Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (5 Viewers)

[sammymvpknight]

I was discussing the link which you, yourself, have described I believe as self reported.

I'll defer to you, Dr, but from what I understand there are no deaths directly attributed to the vaccine. There are millions attributed to the virus. Either way, you or someone else did a very fine job explaining the self reported nature and the flaws in his logic in a previous post.

Still, you tell me. How many dead due strictly to the receipt of the vaccine?

The question that you're asking is a good one. I don't think that there is an easy answer. Let me ask the question that you're asking more broadly, "what is the burden of proof to say that ANY medical intervention is responsibility for a side effect or allergy?" The truth is that causation is difficult to prove with 100% certainty. This is also true of medical diagnoses as well, for that matter. For example, a patient is prescribed medication X and within days develops signs/symptoms Y. Is it causation? It really depends. If medication X is highly linked to signs/symptoms Y, then it increases the probability. If medication X was introduced immediately before the patient developed signs/symptoms Y, and there is not a better way to explain why the patient developed those signs/symptoms, then that would also increase the probability. But the probability is never 100%, and we have to use our best clinical judgement. Another example, patient develops signs/symptoms Y and it fits the clinical pattern of diagnosis Z, and that is supported with appropriate testing that also suggests diagnosis Z, then that would increase the probability that diagnosis Z is the correct diagnosis. A diagnosis will be made but there is never 100% certainty. We use probabilities to determine the MOST LIKELY explanation for something happening, but there are no certainties.

Regarding vaccines, and I'll review this a more broadly because I think that it'll help you understand the challenges of studying the topic. Here's a case: a baby develops profound nausea/vomiting that necessitates hospitalization. The baby is a twin and the other baby is completely fine. The sick baby gets resuscitated with fluids and monitored in the hospital for a few days, as its kidney function was off (likely because of dehydration). The baby would have likely died if it wasn't for medical intervention. Tests are done for an underlying pathogen, and there is nothing found (which makes since as the baby's close contact twin was completely healthy), and there was otherwise no other evidence of disease. The baby does well enough to get discharged from the hospitalization and is back to normal after a week or so without any future problems. Oh yeah, might not be important but the sick baby did get the Rotavirus vaccine the day before getting hospitalized. There is no "rotavirus vaccine" side effect lab work or imaging to confirm the diagnosis. So did the vaccine have anything to do with the hospitalization. My clinical impression was that there was a very strong time correlate, Rotavirus is a live vaccine and has been linked to rotavirus-like reactions including nausea/vomiting/dehydration, the other twin never got sick, and there was nothing else to better explain the hospitalization, so though there is no PROOF, a vaccine related side effect is the most likely explanation. My wife and I are both in medicine, we aren't dummies...but we had a PICU doctor try to convince us that the reason why our daughter was hospitalized wasn't because of the vaccine, because the doctor was afraid that it would scare us away from future vaccinations.

Here is another example: a 22 year old ends up being found dead by his roommate. On the scene it appeared that he had a seizure. Pathology ends up showing that the young man developed a condition called disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which is an unusual presentation of abnormal clotting in some parts of the body depleting clotting factors and causing bleeding in others. It was believed that this condition resulted in the seizure/stroke and death. He was previously completely healthy without any family history of anything remotely concerning of a bleeding/clotting disorder. The young man had a vaccine less than two days before the event. Unfortunately, the vaccine is relatively new and therefore there is not enough safe data to be powered to capture an event so rare. But could this even have occurred randomly, unprovoked? ANYTHING is possible, but I'm going to share with you why I think that this particular case is concerning. DIC is so rare that is almost exclusively found in patients in the ICU. There was a study performed at Mayo Clinic that showed that the incident of DIC in the ICU was about 1 in 200,000. Understand that Mayo Clinic has arguably the sickest patients in the country. Truth be told, many patients that are in ICUs in community centers would be managed in either general floors or step down units at Mayo Clinic because the average level of complexity is so impossibly high. So that 1 in 200,000 would likely be EVEN LOWER in a community ICU. And we are talking about the ICU, not the general healthy population. The incidence of DIC in people walking the streets has to be 1 in the tens of millions, statistically. It's essentially impossible. So when a medical intervention occurs within two days of this impossibly rare disease resulting in death occurs and there is no better explanation, that catches my eye. Did the COVID vaccine cause the death? There is no COVID vaccine side effect blood work or imaging to confirm diagnosis, you just have your clinical impression based on probabilities.

