|
|
|
|
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/7/2009 8:44:06 PM | | Stormwolf it's time to be a man and quit for personal reasons, let your ethics be your guide. The only ethical thing to do is not infect others, for all we know you could be asymptomatic and infect dozens. It's your right to not get the shot and our right to be protected from your selfish reasoning. One final thought quit your job. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/7/2009 8:46:06 PM | See, that's why I think you're lying.
Every health professional in North America knows what happened in Britain and what happened in Australia. So either you're not a health professional, or you're a remarkably ill informed one.
In either case - please don't get the vaccine. The world will be better off if you're not in a hospital setting. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/7/2009 8:50:36 PM | | Its funny to see all these people arguing about whether or not the Government should force people to infect their bodies with whatever it may be but are the very same people that think that the Government should not have any say as to whether or not someone aborts a baby,,,,what happened to Pro Choice? | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/7/2009 9:08:47 PM | Why wouldn't ALL food service workers be required to get shot up ?
| |
|
~Kyn~
|
Joined: 8/24/2009
Msg: 30 | |
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/7/2009 9:22:38 PM | The world will be better off if you're not in a hospital setting.
Oh I beg to differ on that
All opinions will be welcome!
As long as those opinions agree with yours cos seems you're gettin more and more irate cos people arent agreeing with you.
You know OP... doctors have a code of ethics.
Clinicians consider the interests and well being of our patients as their prime responsibility, exercise the highest ethical standards in all their dealings and activities, commit to an environment of continual improvement and are sensitive and responsive to the needs and values of the communities and countries in which they work.
Nurses do too...
The nurse collaborates with members of the health professions and other citizens in promoting community and national efforts to meet the health needs of the public.
The nurse’s primary commitment is to the patient, whether an individual,
family, group or community.
The nurse promotes, advocates for, and strives to protect the health, safety and rights of the patient.
Are you either one of those?
If you're not... frankly ... you'll be no great loss.
And if you are... then those ethics are bound to you by legality and might be worth you considering that you've already negated your individual rights in favor of those previously stipulated by your position.
You'll have no legal position.
See... you seem to forget with all your copy, paste and links and jumping up and down... that the decision has ALREADY been made and whether you agree with it or not... it binds you by Law.
You... if not being either a doctor or nurse can "try" to find a loophole... but you know what OP?
If they're gonna make people higher than you have an applied Law above themselves...
... then they're gonna make you live by the exact same creed... and will already have their asses covered on that exact scenario which is WHY they're able to implement it.
Which means you've got no case.
Why wouldn't ALL food service workers be required to get shot.
Remember Hawaiian... we arent in an industry thats primary concern is with disease and direct interaction with
And I dunno about USA but here in Australia we have Notifiable disease Law for food service workers.
You're bound by it.
Its illegal for example... to be at work whilst suffering a gastrointestinal illness.
So if our Government felt it was necessary to make a *whatever* shot mandatory for Food Industry... then they likely would.
Child care workers here for example... are required by law to have certain vaccinations because of the industry
Some diseases are most infectious during the incubation period... others when the symptoms persist.
Consider this... Pandemic control
"Quarantine" can be defined as all steps taken, both mandatory and voluntary, that restrict the activities of people exposed to a communicable disease.
"Mandatory quarantine" separates (by legal order) people who may have been exposed to the virus from others who have not.
"Voluntary quarantine" refers to members of the public who voluntarily follow restrictions on activities as recommended by their federal, provincial or local health department.
The Medical Officer of Health has the authority under legislation to introduce these types of control steps that could include canceling public gatherings (meetings, social events, etc.) or ordering a mandatory quarantine.
