Sunday, September 26, 2010
(Wikipedia: Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N). In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.),
"Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses. Each year, the World Health Organization recommends which viral strains should be included in vaccinations for the forthcoming season."(http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001269.html).
In previous years recommendations have been reserved for the elderly and a certain high risk population due to their increased chance of influenza related death; however, this year's recommendation being for a much broader spectrum begs to ask the question, how many people actually die from the flu? For this information I went to the Dr. Sherry Tenpenny's website. On it I found a table that actually breaks down the CDC's own numbers and it clearly illustrates that unlike the 35,000 people the CDC claim die from the flu each year the actual number has been an average of 1303 people per year since 1999. They conveniently include deaths from pneumonia which is not protected by the flu shot. (Remember the number of miscarriages from the H1N1 shot above.) Other side effects include aches and pains, fever, fatigue (you mean like the flu?), Guillain Barre Syndrome, anaphaylaxis (a severe allergic reaction which is life threatening), etc., etc.
So let's recap. If it doesn't work, it isn't necessary and it's potentially seriously harmful why do we still have an influenza vaccine?
Mark your calendar! There are officially 100 days left in 2010! What are your big to-do's before the year is over?" and discovered that the employees weren't merely loyal but actually were given quotas for how many people they could get vaccinated. Most of the comments were normal such as, "I'd like to lose weight" or "I'd like to go on vacation", etc., etc. but a couple remarks caught my eye. One that read "My team still needs to give about 5500 flu shots to make our goal..." and another stating "meet my goal FOR FLU SHOTS!!!!!!!!!!" I was once again disgusted with Walgreen's tactic and found it exploitative of the economic recession and while the corporation may lead us to believe that flu shots are "loss leaders" meaning that they do not make profit on them but rather on the products sold while customers are in the store, it is not greeting cards nor batteries that the staff are being rewarded for selling. This conjured up the question as to whether or not it is ethical to offer an incentive for such an item. Is it not very different then asking a person if they want fries with their burger? I do not have any reason to believe that any Walgreen's employee has acted in a way that was misleading to anyone receiving the flu vaccine nor do I know what the actual quota incentive is or how many stores are adopting this strategy. I would however like to know whether this corporation or any other that offer similar incentives are at all concerned about the potential "down playing" of side effects in order for a team to make quota. It is tempting if not necessary for us to cut corners by shopping at discount stores like these but what price do we ultimately pay in the end? As I write this I realize the "how" is becoming increasingly clear.