Refusing heart transplant for anti-vaxxer

[JasperL]

In this case that is just excuses for the coldness (and naivety) you and other posters in this thread represent.


So I ask you why isn't the dictatorship of China considered the ultimate solution for any society? After al, the vast majority in China approves. Why human rights, why freedom of speech, why minorities rights? Why not do like you and abandon those principals as soon as your views are in majority and differ to the ones presenting those views? Even to the extend where you think that one man should die in benefit of another man that might share your beliefs (or at least succumb to the demands of them) is a good thing....

The man is making a choice. The 'demands' of him are required of EVERY transplant patient and vaccines are one of many. If hearts were manufactured by the truckload, it's fine to let him decide on his own care, "do his own research" and then demand the surgical team do what he wants, not what the surgeons with thousands of transplants have learned is best through their experience and expertise. If just wants to take 1 post-surgery drug, or no drugs, based on "his own research" then he can do that, and tell the transplant care team to go **** themselves. And if he dies, all that's lost is the money and the manufactured heart, and some time.

That's not all that's at stake here. There are a fraction of organs available versus those who need them. The system therefore must and does allocate organs to people willing and able to do justice to the donor's organ. Most will die without ever getting a heart so the institution has a moral, ethical, medical and legal obligation to allocate those organs to those who have the best chance at survival, and that is not some idiot who "does his own research" and ignores the required pre and post surgery care that gives him the best chance at survival.

What meaning does your other views regarding for example homosexuals rights hold when you abandon the same principals that you base those views on as soon as someone express views that you don't share and when your view are so rigid that not even a valid reason is reason enough for you. He should die for that, it's al on him....

I tell you: Nothing, they are worth absolutely nothing...

Well, I guess your view is if a person needs a liver and is an alcoholic, it's his right to decide to keep drinking up through and post surgery, because if not we are stomping on his right to drink, or else it's just like thousands of years of oppression of homosexuals! What if this guy decides "based on his own research" that this 'fasting' the night before surgery is a bunch of bullshit, and his wife brings him a 12 inch turkey sub that morning? At what point do you think the medical team should refuse to operate? Never, perhaps. It's all about him apparently and his wants and needs!

This isn't about expressing views. The ONLY thing that matters here is do vaccines increase odds of survival, for this patient and every other one getting an organ at that facility. If they do, and there's plenty of evidence for that, it's entirely legitimate ethically and morally and obviously medically to require them as a condition of surgery.

I'll just end with this. This guy has no right to ANY organ, or ANY surgery. Go to your local orthopedic and demand a new knee. If he believes it's medically nonsense, dangerous, reckless, or just doesn't like you because you're an asshole and thinks you'll be a nightmare patient, he has every "right" and FREEDOM to tell you to go home, quit bothering him. If he tells you you cannot get a knee unless you lose 30 pounds, you can do that OR not get the knee. You are not a victim if you refuse to or cannot do what that guy requires for his patients. He has rights as well, and you have no right to demand his services on YOUR terms. Similarly, this moron has no right to demand a heart on HIS terms.

So he has a choice - fulfill the requirements imposed by the surgical team and institution, and get on the list, or refuse and not get on the list. As adults we should all recognize this is a common problem. Our decisions have consequences. It's entirely fair if they explain the requirements and he chooses to refuse them and he suffers the known consequences of his free choice.

 

[roguenuke]

I am trying to tell you something important and as usual, you are not listening. What can I do.... I give up..

No, you aren't. I believe that you may believe you are. In reality, so far, you have simply made excuses for someone who has been told he has to get a vaccine to increase his chances of survival for his heart transplant before they will give him a heart and he refused. That is the same ultimatum that almost every person, including those others currently on the list he was/would have been on were told and most did it because they want to live, they can do grown up rational risk assessments and take responsibility for their decisions rather than whining about them.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Sort of explains why the hospitals are denying a transplant. I am confused though; I thought most Americans paid for health care so he could just buy a new organ and pay doctors to operate on him - whatever the status of his vaccination?

Does the patient not have the money for private treatment or whatever the US healthcare system is called?

Private pay or not, it's still a committe who decides where the organ goes.

