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

a reply to: Asmodeus3

None of that matters, the vaccine is infinitely safer than an actual COVID-19 infection.

Vaccine = safe
COVID-19 = not safe

In all circumstances without qualification.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

None of that matters, the vaccine is infinitely safer than an actual COVID-19 infection.

Vaccine = safe
COVID-19 = not safe

In all circumstances without qualification.

This is just an unsubstantiated claims of yours and an assertion that has never been proven to be correct. Details matter quote a lot by the way.

The harms have been cause by the vaccine are notable. Including deaths.

As a result the State of Florida has issued a major health warning and it doesn't longer recommend these products for those who are young and healthy due to the serious adverse reactions they could cause and have caused.

The State of Idaho is trying to criminalise the administration of these dangerous products for the obvious reasons. They are trying to pass a bill that it will make it a minor offense to administer these mRNA pseudo-vaccines in the State.

The UK has made these products no longer available for anyone under the age of 50. The correct decision but rather too late.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Sounds like more political arguments to me.

Politicians pass laws, not medical and scientific professionals.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Sounds like more political arguments to me.

Politicians pass laws, not medical and scientific professionals.

These are realities I am afraid that are not very convenient for those who believe blindly in these 'vaccines' and the mass vaccinations. Clearly the product is not safe and effective and slowly will be withdrawn from the market just as the Astrazeneca vaccine was withdrawn.


Professor Retsef Levi MIT

By now I believe that the cumulative evidence is conclusive and confirms our concern that the mRNA vaccines indeed cause sudden cardiac arrest as a sequel of vaccine-induced myocarditis

And finally, autopsies of people that die closely after they receive the vaccine indicate that with the enlarged number of cases, there is strong evidence that the death was caused by vaccine-induced myocarditis.

So presented with all of this evidence, I think that there is no other ethical or scientific choice but to pull out of the market these medical products and stop all the mRNA vaccination programmes. This is clearly the most failing medical product in the history of medical products, both in terms of efficacy and safety. And we need to investigate and think hard: How did we end up in a situation that it’s also the most profitable medical product in the history of medical products?

Probably the most failed and dangerous medical product in history just as Professor Levi said.

Not only that, but people who need transplants are denied on the basis of not having injected themselves with the junk by Pfizer and Moderna.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

This is precisely the reason why these products don't prevent infection.

I may remind you of your previous arguments that were incorrect regarding herd immunity. Herd immunity is a debunked claim given the nature of the virus and the crippled vaccines that cannot prevent infection or transmission.

Remind me all you want. I did also respond to you about them back then, but you keep bringing them up, like you have no comprehension or recollection of my replies. You also keep repeating the same BS, even when the explanation of why those values you allege are wrong has been presented several times.

You need to read more carefully I am afraid.

The vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission.

No, but they do reduce the severity and duration of infection, and reduce transmission.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see. The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly. To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

The paper made no mention of the word "absolute", or the word "relative", or of the number 119. Of course it doesn't say there was a miscalculation in an article produced well after the paper was published.

The 'one in 119' in the commentary article was related to the number the vaccine did not protect, not how many it protected. And you keep repeating it!

Derp.

You are mistaken just as you were mistaken about herd immunity and when you were claiming that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution. If you remember these conversations.

I do remember that I never claimed that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution. I claimed that evolutionary theory alone cannot account for the rates of diversification of the Cambrian Explosion. I also remember that I have explained this to you a couple of times before, but you continually lie, anyway.

Similarly, what you seem to think I posted about herd immunity, was your misunderstanding.

The extinction of the Alpha strain is a function of its normal hosts having resistance to it both via vaccination, and by immunity granted by recovery from infection of less virulent but more infectious strains.

Several of the newer descendent strains co-habit in the same hosts at the same time (a situation which has allowed for recombinance to occur), and yet the Alpha strain is now extinct, as far as anyone knows.

This shows that new strains arising do not 'compete' for the same resources and exclude other strains and extinct them by natural selection in the short term. The extinction of the Alpha strain occurred in just one or two 'seasons' of the disease, and so was very rapid.

There are no other explanations for the extinction of the strain, except by the action of herd immunity. But, I have said that before to you, too.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see.

But I can and have done so. It is you who don't seem to understand the terms and are repeating, by rote, and without comprehension, what you have read in some erroneous anti-vax website.

The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly. To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

So, that would make the Pfizer's vaccine less effective than Moderna's vaccine. Yet the Pfizer vaccine was given an effectiveness of 95% and the Moderna vaccine an efficiency of 94% by the respective companies. Yet your values are not only minute, they are inverted compared to the 'official' ratings. This is how you know that the figures you supply are absolute rubbish.