I've had patients develop all kinds of weird reactions to treatments that I've administered. Many of which aren't even recognized side effects, or are incredibly rare. But do I go out of my way to defend my treatment and disregard sound clinical judgement? Heck no. Unless I have a good reason to otherwise explain the reaction, I'm labeling the intervention as a side effect or allergy and not doing it again. But for some reason, rationale decision making has, in many ways, completely eluded medical providers on the topic of vaccines.

 

[Saint_Ward]

It only makes sense, as those at the top of the list be the most healthy and benefit the most. If people have poor metabolic health due to personal choices then they should definitely not be at the top of a recipient list for a transplant.

The leading cause of liver transplant is NASH (Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis), aka fatty liver disease. And it's strongly linked to obesity, or other metabolic syndromes. Hep C used to be the leading cause (might still be up there), but antivirals have helped with that.

So, I don't think you can push all of those folks to the bottom of the list.

 

[SaintInBucLand]

The leading cause of liver transplant is NASH (Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis), aka fatty liver disease. And it's strongly linked to obesity, or other metabolic syndromes. Hep C used to be the leading cause (might still be up there), but antivirals have helped with that.

So, I don't think you can push all of those folks to the bottom of the list.

They are making a conscious decision to eat poorly/lack of exercise and cause their fatty liver disease. Just like somebody can make the conscious decision to not get vaccinated. Both are putting themselves at greater mortality rates because of their decisions.

Of course there are people who can have liver disease and still be in good metabolic health due to other outlier reasons. But if your poor diet choices or choice to be sedentary and not take care of yourself resulted in your poor health, how is that different than making a conscious decision to not get vaccinated?

 

[Saint_Ward]

They are making a conscious decision to eat poorly/lack of exercise and cause their fatty liver disease. Just like somebody can make the conscious decision to not get vaccinated. Both are putting themselves at greater mortality rates because of their decisions.

Of course there are people who can have liver disease and still be in good metabolic health due to other outlier reasons. But if your poor diet choices or choice to be sedentary and not take care of yourself resulted in your poor health, how is that different than making a conscious decision to not get vaccinated?

Short term v long term for one.

 

[dtc]

The question that you're asking is a good one. I don't think that there is an easy answer. Let me ask the question that you're asking more broadly, "what is the burden of proof to say that ANY medical intervention is responsibility for a side effect or allergy?" The truth is that causation is difficult to prove with 100% certainty. This is also true of medical diagnoses as well, for that matter. For example, a patient is prescribed medication X and within days develops signs/symptoms Y. Is it causation? It really depends. If medication X is highly linked to signs/symptoms Y, then it increases the probability. If medication X was introduced immediately before the patient developed signs/symptoms Y, and there is not a better way to explain why the patient developed those signs/symptoms, then that would also increase the probability. But the probability is never 100%, and we have to use our best clinical judgement. Another example, patient develops signs/symptoms Y and it fits the clinical pattern of diagnosis Z, and that is supported with appropriate testing that also suggests diagnosis Z, then that would increase the probability that diagnosis Z is the correct diagnosis. A diagnosis will be made but there is never 100% certainty. We use probabilities to determine the MOST LIKELY explanation for something happening, but there are no certainties.

