14 year-old girl denied kidney transplant because she is unvaccinated, say parents

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: frogs453
I can only add context to this by relating what I know from a coworker who had a kidney transplant. You must get all available vaccines, from the standard you should have had as a child, to the flu,pneumonia, shingles, etc. Depending what's replaced you may have to agree to a lifetime change in diet, and or lifestyle such as no alcohol, etc. You have to prove and agree to both take and be able to afford what may be a lifetime of prescription meds. You have to agree to all necessary doctor visits etc. You have to agree to any required restrictions before the surgery.

This is, and has been standard practice.

Yes, we're all aware of that, at least I think so.

How many other experimental vaccines are required? Just the one?

Shingles vax isn't required either, don't pad your argument.

That's the problem...

This is another argument that has come out of nowhere. Shingles vaccine being compulsory for a kidney transplant?? Or for any transplant...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Even in the article it say that vaccinations are highly recommended. But that's different from being compulsory.

If they have two patients waiting for an organ, one up to date on vaccinations and one with anti-vaxxer parents, they're going to give the organ to the vaccinated one. Every. Single. Time.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Even in the article it say that vaccinations are highly recommended. But that's different from being compulsory.

If they have two patients waiting for an organ, one up to date on vaccinations and one with anti-vaxxer parents, they're going to give the organ to the vaccinated one. Every. Single. Time.

Yea, that's the F'N problem, genius.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Even in the article it say that vaccinations are highly recommended. But that's different from being compulsory.

If they have two patients waiting for an organ, one up to date on vaccinations and one with anti-vaxxer parents, they're going to give the organ to the vaccinated one. Every. Single. Time.

What a statement!!!

Did you think this yourself or you have had some help with it before forming the statement?

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Even in the article it say that vaccinations are highly recommended. But that's different from being compulsory.

If they have two patients waiting for an organ, one up to date on vaccinations and one with anti-vaxxer parents, they're going to give the organ to the vaccinated one. Every. Single. Time.

Can you show some examples where this is true and has happened before until the point the child or adult died because they were unvaccinated and they were continuously denied the transplants.

You know that if you are denied these transplants your time here on Earth will soon come to an end.

a reply to: RazorV66

People seriously need to remove themselves off the donor list.. we were making progress but apparently they changed the laws when they saw everyone saying they didn't want to be a donor.. and now you have to manually 'opt out' cause when they changed the 'rules' due to shortages.. everyone became a donor again as a default setting..

So make sure your name is TAKEN OFF THE LIST, in protest.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

So the argument for once more is that Yulia may get infected with SARS-CoV-2 while she is immunosuppressed and die. This way both the patient and the transplant will be lost. If you get vaccinated you won't die and you will hopefully survive given the operation is successful. But what happens when you don't get the transplant. What is the prognosis on this??....

Great logic for once more!!!

The logic leans more to it being an ethical decision because organs are so scarce.

“Vaccination reduces these risks for the individual transplant recipient. It is ethically wrong to knowingly immunosuppress a patient without first taking all necessary precautions including vaccination.”

Fernandes said there are cases where exemptions may apply: if the patient has a medical reason for not getting vaccinated, or “in cases of urgent need for a transplant.”

“Life-saving organs are scarce and all transplant programs follow strict criteria to ensure they are offered to patients with the highest need, but also with highest chance of a positive outcome,” Fernandes added.

“In general, if measures to ensure the patient’s safety are not taken, alternative treatments (such as dialysis for kidney failure) are often associated with better patient outcomes.”

globalnews.ca...

For kidney transplants it clearly states that alternative treatments such as dialysis are often associated with better patient outcomes, so this child will not be left to die as you seem to think.

I've also read where, in the U.S., once vaccine hesitate organ donor patients and their families are educated on how vaccines and immune systems work almost all agree to be vaccinated.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So the argument for once more is that Yulia may get infected with SARS-CoV-2 while she is immunosuppressed and die. This way both the patient and the transplant will be lost. If you get vaccinated you won't die and you will hopefully survive given the operation is successful. But what happens when you don't get the transplant. What is the prognosis on this??....

