According to Daniel Martin at the (London) Daily Mail (Aug. 18), 30% of nurses surveyed by Nursing Times will refuse the vaccine, 33% said maybe, and just 37% said that they would definitely "have the jab."
Among those who would refuse the vaccine, 60% were concerned about the safety of the vaccine, which the article notes, will not have been fully tested before it is administered to the public. Another 31% do not consider the risks of swine flu to be severe enough to warrant taking the vaccine.
The comments of two of the nurses are telling:
- "I would not be willing to put myself at risk of unknown long-term effects to facilitate a short-term solution."
- "I have yet to be convinced there is a genuine health risk and it's not just Government propaganda."
Exactly.
Of course, the British Government disagrees. The director of immunization for the British Department of Health finds that nurses have a duty to their patients and to their families: "I think you solve these responsibilities by being vaccinated."
Never mind that children under the age of 3 will not be tested, even though they are to be among the first to get the vaccine -- and that it can cause Guillain Barre Syndrome, which can lead to paralysis and even death. According to the Wikipedia article on Guillain Barre Syndrome,
GBS is a rare side-effect of influenza vaccines, with an incidence of about one case per million vaccinations. Other estimates suggest the incidence of GBS among those receiving the vaccine was one case per 105,000 and that the GBS was not directly due to the vaccine but to its being contaminated with a bacterium that triggers GBS.
Then there is this: "A mass swine flu vaccination in the U.S. in 1976 caused far more deaths than the disease it was designed to combat."
All right then. Please explain to me again how this vaccine will promote public health?
Virtual buckeye to jcbrook at Vermont Commons.
No comments:
Post a Comment