Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/15/2004 5:57:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 6:00:30 AM EST by Happyshooter]
Michigan just issued an emergency order. Giving a flu vaccine to anyone not in an approved list of patients is a crime in Michigan!

No statute, no regulation, no court case, just a government order and all of the sudden giving medicine to a non-approved citizen group is a crime.

Order posted here in PDF: www.michigan.gov/documents/Public_Health_Order_-_Flu_Vaccine_-_101404_106162_7.pdf
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 5:58:55 AM EST

AP NewsBreak: Michigan issues public health order limiting flu vaccine
10/14/2004, 5:28 p.m. ET
By AMY F. BAILEY
The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan's health department issued an emergency order Thursday in an effort to strictly limit the state's depleted flu vaccine supply so there are enough flu shots for the elderly, young and other high-risk groups.

There are about 3.4 million people in Michigan considered a priority for a flu shot this fall, but the state only has about 2 million doses, Michigan Department of Community Health Director Janet Olszewski said during a telephone interview with The Associated Press. An emergency health order only is issued when there is an imminent public danger.

Health care providers would face a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $200 fine if convicted of violating the order by giving a flu shot to people who aren't considered a priority, Olszewski said.

At least three other states have issued a similar emergency order — New Mexico, California and Oregon, Olszewski spokesman T.J. Bucholz said.

On Wednesday, Olszewski and other health officials encouraged healthy adults to give up their annual flu shot so there would be enough for those who need it.

Olszewski said the department took the rare step of issuing an order on Thursday as a precautionary step. She emphasized that the state has been working closely with local health departments to make sure doses of the flu vaccine are given only to priority groups, including those with chronic illnesses, instead of healthy adults.

"Most are following the guidelines," she said. "But there are people who are unsure and there are consumers who are not necessarily being as civic-minded as we would like. ... This just provides us with some backup."

Michigan and other states are scrambling for the flu vaccine after Chiron Corp. — one of two firms that make the vaccine — announced it would be unable to provide the estimated 48 million shots expected this year. That's nearly half the supply federal health officials had counted on.

Mark Bertler, director of the Michigan Association for Local Public Health, said the emergency order helps provide a consistent message about the scarcity of the flu vaccine this year.

"It clarifies the state's position with regard to the flu vaccine," said Bertler, whose group represents Michigan's 45 local health departments.

In Michigan and across the country, officials reported that some vaccine suppliers are trying to cash in on the flu shot shortage by hiking up prices for hospitals and pharmacies. The vaccine, in some cases, is being offered at $800 or more per 10-dose vial, which is more than 10 times the original value.

The pharmacy department at St. Mary's Hospital in Saginaw reported receiving fliers by fax offering to sell doses of the flu vaccine at inflated prices, said William Valler, director of the hospital's pharmacy services.

"This doesn't happen very often, but this is really pretty shocking," Valler told The Saginaw News for a Thursday story.

Randall Thompson, a spokesman for Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, said the office's consumer protection division hadn't received any complaints of price gouging for flu shots as of Thursday afternoon.

•__

On the Net:

Michigan Department of Community Health: http://www.michigan.gov/mdch

CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/


Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:00:00 AM EST
I'd like to see them try to prosecute that one.

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:00:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:


I'd like to see them try to prosecute that one.





Easy - Public Endangerment
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:04:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:


I'd like to see them try to prosecute that one.





Easy - Public Endangerment



If you were on a jury - how would you vote? How do you think most people would vote?

I think the prosecutor would fail miserably if a case involving this was tried.

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:05:18 AM EST
If you get dragged into court, you've already lost, regardless of the outcome.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:08:10 AM EST
In other news, people around the nation are being told to be on the lookout for PRICE GOUGING!

Here we have a shortage of something, and many many people are taking this vaccine who don't really need it.

Perhaps the solution to this problem is to ALLOW THE MARKET TO DECIDE THE PRICE!

I would think that if the price went up to $100 or more, all those "convenience immunizers" would have to think real long and hard about getting their flu injection, "to avoid the sniffows".
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:12:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
If you get dragged into court, you've already lost, regardless of the outcome.



I completely do not understand that.

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:14:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 6:16:40 AM EST by fight4yourrights]

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
If you get dragged into court, you've already lost, regardless of the outcome.



I completely do not understand that.





You spend lot's of $$, you get your name dragged through the papers as a bad person, you spend time in court, you have the stress and worry, you may have been arrested and jailed.........


what's not to understand?

Never invite the MAN into your life. Win, lose or draw, it ain't going to be fun
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:15:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:19:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
If you get dragged into court, you've already lost, regardless of the outcome.



