A Young Woman Dies After a COVID Vaccine; Twitter Labels Her Obituary ‘Misleading’

 

Jessica Berg Wilson’s obituary describes her as “an exceptionally healthy and vibrant 37-year-old young mother with no underlying health conditions” who “died unexpectedly on Sep. 7 from COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT).”

The obituary continues:

Jessica fully embraced motherhood, sharing her passion for life with her daughters. Jessica’s motherly commitment was intense, with unwavering determination to nurture her children to be confident, humble, responsible, and to have concern and compassion for others with high morals built on Faith.

Jessica’s greatest passion was to be the best mother possible for Bridget and Clara. Nothing would stand in her way to be present in their lives. During the last weeks of her life, however, the world turned dark with heavy-handed vaccine mandates. Local and state governments were determined to strip away her right to consult her wisdom and enjoy her freedom. She had been vehemently opposed to taking the vaccine, knowing she was in good health and of a young age and thus not at risk for serious illness. In her mind, the known and unknown risks of the unproven vaccine were more of a threat. But, slowly, day by day, her freedom to choose was stripped away. Her passion to be actively involved in her children’s education—which included being a Room Mom—was, once again, blocked by government mandate. Ultimately, those who closed doors and separated mothers from their children prevailed.

It cost Jessica her life. It cost her children the loving embrace of their caring mother. And it cost her husband the sacred love of his devoted wife. It cost God’s Kingdom on earth a very special soul who was just making her love felt in the hearts of so many.

This very sad story was made even worse by the Twitter Police.

When a Twitter user posted this young woman’s obituary, adding in the caption that she had not wanted to get vaccinated, the post was slapped with a warning label. It read: “This Tweet is misleading. Find out why health officials consider COVID-19 vaccines safe for most people.” It provided a link so users could “find out more.” The message also said, “This Tweet can’t be replied to, shared or liked.”

Here is a screenshot of the Twitter warning label.

This is what pops up if you click on the retweet button.

Misleading? A healthy young woman, who believed that the vaccine posed a greater risk to her health than contracting the virus itself, was required to comply with the school’s vaccine requirement for visitors if she wanted to be involved in her children’s classrooms.

She took the vaccine and was one of the unlucky ones. I am not anti-vax, but these vaccines do come with a risk. And no one should be forced into submission.

This is tyranny and it’s hard to imagine this is happening in America.

Please follow me on Twitter.

Published in Healthcare
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 220 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Interesting application of the word “misleading.” 

    “safe for most people” carries within it the implication that the subject may not be safe for some people. Why doesn’t Twitter’s label say the subject is “safe for all people”? Because Twitter knows that would be a false statement. But if we cannot talk about those “some people” for whom the subject might not be safe, knowledge is less likely to advance and the world will become more dangerous, not less dangerous.

    • #1
  2. EB Thatcher
    EB
    @EB

    This is the first I have heard about Jessica Berg Wilson, so I am not claiming any special knowledge.

    However, I would like to point out that an obituary is not an autopsy report.  Obituaries are written by the families of the deceased and reflect their opinions and beliefs and emotions.

    • #2
  3. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    EB (View Comment):

    This is the first I have heard about Jessica Berg Wilson, so I am not claiming any special knowledge.

    However, I would like to point out that an obituary is not an autopsy report. Obituaries are written by the families of the deceased and reflect their opinions and beliefs and emotions.

    Do you have reason to doubt their claim of VITT?

    • #3
  4. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    I’m not really into obituaries, and this one was medical and political largely.  But something seems really unsettling about a so-called platform not just commenting on supposed error contained in it, but apparently blocking its dissemination.  Obituaries are often very personal, and spiritual, and memorial of those who have died.  For anyone to argue with an obituary seems to me to be inhuman and controlling, or perhaps psychotic — as in, No, no, everyone.  We have the truth about this person!

    But truth must be enforced otherwise people will think different things, so there’s that.

    • #4
  5. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Flicker: Obituaries are often very personal, and spiritual, and memorial of those who have died.

    Not with Marxists. The body belongs to the state, from birth to death. There is no personal.

    • #5
  6. Mark Alexander Coolidge
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    The Joe Biden chant needs expansion to include, “… your vaccine.”

    • #6
  7. EB Thatcher
    EB
    @EB

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    EB (View Comment):

    This is the first I have heard about Jessica Berg Wilson, so I am not claiming any special knowledge.

    However, I would like to point out that an obituary is not an autopsy report. Obituaries are written by the families of the deceased and reflect their opinions and beliefs and emotions.

