Nurses Against Mandatory Vaccines

Blog and writings for members and non-members of those who do not support forced vaccination in the workplace.


1 Comment

Some interesting facts about the new reporting requirements for HCW and their vaccine status

http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/training/HCP-Influenza-Vaccination-Summary-Reporting-Webinar-Slides-08-12.pdf

Since we now know the REAL reason behind the mandatory vaccination demands from employers, we thought we would delve a little bit deeper and do some research to find out what information is being reported. The above is a slide show from the CDC explaining the new “rules” that facilities have to follow so we are going to break this down according to different slides.

This information, I would like to point out, is NOT easy to find. It took a lot of trial and error to track this down. The government is doing us, “we the people” a horrific disservice by not making this information more readily available. (We have also saved a copy of this, so if it magically disappears, as government postings have been known to do, please email us and we will forward on a copy for you.)

Ok, ready? Here we go.

This program is called “The Healthcare Personnel Safety Component” and discusses in depth, what the requirements are for reporting the private medical information of a hospital systems healthcare professionals. NOTE: to the best of our ability we found no information giving HCP the option to opt out of this. There is something wrong with this.

Slide 6: Slide 6 says that this is a VOLUNTARY report and that all information is kept confidential. With the government keeping tabs on this we aren’t really sure just how confidential it is, since this information will also be released publicly at later dates. (If it is truly voluntary, then were is the individual opt out option for the HCW?)

Slide 10: discusses what the HCP Vaccination Module is and what it does. It says that the goal is to make sure that the rate of vaccination is “consistent” and “comparable across facilities. Then it uses this frightening statement: “Improvements in tracking and reporting HCP vaccination status may allow for identification and targeting of unvaccinated HCP.” So it reveals that it’s REAL purpose is to target and identify those of us who are unvaccinated. This is against the law, and is in violation of the 14th ammendment. We should all be afraid of this program! (Employers should legally and ethically be required to report this information!)

The next few slides discuss what exactly needs to be reported on, and who is responsible for reporting the information.

Slide 21: this starts the discussion of the actual reporting requirements of HCP.

The next slides discuss who actually is a reportable HCP and how that information is reportable. (Doctors interestingly enough ARE supposed to be included in with the reporting requirements, though we all know that many of them refuse the vaccine.)

Slide 29: this is one of the more interesting slides in the whole presentation. It point blank says that a signed document form or email from a HCW IS an acceptable form of documenting if an employee received the flu shot. It further states that a note or receipt from an outside vaccination facility is ALSO an acceptable form of reporting that the employee had the flu shot. If this is good enough for the government, then it MUST be good enough for your hospital system.

Slide 30: states point blank that a VERBAL statement of not being able to accept a vaccine IS an allowable form of refusal. It does not state that a doctor or other medical professional must sign off on whatever the contraindication is. (Again, this is coming straight from the government.)

Slide 31: states that a verbal refusal is an acceptable and documentable reason for refusing the vaccine.

(They repeatedly state that documentation is NOT required. Hospital systems who are requiring these items may find themselves in sticky situation.)

The rest of the presentation covers how to add information into the computer system itself.

Overall, this program is now in place to make sure that you are complying, and if not, you will be targeted. I think the CDC makes this pretty clear. There is never a better time than NOW to start fighting for your individual rights.

One other thing to remember is this: documentation is repeatedly mentioned as NOT being required. The CDC states repeatedly that VERBAL reporting is an acceptable means of receiving this information. Your employer does not need to know the who/what/where/when/why of why you can’t receive a vaccine. (And neither does anyone else for that matter!)

 

 

Advertisements


2 Comments

Informed Consent- Why it matters so much.

There is a lot of talk, and especially in today’s society with privacy rights on the line, about informed consent.

Let’s talk a little bit today about what informed consent is.

The National Institute of Health says this about Informed Consent:

Informed consent means:

  • You are informed: you have received information about your health condition and treatment options.

  • You understand your health condition and treatment options.

  • You are able to decide what health care treatment you want to receive and give your consent to actually receive it.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/patientinstructions/000445.htm

According to the NIH, you are supposed to be a “partner” in your own health care- you are to be the leader of your healthcare team, if you will. How many of us actually take the lead in our own healthcare? How many of us simply go along with something simply because a doctor tells us to do it?

