Pregnant nurse fired for not taking flu vaccine

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Why do I see this image in my head when I read TH's retorts?

Letting go is the only answer, but it ain't gonna happen is it TH?

 

[abj13]

Sigh. This is exactly why I asked Riprorin to read the freaking studies.

Oppermann M, Fritzsche J, Weber-Schoendorfer C, Keller-Stanislawski B, Allignol A, Meister R, Schaefer C.Vaccine. A(H1N1)v2009: a controlled observational prospective cohort study on vaccine safety in pregnancy. 2012 Jun 22;30(30):4445-52.

In this study, 20.81% of women had a history of at least one spontaneous abortion, and 5.6% of women had two or more.

Chambers CD, Johnson D, Xu R, Luo Y, Louik C, Mitchell AA, Schatz M, Jones KL; OTIS Collaborative Research Group.Risks and safety of pandemic h1n1 influenza vaccine in pregnancy: birth defects, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, and small for gestational age infants. Vaccine. 2013 Oct 17;31(44):5026-32.

Included 25.1% of women in the study group had a history of spontaneous abortion.

Can we seriously get a mod to do a background check... he posts just like several previously banned trolls on here.

 

[TraumaRN]

Show me a study to backup that statement.

Show me a study where the focus group was high risk pregnancies.

That is all I ask, nothing more nothing less.

Please see the definition of ALL.

 

[lotus503]

How am I trolling if there is no study of high risk pregnancies.

Now onto the next part of the thread,

If there is no study, how can the employer force her to take the vaccine?





Lets be clear, I am NOT opposed to vaccines in any shape, form or fashion.

So I do not know where you get this "I too" business.




Without a study there is no proof.

All the cdc has is speculation.

Given the irrationality you have demonstrated in this thread I did jump to the conclusion you have an issue with the flu vaccine in high risk pregnant women. If thats not the case then why the pages of reponses supporting a ridiculous positon?

Isn't your position there are no studies on its safety in high risk pregnancies so you don't think she should have been fired?

Maybe a more important question would be do you even know what your position is? You seem to have succumbed to arguing that a study of all Pregnant women isn't good enough because it didn't separate High risk

 

[Texashiker]

and 5.6% of women had two or more.

Wow, we went from the 10% from dr pizzas post to only 5.6%. So only 5.6% of that study would be considered high risk?

Do we have "anything" where the main focus of the study was high risk pregnancies?

This thread makes me sad for how little we care about womens health.

Isn't your position there are no studies on its safety in high risk pregnancies so you don't think she should have been fired?

Correct.

Show me one peer reviewed study where the main focus group was high risk pregnancies and I will change my stance on this issue.

 

[lotus503]

Wow, we went from the 10% from dr pizzas post to only 5.6%. So only 5.6% of that study would be considered high risk?

Do we have "anything" where the main focus of the study was high risk pregnancies?

This thread makes me sad for how little we care about womens health.

This posts makes me sad for deductive reasoning.

Getting the flu can be bads news for pregnant women, but no real evidence to suggest the vaccine is.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007443.htm

 

[TraumaRN]

Wow, we went from the 10% from dr pizzas post to only 5.6%. So only 5.6% of that study would be considered high risk?

Do we have "anything" where the main focus of the study was high risk pregnancies?

This thread makes me sad for how little we care about womens health.




Correct.

Stop feigning fake outrage on womens health care when you clearly don't give a crap. I've done more to help women regarding their personal health than you could ever even imagine. So just frigging stop.

Here's some evidence for your trollish self. I'm sure you'll just ignore it. I'm sure you'll say it's not high risk, when once again this studied all pregnancies and all pregnancies would include high risk pregnancies and if any possible evidence of it increasing miscarriages would have been noted as a significant finding.