See OP... by you not doing as you're asked... makes the Quarantine Laws applicable to you
| |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/7/2009 10:03:25 PM | | You are a health care worker. Don't you know anything about epidemiology? Things like this cannot be left to individual choice, because one non-compliant individual can sicken and--in some cases--kill who knows how many other people. We all have to pick our battles in life. Don't fight this one. You're wrong. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/7/2009 10:05:24 PM | | I work in healthcare aswell, thou I don't believe in mandatory flu shots, it is the responsiblitiy of workers to help prevent the spread of disease. This is a much different season as we are now dealing with H1N1 and have seen what it's effects have been in Britain and Australia. If you decide not to have the vaccine, then if you get sick you should not get paid for time off. I believe in flu shots and vaccinines, by the time symptoms appear you could potentially infect many Patients and risk their health, which you do not have to right to do. In my line of work I am required to have up todate vaccinations, hepatitis and be tested for TB, if you don't agree with this then don't work in the healthcare field. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/7/2009 10:21:15 PM | When did we collectively acquire this irrational fear of germs?... Has Howard Hughes become the new role model for our heightened sense of fear?...
It is the OP's body... And it is his choice...
Fear death, anyone?... Why?... | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/7/2009 10:58:27 PM | | Sure it's his right to not get the shot. His rationale for refusing the vaccine is based on pseudoscience and conspiracy-theory nutbar-i-ness but sure...whatever. What he DOES NOT have the right to do is put the general public at risk. That's why he has an either/or situation. Either get the shot and keep the job or refuse it and find a new line of work. His "rights" don't include the freedom to infect his patients (whose immune systems are already compromised for one reason or another) | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/7/2009 11:04:31 PM | Your body, Your choice. Your decision, Your consequence.
I'll get the shot for several reasons.
It sucks to get the flu and feel like crap for two weeks, the shot may not be a guarantee of immunity but being injected with a dead form of the virus I know will leave a marker for my immune system so that if or when I come into contact with it my immune system will be better prepared to fight it off.
I don't want to make anyone sick, it likely wouldn't be lethal for me but it might for patients who are already sick, administering care to patients while in a period of incubation would infect others and this kind of conflicts with the do no harm thing.
If I would infect co-workers then I'd wind up picking up their slack. I'll take my chances with the flu shot.
For the OP maybe the time has come for you when you realize that putting yourself in harms way for the purpose of saving lives is not for you. There are other professions that don't require as much self sacrifice | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 12:56:22 AM | If we must look out for the common good, then I would think it is every bit as important for people who work at schools and people who attend schools to also be required to take the vaccine. Last spring, there were numerous schools that had to close, but I don't recall even a single hospital, clinic, or doctor's office that closed. While we are deciding who needs to take the jab for the common good, then I think that anyone who works at or attends large public gatherings such as sporting events, concerts, etc. should also be required to be injected before they are allowed to be in a crowded venue where they could potentially infect hundreds and hundreds of people in a short period of time. Anyone who uses public transportation should also be mandated to take the shot. Imagine how many people on a crowded commuter train could be infected during the morning rush hour.
In fact, if we are so concerned about the well being of the public, there are very few professions, jobs, social interaction situations, etc. that could be excluded. We should all be required to take the vaccine.
As I wrote in an earlier post, IMO, no one should be mandated to put anything into their body in order to work. I also think anyone who doesn't take advantage of an opportunity to be well is not thinking very clearly, but that decision should be up to each individual. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 3:16:34 AM |
See... you seem to forget with all your copy, paste and links and jumping up and down... that the decision has ALREADY been made and whether you agree with it or not... it binds you by Law.
Your right, the decision has already been made. It is a Constitutional Right to
decide what you have put in your body. Another bill of rights is to be able to refuse any medical treatment. This new law violates both those inherent Constitutional
rights! There are no vaccines for HIV or TB, however we deal with them every day
and are not infected or a threat to the public. I must reiterate, the Flu vaccine
does not work. Most people who take it come down with the flu. While most of us who do not take it ...never miss a day of work!
Are you either one of those?
If you're not... frankly ... you'll be no great loss.
You watch too much TV. There are many other lifesaver
"Resp Therapist" " Nuke Medicine" OR techs, that help save
lifes every day! There are thousands who feel the same as I do
and will not let the Government decide what goes in our body!
Perhaps you missed the thousand of Nurses who protested in Albany
last week, in support of freedom of choice? | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 3:22:37 AM |
I do work in a Hospital and NEVER seen 5% of the total work force effected by
any flu outbreak! You do call a lot of Bullshit!
