Forced to get Flu Shot - How can I decline?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
There is no problem at all other then the employee now deciding he doesn't want to do something.
Unless the OP comes and says otherwise, I have little doubt he/she was not made aware that the job requires flu shots.

The risk of not getting the shot and getting sick is far higher then getting the shot and getting sick. So to say it is placing them at risk just isn't true.

The medical community at large does not see the controversy.

And you don't know for a fact that it was the flu shot that made your family member sick, getting the flu during flu season and blaming the shot is rather funny.
How do you get sick from a dead virus?

There is a problem with an employer forcing employees to make a specific health-related decision. Claiming that it's acceptable because it's the health care field isn't right, either.

The "medical community at large" is under the control of the money, via the drug companies and the funds made to administer the shots, etc. Not to mention all of the money made from the people who get sick, and then need additional medical care. So, you trust their statements? They aren't exactly unbiased.

The "risk" of not getting a shot isn't a risk. And, yes, I do know that getting the shot made a family member sick it also made ME sick. Within 24 hours of him getting the shot, every single time, we both had the flu. No one we knew had it. There was no local outbreak at the time, either. Since the shots were stopped, neither of us has had the flu, even when friends and coworkers got it, and we were exposed. Do the math. We even had a doctor throwing a FIT because he was insistent that a cold we had was "flu", and refused to accept that it wasn't, even in light of tests showing it was NOT the flu. He wanted to add more numbers to the statistics, and was seriously ticked that he couldn't add us in as flu cases. So, you trust the medical community at large if you wish. I'll pass, on this issue.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

LOL ok, keep thinking you got sick from a dead virus and not the live one that you most likely came in contact with from a stranger the day you got the shot or before.

No one is forcing the op to get it, he most likely agreed to it and now is backing out.

I also call 100% bs on your doctor story.

Swing80s:

I WILL NOT get vaccinated for a seasonal flu shot. It is against my moral and ethical beliefs as a human being. Can anybody here help me or tell me what to say to my superior to respectfully decline but still stay on her good side? Much appreciated.

You've intimated that you work in the medical community, so there is an ethical dilemma. Obviously, you cannot work with patients if you yourself are ill with an infectious disease. What would be the point of you either helping to cure or care for people already sick if you can infect them with your own illness? So it is easy to understand where the policy for mandatory vaccination is coming from...it must be part of the contract of the job?

If you want to continue to work in the place you are currently at, you will have to get vaccinated, or you will need to change vocation.

I don't agree with mandatory vaccination, so I would not pursue a vocation where I had to have it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

LOL ok, keep thinking you got sick from a dead virus and not the live one that you most likely came in contact with from a stranger the day you got the shot or before.

No one is forcing the op to get it, he most likely agreed to it and now is backing out.

I also call 100% bs on your doctor story.

You can call whatever you like; that won't change the facts. And no, when the flu hits the person who got the shot and myself within 24 hours of the shot, several times in a row, that's not all from some "stranger". Many people with whom I have spoken have had the same experience.

So, go out and get your shot, and enjoy the flu. Your choice.

It is forcing if someone is told they lose their job if they don't accept a medical treatment.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The facts are the shot is a dead virus, you can't get sick from a dead virus.
Please feel free to show me other wise.
Anecdotal is not fact.
But since you want to treat it as such, my personal experience with the shot completely refutes yours. Worked in a pharmacy, seen countless people receive the shots and be fine and back in the pharmacy with no flu.
Coupled with receiving the nasal, which is an actually live and never getting sick from it.
So if I am to take your stories as fact, why would you refuse to take mine as the same?
Would you respond bias view? Please explain how yours is not.

When you agree to something when you take a job, it is hard to turn around and then say you are getting forced to do it.

Sremmos80

The facts are the shot is a dead virus, you can't get sick from a dead virus.