Regarding vaccines, and I'll review this a more broadly because I think that it'll help you understand the challenges of studying the topic. Here's a case: a baby develops profound nausea/vomiting that necessitates hospitalization. The baby is a twin and the other baby is completely fine. The sick baby gets resuscitated with fluids and monitored in the hospital for a few days, as its kidney function was off (likely because of dehydration). The baby would have likely died if it wasn't for medical intervention. Tests are done for an underlying pathogen, and there is nothing found (which makes since as the baby's close contact twin was completely healthy), and there was otherwise no other evidence of disease. The baby does well enough to get discharged from the hospitalization and is back to normal after a week or so without any future problems. Oh yeah, might not be important but the sick baby did get the Rotavirus vaccine the day before getting hospitalized. There is no "rotavirus vaccine" side effect lab work or imaging to confirm the diagnosis. So did the vaccine have anything to do with the hospitalization. My clinical impression was that there was a very strong time correlate, Rotavirus is a live vaccine and has been linked to rotavirus-like reactions including nausea/vomiting/dehydration, the other twin never got sick, and there was nothing else to better explain the hospitalization, so though there is no PROOF, a vaccine related side effect is the most likely explanation. My wife and I are both in medicine, we aren't dummies...but we had a PICU doctor try to convince us that the reason why our daughter was hospitalized wasn't because of the vaccine, because the doctor was afraid that it would scare us away from future vaccinations.

Here is another example: a 22 year old ends up being found dead by his roommate. On the scene it appeared that he had a seizure. Pathology ends up showing that the young man developed a condition called disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which is an unusual presentation of abnormal clotting in some parts of the body depleting clotting factors and causing bleeding in others. It was believed that this condition resulted in the seizure/stroke and death. He was previously completely healthy without any family history of anything remotely concerning of a bleeding/clotting disorder. The young man had a vaccine less than two days before the event. Unfortunately, the vaccine is relatively new and therefore there is not enough safe data to be powered to capture an event so rare. But could this even have occurred randomly, unprovoked? ANYTHING is possible, but I'm going to share with you why I think that this particular case is concerning. DIC is so rare that is almost exclusively found in patients in the ICU. There was a study performed at Mayo Clinic that showed that the incident of DIC in the ICU was about 1 in 200,000. Understand that Mayo Clinic has arguably the sickest patients in the country. Truth be told, many patients that are in ICUs in community centers would be managed in either general floors or step down units at Mayo Clinic because the average level of complexity is so impossibly high. So that 1 in 200,000 would likely be EVEN LOWER in a community ICU. And we are talking about the ICU, not the general healthy population. The incidence of DIC in people walking the streets has to be 1 in the tens of millions, statistically. It's essentially impossible. So when a medical intervention occurs within two days of this impossibly rare disease resulting in death occurs and there is no better explanation, that catches my eye. Did the COVID vaccine cause the death? There is no COVID vaccine side effect blood work or imaging to confirm diagnosis, you just have your clinical impression based on probabilities.

I've had patients develop all kinds of weird reactions to treatments that I've administered. Many of which aren't even recognized side effects, or are incredibly rare. But do I go out of my way to defend my treatment and disregard sound clinical judgement? Heck no. Unless I have a good reason to otherwise explain the reaction, I'm labeling the intervention as a side effect or allergy and not doing it again. But for some reason, rationale decision making has, in many ways, completely eluded medical providers on the topic of vaccines.

Thanks for the detailed thoughts. Would I be correct to add that the self reported incidents being posted as proof could all be incorrect and despite a relationship in time and sequence, unrelated to covid?

Anyway, I completely believe there are very slight risks of odd and unexpected results from vaccines or anything. Hell, people have died from having their first sip of coca cola evidently, but that odd, rare risk has been analyzed and found to be so insignificant in the face of the very real risk of contracting covid that it's stupid to refuse if the alternative is certain death from being denied a heart transplant?


Further, as a medical professional, were you to be on the board judging recipients potential outcomes, would you not weigh a refusal to accept medical advice very, very harshly? And, for clarity, imagine some other refusal other than the covid vaccine. Let's say he has to stop chewing tobacco for a year in order to be considered for a lip transplant and he refuses.

 

[dtc]

Unfortunate situation but I also get the hesitation from a heart patient. His risk wasn't just on the backend. Apparently he had all of the required vaccinations except this (which would technically remove the "anti-vax" tag) but at the end of it all, God's will.


Agreed

No, it's not God's Will. It's his own stupidity.

if this guy dies soon it's because he chose to ignore the sand bags, the ladder, the evacuation notices and even the rescue helicopter God sent him.