Most healthcare workers are not idiots. (Ok, for the most part- there are always one or two that you end up scratching your head about wondering how they even get out of bed in the morning.) Most are highly educated and know more than even they realize. A good nurse (or any other healthcare worker for that matter) should never let another person make these decisions for them. That includes your employer making decisions about your health.

Since the flu vaccine is the most commonly forced injection on healthcare workers, let’s look at a few “informed consent forms” from around the country:

http://midtownemployeeclinic.com/docs/2013_Flu_Consent_Form.pdf

http://www.scattergood.org/sites/default/files/2013-14%20%20Influenza%20Vaccine.pdf

http://www.pathwayswellnessprogram.com/docs/2011-Informed-Consent-Insurance.pdf

http://www.phillyflushots.com/resources/flu%20shot%20consent%20form.pdf

So there are thousands more at there via a quick Google search, so we chose these to review.

Are these forms TRULY informed consent forms? Do they fully list the risks and the potential complications that can come from this vaccine? Do they discuss the fact that while it does not cause the flu, it can lay you up in the bed with flu-like symptoms for up to a week or more? Not really. They list the basics. Some even go so far as to tell you that you may harm people if you don’t get the shot- this is dangerous to include on the flu vaccine informed consent, and is not entirely truthful.

This particular one that I am attaching with this writing is particularly frightening and comes from the State of Tennessee:

HCF_FluConsentRecord

Some quotes from this consent form?

Almost all people who get influenza vaccine have no serious problems from it. If mild or moderate problems occur, they are fever, aches, or soreness/redness/swelling where the shot was given.

And a few more:

I understand that Name of Healthcare Facility or any persons acting as their agent are not responsible for any adverse reactions that I may sustain.

And finally:

I understand that by declining this vaccine, I may continue to be at risk for influenza infection and I may also put patients and my other contacts at risk for influenza.

If the flu shot form at your place of employment EVER says this, do not sign this form. Ask for one without the statement above on it. By your signing this statement, you are agreeing that you are potentially a walking plague. Do you agree with a statement like that? I surely don’t and would never sign something stating as such! In theory if someone ever got wind of your medical history or file (legally or illegally) who knows how they might use this information against you. If your facility says that they do not have another form available, then cross this statement out, write something such as do not agree, and cover yourself. You legally have the right to do so. Signing this statement as a knowledgeable healthcare provider is not in your best interest. (Note: this is not offering legal advice. This is simply sharing a way that a healthcare workers or employee may be able to cover themselves should any questions arise about their vaccination status.)

The other thing to think about is this. If you get hurt, who will protect and help you? You can’t sue the vaccine manufacturers. They made that all nice and tidy with lobbying. More than likely, your employer may say that they won’t cover you. Guillain Barre is no joke. It can permanently paralyze you. If you are the primary income earner in your home, you owe it to yourself to definitely think this over. Ask the doctor this before you have any medical procedure. A good question would be, if this medical procedure injures or harms me, who will be responsible if I am not able to function as I do right now? We should ask that about any medical procedure.

Consider this also: what does YOUR patient know about what he/she is getting themselves into? When you ask them to sign consent forms, does their face ever cloud over? Do you ever feel like you’re just going through the motions and they are not really understanding you? Does the patient appear hesitant about signing? One of our jobs as nurses is to EDUCATE our patients. That means if a patient has questions, hesitations, or fears, we are legally and ethically bound to our patients to educate them on what they can expect. They too, have the right to an informed decision about their healthcare and we can make sure that happens.

 

 

 

 

 


2 Comments

Right to Choice

Many people think that Roe vs. Wade is about a woman’s “right to choose.” Well, not exactly, Roe vs. Wade ended up being decided that a woman had the right to due process clause of the 14th amendment. Ultimately what was decided is that a woman had the right to PRIVACY.

The 14th amendment to the US Constitution says this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Due process guarantees a person’s right to life, liberty, or property, and that the government can not encroach or infringe on this.

I used Roe vs. Wade for this because I wish to make a point about the right to choose and ultimately, about privacy.

Our members at NAMV may decide that vaccination is not for them. They may vaccinate, but they don’t wish to be forced into doing so in order to be employed, attend school, or volunteer. Or they may have religious or medical reasons that prohibit them from vaccinating. Whatever their reason, it is completely private, and is a personal thing. It should remain private.

