Letter to the [[willfully ignorant]] Mandating Employer

Hello. Regarding the mandate for all employees. I have several questions on behalf of myself and colleagues that I trust you should be able to answer. If you cannot answer, please simply state such. I hold informed consent and education in high regard and strive to be vigilant of industry-biased and corporation funded “science” that has tarnished aspects and the history of western medicine; therefore, I appreciate the opportunity to address some global concerns. I have also attached references to peer-reviewed articles to add the breadth of data to my inquiry.

The below questions are based on the August 23, 2021 Summary Basis for Regulatory Action – Comirnaty (SBRA) found at https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download as well as the Prescribing Information (PI) found at https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download (a) or https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download (b). Additional supporting documents from the FDA are found at: https://www.fda.gov/vacines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna

First and foremost, as [[this employer]] moves into requiring COVID-19 vaccines for staff, is there a plan to explicitly carry Comirnaty once it is in production? There are currently two vaccines produced by Pfizer. The EUA authorization explicitly states that “As the vaccination provider, you must communicate to the recipient or their caregiver, information consistent with the “Vaccine Information Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers” (and provide a copy or direct the individual to the website www.cvdvaccine.com to obtain the Vaccine Information Fact Sheet) prior to the individual receiving each dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, including: FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which is not an FDA-approved vaccine. The recipient or their caregiver has the option to accept or refuse Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The significant known and potential risks and benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and the extent to which such risks and benefits are unknown (PI(b), p.9-10).”

Next, I’d like to understand your clinical study methodology. It appears that safety and immunogenicity (BNT162-01) was based off a 24-patient sample in Germany (SBRA, p. 15, Table 6). It also states that no control group was used in the same table. Do we believe this methodology was sound and the sample size is adequate in representing our employees? Can you shed some light on how so? I am specifically interested in how a control group doesn’t apply here and how 24 participants from Germany is an adequate sample size for our target population. Again, this was the safety and immunogenicity study, so my concern is that safety took a backseat.

You will also find that study ID C4591001 to evaluate efficacy is ongoing and notes it had a placebo group that was first a dose-finding study, then stratified to include participates at high risk of acquiring COVID-19 for a duration of up to 7 days after the second dose without evidence of prior COVID-19 infection (SBRA, p.16; PI, p.18). I would like some clarity about this 7-day window after the 2nd dose as we have all been told people are not “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after the 2nd dose. I struggle to understand why we adopted 14 days when their efficacy study does not extend past 7 days. How does this short efficacy period justify the unknown risks thereafter?

Further, this study (C4591001) is no longer using a gold-standard placebo as it became unblinded December 14, 2020 and placebo groups were offered the EUA vaccine (SBRA, p.17). Does [[this employer]] find this approach worrisome? The PI(a) has a conflicting timeline and states that the participants were unblinded on December 11, 2020 (p.7). Is this study acceptable to validate the concerns of safety in the short-term for all employees? I can only see that it provides up to 6 months of data, nothing more. According to Peter Doshi, the editor of the BMJ, only 7% of the control group was still considered true placebo at the cutoff of the study by March 13, 2021 yet they were still counted in the placebo arm (https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/23/does-the-fda-think-these-data-justify-the-first-full-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine/).

The plan for Comirnaty’s “risk and associated uncertainties” mitigation is through labeling and postmarketing studies (SBRA, p.24). From what I can tell, this means that data is still unclear and mandating this product is an ethical challenge as people in studies should always be provided with fully informed consent free of coercion. I am sure you are aware that long-term safety data will not be known for several years from any of these products and the safety clinical trials are yet to start for COMIRNATY with an end goal for December 2022 based on the registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04815031. Emergency department employees provide individualized care to our patients, should we also be afforded the same treatment based on our individual health status and our willingness to consent to these yet known risks?

Section 13.1 of the PI(a) states that “Comirnaty has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or impairment of male fertility” (p.15). With the use of a new mRNA technology in humans, one would postulate that genotoxicity and carcinogenicity are important factors to understand or at least evaluate prior to forcing it upon otherwise healthy people? Am I missing something?

