Yup. Unfortunately, I've learned that for many Jez commenters, if it's not an American-based study or medical organization, they don't trust it. *eyeroll*

Well, your entire statement and premise are misinformed, and thus wrong. You're arguing a position based on data that doesn't exist, that you've manufactured, or that wasn't accurately re-reported here. But hey, as long as you don't mind looking like an ignorant blowhard, you go on with your completely wrong self.

You know, I'm really more offended that A&E is just flat-out lying, now. There's no way Robertson's comments and beliefs were misinterpreted in the article, and that "coarse language" is absolutely nothing new. If they just wanted to come out and say "look, they bring in money and we need that to stay afloat, so.."…

Ah, so you're going for the "Well, Jezebel didn't report all the facts so I don't have to engage with the facts or truth" defense. Gotcha.

Er, this is a misunderstanding of labeling laws (even though it was explained in the original post here): vaccine manufacturers are not, by labeling laws, allowed to say it's safe for pregnant women because they've never done clinical trials in a pregnant population (something that likely wouldn't make it past IRB,…

Honestly, when I read cases like these? I assume someone who went back to school to get a degree that earns a decent income, not actual interest in the field... and I also assume a pisspoor education. (And yes, some not so nice assumptions about how well she did at that education, given where she has ended up working.)

Since you know what you're postulating isn't actually true, wouldn't it be better to find out what it is you are reacting to, or what illness you are coming down with? I mean, sure, you could just hand-wave and go "oh, medical impossibility," or you could go "huh, maybe I'm severely allergic to something in the…

Try reading the article. You know, the one where she admits she's anti-vaccination. You might not come across as so uninformed that way. (Like, for example, the company NOT making exceptions for anyone else, either, and her argument being "well other companies do, in other situations that are not analogous to mine."…

Not especially. As the full article notes, she's anti flu vaccine in general, and she also is anti other vaccines. (Plus the company is pretty stripped down: all they do is home nursing; not like it's a business with a lot of overhead positions.)

I was wondering similar. Sounds like she's a relatively new nurse, too.

Definitely agree there's an antibiotic over-prescribing problem, but I haven't seen anything in literature suggesting that's an issue for a virus like the flu. :-)

Sure it would. I mean, assuming you're aware that
1) it's generally "religious or philosophical exemptions";
2) we as a whole do not force medical procedures on people.

It was my first op-ed that ever had people calling for my head. (My editor took me out and got me drunk in celebration.)

Eh, that's a particular fear I don't really have. If nothing else, I'd place the faster mutations on agriculture, not medical science. :-)

The thing is, the genuinely religious who have these beliefs? Aren't a large enough population to affect children who aren't vaccinated because of allergies or immune issues.

I agree.

Important details missing from the Jezebel summary:

The health group that Breton, the fired nurse, works for doesn't appear to allow non-medical exemptions. Some medical organizations do, but they tend to be the ones who can isolate people who don't receive their vaccination.

I'm relatively sure they would not be willing to pay an RNs salary to have her dust blinds. Just sayin.

Although it's worth noting that the Spanish flu was a special flu, and that's not the danger facing us every time flu comes around to visit. (However, it was an H1N1 strain, so it could easily happen again, which–everyone, all together now–is why we get vaccinated!)