UNOS | United Network for Organ Sharing | US Organ Transplantation

UNOS is a nonprofit organization with decades of experience in helping save lives through research, technology, innovation and education.

unos.org

 

[roguenuke]

Sort of explains why the hospitals are denying a transplant. I am confused though; I thought most Americans paid for health care so he could just buy a new organ and pay doctors to operate on him - whatever the status of his vaccination?

Does the patient not have the money for private treatment or whatever the US healthcare system is called?

Organs for transplant are in short supply (which should be obvious to everyone) and everyone needing one in the US goes on a list, as long as they meet a given set of criteria to get one. Legally, a person cannot simply buy their way onto or up the list (this doesn't mean it might not happen at times illegally and unethically, immorally).

 

[JasperL]

The consensus in this thread is that he has been denied the transplant due to being unvaccinated. That is not a medical valid reason. They could easily take a blood sample to establish if he is infected.

I think you mean they can test for antibodies. Well, since you're an expert tell us what level of antibodies is sufficient protection for a SOTR, post surgery. Will vaccines pre or post surgery boost those antibodies? Do you have research that tell us if so and by how much if any. Can you cite that research? Can you cite research that tell us the risk of vaccines versus the benefit, if any, of additional antibodies from a vaccine for a SOTR, even if previously infected?

You can do none of that, so you simply cannot assert what is or is not a "valid medical reason." You have no idea how to even evaluate that question.

 

[roguenuke]

Swedish television had an interview with his wife, should be somewhere in your press as well though.

Are you sure it was this guy and not one of the others who have been denied for the same reason? Like this one

Man claims UVA Health denied kidney transplant over COVID vaccine

A piece of a national conversation surrounding organ transplants and the COVID-19 vaccine is playing out in Charlottesville.

www.cbs19news.com

This is not a new thing either. People are denied transplants or being put on the list if they refuse other vaccines as well.

 

[weaver2]

You are thoroughly brain washed !

Here try this:
885,000 people died with covid. That seems a rather high price to pay for Fauci to create a NEW UNNATURAL Bat Virus, just
so he can figure out Gain of Function ....

At no time have I, nor anyone I've hear, said NO ONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET VAXXED !!!..
There is NO MANDATE to FORCE people to NOT HAVE THE VAXX !!!...

So get the propaganda out of your head !...

I wished we Stopped China from unleashing this pandemic (Planed-Demic)!
I wished Fauci did not shirt around DARPA's judgement, that Gain of Function is too risky for the World, by going to the Wuhan lab!!!

But I will not let these same CRIMINALS Force their "Emergency Experimental Use" Drugs on ME or anyone else who chooses not to! !

Military Documents About Gain of Function Contradict Fauci Testimony Under Oath | Project Veritas

Investigating and exposing corruption in both public and private institutions.

www.projectveritas.com

Ah, did your own research didn't you. Good for you. Those Facebook guys selling natural supplements are the real protection. Fauci has nothing but killer vaccines and masks.

 

[JasperL]

He is not an anti vaxxer.... He was afraid of the consequenses on his health of the vaccine due to his condition and didn't want to vaccinate unless he could get garantees that it wouldn't hurt him or aggravate his condition. They couldn't (of course) give him that.

Of course not. They couldn't guarantee that an aspirin wouldn't aggravate his condition or that the anti-rejection drug cocktail he'd be on wouldn't come with severe side effects. What matters to the surgery team is the expected benefits versus the very small but positive risk of vaccination.

So if the guy was looking for a "guarantee" of no harm of ANY drug or vaccine, he's telling us he's an idiot when it comes to making medical decisions. That's not a winning strategy for the patient, the transplant team or odds his surgery will be successful if he's going to do "his own research" on vaccines or anything else and ignore the advice of his transplant team.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

What kind of disgusting medical institution denies someone a heart transplant.

A medical institution that wants to give rare organs to people who are least likely to ruin the opportunity.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Except it's not a valid medical reason. It's nothing but the most egregious form of bullying by trying to use someone's life to get them to do what they want.

It is a valid medical reason.

And it's not a big ask to ask someone to get vaccinated.

If the patient is too obnoxious to get vaccinated then he doesn't get the organ.

 

[Deuce]

The consensus in this thread is that he has been denied the transplant due to being unvaccinated. That is not a medical valid reason. They could easily take a blood sample to establish if he is infected. If medical personal start making decisions based on non-medical reasons, we have a big problem, don't you agree?


Not what we are discussing though . We are discussing the propriety of the decision based on the assumption that this is the case.