Great logic for once more!!!

The logic leans more to it being an ethical decision because organs are so scarce.

“Vaccination reduces these risks for the individual transplant recipient. It is ethically wrong to knowingly immunosuppress a patient without first taking all necessary precautions including vaccination.”

Fernandes said there are cases where exemptions may apply: if the patient has a medical reason for not getting vaccinated, or “in cases of urgent need for a transplant.”

“Life-saving organs are scarce and all transplant programs follow strict criteria to ensure they are offered to patients with the highest need, but also with highest chance of a positive outcome,” Fernandes added.

“In general, if measures to ensure the patient’s safety are not taken, alternative treatments (such as dialysis for kidney failure) are often associated with better patient outcomes.”

globalnews.ca...

For kidney transplants it clearly states that alternative treatments such as dialysis are often associated with better patient outcomes, so this child will not be left to die as you seem to think.

I've also read where, in the U.S., once vaccine hesitate organ donor patients and their families are educated on how vaccines and immune systems work almost all agree to be vaccinated.

I don't think the parents are thinking of dialysis as an alternative to kidney transplantation which is by far a much better choice. Having a healthy kidney cannot be compared to dialysis. The life expectancy when having dialysis varies but is not that long. It could be 5 years or 10 years or even longer. But the parents don't want her daughter to die at the age of 24 or before she reaches 30 (if she does).

Let me put it a little better. Without a healthy kidney the girl will die. Dialysis will only add up a few more years on the lifespan and that's not guaranteed.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So the argument for once more is that Yulia may get infected with SARS-CoV-2 while she is immunosuppressed and die. This way both the patient and the transplant will be lost. If you get vaccinated you won't die and you will hopefully survive given the operation is successful. But what happens when you don't get the transplant. What is the prognosis on this??....

Great logic for once more!!!

The logic leans more to it being an ethical decision because organs are so scarce.

“Vaccination reduces these risks for the individual transplant recipient. It is ethically wrong to knowingly immunosuppress a patient without first taking all necessary precautions including vaccination.”

Fernandes said there are cases where exemptions may apply: if the patient has a medical reason for not getting vaccinated, or “in cases of urgent need for a transplant.”

“Life-saving organs are scarce and all transplant programs follow strict criteria to ensure they are offered to patients with the highest need, but also with highest chance of a positive outcome,” Fernandes added.

“In general, if measures to ensure the patient’s safety are not taken, alternative treatments (such as dialysis for kidney failure) are often associated with better patient outcomes.”

globalnews.ca...

For kidney transplants it clearly states that alternative treatments such as dialysis are often associated with better patient outcomes, so this child will not be left to die as you seem to think.

I've also read where, in the U.S., once vaccine hesitate organ donor patients and their families are educated on how vaccines and immune systems work almost all agree to be vaccinated.

The hospital itself highly recommends vaccinations for those who want to get a transplant. Nowhere it says that vaccination is mandatory. This story is a classical example of the paranoic Covid dogma.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I wonder how quick that same hospital would be willing to kill a child in her belly even though she isn't vaccinated. These people are supposed to be professionals but there's nothing professional about turning down a young lady simply because she refuses to get injected with a substance that is knowingly killing young people.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Even in the article it say that vaccinations are highly recommended. But that's different from being compulsory.

If they have two patients waiting for an organ, one up to date on vaccinations and one with anti-vaxxer parents, they're going to give the organ to the vaccinated one. Every. Single. Time.

I'm sure the girl is up to date on her vaccinations.

By saying "one with anti-vaxxer parents", it sounds like your problem is that you have a prejudice and bias against humans with common sense.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Even in the article it say that vaccinations are highly recommended. But that's different from being compulsory.

If they have two patients waiting for an organ, one up to date on vaccinations and one with anti-vaxxer parents, they're going to give the organ to the vaccinated one. Every. Single. Time.

I'm sure the girl is up to date on her vaccinations.

By saying "one with anti-vaxxer parents", it sounds like your problem is that you have a prejudice and bias against humans with common sense.