40% of any healthcare work force would be a STATE of National Emergency!
It has never happened in our lifetime! Actually, it has... and the 40% would be rollover statistics, meaning 40% were not necessarily off of work at the same time, but at different times in a relatively short amount of time due to cross infection from others that were infected but not showing symptoms.
Ultimately OP... it is your body and yes, you are the final authority of what goes into it... but think of the patients that you care for that have lowered immune systems due to illness... should they be exposed to you? I think not...
This is no different than the antibacterial hand sanitizer that is everywhere you turn in a hospital now... it's another method to protect the patients from cross contamination albeit at a more superficial level in regards to the sanitizer.
Personally, from what I've seen of this thread, you have chosen the wrong vocation and should seriously consider a career change that will take you out of contact with a vulnerable sector of the population. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 3:24:18 AM | Every health professional in North America knows what happened in Britain and what happened in Australia. So either you're not a health professional, or you're a remarkably ill informed one.
Weak response! Once again where are your facts, your stats??
Any Hospital that had a 40% ratio of people out would have to close.
It would not be a strecth to say even 20% not showing up for work
would also have to close. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 3:29:27 AM | Ultimately OP... it is your body and yes, you are the final authority of what goes into it... but think of the patients that you care for that have lowered immune systems due to illness... should they be exposed to you? I think not...
If indeed the vacicine worked, I woukld be first inline to get it. However,
all the facts point out that it does not work. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 4:27:13 AM | "At one point last year 40% of health care workers in the UK were off because of this. That was before a vaccine was available"
This is not true. I live in the UK and if it were true, even for one day, then it would have crippled the health service and the knock on effects would last for weeks.
You shouldn't ignore the fact that there are going to be health workers not effected by swine flu that are off due to other illnesses, annual leave, domestic emergencies. So the figure for staff absences is going to be higher than 40% going by your claim.
I live in an average size city. I haven't met one person who has contracted swine flu. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 5:07:26 AM | Hopefully the 2009 swine flu vaccine wont have the same outcome of the late 1970's swine flu vaccine.
The current H1N1 vaccine does worry me to a point. Let's say this 2009 H1N1 vaccine does have some bad side effects and causes harm to the people who have taken it. Isn't reassuring to know that all of our health care workers and other emergency workers have taken it first.....Think about that. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 5:22:19 AM |
Let's say this 2009 H1N1 vaccine does have some bad side effects and causes harm to the people who have taken it. Isn't reassuring to know that all of our health care workers and other emergency workers have taken it first.....Think about that.
Most people don't consider that fact!
Effectiveness of Flu Shots Wildly Overestimated
October 2005
“What you see is that marketing rules the response to influenza, and scientific evidence comes fourth or fifth.”(1) People should ask whether it’s worth investing these trillions of dollars and euros in these vaccines.” (2)
- Dr. Tom Jefferson
While the public endures an intensifying barrage of flu shot propaganda and dire predictions of an avian flu pandemic, health officials stay tight lipped about basic facts you need to know to make an informed decision before submitting to the flu vaccine.
Every year, laboratory tests conducted across Canada and compiled by Health Canada’s FluWatch, consistently show that the majority of cases of influenza like illnesses” (ILI) involve pathogens other than the influenza virus. In other words, the influenza virus is NOT the cause of most of the flu like illnesses commonly occurring during flu season.
FluWatch reports that Between 22 August, 2004 and 12 March, 2005, a total of 68,849 laboratory tests for influenza were reported of which10,319 tested positive for influenza. That is, only 14.9% of the specimens tested showed evidence of influenza viruses. (3) The remainder of these laboratory tested cases of “influenza-like-illnesses” (85.1%), (3) involved other pathogens against which influenza vaccines offer NO protection whatsoever. The majority of “influenza-like-illnesses” are NOT caused by influenza viruses and are impervious to flu vaccines.
What health officials also don’t tell you is that their claims of vaccine effectiveness are based on a misleading measure – the ability of the vaccine to produce antibodies against the virus. It is well known in immunology that circulating antibodies are not necessarily a measure of immunity from disease.
