How to eliminate employee influenza vaccine mandates
Wednesday, December 31, 2014 by: Alan Phillips, J.D.
Tags: vaccine mandates, flu shot, employers
(NaturalNews) The Department of Health and Human Services "Healthy People 2020" initiative recommends that 90% of U.S. healthcare workers, and 80% of all other U.S. employees be vaccinated annually with the influenza vaccine by 2020. While it is *not* true that hospitals will lose Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements if they don't reach the 90% mark (there is only a reporting requirement, not a minimum vaccination rate requirement), each year, another wave of hospitals implement mandates as we get closer to 2020, and we can expect this trend to spread to other industries rapidly between now and 2020. And this is only the start; there are hundreds of new vaccines in development.
Multiple mainstream sources reveal that influenza vaccines are unreliable at best, or even counterproductive, and federal government statistics reveal that injuries and deaths caused by influenza vaccines are greater than all other vaccines combined. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry routinely engages in massive criminal behavior, with individual criminal fines reaching the billion-dollar mark. There are three steps needed to end this insanity:
1. Awareness. Familiarize yourself with the issue and the facts, and share those facts with others reasonably likely to be able to hear them;
2. If you are facing a current or near future mandate, learn about your rights so you can exercise them effectively;
3. Become legislatively active. If you don't like the rights you have, this is how you get the ones you want. Here are some important tips:
a) Mail and email sent to a representative goes into a black hole never to be heard of again, or you'll get a generic response that doesn't address your concerns. Schedule a face-to-face meeting if you want to actually be heard. If you can't do that, schedule a telephone or Skype call, and arrange for your documentation to be sent ahead of time to look at during the call.
b) Have a clear and concise specific concern, irrefutable evidence supporting that concern and a clear, proposed solution, and ideally, a one-page summary followed by the referenced support.
c) Don't try to educate your representative about the entire
vaccine controversy. Instead, select a few key, irrefutable points to make the case. Legislators are inundated by people wanting help with their issues. Respect that by getting straight to the point. Otherwise, you'll lose them.
d) If you want my help, let me know. As a nationally recognized Vaccine Rights Attorney, I've helped hundreds of healthcare workers throughout the U.S. get exemptions, and have gained unique insights that can lend support for proposed legislation.
e) Network with others via social medial, and join the NVIC Advocacy Portal at
NVICAdvocacy.org. While a small number of committed people can make a difference, a large number may do it more effectively.
Finally, here's what not to do:
1. Don't quit your job. You won't raise much awareness or change laws if you're worried about where your next meal is coming from. For more about keeping your job without getting flu shots, see: "
Employee Vaccine Mandates: Observations of a Vaccine Rights Attorney."
2. Rarely is court the solution. Like it or not, we don't have the right to decide what to put in our bodies, and most employers can, legally, mandate influenza shots as a condition of employment (but most hospitals implement unlawful exemption policies, and you can deal with that; contact the author for more information). So, there's probably not a class action suit or injunction to be filed here. But all the time that we are not demanding laws giving us the right to make informed choices, pharmaceutical lobbyists are getting laws passed requiring more people to get more vaccines and limiting our ability to refuse. So, we *have* to become legislatively active if we want the right to make informed vaccine choices.
Below is one example of concise, fully referenced information supporting the enactment of an Employee Influenza Vaccine Protection Act (referenced version, periodically revised, is here:
VaccineRights.com[PDF]). Contact the author for help or with questions, Vaccine Rights Attorney Alan Phillips, J.D., at
[email protected].
-----
PROPOSED EMPLOYEE INFLUENZA VACCINE PROTECTION ACT[PDF]
December 2014
INTRODUCTION
Legislation is needed that prohibits businesses and governments from mandating influenza vaccines for employees, or provides penalty-free exemptions to any influenza
vaccine mandates on medical, religious and personal/philosophical grounds. Such legislation is compelled by the fact that:
1) Multiple mainstream medical sources show that influenza vaccines are of questionable
effectiveness or even counterproductive;
2) National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program statistics show that
influenza vaccines cause more vaccine injuries and deaths than all other vaccines combined; and
3) Pharmaceutical companies routinely engage in massive criminal behavior, and are thus
ethically unsuitable providers of mandated medical products.
Two examples of protective language:
1. Massachusetts health department regulation: 105 CMR 130.325:
(F) Exceptions.
(1) A hospital shall not require an individual to receive an
influenza vaccine pursuant to [citations omitted] if:
(a) the vaccine is medically contraindicated, which means that administration of influenza vaccine to that individual would likely be detrimental to the individual's health;
(b) vaccination is against the individual's religious beliefs; or
(c) the individual declines the vaccine.
(2) An individual who declines vaccination for any reason shall sign a statement declining vaccination and certifying that he or she received information about the risks and benefits of influenza vaccine.
2. Maine statute: ME Rev. Stat. Tit. 22 Sec. 802 Authority of department:
B. A religious or philosophical exemption is available to an employee who states in writing a sincere religious or philosophical belief that is contrary to the immunization requirement of this subchapter. [2001, c. 185, §2 (NEW).]
The attached pages document the compelling need for employee protection from scientifically unsupported, profit-driven mandatory influenza vaccine policies.
Respectfully Submitted,
Alan G. Phillips, J.D.
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Asheville, NC 28804
NC Bar No. 30436
828-575-2622?
-----
MEDICAL SUMMARY
• A 2007
Lancet study found: "Recent excess mortality studies were unable to confirm a decline in influenza-related mortality [flu deaths] since 1980, even as vaccination coverage increased from 15% to 65%."
• A 2008
Lancet study reported that the
flu shot did not reduce risk of pneumonia in the elderly.
• During the 2009-2010 swine flu pandemic, the AMA and the CDC endorsed non-mandatory flu vaccine policies, suggesting no need for mandates outside of a pandemic.