The member is known for his vaccine apologetics and his support of the pharmaceuticals by his own admission. So that's what you will be getting.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Even in the article it say that vaccinations are highly recommended. But that's different from being compulsory.

If they have two patients waiting for an organ, one up to date on vaccinations and one with anti-vaxxer parents, they're going to give the organ to the vaccinated one. Every. Single. Time.

I'm sure the girl is up to date on her vaccinations.

By saying "one with anti-vaxxer parents", it sounds like your problem is that you have a prejudice and bias against humans with common sense.

The member is known for his vaccine apologetics and his support of the pharmaceuticals by his own admission. So that's what you will be getting.

Yeah I know, he hates common sense like all liberals. Liberals depend on dummards just as much as dummards depend on the government telling them how to think.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Even in the article it say that vaccinations are highly recommended. But that's different from being compulsory.

If they have two patients waiting for an organ, one up to date on vaccinations and one with anti-vaxxer parents, they're going to give the organ to the vaccinated one. Every. Single. Time.

I'm sure the girl is up to date on her vaccinations.

By saying "one with anti-vaxxer parents", it sounds like your problem is that you have a prejudice and bias against humans with common sense.

The member is known for his vaccine apologetics and his support of the pharmaceuticals by his own admission. So that's what you will be getting.

Yeah I know, he hates common sense like all liberals. Liberals depend on dummards just as much as dummards depend on the government telling them how to think.

You mean lefties and leftists I suppose...
Group thinking is a sign that one is driven by ideology.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The logic leans more to it being an ethical decision because organs are so scarce.
"Vaccination reduces these risks for the individual transplant recipient. It is ethically wrong to knowingly immunosuppress a patient without first taking all necessary precautions including vaccination.”

So, you're just going to pretend that TarantulaBite didn't post a bunch of links here showing that there is quite a bit of evidence (maybe not proof, but evidence nonetheless) that the spike proteins in these jabs are actually causing rejections?

Color me unsurprised...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The logic leans more to it being an ethical decision because organs are so scarce.
"Vaccination reduces these risks for the individual transplant recipient. It is ethically wrong to knowingly immunosuppress a patient without first taking all necessary precautions including vaccination.”

So, you're just going to pretend that TarantulaBite didn't post a bunch of links here showing that there is quite a bit of evidence (maybe not proof, but evidence nonetheless) that the spike proteins in these jabs are actually causing rejections?

Color me unsurprised...

Take a look at my post above about the dialysis that the member proposed. As if dialysis is what the parents are looking for.

If kidneys fail the girl will die if she doesn't receive a transplant. Dialysis only adds up to the life expectancy. It could be 5 years or even 10 years but eventually the girl will die. And is not guaranteed that she will live as much after her dialysis starts and the quality of life will be diminished as time passes.

Some Christians, myself being one of them, feel that this vaccine could be related to Revelations in the Bible and that it may cost your very soul to take it. As that child, I would choose to die if it were I. I wouldn’t know what to advise the parents but if I am right, the answer is a very dark one.

And before you condemn me for being some idiot with medieval beliefs, you need to understand the basis for the belief.