In a flu vaccine debate published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal about the effectiveness of the mass influenza vaccination program in Ontario, Italian epidemiologist, Dr. Demicheli refutes the 70%- 90% claims of vaccine efficacy, saying this is “both wrong and misleading……and refers only to the ability of the vaccine to produce antibodies effective against the virus. But this is not the important measure of vaccine efficacy. Instead, we should measure the ability of the vaccine to prevent clinical disease, in this case influenza. By this measure, vaccine efficacy is no greater than 25%.” (4)
Dr. Demicheli also affirmed that “The actual proportion of influenza A and B cases among ILI cases is not well known, but the few available studies indicate a modest proportion of probably less than 10%, regardless of age group.” (5)
In 2000 the Ontario Minister of Health and Long-Term Care launched a $38 million (annually) universal influenza immunization program for Ontario, Canada. Its objective was to decrease the seasonal impact of influenza on emergency department (ED) visits and to decrease the number and severity of influenza cases. A review of the efficacy of this program published in the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine found that the percentage of acute upper respiratory illnesses seeking emergency medical help is very low – “only 4.4% and of these influenza accounted for only 0.34%”. Conclusion: “Based on this study, a universal influenza immunization campaign is unlikely to affect ED volume.” (6)
On September 21, 2005 a New York Times article reported that “Just as governments around the world are stockpiling millions of doses of flu vaccine and antiviral drugs in anticipation of a potential influenza pandemic, two new research papers published today have found that such treatments are far less effective than previously thought.” (1)
The first meta-analysis was done by the Cochrane Vaccines Field, a group of scientist who looked at the results of 64 international flu vaccine studies. Their findings are published online at The Lancet, a leading British medical journal. (7)
“There is a wild overestimation of the impact of these vaccines in the community,” says Dr. Tom Jefferson, an epidemiologist in Rome who led the analysis for the Cochrane Collaboration, an independent international effort that evaluates the efficacy of medical care and performs systematic reviews of research data. (7)
Jefferson’s team analyzed patient studies on the flu vaccine performed worldwide in the past 37 years and discovered that vaccines showed at best a “modest” ability to prevent influenza or its complications in elderly people. “The runaway 100 percent effectiveness that’s touted by proponents was nowhere to be seen,” said Dr .Jefferson.”It is assumed to be 70, 80 or 90 per cent in the elderly,” Jefferson said, but the study shows “it’s not as effective… That needs to be clearly presented to our customers, not fudged.” (8)
The researchers found that flu shots were only 27 per cent effective in reducing the chance of an elderly person ending up in a hospital with influenza or pneumonia. The findings are similar to those of a previous study done by the U.S. National Institutes of Health which reviewed three decades of U.S. data. Published in the February 14, 2005 Archives of Internal Medicine, the study found that flu shots for the elderly in the United States had not saved any lives. (8)
“In the case of a pandemic, we are unsure from the data whether these vaccines would work on the elderly. Vaccines may be less effective in older people because their immune systems are less able to mount a vigorous response”, Jefferson and others said. (1, 2)
“People should ask whether it’s worth investing these trillions of dollars and euros in these vaccines,” Jefferson said. “What you see is that marketing rules the response to influenza, and scientific evidence comes fourth or fifth,” (2, 1) “The best strategy to prevent the illness is to wash your hands.” said Dr. Jefferson. (1)
For several years, health officials in Canada and the U.S. have been urging parents to vaccinate their babies age 6 to 23 months with flu vaccine. Infants and young children receive two shots 30 days apart.
