Pregnant nurse fired for not taking flu vaccine

[Darwin333]

you said you do not have a study, why are you still posting?




I respectfully disagree.

Is a 10% or even 20% sample large enough to get a new drug approved?

Is anyone going to step forward and say 20% of the people we tested this vaccine on were not infected? Chances are they would be laughed at by the scientific community.

What is a reasonable study group? I would say at least 75% or 80%. Isn't 75% - 80% a good number for herd immunity? So lets use those numbers.

I'll tell you what, lets make it easy. Lets drop that 75% - 80% to 50%.

Does anyone have a peer reviewed study where 50% of the pregnant women had a history of miscarriages?

FFS its percentages so your questions are all, as is, meaningless. If the total test has 100,000 people in it and 20% are pregnant then yes, it is a big enough sample. If the total test is 10 people, no statistical data can really be gained from that despite the same "20% are pregnant".

Seriously, do you realize that they could run the test with the same exact number (total number) of high risk pregnant women but include noone else (so they now represent 100% of the test) and you think it would somehow change how we should interpret the results. Really??? Please oh please tell me the mathematical difference between the same exact results from 200 high risk people being 20% of the group versus the same 200 women being 100% of the group. Lets pretend that the statistical models hold true and virtually the same results are gathered from both tests, what new information has the additional test given you?

Perhaps you can graph out how the results would be different so I can fully grasp it, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Darwin333]

Screw that.

You live in a rural area, what about tetanus shots? You having tetanus would be very difficult on your family and it has roughly a 10% fatality rate. Do you honestly put your family at risk of losing you due to your fear of shots? Its not bad enough to even think about risking any of that brother.

 

[Moonbeam]

Them wild pigs can give you swine flu. You neglected to mention what your death would mean for your wife. It's fine to do what you want when you are an island but you owe her to take care of yourself. It's no fare to allow yourself to be vulnerable from pig headed stupidity. That's a perfect target for swine flu.

 

[Texashiker]

Them wild pigs can give you swine flu.

Yea, right, ok.

Typical liberal fear mongering.

You live in a rural area, what about tetanus shots? You having tetanus would be very difficult on your family and it has roughly a 10% fatality rate. Do you honestly put your family at risk of losing you due to your fear of shots? Its not bad enough to even think about risking any of that brother.

If I step on a nail I'll go get a tetanus shot.

I have some very old barbed wire to pull out of an old fence row. If by chance the wire makes a deep cut I will get a tetanus shot.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yea, right, ok.

Typical liberal fear mongering.





If I step on a nail I'll go get a tetanus shot.

I have some very old barbed wire to pull out of an old fence row. If by chance the wire makes a deep cut I will get a tetanus shot.

Well that sounds like good sense but it ain't cause I need a booster and I know that if I go off somewhere and get a puncture and there's a flood or something like that, I could die from tetanus. Maybe sometimes I don't know how to sensibly compute risks.

 

[Texashiker]

I know that if I go off somewhere

A liberal go somewhere besides a rally or their moms basement?

That is funny, tell me another one.

 

[lotus503]

A liberal go somewhere besides a rally or their moms basement?

That is funny, tell me another one.

Just so were clear, I think both liberals on this thread and conservatives on this thread both know how miserably you represented your position.

In fact your fail it pretty bipartisan.

 

[Texashiker]

Just so were clear, I think both liberals on this thread and conservatives on this thread both know how miserably you represented your position.

All I asked for was a single study.

That is nothing more, nor less, than what anyone else here would do.

The problem is I asked for a study on a vaccine, which seems to be a taboo topic. It is either blindly follow and not ask questions, or be called a troll.

If any other topic were to come up, people would be demanding a study to backup the claims.

 

[lotus503]

All I asked for was a single study.

That is nothing more, nor less, than what anyone else here would do.

The problem is I asked for a study on a vaccine, which seems to be a taboo topic. It is either blindly follow and not ask questions, or be called a troll.

If any other topic were to come up, people would be demanding a study to backup the claims.

Actually there was a study that included the control group you were discussing, you dismissed it because it didn't meet some phantom requirement you want to impose.

Vaccines are not taboo, failure to accept information and fighting about it for pages it sort of dumb though.

Listen I don't want to argue it with you, as its proven you are incapable of accepting anything but your own odd metrics on the issue. Not what the rest of the people think acceptable data, but your very own made up requirement.

Its simple, so painfully simple one has to consider what character flaws are associated with your lack of acceptance.

The flue is bad for pregnant women, especially high risk pregnant women
The vaccine presents has no inherit issues for pregnant women, including high risk pregnancies.

Conclusion all pregnant women are better off getting the vaccine and not the flu, including high risk pregnancies.

 

[Texashiker]

Listen I don't want to argue it with you, as its proven you are incapable of accepting anything but your own odd metrics on the issue. Not what the rest of the people think acceptable data, but your very own made up requirement.

Lets stop with the insults.

And it is not my made up requirement. I am simply holding the vaccine studies on pregnant women to the same level as studies on everything else.

Its simple, so painfully simple one has to consider what character flaws are associated with your lack of acceptance.

All I am asking for is the same level of proof as anything else in life.

The scientific community simply can not make blanket statements and expect people to accept it as fact.

The flue is bad for pregnant women, especially high risk pregnant women
The vaccine presents has no inherit issues for pregnant women, including high risk pregnancies.

There is no argument from me on that issue.

