you probably have this info but here goes..the most creepy i think is the vaccine inserts.
I live in Vancouver British Columbia and we recently had the mandate for forced vaccination of healthcare workers overturned. The government was forced to withdraw the policy in light of sketchy supportive evidence and massive public outcry. I am also really concerned about this vaccine being given yearly to children. see the narcolepsy epidemic of 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix caused by the flu vaccine
Children with asthma who get the flu vaccine has 3x the hospitalization rate as those who are not vaccinated see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519172045.htm
I specialize in research and I have developed a keen interest in the conflicting evidence on this vaccine. The flu campaigns are ideologically driven, not evidence driven and that is a terrifying predicament for our patients and their health care workers. It is a quaint notion that a vaccinated healthcare workers protects our elderly, however, there is no credible evidence to prove this correlation. Look at gold standard vaccines...mumps, hepatitis, smallpox etc...do they have these battles over efficacy? of course not..that's because they are low variant viruses that you can effectively control with vaccination.
Please see these highly credible meta-analysis's on this issue. The first, is performed by the Cochrane Collective, who the Lancet describe as "the most important medical advancement since the discovery of the human genome" The Cochrane concluded:
"there is no evidence that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza in elderly residents in Long term care facilities"
The Cochrane examination of flu vaccines in healthy adults, a body of literature spanning 25 studies and involving 59,566 people, finds an annual flu shot reduced overall clinical influenza by about six percent. It would reduce absenteeism by only 0.16 days (about four hours) for each influenza episode, a small effect given that the average flu bout lasts five to seven days. What was most illuminating was the authors’ conclusion: “There is not enough evidence to recommend universal vaccination against influenza in healthy adults.”
Do not mistake quantity, for quality of evidence regarding this vaccine. Michael Osterholm, director of Center of Center for Infectious Disease Research as well as its Center of Excellence in Influenza Research, did the most extensive meta analysis of influenza studies between 1967 and 2011. Out of 5707 studies, he found only 31 were conducted with scientific credibility. He found that even when the vaccines were perfectly matched, they provided relative (not absolute) protection of 59%. This performance was worse in years when the vaccines were not matched. Osterholm goes on to say that in order for a vaccine to be considered efficacious it must have between an 85-95% efficacy. "if this were a measles vaccine, it would be a failure"
Osterholm speaks about the importance of going back to the evidence about flu vaccines and stop dealing in rhetoric.
He said this to the New York Times: “We have overpromoted and overhyped this vaccine,”It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.”
In the absence of evidence, apparently we make it up when it comes to the flu vaccine. Using Cochrane's credibility, BC's health officer, and the editor of a the Canadian Medical Association Journal, purposefully misquoted Cochrane to support their dubious vaccine initiative and overpromoted efficacy to 80%. They were publically reprimanded as a result by The Cochrane Collective and by Osterholm for their gross deception regarding the vaccine - http://www.cmaj.ca/content/184/17/1873/reply#cmaj_el_713497 and http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Cochrane+review+vaccine+definitive+health+officer+suggests/7543272/story.html
Influenza is greatly understood by the public and healthcare workers alike. The "flu" is seen as synonymous with influenza when it is not in fact, 200 pathogens cause seasonal "influenza like illnesses", the vaccine, (IF! the right strains are guessed correctly 6 months in advance) only protects against 3 strains. The majority of illness we see over the winter months will not be influenza (90%) and will not be affected by the vaccine ( these other strains like adenovirus and RSV are still capable of pneumonia and death) There is so much confusion that we actually have NO idea about true influenza numbers. It is thought that the burden of this virus is overestimated by as much as 10x! This is a Canadian article, The US is the exactly the same. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/11/22/flu-deaths-crowe.html
Also, we have no idea about long term safety of the vaccine. Vaccine additives are in trace amounts, however, the cumulative exposure of yearly injections spanning a health care workers career involving WHMIS classified "Highly Toxic" poisons such as Thermosil, Triton X 100 and Formaldehyde have never been studied.
Check out the shocking quality of evidence in our vaccine inserts: they would be thrown out of a master's thesis. Most are missing pertinent safety included those targeted for the vaccine - those with comorbidites, pregnant women and the elderly. Few adverse effects studied and the inserts themselves say " there have been no controlled trials demonstrating a decrease in influenza after vaccination with FLULAVAL" also read the shocking pregnancy safety concerns regarding fetal demise for the 2009/10 vaccine.
Certain immune systems do not respond well to the vaccine. I personally had an oculorespiratory crisis from the vaccine and one of our coworkers contracted Guillan Barre. She was off work for almost one year and still suffers from permanent foot drop as a result. Yes, the risks are small, however informed consent is accepting all the risks of a medical procedure. If a healthcare worker is not willing to accept the risks how can they be forced? Especially in light of such poor evidence of efficacy.
.Public Health lawyer Wendy Marriner sums up forced vaccination as this: The public will support reasonable public health interventions if they trust public health officials to make sensible recommendations that are based on science and where the public is treated as part of the solution instead of the problem. Public health programs that are based on force are a relic of the 19th century; 21st-century public health depends on good science, good communication, and trust in public health officials to tell the truth. In each of these spheres, constitutional rights are the ally rather than the enemy of public health. Preserving the public’s health in the 21st century requires preserving respect for personal liberty.
PS Remember, this is an old, promiscuous virus, that was around when we were young. Did we force vaccines then? Did we get into a yearly panic about our vulnerable dying then? No. We were rational. Hmmm What's changed?