Dr. Jefferson’s team also reviewed 25 studies that looked at the impact of vaccines on the number of cases of influenza and its symptoms in children up to 16. The Cochrane team concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating children under 2 years old against influenza reduces deaths or complications from the illness. (9, 10)
“Immunization of very young children is not lent support by our findings,” said Dr Tom Jefferson. “We recorded no convincing evidence that vaccines can reduce mortality, [hospital] admissions, serious complications and community transmission of influenza. In young children below the age of 2, we could find no evidence that the vaccine was different from a placebo,” Jefferson told Reuters. (9, 10)
In his recent article, Influenza Vaccination of Infants: A Useless Risk Dr. F. Edward Yazbak, a U.S. pediatrician who now devotes his time to the research of autoimmune regressive autism and vaccine injury, offers additional insight into the Cochrane Vaccine Fields study led by Dr. Tom Jefferson. He also analyzed the two studies on which the CDC bases its recommendation of flu vaccination of babies, calling them “limited, weak and irrelevant.” (11) Dr. Yazbak suggests that the CDC and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices have a simple choice:
“They can continue recommending the useless influenza vaccination of infants aged 6 to 24 months.” or “They can do the right thing and rescind the 2004 recommendation.”
In a follow up article Dr. Yazbak points to the lack of evidence of safety of influenza vaccines in babies. (12)
Writes Dr. Yazbak, “In a letter to the editor of The Lancet on Sept. 3, 2005, T. Jefferson, S. Smith, V. Demichelli, A. Hamden and A. Rivetti expressed their concerns and frustration at the fact that, though they tried, they were unable to get reliable information regarding the safety of influenza vaccines on the market.
This team has written and published several comprehensive publications on vaccination practices. My most recent article on influenza vaccination of infants 6 to 23 months was mostly based on their impressive review of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in children, a review that included every study they could find in any language.
In the letter to The Lancet, Jefferson and associates expressed deep concern that safety studies were not done, the studies were too old and too small, or the vaccine manufacturer simply refused to allow the team to review the data from the vaccine trials.
The frustrated authors ended their letter stating, ‘We believe all unpublished trial safety data should be readily accessible to both the regulatory bodies and the scientific community on request. Our evidence gives rise to a concern that lack of access to unreported data prevents published data being put into context and hinders full and independent review. This cannot be good for public confidence in these vaccines. (12)
The Canadian Paediatric Society’s Position Paper is in concert with U.S. flu vaccine policies for children and recommends vaccination of all Canadian children older than 6 months including those with immune dysfunction and other chronic diseases. Infants and young children are injected with two doses of the vaccine 30 days apart. “While recognizing that research is needed to determine the efficacy of universal influenza immunization of healthy children between six months and two years of age in the prevention of illness and hospitalization due to influenza (7), the Canadian Paediatric Society agrees with the decision of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization that the risk of hospitalization due to influenza among children in this age group justifies routine influenza immunization……The dosage for children from six to 35 months of age is 0.25 mL. The dose for children, 36 months of age and older, is 0.5 mL.” (13)
In Canada, Vaxigrip and Fluviral are the two vaccines most widely used and are produced by pharmaceutical companies Sanofi Pasteur and ID Biomedical respectively. Product information for Vaxigrip is available on the Sanofi Pasteur website. (14) Fluviral product details are not available on the ID Biomedical website.
According to a July 13, 2005 press release, ID Biomedical has been granted a ten-year mandate from the Government of Canada in 2001 to assure a state of readiness in the case of an influenza pandemic and provide influenza vaccine for all Canadians in such an event. It also currently supplies approximately 75% of the Canadian government’s influenza vaccine purchases. (15)
Resistance to Anti-Viral Flu Agents Increasing Worldwide
A second paper published in the Lancet (Sept.21/05) (7) has found that since the mid-nineties, worldwide resistance to drugs used to treat influenza has increased by 12%. Researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that influenza viruses, particularly those from the dreaded bird flu strain, have developed resistance to commonly used antiviral drugs such as amantadine. In China and other parts of Asia, resistance is said to be as high as 74%.
Dr Rick Bright of the CDC is quoted in the Lancet press release: “We were alarmed to find such a dramatic increase in drug resistance in circulating human influenza viruses in recent years. Our report has broad implications for agencies and governments planning to stockpile these drugs for epidemic and pandemic strains of influenza. With the increasing rates of resistance shown here, amantadine and rimantadine will probably no longer be effective for treatment or prophylaxis in the event of a pandemic outbreak of influenza.” All human cases of the bird flu (H5N1) strain – which is still extremely rare in humans – have been resistant, the researchers said.
