Here is my rant from a past post, addressing some of the "toxins": 5

Mercury: It is a large misconception that vaccines contain elemental mercury. They in fact contain thimericol, which is ethyl mercury. This has a much lower toxicity than the mercury that we all consume with gusto, which is methyl mercury found at (mostly) low levels in fish and shellfish species. So, stating thimericol causes mercury poisoning is a little like cutting salt out of your diet for reasons that many soldiers died in WW1 from chlorine gas. Sure, there is a level that can result in toxicity, but it is very difficult to reach it. By eating somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/2 a filet of your average grocery store fish, you have already blown the amount of "mercury" you'd receive in a vaccine out of the water. And thimericol is not thrown into vaccines for fun- it acts as an antiseptic as a reaction to an absolutely unfortunate incident of bacterial contamination of vaccines in the past. This actually increases the safeness of the vaccine because of less specific requirements for storage requirements. Also, thimericol is only in multi-dose vaccines.

Aluminum: If you live in the states or Canada, don't even bother researching the possible effects of small amounts of aluminum, because aluminum is not used as an adjuvant here. It is only widely used as an adjuvant in Europe still.

Gelatin: Not sure why this is listed as a "toxin", there is a reason we all make bone broth and it isn't because we have things for skeletons.

Formaldehyde: As a regular part of our metabolism, we produce up to an ounce and a half of formaldehyde per day. Sure, that is not very much, but there is also not very much formaldehyde in the vaccine either. It's not like they are throwing you in a bath of the stuff- as far as your body is concerned, this amount of formaldehyde is seen like any other by product of metabolism, and treated as such.

Treating everyone with vaccines, including flu vaccines, decreases hospitalization, trips to the doctor, death, heart attacks, and antibiotic use (which makes the point that vaccines contain tiny amounts of antibiotics obsolete, because it will result in a much more significant decrease overall).

Why don't flu vaccines work as well as we'd like? First of all, they are targeted, which is a poor strategy. The elderly, sick, and immunosuppressed (pregnant, HIV/AIDS etc) are the ones who are told to get the vaccine, but they are actually the ones least likely to have a positive results. If your immune system is already impaired, you are less likely to be able to produce the proper antibodies require to fight off the disease. A much more effective way of preventing illness in these populations is to instead avoid having the virus presented to them in the first place, hence the concept of herd immunity. That is why health care workers are irresponsible if they choose not to vaccinate against the flu- they are unintentionally exposing the vulnerable to a virus that, while it may not effect them, may cause a host of problems in the vulnerable one. Think of when an elderly person breaks their hip- now, breaking a hip doesn't inherently cause death, but we do know that there is an enormous jump in deaths the year following a hip fracture. While the hip fracture didn't directly cause the death, it's the vulnerability to secondary consequences that is the big problem, and the same reason can be applied to vaccines. Flus cause about 30,000 direct/indirect deaths per year in the USA alone, an astonishing number, and one that may be helped by not targeting just the vulnerable ones. For example, populations in which children who get the conjugated pneumococcal vaccination show a decreased mortality rate in the elderly in the same population. In fact, if only 20-25% of children get vaccinated, there is an 8-18% decrease in adults over 35 years, which is an enormous impact to population that was never inoculated.

Another problem with flu vaccines is people often use the n=1 "I got the vaccine but still got the flu". The fact is, yes, you can still get the flu after vaccination! But you can also get flu-like illnesses, often attributed to the flu when it isn't the same thing at all from an immunological perspective. Flu vaccinations can attenuate flus, meaning that if you get the flu your response will be better so it will decrease in duration (which would be protecting you from those secondary problems that are the real killers) and decrease the likelihood of getting passed on (thereby contributing to letting the more vulnerable live on). While it may not help you personally in every possible way you were hoping, it is the population that is greater impacted. Think, if the flu vaccine worked for just 1% of the time, you could still decrease those annual deaths by 1,800, which is pretty admirable. But, if the whole population got vaccinated, the efficacy is about 50-80% for individuals, so imagine what a massive impact that would have on longevity and vulnerable populations.

