Unvaccinated woman denied organ transplant proves natural immunity in bid for life-saving procedure

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes that's what happens when you deny people live saving necessities.  They die.

 

What rot. She is denying herself for no other reason than to make a point.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Some 20000 Canadians unnecessarily died as a result of vaccine misinformation.

In there meantime not one death has been officially attributed to vaccine in Canada.

neither of those statements is true. There have been  number of vaccine related deaths and there's not 20,000 who died of covid misinformation.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-covid-astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clot-death-1.6015535

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-health-canada-deems-400-deaths-after-receiving-covid-vaccine-low

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, Aristides said:

What rot. She is denying herself for no other reason than to make a point.

THey are the ones saying no. That's an active decision on their part. She qualified and was on the list - they decided that because they don't like her thinking they would deny her what she was entitled to.

Sorry - you can't excuse that by blaming the victim. This was all discussed and settled when the same issues surrounded "voluntary" sterilization with the first nations women. People make medical decisions and they should be respected, you shouldn't be FORCED to take a medical treatment you don't want to.

[WestCanMan]

25 minutes ago, herbie said:

No they don't have to say it out loud, they can just prove they would say it by still being anti-vaxxers.

So now he didn't say it out loud, but he didn't get the vax so it's the same thing? 

?

Quote

BTW the whole rest of the world knows about HGTV and channels like it dedicated to how to improve your house and increase its value. Keep speaking up and removing all doubt, simpleton.

Yes, people do renovations which drastically increase the value of their homes. 

No, people don't triple the value of their houses by renovating them. Tht's not a thing.

Quote

Once I bought 5 acres for $10K, the assessed value didn't go up for 10 years. I cut all the marketable trees, cleared it and sold them to a mill. Sold it the next year for $25K just over the new assessment. And pocketed over $25K on the wood. Made $50K out of $10K but I suppose that can't possibly be done either.

I believe that many people did that. I know of one person who did something similar in Barriere, BC.

Sorry but I think that you're telling someone else's story though. Your knowledge of home values just isn't high enough.

My advice to you is to look at your credit rating on equifax or transunion, see what's on there that you can clear up, get a prepaid CC, use it but pay it off every month, pay all of your bills precisely on time for a few years, open a First Home Savings Account, and contribute the max to your RRSPs. 

You won't be able to buy a home in TO for twenty years unless you make good dough, but you can make/save enough to buy a condo in a smaller town within a few years. 

Maybe not your dream, but you probably wanna be mtg-free by the time you retire. Even if you plan to inherit, you should still do what I mentioned, passive income is never a bad thing. 

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

THey are the ones saying no. That's an active decision on their part. She qualified and was on the list - they decided that because they don't like her thinking they would deny her what she was entitled to.

Sorry - you can't excuse that by blaming the victim. This was all discussed and settled when the same issues surrounded "voluntary" sterilization with the first nations women. People make medical decisions and they should be respected, you shouldn't be FORCED to take a medical treatment you don't want to.

She is the one saying no. That is an active decision on her part.

She isn't entitled to anything more than anyone else. If I was a donor, I would want my organ to go to someone who appreciated it more. Someone who thought my sacrifice was more important than their ego.

She is not a victim, she is an activist trying to make a point. Screw her if she wants to put conditions on the gift of life she has been offered.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Dies of what? 

If you're saying covid, that's obviously a lie, because there weren't 20,000 unvaxed deaths since Dec 14 2020. Maybe m-vaxed, but I doubt it. 

20000 was a mistake I should have said 2800 Canadians died unnecessarily due to vaccine misinformation. In the US as much as a third of their death toll could have been prevented if people hadn't ignored good information and instead subscribed to misinformation.

Quote

 

COVID misinformation may have caused thousands of deaths in Canada: report

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/covid-misinformation-thousands-of-deaths-report

 

 

Quote

 

How vaccine misinformation made the COVID-19 death toll worse

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099070400/how-vaccine-misinformation-made-the-covid-19-death-toll-worse

 

 

[eyeball]

And in the meantime there has still not been a single death officially attributed to the COVID vaccine in Canada despite claims to the contrary.  

