Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > My body,My choice!      Home login  
Joined: 2/23/2009
Msg: 26
view profile
My body,My choice!Page 2 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
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.
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 27
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.
Joined: 2/23/2009
Msg: 28
view profile
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)
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 29
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 the DEVIL, compared to all the others you have had to take in your lifetime.
Joined: 2/23/2009
Msg: 30
view profile
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 6:43:36 AM

Please explain to us how THIS vaccine...THIS 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?
 peppermint petunias
Joined: 9/2/2009
Msg: 31
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.
Joined: 3/16/2009
Msg: 32
view profile
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.
Joined: 7/2/2008
Msg: 33
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

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.
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 34
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 7:46:28 AM
OP, it's the same in IL. At least in Chicago. All health care workers at most of the hospitals around here, I know, must get this vaccine or risk losing their jobs. IL is a "right-to-work" state however, even for healthcare providers. Therefore, I guess there's no real reason the employer cannot let the employee go for refusing what amounts to a direct order which was given in fact with the express warning that employment may be terminated if you don't comply.
Joined: 12/7/2008
Msg: 35
view profile
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 7:50:12 AM
I still say there will be loopholes and waivers for this program before too long. God bless the Constitution of the United States and all. Some people in the health care profession will be able to argue against this shot mandate on a religious basis or for health reasons. Yes, health reasons. Some people are highly allergic to the ingredients in the shot. Will the healthcare profession mandating the shot to keep a job cover the medical expenses if you get the shot to keep your job and then end up hospitalized from a severe allergic reaction to the shot?

I also have to wonder about the safety of some of the more recent flu vaccines to hit the market. Most long-time, accepted vaccines out there were in test and development stages for YEARS before being available to the masses. Same w/ many of the medications on the market. But the H1N1 vaccine is available after just a few months?

No, I am not against vaccines in general, I think many vaccines have done a lot of good for the mass public, but I do have to wonder if we as a society have become so reliant on the word "vaccine" as synomous w/ the word "safe".

I agree it is a person's choice to get the shot and keep their job or accept the consequences. As with any situation, there are always shades of gray. For some people the choices aren't really that great to choose from.

You also have to wonder if down the line they will start mandating other professions besides healthcare have the vaccine or lose their job. Food service, retail, public transport, etc. After all they all deal w/ the public too. Or are we going to start fining individuals that are sick w/ something contagious and choose to go out into public places and spread those illnesses?

I think it is less about one type of vaccine and more about where to draw the line.
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 36
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 7:57:28 AM
The 10th Amendment to the Constitution does NOT give you the power to make this requirement of the citizens of this country, nor to impose punishment should a person refuse to cooperate

^^ We're not governed here strictly by the Constitution. Although laws are (generally) held to a standard of Constitutionality, there are whole bodies of other laws which have sprung up over the years since then, as the country and the times have drastically changed (at least in most demographics and in the minds of most Americans....) since the late 18th century. If those men who wrote it could have even fully understood the concept of an H1N1 viral outbreak back then, or the concept of a vaccine consisting of a dead form of said virus, or a CDC, or an FDA, or a country the size of what this one has become full of this many varied types of people from all over the world carrying all different sorts of viruses, and so on, then how can we say for sure what exactly they would have thought about immunizing all the healthcare workers in large hospitals.

"Forced participation or commandeering

The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1992, in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in the case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment...

Commerce clause

According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these)..."

^^^ But even if this were thought to be one of those things which the "states cannot alienate", the fact remains that it is technically not compulsory. No one is taking away your life or liberty (or "pursuit of happiness") if you refuse the vaccine. Simply your employer is mandating it , at the risk of losing that job.
Joined: 2/23/2009
Msg: 37
view profile
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 8:18:12 AM

No, I am not against vaccines in general, I think many vaccines have done a lot of good for the mass public, but I do have to wonder if we as a society have become so reliant on the word "vaccine" as synomous w/ the word "safe".

Good point! Please let me explain something here. I have an allergy
to eggs, so by the same laws that invoked this Mandate, I am exempt. However,
I will stand with my co-workers who are against this mandate. What further incited
me was the lowest of moral standards, I accompanied a co-worker to recieve her Flu shot.

We both laughed as she ripped up the consent form and said, I'm getting an Attorney!
Don't believe for a moment that the Drug companys are not making a HUGE fortune
from this deceptive act postured as a good gesture. It sickens me that if any one of
you suffer any negative effects from this shot, even die from it, you cannot sue the drug company! How was such an unprecidented act allowed to happen???
GREED and plenty of underhanded payoffs has to brought up as a possibility!
It it my sincere hope that the Government will reverse this law as "Unconstitutional"
after they have scared as many people as possible into taking this poison.
Joined: 7/26/2004
Msg: 38
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 8:27:04 AM

It it my sincere hope that the Government will reverse this law as "Unconstitutional"
after they have scared as many people as possible into taking this poison.