You badly misunderstand the reason for the vaccination requirement. It's not just about whether or not they are currently infected. It's about their post-transplant survival odds.

They don't give a lung transplant to someone who wont give up smoking. Do you or do you not understand why this is?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

the antibody load is only about 30% of what is needed to effectively fight an aggressive viral infection.

Where are you getting this from? And could you please precisely define what you mean by "effectively fight an aggressive viral infection"? Would you please link to the source or reference material where you are getting this from? I found a handful of studies that demonstrated a threshold effect with respect to infection, but not with respect to outcomes such as the rates of death, serious illness, or hospitalization. I cannot find any study that indicates there is a threshold effect with respect to severe illness or hospitalization, where, let's say, if the antibody load is 1% or 5% or 30% of "what is needed", any amount less than a particular level, then one's outcome is likely to be severely worse, and to the extent that it's almost like they weren't vaccinated at all. There's lots of studies though. Maybe I missed something. Are you sure you are not confusing the two things? Are you sure you are not confusing the risk of infection or infection outcomes?

I ask because it just sort of seems like to me you're just doing a more sophisticated version of what most Trump supporters do when they say that because the vaccine is not 100% effective it's 100% useless.

Heisenberg:

First, best wishes for your eventual transplant.

I'm not on any transplant list. I was just quoting the article. It's obvious you didn't read any of the articles I linked to.

Yes, as stated in post 115 and a later post here, higher immune response with a third vaccination of mRNA have been discovered but the antibody load is only about 30% of what is needed to effectively fight an aggressive viral infection. Furthermore this immune response and weak viral load is short lived and wanes quickly. There is much debate in the scientific literature as to whether this low viral load will protect an immunosuppressed patient or even ameliorate the symptoms should the disease take hold.

That's why you give the vaccine to people before they go on immunosuppressants and before they get a transplanted organ.

You are talking about what happens when you give vaccines to people who've already had a transplant.

Bolding mine. Note the use of the word likely. There is verbal hedging throughout your two sources. The jury is still out on that. Therefore, given the state of the knowledge and data to date, there is no medical reason to refuse an unvaccinated person an organ transplant. If that changes then I will gladly reverse my position, but the data is not there yet. Think of it as a bit of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle come up from the quantum microcosm to play about in our macro world.

You've got it backwards. There is no medical reason to refuse to demand an organ transplant recipient to get vaccinated. And if there is no reason for a transplant recipient to refuse, other than just refusing to get vaccinated for political reasons because they are being an obstinate, spiteful, belligerent Trump supporter, then they should get vaccinated. And it's not the organization that's being political. It's the idiot anti-vaxxer. Here's the deal. It's not a big ask to ask someone to get vaccinated. They are getting an organ transplant for god's sake. They should be grateful and follow the advice of the experts who are helping to make it happen. So even if we assume you're right that the jury is still out, it makes more sense to have the transplant recipient get vaccinated, than not. The vaccine is safe and effective. The transplant recipient has not yet been put on drugs that suppress his immune system. My advice to him is to just shut up, stop being political about this, and get vaccinated.

 

[Lursa]

The consensus in this thread is that he has been denied the transplant due to being unvaccinated. That is not a medical valid reason. They could easily take a blood sample to establish if he is infected. If medical personal start making decisions based on non-medical reasons, we have a big problem, don't you agree?


Not what we are discussing though . We are discussing the propriety of the decision based on the assumption that this is the case.

It is if it came from his doctor/transplant guidelines, which you just concurred with.

 

[Mach]

Here's another one, refusing the vaccine for a life-saving kidney transplant.

‘I will die free’: Unvaccinated Burke County man denied kidney transplant by hospital

Chad Carswell told Channel 9′s Dave Faherty his kidney is only operating at about 4%. He said he has more than 100 people willing to donate a kidney, but because of his vaccination status, that won’t happen.

www.wsoctv.com

“No sir, I was born free. I will die free. I’m not changing my mind,” Carswell said. “I’ve had conversations with my family and everybody who is close to me and they know where I stand and there will not be a situation that occurs where I’ll change my mind on this topic.”

He said doctors and nurses at the hospital spoke with him about getting the vaccine, but he believes it is a choice and he doesn’t believe someone should be forced to get one.