I completely do not understand that.





You spend lot's of $$, you get your name dragged through the papers as a bad person, you spend time in court, you have the stress and worry, you may have been arrested and jailed.........


what's not to understand?

Never invite the MAN into your life. Win, lose or draw, it ain't going to be fun



A philosophical view. I was discussing logic.

Oh, and don't worry, one of these days a patriot will defend your constitutional rights in a court of law.

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:20:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:

Oh, and don't worry, one of these days a patriot will defend your constitutional rights in a court of law.





Probably by force, not by choice.


Face it, we have Kangaroo Courts for the most part.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:21:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
If you get dragged into court, you've already lost, regardless of the outcome.



I was on Jury Duty for the first time this past Monday.

I agree with this 100%.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:24:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:

Oh, and don't worry, one of these days a patriot will defend your constitutional rights in a court of law.





Probably by force, not by choice.


Face it, we have Kangaroo Courts for the most part.



I couldn't agree more. The justice system is screwed. But I refuse to look at everyone entering a courtroom as a defendant as someone who's already lost the battle.

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:25:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
If you get dragged into court, you've already lost, regardless of the outcome.



I was on Jury Duty for the first time this past Monday.

I agree with this 100%.



Why? Seriously...I'd appreciate your point of view.

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:36:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:
Michigan just issued an emergency order. Giving a flu vaccine to anyone not in an approved list of patients is a crime in Michigan!

No statute, no regulation, no court case, just a government order and all of the sudden giving medicine to a non-approved citizen group is a crime.

Order posted here in PDF: www.michigan.gov/documents/Public_Health_Order_-_Flu_Vaccine_-_101404_106162_7.pdf



I'm not up on Michigan law, but I believe that health care providers who receive state certifications such as MD's, RN's are required to operate within guidelines set down by Department of Public Health, including any emergency orders they issue. The criminal charge they would face, if they were to violate the order wouldn't be that they actually gave someone a flu shot, but that they disobeyed a Dept of Health emergency order. Compliance with Dept. of Health rules is very likely a law that's been on the books a while.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:40:52 AM EST
What "law" would you be prosecuted for violating?
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:43:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:
Michigan just issued an emergency order. Giving a flu vaccine to anyone not in an approved list of patients is a crime in Michigan!

No statute, no regulation, no court case, just a government order and all of the sudden giving medicine to a non-approved citizen group is a crime.

Order posted here in PDF: www.michigan.gov/documents/Public_Health_Order_-_Flu_Vaccine_-_101404_106162_7.pdf



I'm not up on Michigan law, but I believe that health care providers who receive state certifications such as MD's, RN's are required to operate within guidelines set down by Department of Public Health, including any emergency orders they issue. The criminal charge they would face, if they were to violate the order wouldn't be that they actually gave someone a flu shot, but that they disobeyed a Dept of Health emergency order. Compliance with Dept. of Health rules is very likely a law that's been on the books a while.



Well that makes complete sense then. I guess I misunderstood the order. I was under the impression that anyone of us could get hammered for receiving the vaccine.

Most likey though, a violation would damage the medical professional's license and not result in a criminal charge.

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:44:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 6:44:40 AM EST by fight4yourrights]

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

What "law" would you be prosecuted for violating?




As I stated previously, for those that bothered to read the thread, Public Endangerment would be one possibility
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:45:21 AM EST
This one

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE (EXCERPT)


Act 368 of 1978

333.2251 Imminent danger to health or lives; informing individuals affected; order; noncompliance; petition to restrain condition or practice; conditions constituting menace to public health; duty of director; “imminent danger” and “person” defined.
Sec. 2251.

(1) Upon a determination that an imminent danger to the health or lives of individuals exists in this state, the director immediately shall inform the individuals affected by the imminent danger and issue an order which shall be delivered to a person, authorized to avoid, correct, or remove the imminent danger or be posted at or near the imminent danger. The order shall incorporate the director's findings and require immediate action necessary to avoid, correct, or remove the imminent danger. The order may specify action to be taken or prohibit the presence of individuals in locations or under conditions where the imminent danger exists, except individuals whose presence is necessary to avoid, correct, or remove the imminent danger.

(2) Upon failure of a person to comply promptly with a department order issued under this section, the department may petition the circuit court having jurisdiction to restrain a condition or practice which the director determines causes the imminent danger or to require action to avoid, correct, or remove the imminent danger.

(3) If the director determines that conditions anywhere in this state constitute a menace to the public health, the director may take full charge of the administration of state and local health laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable thereto.

