Vaccine exemption

[anonymous]

Chances of them accepting a vaccine exemption?

 

[anonymous]

I think it might be up to the client for the specific contract

 

[anonymous]

Chances of them accepting a vaccine exemption?

Zero chance... Unless it's a medical exemption

 

[anonymous]

Chances of them accepting a vaccine exemption?

Seeing as Syneos fired hundreds even AFTER they accepted exemptions from those people, you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an exemption honored. That's why Syneos is getting served lawsuit after lawsuit....something they rightfully earned.

 

[anonymous]

As a hiring manager someone asking about a vaccine exemption would raise serious concerns about their suitability for being a drug rep. Pharmaceutical promotion aspires to be an evidence-based enterprise and challenging the safety and efficacy of vaccines is not rooted in evidence.

Besides, how can you be credible telling your doctor to trust what the FDA says about the safety and efficacy of the medication you are promoting while simultaneously believing the FDA is some devious organization that is lying to the world about the safety and efficacy of vaccines?

You can believe whatever you want about vaccines, but you’re not going to be able to square being anti-vaccination with Pharma sales

my apologies if I’m ascribing to you beliefs about vaccines and the fda you don’t hold but I have yet to meet someone who asks about an exemption that doesn’t believe that sort of nonsense. My batting percentage is 1000.

 

[anonymous]

As a hiring manager someone asking about a vaccine exemption would raise serious concerns about their suitability for being a drug rep. Pharmaceutical promotion aspires to be an evidence-based enterprise and challenging the safety and efficacy of vaccines is not rooted in evidence.

Besides, how can you be credible telling your doctor to trust what the FDA says about the safety and efficacy of the medication you are promoting while simultaneously believing the FDA is some devious organization that is lying to the world about the safety and efficacy of vaccines?

You can believe whatever you want about vaccines, but you’re not going to be able to square being anti-vaccination with Pharma sales

my apologies if I’m ascribing to you beliefs about vaccines and the fda you don’t hold but I have yet to meet someone who asks about an exemption that doesn’t believe that sort of nonsense. My batting percentage is 1000.

What I am about to say I do so with intended respect, as you seem like a reasonable individual, so I ask in kind you open your thoughts and actually consider some alternatives. I preface with this because you very clearly have made up your mind about 1) the current CV vaccine 2) consideration of all available vaccines and 3) the thought process of anyone who declines any vaccination and/or questions them. All of those items could be related, or they could not be; you are also seemingly categorizing anyone who would want to request exemptions into one column that you have labeled "anti-vaccination nonsense." This is painting with such a broad stroke, and quite frankly it troubles--but does not surprise--me that you are in a position to make decisions about whether someone with potentially differing views than you deserves an industry job.

I have been in the industry for 18 years, and have never once had a doctor or clinical staff member ask me my opinion on vaccines. If they did do so, I would use my adept conversational skills to maneuver away from a topic that could be polarizing, as I would anything else of that nature (like politics, for example). I have covered countless disease state specialties, and can say with clarity that I have not agreed with the way some doctors have decided to treat their patients; that does not mean, however, that I strut in their office and let them know that. My point being that all conversations about personally held beliefs do not need to take place. We are professionals, and we keep our thoughts to ourselves.

You insinuate that someone that questions the FDA (and further the CDC, or any other 3 letter agency for that matter) and does not blindly believe what they say must be off their rocker. Were you aware that there was a CDC scientist whistleblower who came forward and stated that he was instructed to destroy the retrospective analysis evidence that vaccine administration was in fact related to the dramatic growth in autism diagnosis? Were you also aware that the FDA receives large swaths of money from pharmaceutical companies? Undercover reporting with an FDA official has him admitting that the FDA is in essence a captured agency due to the amount of money they receive from big pharma. When an agency is making decisions to bring products to market based on financial infusions, they are no longer unbiased--they are captured.

You state "pharmaceutical promotion aspires to be an evidence-based enterprise...," which I most certainly agree with you on. That being said, the mounting evidence I have seen now over time that indicates this industry is not as rosy and clean-running as it is purported to be under the authority of corruptible alphabet agencies most certainly taints any pharmaceutical rep's ability to deliver true and complete data absent the question of bias and financial influence. Then why am I still here, you might ask? Well, for the same reasons many might be...it's not so easy to just change careers and 1) convince a potential employer your skills are transferrable (because it is evident hiring managers hold biases) and 2) not lose your salary footing that was built over decades in the process. On top of it, those of us who may request exemptions for any NUMBER of reasons are finding ourselves under the lens of persons like yourself, who as smart as you are, simply cannot see past your own opinions. I am not sure if you realize how discriminatory that truly is. How would you feel if the roles were reversed? What would happen if you had received a vaccine and in the process developed partial paralysis and neurological damage, or worse? You may then decide to not risk further vaccination, or you may continue. The fact of the matter is, that should be your choice based on your own personal health circumstances and that of a physician you trust. Now, how would you feel following that if you were kept out of job after job because the person with the authority to hire you was judging you based on what your new set of opinions and experiences were?

Sadly, you seem to be proud that you have discriminated against hiring candidates who do not hold your same world views, no matter the reason. You likely don't know the true reasons. My child was severely damaged within 24 hours of receiving vaccines--it was unquestionably related and medically verified. My life experiences have taken me down a path and led me to where I am now. So I do not deserve to have a job? I have won multiple awards over the years as a testimony to my ability to be a competent and trustworthy rep--and yet, my stance on forced vaccination has not impeded my ability to deliver material to physicians.

Look, you work for a company that took a no-prisoners attitude toward anyone who did not wish to be forced to inject something into their body, and you are clearly ok with that. That's fine. You are likely where you should be, then. All I ask is that you open your mind and try to be introspective as to how you are ascribing characteristics to others that don't deserve them. I followed guidelines in the past, and my child is now brain damaged. I have to live with that. What I should not have to live with is the constant judgement from others that cannot see past their own nose. For the record, an employee at Syneos took the first shot, and was seriously injured from it. That person quite obviously did not want to continue, so submitted a medical exemption under the authority of their doctor. Syneos still terminated that person. Now what if that was you??

 

[anonymous]

The fact that the FDA has an imperfect record is not a convincing arguement. But if you can’t move past their imperfect record, then you should not be out promoting medication’s. Pharmaceutical sales reps cite FDA approved data when discussing safety and efficacy. How will you be able to do that credibly if you believe they are part of a conspiracy to intentionally poison people?

Again, you are absolutely entitled to your beliefs. But if you believe in FTA conspiracies, I think you need to Find something else to do. Pharma sales is not for everybody.

And while I’m very sorry for your child’s illness, the fact that it happened after a vaccine does that mean it happened because of the vaccine. There is simply way too much of that kind of thinking.

 

[anonymous]

And while I’m very sorry for your child’s illness, the fact that it happened after a vaccine does that mean it happened because of the vaccine. There is simply way too much of that kind of thinking.

I once had a friend who refused to wear a seatbelt because he once read of a woman who, after a crash, burned to death because she could not release her jammed seatbelt. When I asked him, “OK, but what about the hundreds of thousands of other crashes that ended up being non-fatal because of a seatbelt?’ He just looked at me and said… “Yeah, but she burned to death.” The lack of logic just seemed to escape him. It wouldn’t surprise me if he’s an anti-vaccer now.

 

[anonymous]

The fact that the FDA has an imperfect record is not a convincing arguement. But if you can’t move past their imperfect record, then you should not be out promoting medication’s. Pharmaceutical sales reps cite FDA approved data when discussing safety and efficacy. How will you be able to do that credibly if you believe they are part of a conspiracy to intentionally poison people?

Again, you are absolutely entitled to your beliefs. But if you believe in FTA conspiracies, I think you need to Find something else to do. Pharma sales is not for everybody.

