Taqqiya is the Islamic practice of lying, deceiving, or manipulating in order to advance Islam. Since The Truth has nothing to fear from the lie why do those who advocate vaccination feel the need to lie in order to get people to take vaccines?
A former nursing student has now filed a lawsuit against Baker college in Michigan alleging several of their faculty were teaching nursing students that it was acceptable practice to use similar techniques with parents and/or patients in order to obtain the desired result - acceptance of vaccination. She maintains that she was dismissed from the program because she questioned the ethics of this.
The school has not yet officially responded and it seems Ms. Rolfe has strong opinions about many topics. But if what she reports about the nursing program is accurate it is the faculty who need "re-education" about medical ethics, informed consent, nursing's code of ethics and the Nuremberg Code for starters. If what she is stating is accurate the accreditation of the school needs to be reviewed very carefully.
The use of force, deceit, coercion, and manipulation in medicine is not new ... consider the on-going use of forced abortion in China, the (not to distant) history of involuntary sterilization in the United States, the infamous Tuskegee experiments - among others ... all of course, for the greater good!
Given this history if people can be forced, coerced, and/or manipulated into vaccination, what else might people be required to do or receive, or participate in? The lack of freedom to chose to take, or not take a vaccination leads to health dhimmitude.
The proponents of vaccination would make both Muhammed and Machiavelli proud.
A blog to discuss vaccines, and to promote personal choice in the decision to accept, or decline vaccination.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Monday, February 09, 2015
The cracks in trust continue to grow ...
Healthcare providers and patients have placed great trust in researchers (both private and public) to provide data (information) and solutions to health problems based upon good data. Once trust is broken it is not easily regained.
Over the last decade there have been seminal articles sounding the alarm that the trust we have placed in those providing us with information and products we use to either protect or repair our health may have some growing cracks.
In 2005 John Ioannidis published an essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" in which he reviews problems with published research that lead to a foundation for skepticism toward much of the results and what to do about it.
In 2009, this quote from Marcia Angell, MD, writing in the NY Times Review of Books, "Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption" caught the attention of many:
In 2010 a qui tam lawsuit was filed against Merck by 2 of their scientists alleging Merck provided fraudulent proof of efficacy for the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine. A ruling was issued in Sept 2014 allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
In August of 2014, Dr. William Thompson (of the CDC) came forward alleging a major 2004 study reporting no association between vaccines and autism was gerry-rigged to achieve desired results. He is reported to have been granted formal "whistleblower" status, and this story continues to develop.
And today, in 2015, Charles Seife published two articles (concurrently, in lay and professional press) alleging tolerance of fraud at the FDA.
Not all research is corrupt, but it is prudent to be discerning, and no one should be vilified for asking reasonable questions. Science is seldom settled, and has a long history of reversing itself, whether the domain is medicine or physics or any other aspect science.
Because science is not settled, and because of disclosures reviewed above, it is reasonable for people to determine for themselves what risk/benefit ratio with which they are comfortable in regards to vaccines (or any other medical intervention). We don't have all the data regarding vaccine safety, nor efficacy - much of this remains undisclosed, guarded by the companies that make a product that is mandated by the same government that has provided a virtually impenetrable liability shield, whose use is determined by professionals who may have undisclosed personal financial conflicts of interest with these same manufacturers!
It isn't transparent to stategize management of the crisis of a cluster of infant deaths following vaccination by ensuring no large batches of any one lot of a vaccine go to a particular geographic area (Wyeth 1979) and here for Wyeth's internal memo.
It is impossible to eliminate all risk of disease, even if there were 100% compliance with all vaccines - and we may well be trading temporary illness for long-term chronic ill health. There are many who would love to have studies looking at that very riddle, and what role, if any, vaccination may play in it.
None of us is unbiased, and neither is science as it is conducted by humans, who quite clearly, find it difficult to set aside their personal views in pursuing new knowledge. All of us live with the consequences of each others choices ... whether that is smoking, what we eat or whether we exercise, with whom we have sex and how we have sex ... and of course, whether we do or do not choose to be vaccinated (or have our children vaccinated if we are parents). It is wrong to demand people use a product whose safety and efficacy are unknown, in particular when there is so much apparent conflict of interest embedded in the very system making recommendations for said product ... when those who receive the product bear all risk with essentially no recourse when they are injured by the product they were required to use even against their will!
Over the last decade there have been seminal articles sounding the alarm that the trust we have placed in those providing us with information and products we use to either protect or repair our health may have some growing cracks.
In 2005 John Ioannidis published an essay "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" in which he reviews problems with published research that lead to a foundation for skepticism toward much of the results and what to do about it.
In 2009, this quote from Marcia Angell, MD, writing in the NY Times Review of Books, "Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption" caught the attention of many:
"The problems I’ve discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of TheNew England Journal of Medicine."Even with just a cursory read of Dr. Angell's writing one would recognize she has no love for free-market medicine or market-based solutions in healthcare, and here she and I would disagree, as I think this would provide the best solutions for many problems in healthcare. The brilliance of the free market is that it reflects the collective expression of individual economic choices, and good ideas, good products do well because people demand more of them - the "mandate" grows from a groundswell of consumers requesting more of, and being willing to pay for a product rather than it being forced upon them in an authoritarian fashion.
In 2010 a qui tam lawsuit was filed against Merck by 2 of their scientists alleging Merck provided fraudulent proof of efficacy for the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine. A ruling was issued in Sept 2014 allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
In August of 2014, Dr. William Thompson (of the CDC) came forward alleging a major 2004 study reporting no association between vaccines and autism was gerry-rigged to achieve desired results. He is reported to have been granted formal "whistleblower" status, and this story continues to develop.
And today, in 2015, Charles Seife published two articles (concurrently, in lay and professional press) alleging tolerance of fraud at the FDA.
Not all research is corrupt, but it is prudent to be discerning, and no one should be vilified for asking reasonable questions. Science is seldom settled, and has a long history of reversing itself, whether the domain is medicine or physics or any other aspect science.
Because science is not settled, and because of disclosures reviewed above, it is reasonable for people to determine for themselves what risk/benefit ratio with which they are comfortable in regards to vaccines (or any other medical intervention). We don't have all the data regarding vaccine safety, nor efficacy - much of this remains undisclosed, guarded by the companies that make a product that is mandated by the same government that has provided a virtually impenetrable liability shield, whose use is determined by professionals who may have undisclosed personal financial conflicts of interest with these same manufacturers!
It isn't transparent to stategize management of the crisis of a cluster of infant deaths following vaccination by ensuring no large batches of any one lot of a vaccine go to a particular geographic area (Wyeth 1979) and here for Wyeth's internal memo.
It is impossible to eliminate all risk of disease, even if there were 100% compliance with all vaccines - and we may well be trading temporary illness for long-term chronic ill health. There are many who would love to have studies looking at that very riddle, and what role, if any, vaccination may play in it.
None of us is unbiased, and neither is science as it is conducted by humans, who quite clearly, find it difficult to set aside their personal views in pursuing new knowledge. All of us live with the consequences of each others choices ... whether that is smoking, what we eat or whether we exercise, with whom we have sex and how we have sex ... and of course, whether we do or do not choose to be vaccinated (or have our children vaccinated if we are parents). It is wrong to demand people use a product whose safety and efficacy are unknown, in particular when there is so much apparent conflict of interest embedded in the very system making recommendations for said product ... when those who receive the product bear all risk with essentially no recourse when they are injured by the product they were required to use even against their will!
Friday, February 06, 2015
The ethics of arrogance ...
Arthur Caplan wrote an opinion piece that should send shivers down the spines of us all ... regardless of our views on vaccination.
It's part of the dangerous encroachment into the relationship between healthcare provider and client - a relationship that necessarily should remain private. We all live with choices that others make - for good or for ill, vaccination is just one of them, it isn't the only one.
Driving providers and patients into an underground relationship is not good for anyone
It's an absolutely stunning display of arrogance to demand conformity or else. Medical "evidence" and science have an amazing way of changing through the years - and the persistent pursuit of truth by "heretics" has benefited us all.
