Soon, BC hospital staff and visitors
must either get vaccinated for the flu or wear a mask at all times. And that's just plain wrong.
Flu shots are ineffective 41% of the time, on average |
Tuesday
October 29, 2013
By Bill Tieleman
We
simply don't have good evidence that vaccination of healthcare personnel
prevents influenza transmission to patients."
When
flu season starts, mandatory flu shots or wearing a mask will be required not
only for hospital and care home staff in British Columbia, but visitors as
well.
And
that's just wrong.
Wrong
on the science. Wrong on the approach to healthcare workers, including doctors
and nurses. Wrong for the intrusion into people's personal choices about their
own health. And wrong on the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by both
governments and individuals on vaccinations that fail at least 41 per cent of
the time, perhaps more.
But
starting around December, neither visitors nor workers will have a choice --
you will take the shot or wear a mask if you are in a hospital or care home.
Visitors
who refuse could be blocked from entering -- but workers could be fired, after
an arbitrator rejected
healthcare unions' objections last week.
"We're
expanding our policy to visitors," B.C. provincial health officer Dr.
Perry Kendall told media
last week, saying everyone visiting hospitals or long-term care facilities
should either have had a flu shot or wear a mask.
London,
Ontario hospitals will enforce the same
choice and others will likely follow, according to that province's
health promotion agency.
But the
science behind both flu shots and masks is simply nowhere near good enough to
make such a draconian decisions on our rights.
Flawed
flu studies
Start
with the fact that most studies on
flu shots are flawed, according to the Center for Infectious Disease
Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
"Applying
very strict criteria to filter out potential bias and confounding, a U.S.
research team sifted more than 5,000 studies and found only 31 that they felt
provided reliable evidence about the efficacy and effectiveness of flu
vaccines. The findings were published online today by Lancet Infectious
Diseases," it found.
One of
Canada's most prominent infectious disease specialists agrees.
Dr.
Michael Gardam argued
in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that flu vaccine is only modestly
effective and making shots mandatory could lose in court.
"Any
sort of policy decision where you're going to make a vaccine mandatory is going
to be an uphill battle, right? It's going to be a real fight. And so you have
to decide if you're going to make that fight, is this vaccine worth it to make
that fight? And I personally don't think it is," said Gardam, head of
infection control at Toronto's University Health Network. Gardam himself is in
favour of the vaccine and gets a flu shot.
Professor
Nick Kelley, who is also pro-vaccine, points out that new analysis of past
studies shows that the flu shot is no cure-all for healthcare workers.
"We
really don't have a good grip on the epidemiology of influenza in the
healthcare setting," Kelley said.
Kelley
added that even if hospitals achieved 100 per cent vaccination rates for staff,
there would still be a 41 per cent failure rate for the flu shot, leaving
patients vulnerable to infection from sick workers.
Vaccination
no fail-safe solution: US union
In
B.C., the Health Sciences Association, the Hospital Employees Union and the BC
Nurses Union all oppose mandatory flu shots for members, while still supporting
voluntary immunization.
"Crucially,
there is simply no evidence to support the assertion that vaccination of
healthcare workers will prevent the transmission of influenza to
patients," Lindsay Lyster, the HSA lawyer who argued the arbitration for
the unions, told CBC Radio.
National
Nurses United, the largest U.S. organization of nurses, also opposes mandatory
flu shots.
"Nurses,
joined by many physician organizations and researchers, reject the notion that
vaccination is a fail-safe solution to prevent the spread of the flu
virus," said co-president Karen Higgins. "We oppose forced
vaccinations or the related mandate that those who decline the shots must wear
masks or risk losing their jobs."
Higgins
said the science simply doesn't support it.
"A
2005 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases study over 20 years
found no correlation between increased vaccine use and a decrease in
deaths," Higgins argued.
Professor
Nick Kelly summed it up succinctly on
Twitter last week: "Overstating the data on flu vaccines is shooting
ourselves in the foot... reduces the need for innovation & confuses
public."
Let
sick workers stay home
National
Nurses United promotes a better solution to preventing flu: make sure all
workers can take sick time when they need it.
The
organization cites a American Journal of Public Health study in 2011 that
estimated that lack of sick time helped spread
five million cases of illness during the 2009 swine flu outbreak in
the U.S.
In the
U.S., private healthcare companies would rather vaccinate than grant sick time
or take additional preventive measures to reduce the spread of disease.
"Too
many hospitals whose mantra is profits, not patient safety, favour forced
vaccinations while cutting nursing or housekeeping staff, and denying paid sick
leave," Higgins said.
The
alternative to a flu shot -- wearing a mask at work in a hospital or during a
visit -- is also of dubious medical value.
"Very
little information is available about the effectiveness of face masks and
respirators in controlling the spread of pandemic influenza in community
settings," a U.S. government
document reported.
For
many healthcare workers, wearing a mask all day is irritating and gets in the
way of developing an interactive relationship with their patients.