Quote

 

Canada now has 400 reported deaths...

...Health Canada reports “though these (400) deaths occurred after being vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine, they are not necessarily related to the vaccine.”

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-health-canada-deems-400-deaths-after-receiving-covid-vaccine-low

 

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Yes that's what happens when you deny people live saving necessities.  They die.

It also happens when you choose to not get with the program.

Quote

Yes, that's what it's called when you harm someone out of ideology because you disagree strongly with them rather than science or facts.

So you know for a fact this is entirely due to the ideology and hatred of the surgeons? 

Quote

Of course they are.  Hell even here we've got people admitting they'd rather see someone die because they disagree with their choices. There's no medical reason for the policy. the gov't decided early on that people who didn't get vaxxed were bad people and have gone out of their way to be punitive.

Yes but you're attributing this to her surgeons.

Quote

Policy - but where does the policy come from? It doesn't just appear. It's not driven by medical science, so what's it driven by?

Not bitter spite that's for sure.

Quote

The medical bureaucrats have been clear that they hate the unvaxed. Not just disagree but out and out deteest them.  And things like Trudeau's rant about how these people are a 'waste of space' and 'shouldn't be tolerated' give them license to exercise their bias.

Hate the vaxxed.... ?

Trudeau was talking specifically about people who deliberately spread vaccine disinformation.  I think as many as can be reasonably held liable should be sued for damages.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

She is the one saying no. That is an active decision on her part.

No. She is not.  She's saying she wants the operation. She has qualified for the treatment and priority.  She is NOT the one saying no.

They are the ones saying 'we have decided to take this choice away form you because we disagree with a choice you made in the past."

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

She isn't entitled to anything more than anyone else.

And anyone else would be entitled to the treatment. She was already on the list and already prioritized. And there is no medical reason for this decision.  Just give her the same as anyone else would get.

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

She is not a victim,

Of course she is. She is being threatened with death unless she does what she is ordered to at the whim of others. Theres no medical reason for it, its just vindictive.  "You made an unrelated decision which we disagree with. You shall be punished'"

Think very carefully about this. If we establish that it's ok to withthold medical treatment because we don't like others'  decisions - where does that stop? Can we order our EMR's to not treat drug patients and revive them because we disapprove of their drug habits? Can we order doctors not to do aboritons on moral grounds and screw the rights of the woman. Can we withhold medicine from people who marched in a rally the gov't doesn't like?

THe woman has decided she wants this treatment, the woman has qualified for the treatment, the woman only asks for what others would get.  But without medical reason, others have decided that they don't like other decisions she's made so she must die.

That's not ok

[Hodad]

That is absolutely a fair reason to deny someone a transplant, and it has nothing to do with her current level of immunity. The temporary immunity is irrelevant. The issue is the decision making. 

• Transplant organs are precious. They should be allocated first to people with demonstrable capacity to invest in and care for their health--and by extension that precious organ. 
• The guy who slipped up and had just one drink at his high school reunion? Fark you. Back of the line. Give the organ to someone who is more invested.
• The person who stopped smoking, except for that one really stressful day. Fark you. Back of the line. Give the organ to someone who is more invested.
• The person who won't take the meds to control blood sugar or cholesterol? Fark you. Back of the line. Give the organ to someone who is more invested.
• The woman who won't get a simple vaccination that will make her about 5x less likely to be hospitalized or die from the ongoing pandemic?  Fark her. Back of the line. Give it to someone who is more invested.  -- And double fark her for being incautious enough to already contract it twice. She'll get it again. She is demonstrably incautious.

That may sound harsh--and it is--but it's also right. Transplant patients aren't entitled to an extra organ. There's a line of people waiting for the precious gift of borrowed life. And those gifts must be managed and allocated responsibly, and that means ensuring they go to the people who are going to treat that borrowed life with the care and respect befitting such a gift. No slackers, no exceptions. And if a person can't demonstrate an adequate level of care then there is someone behind them in line who has done the work and checked the boxes who will be happy to take the spot.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Hodad

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It also happens when you choose to not get with the program.