 

[dtc]

I think it's fair that people who don't get the vaccine cannot get a transplant. But also that means fat people don't get transplants either, and if you made the decision to smoke you don't get transplants as well. Also, no transplants for people who destroyed their liver due to heavy drinking. They are all choices to put yourself in that situation.

That's exactly what it means. That's why boards of people review factual information to evaluate recipients so that all risk factors are considered prior to selection.

It's not a vindictive process like we might make it sound, but a considered evaluation of how to best allocate a scarce resource among alternative ends.

 

[faceman]

They are making a conscious decision to eat poorly/lack of exercise and cause their fatty liver disease. Just like somebody can make the conscious decision to not get vaccinated. Both are putting themselves at greater mortality rates because of their decisions.

Not necessarily. Some people are genetically inclined to certain diseases regardless of diet. I'm one. I'm on a very
healthy diet and still require cholesterol lowering meds.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The question that you're asking is a good one. I don't think that there is an easy answer. Let me ask the question that you're asking more broadly, "what is the burden of proof to say that ANY medical intervention is responsibility for a side effect or allergy?" The truth is that causation is difficult to prove with 100% certainty. This is also true of medical diagnoses as well, for that matter. For example, a patient is prescribed medication X and within days develops signs/symptoms Y. Is it causation? It really depends. If medication X is highly linked to signs/symptoms Y, then it increases the probability. If medication X was introduced immediately before the patient developed signs/symptoms Y, and there is not a better way to explain why the patient developed those signs/symptoms, then that would also increase the probability. But the probability is never 100%, and we have to use our best clinical judgement. Another example, patient develops signs/symptoms Y and it fits the clinical pattern of diagnosis Z, and that is supported with appropriate testing that also suggests diagnosis Z, then that would increase the probability that diagnosis Z is the correct diagnosis. A diagnosis will be made but there is never 100% certainty. We use probabilities to determine the MOST LIKELY explanation for something happening, but there are no certainties.

Regarding vaccines, and I'll review this a more broadly because I think that it'll help you understand the challenges of studying the topic. Here's a case: a baby develops profound nausea/vomiting that necessitates hospitalization. The baby is a twin and the other baby is completely fine. The sick baby gets resuscitated with fluids and monitored in the hospital for a few days, as its kidney function was off (likely because of dehydration). The baby would have likely died if it wasn't for medical intervention. Tests are done for an underlying pathogen, and there is nothing found (which makes since as the baby's close contact twin was completely healthy), and there was otherwise no other evidence of disease. The baby does well enough to get discharged from the hospitalization and is back to normal after a week or so without any future problems. Oh yeah, might not be important but the sick baby did get the Rotavirus vaccine the day before getting hospitalized. There is no "rotavirus vaccine" side effect lab work or imaging to confirm the diagnosis. So did the vaccine have anything to do with the hospitalization. My clinical impression was that there was a very strong time correlate, Rotavirus is a live vaccine and has been linked to rotavirus-like reactions including nausea/vomiting/dehydration, the other twin never got sick, and there was nothing else to better explain the hospitalization, so though there is no PROOF, a vaccine related side effect is the most likely explanation. My wife and I are both in medicine, we aren't dummies...but we had a PICU doctor try to convince us that the reason why our daughter was hospitalized wasn't because of the vaccine, because the doctor was afraid that it would scare us away from future vaccinations.