These products have almost zero effectiveness in preventing infections and that's why most if not all vaccinated individuals getting infected again and again and keep getting their boosters again and again...

The Cleveland Clinic study of the effectiveness of the bivalent Pfizer vaccine gave it 30% effectiveness against infection in the largest real world clinical study done to date.

0.84% is the absolute risk reduction from the Pfizer product in preventing infection. You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one infection. This is well known for a long period of time. Long before you have come across this information.

The paper I have quoted above gives the Pfizer vaccine an effectiveness rating of 95%. It says nothing about an effectiveness of 0.84% nor '1 in 119', nor does it even mention the words "absolute" or "relative".

Your 0.84% and 'one in 119' numbers are BS - total garbage - nonsense.

From the arguments you have presented you still seem not to understand what herd immunity is and how it is achieved. Still the same misconceptions and misunderstandings which is the real issue when you try to argue about matters you don't understand well or don't understand at all.

This is a basic definition from Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org...

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection that applies only to contagious diseases. It occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity.

Have we become immune to infection by SARS-CoV-2? The answer is a clear NO! The new variants are even more infectious and transmissible and hence herd immunity cannot be achieved either via vaccinations or via infections or from both infections and vaccinations.

You are applying the concept of herd immunity to a particular variant of the virus which is wrong and you don't take into account that the variant disappears over time after having been replaced by another variant that is keep infecting humans.

From my thread: The myth of herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Weekly COVID-19 cases for the world peaked in January, and have been reducing since.

COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

Why might that be?

Why would the number of cases reduce at all?

If there is not increasing immunity throughout the world, then surely there would be no other explanation for a reduction in the arithmetic growth in the spread of the disease (except for the attrition of potential hosts), and yet, there is a reduction.

a reply to: chr0naut

As I have shown to you the arguments made about herd immunity are false.

Here is the definition again. It's better if you try to understand it.

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection that applies only to contagious diseases. It occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity

Have we become immune to infection by SARS-CoV-2? The answer is a clear NO! The new variants are even more infectious and transmissible and hence herd immunity cannot be achieved either via vaccinations or via infections or from both infections and vaccinations.

You are applying the concept of herd immunity to a particular variant of the virus which is wrong and you don't take into account that the variant disappears over time after having been replaced by another variant that is keep infecting humans.

And you also ignore what happens when once you get infected and survive primary infection. The vast majority of the human race by the way. Obviously infections will fall at one point and then will rise with another variant and then fall again. But you won't achieve herd immunity against the virus.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

None of that matters, the vaccine is infinitely safer than an actual COVID-19 infection.

Vaccine = safe
COVID-19 = not safe

In all circumstances without qualification.

This is just an unsubstantiated claims of yours and an assertion that has never been proven to be correct. Details matter quote a lot by the way.

The harms have been cause by the vaccine are notable. Including deaths.

As a result the State of Florida has issued a major health warning and it doesn't longer recommend these products for those who are young and healthy due to the serious adverse reactions they could cause and have caused.

The State of Idaho is trying to criminalise the administration of these dangerous products for the obvious reasons. They are trying to pass a bill that it will make it a minor offense to administer these mRNA pseudo-vaccines in the State.

The UK has made these products no longer available for anyone under the age of 50. The correct decision but rather too late.

You are referring to cardiac problems, well here's the newest 2023 study from cardiologists that explain vaccine risk vs. benefits.

Liu said there is evidence that rates of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination are about two to three times higher among men between the ages of 12 and 39 compared to the general population.

"This is a very interesting kind of subgroup that seem to have a higher incidence, which is about two to three times higher risk compared to the general population, and this probably has to do with how the young men's immune system handles the vaccine," he said.

However, he said, even among men between 12 and 29, the risk of developing myocarditis following a COVID-19 infection is higher – up to five times higher.

Given everything scientists and cardiologists have learned during the pandemic, Dr. Chris Overgaard, a fellow in the division of cardiology at the University of Toronto, agrees with Liu that the balance of benefit versus risk still resides with the vaccine.

"I think it's disingenuous to say that vaccines are perfect, right? They're not," Overgaard told CTVNews.ca in a phone interview on Feb. 23. "But they have done what we hoped they would do, and they have done it very well…so the risks of severe cardiac illness with COVID-19 are far greater than the risks of the vaccine."

www.ctvnews.ca...

You still have yet to answer my question re: if Covid-19 is referred to as a virus from the geneticist source I posted earlier.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

None of that matters, the vaccine is infinitely safer than an actual COVID-19 infection.

