Breaking: Australian mom denied heart transplant due to her COVID-19 vaccination status

Getting COVID after you've been vaccinated does not equal "natural immunity".

If you're vaxxed, you have NO natural immunity, no matter how many times you catch "COVID".

originally posted by: SourGrapes
Getting COVID after you've been vaccinated does not equal "natural immunity".

If you're vaxxed, you have NO natural immunity, no matter how many times you catch "COVID".

Once you have been infected and survived primary infection then the show is over for the virus and the immunity through infection is by far superior to that of vaccination which makes only one response against only one antigenic site.

The member who were replying to is peddling official narratives and official propaganda and had his arguments refuted repeatedly.

Natural Immunity gives you the best protection against future infections but mostly against severe disease and death from infection which is likely to happen in the future with new more infectious variants.

Have you heard of someone who has been infected and survived primary infection and then re-infected and died? There could be a handful of cases in the world but it is the most unlikely scenario. Your chances of re-infection that leads to death or severe disease are astronomically small.

The idea of getting vaccinated after getting infected is against the basic principles of immunology and promoted by the vaccine campaign and dogma so to obscure the superiority of natural immunity and eliminate the control group.

Two of the largest studies globally, in California and New York, showed clearly there is no tangible benefit of getting vaccinated after being infected. Actually there is no benefit. The hybrid immunity is just a trick to convince more and more to get vaccinated.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
"From a transplant physicians point of view… the biggest risk to you when we hit your immune system like that if you get Covid-19 without having the vaccine, then there‘s a really significant risk that you’ll die and that organ will die with you,” Dr. Coatsworth said.

"And we don‘t want that to happen to you and we certainly don’t want it to happen to the family whose made that sacred donation. So it is such a complex area. I don’t envy your decision, but I do standby the rules of the transplant physicians have made here.”

So, they just need to sue, and enter the now fully admitted evidence by these same medical professionals that any protection the jabs provide is fleeting, so what are they going to also require her to sign something agreeing to be jabbed periodically for the rest of her life or they will repossess the transplanted heart?

I really want to find out what will happen in this case.

Do they really consider not to perform the surgery if there is a transplant available because she is not vaccinated with the junk by Pfizer and Moderna?!

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Compliant
Did they test her for antibodies, as she may have contracted the virus and acquired that little thing called natural immunity .

No, of course they wouldn’t do that. Immunity only exists once you’ve been injected with MRNA.

Naaaah!

I don't think so.
Just as some vaccine apologists said in other threads prior to vaccinations people couldn't develop a proper immune response and were not even developing antibodies. Vaccinations came to save the world as it seems...

Not even developing a proper immune response eh? and yet, most people had mild symptoms or were (the horror!) asymptomatic. To my mind a poor immune response would leave someone dead or severely ill. Can't imagine what went on with those who were mild or asymptomatic for a whole year before the magic save everyone juice came about.

The ethics violation involved in these cases of people refused transplants is staggering and leaves me questioning the sanity, soul, morality, judgement and humanity of any doctors on board with it.

Is not just unethical but criminal.

Imagine it was you mother or father or let's say someone very close to you.

I am thinking will it be interesting if one writes let's say to the Australian Embassy asks explanations about this colossal f*** up.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Totally circular "logic" and inhumane.

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: chr0naut

To this date, I don't know a single unvaccinated person that has tested positive for COVID more than once.

Most unvaccinated people I know have NOT tested positive, a few have tested positive once with no, or few, symptoms.

People who have been vaccinated but still become infected with COVID-19, and then recover, also have 'natural immunity' (acquired through having the disease and then recovering) - as well as vaccinated immunity.

The Cleveland study showed the best levels of protection after 12 months after infection, was when someone has also has been fully vaccinated.

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine

a reply to: chr0naut

If that's the case, why do vaccinated people get COVID multiple times?

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: chr0naut

To this date, I don't know a single unvaccinated person that has tested positive for COVID more than once.

Most unvaccinated people I know have NOT tested positive, a few have tested positive once with no, or few, symptoms.

I know of one woman who has had COVID twice and only vaccinated after her second bout of COVID had her hospitalized with a heart attack.

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: chr0naut

If that's the case, why do vaccinated people get COVID multiple times?