There are many out there who want to deny our members, and even members of the general public, this freedom of choice. They feel that a person should be vaccinated, or not work in healthcare- we strongly disagree with this. Mainly, because an individual’s healthcare is the business of the individual and their doctor- no one else. What will be next? Forced bariatric surgery for obese workers? Plastic surgery for those who aren’t attractive enough? Where will the forced healthcare demands end? (I use these as extremes and with sarcasm, but the point remains.)

Many of these same people, however, shout from the rooftops that a woman should have the right to medical privacy such as free birth control from her employer (and that it’s none of her employer’s business if she has this!), and even the free choice to have an abortion if, when and where she chooses. Apparently it is acceptable to have the freedom to choose what type of healthcare that you want only in certain circumstances. The question that I pose here today, is what makes it acceptable for a woman to choose what goes out of her body (ie via abortion) but not choose what she puts into her body? It seems that there is a strong level of the want and willingness to allow one, but not tolerate the other. I am very sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. It simply does not work that way. The hypocrisy in this is overwhelming.

Pro-vaxxers use the case of Jacobson vs. Massachusetts when they decide that they want everyone in the world to have a vaccine. Let’s talk a little about Jacobson vs. Massachusetts.

In 1905 Jacobson vs. Massachusetts was decided by the Supreme Court. The court, in 1905 mind you, said that during an episode of smallpox, Jacobson was required to get a vaccine (though he claimed that it made him ill as a child) or face a fine of $5.00. He instead, took the state to court. While the court ultimately ruled against him, the court did say that “that if the state targeted specific individuals or populations to unnecessary restrictions the court may have to step in to protect them.”

(Interestingly enough, due to the scar that would have been present, the state could have easily verified that he had been vaccinated previously!)

In 1905, we had a cess pool of filth and disease in this country. People were living in slums, the average life expectancy was around 50 years old, and children died daily from disease due to the filth and squalor that we lived in. This has radically changed in the last 110 years.

Smallpox has been all but eradicated. Mind you, it was a nasty disease. It caused deformity, brain damage, and even death in some cases. The smallpox vaccine was no small feat either. Essentially your upper arm would be scratched with a large needle, and the vaccine administered into the open areas. You would have to wait for a pustule to form over several days (sometimes weeks) and then allow this to heal and you would have a nice scar formed there to show the world that you had been inoculated. It was not always successful.

smallpox vaccine scar

 

Keep in mind what I mentioned earlier- the early 1900s was a cesspool of germs, filth, and bacteria. Many of these early vaccines were heavily contaminated. They did not have the education or means to keep them free of bacteria and germs in those days. People died from the infections that they received during inoculations. Smallpox vaccines were successful, and many say that we don’t need to worry about this today.

So there’s a little history about the argument that some use to say that all persons should be forced to vaccinate. It’s really a case that was decided in another time, another place in history, and it has no place now in the year 2014. I believe that if Jacobson vs. Massachusetts were to go before the Supreme Court today, there would be a much different outcome. It’s a bit more gray than the black and white that is usually presented. I would strongly consider healthcare workers of all kinds to be under the umbrella of “targeted specific individuals or populations.”

Ok, moving on to privacy. We talked about this briefly the other day. Let’s really delve into this. HIPAA or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (not HIPPA as some like to call it) covers some of this, but what other types of privacy laws may come in to play here?

As nurses, we are told HIPAA means that you keep your mouth shut and don’t release anyone’s information to anyone who doesn’t need it. Point blank. That’s a bit more blunt than some people say, but it’s basically what it boils down to. HIPAA doesn’t necessarily protect employees. It protects patients, however, and when a nurse is receiving a medical procedure- of any kind- he or she is no longer just an employee, but is now also a patient. Your employer is also required under federal and state law to protect all of your health information. This includes if you are out on medical leave. The employer may say you are out on leave, but to disclose that it is for medical reasons, then they may be in trouble. This website offers some great tips on privacy laws: http://www.workplacefairness.org/medicalprivacy

Interestingly enough, healthcare workers privacy is violated frequently. This is done in several ways. This can be the requirement of wearing a mask while on the floor. Or a sticker indicating that you had a shot. It may be a health or wellness program that you “must “participate in and they have a bulletin board listing success stories

If a patient were required to have these scarlet letter items during their stay in the hospital, all hell would break loose. Lawsuits would be filed, and the hospital would go down in flames. Why then are their employees not treated with the same respect? Their employees health status is no one’s business. They are still entitled to the same privacy as the patient’s that they treat. If a nurse has had a reaction to a medication and she can no longer receive said medication, why embarrass and humiliate that person when they are suffering already?

