22,000 Nurses Refuse *Mandatory* Vaccinations

[Surg-OncRN]

Today, there is an article posted on how 22,000 nurses are taking a stand against mandatory vaccination. These nurses are willing to lose their jobs to stand up for their Pro-choice rights. I have included the link below so you can read the article for yourself. Learn more about NAMV (Nurses Against Mandatory Vaccines)

NAMV was founded when mandatory vaccines were introduced in the workplace, and though it is not pro-vaccine OR anti-vaccine, it is certainly pro-CHOICE. NAMV members believe that all people should have the right to choose and refuse medical treatment, including nurses and healthcare workers.

22,000 Nurses Refuse *Mandatory* Vaccinations | Natural Society

Share your thoughts below

[elkpark]

Because you said this "I don't know where you got your information, but it is just wrong. Thimerosol IS in some flu vaccines, including all of the multi-dose vials."

And you said it right after reading my post that didn't say anything about there not being thimerosol in vaccines. You misread my post, pretty far off from what I said, so I would have to guess you misread other things just as easily. From what I'm reading you are misreading a lot of things about vaccinations or maybe just not interpreting them well I don't know.

Then you say " I see that your posts really just aim to condescend. You don't really want to inform - you just want to cut people down. You aren't adding information, just your opinion. Nothing you have said is factual. "

I wrote facts about aluminum not being in the vaccine, which that person had claimed was there. She was wrong and I said so. It wasn't me not getting the facts right! If you think aluminum is in vaccines I'd have to send you back to the inserts again. I also wrote facts about what happens to thimerosol in the body. Fact honestly and you can look it up yourself! All true and all facts. My post was meant to inform and it did inform anyone who was so confused as to think there was aluminum and deadly mercury in the flu vaccine. I didn't condescend to anyone I said what I think!

I didn't call anyone stupid but I definitely can see wrong information all over the place. I don't think she's stupid or you're stupid but I do think she and you are misinformed. I know what I wrote was true and if you don't believe it there's nothing more I can tell you I guess. Believe what you like there's no need to get worked up about it! I'm sure not :)

If someone is going to tell me she got a headache from something that wasn't there I guess I'm going to talk about that. Sure she could get a headache if she was sensitive to thimerosol but that isn't at all what the vegan person said now was it? I am not debating anything either I'm only contradicting myths.

(Don't waste your time debating these people, nothing you say, and no source you provide, is going to change their minds.)

[MunoRN, RN]

I cannot believe how many professional nurses are so FOR a flu vaccine. I, like hopefully all of us depend on informed consent. After one learns about the flu vaccine, from reliable sources such as the CDC, why would anyone be up in arms about someone refusing the vaccine? First off, it's a virus. What do virus's do best? They mutate. The CDC states that they vaccinate for 3 strains. Yes, 3. Most of the time the vaccine does not even catch up with the actual strain that is infecting people at the current time. Also, if we are all working with integrity, we will be washing our hands and protecting ours/patients mucus membranes ANYWAY. FACT: Handwashing is the most effective way of spreading illness. So, spare me the drama and lets all just wash our hands the way we should!

I cannot believe how many professional nurses are so FOR hand washing. Don't you know handwashing can be potentially harmful? Handwashing isn't 100% effective, so what's the point. Nurse's should have the right to chose what they do to their body, right?

[CHESSIE]

Where I work, we have the mask policy and an optional wear-an-identifier-on-your-badge-if-you-want. I only assume that new employees are required to get the flu shot now, but it may also be a union issue, I'm not sure.

I agree with the statements herein. No, the flu vaccine isn't always effective, but it's the best shot we got (pun intended).

My Deep Thoughts:

22,000 nurses against the flu shot is less than a drop in the bucket percentage of nurses in the US.

Refusing a vaccination doesn't make you a protected class.

I'm also unsure why nurses are reticent concerning the flu shot, but not the mantoux (also yearly at my facility) or hep B or DTAP or whatever.

As others have said, I find the NAMV, the Natural Society article, and the National Vaccine Information Center site the Natural Society article links to be hot garbage.

The worst one in my opinion is the National Vaccine "Information" Center Which at first glance is a slick professional website, sources cited, but with very little digging you find it's really an anti-vaxxer website. It's neat how they subtly weave confusion.

Yeah money-Best practice. The vaccination "herd mentality" (one can carry and spread the flu yet be asymptomatic) is designed to keep the public healthier, keeping people out of the hospital and subsequently saving money.

This is the Strawman, no? I think our current government law is now the only thing standing between those who would already like to get rid of funding for your examples.