 

[lotus503]

Lets stop with the insults.

And it is not my made up requirement. I am simply holding the vaccine studies on pregnant women to the same level as studies on everything else.



All I am asking for is the same level of proof as anything else in life.

The scientific community simply can not make blanket statements and expect people to accept it as fact.



There is no argument from me on that issue.

Great then there is no argument and you shouldn't require additonal studies since you agree with it.

 

[Texashiker]

Great then there is no argument and you shouldn't require additonal studies since you agree with it.

this thread is not about my personal feelings on vaccines.

As per the opening post, an employer fired a pregnant lady without a single scientific study to backup the employers stance.

 

[lotus503]

this thread is not about my personal feelings on vaccines.

As per the opening post, an employer fired a pregnant lady without a single scientific study to backup the employers stance.

she could have evaluated the study as well and come to the exact same conclusion we all did, don't need a special study just for her.

 

[TheVrolok]

As per the opening post, an employer fired a pregnant lady without a single scientific study to backup the employers stance.

Except for all of those that have already been posted which you continue to ignore. Troll. Honestly, I feel badly for you. Fortunately for me, I can sleep well knowing that at least I don't possess the type of ignorance you continue to demonstrate.

 

[lotus503]

Except for all of those that have already been posted which you continue to ignore. Troll. Honestly, I feel badly for you. Fortunately for me, I can sleep well knowing that at least I don't possess the type of ignorance you continue to demonstrate.

Furthermore its not his position, its the woman in the OPS and he magically knows more specific data would have helped her.

I think if you are a nurse and don't already get it no study is going to help.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I can't believe anyone argued with an old white conservative male. Don't you people understand they are at the apex of understand when it comes to women and science and doubly so for female reproductive issues?

 

[Texashiker]

I can sleep well knowing that at least I don't possess the type of ignorance you continue to demonstrate.

We have gone several pages of this thread without a single study to the effects of the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies. Which is all I ask for.

But you want to call me ignorant?

Who is ignorant, someone who blindly follows what they are told without question. Or the person who ask for proof?

 

[lotus503]

We have gone several pages of this thread without a single study to the effects of the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies. Which is all I ask for.

But you want to call me ignorant?

Who is ignorant, someone who blindly follows what they are told without question. Or the person who ask for proof?

Why are you asking for it, when you already concede that the vaccine is better than getting the flu for high risk pregnancies?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

We have gone several pages of this thread without a single study to the effects of the flu vaccine on high risk pregnancies. Which is all I ask for.

That's a flat-out lie. There have been several studies posted which included women with high-risk pregnancies in a high enough number to make a statistically significant determination about the health risks of the vaccine on that population. Your absurd claim is that even though these studies included enough high-risk pregnancies to arrive at statistically significant data for this population, because the studies also looked at other groups of pregnancies, they must be ignored. That is a ludicrous position to take and it's impossible to argue against because it offers no logical position to refute. If we took one of the published studies, chopped off the results for anyone who wasn't a high-risk pregnancy, and gave you those results back, would you stop this inane line of reasoning as you'd now be looking at a study of 100% high-risk pregnancies?

 

[Texashiker]

Why are you asking for it, when you already concede that the vaccine is better than getting the flu for high risk pregnancies?

Because the lady was fired for not taking the vaccine.

If there is no scientific study to backup the claim then she should not have been fired.

That's a flat-out lie.

As I have asked several times in this thread, show me a single study where the primary focus group were high risk women with a history of miscarriages.

 

[lotus503]

Because the lady was fired for not taking the vaccine.

If there is no scientific study to backup the claim then she should not have been fired.





As I have asked several times in this thread, show me a single study where the primary focus group were high risk women with a history of miscarriages.

But there was

 

[Victorian Gray]

Because the lady was fired for not taking the vaccine.

No, she was fired for not living up to the terms of her employment. The same terms of employment that she agreed to when she was hired.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But there was

If anyone found a study done by someone who was stupid enough not to understand how safety is determined but smart enough to do the mechanics they would of course find nothing, because everything is already covered and studied. At that point he'd ask if it were done for women her age, or race, or maybe hair color.

It's inconceivable that someone does not know that "all" would include everything, including high risk pregnancies. All means all and it's hard to believe he can't get that. It's that he won't or he enjoys this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, and I've nominated this thread.

 

[shira]

As I have asked several times in this thread, show me a single study where the primary focus group were high risk women with a history of miscarriages.

No one is going to honor this request because no longitudinal study of vaccines intended for the general population is going to be performed in the way you want.

Think about what you're claiming:

1) Study of (say) 1,000,000 women, including 1500 who have a history of multiple miscarriages. Follow all of these women for several years and see if there's a statistically-significant difference in various medical outcomes between those receiving the vaccine and those not receiving the vaccine. Include in this analysis a breakdown by various sub-groups (including the sub-group "women with a history of multiple miscarriages"), to determine if any subgroup shows statistically-significant medical differences. Then draw conclusion for all groups and sub-groups analyzed, including the sub-group "women with a history of multiple miscarriages.

2) Study ONLY the same 1500 women above who have a history of multiple miscarriages. Perform the exact same longitudinal analysis on this same group of 1500 women and determine if there are any statistically-significant differences in medical outcomes between the vaccine and non-vaccine women.

You say (1) is invalid for drawing conclusions but (2) is valid, even though the exact same women and the exact same analysis is performed. Surely you can see the absurdity of your position.