“That’s when I politely told him there’s nothing to talk about,” Carswell said. “It wasn’t up for debate, I wasn’t getting it. And he told me ‘You know you’ll die if you don’t get it,’ and I told him I’m willing to die.”

 

[Lursa]

Here's another one, refusing the vaccine for a life-saving kidney transplant.

‘I will die free’: Unvaccinated Burke County man denied kidney transplant by hospital

Chad Carswell told Channel 9′s Dave Faherty his kidney is only operating at about 4%. He said he has more than 100 people willing to donate a kidney, but because of his vaccination status, that won’t happen.

www.wsoctv.com

*smh*

To die only to leave grieving family and friends and becoming a public example for pointless resistance.

I didnt realize getting vaccinated...any of them...made me less free.

 

[JasperL]

Where are you getting this from? And could you please precisely define what you mean by "effectively fight an aggressive viral infection"? Would you please link to the source or reference material where you are getting this from? I found a handful of studies that demonstrated a threshold effect with respect to infection, but not with respect to outcomes such as the rates of death, serious illness, or hospitalization. I cannot find any study that indicates there is a threshold effect with respect to severe illness or hospitalization, where, let's say, if the antibody load is 1% or 5% or 30% of "what is needed", any amount less than a particular level, then one's outcome is likely to be severely worse, and to the extent that it's almost like they weren't vaccinated at all. There's lots of studies though. Maybe I missed something. Are you sure you are not confusing the two things? Are you sure you are not confusing the risk of infection or infection outcomes?

I didn't quote the whole thing, but of course you're correct with it all. And there is no study drawing clear lines about what levels of antibodies are needed for protection I've seen in any population, much less in this one - SOTRs. Nor can you find any study that indicates that vaccines pose more than a trivial risk to these patients, especially pre-surgery, when they are recommended in every case where it's possible to give them.

What I don't get is how people are now so certain of their opinions that are, let's be honest, based on a foundation of nearly complete ignorance. I'm pretty sure in that arena most of us don't know enough to know what we don't know, much less how to competently answer the many questions about care for these incredibly vulnerable patients. Doesn't matter. They're willing to effectively call these institutions and research teams murderers, because they are certain the requirement is just political and has nothing to do with the medical benefits of vaccines.

At some level, I can understand a difference of opinion. There may be transplant centers in this country that make vaccines optional. It's not the recommendation of the standard setting bodies in that arena, but who knows. The thing is, however, that's still just a difference of medical opinion and a requirement for a vaccine that in every other population dramatically reduces the odds of serious cases and deaths is CLEARLY intended to reduce the risk these people die, and should be evaluated with that motive as the obvious one. And yet, they call them "evil" among other things, and they're ignoramuses. It's just the oddest societal phenomenon where people are so certain their opinions founded in nearly complete ignorance are BETTER THAN those with decades of demonstrated expertise in an arena such as this, the best minds on the planet in this arena whose competence is demonstrated with every surgery, every patient whose life is saved.

 

[roguenuke]

Here's another one, refusing the vaccine for a life-saving kidney transplant.

‘I will die free’: Unvaccinated Burke County man denied kidney transplant by hospital

Chad Carswell told Channel 9′s Dave Faherty his kidney is only operating at about 4%. He said he has more than 100 people willing to donate a kidney, but because of his vaccination status, that won’t happen.

www.wsoctv.com

This is like someone complaining about having to quite smoking and drinking in order to be on the list because those things are their own choice. Yes, those are choices you can make, but those choices have consequences.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I didn't quote the whole thing, but of course you're correct with it all. And there is no study drawing clear lines about what levels of antibodies are needed for protection I've seen in any population, much less in this one - SOTRs. Nor can you find any study that indicates that vaccines pose more than a trivial risk to these patients, especially pre-surgery, when they are recommended in every case where it's possible to give them.

What I don't get is how people are now so certain of their opinions that are, let's be honest, based on a foundation of nearly complete ignorance. I'm pretty sure in that arena most of us don't know enough to know what we don't know, much less how to competently answer the many questions about care for these incredibly vulnerable patients. Doesn't matter. They're willing to effectively call these institutions and research teams murderers, because they are certain the requirement is just political and has nothing to do with the medical benefits of vaccines.