    Do you have reason to doubt their claim of VITT?

    The entire  obituary is an emotional attack on the vaccine.  They have lost their daughter – of course they are emotional.  But does their claim have some validity?  You can’t know without seeing actual data.  Saying doesn’t make it so.   It’s like a report on VAERS – it’s not actual data.  It’s just someone’s story.

    • #7
  8. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EB (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    EB (View Comment):

    This is the first I have heard about Jessica Berg Wilson, so I am not claiming any special knowledge.

    However, I would like to point out that an obituary is not an autopsy report. Obituaries are written by the families of the deceased and reflect their opinions and beliefs and emotions.

    Do you have reason to doubt their claim of VITT?

    The entire obituary is an emotional attack on the vaccine. They have lost their daughter – of course they are emotional. But does their claim have some validity? You can’t know without seeing actual data. Saying doesn’t make it so. It’s like a report on VAERS – it’s not actual data. It’s just someone’s story.

    What is reported as data today is also just someone’s story. Tell us whose data is trustworthy.

    • #8
  9. EB Thatcher
    EB
    @EB

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    Tell us whose data is trustworthy.

    I’m not saying the family is lying.  If they believe that the vaccine killed her they are not lying.  And maybe the vaccine did affect her. 

    But data is measurable.  It is not someone’s opinion.  There are certain criteria which must all be present to diagnose this condition.  We don’t know from an obit whether this claim came from actual data or because her parents want something to blame.  

    My comments were not meant to criticize the parents, but to caution taking an obituary as scientific fact. 

    • #9
  10. Caryn Thatcher
    Caryn
    @Caryn

    EB (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    Tell us whose data is trustworthy.

    I’m not saying the family is lying. If they believe that the vaccine killed her they are not lying. And maybe the vaccine did affect her.

    But data is measurable. It is not someone’s opinion. There are certain criteria which must all be present to diagnose this condition. We don’t know from an obit whether this claim came from actual data or because her parents want something to blame.

    My comments were not meant to criticize the parents, but to caution taking an obituary as scientific fact.

    Indeed.  Thank you for the link, too.  I had the same response you did to the obituary.  I don’t like Twitter or Facebook or any of the other thought police telling us what to think–that is tyrannical–but the unsupported claim in the obituary is just that and does not constitute “data.”  We know nothing about her case but what is reported by the grieving and (understandably!) emotionally invested family.  

    • #10
  11. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    EB (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    Tell us whose data is trustworthy.

    I’m not saying the family is lying. If they believe that the vaccine killed her they are not lying. And maybe the vaccine did affect her.

    But data is measurable. It is not someone’s opinion. There are certain criteria which must all be present to diagnose this condition. We don’t know from an obit whether this claim came from actual data or because her parents want something to blame.

    My comments were not meant to criticize the parents, but to caution taking an obituary as scientific fact.

    Do you think is a fact that she was pressured into taking the vaccine? I think this is the point the obit is making. Nobody should have to take the vaccine because they must in order to go about their daily life routine. We have enough factual information to establish that.

    • #11
  12. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    EB (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    EB (View Comment):

    This is the first I have heard about Jessica Berg Wilson, so I am not claiming any special knowledge.

    However, I would like to point out that an obituary is not an autopsy report. Obituaries are written by the families of the deceased and reflect their opinions and beliefs and emotions.

    Do you have reason to doubt their claim of VITT?

    The entire obituary is an emotional attack on the vaccine. They have lost their daughter – of course they are emotional. But does their claim have some validity? You can’t know without seeing actual data. Saying doesn’t make it so. It’s like a report on VAERS – it’s not actual data. It’s just someone’s story.

    I have pretty much the same response to the “COVID killed grandma” and “COVID killed my kid” news stories and obituaries.  In one way or another these accounts are used in an orchestrated campaign to increase governments’ (at all levels) emergency powers and to stifle dissent. 

    If you want to wear a mask, go ahead.  Just don’t make me do so in order to conduct my daily routine.  If you want to get vaxxed, go ahead, I won’t stop you.  (One might say, because I am a taxpayer, I have picked up the tab for your jabs. You are welcome!)  Just don’t require me to be vaxxed so that I can go about my normal activities.  If you have any sense of Constitutional decency, you will not support those who are calling for a Vaxx Pasport.  

    • #12
  13. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Flicker: Obituaries are often very personal, and spiritual, and memorial of those who have died.

    Not with Marxists. The body belongs to the state, from birth to death. There is no personal.

