Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Nurses get fired for refusing the flu shot.

Nurses get fired for refusing the flu shot.

+4
PBulldog2
Joanimaroni
Nekochan
2seaoat
8 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/spanish_flu.htm

There is considerable evidence to indicate that the 1918 epidemic was actually caused by mass immunizations.

Nekochan

Nekochan

It's interesting that Chrissy, PB and Joanie all have reservations about the shot. Makes me rethink my position.

Markle

Markle

Chrissy wrote:What about the idea of NOT working when your sick?

What about the entire "UNIVERSAL PRECAUTIONS" that we are trained to abide by that are set in guidlines to protect patients and ourselves?

What about the FACT that my father, my sisters, myself, my kids never get the flu and we dont take flu shots.

What about the FACT that the flu shot doesnt cover ALL strains of flu?

Does it seem like we are getting less cases of flu now that we insist on EVERYONE having the flu shot? I think not.

I feel universal precautions should remain the standard. Sick people shouldnt be tending to people with weak immune systems anyway.

I knew I would be alone in this thought here. But I put it out there because with the already growing shortage of healthcare providers and the growing lack of confidence in these flu shots, Id expect to see more of this as they impliment this fully, and they are.

Im glad I no longer work for a dictating system.

Flu shots are a very nice cushy gimick for big pharm.

Enjoy your flu season. I will stay exempt again this year.

Seems like you should consider some other line of work.

Hospitals have enough problems controlling all manner of infections and transferable diseases. Then you, and a few others, want to dictate to the hospital whether or not you get a flu shot.

Aside from the immorality of intentionally putting patients who may well be very frail and have severe breathing problems is the liability. A patient hospitalized with breathing problems is improving, then catches the flu and dies. The family of the deceased call their friendly neighborhood personal injury attorney. Are you willing to foot the bill?

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/spanish_flu.htm

There is considerable evidence to indicate that the 1918 epidemic was actually caused by mass immunizations.

Please show us a reliable link to this information. As you know, that is not true.

Influenza

The first influenza pandemic was recorded in 1580; since this time, various methods have been employed to eradicate its cause.[73] The etiological cause of influenza, the orthomyxoviridae was finally discovered by the Medical Research Council (MRC) of the United Kingdom in 1933.[74]

Known flu pandemics:[75]
1889–90 — Asiatic (Russian) Flu, mortality rate said to be 0.75–1 death per 1000 possibly H2N2
1900 — Possibly H3N8
1918–20 – Spanish Flu, 500 million ill, at least 20–40 million died of H1N1
1957–58 – Asian Flu, 1 to 1.5 million died of H2N2
1968–69 – Hong Kong Flu, 3/4 to 1 million died of H3N2
2009 - Swine Flu, caused by H1N1/09, 14,286 died[76]

[edit] Flu vaccine origins and development

In the world wide Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, "Physicians tried everything they knew, everything they had ever heard of, from the ancient art of bleeding patients, to administering oxygen, to developing new vaccines and sera (chiefly against what we now call Hemophilus influenzae—a name derived from the fact that it was originally considered the etiological agent—and several types of pneumococci). Only one therapeutic measure, transfusing blood from recovered patients to new victims, showed any hint of success."



Last edited by Markle on 1/6/2013, 8:27 pm; edited 1 time in total

2seaoat



There is considerable evidence to indicate that the 1918 epidemic was actually caused by mass immunizations.

Please answer what immunizations you are talking about? My great grandfather was a healthy 40 year old man with a young family in Opelika Alabama when he was stricken. He was gone in less than four days. He had never been immunized for anything, and his immune system was top notch. This epidemic attacked those with the strongest immune systems, and it had devastating impact on the lungs. The article you gave is simply filled with contradictions and falsehoods, but if you can show me a timeline of military mass immunizations by any army in the world at that time.....I will listen, but the Germans were hit first very hard, and there have been numerous studies of how this disease advanced....and I have followed the same for 40 years after spending a great deal of time discussing this with my grandmother who cared for her father......and quite honestly.....this is pure unadulterated conjecture.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Markle wrote:
Chrissy wrote:What about the idea of NOT working when your sick?