At some level, I can understand a difference of opinion. There may be transplant centers in this country that make vaccines optional. It's not the recommendation of the standard setting bodies in that arena, but who knows. The thing is, however, that's still just a difference of medical opinion and a requirement for a vaccine that in every other population dramatically reduces the odds of serious cases and deaths is CLEARLY intended to reduce the risk these people die, and should be evaluated with that motive as the obvious one. And yet, they call them "evil" among other things, and they're ignoramuses. It's just the oddest societal phenomenon where people are so certain their opinions founded in nearly complete ignorance are BETTER THAN those with decades of demonstrated expertise in an arena such as this, the best minds on the planet in this arena whose competence is demonstrated with every surgery, every patient whose life is saved.

Well said.

 

[Chomsky]

Of course, your post is the most sane of the thread, but this just goes to show, "healthcare providers" aren't taking on high risk cases because it's going to cost them more money and time to treat. The unvaccinated patient is no different than an elderly woman who needs a hip replacement but is refused because she smokes.

Unfortunately, life sometimes has harsh realities.

When organs are dolled-out to the most needy, it's actually a form of triage. And triage makes for difficult decisions. I surely wouldn't want to have to make them!

 

[Chomsky]

They are not denying care.
This is my son, in happier times before his congenitally defective heart
began to fail in a very big way.

View attachment 67371039

Here he is today, in the cardiac ICU at UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center in Los Angeles.
He's pretty much out of options at this point, save for them getting his edema down to the
point where his weight is low enough again to be a candidate for a Dick Cheney Machine,
a "Left Ventricle Assist Device", or LVAD.

View attachment 67371038

In the top picture he weighed 195 pounds. When we brought him
in to UCLA three weeks ago, he was 363 pounds.
In October we brought him in at 384 pounds.
Almost ALL of it is WATER...he's like the Titanic.

Today he is 291, the last time they got him down to 270.
But the moment he's home, the water starts packing on again.

He is NOT, at this time, a candidate for EITHER a transplant OR an LVAD for the simple
reason that he's too heavy and would not survive either operation, or would not recover quickly
enough to avoid dying post-op anyway.

They're doing their best to keep him going but his options are almost nonexistent unless we can
find better ways to deal with his edema.
And since he, like my wife, was born with ONE kidney (albeit a healthy one, thankfully) that poor old
kidney has to work like Hell just to get him down to under 300.

There's simply NO POINT in getting a heart for him if he expires during surgery and also no point
if he dies shortly after the operation because of factors that can be controlled.
In his case, the question is, can they control his edema well enough long term that he can get
down to target weight, which for him is 220 to 240.

If he was unvaccinated, again it is a factor which can be controlled, by vaccination.
No point giving HIM a heart if he dies of COVID two weeks later.
Of course, since he isn't an IDIOT and since he wasn't RAISED by idiots, he is fully vaccinated and boosted.

No one would deny the guy in the article healthcare, he just does not currently meet the criteria for a transplant.
And unfortunately right now, neither does my son.
Difference is, the guy in the article only needs to get his shots.
My son wishes he was that lucky.

Oh man, CS, I can see you have some crosses to bear. Got you in my thoughts here, buddy.

 

[Chomsky]

The heart will not be tossed, it will simply be used for someone who is apt to have a better outcome.

That's the point, exactly. It is in effect, 'triage'.

 

[Evilroddy]

No, I just get sick and tired of people taking cheap shots at doctors and calling them politically-motivated murderers, effectively, from positions of near total ignorance, and somehow believe their views based on a google search = decades of acquired expertise from some of the most talented and brilliant surgeons on this planet.

@JasperL

Please cite where I called any doctors "politically-motivated murders". I didn't say that at all. You seem to have difficulty sorting out what I say and what you think I say. As to the rest of this section its rhetoric.

You're just using different words to say their motives are illegitimate. You need to at least own up to the charge you are leveling and it's nothing less than calling these surgeons and their teams and the facilities with effectively killing this patient for political reasons. You are maligning their integrity, their expertise and their willingness to do what's right for the patient and the broader transplant efforts. You're asserting they are willing to undermine all of their professional obligations for "political" reasons.

No, I am not. I am saying that the decision to deny patients their places on transplant lists is a political decision, in the absence of clear evidence that vaccines will effectively help immunosuppressed patients exposed to new and aggressive variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, is an administrative/political one. I made no judgement about the legitimacy of such decisions. I just want readers here to think about that possibility and weigh it for themselves. Again you use your own hyperbolic thoughts in place of my actual words in what followed above.