We've already applied critical eyes to nutrition, and know that it is just as important to apply critical eyes to all areas of our lives. This is one area where it has to be said that vaccines are effective on a population level, making them absolutely worth while. In fact, to not get the vaccinations actually poses dangers to other around you, making the incentive not only "I won't get sick", but altruistic as well.

Anyways, that was my big rant, sorry if you've heard all this stuff before. I need to get back to physics now (I thought I switched my major from microbiology...).

For more Paleo Diet hacks: I'm going to Haiti...the vaccine shots are being pushed on me...what do I do? - PaleoHacks.com http://paleohacks.com/questions/94899/im-going-to-haiti-the-vaccine-shots-are-being-pushed-on-me-what-do-i-do#ixzz1sOYzAvhF

Some professions you really don't have a choice in the matter, especially healthcare. Just because YOU feel fine doesn't mean you aren't killing people by being a carrier. Just ask Typhoid Mary.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1900s/a/typhoidmary.htm

There are situations in which it makes perfect sense to require the vaccinations. I, for instance, work for a hospital system. I have to be vaccinated in general, and have to get a flu shot every year, or there are parts of the hospital I just cannot enter at peak flu season.

That aside, yes, you can ask for mercury free vaccinations. They are more expensive, and you will probably have to make an appointment to get them, so be sure to let the doctor's office know ahead of time. My sister regularly asks for them. Please do note that many vaccines are already mercury free, so do your research on the composition on which ones you require before contacting your doctor.

As a healthy, paleo eating adult, I'd say you have pretty much nothing to fear from vaccines. It is babies with compromised health who have the highest risk of vaccine injury.

I initially balked at having a flu shot requirement when I nannied, but it seemed like the responsible thing to do to take that very tiny risk for myself rather possibly expose the babies and small children with compromised immune systems (many were preemies and not breast fed) I was working with to the very real, and much more likely danger of developing complications from the flu. Just like any other harm, I would try my best to put myself out there if it meant saving them. If you are going to work in a hospital I'd think you'd feel the same way about the patients there.

Even as a pretty healthy teenager I developed post flu pneumonia, and that was some pretty scary shit, I'd rather not repeat, so getting a shot seems like nothin'.

I opt for mercury free whenever possible just for the hell of it, but I eat sashimi like it is going out of style, so that is probably a moot point. My experience, I get slightly feverish, take a nap, and that is it. Chock full o' antibodies within a few days, and if the right strains were picked, hopefully flu free for another year.

Can you cite any evidence that "overvaccination" is a problem? Vaccine safety has been a hotbutton topic for the last several decades and has been widely studied. The evidence is in and it's overwhelmingly in favor of vaccines being ONE OF THE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES OF ALL TIME. I'm sorry if you don't want to hear this, but if you don't accept that, then maybe you SHOULDN'T be working in health care.

Please get vaccines it is irresponsible not too, and listening to blatantly unscientific conspiracy theories about them having these terrible side effects is the same thinking that got us on the SAD to begin with.

My parents (a chiropractor and a lamaze instructor) were firmly against vaccines for my brother and I when we were young. We ate a healthy (at least to us; meat, veggie and starch at every meal) and got plenty of exercise. We were very rarely sick. I moved to the US a few years back (I'm from Toronto, Canada originally), and am going through some immigration procedures currently, and one of the things I had to do was get a full medical checkup. I told them I had never had a vaccine. They gave me a list of about 15 different things that I'd have to be vaccinated against considering that I had never had them before. BUT, they said, they would test me to see if my body had developed any natural immunities to these things.
Turns out that I HAD developed natural immunities to everything except one: MMR (Measels, Mumps and rubella). So I believe that if you eat well and get exercise and don't put crap in your body regularly, vaccines aren't necessary.

THAT BEING SAID,

I agree with others here, that if your job requires it, such as a hospital, then it's important that you do it, because you'll be exposed to things in a much different way than the rest of us. I would say the same thing about travelling. They're probably necessary.

My dad was a very staunch opponent of vaccines and spent a lot of time researching studies and such showing the ineffectiveness of them. And I'm not saying that NO ONE should have them, but I do believe that our bodies have tremendous capabilities to protect us naturally, and we should stick to that template as much as we can.