What about the entire "UNIVERSAL PRECAUTIONS" that we are trained to abide by that are set in guidlines to protect patients and ourselves?

What about the FACT that my father, my sisters, myself, my kids never get the flu and we dont take flu shots.

What about the FACT that the flu shot doesnt cover ALL strains of flu?

Does it seem like we are getting less cases of flu now that we insist on EVERYONE having the flu shot? I think not.

I feel universal precautions should remain the standard. Sick people shouldnt be tending to people with weak immune systems anyway.

I knew I would be alone in this thought here. But I put it out there because with the already growing shortage of healthcare providers and the growing lack of confidence in these flu shots, Id expect to see more of this as they impliment this fully, and they are.

Im glad I no longer work for a dictating system.

Flu shots are a very nice cushy gimick for big pharm.

Enjoy your flu season. I will stay exempt again this year.

Seems like you should consider some other line of work.

Hospitals have enough problems controlling all manner of infections and transferable diseases. Then you, and a few others, want to dictate to the hospital whether or not you get a flu shot.

Aside from the immorality of intentionally putting patients who may well be very frail and have severe breathing problems is the liability. A patient hospitalized with breathing problems is improving, then catches the flu and dies. The family of the deceased call their friendly neighborhood personal injury attorney. Are you willing to foot the bill?



Proving who the patient "caught" the flu from would be very difficult. The patient has a greater chance of developing MRSA.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:There is considerable evidence to indicate that the 1918 epidemic was actually caused by mass immunizations.

Please answer what immunizations you are talking about? My great grandfather was a healthy 40 year old man with a young family in Opelika Alabama when he was stricken. He was gone in less than four days. He had never been immunized for anything, and his immune system was top notch. This epidemic attacked those with the strongest immune systems, and it had devastating impact on the lungs. The article you gave is simply filled with contradictions and falsehoods, but if you can show me a timeline of military mass immunizations by any army in the world at that time.....I will listen, but the Germans were hit first very hard, and there have been numerous studies of how this disease advanced....and I have followed the same for 40 years after spending a great deal of time discussing this with my grandmother who cared for her father......and quite honestly.....this is pure unadulterated conjecture.

So, once AGAIN, the bottom line after that vapid rant is that you got nothin'. Why didn't you just say so?

Markle

Markle

Joanimaroni wrote:
Markle wrote:
Chrissy wrote:What about the idea of NOT working when your sick?

What about the entire "UNIVERSAL PRECAUTIONS" that we are trained to abide by that are set in guidlines to protect patients and ourselves?

What about the FACT that my father, my sisters, myself, my kids never get the flu and we dont take flu shots.

What about the FACT that the flu shot doesnt cover ALL strains of flu?

Does it seem like we are getting less cases of flu now that we insist on EVERYONE having the flu shot? I think not.

I feel universal precautions should remain the standard. Sick people shouldnt be tending to people with weak immune systems anyway.

I knew I would be alone in this thought here. But I put it out there because with the already growing shortage of healthcare providers and the growing lack of confidence in these flu shots, Id expect to see more of this as they impliment this fully, and they are.

Im glad I no longer work for a dictating system.

Flu shots are a very nice cushy gimick for big pharm.

Enjoy your flu season. I will stay exempt again this year.

Seems like you should consider some other line of work.

Hospitals have enough problems controlling all manner of infections and transferable diseases. Then you, and a few others, want to dictate to the hospital whether or not you get a flu shot.

Aside from the immorality of intentionally putting patients who may well be very frail and have severe breathing problems is the liability. A patient hospitalized with breathing problems is improving, then catches the flu and dies. The family of the deceased call their friendly neighborhood personal injury attorney. Are you willing to foot the bill?