Because the vaccinations and 'natural immunity' don't always work. Like those on ATS who have posted that they are not vaccinated and have had COVID more than once. Tested positive for Covid again. - Grenade. And here - NightFlight. I can't be bothered looking for the other ones, but they are there.

There can be lots of reasons for breakthrough type infections, like, for instance, a compromised immune system (like from the drugs used to prevent people from rejecting say, a new heart, as would be in the case in the OP of this thread).

I suspect this woman's doctors wanted every possible protection against COVID-19 to be given prior to immune suppressant drugs being administered. Because those anti-rejection drugs really, really, reduce immune response, whatever you want to call it.

If you reduce what is already a negligible immune response (like someone unvaccinated and who has also not had the disease) what do you think might happen?

originally posted by: SourGrapes
Getting COVID after you've been vaccinated does not equal "natural immunity".

If you're vaxxed, you have NO natural immunity, no matter how many times you catch "COVID".

Being vaxxt is like the opposite of natural immunity.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: chr0naut

To this date, I don't know a single unvaccinated person that has tested positive for COVID more than once.

Most unvaccinated people I know have NOT tested positive, a few have tested positive once with no, or few, symptoms.

People who have been vaccinated but still become infected with COVID-19, and then recover, also have 'natural immunity' (acquired through having the disease and then recovering) - as well as vaccinated immunity.

The Cleveland study showed the best levels of protection after 12 months after infection, was when someone has also has been fully vaccinated.

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine

Not really the best news from the link you have provided

Conclusions The bivalent COVID-19 vaccine given to working-aged adults afforded modest protection overall against COVID-19, while the virus strains dominant in the community were those represented in the vaccine.

Summary Among 51011 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% effective in preventing infection, during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine

You are misrepresenting the studies and certainly there is no comparison between natural immunity and vaccine induced immunity. The first is superior to the second one by far.

The 'booster' has a relative effectiveness of 30% in preventing infection which is very low. In absolute terms it is miniscule as these shots cannot prevent infections. Most people vaccinated will get infected as there is no mechanism to prevent the infection.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: chr0naut

If that's the case, why do vaccinated people get COVID multiple times?

Because the vaccinations and 'natural immunity' don't always work. Like those on ATS who have posted that they are not vaccinated and have had COVID more than once. Tested positive for Covid again. - Grenade. And here - NightFlight. I can't be bothered looking for the other ones, but they are there.

There can be lots of reasons for breakthrough type infections, like, for instance, a compromised immune system (like from the drugs used to prevent people from rejecting say, a new heart, as would be in the case in the OP of this thread).

I suspect this woman's doctors wanted every possible protection against COVID-19 to be given prior to immune suppressant drugs being administered. Because those anti-rejection drugs really, really, reduce immune response, whatever you want to call it.

If you reduce what is already a negligible immune response (like someone unvaccinated and who has also not had the disease) what do you think might happen?

You are mistaken about the effectiveness of these products as the relative risk reduction is a very misleading term and you need to use the absolute risk reduction to see how preventative these 'vaccines' are. In the case of the Pfizer mRNA products in the original vaccination efficacy study report the absolute risk reduction was 0.84%

In a few words you have to vaccinate around 119 individuals to prevent one infection which implies that 118 individuals are still getting infected and the 'vaccine' cannot do much to prevent infection.

You don't need to have a compromised immune system to get a 'breakthrough' infection. This is another misleading and made up term. The mRNA products cannot prevent infections in their vast majority of cases.

Likewise for Moderns that had an absolute risk reduction of 1.23%

It seems you still don't understand how these products work.

a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: chr0naut

If that's the case, why do vaccinated people get COVID multiple times?

Because the vaccinations and 'natural immunity' don't always work. Like those on ATS who have posted that they are not vaccinated and have had COVID more than once. Tested positive for Covid again. - Grenade. And here - NightFlight. I can't be bothered looking for the other ones, but they are there.

There can be lots of reasons for breakthrough type infections, like, for instance, a compromised immune system (like from the drugs used to prevent people from rejecting say, a new heart, as would be in the case in the OP of this thread).

I suspect this woman's doctors wanted every possible protection against COVID-19 to be given prior to immune suppressant drugs being administered. Because those anti-rejection drugs really, really, reduce immune response, whatever you want to call it.