For the developing world, these findings may be ominous because wealthier nations have been stockpiling newer and vastly more expensive antiviral drugs like Tamiflu which are still under patent protection and not available in the cheaper generic form.
Researchers speculate that one reason why resistance rates to the older, cheaper antiviral drugs in Asia jumped so much and skyrocketed after 2002, is that doctors there started prescribing the drugs far more widely after the advent of bird flu in 1997 and SARS, in 2002. (1)
Although actual human cases of these two diseases are rare, the death rate is high which is why patients are given antiviral drugs when they develop a respiratory illness, even though most cases will be nothing more than a common cold. Antiviral drugs work only if they are started within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms and, in that period, it is generally impossible to tell if patients have a deadly strain of flu or merely a mild virus.
The new research demonstrates how quickly and unexpectedly flu viruses can become impervious to medicines once they are put into common use. Antiviral medicines do not cure influenza. They function by cutting down on transmission of the disease and reduce somewhat the symptoms and complications in those already infected.
Dr Jefferson concludes: “We need a more comprehensive and perhaps more effective strategy in controlling acute respiratory infections, relying on several preventive interventions that take into account the multi-agent nature of infectious respiratory disease and its context (such as personal hygiene, provision of electricity and adequate food, water and sanitation).” (7) | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 5:33:58 AM |
There are no vaccines for HIV or TB, however we deal with them every day
and are not infected or a threat to the public.
I have had at least 1 nurse on here confide that she HAS gotten TB in the hospital setting. If there were vaccines for HIV or TB, I sure as heck would take them. I have a cousin who went to work in Africa who is one of those nuts that won't take his medication. He managed to catch malaria twice and was lucky he didn't die from it. All these people with Alzheimers, you think flu shots are to blame? Seriously? I think it is time you attend some kind of in-service or something.
Yes it is your choice to, or not to take the shot, however, your employer should not be responsible for your down-time, should you get sick. Take the shot or leave. You chose to go into healthcare knowing you would be required to get vaccinations, unless this H1N1 has these chemicals in massive proprtions compared to all the other stuff you have taken, then your argument is rather the petulant whinings of someone who has just "picked a cause", so to speak. Please explain to us how THIS vaccine...THIS ONE...is the DEVIL, compared to all the others you have had to take in your lifetime. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 6:43:36 AM |
Please explain to us how THIS vaccine...THIS ONE...is the DEVIL, compared to all the others you have had to take in your lifetime.
Yes I choose this field and took all the required vaccines that were required.
I have taken many Vaccines. The Hep B, Pneumonia shot and many others.
None have the chemical make up that the N1H1 have. The Mercury, Aluminum,
Aniti--freeze, are just a few basic "fillers." No other shot than the prior Swine
flu has given people 500 cases of GBS.
All these people with Alzheimers, you think flu shots are to blame?
During the inservices I have attended, I've learned that autopsies reveal a high
Aluminum content in each person with Alzheimers. You think adding this to your blood stream in the Flu shot is something we shouldn't consider? | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 6:48:49 AM | Squalene is used in this vaccine and others where the genetic material in the vaccine is in short supply. That's why they used it when rushing to innoculate those going to Desert Storm. Now they're using it to stretch out the materials used in the H1N1 vaccine. They still don't even know how much vaccine provides adequate protection, or whether people should get one or two shots. And no, they don't know if it works or not.
However research done by Tulane University showed that returning vets who reported symtoms of Gulf War syndrome showed positive for higher than natural levels of squalene in their systems. Those who reported no symptoms showed only background levels. The military and pharmaceutical companies have done research to refute the study. The first one was flawed, but they claimed it proved no problems anyway. The next one was more sensitive and directly disputed their own findings from the first. The third study - done last year claims to show through large-scale sleight of hand, how the vaccine couldn't have caused it, through a confusing and questionable reverse investigation into what the army did some 18+ years ago. Well-respected animal studies show intravenous squalene causes effects that would be likened to Gulf War Syndrome in humans. Oral ingestion of squalene is not what's in question, only intravenous adminstration, which stimulate the body into fighting not only the flu DNA, but squalene itself. That's unfortunate because squalene is produced by almost all animals in minute amounts. You then become allergic to your own body.