Proving who the patient "caught" the flu from would be very difficult. The patient has a greater chance of developing MRSA.

I don't think so. The attorney would only have to show that the hospital was negligent in having a policy which provided the greatest protection to the patients.

If you don't intend to conform to the requirements of the job, you need a different job.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Markle wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
Markle wrote:
Chrissy wrote:What about the idea of NOT working when your sick?

What about the entire "UNIVERSAL PRECAUTIONS" that we are trained to abide by that are set in guidlines to protect patients and ourselves?

What about the FACT that my father, my sisters, myself, my kids never get the flu and we dont take flu shots.

What about the FACT that the flu shot doesnt cover ALL strains of flu?

Does it seem like we are getting less cases of flu now that we insist on EVERYONE having the flu shot? I think not.

I feel universal precautions should remain the standard. Sick people shouldnt be tending to people with weak immune systems anyway.

I knew I would be alone in this thought here. But I put it out there because with the already growing shortage of healthcare providers and the growing lack of confidence in these flu shots, Id expect to see more of this as they impliment this fully, and they are.

Im glad I no longer work for a dictating system.

Flu shots are a very nice cushy gimick for big pharm.

Enjoy your flu season. I will stay exempt again this year.

Seems like you should consider some other line of work.

Hospitals have enough problems controlling all manner of infections and transferable diseases. Then you, and a few others, want to dictate to the hospital whether or not you get a flu shot.

Aside from the immorality of intentionally putting patients who may well be very frail and have severe breathing problems is the liability. A patient hospitalized with breathing problems is improving, then catches the flu and dies. The family of the deceased call their friendly neighborhood personal injury attorney. Are you willing to foot the bill?



Proving who the patient "caught" the flu from would be very difficult. The patient has a greater chance of developing MRSA.

I don't think so. The attorney would only have to show that the hospital was negligent in having a policy which provided the greatest protection to the patients.

If you don't intend to conform to the requirements of the job, you need a different job.


They are more likely to come into contact with the flu in a public venue. Do you wipe down your grocery cart?

2seaoat



So, once AGAIN, the bottom line after that vapid rant is that you got nothin'. Why didn't you just say so?
Exactly....so now I wait for the person who said there was evidence of how this pandemic started, to prove the same........40 years of taking oral histories and researching this subject, and today is the first time I heard that immunizations caused the 1918 Spanish Flu.......so my nothin' could become sumthing.

2seaoat



I don't think so. The attorney would only have to show that the hospital was negligent in having a policy which provided the greatest protection to the patients.

Really.....try again. That is not the standard.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

2seaoat wrote:I don't think so. The attorney would only have to show that the hospital was negligent in having a policy which provided the greatest protection to the patients.

Really.....try again. That is not the standard.


You are right....
Where to begin...
it is not just nursing staff that comes in contact with a patient. You have include; ancillary services personnel, maintenance, dietary, housekeeping, social services, business office personnel, family and visitors.

Can a malpractice attorney really exclude all of these people?

PBulldog2

PBulldog2

Markle wrote:

Aside from the immorality of intentionally putting patients who may well be very frail and have severe breathing problems is the liability. A patient hospitalized with breathing problems is improving, then catches the flu and dies. The family of the deceased call their friendly neighborhood personal injury attorney. Are you willing to foot the bill?


That's absurd, Markle.

That "frail" patient is more likely to be exposed to the flu by a relative who kisses her on her cheek (and breathes in her face) than the health care worker who washes his/her hands between patients and otherwise practices sound care. How about we demand all hospital visitors provide certification of the flu shot before they walk through the hospital entrance? By all means, let's make it illegal to admit a patient who has the flu, too. They will go to the Regional Influenza Treatment Facility, AKA the "Flu Asylum", and not to an actual hospital.

And visitors who have ever been exposed to MRSA should show certification of IV Vancomycin treatment. Incredibly expensive, but, oh, well.

Oh.....and no health care worker who has children under the age of 10 should be permitted to work in a health care setting, either. I mean.....all of those diseases they carry! My, oh my!