Consider Semmelweis, who was hounded by his peers for insisting upon the simple task of hand-washing prior to delivering a baby with a resultant plummeting of childbed fever or sepsis, which saved so many women.
Or consider stomach ulcers and the lengths to which the researcher who discovered H. pylori went before his theory was considered and incorporated into treatment (he was later awarded a Nobel Prize in 2005).
Decades before research vindicated them midwives knew overuse of episiotomy was bad for women and generally not necessary. Conventional wisdom held that it prevented pelvic floor damage and protected the baby's brain ... and then we actually did the research, which demonstrated episiotomy increased risk of worse damage than spontaneous perineal tears and gasp! the perineum isn't dangerous to a baby's brain!
The bromide "once a cesarean section, always a cesarean section" was mainstream practice ... and then we actually did the research and "discovered" that VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean) is a relatively reasonable risk to take for most women with a history of previous cesarean birth.
For years it was assumed that saturated fat was bad and caused heart disease. Now that is being challenged and it seems inflammation is implicated in heart disease, and well, many other health problems as well ... oh, wait - what happens after vaccination? Inflammation.
These are just a few examples of health care providers who were considered "crazy" for not passively accepting the prevailing medical dogma. They held minority positions in the face of unrelenting peer pressure and were ultimately proved right.
It's amazing what we find out when we try to find answers to questions.
Apparently a significant portion of our population is asking questions about vaccine safety and efficacy - in due time we might all benefit from listening to this minority's concerns ... after all, it's happened before - the precedents are almost too numerous to list, so it would be prudent not to be too arrogant or presumptuous about "settled science".
Many want more information about a product that has been described as "unavoidably unsafe" ... a product so "safe" it is legally shielded from any liability - which essentially removes any motivation for a manufacturer or provider of said product to make it any safer ... a product which is incredibly lucrative because its use is mandated by law ... a product which is recommended by experts who have financial conflicts of interest with the manufacturers ... a product embroiled not just in controversy about safety and efficacy, but allegations of fraud (Paul Thorsen, mumps/Merck fraud lawsuit, #CDCwhistleblower).
Many aspects of medical care are fraught with various degrees of risk vs benefit, and that is no different for vaccines - all should be free to determine which level of risk/benefit with which they are willing to live. Subjecting people to forced medical procedures is something that would make Dr. Mengele proud - he perfected this. Let's not follow his lead.
It's part of the dangerous encroachment into the relationship between healthcare provider and client - a relationship that necessarily should remain private. We all live with choices that others make - for good or for ill, vaccination is just one of them, it isn't the only one.
Driving providers and patients into an underground relationship is not good for anyone
It's an absolutely stunning display of arrogance to demand conformity or else. Medical "evidence" and science have an amazing way of changing through the years - and the persistent pursuit of truth by "heretics" has benefited us all.
Consider Semmelweis, who was hounded by his peers for insisting upon the simple task of hand-washing prior to delivering a baby with a resultant plummeting of childbed fever or sepsis, which saved so many women.
Or consider stomach ulcers and the lengths to which the researcher who discovered H. pylori went before his theory was considered and incorporated into treatment (he was later awarded a Nobel Prize in 2005).
Decades before research vindicated them midwives knew overuse of episiotomy was bad for women and generally not necessary. Conventional wisdom held that it prevented pelvic floor damage and protected the baby's brain ... and then we actually did the research, which demonstrated episiotomy increased risk of worse damage than spontaneous perineal tears and gasp! the perineum isn't dangerous to a baby's brain!
The bromide "once a cesarean section, always a cesarean section" was mainstream practice ... and then we actually did the research and "discovered" that VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean) is a relatively reasonable risk to take for most women with a history of previous cesarean birth.
For years it was assumed that saturated fat was bad and caused heart disease. Now that is being challenged and it seems inflammation is implicated in heart disease, and well, many other health problems as well ... oh, wait - what happens after vaccination? Inflammation.