    I say I agree with you, but I don’t think I really grasp its gravity.  My mind boggles at the thought of it.  If I were to refuse it, would they really tie me down to give me a booster?  Because it’s their body?

    • #13
  14. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Flicker: If I were to refuse it, would they really tie me down to give me a booster? Because it’s their body?

    It’s the next logical step, is it not?

    • #14
  15. Mark Alexander Coolidge
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    EB (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    Tell us whose data is trustworthy.

    I’m not saying the family is lying. If they believe that the vaccine killed her they are not lying. And maybe the vaccine did affect her.

    But data is measurable. It is not someone’s opinion. There are certain criteria which must all be present to diagnose this condition. We don’t know from an obit whether this claim came from actual data or because her parents want something to blame.

    My comments were not meant to criticize the parents, but to caution taking an obituary as scientific fact.

    When data is regarded as the ONLY measure for proof, we have exited the forum of reason and evidence.

    • #15
  16. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    EB (View Comment):
    The entire  obituary is an emotional attack on the vaccine.

    Good. We need more of those. The left knows how to use emotions to get their way. It’s time the right learned to do that, too.

    My comments were not meant to criticize the parents, but to caution taking an obituary as scientific fact.

    I would caution taking anything Fauci says or the CDC says as scientific fact. Including “this vaccine is safe and effective.”

    • #16
  17. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):
    When data is regarded as the ONLY measure for proof, we have exited the forum of reason and evidence.

    Huh?

     

    • #17
  18. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    EB (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    EB (View Comment):

    This is the first I have heard about Jessica Berg Wilson, so I am not claiming any special knowledge.

    However, I would like to point out that an obituary is not an autopsy report. Obituaries are written by the families of the deceased and reflect their opinions and beliefs and emotions.

    Do you have reason to doubt their claim of VITT?

    The entire obituary is an emotional attack on the vaccine. They have lost their daughter – of course they are emotional. But does their claim have some validity? You can’t know without seeing actual data. Saying doesn’t make it so. It’s like a report on VAERS – it’s not actual data. It’s just someone’s story.

    This article presents some actual data.  It’s pretty rare and limited to certain brands of the vaccine.  But this paragraph provides actual numbers:

    Incidence and risk factors — The incidence of VITT is unknown but it appears to be exceedingly rare. Most reports have described a small number of cases among tens of millions of vaccinated individuals [2,17]. The highest incidence was reported from Norway, in which five cases were reported from among approximately 130,000 individuals vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, suggesting an incidence of 1 in 26,000 [3]. An initial report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States identified 15 cases from among approximately 8 million individuals vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S, suggesting an incidence of 1 in 533,333 [18]. These may represent underestimates due to decreased recognition and case reporting, but pharmacovigilance for these outcomes has been thorough, suggesting that case ascertainment is high. (See ‘Implicated vaccines’ above.)

    Whichever of those numbers you pick, it’s highly uncommon.  

    • #18
  19. James Bennetts Coolidge
    James Bennetts
    @JamesBennetts

    Flicker (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Flicker: Obituaries are often very personal, and spiritual, and memorial of those who have died.

    Not with Marxists. The body belongs to the state, from birth to death. There is no personal.

    I say I agree with you, but I don’t think I really grasp its gravity. My mind boggles at the thought of it. If I were to refuse it, would they really tie me down to give me a booster? Because it’s their body?

    Had they the power to do so, what would stop them?

    • #19
  20. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Those who decline to take the vaccine should not be punished. 

     

    • #20
  21. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    James Bennetts (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Flicker: Obituaries are often very personal, and spiritual, and memorial of those who have died.

    Not with Marxists. The body belongs to the state, from birth to death. There is no personal.

    I say I agree with you, but I don’t think I really grasp its gravity. My mind boggles at the thought of it. If I were to refuse it, would they really tie me down to give me a booster? Because it’s their body?

    Had they the power to do so, what would stop them?

    How about, “Can’t we talk about this?”

    • #21
  22. Mark Alexander Coolidge
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):
    When data is regarded as the ONLY measure for proof, we have exited the forum of reason and evidence.

    Huh?

     

    Evidence and reason comprise more than just hard data. Evaluating the credibility of authorities who offer data is critical, because in the end, who among us are allowed access to the data, especially in this matter?

    We must rely on the credibility of the authorities who offer that data, and we must make a case that does not rely on absolute statements, but on weighing better and worse arguments when interpreting that data.

    Thus we have to rely on “testimony.” Too many who dismiss out of hand “anecdotal evidence” accept the “anecdotal evidence” or testimony of their chosen authorities.