That's an objective claim. You need data to assert it. You are not an expert, and you have no idea, literally no clue, if or how much the vaccine will protect the patient now, and in 3 months, and in 6 months.

Given that transplant denial for vaccinating Covid-19 refusal is a new position, it is incumbent on those making and those supporting such new decisions to make the case; not those asking others to reflect and analyse upon such decisions. The ball is and always has been in your court as the burden of proof falls on those who advocate for a new change in policy. If you have not sussed it out, name calling has absolutely no effect on me. So why waste our time?

But this is part of the problem. You don't even know how to look up a study, and if you do find it, you don't have the subscriptions to read many of them, nor do you have any idea if what you can find with your Google machine is all the data available to elite institutions and their transplant teams. Do you think the transplant team at a major transplant center in the U.S. with some of the best minds in the world for transplant surgeries, whose entire adults lives are dedicated to learning how to best keep their patin residence needs two days to find a study directly relevant to their care? Do you think you can interpret it better than they do? Do you really think that in major academic centers and elite transplant centers they aren't privy to data long before someone hits "publish?"

No. I was responding to an article which you linked to. I attempted to get behind the article which YOU posted in order to read the actual study it was based on. Alas, it was behind pay-walls and I was not willing to pay to unlock it, especially since I would not be able to cite it here verbatim. You posted the linked article so it is incumbent upon you to provide the study it was based upon so that others can evaluate the validity of your cited article's claims. The rest is more rhetoric. All people have the right to read, consider and interpret medical data. The medical profession is not some raised priesthood with sole access to secret arcane wisdom and a right to be shielded from lay critique and civil criticism.

Continued next post.

 

[Evilroddy]

@JasperL

Continued from last post:

Right, I pointed this out to you in my reply.

You missed the bit about the study being completed before the most aggressive strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus had emerged or become dominant in the USA. That is central to the weakness of the study.

As I keep pointing out, the only way to do a good study and obtain the proof you think is needed before a doctor can on sound medical grounds require vaccines is an RCT. That is impossible. No IRB would approve such a study because it would require you to randomize a population of incredibly vulnerable patients into the NO PROTECTION FROM A DEADLY PANDEMIC group. It wouldn't get past the LMMFAO stage if proposed.

More rhetoric.

It's also odd that you mention co-morbidity factors. Your position is the immune suppressant drugs alone make surviving COVID nearly impossible, THEREFORE, goes your theory, no need for a vaccine and producing antibodies, because they're dead men walking if they get COVID, with or without vaccines.

Again I did not say what you say I said. I said and continue to say that immunosuppressed patients are far more vulnerable to the most aggressive strains of the SARS-CoV-2 and that the data to date indicates only poor responses to and poorer protection from these aggressive strains even with the triple-vaccination protocol. Until advocates of compelling vaccination for transplant recipients can show otherwise, the medical rationale for such a new policy is weak and thus the policy continues to look like a political/administrative policy rather than one based solely on medical priorities alone.

Define "much less beneficial." What level of antibodies are needed? Remember, this study showed likely protection when detectable antibodies were zero! If you can't explain that, then you have no business making medical judgments, and you cannot explain it, because you don't have the expertise.

I have already done so. I will do it again in a post to another poster in this thread soon instead of doing it again here, to avoid repeating myself endlessly. Which study do you refer to when you say "this study" because you have provided no actual study, just a short article based on it.

They're not rosy predictions - they are DATA showing vaccines WORK for SOTRs. Please explain why a vaccine that works for me and you for Alpha, AND Delta, AND omicron, at least to prevent serious cases and deaths, will also work for a SOTR for the pre-Delta strains but be useless against delta and omicron? You cannot explain it.

The study you linked a description to was rosy because it's timing predated the emergence or establishment of the most aggressive strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the US population which it studied.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Chomsky]

i would sue.

Good luck with that. It's essentially a triage decision, and it occurs all the time.

 

[Chomsky]

There are a number of criteria that cumulatively are supposed to indicate success and survivability.

He failed in that one, we dont know how he ranked on others. Maybe that tipped the scales.

So stupid, so wasteful, potentially so painful for his family.

The family member said, "he doesnt believe in it." I wonder if he 'believed in' vaccines before covid?

Exactly!