Aside: I wish I could mandate patients to their plan of care to keep them out of the hospital or else have them sign a waiver to not be admitted for X if they don't do Y.

My cynical answer to all of this? Unhealthy people = job security.

Do not blame the ACA. I retired ten years ago, and even then, the hospital facility where I was employed, required that we receive Mantoux, flu, Hep B.

[CHESSIE]

I did not read all the comments in this thread, but here is my 2 cents.

At our facility, we are allowed to refuse the flu vaccination with medical/religious exemption only. Those who are exempt must wear a mask from October to March anytime they are within 10 feet of a patient.

Interestingly enough, in 2014 and at the beginning of 2015, half our facility still ended up getting the flu although the vaccination compliance rate was 99%.

I am still pro vaccination all the way. I do believe people should have a choice though. I would like to know the statistics in regards to how many flu vaccines have been effective for nurses and what the infection rate was before mandatory vaccines were enacted. There are risks with everything we do. The chemical-filled drinks, foods, and products we use daily are more cause for concern than a flu vaccine, in my opinion.

The reason that so many people may have contracted the flu, even with complying with the mandate and receiving the vaccination, is due to the fact that there are many strains of the flu virus. Just as even with receiving the Pneumo-Vax and Prevnar 13, a person can still contract pneumonia due to there being several types of pneumonia, but the flu or pneumonia vaccines will give greater protection than not being vaccinated. Not only do you help to protect yourself, you help to protect your family, friends, and the patients for whom you care.

[CHESSIE]

I have had the flu each of the last 4 years (diagnosed by testing) despite having the flu shot. In fact I'm only a couple of weeks out from this year's bout with it. I think it probably gave me a milder case than I would have had without the shot but the vaccine hasn't been particularly effective recently. Last year it was particularly ineffective.

There are many strains of the flu virus, also, many types of pneumonia. In your case, perhaps, as you stated, you contracted a milder case of the flu, or you contracted one of the other strains of flu. I hope that you recovered and are doing well.

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

This is the kind of thinking that I find just so backwards. You think because you have a flu shot that is only 18% effective against random strains of influenza - that you're protecting patients. So 18 out of every 100 vaccinated nurses/doctors are protecting patients, but the other 82 healthcare employees are not protecting anyone, but who cares about them, right??

Think about that. The flu shot this year is only 18% (EIGHTEEN PERCENT) effective! That means 18 out of 100 people are protected. How is it okay for you to say "you may not endanger the very lives you are paid to have in your care," when the flu shot is ONLY 18% effective??? I just really cannot wrap my mind around your conclusion. It's a completely laughable statistic for a vaccine.

Healthcare workers are not gods and goddesses that can not transmit illness. Healthcare workers are limited by their humanness just like everyone else in this world. People get sick. Are healthcare workers somehow supposed to have immune systems above and beyond every sick or hurt person that comes their way? I just think the idea of that is ludicrous. A flu vaccine that is only 18% effective is not a good reason to get vaccinated. When studies show that the vaccine is only 18% effective, and when studies show that a high enough vitamin D level/supplementation contributes to a lower rate of influenza than the vaccinated population, I don't see justification for such inflammatory remarks as above.

May I ask where your 18% effectiveness rate comes from? I have been perusing the CDC site, and cannot find a report for this season (2015-2016). A link for a reliable source would add some weight to your claims.

[nursemeow908]

LOL! Really? That's you rebuttal? It's not my fault the FACTS are that handwashing is the most effective way of to decrease the risk of spreading germs. It's not my FACT that last years flu vaccine was 18% effective... Do you not agree with the CDC? According to the CDC, (2015)"[COLOR=#000000]The updated VE (vaccine effectiveness) estimate against influenza A H3N2 viruses was 18% (95% confidence interval).. BTW if you took a statistics class you would understand that IT IS NOT EFFECTIVE! It's all about $$$ from the GOVT to your hospital... IF X amount of employees are compliant and receive a flu shot the hospital will receive a grant from the hospital.[/COLOR]

[nursemeow908]

CDC Presents Updated Estimates of Flu Vaccine Effectiveness for the 2014-2015 Season | News (Flu) | CDC

[brandy1017, ASN, RN]

Many or most 'visitors' have had the good sense to obtain a flu shot from their PCPs, as far as the 'vendors' they probably did, also, as they visit hospitals where bacteria, viruses, flourish, even though 'vendors' are not caring for patients.

