Apparently per the EEOC's guidelines employers (not just healthcare related) can mandate vaccination of workers. The exception is a "sincerely held religious belief" or a covered disability. Just found out this morning that a chain of for profit LTC/SNF's are rolling out a Covid vaccine mandate for all direct care staff or face indefinite unpaid administrative leave. I am a heavy supporter of vaccination and of the new COVID vaccine and in fact am due to get one in early January. But I am doing so of my own volition. My facility encouraged all workers to sign up for a vaccine and provided information sessions and it's been really effective at getting people to sign up.
Even though I would disagree with someone's choice to not vaccinate, I don't believe they should be mandated at this point.
I also read a variety of sources ranging from Revolver and Naturalnews.com on the right to Huffington Post and Democratic underground on the right to www.realclearscience in the middle.
PubMed is good too, but many of the studies lack full text or contextual analysis. You will not for example find a "Pub Med" analysis of the VAERS data as it relates to Covid (maybe in two years) after the debate is no longer "ripe".
Specializes in Physiology, CM, consulting, nsg edu, LNC, COB.
Fans of academic publishing also should be aware that PubMed is an indexing service only and does NOT vet or evaluate the accuracy or methodology of everything it indexes. Inclusion in PubMed is no guarantee at all of quality. (Nor is having a doi number, for that matter)
PubMed is good too, but many of the studies lack full text or contextual analysis. You will not for example find a "Pub Med" analysis of the VAERS data as it relates to Covid (maybe in two years) after the debate is no longer "ripe".
Reports of adverse events are being analyzed as we speak (write). This will be the third time that I post the same link as proof that reports regarding adverse events are being acted upon in a speedy manner. You really need to start trusting the safety systems in place instead of looking for information from sources who don’t know the first thing about either epidemiology or pharmacology or statistical analysis of reports.
NaturalNews, HuffPost or that Revolver thingie isn’t a good substitute while you wait for peer-reviewed scientific publications. I have no idea why anyone would use them as medical research resources. When you got your Master’s degree, did they accept NaturalNews as a source? I would have been laughed out of my school if I’d tried that...
1 hour ago, Hannahbanana said:
Fans of academic publishing also should be aware that PubMed is an indexing service only and does NOT vet or evaluate the accuracy or methodology of everything it indexes. Inclusion in PubMed is no guarantee at all of quality. (Nor is having a doi number, for that matter)
Absolutely true, but it is a good starting point. And I’m sure you agree that it beats NaturalNews every day of the week ?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
45 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
Also, I care for more than 700 clients seeing me for various challenges of a psychological nature. Were I to question their "emotional health" in a public venue it would be considered at best poor taste and in many circles downright "hate speech". How about we stick to debating the topics rather than personal attacks?
How about we all stick to facts and evidence rather than fears, anxieties and the nonsense that is published for the purpose of fear mongering during a pandemic. It's not clear that you are capable of that and it's expected that instead you will offer more fear and fiction. That's the pattern.
Thus, for example for those of you who maintain that "not a single" death of the thousands reported in VAERS after the vaccination is related to the vaccine my question would be by what "standard" would you be willing to attribute a death after the vaccine to the vaccine? Which test or finding would reach a level that you are willing to say "that" person definitively died from the vaccine?
Who has claimed that ”not a single death” can be attributed to a Covid-19 vaccine?
I’m getting tired of my own link, but for you I’ll post it a fourth time.
I would assume that one of the main red flags for the people analyzing the data would be when vaccinated turn out to have a rate of something that’s higher than the background incidence/rate (in the population at large) of that particular medical event, and that the increase is unlikely to be caused by chance. They would also have to gather as much information about the person’s medical history/hereditary issues etc to help them figure out what mechanism might have caused the event. It’s detective work and it definitely requires the assistance of a statistician. How do you think the EMA concluded that the unusual blood clots/low platelet combo should be listed as a very rare side effect?
For information, I would caution you against using The Daily Mail as a source.
Have a look at these Youtube videos. Even though they are 5 and 11 years old and you may not get some of the references they give an idea how that paper is regarded.