OK, so, the state of New York has decided that in order to work in the health care field, you have to have a flu shot vaccine.

Your argument is that they are forcing you to take a vaccine you don't agree with.

Here is the problem. THEY ARE NOT FORCING YOU TO TAKE A VACCINE!!!!!!!!

You still have a choice in the matter. The question is are you willing to accept those consequences?

Dr. Martin Luther King had this concept of an unjust law is no law, and you are free to break an unjust law, as long as you accept the consequences for not following it.

You feel that requiring the flu vaccine for health care workers is not just? Fine, don't get the vaccine. But then accept the consequences of not getting the vaccine, which means you can't practice medicine.

You know, the government also has regulations against me putting cyanide or weapons grade uranium in my body as well. Does that mean that is unconstitutional as well?
Joined: 2/23/2009
Msg: 39
view profile
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 9:36:38 AM
The overall public good is served best by your voluntary acceptance of a slight risk. You can choose to leave your employment situation if the policy goes against your self-interest. It's your body and your choice. The decision to require vaccination came from looking at the larger picture estimating risks to populations served by health care workers in addition to the health care workforce.

If that was indeed the case I would agree with you! However, it is apparent
that the above gesture is NOT the case. The hospitals I've worked in were less
than 20% compliant with employees voluntary taking the Flu shots. The majority
of us not taking the flu shot, never missed a day of work. The majority of people who did take the shot , were sick for two weeks. Bizzare but true.

I also respectfully disagree with your assumption that " The decision to require
vaccination came from looking at the larger picture estimating risks to populations served by healthcare workers." I truly feel it's a smoke screen for Drug companys to
line their fat pockets....again!
Joined: 8/4/2007
Msg: 40
view profile
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 11:07:59 AM
It is your body and your choice. But you can't decline the shot and keep your job. Pick.

We ALL of us have "requirements" at jobs, our positions require certain training, experience, or degrees. I have undergone physicals, had criminal background checks, FBI clearance, been fingerprinted (three times, for different positions over 20 years)...and yes here in my office, "direct service" workers are required to have certain vaccinations. I worked in accounts payable at one point in time - they had random drug testing. I can understand that if you drive a bus...but someone in an office doing the books? BUT - I did take the test, because it was a condition of my employment.
 Belle Requin
Joined: 2/17/2007
Msg: 41
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 11:20:30 AM
There is a significant difference between what you must do to obtain employment, conditions made known to you at the time of employment, and the employers ability to change those conditions without your input or consent.

We're considered to be an economic downturn- and everyone seems to think that leaving a job is no biggie. Health care is generally a career that requires training, formal education. Why should the OP have to throw away all he's invested? Would we be saying "then quit" if his employer mandated that he wear a pink jumpsuit everyday to work?

The fact is, his personal security is being severely affected on the assumption that it's necessary, with little proof to back up the necessity. I don't think this would ever fly in Cda, but our rules are little different. Maybe OP you should quit and move to Cda where we're a little more receptive to privacy libery and security respect (so long as you don't have firearms...)

To contrast the abortion debate, why not give the woman the only options of protect yourself from sex, or don't have sex? We've created a third option (abortion), so why should the op not get a third option?

And you can't compare the polio vaccine and how it was created to the way vaccines are made and marketed today. There's a reason people are starting to refer to "health care" as the "sickness industry."
Joined: 2/23/2009
Msg: 42
view profile
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 12:34:58 PM

It is your body and your choice. But you can't decline the shot and keep your job. Pick.

Basically that what it comes down to. I have meet "requirements"
20 some odd years ago. I passed med school, sat and passed my boards.
I have passed drug tests, background checks, annual TB testing
and the required vaccines to practice medicine. However, to tell me now
that I have to inject something in my body that may harm me and have to
sign a consent form that states "I'm doing it on my own free will" is something
I believe I can challenge in a court of Law and Win. I have multiple medical
licenses to practice in States that don't require a mandate of the flu shot.
However, I am not alone in this and many of my co-workers will challenge this
after speaking with legal counsil, we truly believe we will win! It's just
hard to fathom that in 2009, my freedom of choice is taxed in the form
of "do it or lose your job?" From the Land of the Free and home of the brave?
Joined: 8/4/2007
Msg: 43
view profile
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 12:49:11 PM
But that's the thing about jobs - when you get one, no one guarantees that it is a RIGHT to keep it...requirements change and people need to meet those requirements. Things constantly change in the office where I work, and there are legal mandates, etc., that we have to deal with.
 Lint Spotter
Joined: 8/27/2009
Msg: 44
view profile
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 12:55:42 PM
Seriously, this whole thing makes me think of petulant children stomping their feet and making unreasonable demands for dinner/naptime/whatever cause strikes them at the time. This is why people are opposed to unions… it’s no longer a question of doing an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay or complying with the status quo to keep your job, it’s now a power struggle where the employees are ranting and raving like lunatics.