That doesn't make sense. If the virus in the shot is dead, or non-active, how can the human body make antibodies from it? Surely, the virus has to be alive in order to activate the human bodies immune response mechanism? Doesn't there have to be a form of fight and repel reaction? So, unless the virus triggers the immune system, which it can only do whilst active and alive, no immune response would be forthcoming if it was dead.

I would think the virus to be alive, but a less virulent strain that the body can easily deal with?

a reply to: elysiumfire

Prove me wrong then, find something that says the virus is live in something other then the nasal one.

a reply to: Swing80s

Being that you work in the medical profession, your only alternative would be to find a different line of work.

So in a way you do have a choice. Not a good one, but a choice nonetheless. This has been in place in the medical profession many years. Perhaps you should have trained for another profession.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: beezzer
Now we have people who (?) work in healthcare (?) determining that the OP will kill millions and be responsible for untold death and destruction if he doesn't get a flu shot.

I am sure that everyone posting is a medical professional and speaks from years of vast experience on flu vaccines and the epidemiological aspects of upper respiratory infections.

I will continue to watch this thread as all the learned educators instruct us on all the proper aspects of vaccines and healthcare in general.


*squeee*

Even someone with a less-than-highschool level of education knows that if you're sick, and you're around people, you risk getting OTHER people sick. You don't have to be a doctor to understand that, but thanks for the hyperbole.

If you get the flu, you risk giving it to others. If the people you're around have weak or compromised immune systems, the flu could very well kill them. This is well documented, and freely available to see.

Nobody is saying if one healthcare worker doesn't get vaccinated he'll kill millions. That's, again, hyperbole. But he COULD kill someone. Even if it's just one person, it's one person too much. What does he risk by getting vaccinated? You can't get autism at his age, even if there WERE a link between vaccines and autism. The very WORST that could happen is that he gets an owwie on his arm. But no, that minor inconvenience is worth endangering the people he's employed to look after.

I worked in critical care for decades and no matter how sick I ever was (from flu, pneumonia, seasonal colds, etc.) I had to go to work. I would love to have stayed home to convalesce but that wasn't an option. The top brass doesn't give a flip if you infect everyone you come in contact with as long as you show up for work. The annual flu shots are just the latest CYA policy of the facilities. I encourage everyone in the healthcare profession who object to flu shots to leave the profession. No job is worth your health or your life. No amount of money is worth chronic illness or permanent damage or death. If objectors begin leaving in droves, facilities might rethink their policy. Healthcare workers have more power than they realize.

I worked for a Govt department here in Aus where it was voluntary to get the flu shot . If you developed any kind of "reaction" you could take 4 days sick leave at the Govts expense . We had 100 percent vaccination compliance and defying the odds a 100 percent reaction rate . We were so unlucky with the reactions they had 2 sessions a week apart so the emergency work would still get done . Nothing to do with the OP really but i thought i would share .

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

If you get a job that requires it and you agreed to it then you let them tell you.

But yes outside of that it is your choice.

Our immune system is good but helping it doesn't hurt.

By the way. I have never had a flu shot in my life. This year is the first time since 2006 since I've had a cold (might have been a mild flu, I don't know). I'll be 42 this year and I have no history of running to the doctor for every little thing. Everyone I know got the flu shot and they were all sick for over a week before I finally got sick. It lasted two days and I was pretty much over it.

If you ask me, they're causing people to get sick. Whether they're doing it on purpose, I don't know. Maybe they have good intentions. The fact remains that everyone I know gets the flu shot every year and they get sick every year. I usually don't.

My immune system is better because it actually works.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

So more pure anecdotal, which I will return mine of seeing 10 people on average getting shots every day for the entire flu season for years and very few ever got sick.

You don't get sick from the shot alone, you get sick from the natural spread of the virus.

We do have good immune systems, but it doesn't hurt to help them out. Shoot even getting sick is good for it, what doesn't kill ya makes ya stronger.

If you don't get the flu for years, when you finally do it is usually a nasty one.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: BrianFlanders

So more pure anecdotal, which I will return mine of seeing 10 people on average getting shots every day for the entire flu season for years and very few ever got sick.