    When there is a series of reasonable questions regarding the credibility of relied-on authorities, you are on slippery ground to rely on their data.

    Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. If that statement does not make sense to you, then I suggest you may be operating with a corrupt definition of science. 

    • #22
  23. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):
    When data is regarded as the ONLY measure for proof, we have exited the forum of reason and evidence.

    Huh?

     

    Evidence and reason comprise more than just hard data. Evaluating the credibility of authorities who offer data is critical, because in the end, who among us are allowed access to the data, especially in this matter?

    We must rely on the credibility of the authorities who offer that data, and we must make a case that does not rely on absolute statements, but on weighing better and worse arguments when interpreting that data.

    Thus we have to rely on “testimony.” Too many who dismiss out of hand “anecdotal evidence” accept the “anecdotal evidence” or testimony of their chosen authorities.

    When there is a series of reasonable questions regarding the credibility of relied-on authorities, you are on slippery ground to rely on their data.

    Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. If that statement does not make sense to you, then I suggest you may be operating with a corrupt definition of science.

    I would like to like this five times.  Once for each paragraph.

    • #23
  24. Norm McDonald Had A Farm Inactive
    Norm McDonald Had A Farm
    @Pseudodionysius

    Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play vaccine?

    • #24
  25. Mark Alexander Coolidge
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):
    When data is regarded as the ONLY measure for proof, we have exited the forum of reason and evidence.

    Huh?

     

    Evidence and reason comprise more than just hard data. Evaluating the credibility of authorities who offer data is critical, because in the end, who among us are allowed access to the data, especially in this matter?

    We must rely on the credibility of the authorities who offer that data, and we must make a case that does not rely on absolute statements, but on weighing better and worse arguments when interpreting that data.

    Thus we have to rely on “testimony.” Too many who dismiss out of hand “anecdotal evidence” accept the “anecdotal evidence” or testimony of their chosen authorities.

    When there is a series of reasonable questions regarding the credibility of relied-on authorities, you are on slippery ground to rely on their data.

    Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. If that statement does not make sense to you, then I suggest you may be operating with a corrupt definition of science.

    I would like to like this five times. Once for each paragraph.

    Does this count as a relevant data point? If you don’t think so, dig in a little deeper and you may catch it…

    https://politikditto.net/2021/10/02/australia-premier-of-nsw-forced-to-resign-after-receiving-millions-from-pfizer-to-push-vaccine-laws/

    • #25
  26. Mark Alexander Coolidge
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Mark Alexander (View Comment):
    When data is regarded as the ONLY measure for proof, we have exited the forum of reason and evidence.

    Huh?

     

    Evidence and reason comprise more than just hard data. Evaluating the credibility of authorities who offer data is critical, because in the end, who among us are allowed access to the data, especially in this matter?

    We must rely on the credibility of the authorities who offer that data, and we must make a case that does not rely on absolute statements, but on weighing better and worse arguments when interpreting that data.

    Thus we have to rely on “testimony.” Too many who dismiss out of hand “anecdotal evidence” accept the “anecdotal evidence” or testimony of their chosen authorities.

    When there is a series of reasonable questions regarding the credibility of relied-on authorities, you are on slippery ground to rely on their data.

    Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. If that statement does not make sense to you, then I suggest you may be operating with a corrupt definition of science.

    I would like to like this five times. Once for each paragraph.

    Thanks. Spread the message.

    • #26
  27. Mark Alexander Coolidge
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    • #27
  28. Mark Alexander Coolidge
    Mark Alexander
    @MarkAlexander

    Does this count as a data point?

    • #28
  29. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    What bothers me about the vaccine mandates is, what if there is a bad batch that really does end up killing or maiming people?

    The moral issue here is that the government–me, essentially, in a democracy–is forcing people to take something that the government cannot guarantee is safe or effective. I have no problem with the government’s recommending it, but I think there is moral problem with the government forcing people to have this medical treatment.

    When a person is forced by another person to do something, the person forcing the action is then responsible for the outcome.

    If at some point there is a bad batch, people are going to be extremely angry, and rightfully so.

     

    • #29
  30. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    EB (View Comment):
    The entire  obituary is an emotional attack on the vaccine.  They have lost their daughter – of course they are emotional.  But does their claim have some validity?  You can’t know without seeing actual data.  Saying doesn’t make it so.   It’s like a report on VAERS – it’s not actual data.  It’s just someone’s story.

    The injections are harming and sometimes killing people. They serve no benefit. How many more victim, nurse, doctor, and researcher testimonies do the vaxx apologists need before they admit this? 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.