And all hospitals and health care settings MUST be closed down indefinitely until a cure for the common cold, which can easily morph into pneumonia in a compromised hospitalized patient, is discovered.

What you are missing here, Markle, is that some of us would gladly take the flu shots if we could. I can't. Taking them has made me quite ill, twice. The propaganda that the flu shot is not dangerous is hogwash. I have a friend who, three years ago, spent quite a bit of time in the hospital with his wife, who contracted Guillain-Barre' syndrome from taking the flu shot.

So take your moral BS and put it where the sun wouldn't shine if it had the opportunity to do so.

PBulldog2

PBulldog2

Neko - I didn't chime in on this discussion initially because of my own experiences with flu shots. I do not want to discourage those who are able to take the flu shot without consequences from doing so.

When my mother was ill, we made sure she received her flu and pneumonia shots every year. She had never had a reaction, so we considered it the safe and prudent thing to do. If I had thought for one second that it would be dangerous for her, I never would have encouraged it.

Joani - I've been trying to remember exactly when it was that I received that first flu shot. I know it was during the year of the Swine Flu scare ('75- '76"), and the school pushed us all to take it. I was the only one who became ill.

A substantial number of citizens became seriously ill from taking that particular batch, and it became a huge national scandal. I have often wondered if that initial flu shot was what sensitized me in some manner to future flu shots, although all of the research speaks otherwise.

OK, now I will have to go Google it, dammit all..... Laughing

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

It's always about control. It's always about people giving up their rights for "the greater good" Well my rights outweigh your greater good. It certainly would have been for the greater good if we got out of Vietnam or now Iraq or any of a number of our pet wars but that wouldn't make the rich richer would it. Suppose they gave a flu shot and nobody took it, that wouldn't make the assholes at big pharma very happy would it ? There are better ways to control disease...they could keep patients from catching MRSA or pneumonia but that would require better ventilation and air exchange and more aggressive sterilizing and cleaning practice....expensive and not likely. Even better, doctors should go to peoples homes where the sick were already familiar with their microbial environment. Hospitals are just a germ jamboree. If you want to stay well, stay out of hospitals and keep all those chemical cocktails they call vaccine out of your system. Your skin is called the integumentary system. It maintains your integrity. Your skin is a fortress. Beware of allowing the Trojan vaccines inside.

Guest


Guest

TEOTWAWKI wrote:It's always about control. It's always about people giving up their rights for "the greater good" Well my rights outweigh your greater good. It certainly would have been for the greater good if we got out of Vietnam or now Iraq or any of a number of our pet wars but that wouldn't make the rich richer would it. Suppose they gave a flu shot and nobody took it, that wouldn't make the assholes at big pharma very happy would it ? There are better ways to control disease...they could keep patients from catching MRSA or pneumonia but that would require better ventilation and air exchange and more aggressive sterilizing and cleaning practice....expensive and not likely. Even better, doctors should go to peoples homes where the sick were already familiar with their microbial environment. Hospitals are just a germ jamboree. If you want to stay well, stay out of hospitals and keep all those chemical cocktails they call vaccine out of your system. Your skin is called the integumentary system. It maintains your integrity. Your skin is a fortress. Beware of allowing the Trojan vaccines inside.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

They would spend 3/4 of their time in traffic, and thus be rendered ineffectual.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

W_T_M wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:It's always about control. It's always about people giving up their rights for "the greater good" Well my rights outweigh your greater good. It certainly would have been for the greater good if we got out of Vietnam or now Iraq or any of a number of our pet wars but that wouldn't make the rich richer would it. Suppose they gave a flu shot and nobody took it, that wouldn't make the assholes at big pharma very happy would it ? There are better ways to control disease...they could keep patients from catching MRSA or pneumonia but that would require better ventilation and air exchange and more aggressive sterilizing and cleaning practice....expensive and not likely. Even better, doctors should go to peoples homes where the sick were already familiar with their microbial environment. Hospitals are just a germ jamboree. If you want to stay well, stay out of hospitals and keep all those chemical cocktails they call vaccine out of your system. Your skin is called the integumentary system. It maintains your integrity. Your skin is a fortress. Beware of allowing the Trojan vaccines inside.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

They would spend 3/4 of their time in traffic, and thus be rendered ineffectual.