My biggest concern is what is looming in the upcoming cold/flu season. We have no data on whether this product will cause antibody-dependent enhancement or “vaccine-associated enhanced disease” or “vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease” (SBRA, p.25) as acknowledged in all previous coronavirus and similar pathogen animal trials:

  1. A Double-Inactivated Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Vaccine Provides Incomplete Protection in Mice and Induces Increased Eosinophilic Proinflammatory Pulmonary Response upon Challenge (https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.06048-11)
  2. Cellular Immune Responses to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) Infection in Senescent BALB/c Mice: CD4+ T Cells Are Important in Control of SARS-CoV Infection (https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01281-09)
  3. Evasion by Stealth: Inefficient Immune Activation Underlies Poor T Cell Response and Severe Disease in SARS-CoV-Infected Mice (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000636)
  4. Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus (https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2016.1177688)
  5. Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets (https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.78.22.12672-12676.2004)
  6. Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035421)
  7. Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtauto.2020.100051)
  8. Structural Basis of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV Antibody Interactions (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2020.09.004)
  9. Two Different Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) Risks for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies (https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.640093)
  10. Vaccine Efficacy in Senescent Mice Challenged with Recombinant SARS-CoV Bearing Epidemic and Zoonotic Spike Variants (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040080)

Was [[this employer]] aware of the problems in these trials prior to this policy change? I fear this outcome for staffing burdens this winter when challenged with similar respiratory pathogens. When faced with increased rates of infection, is it wise to add selective pressures onto these viruses to mutate around our interventions? Can you explain how these biologics do not contribute to immune escape nor cause an explosion of variants? Several world renown virologists hold these concerns forefront and are trying to sound the alarm. I know that [[this employer]] cares about mitigating risk for their employees, so I am wondering if these concerns were addressed or if you can share your position on these matters.

  1. Antibody-dependent enhancement of coronavirus (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.015)
  2. Two Different Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) Risks for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies (https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.640093)
  3. COVID-19 Tragic Pandemic: Concerns over Unintentional “Directed Accelerated Evolution” of Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and Introducing a Modified Treatment Method for ARDS (https://doi.org/10.1002/ctm2.284)
  4. Out of the frying pan and into the fire? Due diligence warranted for ADE in COVID-19 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.06.006)
  5. Antigenic Evolution on a Global Scale Reveals the Potential Natural Selection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 by Pre-existing Cross-Reactive T-Cell Immunity (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.599562)
  6. Structural Basis of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV Antibody Interactions (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2020.09.004)
  7. Health Care Policy Makers’ Response to COVID-19 Pandemic; Pros and Cons of “Flattening the Curve” from the “Selective Pressure” Point of View: A Review (https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v49i6.3356)
  8. Antibody Dependent Enhancement Due to Original Antigenic Sin and the Development of SARS (https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01120)
  9. Review of COVID-19 Variants and COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy: What the Clinician Should Know? (https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr4518)
  10. Is COVID-19 receiving ADE from other coronaviruses? (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.02.006)
  11. Vaccine-associated enhanced disease: Case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.01.055)
  12. Role of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 and its mitigation strategies for the development of vaccines and immunotherapies to counter COVID-19 (https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2020.1796425)
  13. What are the roles of antibodies versus a durable, high quality T-cell response in protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2? (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvacx.2020.100076)
  14. The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant is poised to acquire complete resistance to wild-type spike vaccines (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.22.457114)
  15. Epitope profiling reveals binding signatures of SARS-CoV-2 immune response in natural infection and cross-reactivity with endemic human CoVs (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109164)
  16. Vaccine- and natural infection-induced mechanisms that could modulate vaccine safety (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2020.10.016)
  17. Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV2 spike protein (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250780)

With the clinical trial data cutoff date of March 13, 2021, there was no evaluation of this vaccination against this evolving “Delta” or subsequent variants. We lack supporting evidence to suggest that the biologics modeled off the old mutation has any effect on Delta, as that was not the dominant variant during the study period per the CDC’s own website (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions). Could you provide me with the studies to support a decreased risk of infection for those previously vaccinated in light of the “breakthrough” infections? What is the take on current trends that show vaccinated can contract and spread disease? If this is so, can you clarify how this would be of benefit to [[this employer’s]] staff? We all work with these patients. We have seen the previously vaccinated COVID-positive ICU patient and fear that for ourselves as our risks are greater than the general population. Our risks will always be higher for potential ADE because we work in an environment that is not lacking in respiratory pathogens.

