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
It’s possible that’s changed, or maybe it depends some on the individual. That’s what my uncle told me he did, but again he got his kidney transplant something like ~25-30 years ago now. (Unfort. I can’t ask him again, since he passed Aug 2. A cardiac issue, he’d had COPD for a long time and was due for a stent, but he didn’t want it.)
Did someone say Calcium?
From an interesting (but highly technical) article:
Since the immunocompromised status of KT [kidney transplant] recipients may conceivably influence the outcome of COVID-19 disease in KT recipients, the management of the IS [immunosuppression] regimen is thought to play a central role in such frail patients. Some data suggest that IS may exert “a protective role”, as the cytokine storm is considered to be an important factor in the pathogenesis of the disease. Yet, on the other hand, it is also reasonable to advise a reduction, or a temporary withdrawal, of IS drugs during a severe course of COVID-19 in order to obtain earlier restoration of the host immune system …
The bottom line appears to be, you dial back the IS depending on how sick the patient is with COVID-19.
The next article suggests the administration of IS drugs is something you do after the transplant, not before:
The activation of the recipient immune system can lead to damage of the transplanted organ …
Consequently, post-transplant immunosuppression aims to modify these responses to reduce the damage occurring to the transplanted organ by the recipient’s immune system.
It occurs to me that giving IS drugs to the patient while he’s waiting for an organ would increase the odds that he would die of an infection before he ever got to the operating table.
How is that any different than the risk of infection AFTER the transplant?
The data is out there that kidney transplant patients are ending up having the kidney that was transplanted get rejected after being COV vaxxed. Anyone who does not think this indicates caution should be a sensible approach with regardsto the status of both the kidney being donated and the transplant patient themself is not thinking clearly.
All for an infectionthat people under the age of 30 easily survive.
After the transplant you balance the increased risk of infection against the decreased risk of transplant rejection. And change your lifestyle to avoid infection.
All of that could be done before, too. Indeed, transplant applicants are expected to change their lifestyle BEFORE the surgery too, in part to show that they CAN abstain from alcohol etc, as well as to get other habits in place. And if the risk of infection and death is so great, maybe the transplant isn’t such a good idea to start with.
Most people prefer the risk of infection to the certainty of death by organ failure.
Yes, but, my point was that if the risk of infection is so great BEFORE transplant that you don’t dare give them immuno-suppressive drugs BEFORE the transplant, that doesn’t exactly provide encouragement for non-infection AFTER the transplant. If transplants and the immuno-suppressive drugs were really that… unhelpful… it makes the whole transplant system seem like wasted effort.
Obviously that’s not true. IS drugs are used when their benefits outweigh the risks, which is often the case. It seems quite straightforward.