Yes that's true I was speaking of an ideal situation. Hospitals were created for the poor originaly. Back then the rich had doctors calling on them. It's a complex problem by a science that is still an art that is also a practice. The problem mainly developed when doctors and drug companies decided people could be turned into chronically ill revenue streams. Of course with fresh kill the lawyer vultures were not far behind.

Guest


Guest

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
W_T_M wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:It's always about control. It's always about people giving up their rights for "the greater good" Well my rights outweigh your greater good. It certainly would have been for the greater good if we got out of Vietnam or now Iraq or any of a number of our pet wars but that wouldn't make the rich richer would it. Suppose they gave a flu shot and nobody took it, that wouldn't make the assholes at big pharma very happy would it ? There are better ways to control disease...they could keep patients from catching MRSA or pneumonia but that would require better ventilation and air exchange and more aggressive sterilizing and cleaning practice....expensive and not likely. Even better, doctors should go to peoples homes where the sick were already familiar with their microbial environment. Hospitals are just a germ jamboree. If you want to stay well, stay out of hospitals and keep all those chemical cocktails they call vaccine out of your system. Your skin is called the integumentary system. It maintains your integrity. Your skin is a fortress. Beware of allowing the Trojan vaccines inside.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

They would spend 3/4 of their time in traffic, and thus be rendered ineffectual.




Yes that's true I was speaking of an ideal situation. Hospitals were created for the poor originaly. Back then the rich had doctors calling on them. It's a complex problem by a science that is still an art that is also a practice. The problem mainly developed when doctors and drug companies decided people could be turned into chronically ill revenue streams. Of course with fresh kill the lawyer vultures were not far behind.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

In other words, your premise has been rendered moot by the progress you distrust.

And yet, you drive a vehicle, thus contributing to the clutter that prevents your methodology from being even remotely practical.

Catch 22

Guest


Guest

I had a flu shot the last 3 years. No pain at the injection site and no temperature spikes. No flu was caught either.

What does that prove? Nothing!

Anecdotal evidence is worthless. You have to look at the big picture. You can find so-called experts that will say anything. I put my trust in what the majority of the medical profession believes.

If you have reactions to the vaccine, I can see why you would be leery.

Sal

Sal

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

I have never taken the flu shot and have never had he flu.

When you do have the misfortune of contracting an influenza virus, you will probably start getting the flu shot.

I have had the flu once.

It is nasty, nasty stuff. It came with a host of disgusting symptoms including fever, every fiber of my being ached terribly, and it took 10-14 days to fully recover.

I've taken the flu vaccine every year since.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

I have never taken the flu shot and have never had he flu.

When you do have the misfortune of contracting an influenza virus, you will probably start getting the flu shot.

I have had the flu once.

It is nasty, nasty stuff. It came with a host of disgusting symptoms including fever, every fiber of my being ached terribly, and it took 10-14 days to fully recover.

I've taken the flu vaccine every year since.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Sounds like withdrawal, only longer, and with extra issues.

No fun indeed....

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

I have never taken the flu shot and have never had he flu.

When you do have the misfortune of contracting an influenza virus, you will probably start getting the flu shot.

I have had the flu once.

It is nasty, nasty stuff. It came with a host of disgusting symptoms including fever, every fiber of my being ached terribly, and it took 10-14 days to fully recover.

I've taken the flu vaccine every year since.

Not likely. I will not subject my body to something that has not been proven to work reliably. I have seen no scientific evidence that dispute any claims that they do work.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Nurses get fired for refusing the flu shot.

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum