Vaccination Mandating

23 hours ago, subee said:

Uh.....you need to go check out what projection is.  My question was "so what".

The choir thumbs up with the chorus.

18 hours ago, Sciencedude1 said:

So the supreme court just heard arguments for vaccine mandates via OSHA and medicare. I found the following video interesting regarding the legality of vaccine mandates. What I found most interesting is that there is facilities that are not giving medical exemptions when necessary such as having a adverse reaction (myocarditis, pericarditis, anaphylaxis)  to the first vaccine but still requiring the second vaccination. The lawyer in the video below states that even though pharmaceutical companies enjoy legal protections against adverse reactions, employers requiring covid19 vaccinations as a condition of an employment are still legally liable for any vaccine injuries to their employee's. The video below is a conversation between Dr. Chris Martenson and attorney Robert Barnes.

Below is an article going over the vaccine mandates being heard at the supreme court:

https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/supreme-court-just-heard-oral-arguments-vaccine-mandate-cases-here-are-the

Quoting the Heritage Society is like quoting the John Birth Society.  Amongst all the arguments SCOTUS has to sit through, they will stand out as radically right and not trustworthy.

So the osha mandate was blocked by the supreme court  for large private business but the medicare mandate will still be in effect for health care workers for facilities receiving medicare or medicaid. 

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072165393/supreme-court-blocks-bidens-vaccine-or-test-mandate-for-large-private-companies

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/supreme-court-ruling-biden-covid-vaccine-mandates.html

On 1/11/2022 at 11:58 PM, MunoRN said:

I would guess those facilities are not giving medical exemptions for those reasons because they are not valid reasons for a medical exemption.

 

As per Dr. Steven Martenson, there are people who are being told they must take the second dose against their doctors advice as a condition of  employment. So employee's have to decide between their employment or following their doctor's recommendations.  Anyways Robert Barnes states that people in this position should get in writing the vaccine policy of the facility, their medical exemption rejection, or religious exemption rejection, and write a formal letter to their employer stating that they are taking the vaccine against their will. Like Robert Barnes stated earlier pharmacological companies enjoy legal liability protection but the facilities enforcing vaccine mandates do not. So in other words facilities rejecting medical exemptions should be following the current standard of care regarding vaccine medical exemptions.

2 hours ago, Sciencedude1 said:

As per Dr. Steven Martenson, there are people who are being told they must take the second dose against their doctors advice as a condition of  employment. So employee's have to decide between their employment or following their doctor's recommendations.  Anyways Robert Barnes states that people in this position should get in writing the vaccine policy of the facility, their medical exemption rejection, or religious exemption rejection, and write a formal letter to their employer stating that they are taking the vaccine against their will. Like Robert Barnes stated earlier pharmacological companies enjoy legal liability protection but the facilities enforcing vaccine mandates do not. So in other words facilities rejecting medical exemptions should be following the current standard of care regarding vaccine medical exemptions.

The examples you provided were not valid reasons for a medical exemption based on current best practice recommendations.

You can certainly find an individual doctor that would be willing to say they agree with whatever beliefs their patient might hold, but that isn't what defines science based practices.

34 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

The examples you provided were not valid reasons for a medical exemption based on current best practice recommendations.

You can certainly find an individual doctor that would be willing to say they agree with whatever beliefs their patient might hold, but that isn't what defines science based practices.

Really dude? Having an anaphylactic reaction is not a contraindication? I don't think you take the time to think before you type. Your political zeal is really starting to show. 

What do we ask all of our patients upon admission? Do you have a history of allergies? Why do we do that, because it is a contraindication to give meds that people are allergic too. 

You should really start providing references to the claims you are making because you might be labeled as a nurse spreading misinformation.

Leading Nursing Organizations Issue Policy Brief Regarding Nurses Spreading Misinformation.

https://www.NCSBN.org/16370.htm

As per the CDC anaphylactic reaction is an adverse event in which you should not get a second dose of an mrna vaccine if the first dose caused an anaphylactic reaction.  

https://www.CDC.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html#Appendix-B

41 minutes ago, Sciencedude1 said:

Really dude? Having an anaphylactic reaction is not a contraindication? I don't think you take the time to think before you type. Your political zeal is really starting to show. 

What do we ask all of our patients upon admission? Do you have a history of allergies? Why do we do that, because it is a contraindication to give meds that people are allergic too. 

You should really start providing references to the claims you are making because you might be labeled as a nurse spreading misinformation.

Leading Nursing Organizations Issue Policy Brief Regarding Nurses Spreading Misinformation.

https://www.NCSBN.org/16370.htm

As per the CDC anaphylactic reaction is an adverse event in which you should not get a second dose of an mrna vaccine if the first dose caused an anaphylactic reaction.  

https://www.CDC.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html#Appendix-B

An anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine dose is not a contraindication to receiving subsequent doses.  The CDC, as you pointed out, recommends that subsequent doses be a non-mRNA vaccine, although the evidence doesn't show an increased risk of anaphylaxis in subsequent doses even if the person opts to continue to receive mRNA vaccines rather than switching to non-mRNA vaccines.  

We ask patients about their allergies so we can determine if they should not receive that or related medications, reported allergies are not automatically absolute contraindications.  

38 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

An anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine dose is not a contraindication to receiving subsequent doses.  The CDC, as you pointed out, recommends that subsequent doses be a non-mRNA vaccine, although the evidence doesn't show an increased risk of anaphylaxis in subsequent doses even if the person opts to continue to receive mRNA vaccines rather than switching to non-mRNA vaccines.  

We ask patients about their allergies so we can determine if they should not receive that or related medications, reported allergies are not automatically absolute contraindications.  

I specifically said if you had an anaphylactic reaction to the first dose of mrna vaccine the CDC adviseds against the second mrna dose. Yes getting a different type of vaccine is an option AFTER a risk benefit analysis. From the same chart on the CDC website. People with a contraindication to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have a precaution to Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine, and vice versa5. 

Who should conduct that risk assessment? I imagine the doctor of the patient. So the question is what role do the doctors of patients play on medical exemptions? 

Once again please provide references.

27 minutes ago, Sciencedude1 said:

I specifically said if you had an anaphylactic reaction to the first dose of mrna vaccine the CDC adviseds against the second mrna dose.

This was your quote:

28 minutes ago, Sciencedude1 said:

What I found most interesting is that there is facilities that are not giving medical exemptions when necessary such as having a adverse reaction (myocarditis, pericarditis, anaphylaxis)  to the first vaccine but still requiring the second vaccination. 

28 minutes ago, Sciencedude1 said:

Who should conduct that risk assessment? I imagine the doctor of the patient. So the question is what role do the doctors of patients play on medical exemptions? 

Yes, the Physician should offer the patient medical advise based on the established best practices, which clearly does not include telling the patient that they cannot have a subsequent vaccine dose.  

1 minute ago, MunoRN said:

This was your quote:

 

Yes, the Physician should offer the patient medical advise based on the established best practices, which clearly does not include telling the patient that they cannot have a subsequent vaccine dose.  

LOL MunoRN you are funny guy. So tell me how a risk assessment works if you can never say no to the medical procedure? If the answer is always yes regardless of the patients clinical presentation, than it's not much of a risk assessment. 

10 minutes ago, Sciencedude1 said:

LOL MunoRN you are funny guy. So tell me how a risk assessment works if you can never say no to the medical procedure? If the answer is always yes regardless of the patients clinical presentation, than it's not much of a risk assessment. 

You can so no to whatever medical procedure you choose, but that doesn't mean that employers can't have conditions of employment.

There are no clinical presentations that change the fact that someone who has had a reaction to a vaccine does not as a result have a contraindication to a subsequent dose.

Maybe you could offer an example of a clinical presentation that would justify an absolute contraindication?

34 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

You can so no to whatever medical procedure you choose, but that doesn't mean that employers can't have conditions of employment.

There are no clinical presentations that change the fact that someone who has had a reaction to a vaccine does not as a result have a contraindication to a subsequent dose.

Maybe you could offer an example of a clinical presentation that would justify an absolute contraindication?



Yeah I agree with you but employers are liable for the conditions of employment. 

 CDC clearly states that if you have anaphylaxis to first dose of pfizer/moderna you should not get a second dose of pfizer/moderna. Also if you had an anaphylactic reaction to johnson and johnson you should not get boosted with johnson and johnson. What if someone  has an anaphylactic reaction to the mrna vaccine (pfizer/moderna) and adenovirus/dna vaccine (johnson & johnson). This is concievable since the allergic sensitivity could develop in response to the spike protein which both vaccines models encode for.  Should that person get the booster considering that Fauci is saying that the definition of "fully vaccinated" might change to include boosters?