Right - if you choose to make your OWN decisions and they disagree with those decisions they may kill you.

You realize that's a bad thing right?

48 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So you know for a fact this is entirely due to the ideology and hatred of the surgeons? 

Sure. Why not.  But it's not the surgeons that are refusing. The beurocrats and politicians set the policy, and they've made their positions clear.

48 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes but you're attributing this to her surgeons.

where did i say surgeons?

48 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not bitter spite that's for sure.

For sure.

48 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Hate the vaxxed.... ?

Trudeau was talking specifically about people who deliberately spread vaccine disinformation.  I think as many as can be reasonably held liable should be sued for damages.

He was very clear that he was not.  He was QUITE specific.  But - then we knew you prefer to rewrite history when it doesn't suit you

[OftenWrong]

Canada still has about 1000 - 2000 cases and 100 deaths per day of covid. I checked it online.

And yet, the whole "get vaccinated or else!" campaign is gone. I'd like to know how you vaccine mandate lovers reconcile with those facts.

Don't forget 1000 cases per day is 7000/week. It is 30,000 per month. So get in line.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No. She is not.  She's saying she wants the operation. She has qualified for the treatment and priority.  She is NOT the one saying no.

They are the ones saying 'we have decided to take this choice away form you because we disagree with a choice you made in the past."

And anyone else would be entitled to the treatment. She was already on the list and already prioritized. And there is no medical reason for this decision.  Just give her the same as anyone else would get.

Of course she is. She is being threatened with death unless she does what she is ordered to at the whim of others. Theres no medical reason for it, its just vindictive.  "You made an unrelated decision which we disagree with. You shall be punished'"

Think very carefully about this. If we establish that it's ok to withthold medical treatment because we don't like others'  decisions - where does that stop? Can we order our EMR's to not treat drug patients and revive them because we disapprove of their drug habits? Can we order doctors not to do aboritons on moral grounds and screw the rights of the woman. Can we withhold medicine from people who marched in a rally the gov't doesn't like?

THe woman has decided she wants this treatment, the woman has qualified for the treatment, the woman only asks for what others would get.  But without medical reason, others have decided that they don't like other decisions she's made so she must die.

That's not ok

I have thought about it. She has a hell of a sense of entitlement. This isn't withholding treatment, it is taking responsibility for a priceless gift. Doctors won't give a lung transplant to someone who won't quit smoking or a liver transplant to someone who won't quit drinking. Drug abuse can also result in damage to organs, why waste one on someone who will just destroy it again. No one is entitled to someone else's body parts. 

She wants to dictate the qualifications to receive an organ and that is not her right. Her opinions are irrelevant .

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I have thought about it. She has a hell of a sense of entitlement.

yes, how DARE she exercise her right to determine whether or not to have a medical treatment.

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 

This isn't withholding treatment,

well it is. That part is undesputed. They are withholding treatment.

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

it is taking responsibility for a priceless gift. Doctors won't give a lung transplant to someone who won't quit smoking or a liver transplant to someone who won't quit drinking.

And what is  she refusing to quit? She doesn't have covid, she has the antibodies of a vaccinated person and there are plenty of ways to address covid without vaccines. There is no medical reason for this.

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 

Drug abuse can also result in damage to organs, why waste one on someone who will just destroy it again.

But she isn't abusing drugs. Is she. She's healthy as a horse - she was on the list already.

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 

No one is entitled to someone else's body parts. 

Sure they are.  In this country if someone is an organ donor it goes to the next person on the list.

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

She wants to dictate the qualifications to receive an organ and that is not her right. Her opinions are irrelevant .

She met the qualifications. THis is arbitrary.

I don't think you realize what this means. When it gets used in a manner you disapprove of, and it will if this is precedent, then you'll scream to the heavens how unfair it is. But it will be too late at that point.

This is no different than "not forcing" first nations women to get sterlized or give up their children. This is morallly repugnant.

