company contributions to political campaigns influence healthcare policy? Ignoring these issues breeds ignorance and feeds a major problem that we should be concerned with. Injecting aluminum, formaldehyde, etc into muscle tissue on a regular basis cannot be justified by noting the amount of aluminum in breast milk; there may be more mercury in breast milk than in a mercury containing vaccine, but this says nothing for the safety of injecting or consuming these inherently toxic ingredients. Seems quite logical to fear consuming known neurotoxins that accumulate in tissue, including brain tissue, in a world of ever-rising chronic disease rates across the board. If you ingest a toxin by mouth, your body will metabolize it and excrete it differently than if injected. We should not discourage critical thinking, questioning, investigating, learning, and being involved with what goes into one's body. We need more thought, not more blind obedience. You can post links all day to CDC or FDA articles that talk about how harmless various drugs or drug ingredients are, and all day I can post links to cases in which these claims were horribly wrong, and human lives were destroyed as a result.
- Nov 19, '12 by brilloheadParagraphs are good....m'kay?
- Nov 19, '12 by imjustme123Thanks for your posts dcookRN. They are well thought out, rational and a good read. I appreciate you taking the time to write them.
- Nov 19, '12 by mariebaileyThere appears to be a lot of skepticism re: vaccine ingredients. Adjuvants (e.g., aluminum) enhance/boost the immune response to immunizations. Preservatives (e.g., thimerosal) prevent contamination of the vial.
-The average dose of antacids contains 1000X more aluminum than a vaccine.
-Infants who are exclusively breastfed ingest more mercury from breast milk than from vaccines.
- I know what adjuvants are intended to do, and I am sure they achieve the intended goals. However, more studies need to be done in order to know what unintended consequences may result as well. It seems entirely logical that kicking the immune system into an overstimulated state, especially time after time after time, barely giving it a chance to even regain normal function, could have significant consequences. I take no comfort in the fact that antacids contain aluminum, or that breast milk contains mercury. In the area of vaccine science, there are far more unknowns than most people realize or admit. Its a grand experiment, good or bad, right or wrong.
- Thanks for the thought provoking response, I feel very engaged.
- There are much more effective ways to save lives than to force people to get injected with something they do not want. I fully support the right for all people to choose for themselves what goes into their body. Vaccination and other practices intended to improve health outcomes should be encouraged through education, not force. The flu itself is very rarely even a serious illness; for most it it a few days in bed. As caregivers, we have an obligation to educate our patients, and facilitate true informed consent when any drug is given. Why do you think pregnant women should be able to wear a mask instead of getting the vaccine ( i certainly agree)The CDC is even saying pregnant women should get it now, although in the package inserts I have seen it clearly states the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccine in pregnancy is unknown and has not even been studied, they cannot even say its safe for the fetus or nursing child. Where do we draw the line? For me, the line is drawn at deciding for myself what drugs to take. We do not need pharmaceutical companies or government agencies thinking for us.
- If my baby was there, I would hope they were not irradiating my child with x rays if not absolutely necessary. She could still get and pass the flu even if she had the vaccine. If she is washing her hands properly, and not coughing on people that is enough for me, and if she is sick she should stay home. I have two kids, and I hope that the nurses and techs that helped take care of them had the right to decide for themselves what drugs to receive. Grocery store clerks, teachers, all kinds of people that work in public could potentially spread the flu. Do you want to force them all to be vaccinated? Why not use education to encourage good decision making, not force.
- It is a scary trend, and also crazy that more people do not want to stand up for these fundamental rights. We have to maintain the right to decide for ourselves what drugs we take. I do not want someone else thinking for me. I know plenty of nurses, doctors, and others that have made an informed decision not to get flu shots.