NY Judge Halts Mandatory Vaccinations For Health Workers
October 18, 2009, 10:44 am
Filed under:
big pharma,
Bio Weapons,
biological warfare,
deadly vaccinations,
deadly vaccines,
Dissent,
forced vaccinations,
h1n1,
h1n1 clinic,
h1n1 vaccine,
health and environment,
health care providers,
health care workers,
hospitals,
Human Experiments,
human rights,
influenza,
innoculation,
mandatory vaccinations,
medical industrial complex,
New York,
Pennsylvania,
Protest,
supreme court,
swine flu,
swine flu vaccine,
unemployment,
vaccinations,
Vaccine | Tags:
Richard Daines,
sue field
Judge Halts Mandatory Vaccinations For Health Workers
New York Health Care Employees Won’t Be Forced To Get H1N1 Vaccine…For Now
CBS
October 16, 2009
Health care workers in New York will no longer be forced to get the H1N1 swine flu vaccine, CBS 2 has learned.
A state Supreme Court judge issued a restraining order Friday against the state from enforcing the controversial mandatory vaccination.
The order came as the Public Employees Federation sued to reverse a policy requiring vaccination against the seasonal and swine flu viruses, arguing that state Health Commissioner Richard Daines overstepped his authority.
Three parties – the Public Employees Federaion, New York State United Teachers, and an attorney representing four Albany nurses – challenged the order and for now the vaccination for nurses, doctors, aides, and non-medical staff members who might be in a patient’s room will remain voluntary.
The health department had said the workers must be vaccinated by November 30 or face possible disciplinary action, including dismissal. PEF said it encourages members to get flu vaccinations, but opposes the emergency regulation requiring the vaccine as a condition of employment.
A judge granted a temporary restraining order Friday morning, PEF spokeswoman Debbie Miles said. A court hearing is scheduled for October 30.
New York was the first state in the country to initially mandate flu vaccinations for its health care workers, but many health care workers quickly protested against the ruling. In Hauppauge, workers outside a local clinic screamed “No forced shots!” when the mandate came down at the end of September.
“I don’t even tend to the sick. I am in the nutrition field. They are telling me I must get the shot because I work in a health clinic setting,” said Paula Small, a Women, Infants and Children health care worker.
Small said she would refuse to be vaccinate, worried the vaccine is untested and unproven, leaving her vulnerable. In 1976, there were some deaths associated with a swine flu vaccination.
Registered nurse Frank Mannino, 50, was also angry. He said the state regulation violates his personal freedom and civil rights.
“And now I will lose my job if I don’t take the regular flu shot or the swine flu shot.”
When asked if he’s willing to lose his job, Mannino said, “Absolutely. I will not take it, will not be forced. This is still America.”
The protest also shook Albany. Hundreds of demonstrators demanded freedom of choice. After all, as health care professionals, they argue they’re already constantly washing their hands and aren’t likely to transmit or contract the flu.
Around 500,000 health care workers would have been slated to receive the vaccine
“It’s certainly their prerogative to voice their opinion,” said Dr. Susan Donelan of Stony Brook University Hospital.
Donelan said most in the medical community see the benefits and safety of the shots and welcome them, and that hospitals must obey the law.
“Our hospital is committed to following the mandate to have our personnel vaccinated,” she said.
The state said change was needed this year to save lives. Typically only about 45 percent of health care workers take advantage of voluntary flu vaccines.
More than 150 institutional outbreaks of seasonal and H1N1 flu are expected this year in hospitals, nursing homes and hospice centers.
There is also a strong resistance to the vaccine from the general public. A new Harvard University poll shows that only four in 10 adults intend to take the vaccine themselves, and only six in 10 plan to give it to their children.
NY Nurse Sues To Block Mandatory Flu Vaccines
Only 1/3 Of Americans Believe Swine Flu Vaccines Are Safe
October 5, 2009, 4:00 pm
Filed under:
adjuvant,
Airport Security,
autism,
autoimmune disease,
big pharma,
Bio Weapons,
biological warfare,
brain damage,
California,
cancer,
CDC,
deadly vaccinations,
deadly vaccines,
doctors,
Eugenics,
federal crimes,
flu shot,
flu vaccine,
forced vaccinations,
Genocide,
GlaxoSmithKline,
GSK,
Guillain-Barré syndrome,
Gulf War Syndrome,
h1n1,
h1n1 clinic,
h1n1 vaccine,
h5n1,
health and environment,
hospitals,
Human Experiments,
human rights,
immune system,
immunity,
influenza,
innoculation,
mandatory vaccinations,
medical Experiments,
medical industrial complex,
Mercury,
mf59,
Novartis,
parental rights,
patients,
poll,
polysortbate 80,
Population Control,
sacramento,
squalene,
squaline,
super weapons,
swine flu,
swine flu pandemic,
swine flu vaccine,
Thimerosal,
toxicity,
vaccinations,
Vaccine
Harvard Survey: Only 1/3 Of Americans Believe Swine Flu Vaccines Are Safe
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
October 2, 2009
A survey conducted by Harvard University has found that only one third of adults trust the safety of the imminently available H1N1 vaccine.