Here is another example: a 22 year old ends up being found dead by his roommate. On the scene it appeared that he had a seizure. Pathology ends up showing that the young man developed a condition called disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which is an unusual presentation of abnormal clotting in some parts of the body depleting clotting factors and causing bleeding in others. It was believed that this condition resulted in the seizure/stroke and death. He was previously completely healthy without any family history of anything remotely concerning of a bleeding/clotting disorder. The young man had a vaccine less than two days before the event. Unfortunately, the vaccine is relatively new and therefore there is not enough safe data to be powered to capture an event so rare. But could this even have occurred randomly, unprovoked? ANYTHING is possible, but I'm going to share with you why I think that this particular case is concerning. DIC is so rare that is almost exclusively found in patients in the ICU. There was a study performed at Mayo Clinic that showed that the incident of DIC in the ICU was about 1 in 200,000. Understand that Mayo Clinic has arguably the sickest patients in the country. Truth be told, many patients that are in ICUs in community centers would be managed in either general floors or step down units at Mayo Clinic because the average level of complexity is so impossibly high. So that 1 in 200,000 would likely be EVEN LOWER in a community ICU. And we are talking about the ICU, not the general healthy population. The incidence of DIC in people walking the streets has to be 1 in the tens of millions, statistically. It's essentially impossible. So when a medical intervention occurs within two days of this impossibly rare disease resulting in death occurs and there is no better explanation, that catches my eye. Did the COVID vaccine cause the death? There is no COVID vaccine side effect blood work or imaging to confirm diagnosis, you just have your clinical impression based on probabilities.

I've had patients develop all kinds of weird reactions to treatments that I've administered. Many of which aren't even recognized side effects, or are incredibly rare. But do I go out of my way to defend my treatment and disregard sound clinical judgement? Heck no. Unless I have a good reason to otherwise explain the reaction, I'm labeling the intervention as a side effect or allergy and not doing it again. But for some reason, rationale decision making has, in many ways, completely eluded medical providers on the topic of vaccines.

Good post... this is where statistical analysis comes into play.

People are going to die at a fairly consistent rate no matter what -- we roughly know how many people are going to die per day, and we know those numbers across most demographics. So, for a lot of analysis on vaccine safety, we determine if the death rate of the test population of a new vaccine is similar to the death rate of the control population, and if they are, then the vaccine is "safe".

This of course does not mean that no one has a bad reaction to the vaccine, and that no one will go to the hospital or die from it. Just that people who get the vaccine die at roughly the same rate as people who don't (outside of deaths from the disease we are vaccinating against, that needs to be significantly lower for the vaccinated population in order to be labeled 'effective').

In the case of your 22 year old. It's impossible to nail down every environmental factor an individual goes through - he could have died as an unusual reaction to the vaccine, or it could be because he ate shrimp an hour and a half before someone decided to roll coal into his Miata, causing another weird reaction. Barring a specific analysis of how it happened, the only way to tell if it is safe is the statistical analysis.

but I agree, it would be odd to me to assume that there aren't going to be weird one-off reactions to any new chemical being injected or consumed by people.

 

[SaintInBucLand]

Not necessarily. Some people are genetically inclined to certain diseases regardless of diet. I'm one. I'm on a very
healthy diet and still require cholesterol lowering meds.

Like I said there are outliers. But if people are making poor choices like eating fast food, heavily processed seed oils then they should face the consequences of those choices.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Thanks for the detailed thoughts. Would I be correct to add that the self reported incidents being posted as proof could all be incorrect and despite a relationship in time and sequence, unrelated to covid?

Anyway, I completely believe there are very slight risks of odd and unexpected results from vaccines or anything. Hell, people have died from having their first sip of coca cola evidently, but that odd, rare risk has been analyzed and found to be so insignificant in the face of the very real risk of contracting covid that it's stupid to refuse if the alternative is certain death from being denied a heart transplant?


Further, as a medical professional, were you to be on the board judging recipients potential outcomes, would you not weigh a refusal to accept medical advice very, very harshly? And, for clarity, imagine some other refusal other than the covid vaccine. Let's say he has to stop chewing tobacco for a year in order to be considered for a lip transplant and he refuses.

I posted this on the politics site a couple weeks ago, but it's not political. Some of the context is missing since I was replying to two people

Re vaccines and deaths.
----------------------------------------

Since we're talking about vaccines now, let's just go to the CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

I will say this, without getting cute on semantics, at least 9 confirmed deaths have occurred after J&J/Janssen Covid-19 vaccination caused TTS (Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome). Now, TTS doesn't have to kill you, and now that they know about the issue, it's less likely.