These are just a few examples of health care providers who were considered "crazy" for not passively accepting the prevailing medical dogma. They held minority positions in the face of unrelenting peer pressure and were ultimately proved right.
It's amazing what we find out when we try to find answers to questions.
Apparently a significant portion of our population is asking questions about vaccine safety and efficacy - in due time we might all benefit from listening to this minority's concerns ... after all, it's happened before - the precedents are almost too numerous to list, so it would be prudent not to be too arrogant or presumptuous about "settled science".
Many want more information about a product that has been described as "unavoidably unsafe" ... a product so "safe" it is legally shielded from any liability - which essentially removes any motivation for a manufacturer or provider of said product to make it any safer ... a product which is incredibly lucrative because its use is mandated by law ... a product which is recommended by experts who have financial conflicts of interest with the manufacturers ... a product embroiled not just in controversy about safety and efficacy, but allegations of fraud (Paul Thorsen, mumps/Merck fraud lawsuit, #CDCwhistleblower).
Many aspects of medical care are fraught with various degrees of risk vs benefit, and that is no different for vaccines - all should be free to determine which level of risk/benefit with which they are willing to live. Subjecting people to forced medical procedures is something that would make Dr. Mengele proud - he perfected this. Let's not follow his lead.
Tuesday, February 03, 2015
Abortion and vaccines ... Part 5
Worthwhile reading:
This piece, "Villany, Virtue, and Vaccination" by Todd Erzen (@DeaceOnline) was posted to http://www.stevedeace.com this morning, and works an angle on vaccination and abortion that I had not considered. Both medical procedures involve coercion, and both involve widely unacknowledged risk (interestingly enough, more to the child than anyone else in both cases, but at least with vaccination the child generally lives, though not always).
As always, do your own research before making a decision to vaccinate. You can always vaccinate. You can never un-vaccinate.
You can always have an abortion (well, until the baby is born), but once you have an abortion you cannot un-do death - only Jesus can do that ... if you have had an abortion, help is available if you are suffering because of it. You can go to http://afterabortion.org/1999/articles-related-to-post-abortion-healing/ for starters. Or contact your local Pregnancy Resource Center, many of them offer post-abortion healing.
This piece, "Villany, Virtue, and Vaccination" by Todd Erzen (@DeaceOnline) was posted to http://www.stevedeace.com this morning, and works an angle on vaccination and abortion that I had not considered. Both medical procedures involve coercion, and both involve widely unacknowledged risk (interestingly enough, more to the child than anyone else in both cases, but at least with vaccination the child generally lives, though not always).
As always, do your own research before making a decision to vaccinate. You can always vaccinate. You can never un-vaccinate.
You can always have an abortion (well, until the baby is born), but once you have an abortion you cannot un-do death - only Jesus can do that ... if you have had an abortion, help is available if you are suffering because of it. You can go to http://afterabortion.org/1999/articles-related-to-post-abortion-healing/ for starters. Or contact your local Pregnancy Resource Center, many of them offer post-abortion healing.
Friday, January 09, 2015
What's so dangerous about a doctor?
An osteopath, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, from America was set to go to Australia and give a series of informational talks about vaccination. This tour is now in jeopardy because her views are so threatening to those who promote vaccination.
The Australian government may revoke her visa. If the Aussie government concedes to calls to prevent her from traveling to their country it would be the height of hypocrisy in light of the statements of Tony Abbott following the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. Statements lauding the necessity of freedom of expression.
Whether it is religious beliefs or medical opinions, the truth has nothing to fear from the lie, so why are vaccine proponents working overtime to keep Dr. Tenpenny (and her views) from coming to Australia? The strenuous objections might lead someone to suspect that the strength of their evidence may not be all that great, otherwise there would be no problem with the airing of a different analysis of the available data.
It is very telling that those who support vaccination do not simply support vaccination - they insist that everyone else conform to this through coercive, manipulative mandates linking vaccination with participation in common activities (work, school) and now are extending this to requiring conformity of thought regarding vaccination by attempting to censor the marketplace of ideas by ensuring Dr. Tenpenny does not speak in Australia.