Just 40% of respondents said they would take the swine flu shot in the poll carried out by Harvard Opinion Research Program at Harvard School of Public Health.
The study, funded under a cooperative agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found that respondents were worried about side effects or not concerned about catching the flu at all.
44% of respondents who were parents said they were unsure over getting their children vaccinated against H1N1, with 21% of those parents saying they absolutely will not allow their kids to be vaccinated.
Parents said that they were concerned about their children getting other illnesses from the vaccine and that they do not trust public health officials to tell them about vaccine safety.
The results show a great public distrust in the vaccine with just one third (33%) of the public viewing the H1N1 vaccine as very safe “generally for most people to take”. Even less (18%) believe it is safe for children aged 6 months to 2 years, and only 13% feel it is safe for pregnant women.
Almost one third (31%) of respondents think that public health officials’ concerns over H1N1 flu have been overblown.
Of the 40% of adults who said they would not take the shot, the majority said they may reconsider if people begin dying from the virus en mass.
The survey was conducted with a broad representative national sample of 1042 adults aged 18 and over.
The survey dovetails with a similar poll from Consumer Reports, one of the top-ten-circulation magazines in the country, that found almost two thirds of Americans would either refuse the vaccine outright or wait for more information before considering vaccinating their children.
As we have previously reported, both the GlaxoSmithKilne and the Novartis H1N1 vaccines contain both the novel adjuvant squalene, which has been linked to Gulf War Syndrome, and thimerosal, the mercury based preservative that some scientists have testified can cause brain disorders.
The vaccines have been rushed through safety procedures while the government has provided pharmaceutical companies with blanket immunity from lawsuits arriving out of the vaccine causing deaths and injuries.
In related news, more hospitals are demanding that workers be mandated to take the H1N1 shot, while Sacramento International Airport is to offer vaccinations in its terminals in a precedent setting move that critics have described as concerning.
Doctors refuse to save baby because it was born too early
September 11, 2009, 12:01 pm
Filed under:
Britain,
Child Abuse,
child care,
Dictatorship,
Empire,
Eugenics,
Europe,
european union,
Fascism,
Genocide,
government bureaucrat,
government regulations,
health care,
Healthcare,
hospitals,
medical care,
Nazi,
NHS,
Oppression,
parental rights,
patients,
socialism,
United Kingdom | Tags:
first time moms,
first time mothers,
foster care,
foster parents,
mothers,
parenting
Doctors refuse to save baby because it was born too early
Mail Online
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy – almost four months early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.
Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.
She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.
Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.
Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.
In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.
The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not ‘standard practice’.
James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.
A trust spokesman said: ‘Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.’
Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.
She said: ‘When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.
A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a “little fighter”.
I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, “They won’t come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him”.’
She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.
Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy.
She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby’s lungs.
Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.
She told how she begged one paediatrician, ‘You have got to help’, only for the man to respond: ‘No we don’t.’
As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims.
She said: ‘I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn’t even born yet, let alone dead.’
After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.
She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother’s pregnancy, had survived.
Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.
Miss Capewell said: ‘I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days.
‘Thousands of women have experienced this. The doctors say the babies won’t survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?’
Miss Capewell has won the support of Labour MP Tony Wright, who has backed her call for a review of the medical guidelines. He said: ‘When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby, they should surely be afforded that opportunity.’
What the medical guidelines say…
Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.
Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child’s ‘best interests’.
The guidelines said: ‘If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.’
Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.
The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.
The association said they were not meant to be a ‘set of instructions’, but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.
More than 80,000 babies are born prematurely in Britain every year, and of those some 40,000 need to be treated in intensive care.
The NHS spends an estimated £1 billion a year on their care.
But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology.
Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.
The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.
But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.
Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.
Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.
Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.
Some argued that if a baby could survive at 22 weeks then the time limit on abortions should be reduced.
The argument, which was lost in Parliament, followed a cut to the time limit in 1990 when politicians reduced it from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, in line with scientific evidence that foetuses could survive outside the womb at a younger age.
However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor’s are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates.
Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.