And I would like to conclude with discussing the Patient Bill of Rights.Many organizations have a copy of their own. In 2010 it became a part of the Affordable Care Act. It was unofficially adopted in 1998, but some go back as far as the 80’s when the AIDS crisis was rampant. It spells out what rights are given to patients under treatment. Most include the following:

Right to refuse treatment.

Right to informed consent.

Right to be treated respectfully.

Right to be treated in regard to your religious or spiritual customs.

Right to privacy/confidentiality.

 

Nurses and healthcare workers are legally allowed to have the right to choose, and the right to privacy just as any other individual in this country is also. We are parents, pet lovers, liberals, conservatives, atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews. Above all else, we are human beings too and we deserve respect. And we deserve the right to free choice.

 

 


Leave a comment

The 2% Rule

We are asked repeatedly about the 2% rule. The HHS website keeps hiding the information, so we went directly to the source. Quality Net is the reporting agency that will be keeping track and making sure that hospitals are in compliance with the new changes to Medicare/Medicaid.

One of those changes that we have discussed repeatedly, is the fact that hospitals must prove that they have a vaccination rate among their staff of 90% or higher. The handbook for this program will be shared below, so that you can read to your heart’s content. The 2% rule comes in here:

Hospitals must report quality measures of process, structure, outcome, and patients’ perspective on care, efficiency, and costs of care that relate to services furnished in an inpatient setting in order to receive the full Annual Payment Update (APU). Each fiscal year, a hospital’s APU will be reduced by 2.0 percentage points if the hospital does not submit certain quality data in a form and manner, and at a time, specified by the Secretary.

Again, several factors are fostered in with this 2% rule. The one that is most alarming to us, is the 90% vaccination rate. Hospitals continually do not let their staff know about this, and the information is difficult to locate.

Below is a copy of the handbook that you can read.

HndbkII_CMS-HosIQRprog_010912-1

And just in cause you’re curious, the amount of YOUR private information that the hospital has to report? Quite excessive, and a bit alarming in regard to privacy.

https://www.ndhcri.org/Healthcare_Professionals/HAI/FINAL-ACH-Operational-Guidance-HPS-Flu-Vaccination-Sum-Acute-Care.pdf


4 Comments

Forced Vaccination Policies in the Workplace

Our membership at NAMV has grown, as of this writing to 14,700 plus members, and we continue to grow every day. There is a growing concern among healthcare professionals about forced vaccinations in the workplace. Our organization is here to support those concerns and to help healthcare professionals to be able to make informed decisions, and to have the right to refuse forced medical procedures.

So what is that? First of all, contrary to false assumptions, NAMV is not anti-vaccine. NAMV is against forced vaccination policies for healthcare workers. That’s it. We do not believe that any one person should be forced into having a medical procedure that they do not want, or that they don’t feel they need. All patients have the right to refuse medical treatment under the Patient Bill of Rights. When a nurse is receiving an injection, they have become a patient; they are no longer just an employee. That nurse legally and ethically, should not be forced into having a medical procedure simply to keep his/her job. This is the United States, the last time we checked.

So why ARE healthcare workers being forced to have vaccines? Namely, the flu vaccine. Well, this one is a little more complicated. The truth of the matter is, healthcare professionals are being forced to have vaccinations in the name of MONEY. If hospital systems and healthcare organizations can not prove that their staff has a vaccination rate of 90% or higher, they will lose up to 2% of Medicaid/Medicare funding by 2015. (http://www.hhs.gov/ash/initiatives/hai/hcpflu.html) However, healthcare workers are not being given this information. They are told that since they can’t be trusted to get the vaccine themselves, the hospital is doing this in the name of patient “safety.” Some examples of this?