[Aristides]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

yes, how DARE she exercise her right to determine whether or not to have a medical treatment.

well it is. That part is undesputed. They are withholding treatment.

She is exercising that right. They are withholding an organ. She has no right to it.

Quote

And what is  she refusing to quit? She doesn't have covid, she has the antibodies of a vaccinated person and there are plenty of ways to address covid without vaccines. There is no medical reason for this.

Has she been checked for antibodies? She is not qualified to determine medical reasons. Neither are you, or I for that matter.

Quote

 

But she isn't abusing drugs. Is she. She's healthy as a horse - she was on the list already.

 

 

 

If she is healthy as a horse, why does she need an organ?

Quote

Sure they are.  In this country if someone is an organ donor it goes to the next person on the list.

Only if they meet the criteria for receiving the organ.

Quote

She met the qualifications. THis is arbitrary.

No it isn't, every recipient has to meet the same criteria. 

Quote

This is no different than "not forcing" first nations women to get sterlized or give up their children. This is morallly repugnant.

Don't be ridiculous.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

She is exercising that right. They are withholding an organ. She has no right to it.

of course she does. She has every right to it in a public health system.  EVERYONE has the right to equal access . That's the law. Which is why this is going to court.

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Has she been checked for antibodies? She is not qualified to determine medical reasons. Neither are you, or I for that matter.

The doctors who checked her are. Read the story.

On March 29, Lewis provided her Alberta Transplant Program doctors with a privately funded medical report, known as the Kinexus Report, establishing her natural immunity to Covid-19. 

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If she is healthy as a horse, why does she need an organ?

Because her organ is failing.  If you're deciding to be deliberately obtuse or stupid then maybe just stop while you still have a shred of credibility.  She's fine other than that and had already been accepted into the program.

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Only if they meet the criteria for receiving the organ.

She does - she was already accepted into the program.

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

No it isn't, every recipient has to meet the same criteria. 

She does. SHe was accepted into the program.

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Don't be ridiculous.

It is the absolute truth. Suddenly you're uncomfortable with 'compelling' people to submit to medical proceedures against their will as a condition of access to their lawful benefits.  Imagine that

It's the same thing, You are NO different than the doctors who did that to those women. You are on the wrong side of history here, think carefully about what this kind of thing means and take  a step back.

I get that you aren't going to want to admit being wrong here. That's fine. But while you're offline THINK about it. She has done nothing wrong, she is at no risk from covid any more than anyone else and has proof. And they are denying her because she disagreed with them and THEY feel that they know what she should have done better than her for non medical reasons. Do you WANT that kind of thing to be precedent? Is it ok to pressure people to take medical treatments they don't want to do and threaten them otherwise.

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-health-canada-deems-400-deaths-after-receiving-covid-vaccine-low

That article paints such a gross picture of Health Canada.

1.

Quote

But Dan Hartman, father of 17-year-old Ontario hockey player Sean Hartman who died 33 days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine after being assessed in hospital for a rash, sore shoulder and rings around his eyes, said he’s hopeful the new numbers encourage governments to drill down on ensuring vaccine safety.

And...

Quote

Hartman said his son Sean’s autopsy determined the cause of his Sept. 27, 2021 death as “unascertained,” 

When the problems start right after vaxing, in the area of the shot, and then proceed from there to sickness and death "of an inexplicable nature" in one month, what exactly does unascertained mean in that scenario?

Does it mean that they have no clue what killed him or does it it mean that they just don't know how the vaccine killed him? 

Fine, if they wanna go that route, and just leave it as “unascertained”, let them have it but never, ever this:

Quote

“Evidence indicates that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines continue to outweigh the risks of the disease,” Health Canada states in its new adverse reaction update. 

That's absolute BS. There's not one shred of evidence that has ever been presented that 'indicates' that any risk at all is necessary to "protect" healthy young people. 

1) Healthy young people don't die of covid, and

2) The vaccine doesn't prevent infection, so

3) Young people don't need it at all and the population doesn't benefit at all from vaxing them.