Vaccine = safe
COVID-19 = not safe

In all circumstances without qualification.

This is just an unsubstantiated claims of yours and an assertion that has never been proven to be correct. Details matter quote a lot by the way.

The harms have been cause by the vaccine are notable. Including deaths.

As a result the State of Florida has issued a major health warning and it doesn't longer recommend these products for those who are young and healthy due to the serious adverse reactions they could cause and have caused.

The State of Idaho is trying to criminalise the administration of these dangerous products for the obvious reasons. They are trying to pass a bill that it will make it a minor offense to administer these mRNA pseudo-vaccines in the State.

The UK has made these products no longer available for anyone under the age of 50. The correct decision but rather too late.

You are referring to cardiac problems, well here's the newest 2023 study from cardiologists that explain vaccine risk vs. benefits.

Liu said there is evidence that rates of myocarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination are about two to three times higher among men between the ages of 12 and 39 compared to the general population.

"This is a very interesting kind of subgroup that seem to have a higher incidence, which is about two to three times higher risk compared to the general population, and this probably has to do with how the young men's immune system handles the vaccine," he said.

However, he said, even among men between 12 and 29, the risk of developing myocarditis following a COVID-19 infection is higher – up to five times higher.

Given everything scientists and cardiologists have learned during the pandemic, Dr. Chris Overgaard, a fellow in the division of cardiology at the University of Toronto, agrees with Liu that the balance of benefit versus risk still resides with the vaccine.

"I think it's disingenuous to say that vaccines are perfect, right? They're not," Overgaard told CTVNews.ca in a phone interview on Feb. 23. "But they have done what we hoped they would do, and they have done it very well…so the risks of severe cardiac illness with COVID-19 are far greater than the risks of the vaccine."

www.ctvnews.ca...

You still have yet to answer my question re: if Covid-19 is referred to as a virus from the geneticist source I posted earlier.

For your question at the end it's better if you take another look and answer the question yourself. Show me where is it that it is referred as a virus. And don't go that down in the rabbit hole...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

As I have shown to you the arguments made about herd immunity are false.

Here is the definition again. It's better if you try to understand it.

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection that applies only to contagious diseases. It occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity

Have we become immune to infection by SARS-CoV-2? The answer is a clear NO!

We have not become totally immune, like we have not become totally immune to any disease historically that no longer threatens us.

We have no need to be totally immune, we just need to have sufficient levels of immunity to counter the positive spread of the pathogen. Once immunity levels reach a point where the pathogen is unsuccessful in infecting more than 50% of the time, the disease population begins to diminish.

Clearly, the disease spread has diminished since the peak in January 2023.

So, what may be behind that? What would you call it?

The new variants are even more infectious and transmissible and hence herd immunity cannot be achieved either via vaccinations or via infections or from both infections and vaccinations.

You are applying the concept of herd immunity to a particular variant of the virus which is wrong and you don't take into account that the variant disappears over time after having been replaced by another variant that is keep infecting humans.

And you also ignore what happens when once you get infected and survive primary infection. The vast majority of the human race by the way. Obviously infections will fall at one point and then will rise with another variant and then fall again. But you won't achieve herd immunity against the virus.

The new variants are more infectious and less deadly, exactly as expected and predicted with the same models that drive the concept of herd immunity.

That does not mean that herd immunity is not happening.

We can see it extincting the more deadly strains in the real world, and leaving remnant viral strains that are not really the same disease (a disease being a list of common symptoms, not the family of viruses).

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

As I have shown to you the arguments made about herd immunity are false.

Here is the definition again. It's better if you try to understand it.

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection that applies only to contagious diseases. It occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity

Have we become immune to infection by SARS-CoV-2? The answer is a clear NO!

We have not become totally immune, like we have not become totally immune to any disease historically that no longer threatens us.

We have no need to be totally immune, we just need to have sufficient levels of immunity to counter the positive spread of the pathogen. Once immunity levels reach a point where the pathogen is unsuccessful in infecting more than 50% of the time, the disease population begins to diminish.

Clearly, the disease spread has diminished since the peak in January 2023.

So, what may be behind that? What would you call it?

The new variants are even more infectious and transmissible and hence herd immunity cannot be achieved either via vaccinations or via infections or from both infections and vaccinations.

You are applying the concept of herd immunity to a particular variant of the virus which is wrong and you don't take into account that the variant disappears over time after having been replaced by another variant that is keep infecting humans.

And you also ignore what happens when once you get infected and survive primary infection. The vast majority of the human race by the way. Obviously infections will fall at one point and then will rise with another variant and then fall again. But you won't achieve herd immunity against the virus.

