Big Pharma Wins Again

An Indiana nurse was fired from her job because she refused to get a mandatory flu vaccine.

You can read the whole story here.

Who makes the most money from flu vaccines? Have they been proven effective?

In case you don't realize this, the vaccines must be created well before anybody knows what strain of flu is coming to town.

Before mindlessly replying that flu vaccines are proven and effective do some critical thinking and research. Don't just believe what Big Pharma tells you.

And I'm going to predict that this is going to be part of Obamacare. If you're in the system, you're going to be required to take all the "preventive" vaccines that Big Pharma can sell. In fact, this may be the entire agenda for Obamacare.

reply to post by sconner755


You make some good points in the OP. (S and F.)

I never go for flu vaccines.

What I do notice some times, is that people that do go for the flu vaccines, often end up getting the flu anyway, while at the same time, I don't get the flu.

I have seen this enough times, so that I do not believe in going for flu vaccines.

Originally posted by sconner755


Before mindlessly replying that flu vaccines are proven and effective do some critical thinking and research. Don't just believe what Big Pharma tells you.

You are aware that this is ATS right?

This forum is probably the largest single collection of people that are against mandatory vaccinations on the web.

Just saying. Know your audience before insulting them.

There is a logic behind the demand to vaccinate all medical personal. The job often involves dealing with ill people and in general with people with weakened immune system so side effects of the vaccines are less problematic then half a hospital staff being ill at home while other half is working double shifts with all the issues it can create and infects weakened patients during flu incubation times.
Demanding that general population will be vaccinated is something different, i am sure that nobody is going to do it since not only it is extremely expensive, it is also exposing general population to vaccine side effects for no obvious reasons. From personal experience living in a country with government medical insurance - people are certainly not forced to get a vaccine. Certain risk groups recieve a mail invitation to get a vaccine at the start of the flu season,and they can disregard it freely.
Edit:
Oh,forgot to add - flu vaccines are usually effective at preventing epidemics. Certainly some season WHO can get it wrong but usually it is not the case. Also, there are different types of vaccines - dead virus or weakened virus ,with different costs and target audience.

Ahhh... This is a real controversy around here too at times as medical is one of the main industries of the area I live in. I can't say I disagree about flu vaccines because I absolutely refuse to take one myself. Haven't since I was old enough to refuse it on my own word and I likely never will. I was very young so can't recall the actual event, but I grew to know a neighbor we had where I grew up.

The guy was the spitting image in personality and bubbly spirit of Mr. Miyagi in Karate Kid. The nicest man ..and a former resident of the Manzanar Internment Camp in California. He was no weak man....however, the Flu vaccine issue some may have heard about in the 70's almost claimed that sweet man as a victim. He's not the only to have horrible reaction and that was an exceptional period for cases, I'll admit ...but they can keep their shots.


Having said that? I'd never even apply as an I.T. support worker in a medical facility. My beliefs give me no right to expose others to a viral infection I'm far more likely to get.....and could itself be fatal in THAT setting, given who one finds inside a medical facility to begin with. That's my humble opinion. Don't work there if taking the shot bothers someone.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
There is a logic behind the demand to vaccinate all medical personal. The job often involves dealing with ill people and in general with people with weakened immune system so side effects of the vaccines are less problematic then half a hospital staff being ill at home while other half is working double shifts with all the issues it can create and infects weakened patients during flu incubation times.
Demanding that general population will be vaccinated is something different, i am sure that nobody is going to do it since not only it is extremely expensive, it is also exposing general population to vaccine side effects for no obvious reasons. From personal experience living in a country with government medical insurance - people are certainly not forced to get a vaccine. Certain risk groups recieve a mail invitation to get a vaccine at the start of the flu season,and they can disregard it freely.
Edit:
Oh,forgot to add - flu vaccines are usually effective at preventing epidemics. Certainly some season WHO can get it wrong but usually it is not the case. Also, there are different types of vaccines - dead virus or weakened virus ,with different costs and target audience.

edit on 3-1-2013 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)

Yes, there may be logic if there was any evidence the vaccines worked. There's not.

