A Physician Takes His Flu Vaccine Under Protest

[Turquesa]

Wow. I found two gems in one day.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/11/physician-takes-flu-vaccine-protest.html

" . . . if the organization has simply been honest and stated that they were requesting employees be vaccinated because less than 90% compliance would be met by a financial penalty from our government at a time when the hospital was already under financial stress, I would have been first in line to get my vaccine . . . But rather than banking on this goodwill from the employees and staff, the institution chose to frame this as a patient care issue."

The one good that I see coming out of all of this flu shot madness is that even doctors and nurses who otherwise see the value in vaccines are questioning some of the corruption that lurks behind vaccine mandates.

[lanamommyphd07]

After I refused the mandatory flu shot and also suggested that it wasn't right for an employer to ask for medical information (to document the med exemption) nor was it right for an employer to ask for religious information (in which an approved clergyperson documents the specific writings that oppose vax), and pointed out that I lived in a state with a philosophical exemption......

I was fired. But wait, not fired. I was not allowed to call it that. It was a voluntary resignation. They even offered up the resident "brainwashing technician" when they realized I was not going to comply. Seems if I "listened to reason" she would be able to convert me. I found that part particularly condescending.

While I was able to have integrity, and thankfully could take the hit to my employment at the time, I was left feeling a bit empty. Nobody (except my patients and coworkers) even knew I stood up to the nonsense. I always felt like I should have made more of a stink about it and now I end up feeling guilty in some ways as I see the same thing happening this year in more facilities. The other docs were astonished that I didn't just do a little fraud to keep my job (get a pal to write a fake med excuse....forge my name on a vax document), but I just.couldn't. 

So--when folks are wondering how the vax percentage got so high in medical centers but they hear of so many docs not doing the flu shot, there you are. They are finding ways around it, but on the outside it appears as though they lined up willingly for a jab. And there are a whole lot of us who calmly submitted to a termination. But..I really really doubt any medical center would share those statistics.

[emmy526]

the  flu shot mandate is getting out of control...i fear it is going to spill over into other areas of employment trades, not just hospitals.   Wait and see.  I give it five years, if that, for other workplaces to start demanding flu shots for all employees, regardless of where the employment is.  

[kathymuggle]

Wow, lanamommyphd07, sorry you were affected that way.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 12/30/12 at 6:38am

[prosciencemum]

It is a strange situation in the US with the flu vaccine. If you read the article of the doctor, he has no concerns about safety, and wouldn't have minded getting vaccinated if he'd been "asked nicely", but he objects to the misrepresentation of research studies showing flu vaccines don't help too much with some groups of people, and he doesn't like being forced into vaccinating. Can't fault him with either of those things.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

It is a strange situation in the US with the flu vaccine. .

It is a strange situation worldwide, that people are being required to submit to vaccination when safety is questionable at best, and both mainstream research and industry insiders (like Merck's own virologists) are showing that efficacy claims are false.

[prosciencemum]

That's a misrepresentation of reality as I'm sure you know. The flu vaccine is demonstrably very safe, and shown to be effective in many circumstances.

[lanamommyphd07]

It has always bothered me that a flu shot has so many variables, and it isn't the "same" year to year (except a few exceptions), so if something were to be found ineffective, I'm guessing it would be "oh, okay, it wasn't good last year but you know we change it each year". Not enough URIs and the like are actually swabbed for me to have good feelings about the rate of diagnosis, since "flu" means so many different things in vernacular. The other issue is that since vax reactions are not necessarily seen as vax reactions but a range of other things...we don't have a set treatment protocol in place until some time later when the neuro problems are peaking. I wish those could be caught sooner, but there would have to be more acknowledgement that something could go wrong. I also found the recent claims about increases in miscarriages, etc., related to this vax troubling.

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm pretty sure the cochrane review found that vaccinating medical professionals improved outcomes for their patients. So the whole thing isn't just pulled from thin air.

[Turquesa]

Nope. Cochrane found just the opposite. The link in the OP explains it.

[Rrrrrachel]

It didn't decrease flu, but it decreased all cause mortality. Which is why I said improved outcomes.

[Rrrrrachel]

I do think its funny that that guy complains about someone not citing any research papers, and then provides nothing to document several of his own claims, though.

[Jennyanydots]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm pretty sure the cochrane review found that vaccinating medical professionals improved outcomes for their patients. So the whole thing isn't just pulled from thin air.