With the initiation of COVID-19 EUA products, have [[this employer’s]] staff had training on the use of VAERS to report adverse events surrounding vaccine administration or “breakthrough” infections that has now shifted to a health department data collection? This is mandated by the CDC and FDA, but I have met several providers and nurses that have never heard the term “VAERS” or Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, much less input any data into it. VAERS has been inundated with data that is unmonitored and ill organized since the use of the COVID-19 EUA products (https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html?). If [[this employer]] evaluated these tools prior to the policy change, can this be shared with fellow employees? Since this is a policy mandate, will [[this employer]] accept any responsibility for negative health outcomes of those they mandated to take these products? As this policy seemingly removes personal choice, I was also wondering if there were any arbitration or mediation clauses that would impede a formal litigation process.

As far as efficacy, Comirnaty’s package insert explicitly states in Section 5.5 that it “may not protect all vaccine recipients” (PI(a), p.6) which is also reiterated on the FDA website. Since the US has not provided transparent data, we must use the United Kingdom’s data as it is organized by age, vaccination status, genomic sequencing of variant, and deaths in each group. The most recent is found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1012644/Technical_Briefing_21.pdf, though there should be an additional update soon.

The groups suffering the most are above age 50. Delta is shown to be very contagious; however, the case-fatality rate for the Delta variant, of most concern currently, is the most interesting portion (p. 22-23). Fully vaccinated more than 14 days has 679 total deaths in a population of 73,372 total cases. This is a case-fatality rate of 0.93%. Compared to the unvaccinated that have a total death toll of 390 in a population of 183,133 which is a 0.21% case-fatality. So, with this data in mind, who is at more risk of adverse outcome? While unvaccinated have contracted more disease, the severity of the outcome (death) is not as high as those previously vaccinated. Is this data indicating vaccine-associated enhanced disease or am I mistaken? I have not seen any convincing arguments to the contrary and was hoping you held a different perspective on this data because its implications are grave.

Update: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1014926/Technical_Briefing_22_21_09_02.pdf The update follows the same trend with the following:
Vaccinated 14 days post-dose 2: Cases 113,823 with Deaths 1,091 (calculated case-fatality rate of 0.96%)
Unvaccinated: Cases 219,716 with Deaths: 536 (calculated case-fatality rate of 0.24%)

I am concerned that healthcare organizations are rushing to place these policies on their staff without solid scientific evidence, as it is not yet available. Why has mandating become acceptable when, even as nurses and providers, we are to give informed consent to our patients? Is our consent inferior to that of our patients? Can personal responsibility apply to these health choices? The following studies are a warning of the risks outweighing the benefits of vaccination and considerations for natural immunity. The great news is that your employees have spent countless hours in the presence of COVID-19 patients and may already have superior protection.

  1. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy (https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070693)
  2. Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100354)
  3. SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03647-4)
  4. Longitudinal observation of antibody responses for 14 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clim.2021.108814)
  5. Is a COVID-19 vaccine developed by nature already at work? (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110335)
  6. What are the roles of antibodies versus a durable, high quality T-cell response in protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2? (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvacx.2020.100076)
  7. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection after natural infection (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00662-0)

I do not know all the details surrounding or informing this policy, but things are not adding up. Please do your best to support counterpoints with references like I have provided for you here. This is a serious discussion and has major implications for the individual and we need these answers.

Thank you for your time,

“just a nurse”

Delta Variant Derangement

Prepare to be triggered.