I’ve worked in both the public and private sectors and by far I prefer the private as there is a higher degree of accountability by the staff. Riding on someone else’s coat-tails is unheard of without the protection of unions… if I refuse to comply with the dynamic scope of my job, it’s simple… I’m terminated from my employment. Conversely, I work hard, do a decent job and I’m recompensed appropriately by my employer… it’s a relationship that synchronizes quite nicely. I have an obligation to them, they have an obligation to me… we both meet in the middle rather than whining or threatening to litigate.

Your body, your choice… their place of employment, your choice to leave. Get off your high horse and get the shot or get out and pound the pavement for another job... its simple as that.
 clockwork lime
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 45
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 1:49:00 PM

Your body, your choice… their place of employment, your choice to leave. Get off your high horse and get the shot or get out and pound the pavement for another job... its simple as that.

Would you have told that to a woman 50 years ago who lost her job because she was pregnant?
People fought for an equitable workplace where rights were respected. The workplace changed to accomodate those people, and those accomodations have become laws.
Seems to me that's basically all this guy is doing.
Just because the workplace in its present state suits you, doesn't mean it suits everybody.
Besides, this thread is veering away from the original question.
Can an employer tell someone what to do with their body in order for them to keep their job?
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 46
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 1:53:33 PM

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.

Let's take one more stab at explaining this...

This is NOT an "all at one time" statistic, it is a cumulative number.

What it means is that a TOTAL of 40% were absent due to the same illness over the ENTIRE COURSE of the "flu season".

In other words, by way of illustrative example, in the first month 5% (example, not real number) were off, the next month a DIFFERENT 5% were off, and the next month and the next month. This means, as a CUMULATIVE statistic, that 20% of the workers were off due to this illness over a 4 month period, NOT 20% all at one time. If the SAME 5% were off each month, the cumulative statistic would be 5% of workers (and 20% of the shifts required) were off, but it isn't the SAME 5% each every month, it is a DIFFERENT 5% each time.

That you are unable to comprehend this simple concept leaves me with great doubts about your ability to even begin to understand any element of even basic research much less make adequate use of it to support your position (and your statements about Alzheimer's and aluminum only further support my conclusion given that the relationship at this point is no more than correlation, NO causation has yet been established. It is still "up in the air" as to whether the aluminum levels are a cause, a sign, or a little of both).
Joined: 10/10/2005
Msg: 47
view profile
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 1:57:41 PM
You're right, you shouldn't have to be forced to inject anything into your body. But should the taxpayers of your community be forced to pay for your sick time when you get ill? Should your patients have to suffer because you're not at work, but home sick?

The flu vaccine causing illness isn't nearly as sound an argument as some advocates would like to believe.

I hope you don't lose your job over this but I do respect you standing your ground for something you believe in.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 48
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 7:28:56 PM
It should be noted that the amount of those "dangerous" chemicals in the flu shot are miniscule. Maybe if you bathed, ate, and drank them, they'd harm you but the amounts that are in the shots are (in my opinion and the opinion of most health professionals) insignificant.
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 49
view profile
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/8/2009 11:37:32 PM
Don't get the shot, start looking for a new job. Why is there always someone whining about flu shots? Have you ever read the history of the flu? Don't give me that crap about the flu not being anything and if you've never had the flu, well lucky you, me, when I get the flu (usually from people who refuse to get the shot then show up in stores and at work with the damn flu!) I end up in the hospital hooked up to oxygen for a couple of weeks. Boohoohoo to you for having to get a damn shot. Suck it up.
Joined: 2/23/2009
Msg: 50
view profile
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/9/2009 6:20:18 AM
No Haze,
it's people like you who take the shot, that I have to end up taking care
of, while the nurses have to clean your azz! Neither you or the Government
have the right to tell me what I have to put in my body! So be a sheep and
follow the herd. Not me.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > My body,My choice!