A good product does not need to be forced on anyone - people voluntarily, individually demand it by seeking it out and asking for it from multiple vendors or venues - more vendors and/or venues being necessary because of the spontaneous popularity of the good thing (whatever it might be).
Good products do not need to be shielded from legal liability by a fig leaf of a law (1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program).
Good products are supported by research not tainted by fraud (Thorsen/mumps/Merck,
#CDCwhistleblower - just for starters) and conflict of interest.
Good ideas are not threatened by free and open and public debate.
It seems vaccines may not be a good product.
I'm really not anti-vaccine so much as I am pro-freedom ... those who believe the benefits of vaccination are more than the risks should get them. Those who have more concern about the risks of vaccination than any benefit derived from them should be free to decline.
Do the research and make up your own mind. If you want to learn more about Dr. Sherri Tenpenny and her views, follow her on Facebook or Twitter. Or not! It's up to you. She also has this website: http://drtenpenny.com/
Click here to go to a Change.org petition supporting her visit to Australia (or don't - it's up to you!)
The Australian government may revoke her visa. If the Aussie government concedes to calls to prevent her from traveling to their country it would be the height of hypocrisy in light of the statements of Tony Abbott following the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks in France. Statements lauding the necessity of freedom of expression.
Whether it is religious beliefs or medical opinions, the truth has nothing to fear from the lie, so why are vaccine proponents working overtime to keep Dr. Tenpenny (and her views) from coming to Australia? The strenuous objections might lead someone to suspect that the strength of their evidence may not be all that great, otherwise there would be no problem with the airing of a different analysis of the available data.
It is very telling that those who support vaccination do not simply support vaccination - they insist that everyone else conform to this through coercive, manipulative mandates linking vaccination with participation in common activities (work, school) and now are extending this to requiring conformity of thought regarding vaccination by attempting to censor the marketplace of ideas by ensuring Dr. Tenpenny does not speak in Australia.
A good product does not need to be forced on anyone - people voluntarily, individually demand it by seeking it out and asking for it from multiple vendors or venues - more vendors and/or venues being necessary because of the spontaneous popularity of the good thing (whatever it might be).
Good products do not need to be shielded from legal liability by a fig leaf of a law (1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program).
Good products are supported by research not tainted by fraud (Thorsen/mumps/Merck,
#CDCwhistleblower - just for starters) and conflict of interest.
Good ideas are not threatened by free and open and public debate.
It seems vaccines may not be a good product.
I'm really not anti-vaccine so much as I am pro-freedom ... those who believe the benefits of vaccination are more than the risks should get them. Those who have more concern about the risks of vaccination than any benefit derived from them should be free to decline.
Do the research and make up your own mind. If you want to learn more about Dr. Sherri Tenpenny and her views, follow her on Facebook or Twitter. Or not! It's up to you. She also has this website: http://drtenpenny.com/
Click here to go to a Change.org petition supporting her visit to Australia (or don't - it's up to you!)
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Tag, you're it! Teachers next target ...
First they came for the healthcare workers, now teachers are the next target - who's next?
A daycare/school in College Station, Texas has now mandated its teachers receive annual flu vaccination as a condition of employment (or wear not just a mask, but also gloves through the flu season). Apparently several other area schools have also jumped on this bandwagon. The board maintains they've done their research, but do not list what this research is other than speaking to unnamed health professionals.
Since vaccination in general is so controversial, and healthcare decisions are personal, it seems this should remain a private decision each parent/person makes for themselves and their families. Especially because there is controversy regarding the risks/benefits of vaccination the decision should remain private - the CDC is not the only source for information about vaccination, and given the conflict of interest within the CDC and ACIP it is not surprising their only response is that it is "safe and effective" regardless of research that implies otherwise (let alone the personal experience of many people and parents).
Parents and adults should be free to make healthcare decisions (including accepting/declining vaccination) without being coerced or manipulated by anyone - not employers, not medical personnel/healthcare providers, not schools or workplaces.