I am pointing out that vaccines have "benefits and risks". The VAERS database records many adverse reactions (including deaths) and has been incredulously "dismissed" by experts that I believe to be operating with bias I appreciate the benefits of vaccines, but ask that you also acknowledge the intrinsic risks and respect the right of professionals to decline the vaccine(s) and still keep their jobs especially while it remains emergency use. Also allowing the ability to show antibodies to Covid in lieu of vaccination seems reasonable.
Of course they are dismissed by experts when anti-vaxxers try to use VAERS as some kind of proof that vaccines cause deaths and xyz adverse effects. VAERS reports without validation are useless. Anyone can report anything at all to VAERS. If I wanted to sow distrust and fear about a given vaccine without having to provide any proof of my assertions at all, that's exactly where I would go to report.
Limitations of VAERS:
It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event
Reports submitted to VAERS often lack details and sometimes contains errors.
Serious adverse events are more likely to be reported than non-serious events
Numbers of reports may increase in response to media attention and increased public awareness
VAERS data cannot be used to determine rates of adverse events."
The only conclusions one can draw from VAERS reports are that a given reported adverse effect needs further study. Clusters of reports of the same adverse effects would need close scrutiny.
But one cannot assert that any report found on VAERS is evidence of anything.
If those statistics are indeed accurate then it probably implies (given the high number of deaths reported to VAERS a passive surveillance system that likely undercounts adverse events) that more people in those nations are dying of the vaccines than the virus and yet so many approve of mandating it for healthcare workers https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/revolver-part-one-covid-vaers-deaths-cover-up/ .
VAERS says of itself:
"Serious adverse events are more likely to be reported than non-serious events."
"Probably implies..."
"Likely undercounts..."
Vague, imprecise language with no supporting evidence is rampant in your posts. Perhaps rather than "probably implies" the actual truth is that you just inferred. "Likely undercounts" is merely your way of saying "I want this to be true so I'll say it an a way that might be taken as actually based on something other than my own bias."
Sheesh. No vaccine, treatment, surgery, preventative agent is without risk, and I don't recall anyone here saying such a thing.
I do recall you saying multiple times that this vaccine has caused thousands of deaths, and I would be willing to bet the farm that you have zero proof of such an assertion.
"Serious adverse events are more likely to be reported than non-serious events."
"Probably implies..."
"Likely undercounts..."
Vague, imprecise language with no supporting evidence is rampant in your posts. Perhaps rather than "probably implies" the actual truth is that you just inferred. "Likely undercounts" is merely your way of saying "I want this to be true so I'll say it an a way that might be taken as actually based on something other than my own bias."
Sheesh. No vaccine, treatment, surgery, preventative agent is without risk, and I don't recall anyone here saying such a thing.
I do recall you saying multiple times that this vaccine has caused thousands of deaths, and I would be willing to bet the farm that you have zero proof of such an assertion.
I would assume that one of the main red flags for the people analyzing the data would be when vaccinated turn out to have a rate of something that’s higher than the background incidence/rate (in the population at large) of that particular medical event, and that the increase is unlikely to be caused by chance. They would also have to gather as much information about the person’s medical history/hereditary issues etc to help them figure out what mechanism might have caused the event. It’s detective work and it definitely requires the assistance of a statistician. How do you think the EMA concluded that the unusual blood clots/low platelet combo should be listed as a very rare side effect?
Also I am clearly wasting my time here and causing myself useless distress. The few people that PM in support are unwilling to post anything in support of my arguments and everyone else already has a dedicated perspective. Thus, the only thing I'm doing is upsetting myself (and it seems others) and convincing no one. Thus, I suppose "you win". However, I'm still not taking the darn vaccine until I decide the time is right.
Many of the deaths (most) reported in VAERS were not even from the AstraZenica vaccine making your link less relevant. Also, many of the deaths did not involve blood clots.
3 hours ago, Horseshoe said:
The only conclusions one can draw from VAERS reports are that a given reported adverse effect needs further study. Clusters of reports of the same adverse effects would need close scrutiny.
But one cannot assert that any report found on VAERS is evidence of anything.
Okay, from your perspective what would be the standard for saying that a death after vaccination reported to VAERS indeed was associated with the vaccine? What test, finding would lead you to conclude this?
macawake, MSN
2,141 Posts
I prefer PubMed.