The team from UC San Diego followed 1,032 pregnant women across the United States and Canada who either chose to receive an influenza vaccine or were not vaccinated during one of the three seasons from 2009-2012. Women were recruited through MotherToBaby, a service of OTIS.
Chamber’s team found that women vaccinated during pregnancy were no more likely to experience miscarriage, have a baby born with a birth defect or have a baby born smaller than normal compared with those who did not receive a vaccination. Although vaccinated women were more likely to have their babies before term, on average these infants were delivered three days earlier than those born to unvaccinated women.
The VAMPSS team from Boston University’s Slone Epidemiology Center interviewed 4,191 mothers from four regional centers in the United States, who had either delivered a baby with one of 41 specific birth defects or delivered a normal infant. They compared the use of influenza vaccine in the two groups during the 2009-2011 seasons. The team also compared the risk of preterm delivery in vaccinated versus unvaccinated women. Overall, no significant evidence of an increased risk of any specific birth defects was noted. While the team did observe a slight increase in preterm delivery rates among pregnant women who received the H1N1 vaccine specifically during the 2009-2010 season, vaccinated women overall only delivered an average of two days earlier compared to the unvaccinated group. For those vaccinated during 2010-2011, the situation was reversed, and vaccinated women were less likely to deliver a preterm baby.
“We found no meaningful evidence of an increase in risk for many specific major birth defects if a woman received the flu shot early in pregnancy,” said Carol Louik, ScD, lead investigator of the Boston University team. “A concern about the risk of specific birth defects was a critical question that has not been considered very much until now, and our data are reassuring.”


"Risks and Safety of Pandemic H1N1 Influenza Vaccine in Pregnancy: Birth Defects, Spontaneous Abortion, Preterm Delivery, and Small for Gestational Age Infants" doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.097 (pp. 5058-5064)
"Risks and Safety of Pandemic H1N1 Influenza Vaccine in Pregnancy: Exposure Prevalence, Preterm Delivery, and Specific Birth Defects" doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.096 (pp. 5065-5072)

 

[Texashiker]

This posts makes me sad for deductive reasoning.

Getting the flu can be bads news for pregnant women, but no real evidence to suggest the vaccine is.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007443.htm

Do you have a study or not?

 

[lotus503]

Wow, we went from the 10% from dr pizzas post to only 5.6%. So only 5.6% of that study would be considered high risk?

Do we have "anything" where the main focus of the study was high risk pregnancies?

This thread makes me sad for how little we care about womens health.




Correct.

Show me one peer reviewed study where the main focus group was high risk pregnancies and I will change my stance on this issue.

I don't care if you change your stance, our job was just to lead you to the water we cant make you drink. sometimes ingorance is more comfortable, and you look as cozy a bug in a rug.

 

[lotus503]

Stop feigning fake outrage on womens health care when you clearly don't give a crap. I've done more to help women regarding their personal health than you could ever even imagine. So just frigging stop.

Here's some evidence for your trollish self. I'm sure you'll just ignore it. I'm sure you'll say it's not high risk, when once again this studied all pregnancies and all pregnancies would include high risk pregnancies and if any possible evidence of it increasing miscarriages would have been noted as a significant finding.

The team from UC San Diego followed 1,032 pregnant women across the United States and Canada who either chose to receive an influenza vaccine or were not vaccinated during one of the three seasons from 2009-2012. Women were recruited through MotherToBaby, a service of OTIS.
Chamber’s team found that women vaccinated during pregnancy were no more likely to experience miscarriage, have a baby born with a birth defect or have a baby born smaller than normal compared with those who did not receive a vaccination. Although vaccinated women were more likely to have their babies before term, on average these infants were delivered three days earlier than those born to unvaccinated women.
The VAMPSS team from Boston University’s Slone Epidemiology Center interviewed 4,191 mothers from four regional centers in the United States, who had either delivered a baby with one of 41 specific birth defects or delivered a normal infant. They compared the use of influenza vaccine in the two groups during the 2009-2011 seasons. The team also compared the risk of preterm delivery in vaccinated versus unvaccinated women. Overall, no significant evidence of an increased risk of any specific birth defects was noted. While the team did observe a slight increase in preterm delivery rates among pregnant women who received the H1N1 vaccine specifically during the 2009-2010 season, vaccinated women overall only delivered an average of two days earlier compared to the unvaccinated group. For those vaccinated during 2010-2011, the situation was reversed, and vaccinated women were less likely to deliver a preterm baby.
“We found no meaningful evidence of an increase in risk for many specific major birth defects if a woman received the flu shot early in pregnancy,” said Carol Louik, ScD, lead investigator of the Boston University team. “A concern about the risk of specific birth defects was a critical question that has not been considered very much until now, and our data are reassuring.”


"Risks and Safety of Pandemic H1N1 Influenza Vaccine in Pregnancy: Birth Defects, Spontaneous Abortion, Preterm Delivery, and Small for Gestational Age Infants" doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.097 (pp. 5058-5064)
"Risks and Safety of Pandemic H1N1 Influenza Vaccine in Pregnancy: Exposure Prevalence, Preterm Delivery, and Specific Birth Defects" doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.08.096 (pp. 5065-5072)

But But But, it doesn't say specifically high risk pregnancies, circle jerk to be continued.....

