[bagster]

You didn’t answer the question. Millions of transfusions. Over a billion doses. One tenuous sob story with holes in it bigger than the Grand Canyon. You simply cannot draw the conclusion you assume and therefore the rest of your statement is crap.

Yea, but that's not the question, is it.The question is why didn't the doctor use unvaccinated blood in compliance with the parent's wishes. What is the answer to that, b'rer rabbit?

Putting it on the parents is not only despicable but an abdication of responsibility. Its quite the strawman, but I suppose doctors are used to that dance when they get called to stand tall before the man for allegations of malpractice.

Do you guys often blame the patients or the families? The only thing the parents may be guilty of is trusting doctors too much.

[gas_dr]

Takes a straw man to know one sir. The question I asked is not the one you want to answer because you cannot. You pivot.

And as a matter of law and ethics it is absolutely on the parents. They are the guardian of the child. They consented fo a high risk operation knowing blood transfusion was likely. Now they are boo hooing saying it’s not their fault.

They could have waited or sought different treatments. And then they come with this nonsense that they aren’t even sure their child received blood from vaccinated donors. It’s laughable.

Your defense of it though valiant in terms of nor giving an inch is preposterous. You can’t answer a question. Ecuador it’s obvious and will weaken your entire theme. So you throw mud.

It’s obvious. And somewhat entertaining.