Genesis and Enoch, amongst other books of the Bible as well as some fringe historical theories, recovered artifacts and archeology suggest that the antediluvian world hosted civilizations of advanced technology…advanced or maybe you could simply call it different. It is the same line of thought that explains why many believe the pyramids were a power source of some unknown kind of power that was well known and understood back then as was sound technology, healing, and even genetic engineering. The Bible speaks of the Nephelim and for those who don’t know, the best thing you can do is go watch the first twenty-two minutes or so of the video explaining the Mystery of the Widow’s Son (youtu.be...) and basically, that video and the Bible both tell us about the fact that there are actually two species on this planet both calling themselves human. Whatever the phenomenon is that the Bible called fallen angels and that the modern world would call ETs or inter dimensional beings, it is all introduced to us in books that are thousands of years old. The Bible tells us that the demonic/fallen forces aren’t human, not flesh and blood, but powerful beings that inhabit “high places” or in Greek, my language, Epiouranos, powerful wicket principalities and beings inhabiting outer space. We all know that people abducted by the beings which make up this phenomenon always report that the beings took eggs, sperm, stem cells, or some other kind of genetic material from them. Well, they did the same back thousands of years ago. Your preacher might get confused and tell you that the nephilim conducted beastiality in that we are told that, “they sinned against the birds, the bees, reptiles, and fish,” and they created abominations. This isn’t talking about beastiality, it is further evidence that they are experts in genetics. In fact, some find Noah’s ark so hard to swallow but that is because they don’t understand that the Bible and apocrypha tell us that it got so bad that the entire human race had had its DNA altered and because of it, we can infer that that was their attack strategy in the heavenly war. They knew if they could just rewrite human DNA, it would forever and irreparably sever any line in which the Christ could incarnate and the war would be lost. Thankfully however, the Bible says there was literally one single solitary person/family who had not been tainted yet. It says specifically that Noah was the final human being of clean blood. The last full human on earth. The rest were tainted with angelic blood. People who can’t reconcile killing off the whole world, that is when you must look at it from this perspective and beyond that, one must infer one thing. That DNA is so incredibly sacred, God himself would be unable to fix things if the human genome were lost and he wouldn’t be able to send Christ any other way. It’s the only explanation. And it’s the only way he could bring himself to kill of his entire beloved creation. I don’t know what it is about DNA and the genome that makes it so untouchable and sacred, but I know for certain that it is. That the very path to salvation would be cut if it were corrupted and it almost was. The incredible messages written into DNA and the Bible are another story but DNA carries our creator’s signature and whether our creator fits a theist or an incomprehensible non-theist yet higher being kind of creator which even atheists can reconcile with, I know that the most important thing on earth is our preserving our genome exactly as is. Therefore Christians like myself feel that an injection which goes and rewrites pieces of your DNA is possibly the Mark, possibly makes salvation and eternal life in our true soul energy form impossible in a way not even the creator or God can fix, and therefore the trade off of death would be preferable to us. I have known for years if they were to come at me with armed forces and a shot to force on me, I’d have seconds to get them to take my life instead which I’d prefer over the vax and if indeed the Bible speaks truth about DNA I’m totally justified. The book tells us too that most will take the mark even the devout and it will be tragic the few who make the right choice when it comes to the mark and I feel that gene altering is that line we cannot cross.

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Even in the article it say that vaccinations are highly recommended. But that's different from being compulsory.

If they have two patients waiting for an organ, one up to date on vaccinations and one with anti-vaxxer parents, they're going to give the organ to the vaccinated one. Every. Single. Time.

Yea, that's the F'N problem, genius.

The dude is over 40 listens to black metal and works at Walmart. What did you expect from him?

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Even in the article it say that vaccinations are highly recommended. But that's different from being compulsory.

If they have two patients waiting for an organ, one up to date on vaccinations and one with anti-vaxxer parents, they're going to give the organ to the vaccinated one. Every. Single. Time.

Yes and as explained earlier in this thread by the medical field it has to with making an ethical choice so that the scarce organ, in this case a kidney, will have the highest chance of saving a person's life and it being a successful transplant. I am not liberal, per se, I am in the middle but lean right or left depending on the issues, so anything you read here is just more misinformation from the usual anti-vaxx players.

Also it was explained by the medical field, who actually know something about how dialysis works and its efficacy, that used as an alternative treatment it is highly successful.

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: ussmidway
But if she gets the shot she gets the transplant, right? She needs to pick the least of the two evils if she wants to live.

Thats a violation of the Nurmeburg treaty.. Making it a war crime. Funny the action people try and justify and the lessons forgotten after the war..

Purple!!!!! its been an age , I hope you are well!!!

Also youre right on, this is murder.

But we shouldnt be surprised considering how many they murdered in hospitals with their protocols........people werent dying at home, they were dying in hospitals and it was directly because of their actions

Lived it, myself and had threats made to me while i was lying on a BODY BAG in my gurney