Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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
Maybe not, but if someone doesn’t know anyone who died of covid, but they DO know someone who (may have) died from the vaccine… doesn’t that tell you something too?
Yes, but only (only?) 700,000 or so have died from covid in the US in the last 18 months. So, statistically speaking there are bound to be many who don’t know anyone personally who has died, as I mentioned above in response to Stina. There are a quite a bit fewer who don’t even know of someone who has died from covid, but that’s certainly possible, too. Even so, if there was a total media blackout on the subject, don’t you think you would have heard about it? With hospitals overcrowded and people not showing up to work and people mysteriously turning up dead. Don’t you think word would have trickled down to just about everyone that a bad new virus was on the loose?
But compared to over 200,000,000 who have had at least one shot of the vaccine in half that time, that 700,000 is a tiny number. Do you think it’s reasonable that some significant number of those – say just 1/2 of one percent – roughly 1 million people – could have had some severe reaction to the shot and the media could cover that up? Where did these million people go to get treated for the reaction? Are doctors and nurses taking some kind of vow of silence? What on earth makes anyone think such an event could be kept secret?
Use your common sense.
I’m not for mandates at all, but don’t let opposition to the mandates cause you to toss your common sense out the window. The mandates are wrong regardless of the safety of the vaccines. If opposition to mandate is grounded in an argument that the vaccine is unsafe, it is bound to lose. If the opposition admits the safety of the vaccines (or at least doesn’t deny it), and makes the case against mandates on other grounds, it may well succeed.
You’re missing the point. My point was that Ivermectin is a safe, cheap, and effective drug as are a number of other supplements. And yet it’s being banned for absolutely no good reason. Worse than that, it’s being denied people in life or death scenarios. Why? The India case is merely evidence of it’s safety, something then American medical establishment is lying to you about. This is criminal.
The India case is not evidence of anything. Did you read my comments?
I took that as part of my premise, but you seem to skip past the other part. I don’t know, or know OF, anyone personally who died of covid. And maybe the young woman’s family didn’t either. (I don’t remember if that was mentioned in the story or the obit, and I don’t feel like reading through it all again.) But if they DO know someone who (they believe) died from the vaccine, doesn’t that suggest something to you? If only that THEIR concerns might have a rational basis even if you disagree with it due to the sample size or whatever?
If someone or a family doesn’t know anyone who died from covid, but they believe one of their family group died from the vaccine, that seems like a somewhat reasonable real-life cause for concern about the vaccines, whereas their concern about covid may be more abstract/theoretical.
I have told my kids (in their 30s with a total of 7 grandkids) that if they don’t want to get vaxxed, then I will support them in their choice. Their mother, my wife, is a retired teacher. Her social media is flooded with leftest craziness. Only in the last month or so has she begun how invested the “education cummunity” is in the get-a-mandate-on-everything-that-moves policies.
Yes, did you read mine. Let me sum it up… again… Ivermectin is safe. That’s a fact that millions of data points (including a few million patients in India) support.
Stop running in circles and answer my question. Why is it banned?
You cited the India data in support of your proposition. What a normal person does with that information is look and see whether it is, in fact, unusual. It turns out that, based on India nationwide data and that of neighboring states, it is not unusual, and thus can’t be used to support your proposition. I’m not arguing against ivermectin – I’m pointing out the simple fact that the India data can’t be used to support its use.
The same initiative in Uttar Pradesh also distributed masks. Using your logic, I can assert it was the masks that caused covid to drop so much in UP.
I looked at this link and am not sure what it shows, since it provides no link to the source data. However, in evaluating the claims I would start by looking at the data regarding deaths of those 80+ within 14 days of receiving the covid vaccine. First to confirm the accuracy of the numbers. Second, given that, on average, 3,700 persons 80+ die each day in the U.S., is there anything unusual about the claimed link to the vaccine, when this was the highest priority group for vaccines and at least 81% have received it?
**headdesk** I’m going to try this one more time, try not to get distracted by your presumed understanding of the India example.
The argument I made in comment #138 is that safe, cheap, easily attainable drugs and supplements including Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Zinc, N-acetyl cysteine, and Quercetin have all been found to beneficial in the treatment of COVID-19. 250 studies (and a few recent cases **rolls eyes**) prove that COVID-19 is easily and cheaply treated with these measures. The non-Western world uses hydroxychloroquine liberally and enjoy 1% of the COVID-19 death rate of Western nations. For less than $25 the average person can be treated at home for Covid. There is no need for an experimental gene therapy that has a) killed some people and b) harmed a great many others.
My question to you, and I’ve repeated it three times now, is this: Why have treatments that have been FDA approved for decades with unimpeachable safety records been refused to patients?
If you can’t answer that question you should ask yourself, “Why not?” Maybe start by watching the video I linked by the attorney who’s representing whistleblowers regarding that scandal.
Insulting me doesn’t change the fact you presented a study as supporting your claims when it didn’t. Bluster all you want but it doesn’t change that, though I see you are now changing your argument. Now you want me to watch the video of a newly minted lawyer who’s got a lousy track record in covid litigation (I checked him out) and, as I pointed out above, makes assertions without providing links to the sources. You may be right about ivermectin (I certainly don’t trust the media’s disparagement of it) but when you keep presenting weak arguments to support your case it does not help.