Could we please do some actual RESEARCH? Let’s step back and review. We have been gaslighting the people injured by Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J products for the better part of the last year while NOT COLLECTING DATA APPROPRIATELY. It is mind boggling that nurses and doctors still do not know VAERS or its use. VAERS is written all over the EUA disclosures for Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J. How have these professions become willfully ignorant to this whole process? How has the medical community allowed such propaganda to permeate their systems?

Since the U.S. cannot collect data and share it openly with the public, let’s look across the pond for those “variant” trends… Though I’d really like to see overall hospital and emergency care admitting diagnoses broken down like this so we can compare severity of illness; however, the death category will do.


You’re fully capable of making up your own mind.
Cases = contagion. Death = lethality.

By now, most people recognize that Israel is the most vaccinated population due to their early deal with Pfizer. So, how does that data stack up against South Korea with their early treatment strategy and our U.S. floundering? Is there a trend? Or maybe its multifaceted, since contact tracing and isolation were heavily used. We do not quite know what the long-term outcome will be of their early success stories… Some virologists believe that isolated countries painted themselves into a corner and will now be subject to the most lethal variant instead of the first one that did not have a chance to mutate, yet confers broad immunity.

Now let’s review the cases, shall we?

Perhaps, the biologics are not as glamorous as the media touts? The U.S. had a downward trend before the mass campaigns with a little upswing commencing just as the nation’s biggest corporations and health systems are mulling around the idea of mandated medicine. Not so great when you consider man-made antigenic shift.

And, Israel and South Korea’s death data is almost identical regardless of population uptake of these biologics with that little bump right around the time of their jab campaigns. So where is the efficacy? Must all be a coincidence. I am curious to see if we will ever get passed ignoring VAERS data? You can clearly see red flags from the size of the files. Can we please fast-forward to the part when we admit pharmaceutical failure? No, it is not “breakthrough” cases. IT IS FAILURE. Call it like it is and stop with the doublespeak.

Scientists did not know whether these biologics would stop transmission but they concluded that your symptoms would be “less severe” when they deployed it back in November 2020. Wait. Think about that. Making someone’s symptoms LESS SEVERE just breached a huge defense mechanism in humans. When your symptoms are “severe,” you tend to stay home and take extra care of yourself without exposing others to whatever you have… most times. If, now, you don’t feel so bad then you are more likely to go about your day exposing everyone else (plus, not taking extra measures to boost your own health). This biologic, at the very least, just made YOU the oh-so-silent spreader of that virus. Think it through. Do not shift blame to those with a normally functioning immune system in response to this particular illness, if it really is “more severe” for them. Further, most people do not see temporary illness as worst case. You cannot be free of illness as a member of this ecosystem.

If you want your symptoms to be less, be our guest. Let’s just make crystal clear that you are not some virtuous human saver as compared to other humans who chose the precautionary principle. You are not allowed to force your emotions on others or treat them differently because they did not want to subject themselves to these products. That’s called DISCRIMINATION and it has no place in a free society. Health-related passports are a slippery slope, just like mandated medicine. We should ALL be alarmed that any human being has lesser rights based on what governments/institutions say, eh?

If we learned at least one thing from Nazi Medical Experiments (and others!), I hope it was that informed consent is the cornerstone of medicine. You cannot take someone’s free will and bodily autonomy from them and force them into experimentation. Period. There are also consent bounds when it comes to routine procedures and medical care. Where there are risks there must always be freedom of choice.

Shalom, light, and love…

Separating Education from Indoctrination

I don’t know about you, but I did not want this.

I did not devote years of my life to health, science, healing, and wellness to be attacked, ridiculed, judged, and labeled.

I did not spend thousands of hours studying health sciences to graduate at the top of my class THREE TIMES to be discredited for my experiences and knowledge about these topics.

I did not dedicate countless hours of my time reading government websites, pharmaceutical documents, peer-reviewed studies, and systematic reviews to be ignored, silenced, rejected, and censored.