The new variants are more infectious and less deadly, exactly as expected and predicted with the same models that drive the concept of herd immunity.

That does not mean that herd immunity is not happening.

We can see it extincting the more deadly strains in the real world, and leaving remnant viral strains that are not really the same disease (a disease being a list of common symptoms, not the family of viruses).

You seem to be in a denial of facts and even to disregard basic definitions. I will have to quote again the sources in the last page if you remember.... That you have completely disregarded.

January 27, 2022
Kevin Kavanagh, MD

Those Who Believe in Herd Immunity Cannot Do the Math.

COVID-19 mutations are evading our immunity and at the same time our immunity is waning. Herd immunity to disease and the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 is no longer possible.

The developer of the AstraZeneca shot says the Delta variant has made herd immunity impossible because vaccinated people can still transmit the virus

Prof Devi Sridhar-chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh


Herd immunity now seems impossible. Welcome to the age of Covid reinfection

The virus is now embedded in our world. But there are steps we can take to keep it at bay while we continue to live our lives

Herd immunity, where a pathogen can no longer efficiently spread in a population, is achieved when a large proportion of the population becomes immune, making the spread of infection from person to person unlikely and protecting those without immunity. Despite the global spread of SARS-CoV-2, the failure of virus- and vaccine-induced immunity to prevent transmission, combined with the emergence of antigenically distinct variants, has made herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 unachievable thus far.

It is clear that herd immunity is unachievable for a virus where natural infections or vaccines fail to induce sterilizing immunity and where antigenically novel variants evade immunity.

Clearly herd immunity is not achievable. Your arguments are completely confused.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

These are realities I am afraid that are not very convenient for those who believe blindly in these 'vaccines' and the mass vaccinations. Clearly the product is not safe and effective and slowly will be withdrawn from the market just as the Astrazeneca vaccine was withdrawn.

When that (yet another prediction) doesn't come true, I'll be sure to stop back here and remind you. Maybe as each month passes, I think I'll do that.

It is all about accountability.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

January 27, 2022
Kevin Kavanagh, MD

Those Who Believe in Herd Immunity Cannot Do the Math.

COVID-19 mutations are evading our immunity and at the same time our immunity is waning. Herd immunity to disease and the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 is no longer possible.

Your Dr. Kavanagh advocates for the development of new vaccines and boosters including for himself.

You also did not provide the source link as usual and only copy and paste bits and pieces that you hope will prove a point, but never does.

Is the bivalent booster worth taking? Yes, definitely. However, this differs from the booster or vaccine we need to navigate this pandemic. We need another warp-speed initiative for vaccine development—a vaccine that is more durable and can reduce spread. The risk of continuing to use a vaccine with reduced effectiveness is shown in the first data set, where the vaccine was seemingly less effective in the young. When vaccinated, many view themselves as invincible and can increase risky behavior far beyond the vaccine's benefits.

At the conclusion of the CDC Committee meeting, my primary impression was that we senior citizens might be viewed as expendable. Far too few policymakers are concerned about our well-being and willing to make the hard decisions that must be made to assure our safety during this pandemic. After looking at the data, I will consult my physician about receiving a booster on an accelerated schedule, possibly at 6 months.

www.infectioncontroltoday.com...

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

These are realities I am afraid that are not very convenient for those who believe blindly in these 'vaccines' and the mass vaccinations. Clearly the product is not safe and effective and slowly will be withdrawn from the market just as the Astrazeneca vaccine was withdrawn.

When that (yet another prediction) doesn't come true, I'll be sure to stop back here and remind you. Maybe as each month passes, I think I'll do that.

It is all about accountability.

Even if it's not withdrawn the booster sign up is quite low pretty much everywhere and the campaign doesn't have anymore clients to sell its products.

In the meantime the UK no longer offers them for anyone under the age of 50.

Florida is trying to ban the 'vaccines'.
And Idaho is trying to criminalise their administration.

Not the best possible turn of events for the mRNA products.

There is more to follow.

Clearly herd immunity is not achievable. Your arguments are completely confused. by Asmodeus

And here is herd immunity achieved. I think your understanding of how herd immunity is achieved is where the confusion lies.

Niue, a Pacific Island nation with a population of 1,600, was recently celebrated for reaching "herd immunity" in its fight against COVID-19.

It has fully vaccinated 97 per cent of its eligible population with Pfizer doses donated by New Zealand.

"Niue is one of the few countries in the world to be COVID-19 free and to have achieved this historic milestone," the Niue government said.

www.abc.net.au...

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

January 27, 2022
Kevin Kavanagh, MD

Those Who Believe in Herd Immunity Cannot Do the Math.