John Hopkins Hospital: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/mandatory_flu_vaccination/faq.html

Indiana University Health: http://iuhealth.org/newsroom/detail/statement-regarding-iu-health-influenza-patient-safety-program/

Connecticut Hospital Association: http://www.chime.org/advocacy/employee-wellness/mandatory-influenza-vaccination-policy/

And not ONE of these hospitals actually tells the truth. All spout the “patient safety” story while ignoring the fact that the flu vaccine is only estimated by the CDC to be 50-60% effective- more on this in just a little bit! (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm)

Why is it that grown men and women are not able to make medical decisions for themselves?

Flu is not the number one killer nor the reason for hospitalizations in the United States. (I would also like to point out that influenza and influenza-like-illness are two totally different things that are often lumped together along with pneumonia.) According to the CDC, more people die in the hospital from respiratory failure than for any other reason. After that comes aspiration pneumonia, followed by septicemia, cancer, kidney failure, etc. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db118.htm)

According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, one of the largest reasons for admissions to the hospital is for a live birth. (http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb148.pdf) This is followed by Pneumonia, renal failure, mood disorder, and so on and so forth. I don’t see influenza mentioned on either of these, do you?

There are doctors out there who do dispute these so-called “facts.” One of which is Dr. Lee Heib in Iowa. Her letter to various healthcare facilities can be found here: http://www.hieb2014.org/vaccine-letter.html

Some highlights include:

“Between 1979 and 2001, on average 36,000 people a year in the US died from complications of influenza. Based on the number of hospital beds in acute and chronic care facilities, and spreading that risk evenly across all facilities, that means, on average one person every three years would die at the local hospital from influenza sequelae. This number is probably a significant overestimate since proof of influenza from positive viral cultures are rarely obtained (In most cases, 1000- 4000 samples are submitted before a single positive viral culture is obtained. ) and deaths from Influenza B and other influenza-like diseases, which would not be prevented by vaccination, may be included in these statistics. And, as noted below, vaccination does not clearly reduce these deaths.”

“ It is important to understand that vaccination is a statistical gamble.   Every year, based on viral sampling, the CDC decides which viral antigens to include in their vaccine for that year. It is possible—but highly unlikely– in the best world outcome, that the vaccine targets 100% of influenza virus in circulation that year. On the other hand, and again unlikely, it may target 0% of the viruses, thereby helping no one avoid the flu. The truth is somewhere between those two extremes, but varies year to year. For the 2007-2008 year, the vaccine effectiveness ranged from 44 to 86%[i][i]. In other words between 14 to 56% of people receiving the vaccine still got the flu. Also, FDA studies done prior to release of the Fluarix vaccine, as reported in the PDR, show that 49.5-68.9% of people were already immune at the time of vaccination[ii][ii]. If you combine these numbers, it means that for every 100 people receiving the vaccine, only 15 to 46 people benefit. The majority do not. Furthermore, in a large meta-analysis of influenza vaccine the authors conclude, “Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”   This review included 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration)[iii][iii].  “

“Most importantly there is a grave ethical issue at stake here. Does any government or public agency have the right to force a medical treatment with its attendant risks on an individual or group of individuals? A private business can require certain physical standards be met, and even vaccination, but to do so it must bear the moral burden of potentially harming people. According to a study by the American College of Cardiology the half life of medical truth is about 20 years. In other words, looking back at the literature, only about half of what was touted as true 20 years ago is still thought to be valid

The fact remains, is that healthcare workers are also patients. We have the right to autonomy in our healthcare.

Earlier, I touched on the fact that flu-like illness, confirmed influenza, and pneumonia are often lumped together as one, right? Well let’s go back to that.

First, for the 2012 flu season, out of 234,456 samples taken from patients, only 12% were positive for influenza. Does this sound like a national emergency to you?! (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/pdf/1112_Season_Summary.pdf)

Secondly, the CDC admits, right on its website that they have no real clue how many cases of flu are causing death and destruction out there. (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm) They also admit to lumping pneumonia AND influenza together when signing death certificates:

“CDC uses two categories of underlying cause of death information listed on death certificates: pneumonia and influenza (P&I) causes and respiratory and circulatory (R&C) causes. CDC uses statistical models with records from these two categories to make estimates of influenza-associated mortality. CDC uses underlying R&C deaths (which include P&I deaths) as the primary outcome in its mortality modeling because R&C deaths provide an estimate of deaths that include secondary respiratory or cardiac complications that follow influenza. R&C causes of death are more sensitive than underlying P&I deaths and more specific than deaths from all causes.”