There
are obvious occasions where a mask is required, as well as other protective
gear and precautions.
But a
blanket policy seems more designed to force workers to get a flu shot and
punish those who refuse. It will also cause patients and co-workers to
potentially shun those who wear masks while feeling falsely secure with workers
who don't.
There
are clear alternatives short of demanding healthcare workers be forced to have
a flu shot or be fired. The famed Mayo Clinic's
policy is that staff who don't want to take a flu shot must sign a
statement that explains why. It has a 90 per cent vaccination rate.
Immense
expense
Lastly,
flu shots are an immense expense for both governments and individuals.
The
cost of flu vaccines in Canada alone is likely more than $100 million, according to Dr.
Danuta Skowronski of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control.
Those
at particular risk, such as the elderly or those with chronic illnesses, can
get a free flu shot, as can healthcare workers -- but for others it can cost
between $20 to $30 per person. That adds up to a lot of revenue for drug
companies.
Dubious
scientific evidence, heavy-handed government intervention, high costs for low
results, healthcare professionals' opposition and an intrusion on personal
freedom all add up to one conclusion: "mandatory flu shots or else"
is just plain wrong.
.
8 comments:
The article starts with a quote from Prof. Nick Kelley on evidence gaps. But his conclusion, in the article you cite, is pro-vacination
"It's the best intervention we currently have, so we need to keep using it while working toward a better flu vaccine," Kelley said.
The U.S. government document you cite is specifically referring to mask use in community settings, like malls, not health-care facilities.
The article on it you link to concludes:
'Meanwhile, it is worth repeating: The single most important thing that older people and caregivers can do to prevent the flu is to be vaccinated, Dr. Bridges said. “It’s the best tool we have,” she said.'
It's wrong to overstate the benefits, but equally wrong to ignore them.
Bill....I greatly admire your educated response to questioning the flu vaccine evidence. There's appears to be a strong fear in mainstream media to delve into this issue ever since the Andrew Wakefield controversy.
Having done my own investigation into the subject, I've come across several disturbing issues. For the sake of brevity, I will post links to my 2 top issues.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/flu-shot-issue-may-not-be-canadian-problem-after-all-study/article4530649/
Number two, from what I can tell, only Quebec has a Vaccine Compensation Program in Canada.
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/5/10-081901/en/
These and other concerns are not being discussed so hopefully posting the links here may help others get a more balanced picture. hank you for being brave enough to openly voice your opinion.
Yes thanks Bill, It takes courage to stick your neck out when everyone truly has been lead to believe this vaccine is a magic bullet for them and their loved ones. Yes Tara, very good points, the lack of liability for this vaccine and poor tracking of late and subacute onset autoimmune conditions is troubling. You might also be interested in the article by Ohmit (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23413420) that found the flu vaccine substantially increased risk for contracting the flu and read the commentaries afterward as well that once again ask for a double blind randomized placebo controlled trial once and for all on this vaccine.( the gold standard scientific litmus test which we have been totally denied!)
However, I think the biggest problem we face with this issue is the utter mislabelling of the "flu" as influenza. Truth the public has has NO idea what they are suffering from so that every single seasonal ill is called the "flu" when in fact influenza only comprises about 10-20% of droplet spread illness.
Please read the fabulous article by Crowe from CBC if you want to see what a joke our tracking system is of this virus. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/flu-deaths-reality-check-1.1127442.
The only single year they actually tracked the virus properly with culture confirmed specimens found only 300 cases of influenza in the country!! and they tell us cases are 2000-8000. This is more in line with what Peter Doshi says from the cochrane who estimates influenza cases are exaggerated by 10x in the united states due to shoddy scientific models and improper testing.
thanks again Bill
Bill:
Taking this vaccination/mask issue to its ultimate conclusion, persons in need of medical care should be required to produce proof of currently-valid flu shot, wear a mask or be denied treatment at a hospital?
Will physicians in hospitals also beheld to the same standard as the nurses then? Will they be banned as well if they do not either wear a mask or show proof of mandatory flu shots?
Flu shots are big business, not just for those producing the vaccine but those who administer it. It is part of a hospital's budget, they want the money.
If hospitals were truly concerned about infections, the flu or other ones, they would simply ensure staff washed their hands each time they touched someone and ensured the hospital was kept clean at all times. Hospitals are not cleaned properly so people simply touch a wall or a handrailing and they get an infection. More people die from infections in hospitals than they do from the lack of a flu shot.
Here's a very interesting W5 report. Keep in mind too...that the Globe and Mail article I mentioned above, shows evidence that people were more susceptible to the H1N1 virus if they had had the annual flu vaccine the previous year. There's a growing web of factors we need to be considering here!
http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/sleeping-sickness-a-w5-investigation-into-the-sudden-rise-in-childhood-narcolepsy-1.1524420
Post a Comment