Instead, the vaccines are admittedly concocted, hit and miss fashion, based on what the vaccine makers guess the next strain of flu will be.

There is no such thing as "The Flu."

Here's an interesting article from The New York Times.

From the article:

Last month,, in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world, scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota released a report saying that influenza vaccinations provide only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications. Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies.

I'm an RN and I know better. The day they force me is the day I grab my coat and walk out.

Fact is, they won't. We heavily push the shots to patients and employees. They know how I feel about it. 12 years at that employer and I've never been sick. They did tell me not to talk to other employees about how I feel about flu shots. But off the clock...

Guess who DOES get sick. I'll give you one guess...

As far as it being a part of Obama-care, that won't surprise me. He who pays the bills gets to dictate... I'll still refuse.

The best healthcare in the world is pure food, sunshine and excersise.

Time to plan my spring garden. I'll have a boatload of home grown stuff this year, and fresh eggs too. That ands some grass fed beef, raw milk and I'm good.

Originally posted by davjan4
I'm an RN and I know better. The day they force me is the day I grab my coat and walk out.

Fact is, they won't. We heavily push the shots to patients and employees. They know how I feel about it. 12 years at that employer and I've never been sick. They did tell me not to talk to other employees about how I feel about flu shots. But off the clock...

Guess who DOES get sick. I'll give you one guess...

As far as it being a part of Obama-care, that won't surprise me. He who pays the bills gets to dictate... I'll still refuse.

The best healthcare in the world is pure food, sunshine and excersise.

Time to plan my spring garden. I'll have a boatload of home grown stuff this year, and fresh eggs too. That ands some grass fed beef, raw milk and I'm good.

It's an unholy alliance between Big Pharma, politicians, and lawyers.

All that has to be mentioned is that if they DON'T require the vaccines and somebody gets sick, they will be sued for millions. So of course, from a liability standpoint, it makes sense to make everybody get the vaccine.

This is very convenient for the drug companies who are making billions pushing chemicals down our throats that they know at best are questionable in their effectiveness, and at worst harmful.

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
There is a logic behind the demand to vaccinate all medical personal. The job often involves dealing with ill people and in general with people with weakened immune system so side effects of the vaccines are less problematic then half a hospital staff being ill at home while other half is working double shifts with all the issues it can create and infects weakened patients during flu incubation times.
Demanding that general population will be vaccinated is something different, i am sure that nobody is going to do it since not only it is extremely expensive, it is also exposing general population to vaccine side effects for no obvious reasons. From personal experience living in a country with government medical insurance - people are certainly not forced to get a vaccine. Certain risk groups recieve a mail invitation to get a vaccine at the start of the flu season,and they can disregard it freely.
Edit:
Oh,forgot to add - flu vaccines are usually effective at preventing epidemics. Certainly some season WHO can get it wrong but usually it is not the case. Also, there are different types of vaccines - dead virus or weakened virus ,with different costs and target audience.

edit on 3-1-2013 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)

Yes, there may be logic if there was any evidence the vaccines worked. There's not.

Instead, the vaccines are admittedly concocted, hit and miss fashion, based on what the vaccine makers guess the next strain of flu will be.

There is no such thing as "The Flu."

Here's an interesting article from The New York Times.

From the article:

Last month,, in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world, scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota released a report saying that influenza vaccinations provide only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications. Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies.

I suggest you to read the report the article you quoted links to,otherwise it is hit and miss in what it actually says. It specifically states that vaccination clearly provides certain protection, though lower then assumed prior to analysis.