And while I’m very sorry for your child’s illness, the fact that it happened after a vaccine does that mean it happened because of the vaccine. There is simply way too much of that kind of thinking.

meant “does NOT mean it happened because of the vaccine.”

 

[anonymous]

The fact that the FDA has an imperfect record is not a convincing arguement. But if you can’t move past their imperfect record, then you should not be out promoting medication’s. Pharmaceutical sales reps cite FDA approved data when discussing safety and efficacy. How will you be able to do that credibly if you believe they are part of a conspiracy to intentionally poison people?

Again, you are absolutely entitled to your beliefs. But if you believe in FTA conspiracies, I think you need to Find something else to do. Pharma sales is not for everybody.

And while I’m very sorry for your child’s illness, the fact that it happened after a vaccine does that mean it happened because of the vaccine. There is simply way too much of that kind of thinking.

Thanks for the reply. To start, I think you missed the part where I stated "medically verified" with regard to the damage that was inflicted as a result of vaccination, as agreed upon by more than one medical professional. The blind following that vaccines have where people don't appear to believe that they are capable of causing side effects and harm as other pharmaceutical medications are just astounds me. Typically what happens, however, is the person doesn't go looking for the fight--the fight finds them. By that I mean that the so-called "anti-vaxxers" often end up in that ridiculous category because they have a loved one that was harmed as a result of vaccination, if not they themselves. And then, when they express their concerns or tell their story they are labeled, castigated, provided ridiculous and nonsensical analogies (like from the car crash poster), or told they ought to consider another profession. Exactly the responses I have come to expect, so you didn't disappoint. What continues to be disappointing, however, is that you will likely continue to discriminate in your hiring practices, which is shameful. If people are entitled to their beliefs, as you have stated, then a request for an exemption based on their personal and private situations should not be an issue. The transmission prevention argument is dead in the water, so employers continuing to cling to these unscientific mandates is purely legal strategy.

You appear to like the word conspiracy. This is a tired and so very typical argument that people make when they come to the dramatic defense of government agencies--something I have a hard time understanding. I will defend my family, my friends, even my pets...but putting blind trust in agencies that have been actually caught in wrongdoing is not conspiracy, it's just paying attention. There is also a difference between being imperfect--as you state--and choosing to regulate in a way that benefits the hand that feeds them. That's actually called collusion, and its way worse than imperfect.

While I am more than capable of deciding what to do with my life in regard to my profession, I will agree with you in one respect--the industry, after all, may not be for me. What you insinuate as wrong-think, I like to call critical thinking. We all know pharma companies love the yes men that regurgitate glossies ad nauseum and handily drink kool-aid. Regardless, I wish you the best and sincerely hope you will at some point open your lines of thinking to alternatives.

 

[anonymous]

You appear to like the word conspiracy. This is a tired and so very typical argument that people make when they come to the dramatic defense of government agencies--something I have a hard time understanding. I will defend my family, my friends, even my pets...but putting blind trust in agencies that have been actually caught in wrongdoing is not conspiracy, it's just paying attention. There is also a difference between being imperfect--as you state--and choosing to regulate in a way that benefits the hand that feeds them.
.

Actually, I think the seatbelt analogy fits perfectly. Like vaccines seatbelts do not always prevent injury or death, and in some instances, they may even make an automobile crash outcome worse. But in the vast vast majority of instances, they reduce deaths, mitigate injury and maybe prevent injury altogether. Consequently seatbelt are mandated for everyone to wear because without them, the cost of treating uninsured people whose injuries are worse because they didn’t wear a seatbelt would fall on all of us. The same thing is true for vaccines. People who don’t get vaccinated are far more likely to get sick, and get sicker. And since many people don’t have any or adequate insurance, the over-run costs of their care falls on us. This will remain true until hospitals are allowed to just turn uninsured people away, which would be a world I would not want to live in.

And you still haven’t answered my question about how do you use statistics and data approved by the FDA to support the promotion of other drugs you are selling? Do you plan on just evaluating for yourself the raw data provided by the drug companies? Are you going to pour over all of the data submitted to the FDA yourself? Because, after all, this, too could be filled with lies and deceptions.

