Mandatory Flu Vaccines- How do you feel? - page 11

Anyone else upset by the requirement to take flu vaccine or else... not even a mask option??? Only way out is a MD note stating "severe" allergy. Why is it we can't force our patients but our... Read More

  1. by   mariebailey
    "about 1 more person out of 1 million people vaccinated with seasonal flu vaccine may develop GBS. This continues to be studied. For the most part, the chance of getting very ill from flu is far higher than the chance of getting GBS after getting the flu vaccine."
    CDC H1N1 Flu | Fact Sheet on Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS)
  2. by   earneststudent
    You have dredged something up from the CDC's historical archives there. There are reasons pages are archived on that site. Sometimes the information is simply out of date. Here's some news since 2009:

    Swine flu vaccine likely causes child narcolepsy: study

    Do you think that adjuvants are the only problem? Think again and research. I think you'll find that mandatory flu vaccines for HCW's are nothing but a cynical bone to vested financial interests.
  3. by   mariebailey
    Quote from earneststudent
    You have dredged something up from the CDC's historical archives there. There are reasons pages are archived on that site. Sometimes the information is simply out of date. Here's some news since 2009:

    Swine flu vaccine likely causes child narcolepsy: study

    Do you think that adjuvants are the only problem? Think again and research. I think you'll find that mandatory flu vaccines for HCW's are nothing but a cynical bone to vested financial interests.
    That vaccine was never licensed for use in the United States. The CDC receives its funding from the Prevention & Public Health Fund & ARRA, not pharmaceutical companies. Their recommendation for universal vaccination of healthcare workers is not for financial gain. There are too many conspiracy theorists out there on this topic. Adjuvants boost the immune response; they are not a problem. A common one that scares people is aluminum; there's more aluminum in breast milk than a vaccine.
  4. by   olddragger
    there is a lot of emotions surrounding this issue. To me its the presence of one word that causes it all. That word is "Mandatory".
    I have been an RN for 35 years and I have never seen such a decision that was based on so little evidence. I feel that people have been sold a bill of goods.

    The CDC requires a certain percentage rate of effectiveness to introduce any new vaccine. The h1n1 has never demonstrated an acceptable percentage according to the CDC standard. This is important because people think that just because they had been vaccinated they cannot get the flu.
    When people( including nurses think this way they tend to relax other very important measures needed to prevent the spread of influenza. It is a sense of false security and that can have dire consequences.

    I am strongly opposed to mandatory vaccinations for many reasons. Some of them are
    1: it is not effective for all
    2: it is a lost of a personnel freedom
    3- it gives people a sense of false security
    4- it sets a precedence
    5- it is profiteering at the expense of others