I did not want this, but my conscience will not let me ignore my experiences.

I was once indoctrinated. I was taught the vaccine schedule and what infections were covered in those vaccines. I was briefly shown herd immunity. I was informed that “vaccines [were] safe and effective.” I had no reason to question otherwise, and if others did so, they lacked the capacity to understand “the science.” That is what I was, and many others are, indoctrinated to believe.

I was not taught about vaccine efficacy rates or failure. Vaccines were not a focus in immunology, though some processes signaled theories of their supposed actions. Vaccine-targeted bacteria and viruses were not thoroughly explored in microbiology alike other microbes. Vaccines were not covered in pharmacology, where adverse events were always attached to studied drugs. Vaccines did not come with adverse events. There was no mention of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and I was not familiar with this passive avenue of compiling population data through post-marketing surveillance as clinical trials are of short duration (some only FOUR days… e.g., Hep B vaccine).

As a foundation, colleges require you to learn concepts without challenging the information. As you dive deeper into the sciences, you find that challenging theory is vital to the fluid nature of science. We still discover new things about the evolving biome/virome and what humans have done to help or hinder the health of populations (e.g., the implications of antibiotic overuse, tobacco science, and the low-fat/high sugar “heart health” diet in light of the obesity crisis… just to name a few). We see changes in human health and must consider contributing factors to find solutions. Current research in epigenetics, the gut-brain connection, and functional medicine are challenging long-held theories surrounding health and wellness.

I have made up for gaps in school. I have explored the evidence-based practice, how to read scientific studies, how to check for bias, and have challenged mainstream ideas in the classroom with success. I have pulled the studies from databases and notice a trend. Glowing reports of vaccine efficacy always contain a bias as they are usually funded by vaccine manufacturers and government agencies that promote them. Those researchers that challenge the data and ask the hard questions rarely have a government funding source, are never tied to the pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines, and declare no conflicts of interest. Funny how that works, eh?

That being said, we all have biases that need worked through. Our experiences, including formal education, can create these biases. We can be taught to hold certain entities in high regard, but we must be careful not to be blinded to their failures or misrepresentation of data. We must hold them accountable.

I do not think that there is a conspiracy surrounding the childhood vaccination program. I do not believe vaccine manufacturers intended to injure children. At the same time, we have got to recognize that vaccine manufacturers are the same companies that create other pharmaceuticals. If you know anything about FDA regulation and drug testing, you know that there is a price, harm still occurs after the screening of new drugs, and there are regular recalls. You know that medical journals are filled with shady science promoting new medications that are funded by the companies producing those drugs. The clinical trials involved in the manufacturing of vaccines are lesser than those demanded of the FDA for prescribed medications. Fact-Check this; clinical trials are included in manufacturing inserts for vaccines that are required by law.

My take on these issues is that an unintentional loophole was created with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 that freed manufacturers from liability and guaranteed a market for vaccines that are recommended for the U. S. Vaccine Schedule. When your vaccine is approved for the schedule, you have secured revenue. The fiscal incentive for more vaccines is high in a developed country.

In 1983, there were seven total vaccine doses. In 2019, there are over 70 throughout childhood, with 22 doses concentrated in the first 12-15 months of life in the U.S. We also have an embarrassing infant (0-12 month) mortality rate as compared to other developed AND developing nations (we rank in the 50s)!

List of countries that have LOWER infant death rates than the U. S.

According to the most recent data, the 4th leading cause of death in the first year is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). SIDS is unexplained death that is not the result of congenital anomalies, maternal/pregnancy complications, or gestation-related causes. If we remove congenital, maternal, pregnancy, gestation from the death table, SIDS will rank #1! Sadly, we spend next to nothing on SIDS research as compared to vaccine spending. On top of that, spending on SIDS research was slashed by almost half from 2017 to 2018! Governments are the largest funding source for R&D, and the largest investment category worldwide is Vaccine Research and Development. The CDC claims vaccines aren’t the cause of SIDS; however, SIDS has no explained cause so that statement is a fallacy. Why would the CDC go against their own vaccine recommendations? They wouldn’t. That is why all their supporting SIDS studies contain glaring conflicts of interest (as they are generated internally), not to mention: outdated.