One question my anti-vaccine friends have yet been able to answer is… Why is it that people who work for the FDA and who work for public health agencies - you know, the very people who would be a part of this alleged conspiracy - are also among the first people to get themselves and their family vaccinated? Do they put themselves and their families (kids too!) in harms way just so people won’t suspect they are part of this well orchestrated effort to harm people? Or maybe they are just getting a shot of saline - a harmless placebo, so it appears they are getting a shot where they actually are not… This argument reminds me a little of a friend who insisted the Pharma industry had long ago cured cancer but allow it to continue because it is way more profitable to treat. An utterly absurd belief because it ignores the fact that people who work in Pharma also lose family members to cancer, including wives, husbands, and children. Indeed, many who work in pursuit of cures do so because they lost loved ones to cancer.

So I will close by asking why, why would the FDA, health agencies and indeed companies like Syneos want want to harm people people by mandating vaccines? How exactly does this help them?

 

[anonymous]

..And then, when they express their concerns or tell their story they are labeled, castigated, provided ridiculous and nonsensical analogies (like from the car crash poster)...

The comparison fits! If I had a family member who was injured because the seatbelt caused more harm than good - a very rare occurrence statistically - I would still urge people to wear seatbelts.

 

[anonymous]

Agree with above

 

[anonymous]

Chances of them accepting a vaccine exemption?

 

[anonymous]

I may be ignorant here but are employees of Syneos in the field, in offices, making efficacy/safety claims or selling drugs?

 

[anonymous]

Actually, I think the seatbelt analogy fits perfectly. Like vaccines seatbelts do not always prevent injury or death, and in some instances, they may even make an automobile crash outcome worse. But in the vast vast majority of instances, they reduce deaths, mitigate injury and maybe prevent injury altogether. Consequently seatbelt are mandated for everyone to wear because without them, the cost of treating uninsured people whose injuries are worse because they didn’t wear a seatbelt would fall on all of us. The same thing is true for vaccines. People who don’t get vaccinated are far more likely to get sick, and get sicker. And since many people don’t have any or adequate insurance, the over-run costs of their care falls on us. This will remain true until hospitals are allowed to just turn uninsured people away, which would be a world I would not want to live in.

And you still haven’t answered my question about how do you use statistics and data approved by the FDA to support the promotion of other drugs you are selling? Do you plan on just evaluating for yourself the raw data provided by the drug companies? Are you going to pour over all of the data submitted to the FDA yourself? Because, after all, this, too could be filled with lies and deceptions.

One question my anti-vaccine friends have yet been able to answer is… Why is it that people who work for the FDA and who work for public health agencies - you know, the very people who would be a part of this alleged conspiracy - are also among the first people to get themselves and their family vaccinated? Do they put themselves and their families (kids too!) in harms way just so people won’t suspect they are part of this well orchestrated effort to harm people? Or maybe they are just getting a shot of saline - a harmless placebo, so it appears they are getting a shot where they actually are not… This argument reminds me a little of a friend who insisted the Pharma industry had long ago cured cancer but allow it to continue because it is way more profitable to treat. An utterly absurd belief because it ignores the fact that people who work in Pharma also lose family members to cancer, including wives, husbands, and children. Indeed, many who work in pursuit of cures do so because they lost loved ones to cancer.

So I will close by asking why, why would the FDA, health agencies and indeed companies like Syneos want want to harm people people by mandating vaccines? How exactly does this help them?

you do you...........................

 

[anonymous]

What I am about to say I do so with intended respect, as you seem like a reasonable individual, so I ask in kind you open your thoughts and actually consider some alternatives. I preface with this because you very clearly have made up your mind about 1) the current CV vaccine 2) consideration of all available vaccines and 3) the thought process of anyone who declines any vaccination and/or questions them. All of those items could be related, or they could not be; you are also seemingly categorizing anyone who would want to request exemptions into one column that you have labeled "anti-vaccination nonsense." This is painting with such a broad stroke, and quite frankly it troubles--but does not surprise--me that you are in a position to make decisions about whether someone with potentially differing views than you deserves an industry job.