When asked if they think that P&I causes death, this is their response:

“Does CDC think that influenza causes most P&I deaths?

No, only a small proportion of deaths in either of these two categories are estimated to be influenza-related. CDC estimated that only 8.5% of all pneumonia and influenza deaths and only 2.1% of all respiratory and circulatory deaths were influenza-related.”

So which is it? Is this so deadly of a disease that everyone must be forcefully vaccinated, or are the occurrences and death causes so low, that no one really knows what is going on? An interesting report from the NVIC shows that these numbers are actually very, very low when it comes to patient deaths in regard to pneumonia and influenza: http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/NVICCHART-InfluenzaPneumoniaDeaths1940-2010.pdf

The fact remains, is that the real reason for forced vaccination policies is due to money and financial funding. If a hospital were to lose up to 2% of it’s funding a year that could be a huge financial burden for that hospital system.

However, there are ethical and other standards here at play. Let’s say, heaven forbid, that a nurse or other healthcare worker were to become injured upon receiving a forced vaccine. The vaccine manufacturer is free from recourse. I highly doubt the hospital is going to pay for the nurse’s treatment. And it can take years for VAERS to give you a settlement.

There are also truly held religious beliefs that should be considered. If a Muslim or Jewish nurse or doctor were to refuse a vaccine on religious beliefs, this would be looked at, signed, stamped, and delivered no problems. However, when Christian or other religious advocates apply for religious exemptions, they are held to the highest scrutiny possible. Hospitals demand signed clergy letters, and documented theology on why the nurse/healthcareworker can’t have a vaccine. They want to know every detail of your religious beliefs and past. Well according to the EEOC, this is a no-no. According to the EEOC, a sincerely held religious belief, regardless of what that may be, is enough for an employee to use to apply for an exemption. (http://hicprevent.blogs.ahcmedia.com/2013/03/13/fed-employment-commission-says-sincere-religious-belief-can-be-cited-as-an-exemption-to-flu-shot-mandates/)

“The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found that “once an employer receives notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship.”

Employers can ask for verification of an employee’s “sincerely held religious belief,” but cannot require that verification to come from a member of the clergy or congregation, EEOC legal counsel Peggy R. Mastroianni said in a December 5, 2012 letter responding to an employee’s inquiry.  Supporting information for the religious belief “could be provided by others who are aware of the employee’s religious belief or practice,” the EEOC has said.

The belief does not have to be an established religion. The EEOC notes that “idiosyncratic beliefs can be sincerely held and religious.”

Then we come to the final part, and one of my favorites. My medical information and MY right to medical privacy is no one else’s business. I should not be forced to wear a mask, or have a sticker on my name badge, nor have any other type of identifier placed on me as a person to determine what my medical status is. They wanted to do this with AIDS patients in the 80’s. It was vehemently denied. Why are healthcare workers any different? What if I have a rare immune disease that prevents me from being vaccinated? Should I be required to explain that to my patients or fellow co-workers? This inhibits on the privacy and right to privacy of healthcare workers in so many ways. It is shameful that employers do this, and even more shameful that they are allowed to get away with it.

So what can you do? Write letters to your congressmen and women. Demand answers. We have links on our website at http://www.namv.org where you can find your representatives information at. Ask them why they allowed these laws to pass, and why they are not protecting your individual right.

Join us on Facebook. Help share the word. http://ww.facebook.com/NursesAgainstMandatoryVaccines

Demand answers from your employers! This is crucial. Demand that they tell the truth about the mandates, and the potential loss of funding. They have a legal and ethical right to tell their employees the truth about why the flu shot, and other vaccines are being mandated.

Fight back. There is legal recourse. Nurses have won in court against their employees for mandatory flu vaccine policies Make sure if you are signing a flu declaration sheet that you “signed under duress” and that you don’t agree with their form. You have the legal right to do so. This may protect you in court.

Protect your patients. They WILL be next. There will be coming a time when hospital and other patients will be strongly coerced into having a vaccine. If we don’t protect them, who will?

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
Martin Niemöller