If you reduce what is already a negligible immune response (like someone unvaccinated and who has also not had the disease) what do you think might happen?

You are mistaken about the effectiveness of these products as the relative risk reduction is a very misleading term and you need to use the absolute risk reduction to see how preventative these 'vaccines' are. In the case of the Pfizer mRNA products in the original vaccination efficacy study report the absolute risk reduction was 0.84%

In a few words you have to vaccinate around 119 individuals to prevent one infection which implies that 118 individuals are still getting infected and the 'vaccine' cannot do much to prevent infection.

You don't need to have a compromised immune system to get a 'breakthrough' infection. This is another misleading and made up term. The mRNA products cannot prevent infections in their vast majority of cases.

Likewise for Moderns that had an absolute risk reduction of 1.23%

It seems you still don't understand how these products work.

You just previously posted a response to a large clinical study that concluded a 30% effectiveness of the Pfizer bivalent vaccine.

Why would the Moderna vaccine have such a small risk reduction compared to another mRNA virus that targets an immune response to the same spike protein? Where did that 1.23% number you quoted come from, and is the source highly credible?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: SourGrapes
Getting COVID after you've been vaccinated does not equal "natural immunity".

If you're vaxxed, you have NO natural immunity, no matter how many times you catch "COVID".

Being vaxxt is like the opposite of natural immunity.

Why?

Does being vaccinated make you get the disease?

What of the many millions of those who got the disease before there were even any vaccines, and who did not recover, but died? Was the wonder of the natural immune system in evidence there?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: chr0naut

If that's the case, why do vaccinated people get COVID multiple times?

Because the vaccinations and 'natural immunity' don't always work. Like those on ATS who have posted that they are not vaccinated and have had COVID more than once. Tested positive for Covid again. - Grenade. And here - NightFlight. I can't be bothered looking for the other ones, but they are there.

There can be lots of reasons for breakthrough type infections, like, for instance, a compromised immune system (like from the drugs used to prevent people from rejecting say, a new heart, as would be in the case in the OP of this thread).

I suspect this woman's doctors wanted every possible protection against COVID-19 to be given prior to immune suppressant drugs being administered. Because those anti-rejection drugs really, really, reduce immune response, whatever you want to call it.

If you reduce what is already a negligible immune response (like someone unvaccinated and who has also not had the disease) what do you think might happen?

You are mistaken about the effectiveness of these products as the relative risk reduction is a very misleading term and you need to use the absolute risk reduction to see how preventative these 'vaccines' are. In the case of the Pfizer mRNA products in the original vaccination efficacy study report the absolute risk reduction was 0.84%

In a few words you have to vaccinate around 119 individuals to prevent one infection which implies that 118 individuals are still getting infected and the 'vaccine' cannot do much to prevent infection.

You don't need to have a compromised immune system to get a 'breakthrough' infection. This is another misleading and made up term. The mRNA products cannot prevent infections in their vast majority of cases.

Likewise for Moderns that had an absolute risk reduction of 1.23%

It seems you still don't understand how these products work.

You just previously posted a response to a large clinical study that concluded a 30% effectiveness of the Pfizer bivalent vaccine.

Why would the Moderna vaccine have such a small risk reduction compared to another mRNA virus that targets an immune response to the same spike protein? Where did that 1.23% number you quoted come from, and is the source highly credible?

Yes the source is highly credible. But you don't seem to read much of the literature around. Most of your time is spent in engaging in vaccine apologetics, denialism of reality, and defending of the pharmaceuticals. You have actually admitted it on a few occasions in other threads.

Both the Pfizer and Moderna 'vaccines' have very small absolute risk reductions which means you need to vaccinate 119 individuals to prevent one infection with the Pfizer product and about 81 individuals to prevents one infection with the Moderna vaccine.

Make sure you recognise the relative and absolute risk reduction, answering your question. Why do they have such small absolute risk reductions? It's a good question and it's better if you ask Prizer and Moderna....

One is for sure, these products cannot prevent infection and transmission and hence the official narratives of herd immunity and saving the granny have been debunked long time ago.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

In that 30% effectiveness measured in the Cleveland Study, 30% more effective than what?

Ditto for that Moderna figure that you posted (even though I doubt that value), more effective than what?