How do you know they never got sick?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Sorry, I was mistaken.

Split Virion - formaldehyde-inactivated
Inactivated Influenza Vaccine - propiolactone-inactivated
Agrippal - formaldehyde-inactivated
Fluarix - formaldehyde-inactivated
Fluvirin - formaldehyde-inactivated
Imuvac - formaldehyde-inactivated
Fluarix Tetra - formaldehyde-inactivated
Intanza - formaldehyde-inactivated
Fluenz Tetra - live, attenuated


Aside from Fluenz Tetra, which is live, the others severe AEs (such as cancer) are mostly the result of injecting formaldehyde/propiolactone.
Along with "watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; coughing; wheezing; nausea; and skin irritation. Some people are very sensitive to formaldehyde, whereas others have no reaction to the same level of exposure."

Or improperly inactivated/stored virus.

Still wouldn't touch them unless I was at elevated risk of pneumonia though.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The facts are the shot is a dead virus, you can't get sick from a dead virus.

This cannot be stated enough. People who think they contracted influenza from a flu shot literally believe a miracle happened. They believe a dead virus was resurrected in their body. Why don't they use this power to resurrect other dead things? Why only viruses? Why only influenza viruses specifically? Why doesn't this resurrection power extend to other vaccines like HPV, Hib, and hepatitis?

That said, you can get "sick" from a killed-virus vaccine, because your immune system is being stimulated. That causes more or less discomfort in some people, and rarely more serious side effects. Some people might mistake soreness and fatigue with the actual flu, especially if having the flu would redound to their benefit (paid time off, sympathy, confirmation of biases).

a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

not even a little bit true.
because "inactivation" is a long way from 100% effective (even if you were injecting them with bleach you would still be injecting literally billions of live virus).

a reply to: Swing80s

There are some jobs that have certain requirements.

Medical jobs require vaccinations.

You better never go into biosciences laboratory work. They'll require you to be a proper pincushion what with all the different organisms you'll have to work with.

Maybe it's time to either move somewhere in the country that has less stringent requirements in the medical profession or find a new career.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

not even a little bit true.
because "inactivation" is a long way from 100% effective (even if you were injecting them with bleach you would still be injecting literally billions of live virus).

No, you're not. Inactive virus isn't even always the whole virus. All you need is enough of the protein in the virus to stimulate the immune system to create the specific antibodies that would latch on to that part of the virus.

An inactive virus is just that - inactive and incapable of making you ill with the actual disease.

What happens is that the flu itself mutates very readily, so the strain that dominates any given year may not be the strain in the shot or it may mutate so that the antibodies created by the shot are an imperfect match and thus provide incomplete protection.

a reply to: ketsuko

No.

The volume of formaldehyde required to kill and keep a virus "dead" would kill you.
Its a balance, between "probably dead virus" and "not likely to kill you".
link.springer.com...

If it was "that easy" we'd have vaccines to all the virus's.

Reason they can get away with it in flu vaccine is because the consquence of a vaccine acquired infection is not guaranteed death.

a reply to: mSparks43

Oh, so they didn't add the adjuvant to make the immune system react.

So do you want your vaccines to have things like aluminum in them or not? You need those things to get your immune system to react to a killed/inactive virus.

Also, I think you don't understand the link you posted. The children in this case in 1966, did not get the disease form the vaccine. They caught it normally after being vaccinated. What happened was that the vaccine blocked them from having a normal immune response because of how the vaccine had been produced without adjuvants.

They tested this hypothesis with mice. They inactived their lymph nodes which produced an effect similar to what they suspected was produced by the experimental vaccine in the children. It prevented the priming of their immune systems. They then injected them with live virus to give them the disease.

They took a second group of mice and gave them the same vaccine the children received only with adjuvant as per a normal vaccine. They then injected them with live virus also.

The first group got the disease just like the children had while the second group was protected.

So, if anything, you only provided proof that adjuvants are a necessary component of vaccines. Congrats!