Healthcare providers should be free to make healthcare decisions (including accepting/declining vaccination) without being coerced or manipulated by anyone - not employers, not medical personnel/healthcare providers, not schools or workplaces.
Teachers should be free to make healthcare decisions (including accepting/declining vaccination) without being coerced or manipulated by anyone - not employers, not medical personnel/healthcare providers, not schools or workplaces.
Parents are trained to bring their children in for routine vaccinations even though an infants immune system is not able to respond - this is one reason why the antigen needs to be frequently re-presented (ie: re-vaccinated); Vaccines are big money makers, plenty of incentive for pharmaceutical companies to cash in on continuing the practice of vaccination into adulthood. A mandate, minus liability, is big bucks - high reward/low risk (well, at least for the companies making the vaccine and for policy makers/politicians). The overlords (people who know better how to manage other people's lives than the people themselves) started with healthcare workers to see if they could get away with it - and they did. So now they've moved on to teachers. Any guesses as to who will be the next group vaccinators will target?
A daycare/school in College Station, Texas has now mandated its teachers receive annual flu vaccination as a condition of employment (or wear not just a mask, but also gloves through the flu season). Apparently several other area schools have also jumped on this bandwagon. The board maintains they've done their research, but do not list what this research is other than speaking to unnamed health professionals.
Since vaccination in general is so controversial, and healthcare decisions are personal, it seems this should remain a private decision each parent/person makes for themselves and their families. Especially because there is controversy regarding the risks/benefits of vaccination the decision should remain private - the CDC is not the only source for information about vaccination, and given the conflict of interest within the CDC and ACIP it is not surprising their only response is that it is "safe and effective" regardless of research that implies otherwise (let alone the personal experience of many people and parents).
Parents and adults should be free to make healthcare decisions (including accepting/declining vaccination) without being coerced or manipulated by anyone - not employers, not medical personnel/healthcare providers, not schools or workplaces.
Healthcare providers should be free to make healthcare decisions (including accepting/declining vaccination) without being coerced or manipulated by anyone - not employers, not medical personnel/healthcare providers, not schools or workplaces.
Teachers should be free to make healthcare decisions (including accepting/declining vaccination) without being coerced or manipulated by anyone - not employers, not medical personnel/healthcare providers, not schools or workplaces.
Parents are trained to bring their children in for routine vaccinations even though an infants immune system is not able to respond - this is one reason why the antigen needs to be frequently re-presented (ie: re-vaccinated); Vaccines are big money makers, plenty of incentive for pharmaceutical companies to cash in on continuing the practice of vaccination into adulthood. A mandate, minus liability, is big bucks - high reward/low risk (well, at least for the companies making the vaccine and for policy makers/politicians). The overlords (people who know better how to manage other people's lives than the people themselves) started with healthcare workers to see if they could get away with it - and they did. So now they've moved on to teachers. Any guesses as to who will be the next group vaccinators will target?
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Why "mask" the truth?
This blog post was inspired by a discussion on the Dec 10, 2014 "Know Your Rights Hour" podcast of Alan Phillips, JD and Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH - you can subscribe via iTunes. Dr. Eisenstein's website is: http://www.homefirst.com/ and Alan Phillips website is:
http://www.vaccinerights.com/attorneyphillips.html
Healthcare providers are now required to receive influenza vaccine yearly or risk losing their jobs. This in spite of the fact that "evidence" for the efficacy of this policy is sketchy at best. For those who are successful in obtaining a waiver in declining to be vaccinated are required to wear a mask even though they may be completely healthy and free of symptoms. There is no evidence this protects either patient or healthcare provider (in the absence of symptoms); Adding insult to injury is the fact that the CDC is admitting, very early in the season, that this year's vaccine is a poor match to circulating strains of the virus, so any "efficacy" is expected to be low.
One could speculate as to why a mask is required of those who do not get vaccinated - there is no logical reason to believe it would be helpful in risk reduction to either patient or healthcare provider (especially when the healthcare provider is free of symptoms) as bacteria and viruses are so small that only a specialized respirator with an air tight seal could prevent them from entering (or exiting) the respiratory tract.
