That’s fine.
But transplants were being done before cv19, without cv19 vaccination. Based on current data, covid is now a greater risk for infection and death for the cv19vxd than it is for the unvxd. And that is just for cv19 itself. The SADS cases are vxd people, not unvxd. And the business end of the virus no longer exists in “wild” cv19 and does not cause cardiovascular issues, while the cv19vx most certainly does produce the spike which causes cardio issues (eg. my Dad, with no prior family history, is suffering cardio and neuro issues post clot shot #3).
You may well be right about the legal. IIRC, courts typically side with the “expert” witnesses, and it is nigh impossible to get an expert certified in Court if he/she is not published and does not have a widely accepted conventional view. We can be sure that both Mayo and Pharma will have their ducks in a row on this. Pharma will be involved for obvious reasons.
The parallel system is probably the only solution. I know you don’t like Dr McCullough, but we love him. And we’re going to do whatever we can to protect MDs like him.
I do not like McCullough because he lied about his credentials which got him thrown off staff. THis was the issue. I also think he is wrong.
However, I think that in an expert war you must present something more than conjecture for a ruling — the calling for Nurenberg style trials is over the top and is easily discredited as fringe — eventhough the passion runs high.
I think McCullough sold out as did Tenpenny. However, I do think there are non-biased physicians who could make the argument.
I disagree that SADS is entirely attributable to “the jab” — The best weighting of the evidence would suggest that myocarditis and pericarditis of vaccination origin is brief, and self limited. There were prety notable cases of pericarditis and myocarditis prior to vaccination as a symptom of CoVID infection — that is hard to get around from a legal perspective.
I think vaccination at this time is unwarranted in healthy and young people (young being up to the age of 65). I think COVID in the vast majority of cases has settled into inconvenient and not fatal — ergo vaccination is not necessary. The other thing is that transplant is standardized across medical (transplant) centers — this may not be a requirement of Mayo, but of the transplant system itself. I will try to find out.
SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to be a health care problem throughout the US, affecting the candidates, recipients, and donors of organ transplants, the transplant staff, and, to a variable degree, every hospital and every person in the country. Although therapeutic options have increased, the best available tool to mitigate the severity of COVID-19 disease is vaccination. It has been the COVID Strike Force’s consistent recommendation that all candidates, recipients (and family members), and live donors of organ transplant, in addition to transplant staff and physicians, receive an approved vaccine. This recommendation is to permit the continued practice of clinical organ transplant procedures with the lowest morbidity risk to the candidates, recipients, and those of us who care for them. Some centers (ours included) have made a policy that requires SARS-CoV-2 vaccination before a candidate’s registration on the national organ waiting list. The arguments for vaccine mandates are numerous1 but have been polarizing.
It appears that the vaccinations for listing are up to the individual transplant center -- so this is good (and actually surprises me)
This is notable, however, About 60% of transplant centers in a recent survey reported that patients are not required to have COVID-19 vaccinations prior to surgery. “Only 35.7% of centers reported implementing a vaccine mandate, while 60.7% reported that vaccination was not required,” Benjamin E. Hippen, MD, and colleagues wrote in a recent issue of the American Journal of Transplantation. “A minority (42%) of responding centers with a vaccine mandate for transplant candidates also mandated vaccination for living organ donors.”
So it appears that there is choice. Mayo is quite conservative and academic -- it does not surprise me that they require vaccination for listing on transplant list. In my judgment, as I know the amount of immunosuppresion for transplant, I would recommend the bivalent vaccination (I think the risks are outweighed by the benefits), but I am glad it is not mandatory at all centers -- if the patient in the article does not want the vaccine, then it stands to reason she could find a center that is more in line with her personal beliefs