    I urge all nurses to study this situation seriously, to request evidenced based results, and to be constructively vocal concerning the issue. We are a very respected profession and this issue is something we need to be involved in.
    It does concern me that the Federal Government saw fit to protect the companies that make this vaccine from any litigation. That to the best of my knowledge has never been done with a vaccine before? Did the companies involved recognize that litigation would be a problem? If they did--then do they know something we don't? Very curious.
  5. by   mariebailey
    Quote from olddragger
    It does concern me that the Federal Government saw fit to protect the companies that make this vaccine from any litigation. That to the best of my knowledge has never been done with a vaccine before? Did the companies involved recognize that litigation would be a problem? If they did--then do they know something we don't? Very curious.
    Responses to some of your comments in no particular order:
    • The Nat'l Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has a trust fund to compensate those who experience serious adverse events following vaccination. This actually protects the vaccine recipient/consumer as much as it does the manufacturer. "...people filing claims are not required to prove negligence on the part of either the health care provider or the manufacturer to receive compensation"
    • The flu vaccine will not give people a false sense of security if providers adequately educate their patients on the necessity of other preventive measures.
    • Vaccination programs are among the most effective means of preventing/controlling the spread of communicable diseases, & there is adequate evidence of this throughout the 20th century.
    • I agree that vaccines aren't effective for all; that's why we rely on herd immunity.
    • The precedence was already set with mandatory school vaccine requirements; vaccination programs are not new.
  6. by   olddragger
    I enjoy a good objective constructive debate, so I would like to counter on the points you mentioned?
    1: The NVICP is a good marketing point--why doesnt the federal government do that for all medications? Have you researched into how well that is working?
    2- False sense of security: I remain with my belief that vaccinations do this to some degree. Unfortunately, human behavior being what it is ...need I say more?
    3- Vaccination programs are good things. Proper use and mandates should not be government directed. It should be directed by impartial evidenced based results. I have not seen any impartial results with the percentage of positive findings that CDC requires. Why they recommend this vaccine is a good question? What is OSHA going to recommend next year?
    4- Herd immunity---when I think of that I think of an old saying--"does the ends justify the means"? For the individual---yes it can. For a Government--that is very dangerous thinking. There is a big difference.
    5- I am surprised that the flu vaccination is compared to school vaccinations. That is not apples to apples?
    Thank all for their responses--I have certainly learned from some of them.
  7. by   morte
    please check out the new post with the link the the new york times....even the CDC is now acknowledging the minimal effectiveness....
  8. by   dcookRN
    I am very much against requiring anyone to get a flu vaccine, or any other drug, period. What medications we take should be a personal choice. Education is the answer, not force. There are too many examples of pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, etc claiming a medication is safe, when in fact it is not. All drugs have risks, and as individuals we should have the right to weigh risks and benefits, and make an informed decision for ourselves. You can find a legitimate study to support whatever stance on the issue you may have. Have you read the package insert for the flu vaccine? Have your patients? How do you define informed consent? Personally I will do no more than offer reliable information to my patients, so they can make an informed decision. I will give them a copy of the package insert, so they can read about safety studies, ingredients, efficacy etc. Maybe the flu shot cannot cause the flu, but I know it can cause people to get sick. Is during acute recovery from a major surgery really the best time for a vaccine? Seeing how if it gives immunity at all, it will not be for weeks, this should be considered along with all the risks and benefits, but it is wrong to pitch a sales line for the pharmaceutical company and say the flu vaccine is entirely safe, effective, and has no risk beyond an ache at the injection site as this is not the truth. My family decides not to get flu vaccines. We do not want to annually inject formaldehyde, aluminum, polysorbate 80, and other toxins into our bodies. I think it is entirely reasonable to suspect that over time, doing so could have negative health consequences. To us, the risk of the flu, which for he vast majority of the population is nominal, does not warrant the recent hype. According to the package inserts we have read, safety studies have not even been done with the flu shot in certain populations, including pregnant women and nursing women. Long term safety studies are minimal at best, and we need to look at more than what side-effects occur in a period of time measured in days or weeks. No one can say that stimulating the immune system and introducing known toxins into the body does not cause chronic illness over time. Why are auto-immune disorders increasing exponentially, such as asthma, lupus, type 1 DM, food allergies, MS etc? Take a look at the studies that have been done on the issue, because they certainly have not ruled anything out as the cause. I am not saying that vaccines are or are not causing illness, I certainly do not know but obviously something we are being told is safe is not safe. I had many vaccines prior to becoming a practicing nurse. I believe they have great benefits, but I also believe they have risks. And I do not want annual vaccines of any kind. If they removed the toxins such as formaldehyde and aluminum, maybe I would reconsider. You can get the flu, spread the flu, and face all consequences associated with the flu if you get the vaccine or if you don't. Common sense and good nursing practice will prevent the spread of disease. It amazes me that so many people are fine with forcing someone to take a drug they do not want or risk getting fired, in the name of "the greater good", yet so many other actions that kill and make far greater numbers of people sick are accepted in the name of economic progress. Like buying pink ribbon cosmetics that donate 1 cent to breast cancer research that are full of known carcinogens, or allowing coal companies financed by our tax dollars to pump tens of thousands of pounds of mercury and lead into the air and water every year, or allowing schools to fill our kids with junk food as juvenile obesity, dm and heart disease are on the rise. How much of our scarce resources to improve public health are wasted on this BS. Its sickening. If you want to get a flu shot every year, go for it. Thats you're choice. But don't tell someone else what to put in their body, especially something that is not guaranteed to reduce the risk of anything, and that has plenty of risks involved
  9. by   dcookRN
    If you read most flu vaccine package inserts, they clearly state the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccine in pregnant women have not been established, and it is not known whether the flu vaccine will harm the fetus or a nursing infant. It is however known that pregnant women who receive flu vaccines are being exposed to formaldehyde, aluminum, and in some flu vaccines mercury. How can they say it is safe for a fetus when they clearly state it has not even been studied?? As nurses, most of us have learned that the human immune system is amazing, complicated, effective, and in some cases (ie auto immune disorders) dangerous. I wonder what overstimulating a pregnant woman's immune system, as is done intentionally when vaccines are given, does to the natural physiological processes involved in the establishment of the new immune system being formed in the unborn child. Personally, I wonder if excessive vaccination in early life, many doses close together, has anything to do with the drastic increase in auto immune disorders we are seeing among our population, including food allergies. Do they know as much as they claim to know about the long-term safety of vaccine ingredients? Based on what I have reviewed in the area of long-term safety studies that have been done, the data available is way less than adequate, especially to state with such confidence vaccines have no long term health risks worth worrying about. But if vaccine manufacturers state in the package insert it is not known if you as a pregnant woman can receive a flu vaccine with no risk to the fetus and no proven benefit as no studies have been done, do they have any accountability is any harm is done? I think it is way wrong to force anyone to take any drug, period. It is a fundamental freedom to decide what drugs enter our bodies. Personally, I choose not to annually inject my body with formaldehyde, aluminum, polysorbate 80, among other things. I have had one flu vaccine, and I have had the flu one time (the same year I got the vaccine). The Hospital that employs me, as of this year makes us wear a mask if we chose not to get the vaccine. I wonder how many people that get the vaccine even bother to read the package insert. I would start there before I made any decision. At least then you can be aware of some risks and benefits, as well as the ingredients which can be researched further in MSDS etc. But if a drug company tells me it is not known whether their drug is safe or effective for my child, I would skip it, especially considering that in reality for the vast majority of people, the flu is a simple, short-term illness with no significant danger and means a few days in bed. I know it makes it less profitable for the drug companies, but I wish they would remove the known neurotoxins, carcinogens, from their products.
  10. by   dcookRN
    I think it is scary there is no direct accountability for the drug companies or practitioners in this area. Any compensation is paid by consumer fees. I am grateful for the benefits some vaccines have given us, but the system needs improvement. Pharm execs should not be on regulatory agency boards; those pushing for mandated vaccines should not stand to profit as a result; formaldehyde and aluminum should be removed or proven safe in quality, long-term studies. Its no small thing to accept a drug administration year after year after year, we should be able to have faith in safety and efficacy and as it stands, with all the conflicting info how can we
  11. by   dcookRN
    I 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?
  12. by   dcookRN
    How 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.
  13. by   brillohead
    Paragraphs are good....m'kay?