I have been in the industry for 18 years, and have never once had a doctor or clinical staff member ask me my opinion on vaccines. If they did do so, I would use my adept conversational skills to maneuver away from a topic that could be polarizing, as I would anything else of that nature (like politics, for example). I have covered countless disease state specialties, and can say with clarity that I have not agreed with the way some doctors have decided to treat their patients; that does not mean, however, that I strut in their office and let them know that. My point being that all conversations about personally held beliefs do not need to take place. We are professionals, and we keep our thoughts to ourselves.

You insinuate that someone that questions the FDA (and further the CDC, or any other 3 letter agency for that matter) and does not blindly believe what they say must be off their rocker. Were you aware that there was a CDC scientist whistleblower who came forward and stated that he was instructed to destroy the retrospective analysis evidence that vaccine administration was in fact related to the dramatic growth in autism diagnosis? Were you also aware that the FDA receives large swaths of money from pharmaceutical companies? Undercover reporting with an FDA official has him admitting that the FDA is in essence a captured agency due to the amount of money they receive from big pharma. When an agency is making decisions to bring products to market based on financial infusions, they are no longer unbiased--they are captured.

You state "pharmaceutical promotion aspires to be an evidence-based enterprise...," which I most certainly agree with you on. That being said, the mounting evidence I have seen now over time that indicates this industry is not as rosy and clean-running as it is purported to be under the authority of corruptible alphabet agencies most certainly taints any pharmaceutical rep's ability to deliver true and complete data absent the question of bias and financial influence. Then why am I still here, you might ask? Well, for the same reasons many might be...it's not so easy to just change careers and 1) convince a potential employer your skills are transferrable (because it is evident hiring managers hold biases) and 2) not lose your salary footing that was built over decades in the process. On top of it, those of us who may request exemptions for any NUMBER of reasons are finding ourselves under the lens of persons like yourself, who as smart as you are, simply cannot see past your own opinions. I am not sure if you realize how discriminatory that truly is. How would you feel if the roles were reversed? What would happen if you had received a vaccine and in the process developed partial paralysis and neurological damage, or worse? You may then decide to not risk further vaccination, or you may continue. The fact of the matter is, that should be your choice based on your own personal health circumstances and that of a physician you trust. Now, how would you feel following that if you were kept out of job after job because the person with the authority to hire you was judging you based on what your new set of opinions and experiences were?

Sadly, you seem to be proud that you have discriminated against hiring candidates who do not hold your same world views, no matter the reason. You likely don't know the true reasons. My child was severely damaged within 24 hours of receiving vaccines--it was unquestionably related and medically verified. My life experiences have taken me down a path and led me to where I am now. So I do not deserve to have a job? I have won multiple awards over the years as a testimony to my ability to be a competent and trustworthy rep--and yet, my stance on forced vaccination has not impeded my ability to deliver material to physicians.

Look, you work for a company that took a no-prisoners attitude toward anyone who did not wish to be forced to inject something into their body, and you are clearly ok with that. That's fine. You are likely where you should be, then. All I ask is that you open your mind and try to be introspective as to how you are ascribing characteristics to others that don't deserve them. I followed guidelines in the past, and my child is now brain damaged. I have to live with that. What I should not have to live with is the constant judgement from others that cannot see past their own nose. For the record, an employee at Syneos took the first shot, and was seriously injured from it. That person quite obviously did not want to continue, so submitted a medical exemption under the authority of their doctor. Syneos still terminated that person. Now what if that was you??

 

[anonymous]

Chances of them accepting a vaccine exemption?

Highly doubt it, if nothing else given the # of cases still in courts over wrongful termination.

 

[anonymous]

Looks like they relaxed the vaccine policy finally.

 

[anonymous]

They are probably afraid of all the lawsuits that they are going to have to pay.