• A 2010 review of the
flu vaccine literature for healthy adults by the Cochrane Collaboration, an independent, international consortium of medical researchers, issued a "WARNING" stating that "reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions...." The review also found that "vaccine use did not affect... working days lost" and "had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates."
• A 2010 Cochrane review of all existing literature on the effectiveness of flu vaccine campaigns in the elderly showed that "the available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older."
• A 2011 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Position Statement said it "believes there is insufficient scientific evidence for the federal government to promote mandatory influenza vaccination programs that do not have an option for the HCP [healthcare professionals] to decline for medical, religious and/or personal philosophical reasons."
• A 2011
Lancet study revealed that flu vaccines are 60% effective. However, the 60% figure was the "relative risk reduction" (rounded up); the "actual risk reduction" was a trivial 1.5%.
• A 2012
Lancet study stated: "There are no randomized controlled trials showing efficacy of TIV (the inactive flu virus) in people aged 2-17 years or adults aged 65 and older. For LAIV (the live flu virus), there are no randomized controlled trials showing efficacy in people aged 8-59.
• A 2012 critical review in
The International Journal of Family Medicine concluded: "The arguments for uniform healthcare worker influenza vaccination are not supported by existing literature. The decision whether to get vaccinated should, except possibly in extreme situations, be that of the individual healthcare worker, without legal, institutional, or peer coercion."
• A 2013
British Medical Journal article documented that public health authorities' aggressive promotion of the influenza vaccine is not supported by the medical literature and fails to acknowledge serious vaccine risks. E.g., contrary to wildly mistaken claims, only 16% of tested respiratory specimens are positive for influenza, and serious vaccine adverse events are well documented internationally.
• In 2013, the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota reported on studies showing that the influenza vaccine provided "little or no protection" in 2010-11, and that getting a flu shot 2 years in a row may actually lower protection.
• A 2014 "Systematic Review of Mandatory Influenza Vaccination in Healthcare Personnel" in the
America Journal of Preventive Medicine concluded that "evidence on clinical outcomes is lacking."
• A 2014
Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal study found that the trivalent influenza vaccine "was not observed to ameliorate symptoms or viral shedding among vaccine failures (infections occurring among vaccinated persons) compared with infected placebo recipients."
• A 2014 Cochrane Summary found that influenza vaccination "shows no appreciable effect on working days lost or hospitalization."
-----
LEGAL SUMMARY
I.
INFLUENZA VACCINE INJURY AND DEATH
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), a "vaccine court" system that is a division of the Federal Court of Claims. The NVICP has adjudicated 13,654 vaccine injury and death cases to date (children and adults), with 1,904 petitions currently pending as of November 3, 2014. The NVICP has paid out over $2.8 billion in awards for vaccine injuries and deaths, over $110 million annually on average, and officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the agency that license vaccines for use in the U.S.) and other experts and agencies, including the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), have estimated that 90 to 99% of serious vaccine adverse events are never even reported at all, despite a federal law requiring doctors to report suspected vaccine adverse events, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-25.
In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe" --
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068, 179 L.Ed.2d 1 (2011) -- which is why the federal government compensates vaccine victims. Vaccine manufacturers were going out of business in the early 1980s from court awards for vaccine injury and death, so the NCVIA has relieved the vaccine manufacturers from virtually all liability for the harm caused by their products. Vaccine injury and death cases have given rise to a growing area of legal specialization. The Federal Court of Claims lists 129 lawyers in the U.S. that represent vaccine injury and death victims and families. Individual settlements and awards range from 10s of thousands to 10s of millions of dollars. One firm's website posts settlements and awards in 203 cases over a 4+ year period, including 11 vaccine deaths (5.4%), with individual payouts ranging from $10,961 to $61,000,000. 84% of these cases were influenza vaccine injuries and deaths; 70% involved Gullaine Barre Syndrome (as of September 23, 2014).
II.
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
The pharmaceutical industry is the biggest defrauder of the federal government under the False Claims Act. In 8 years (2004-2012), there were 20 settlements in the $345 million to $3 billion range. Criminal fines in the 100s of millions of dollars are common, and have topped out at $1 billion (Pfizer 2009, GlaxoSmithKline 2012). In the last five years, $19.2 billion were returned to taxpayers from attempts to defraud federal health programs, more than double that of the previous five years (as of February 2014). The point is this:
No one should ever be required to take a product from an industry that routinely engages in massive criminal behavior.
CONCLUSION
Because: 1) The medical literature reveals that influenza vaccines are of little effectiveness, and may even be counterproductive; 2) Influenza vaccines cause substantial disability and death, but ultimately an unknown quantity due to vast underreporting; and 3) Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines routinely engage in massive criminal behavior:
A. It is apparent that influenza vaccination policy is being driven by something other than the health of targeted vaccine recipients. Therefore, influenza vaccine decision-making must be put in the hands of individual citizens; and
B. It is morally, ethically, medically and legally necessary to protect employees from mandatory influenza vaccines, by enacting legislation that:
1) Prohibits employer and government influenza vaccine mandates, and/or
2) Provides for penalty-free refusal of influenza vaccines on the basis of medical grounds (per the patient's physician's recommendation), religious grounds (consistent with federal civil rights law) and personal/philosophical grounds (with no explanation required).
About the author:
Alan Phillips, Vaccine Rights Attorney
[email protected], 1-828-575-2622
Vaccine Rights (
www.vaccinerights.com)
Learn more:
http://www.naturalnews.com/048160_vaccine_mandates_flu_shot_employers.html#ixzz3Nh4YUTuX
61K
Tetanus vaccines found spiked with sterilization chemical to carry out race-based genocide against Africans................woops forgot to erase this while editing. .