COVID-19 mutations are evading our immunity and at the same time our immunity is waning. Herd immunity to disease and the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 is no longer possible.

Your Dr. Kavanagh advocates for the development of new vaccines and boosters including for himself.

You also did not provide the source link as usual and only copy and paste bits and pieces that you hope will prove a point, but never does.

Is the bivalent booster worth taking? Yes, definitely. However, this differs from the booster or vaccine we need to navigate this pandemic. We need another warp-speed initiative for vaccine development—a vaccine that is more durable and can reduce spread. The risk of continuing to use a vaccine with reduced effectiveness is shown in the first data set, where the vaccine was seemingly less effective in the young. When vaccinated, many view themselves as invincible and can increase risky behavior far beyond the vaccine's benefits.

At the conclusion of the CDC Committee meeting, my primary impression was that we senior citizens might be viewed as expendable. Far too few policymakers are concerned about our well-being and willing to make the hard decisions that must be made to assure our safety during this pandemic. After looking at the data, I will consult my physician about receiving a booster on an accelerated schedule, possibly at 6 months.

www.infectioncontroltoday.com...

The source is in the previous pages and in my thread: The myth of herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2

Good try but try better.

There are several other links that prove your assertion that herd immunity can be achieved wrong. But you don't need the links just see the definition.

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection that applies only to contagious diseases. It occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity

Have we become immune to SARS-CoV-2?

The answer is no.

Are you still believing that Covid-19 is a virus?

Have we become immune to SARS-CoV-2?

The answer is no.

Are you still believing that Covid-19 is a virus? By Asmodeus

Everyone describes Covid-19 as a virus, except you, why is that?

See my above post about a little nation achieving herd immunity.

Your Dr. Kavanagh will take the booster shot.

a reply to: quintessentone

Some don't believe it actually exists..................

Yeah, I know

What matters is the transplant doctors and organization know it exists. They believe their opinion should be given equal weight of, well, all the established facts (including the mapped genome)

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: quintessentone

Some don't believe it actually exists..................

Yeah, I know

What matters is the transplant doctors and organization know it exists. They believe their opinion should be given equal weight of, well, all the established facts (including the mapped genome)

Fear dictates belief and, really, how can we blame people for not trusting government because of the initial debacle of their handling of this pandemic? I even question the effectiveness of the booster shots from what I'm researching. Keep asking questions. Keep digging for truth.

But complete denial of this disease is just more science denial.

originally posted by: quintessentone

Have we become immune to SARS-CoV-2?

The answer is no.

Are you still believing that Covid-19 is a virus? By Asmodeus

Everyone describes Covid-19 as a virus, except you, why is that?

See my above post about a little nation achieving herd immunity.

Your Dr. Kavanagh will take the booster shot.

It is only you who describes Covid-19 as a virus. Anything else is just a disingenuous claim.

Herd immunity cannot be achieved when infections are still going on and the virus is rapidly mutating becoming even more infectious.

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection that applies only to contagious diseases. It occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity

The developer of the AstraZeneca shot says the Delta variant has made herd immunity impossible because vaccinated people can still transmit the virus

Prof Devi Sridhar-chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh


Herd immunity now seems impossible. Welcome to the age of Covid reinfection

The virus is now embedded in our world. But there are steps we can take to keep it at bay while we continue to live our lives

www.rnz.co.nz...

There was a peak in December 2022 with the number of positive cases reaching 390 out of a population of about 1400.

Since then, January saw 210 positive cases, which gradually decreased as people recovered and very few new cases were detected or reported to the Health Department.

Clearly the Island of Niue hasn't achieved herd immunity as the infections still going in December 2022 and January 2023. Your source said that they have achieved herd immunity back in August 2021. It's better not to trust reporters who don't understand what the term means.



Coming back to your claims not only you describe Covid-19 as a virus but also as a chimeric virus. This is maximum confusion and it has been pointed out to you on several occasions.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: quintessentone

Some don't believe it actually exists..................

Yeah, I know

What matters is the transplant doctors and organization know it exists. They believe their opinion should be given equal weight of, well, all the established facts (including the mapped genome)

Perhaps you want to comment on the claims made by your the other member that Covid-19 is a virus and moreover a chimeric virus that has come out of SARS-CoV-2 and another unspecified pathogen... You don't happen to believe too that Covid-19 is a virus?

There are hospitals and hospitals, coming back to the topic of the conversation, and some hospital will perform the surgery without any issues and vaccinations isn't a barrier. Vaccinations maybe encouraged but are not mandatory when it comes to these operations.