That's my two cents, anyway. ;)

With regard to the legality of requiring vaccines, have you checked the law in your state to see if there is a compulsory vaccination law for health care workers and if so whether there are philosophical opt-out provisions?

There is a good resource here on the relevant issues: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21414.pdf One excerpt:

"A number of states have laws requiring employees of certain health care facilities, such as hospitals and nursing homes, to be vaccinated against diseases such as measles, mumps, and rubella. Such laws, which vary widely, generally contain opt-out provisions where a vaccine is medically contraindicated or if the vaccine is against the individual’s religious or philosophical beliefs. A few states have laws pertaining to influenza vaccination of health care workers, and most that do provide for voluntary influenza immunization programs and staff education measures for employees; however, a few states have mandatory requirements for influenza vaccinations for health care workers."

It's probably legal but they may allow you to sign a waiver to forego the vaccines at your own risk. Also you may look into blood titering. I do it for my dogs rather than vaccinate them. It measures the antibodies in your blood to the certain disease/virus and let's you (and your employer) know if you are sufficiently protected without a vaccine. It should be enough proof for an employer concerned about liability.

Which vaccines are they and will you be exposed to anything particularly harmful in this job?

Look up the ingredients of the vaccines and then decide if you want that stuff injected into your body. Even if it is mercury free, it still has other toxins in it. You can find an ingredient list I believe on the CDC website. As far as it being legal to make you get vaccinations, I guess that is up to the job. I think it is wrong since it is your body, so it should be your choice. Vaccines aren't 100% effective and you can still pass along illness even if you get vaccinated. My husband is in the military and they have to be up to date on vaccines and have to get the flu shot every year.

What about getting vaccinations when you have severe food allergies? Like soy or egg? If soy is injected directly into my blood stream (such as glycerin) I can't imagine how bad the outcome would be.

I am surprised by the decidely "for" stance on vaccines in this thread. In my opinion, vaccines are not as great as most of the answers here make them out to be. Yes... there are some vaccines that have nearly eradicted some very severe diseases. In those cases, hooray for vaccines! But when every new parent is faced with which vaccine schedule to choose.. it can be a VERY difficult decision.

Mama Natural has done an excellent job compiling a video series on almost all the vaccines. Each video is only a couple minutes long.

http://mamanatural.com/tag/vaccines/

There are some vaccines that are a part of the routine schedule for newborns that are simply not necessary for everyone. And in some cases, the risks of getting injected with the vaccines are greater than the risks of not getting injected with it.

For those here that get upset with people who are unsure about whether or not vaccines are a wonderful thing for all babies... then add me to your list of "selfish and ignorant" people that have no regard for society as a whole.

Here's a link to someone who actually knows http://www.vaccineexemption.org/.

This has been made into a political issue, as is obvious from some of the answers. Vaccines are products- some have a decent track record and have been around for years, others are full of questionable junk and don't make any appreciable dent in the statistics of whatever it is they are supposed to prevent- yet we've got people acting like you are crazy for even asking. There are many different companies providing these products and the laws surrounding vaccines provide them with an unreasonable amount of cover. I've heard of a few products, like products intended to end addiction, being reclassified as vaccines, likely in an attempt to take advantage of the beneficial legal landscape. If soft drinks had the same political and legal cache, they'd not only be pushing us to drink a particular kind of soft drink, but all of them indiscriminately.

Soft drinks were originally marketed as medicinal, by the way, so the comparison is more apt than some of the historically challenged may think it is.

Here's a link to an article about making a vaccine for addiction: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/health/04vaccine.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

This is a link to an article about how a drug, which is called Chantix in the U.S. and Champix in the U.K. raises suicide rates in people who take it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056892/Anti-smoking-drug-greatly-raises-suicide-risk-used-resort.html. I post this here in case anyone thinks this anti-nicotine 'vaccine' is a good idea. I don't know why anyone would think so, especially on paleohacks, where the scary implications from an evolutionary perspective should be immediately obvious.