Well, there's squalene in the vaccine made by two of the three companies churning this stuff out. And they openly admit there have been no studies showing the vaccine works, or that it's not dangerous. They are literally using the earliest patients as guinea pigs. They even put out a call to parents of infants 6 months and younger to use as guinea pigs in deciding which vaccine/ vaccine type and regimen was more effective or less harmful.
Meanwhile, they're raking in the money the government is handing over to them and the government has promised them immunity from lawsuits when this vaccine kills or renders injuries to anyone.
Why do you think they're going through all that trouble to cover each others' asses? The only thing missing is that World Health witch pronouncing that everyone was going to die if you don't do this and do that...What a power play and farce that was. All that disruption and to what effect? Only to admit they were too late anyway and weren't sure what to do next. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 7:11:51 AM | I am wary of most vaccines. From a past experience.
A neighbor got a form of very contagious meningitis when I was about 6.
Everyone on the block got inoculated to prevent it.
I was ill for weeks and I can't remember ever being that sick in my life.
I didn't have a choice at 6.
I find it hard to believe you could lose a job because of this.
| |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 7:12:12 AM | You can make a case for almost any nutty idea. There are still idiots who think vaccines cause autism, too.
However, you have the right to refuse the vaccine, and perhaps lose your job. Your choice. Since you work in health care and come in contact with many sick people, that's a reasonable consequence. You could have H1N1 flu and be asymptomatic yet still infect others - and since they may be sick, you could be responsible for their death. So, yes, by all means refuse, but then stay away from those you may harm because of your paranoid fear of the vaccine. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 7:33:26 AM |  
oh gee. Now men understand what the abortion debate is all about.
Or not. And I resent the use of the slogan if you don't know as such and are anti-choice.
1) ALUMINUM (two variants) - directly linked to Alzheimer's Disease
2) AMMONIUM SULFATE - an inorganic chemical compound used a fertilizer and "protein purifier"; known to cause kidney & liver damage, gastrointestinal disfunctions
3) AMPHOTERICIN B - an "antifungal disinfectant", damages the urinary tract, bowels, heart functions
4) RE-CYCLED ANIMAL TISSUE (multiple) - the building blocks of Mad Cow Disease
5) FORMALDEHYDE - used as "a preservative & disinfectant", known to cause cancer, chronic bronchitis, eye irritation when exposed to the body's immune system
6) MSG - now known to cause cancer in humans, also linked to obesity
7) PHENOL - a highly toxic disinfectant dye, attributed to liver, kidney, heart & respiratory damage
8) PHENOXYETHANOL (ANTIFREEZE) - proven to have extreme neurotoxic side effects
9) THIMEROSAL (MERCURY) - So what's the biggie? This stuff is found your shampoo and conditioner (sulfates), deoderant (aluminum), food (animal tissue), restaurant food (MSG), the old silver-looking fillings (mercury), fingernail polish remover (formaldehyde and phnoxyethanol) and other products we use all day every day.
So what's a little mo poison kill ya huh? Or if not kill ya give you disease and cancer somewhere down the line.
I don't know sure how I feel about this. At first instinct I agree with you that it should not be manditory (neither this or the Gardisil vaccine they are trying to make manditory for little girls). But what about the other vaccines like MMR and polio that are not manditory for the school children? They all have to start somewhere. | |
|
| My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 7:36:32 AM | One of the biggest problems with the internet is the amount of nutty ideas, irrational fear-mongering, and unproven psuedo science that people like to circulate as "facts".
In 1979 (before the internet) the World Health Organization achieved the unlikely goal of completely eliminating small pox through the use of vacine. I have to wonder if such a feat would be possible today in the internet world with so many whack jobs spreading garbage in like: "these shots will do more harm than good" in forums and message boards.
It just seems that for every valid scientific claim regarding human health today, someone's posting a counter-claim on the internet, without any real valid science behind their counter-claim. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