 

[abj13]

Wow, we went from the 10% from dr pizzas post to only 5.6%. So only 5.6% of that study would be considered high risk?

Do we have "anything" where the main focus of the study was high risk pregnancies?

This thread makes me sad for how little we care about womens health.

Hahahaha. The stupidity is incredible. Not only was a previously spontaneous abortion apart of their cohort variable evaluations, they evaluated whether it impacted the results of the several studies. The authors report many results for various variables, and yet you want only them to focus on one?

My, my how the goalposts have changed.
1) No studies exists on the safety of the vaccine in pregnancy
2) No studies exist in pregnancy because nobody will post them
3) Er, I mean no studies exist evaluating the outcomes in mothers who have had spontaneous abortions
4) Er, What I really mean is that a study can't evaluate multiple variables, they can only focus on one and can only report about that one variable

The vaccine is safe in ALL pregnancies. Maybe the mother should have read those studies as they covered her medical history in their subgroup analysis.

 

[TraumaRN]

But But But, it doesn't say specifically high risk pregnancies, circle jerk to be continued.....

Tell me why doesn't it mention that?? TELL ME. I WANT YOU TO ANSWER.

Why doesn't it say that you troll?

Moreover I'm going to stop posting articles, clearly you have access to the internet.

YOU FIND A STUDY. You ask us for proof, the burden of proof is not on me or any of the rest of us. Find us a study.

 

[mikeymikec]

The vaccine is safe in ALL pregnancies.

Perhaps the Monty Python crew would consider doing a "Logic vs. Texashiker" sketch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZqs36C5sgM

 

[glenn1]

Do you have a study or not?

 

[Texashiker]

The vaccine is safe in ALL pregnancies.

Prove it. That is all I ask.

You can not prove it, as there are no studies in the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies - at least none have been presented yet.

Rather than admitting the truth you resort to insults.

 

[glenn1]

Prove it. That is all I ask.

You can not prove it, as there are no studies in the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies - at least none have been presented yet.

Rather than admitting the truth you resort to insults.

 

[TraumaRN]

Prove it. That is all I ask.

You can not prove it, as there are no studies in the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies - at least none have been presented yet.

Rather than admitting the truth you resort to insults.

So. Frigging. Rich.

No man, we've all posted numerous studies, recommendations etc. You've ignored us or attempted to move the goal posts EVERY SINGLE TIME.

YOU POST A STUDY. You've got the internet as well. Use whatever resources you want but you find and post a study backing up what you claim. Put up or shut up.

 

[abj13]

This isn't any troll, he's a former banned poster. Exact same MO, exact same ignorant posts, exact same style of trolling.

There's a reason why the AAP, ACOG, CDC, ACIP, etc have all recommended the influenza vaccine in all pregnancies. These physician groups have all reviewed the studies and found the vaccine to be universally safe. The CDC has followed the vaccine and has found the vaccine to be safe. The VAERS system tracks adverse effects that could be associated with the vaccine and has not found an association. Multiple independent studies have not found an association between the vaccine and adverse effects, even when they evaluated mothers 20-25% of mothers who have a history of spontaneous abortion. They carried that evaluation to even mothers with >2, and still did not find an association between the vaccine and an adverse reaction in pregnancy. And people have posted the adverse effects of the influenza infection during pregnancy, and that too gets ignored.

Yet, a previously banned poster who thinks he knows more than these physician groups... all because refusing to read data is a substitute for being well informed.

Texashiker = formerly banned poster.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Prove it. That is all I ask.

You can not prove it, as there are no studies in the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies - at least none have been presented yet.

Rather than admitting the truth you resort to insults.

He didn't insult you. But he should have. Because making a claim with no factual evidence to back you up, ignoring all evidence to the contrary and then demanding that everyone else prove you wrong is a mark of such extreme stupidity, arrogance, ignorance, ineptitude, laziness, intellectual dishonesty and vacuous idiocy that everyone who has been subjected to your posts in this thread is worse for having read them. You are literally making the world a worse place. You don't even have the basic human decency to admit your failure, apologize and move on. You just keep doubling down on stupid as though repetition of stupidity will magically make your argument correct. You gave up any pretense of caring about facts or reason long ago, which is important, as you're arguing a position that offers neither; now you're just wasting everybody's time for no reason. Your thoughtless, inconsiderate, stubborn, obstinate, bullheaded, unwavering pursuit of your position has proven so indefensible that you've simply abandoned trying and are now attempting to get us to defend it for you. You have nothing to offer this thread, this thread has nothing to offer anyone else, and it's a pointless waste of time for all parties involved. For that, you should be insulted, as you've insulted the intelligence of everyone involved.