On the basis of our review, we conclude that the currently licensed influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Furthermore, even though TIV provided some protection for healthy adults 18 to 65 years of age, there is a paucity of evidence for protection in adults 65 years of age and older. Evidence is also limited to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of TIV in children age 2 to 17 years. LAIVs have consistently shown highest efficacy in young children (from 6 months to 7 years old), while evidence of protection is not available for individuals from 8 to 59 years of age.

www.cidrap.umn.edu...
TIV is "deactivated virus" vaccine and LAIV is "weakened virus" vaccine.
Professionals who wrote this paper claim that new better vaccines are needed,however for now they still recommend to use existing vaccines because it is still better then nothing.

Even though influenza vaccine efficacy and effectiveness have been overestimated, available data support that in some populations influenza vaccination offers a moderate level of protection. Therefore, we believe that influenza vaccination is an important health promotion activity that should be widely encouraged and supported. We can and should maintain this infrastructure and use the best technology currently available (ie, existing influenza vaccines) to protect the public’s health to the degree possible. However, we cannot allow this approach to stifle public policy makers from moving the influenza vaccine enterprise forward toward game-changing vaccines.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
There is a logic behind the demand to vaccinate all medical personal. The job often involves dealing with ill people and in general with people with weakened immune system so side effects of the vaccines are less problematic then half a hospital staff being ill at home while other half is working double shifts with all the issues it can create and infects weakened patients during flu incubation times.
Demanding that general population will be vaccinated is something different, i am sure that nobody is going to do it since not only it is extremely expensive, it is also exposing general population to vaccine side effects for no obvious reasons. From personal experience living in a country with government medical insurance - people are certainly not forced to get a vaccine. Certain risk groups recieve a mail invitation to get a vaccine at the start of the flu season,and they can disregard it freely.
Edit:
Oh,forgot to add - flu vaccines are usually effective at preventing epidemics. Certainly some season WHO can get it wrong but usually it is not the case. Also, there are different types of vaccines - dead virus or weakened virus ,with different costs and target audience.

edit on 3-1-2013 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)

Yes, there may be logic if there was any evidence the vaccines worked. There's not.

Instead, the vaccines are admittedly concocted, hit and miss fashion, based on what the vaccine makers guess the next strain of flu will be.

There is no such thing as "The Flu."

Here's an interesting article from The New York Times.

From the article:

Last month,, in a step tantamount to heresy in the public health world, scientists at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota released a report saying that influenza vaccinations provide only modest protection for healthy young and middle-age adults, and little if any protection for those 65 and older, who are most likely to succumb to the illness or its complications. Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies.

I suggest you to read the report the article you quoted links to,otherwise it is hit and miss in what it actually says. It specifically states that vaccination clearly provides certain protection, though lower then assumed prior to analysis.

On the basis of our review, we conclude that the currently licensed influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Furthermore, even though TIV provided some protection for healthy adults 18 to 65 years of age, there is a paucity of evidence for protection in adults 65 years of age and older. Evidence is also limited to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of TIV in children age 2 to 17 years. LAIVs have consistently shown highest efficacy in young children (from 6 months to 7 years old), while evidence of protection is not available for individuals from 8 to 59 years of age.

www.cidrap.umn.edu...
TIV is "deactivated virus" vaccine and LAIV is "weakened virus" vaccine.
Professionals who wrote this paper claim that new better vaccines are needed,however for now they still recommend to use existing vaccines because it is still better then nothing.

Even though influenza vaccine efficacy and effectiveness have been overestimated, available data support that in some populations influenza vaccination offers a moderate level of protection. Therefore, we believe that influenza vaccination is an important health promotion activity that should be widely encouraged and supported. We can and should maintain this infrastructure and use the best technology currently available (ie, existing influenza vaccines) to protect the public’s health to the degree possible. However, we cannot allow this approach to stifle public policy makers from moving the influenza vaccine enterprise forward toward game-changing vaccines.

edit on 3-1-2013 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)

Yes, I read it. Put this in context. This is the side that professes we all should use vaccines admitting that the research is shaky and at best the vaccines are better than nothing.

Not a strong argument for forcing people to either lose their job or be injected with a foreign substance against their will.