Employers who require vaccinations are trying to protect you as well as the patients for whom you will be in close contact. Many of these patients are frail, elderly, in compromised physical condition, and possibly immunosuppressed. If you contract flu and come to work before you are symptomatic, you put these frail patients in imminent danger.

If you are caring for patients with flu, and some patients who are immunosuppressed cannot receive the flu vaccine, becoming very ill, requiring hospitalization, you put yourself in danger of contracting the illness from them.

A vaccine that is only 20% effective is not worth the risk if you ask me and is really only giving a false assurance to people, when handwashing and covering your mouth and having a good level of Vitamin D can actually prevent transmission of both viruses and bacteria.

It is not for anyone's protection or safety that is what they say when the real reason is cold hard cash! The govt wants healthcare workers vaccinated at 90% and they are just fine with forcing this on us. It's like we lose our civil rights and our rights over our own body just to have a job! It is wrong! We should have a choice over what we put into our body!

Wearing a mask when caring for patients will actually protect us more than the patient! I would choose a mask if I had a choice but I don't. You actually have to get GB before they will decide to not force the flu shot on you. Thanks for nothing! The damage would already be done!

[brandy1017, ASN, RN]

I cannot believe how many professional nurses are so FOR hand washing. Don't you know handwashing can be potentially harmful? Handwashing isn't 100% effective, so what's the point. Nurse's should have the right to chose what they do to their body, right?

You're ridiculous! Hand washing won't harm you, won't leave you paralyzed, possibly permanently, possibley may kill you! Flu vaccines can! The worst hand washing can do is leave your hands red, dry and irritated. There is a serious risk with the flu shot so a person should be able to make an informed decision whether they are willing to take that risk and frankly I think it is not worth it when the vaccine is mostly ineffective!

I think big pharma should be held accountable for the damage it causes and people should be able to sue them, but the govt is in collusion with the corporations against what is right for the American people! It's all about the money! Big pharma bribes many govt officials to get the legislation they want to keep making the profits and people's lives and safety be damned!

I remember when Gov Perry tried to mandate all female teens receive Gardasil no doubt as a reward for the millions Merck has given to his campaign and the Republican party! In case you don't know like other vaccines there have been serious side effects, even deaths from Gardasil.

[greenbeanio]

Received the flu shot one time in 86 and became extremelysick with flu-like symptoms. Since then Ihave refused the inj and never came downwith the flu. To me, that speaks volumes, and I work on the medicalfloors and the ER.

This is EXACTLY what happened to me. And yes, I know that a killed virus cannot give me the flu. But what a coincidence - the ONLY time I have the flu in 37 years is shortly after the ONLY time I had the flu vaccine.

My theory - and it's just a theory - is that I was already extremely run down on account of overwork and lack of sleep, and the flu vaccine just pushed my immune system over the edge, so that I became vulnerable to a different strain of the flu, one not covered by the vaccine, and one which I might have successfully fought off, if it weren't for the "distracting" effect of the vaccine.

Have you noticed that in all the commonly publicized sources of information about vaccine safety, you are told that vaccines are contraindicated for the "moderately or severely ill", but you are never told the rationale behind this?

[MunoRN, RN]

LOL! Really? That's you rebuttal? It's not my fault the FACTS are that handwashing is the most effective way of to decrease the risk of spreading germs. It's not my FACT that last years flu vaccine was 18% effective... Do you not agree with the CDC? According to the CDC, (2015)"[COLOR=#000000]The updated VE (vaccine effectiveness) estimate against influenza A H3N2 viruses was 18% (95% confidence interval).. BTW if you took a statistics class you would understand that IT IS NOT EFFECTIVE! It's all about $$$ from the GOVT to your hospital... IF X amount of employees are compliant and receive a flu shot the hospital will receive a grant from the hospital.[/COLOR]

Hand washing is a very important part of reducing the incidence of the flu, but it doesn't negate the need for other measures and isn't actually more effective than the flu vaccine at reducing risk. Hand washing has been show to reduce the risk of transmission by as much as 50%, while the flu vaccine has been shown to reduce the risk by more than 70%.

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) varies by strain and by year, and last year's VE for H3N2 was unusually low at 18%, the overall year to year VE average is 59%, which produces a significant reduction in risk, resulting in about 4,500 lives being saved each year, I doubt any of those 4,500 would agree with your description of the vaccine as being "not effective".

Hospitals do not get paid for reaching a vaccination rate goal, part of VBP includes vaccine rate reporting, all hospitals have to do is provide their rates to a database to meet the goal, it doesn't matter what those rates are.