 

Health Canada needs to either stop pimping the vax on children or they need to tell us what covid is doing to kids that we don't know about, because to the naked eye, unvaxed healthy, young people fare perfectly well vs covid. The stats have shown that since the very first months of this.

 

As a parent, it's one thing if your kid is just the random 1 in 50 million who dies of a disease that no one else (in their health demo) dies of. I would never beat myself up over that. It's just a bat virus that went through a pangolin, right? That's just super duper bad luck. If I decided that he should take it, in the face of a 1 in 50M risk, and putting that serum into his body killed him, I would bear the responsibility of his murder myself. 

Health Canada really needs to sell me on more than a 1/50M risk for a healthy young person, because that's what it is right now. Healthy young people just do not die of covid. 

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Right - if you choose to make your OWN decisions and they disagree with those decisions they may kill you.

You realize that's a bad thing right?

When a pedant cocks up his English we need to dig a little deeper to understand wtf they're talking about.

I realize on some level you know it's the consequences of her choice that will kill her but on some other level you need to demonstrate that force is being applied so you pin her death on her surgeons.

You realize that's a stupid thing right?

Quote

Sure. Why not.  But it's not the surgeons that are refusing. The beurocrats and politicians set the policy, and they've made their positions clear.

where did i say surgeons?

Your OP, and you've clearly cited their ideology hatred and bitter spite as well.  You've made it pretty clear there's a lot more than just policy involved here.

Quote

He was very clear that he was not.  He was QUITE specific.  But - then we knew you prefer to rewrite history when it doesn't suit you

Bullshit. Put up or shut up.

Quote

 

Fact Check-Canadian Prime Minister did not publish message encouraging the social rejection of unvaccinated people

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-canada-prime-minister-message-idUSL1N2UC1ZZ

 

 

[Aristides]

No one has a right to an organ, nor do they get to set their own criteria for receiving one.

We will just have to see what the court says.

[Moonbox]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

of course she does. She has every right to it in a public health system.  EVERYONE has the right to equal access . That's the law. Which is why this is going to court.

It already did go to court, and she lost.  Then it went to the Alberta appeals court, and she lost again.  The basis for Alberta Appeals decision suggests her case at the Supreme Court will fail as well (or not even get heard).  The Alberta Appeals court made clear that they have no interest in subjecting clinical decisions to Charter scrutiny in the first place, but they also rejected each of Lewis' claims individually for good measure. 

Here we have an overweight 57 year old woman with double-lung failure, refusing vaccination for a severe and highly contagious respiratory illness, prior to an organ transplant that will place her in an immune-compromised state.  

Just like alcoholics get refused transplants (and not just for liver transplants), there are a host of co-morbidities and factors to consider here, and the clinical decision was made that this woman's choices and her medical history altered the utility/equity calculus made in the transplant decision. 

Keep in mind, there are likely two people on waitlists for single-lung transplants hoping for their lives to be saved.  Wasting two good organs on a poor-risk case potentially compromises (or altogether ends) the lives of two better cases.  

Edited April 27, 2023 by Moonbox

[Aristides]

 

Why she pursues this while her condition continues to deteriorate is beyond me. She may not even survive to see the end of the court cases. She needs a shrink as well as a surgeon.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

 

Why she pursues this while her condition continues to deteriorate is beyond me. She may not even survive to see the end of the court cases. She needs a shrink as well as a surgeon.

She needs information not misinformation.

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

She needs information not misinformation.

I would remind all her cheerleaders, it is easy to be a crusader when it is someone else's life at stake. 

What do they care more about, her life or their own anti vax agenda?

Edited April 27, 2023 by Aristides

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

When the problems start right after vaxing, in the area of the shot, and then proceed from there to sickness and death "of an inexplicable nature" in one month, what exactly does unascertained mean in that scenario?

It means we've politicized these matters to the extent that we are f ucked.

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

It means we've politicized these matters to the extent that we are f ucked.

Wow, I'm scheduled for my 6th on Monday. Why am I still above ground?