CDC SIDS Articles

Where your money goes, there lie your interests. Infant mortality in the U.S. is not the result of infectious diseases, yet that is where the money is spent. We have “no idea” why infants suddenly die, yet we aren’t interested in finding out why? Every year, roughly 2,500 babies born in the U.S. die before age one for unknown causes when you remove strangulation/suffocation from the data. Scientific processes allow people to find out the cause of death for a mummy buried over 4,000 years ago, but we cannot do the same for a baby that dies today. Let that sink in.

I do not think there is a conspiracy, but I do believe that these health agencies feel they have gone too far to turn back. They have sold us to their dogma of “vaccines are safe and effective” that is slathered all over government websites. If the childhood vaccine program fails, several people lose trust in government programs that seek to do some good. The challenge is identifying when data is misrepresented due to strong biases. It takes a level of commitment and discomfort (cognitive dissonance) when you seek education and put your biases aside. There is a lot on the line when you challenge the science of vaccines, but without conflict there cannot be progress. We have conflict because we demand progress. Never stop demanding progress.

Shalom, light, and love.


Sites to Consider:

This One Is for the Nurses, Everyday

As Nurses Week rolls around each year, we always come upon those inspirational quotes that show the heart of nursing or the altruistic values that (we hope) drives all nurses into the career. We pat each other on the back and administration provides gifts and food to the staff. For that week, we get a passing “Happy Nurses Week!” or “Thank you for what you do!” from staff and even the patients and their families. For that week, we get recognition for the care we provide to our patients and their families. This week is not enough.

No, I don’t think we often deserve praise. I think of this week quite differently. I believe this week is when nurses look for meaning in their careers. They are grounded again. Nurses need to remember their intentions more than once a year. In a career of burn-out, we need to be reminded of the spirit of nursing frequently. How is your attitude? Do you check it regularly? Is your mentality affecting patient care? Does your mood influence your team? Are you impacting them positively or negatively? What do you do to ground yourself again? Is burn-out rampant in your facility? What are you doing to avoid burn-out in yourself?

Sometimes I catch myself sighing at a patient’s chief complaint or thinking “You’re fine. Go home.” What I do when this happens is: I imagine this is a family member of mine. How would I want them to be treated? I want to be sure nothing is wrong, so I work hard to gather all the necessary information for the doctor to diagnose the patient promptly. I don’t wait. I get it done. Time can wreak havoc on nerves and delaying care can be detrimental to outcomes.

Next, I make the patient comfortable. I remind myself that the emergency department can be a scary place. Sometimes, we think it is their favorite place to be. Maybe that is true for a few, but we still provide the same care. We do it with a smile even when the patient is berating, pushy, or rude. We do it with a genuine smile when the patient is scared, good-intentioned, and kind. We do it for everyone, including family members. We sit and explain what is happening to calm fears or worries. We remove ourselves emotionally when things don’t work out.

During tragic events, we put on a mask so that we can still provide care to others. We protect patient privacy and guard our hearts. I remind myself of those situations when I find myself low in the compassion tank. Nurses have funny ways of coping, don’t mistake these ways as the core of their being. We have inside jokes and try to make each other laugh. We get annoyed with each other and drown ourselves in work. We are still people.

We are people who put our children in the care of strangers to go and care for strangers. We are people who leave our families to comfort yours. We are strong for patients when our personal lives fall apart. Some of the best people I’ve met are nurses, and for all that we experience, I believe nurses must be reminded of their core values more than once a year.

I will close with my nursing philosophy that I drafted over eight years ago… It is a bit wordy, but I still read it from time to time. I have since changed my philosophy, as I am continually growing. Take care of yourself and remind yourself of what placed you in this role! Inspire yourself regularly and seek to inspire others.

Previous (left) vs Present (right). A perpetual work-in-progress.


Shalom, light, and love.