As to your new argument, what are the non-Western nations using HCQ liberally with 1% the Covid death rate of Western nations?
I liked both your posts because you are both right, given what I think are your perspectives. I fall on the side of Vince here, but the main difference is that Gumby, you seem to believe that a drug should be withheld unless it is proven to be effective, and Vince you seem to argue that a drug should be given unless it is proven to be unsafe.
As it is, Fauci is mandating (yes, I give him credit for that) universal multiple mandatory vaccinations which are neither proven to be highly effective, nor safe, and given regardless of acquired natural immunity, and is in partnership with those who would delicense, decredential, and terminate the employment of tens of thousands of doctors if they prescribe medicines that are otherwise within their purview to do, or if they merely openly question, or question in front of patients, the efficacy and safety of the vaccines.
This is so top-heavy and contrary to science and established standards of professional medical practice that I can only conclude that there is something else going on here besides trying to stop the pandemic, to lessen transmission, and to lessen illness and death; that is, something other than trying to help people.
I am not making any argument about whether ivermectin should be approved, pro or con. My point, which I stated clearly in the original comment, was that the cited India study (which has now been raised in two separate posts) simply does not support the case for ivermectin.
Can you agree that the study doesn’t support vaccination as the sole treatment course? If vaccination in India remains on the low side, and yet they’re getting much better results than with vaccination.
I will repeat my original comment. We all know covid goes through waves. India was in a wave in May 2021. What happened in Uttar Pradesh and the neighboring states, which did not implement the same program, was they had the same results. The study mistook the UP results for causation when it was the natural course of a covid wave.
You’ve now avoided my question three times. I don’t blame you. Nobody else pushing for the injections wants to answer it either.
Grow up. You can’t even defend your arguments using substance, just invective. You call my analysis “presumed understanding” but you refuse to respond on the substance and throw a tantrum instead, trying desperately to change the subject. I will not play your game.
I know that 2 senior executives in the area responsible for vaccines at the FDA resigned over what they judged inappropriate actions in approving use of the vaccine without requiring testing protocols being completed.
I doubt if we would see any such resignations if off-label prescribing of HCQ and Ivermectin was allowed.
Double standards by this Administration, Democrats, and the federal bureaucracy in all areas is what is prompting this type of discussion. Another one surfaced this week when the Attorney General announced that DoJ would usurp responsibility for local law enforcement in disputes between parents of public school children and school board members. When did such local matters rise to federal.
Is it any wonder we couldn’t properly handle Afghanistan?
And what perchance do believe my argument to be, sir?
Not we. THEY.
His argument seems to be that the rate was going to drop by almost 100% anyway, Because Seasons, or something.
You guys can’t even keep your arguments straight. It’s been commonly brought up on Ricochet that covid goes in waves, regardless of interventions like masks and lockdowns. I think that argument is correct. But now, when it inconveniently screws up your argument for ivermectin you want to ignore it.
I understand his, but it has nothing to do with mine.
You were making an argument for a treatment and using Uttar Pradesh to support it, when it simply doesn’t. Same thing as happened on the other post where it was raised. I really have to explain your own argument to you?
OK, you like ivermectin and I’m not going to argue about that as I explained way back in this thread. And you’ve run away from the study you cited to support your argument and I get that.
Aaaaagh! Wrong, sir.
My argument is that banning it [Ivermectin] and things like NAC is unusual and circumspect given the timing, and that the banning of these – and other things I mentioned in later comments – should cause red flags to wave.
I used the India case to support the position that alternative treatments including but not limited to Ivermectin have had better results than treatments that exclude them. And I disagree with your conclusions on that study but as I’ve said, it has nothing to do with my argument that banning alternative treatments should make everyone scratch their heads and ask why?
You chose to ignore the question alluded to in my comment, and explicitly asked in three comments since. I’ll ask it one more time, just for kicks. Why have they banned these treatments?
When your line of debate has nothing to do with what I said, yes. I could care less what the winning formula in India was, be it a drug cocktail, Ivermectin, or a healthy dose of jasmine rice. The point is that they and other countries are allowed to use whatever method under the sun to treat Covid. We aren’t. And that fact, that we’re no longer authorized to practice medicine, should raise a red flag.
Why do you disagree with my conclusions on the study? It’s important because my conclusion was that none of those alternative treatments had an impact if you look at the other data in India. If your only point is that doctors should be free to prescribe alternative treatments I agree, which is different from arguing that they are effective. You’re trying to have it both ways. But then why are you citing this Ohio lawyer for a proposition for which there appears to be no support, while alleging it proves a crime, and why won’t you respond to me for support for your claim that non-Western countries using these alternative treatments have 1% of the death rate of Western countries?
By the way, in July India withdrew its approval for the use of ivermectin.
That mostly makes me wonder if Bill Gates or Anthony Fauci or someone like that, wrote any big checks around that time.
Did they say why?
Because I’m not interested in those topics, which is why I didn’t participate in that other thread. My only interest in this is as it relates to victims being denied alternative treatments and why.
And I have no intention of addressing your questions since you refuse to address mine…four times now.