Outside of that, 'reports' of death from VAERS is up to about 10,688, but I don't think any of those have been confirmed (what MT15 is probably meaning to say). So, 9 for sure. Maybe up to another 10,688. Amazingly tiny fraction compared to how many have been vaccinated. And I seriously doubt 10,688 died due to vaccination, as much as Farb seriously doubts that number is zero. I'd agree with him, it's not zero. But it's no where near 10,688. Probably an order or magnitude or three less.

CDC is providing timely updates on the following serious adverse events of interest:

• Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare and has occurred in approximately 5 people per one million vaccinated in the United States. Anaphylaxis, a severe type of allergic reaction, can occur after any kind of vaccination. If it happens, healthcare providers can effectively and immediately treat the reaction. Learn more about COVID-19 vaccines and allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.
• Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 vaccination is rare. TTS is a rare but serious adverse event that causes blood clots in large blood vessels and low platelets (blood cells that help form clots). As of December 16, 2021, more than 17.2 million doses of the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine have been given in the United States. CDC and FDA identified 57 confirmed reports of people who got the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine and later developed TTS.
  
  CDC has also identified nine deaths that have been caused by or were directly attributed to TTS following J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination. Women ages 30-49 years, especially, should be aware of the increased risk of this rare adverse event. There are other COVID-19 vaccine options available for which this risk has not been seen.
  • To date, three confirmed cases of TTS following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Moderna) have been reported to VAERS after more than 470 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered in the United States. Based on available data, there is not an increased risk for TTS after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.
• Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) in people who have received the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine is rare. GBS is a rare disorder where the body’s immune system damages nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis. Most people fully recover from GBS, but some have permanent nerve damage. After more than 17.2 million J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, there have been around 283 preliminary reports of GBS identified in VAERS as of December 16, 2021. These cases have largely been reported about 2 weeks after vaccination and mostly in men, many in those ages 50 years and older.
  
  Based on the data, the rate of GBS within the first 21 days following J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination was found to be 21 times higher than after Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna (mRNA COVID-19 vaccines). After the first 42 days, the rate of GBS was 11 times higher following J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination. Analysis found no increased risk of GBS after Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna (mRNA COVID-19 vaccines). CDC and FDA will continue to monitor for and evaluate reports of GBS occurring after COVID-19 vaccination and will share more information as it becomes available.
• Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis is inflammation of the outer lining of the heart. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly. As of December 16, 2021, VAERS has received 1,947 preliminary reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 years and younger who received COVID-19 vaccines.
  
  Most cases have been reported after receiving Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna, (mRNA COVID-19 vaccines) particularly in male adolescents and young adults. Through follow-up, including medical record reviews, CDC and FDA have verified 1,124 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis. Learn more about myocarditis and pericarditis, including clinical considerations, after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.
• Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. More than 496 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through December 20, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 10,688 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA clinicians review reports of death to VAERS including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records.

 

[Eeyore]

Political but related to the ongoing discussion.

Americans' trust in science now deeply polarized, poll shows

Republicans’ faith in science is falling as Democrats rely on it even more, with a trust gap in science and medicine widening substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic

www.independent.co.uk

 

[dtc]

Like I said there are outliers. But if people are making poor choices like eating fast food, heavily processed seed oils then they should face the consequences of those choices.

Same as the idiots who refuse vaccines while waiting in line for a heart transplant, no?

 

[itztime]

I honestly cannot comprehend him not taking the vaccine to get a transplanted heart. I like to look at both sides and usually pretty understanding from both sides but this one I have trouble with. If you are willing to subject yourself rightfully so to stay alive with a new heart, why wouldn't you take the vaccine, when you are about to take a butt load of drugs that will affect you so your body accepts the new heart and will probably be taking a butt load for the rest of your life that will affect you. I get he probably has a principal but darn dude.

 

[brandon8283]

I think it's fair that people who don't get the vaccine cannot get a transplant. But also that means fat people don't get transplants either, and if you made the decision to smoke you don't get transplants as well. Also, no transplants for people who destroyed their liver due to heavy drinking. They are all choices to put yourself in that situation.

That's exactly how it works already.