(4) As used in this section:

(a) “Imminent danger” means a condition or practice exists which could reasonably be expected to cause death, disease, or serious physical harm immediately or before the imminence of the danger can be eliminated through enforcement procedures otherwise provided.

(b) “Person” means a person as defined in section 1106 or a governmental entity.



History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978 .

Popular Name: Act 368


Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:45:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
What "law" would you be prosecuted for violating?



Michigan Compiled Laws 333.2261:
Except as otherwise provided by this code, a person who violates a rule or order of the department is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $200.00, or both.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:57:37 AM EST
Health care providers would face a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $200 fine if convicted of violating the order by giving a flu shot to people who aren't considered a priority, Olszewski said.


This does affect my wife - she's an RN and does on occasion give vaccines. Are pregnant women high risk? She says yes, but the news article doesn't say this.

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:59:34 AM EST
The sooner we have the 2nd War of Independence, the better off we'll be.

We;re going to need a LOT of rope for all the judges, legislators, and bureaucrats that have prostituted our Republican Constitutional Democracy into a de-facto dictatorship.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 7:06:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By jchewie:
Health care providers would face a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $200 fine if convicted of violating the order by giving a flu shot to people who aren't considered a priority, Olszewski said.


This does affect my wife - she's an RN and does on occasion give vaccines. Are pregnant women high risk? She says yes, but the news article doesn't say this.




The order itself says pregnant women are in the high risk category.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 8:39:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By Torf:
In other news, people around the nation are being told to be on the lookout for PRICE GOUGING!

Here we have a shortage of something, and many many people are taking this vaccine who don't really need it.

Perhaps the solution to this problem is to ALLOW THE MARKET TO DECIDE THE PRICE!

I would think that if the price went up to $100 or more, all those "convenience immunizers" would have to think real long and hard about getting their flu injection, "to avoid the sniffows".



What are you, some sort of Capitalist or something?
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 8:50:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

I was on Jury Duty for the first time this past Monday.




You bring the cowbell?
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 1:40:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Torf:
...Perhaps the solution to this problem is to ALLOW THE MARKET TO DECIDE THE PRICE!...


Problem with that is the people who need it the most are probably not in a position to pay an outrageous price for it.

Socialistic as it sounds, it makes sense to me to save the vaccine for high-risk groups.

Oh, and the government officials who let this happen should be fired!

With so many people not inoculated this year, a genuine epidemic seems very possible.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 1:53:42 PM EST



High-altitude medical experiments in Dachau. In order to test the probable endurance of pilots who have to eject from their planes, SS doctors exposed prisoners to high-altitude conditions simulated in a chamber. Many victims died during such experiments. In order for the simulation to be as realistic as possible, prisoners were hung by parachute straps. Source: Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949-1953, Vol. I.



Letter from SS-Untersturmfuehrer Rascher to Reichfuehrer-SS Himmler, 5 April 1942. (Source: War Criminal Trials at Nuremberg, Vol. 1.)


Highly Esteemed Reich Leader:

Enclosed is an interim report on the low-pressure experiments so far conducted in the concentration camp of Dachau...

Only continuous experiments at altitudes higher than 10.5 Km resulted in death. These experiments showed that breathing stopped after about 30 minutes, while in two cases the electrocardiographically charted action of the heart continued for another 20 minutes.

The third experiment of this type took such an extraordinary course that I called an SS physician of the camp as a witness, since I had worked on these experiments all by myself. It was a continuous experiment without oxygen at a height of 12 Km. conducted on a 37-year old Jew in good general condition. Breathing continued up to 30 minutes. After 4 minutes the experimental subject began to perspire and to wiggle his head, after 5 minutes cramps occurred, between 6 and 10 minutes breathing increased in speed and the experimental subject became unconscious; from 11 to 30 minutes breathing slowed down to three breaths per minute, finally stopping altogether.

Severest cyanosis developed in between and foam appeared at the mouth.


AUTOPSY REPORT

One hour later after breathing has stopped, the spinal marrow was completely severed and the brain was removed. Thereupon the action of the auricle stopped for 40 seconds. It then renewed its action, coming to a complete standstill 8 minutes later. A heavy subarchnoid edema was found in the brain. In the veins and arteries of the brain a considerable quantity of air was discovered.