Will you please link to or quote this language, because I'm not finding it...

[Rrrrrachel]

It's in the cochrane review on pub med. it's not in the link in the op. he cuts that part off when he cites their conclusions.

[Rrrrrachel]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16631547?dopt=Abstract

Vaccinating health-care workers did not appear efficacious against influenza (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46-1.63). There was no significant effect of vaccination on lower respiratory tract infections: (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41-1.20). Deaths from pneumonia were significantly reduced (VE 39%, 95% CI 2-62%), as were deaths from all causes (VE 40%, 95% CI 27-50%). These findings must be interpreted in the light of possible selection, performance, attrition, and detection biases.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16856082?dopt=Abstract

We included two cluster randomised controlled trials (C-RCT) and one cohort study. Staff vaccination appears to have significant effect against ILI (absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) 86%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 40% to 97%) only when patients are vaccinated too; if patients are not vaccinated, staff immunisation shows no effect (based on one C-RCT). Based on a small number of observations from two C-RCTs, the vaccines have no efficacy against influenza (odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.68) or lower respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.20) but were effective against deaths from pneumonia (VE 39%, 95% CI 2% to 62%) and deaths from all causes (VE 40%, 95% CI 27% to 50%). All findings must be interpreted with caution given the presence of selection bias.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm pretty sure the cochrane review found that vaccinating medical professionals improved outcomes for their patients. So the whole thing isn't just pulled from thin air.

Really?  Exactly how sure are you?

Do you remember this thread?  http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1369234/cochrane-review-and-flu-vaccines

The one you started?

The one where we kept giving you quotes from the Cochrane Review and its lead author, Dr. Tom Jefferson?

Quotes like this one:

"Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost."

And this one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

I'll repeat this, since Rrrrachel apparently did not see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Well, according to the lead researcher for the review:

"In other words, we report that no effect of the influenza vaccines was detectable on influenza and its complications such as death.

I also like his final statement in that letter:  "It is not my place to judge the policies currently underway in British Columbia, but coercion and forcing public ridicule on human beings (for example by forcing them to wear distinctive badges or clothing) is usually the practice of tyrants."

 http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Cochrane+review+vaccine+definitive+health+officer+suggests/7543272/story.html#ixzz2Dx2sYzYQ

Did you get that?  No effect of the influenza vaccines was detectable on influenza.

In case you missed it, he was very clear:

"In his Nov. 2 letter to The Vancouver Sun, Dr. Perry Kendall, the provincial health officer for British Columbia, misquotes our work suggesting that our Cochrane review in healthcare workers “reports that vaccinating health care workers protects patients from influenza, pneumonia (a complication of influenza), doctor’s visits, hospitalizations, and even death”.

Our 2010 review concludes no such thing. It is worth reporting a verbatim extract from our conclusions to show just how things can be distorted:

 "No effect was shown for specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia and death from pneumonia."

[Rrrrrachel]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure now, since I found it and quoted the abstract in the immediately previous post to yours.

You quoted dr Jefferson a lot, as a recall, but not so much the actual cochrane review.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure now, since I found it and quoted the abstract in the immediately previous post to yours.
You quoted dr Jefferson a lot, as a recall, but not so much the actual cochrane review.

The second red-highlighted quote of his in my above post is Jefferson quoting the actual cochrane review.

It's worth repeating:

Dr. Jefferson's exact words:

"Our 2010 review concludes no such thing. It is worth reporting a verbatim extract from our conclusions to show just how things can be distorted:

 "No effect was shown for specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia and death from pneumonia."

I guess if you don't want to believe the lead researcher's own words, that no effect from the flu vaccine was shown on laboratory-proven influenza, my question for you is, why don't you want to believe the lead researcher?

[prosciencemum]

That "lab tested influenza" - which might exclude some actual influenza if not tested....?

Don't forget to read this bit from Rrrrrachels post which seems like vaccine is helping with some things:

"Deaths from pneumonia were significantly reduced (VE 39%, 95% CI 2-62%), as were deaths from all causes (VE 40%, 95% CI 27-50%)."

[Rrrrrachel]

Taxi I already acknowledged that. I even quoted the same words. It's also says that it DID reduce all cause mortality. I'm just pointing out that there is some basis for requiring flu shots.