Either participate in a discussion like a real human being or shut the hell up.

 

[Exophase]

How the progression of this thread would have went for a modified but more or less equivalent argument...

TexasHiker: A pregnant nurse got fired for not taking flu shots because her midwife told her her pregnancy was at risk. That's not fair.
Everyone else: Her midwife was poorly informed. There are several studies that show flu shots don't increase risk of issues with child birth. On the contrary they decrease risk by virtue of decreasing risk of getting the flu, which has been shown to increase problems.
TexasHiker: But she's Icelandic. No one has shown specifically that Icelandic pregnant women aren't under enhanced risk from taking flu shots. All I'm asking is for this study.

Basic point - if this woman wants to make an argument for being exempt from taking flu shots (which the hospital will somehow accommodate, at least is willing to on other grounds like religion) the burden is on her to show some evidence to substantiate her claim. Not on her employer to refute it. The idea that flu shots pose enhanced risk to pregnant women with a history of miscarriages is pulled completely out of thin air (and IS most likely countered by studies with sample groups that were surely large enough to include several people with a history of miscarriage). This is the idea that must be defended with some kind of evidence. Not to prove the opposite. That's outrageous.

 

[Texashiker]

These physician groups have all reviewed the studies and found the vaccine to be universally safe.

Oh, so there are studies on high risk pregnancies with a history of miscarriages?

And no, I have no previous accounts on this forum.

TexasHiker: A pregnant nurse got fired for not taking flu shots because her midwife told her her pregnancy was at risk. That's not fair.

Everyone else: Her midwife was poorly informed. There are several studies that show flu shots don't increase risk of issues with child birth. On the contrary they decrease risk by virtue of decreasing risk of getting the flu, which has been shown to increase problems.

Nobody has posted a single study of high risk pregnancies.

He didn't insult you. But he should have. Because making a claim with no factual evidence to back you up, ignoring all evidence to the contrary and then demanding that everyone else prove you wrong is a mark of such extreme stupidity, arrogance, ignorance, ineptitude, laziness, intellectual dishonesty and vacuous idiocy,,,

It is ok for just everyone in this thread to make false and misleading statements, but when I challenge them they get offended?

The cdc, and a lot of posters in this thread claim flu vaccines are safe for "all" pregnancies. But not a single study has been posted of high risk pregnancies to backup that statement.

Who is making the false statement:

The people who say the vaccine is safe for high risk pregnancies when no study has been done.

Or me for asking for a study?

 

[Exophase]

Please tell me that you're actively cutting out the parts that directly refute everything you're saying just to annoy people. Please tell me you aren't really this stupid.

 

[Texashiker]

Please tell me that you're actively cutting out the parts that directly refute everything you're saying just to annoy people. Please tell me you aren't really this stupid.

What parts am I being accused be cutting out?

All I am asking for is a peer reviewed study of the flu vaccine in high risk pregnancies. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[TraumaRN]

Oh, so there are studies on high risk pregnancies with a history of miscarriages?

And no, I have no previous accounts on this forum.




Nobody has posted a single study of high risk pregnancies.




It is ok for just everyone in this thread to make false and misleading statements, but when I challenge them they get offended?

The cdc, and a lot of posters in this thread claim flu vaccines are safe for "all" pregnancies. But not a single study has been posted of high risk pregnancies to backup that statement.

Who is making the false statement:

The people who say the vaccine is safe for high risk pregnancies when no study has been done.

Or me for asking for a study?

So now we are all liars??

POST EVIDENCE OF THAT.

Post evidence to support your claims.

Stop acting like a legit asshole and refusing to address people's factual claims. You dismissed my study by calling it a circle jerk because it included ALL PREGNANCIES WHICH WOULD INCLUDE HIGH RISK PREGANCY.

Your profound level of obtuseness is ridiculous.

POST SOME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.

 

[Texashiker]

So now we are all liars??

POST EVIDENCE OF THAT.

If you knowingly post something you know is not true, then you are lying, or at the very least fudging the facts, or trolling.

Has there been a peer reviewed study of flu vaccine where the primary focus group was high risk pregnancies?

That is all I am asking.

And people "including you" keep avoiding the answer.

ALL PREGNANCIES WHICH WOULD INCLUDE HIGH RISK PREGANCY.

What percentage of the study group was comprised of high risk pregnancies?