But in light of the fact that this year's vaccine is expected to provide very little risk reduction (and according to the Cochrane Database this is generally true even when there is a "good match" between vaccine and circulating strains, see above link) it seems that everyone should be wearing a mask! If the policy of requiring the use of a mask for unvaccinated HCW's is about protecting patients from getting ill it makes sense that a mask would be required of everyone in a year where there is higher odds than typical that the vaccine will not reduce risk of becoming ill. If the vaccine does not protect the recipient how could anyone else (ie: patients and/or co-workers) passively benefit, therefore shouldn't all be wearing masks since that is the goal of mandatory vaccination of HCW's?
To add insult to injury there are articles in press (by vaccine proponents no less) that document receiving flu vaccine on a yearly/consecutive basis may actually lower what little risk reduction it provides! This may be due to an effect called "original antigenic sin" where exposing the immune system to an antigen may make it less able to recognize a similar antigen (like an influenza virus that has mutated ever so slightly).
Neither policy (mandating masks for unvaccinated HCWs and/or mandating receipt of annual influenza vaccine) is based on solid, significant science. This type of heavy-handed approach is paternalistic and condescending. While many enter the healthcare with noble motives no one gives up their personal, civil rights because they go into healthcare, nor should this be expected of them.
The receipt of any medical procedure should be voluntary - vaccines should not be exempt from this. Those who want a vaccine should get it. Those who do not want a vaccine (regardless of their reason or motivation for declining) should not be forced to get a vaccine, nor wear a mask (or any other token) that makes it easy to identify them as a "refuser".
http://www.vaccinerights.com/attorneyphillips.html
Healthcare providers are now required to receive influenza vaccine yearly or risk losing their jobs. This in spite of the fact that "evidence" for the efficacy of this policy is sketchy at best. For those who are successful in obtaining a waiver in declining to be vaccinated are required to wear a mask even though they may be completely healthy and free of symptoms. There is no evidence this protects either patient or healthcare provider (in the absence of symptoms); Adding insult to injury is the fact that the CDC is admitting, very early in the season, that this year's vaccine is a poor match to circulating strains of the virus, so any "efficacy" is expected to be low.
One could speculate as to why a mask is required of those who do not get vaccinated - there is no logical reason to believe it would be helpful in risk reduction to either patient or healthcare provider (especially when the healthcare provider is free of symptoms) as bacteria and viruses are so small that only a specialized respirator with an air tight seal could prevent them from entering (or exiting) the respiratory tract.
But in light of the fact that this year's vaccine is expected to provide very little risk reduction (and according to the Cochrane Database this is generally true even when there is a "good match" between vaccine and circulating strains, see above link) it seems that everyone should be wearing a mask! If the policy of requiring the use of a mask for unvaccinated HCW's is about protecting patients from getting ill it makes sense that a mask would be required of everyone in a year where there is higher odds than typical that the vaccine will not reduce risk of becoming ill. If the vaccine does not protect the recipient how could anyone else (ie: patients and/or co-workers) passively benefit, therefore shouldn't all be wearing masks since that is the goal of mandatory vaccination of HCW's?
To add insult to injury there are articles in press (by vaccine proponents no less) that document receiving flu vaccine on a yearly/consecutive basis may actually lower what little risk reduction it provides! This may be due to an effect called "original antigenic sin" where exposing the immune system to an antigen may make it less able to recognize a similar antigen (like an influenza virus that has mutated ever so slightly).
Neither policy (mandating masks for unvaccinated HCWs and/or mandating receipt of annual influenza vaccine) is based on solid, significant science. This type of heavy-handed approach is paternalistic and condescending. While many enter the healthcare with noble motives no one gives up their personal, civil rights because they go into healthcare, nor should this be expected of them.
The receipt of any medical procedure should be voluntary - vaccines should not be exempt from this. Those who want a vaccine should get it. Those who do not want a vaccine (regardless of their reason or motivation for declining) should not be forced to get a vaccine, nor wear a mask (or any other token) that makes it easy to identify them as a "refuser".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)