Link Posted: 10/15/2004 1:57:19 PM EST

State misuse of professional power
Though the Nuremberg code has had a profound impact on human experimentation, the broader questions and challenges arising from medicine during the Hitler period have not received the full and sustained consideration they deserve. The issues include:


The relationship of the physician to the state
The inherent conflict between caring for the individual as opposed to the health of the population
The role of the physician in deciding which genetically determined human characteristics are desirable or undesirable
Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide
The impact of political and economic pressures on the moral conscience of the medical profession
The role of the physician in the differential selection of human beings for treatment (or refusal of treatment)
The role of the physician-teacher and physician-scientist as a vehicle of political and social change
The conscience of the medical profession in the face of institutional brutality.
The underlying moral question is how the exercise of professional power may affect vulnerable people who seek care, cure, and compassion from physicians and the healthcare system. Framing the response to this question over time is the moral responsibility of leadership.
Complicating the question is the role of the state in the exercise of that power. The past century has seen the expansion of the domain of the state in health care from that of public health and quarantine in the nineteenth century to influencing or controlling the very delivery of health services today. The Hitler era represents a crisis of the relationship between the physician and the state. Of all German occupational groups, physicians had the largest representation in the Nazi party.(3)(11) The medical profession enhanced the racial and eugenic policies of the Nazi party and government and was itself subjugated by the party and the state.(5) Despite the professional crisis exemplified by the experience of the Third Reich, the past 50 years have seen the enhancement of the power of the state in health care and the exercise of that power through fiscal control.(12) The relationship between the profession and the state has become increasingly intertwined and interdependent, encompassing payment for health services, distribution of resources, and support for education and research.




bmj.bmjjournals.com/archive/7070nd4.htm
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 2:04:41 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 2:07:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By npd233:
I'm not up on Michigan law, but I believe that health care providers who receive state certifications such as MD's, RN's are required to operate within guidelines set down by Department of Public Health, including any emergency orders they issue. The criminal charge they would face, if they were to violate the order wouldn't be that they actually gave someone a flu shot, but that they disobeyed a Dept of Health emergency order. Compliance with Dept. of Health rules is very likely a law that's been on the books a while.




MD and RN are not "state certifications". They are degrees conferred by medical schools and nursing schools respectively. I will have MD on my tombstone. States only give you a license to practice medicine or nursing.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 2:25:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By Troy:
The sad part is: Flu shots are a farce to begin with. The sheeple have been so conditioned to line up and get one every year that many think they won't survive without one, when chances are that most people will do BETTER without one.

-Troy



You are missing the point of 'herd immunity'. The majority of people are not vaccinated to protect them but instead to prevent them from passing on the flu to those who are more succeptible--the very young and old. It boils down to $$. You can vaccinate hundreds of people for the price of an ICU admission and hospital stay for a single patient. No one said the sheeple were smart; imagine all the ciprofloxacin expiring on people's shelves since the anthrax scares.

I don't see how people will do better without one.


Link Posted: 10/15/2004 2:36:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 2:52:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
What "law" would you be prosecuted for violating?


As I stated previously, for those that bothered to read the thread, Public Endangerment would be one possibility


Ummm, your previous answer was quite vague, which prompted me to ask the question.

"Public Endangerment" can mean alot of things...or nothing at all.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 3:09:30 PM EST
Troy is right.


When I went to college, my first two years I got the flu shot.....those two years I was knocked on my butt by the flu, HARD. Week+ in bed EACH year from the farkin flu.

Last three years, no flu shot. only one year I've gotten the flu, came and went in about 4 days of just runny nose and slight aches.



Fuck the flu shot -- waste of money
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 3:17:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By Troy:
Simple. The shot weakens the immune system by injecting the bug directly into the body. If you are in good health, your body will fight it off without too big of an overall effect, but if your health is more marginal (which is quite a common condition), then being weakened further will slow you down significantly, and it will take a while before you recover. The shots are given based on the theory that you'll recover, and have a system full of antibodies, by the time the "real" flu gets to you. That isn't always the case. Many times you will not have recovered, and you'll get the flu due to your weakened condition when you normally wouldn't have. And some will get it directly from the shot in the first place.

Yes, there IS a percentage of the population that DOES benefit from the shots, IF they are given at the right time. But as you correctly stated, a "shotgun" approach is used instead, inconveneincing thousands to help a few.

-Troy



That would be true if they were using the live attenuated virus. The "flu shot" is an inactivated vaccine (containing killed virus) that is given with a needle. You cannot get the flu from the shot. The worse that can happen to someone with a weakened immune system is that they fail to produce an adequate titre of antibodies to protect them from the live virus. They are no worse off than if they hadn't received the vaccine. Ironically they should be vaccinating those people who come into contact with the elderly or chronically ill ie. all the people working in hospitals, nursing homes or anyone working directly with the elderly or chronically ill. Why even bother wasting a vaccination shot on a shut-in grandma with rheumatoid arthritis. Give it to her daughter who brings her meals twice a week.
Top Top