[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

I have researched it. It is NOT approved for use in humans for the treatment of COVID. PERIOD.

Aren't you one that previously complained about the vaccines not being approved for the treatment of COVID?

And those using it under medical supervision are NOT using "Horse Dewormer"... But you knew that...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

I will hang my hat on the drug that is NOT approved for use in treating COVID in humans. Seems "not approved" was a regular comment against vaccinations recently. I guess NOT APPROVED only applies when someone disagrees with it. If THEY want it, then it doesn't matter.

I make NO claims on whether it is effective or not.

I will hang my hat on it is WRONG for a judge to decide medical treatment over doctors.

You mean the doctors who are actually prescribing Ivermectin?

Are you familiar with doctors prescribing medicine "off label"? It happens all the time...

But sure... Try to mock those who prescribe it by calling it "Horse Dewormer"... It adds sooo much to your argument...

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by lkagele

The religious objection is due to using fetal parts from aborted babies used in the development of the vaccine. Also, recipient has recovered from CV previously and tests positive for antibodies. Both donor and recipient were willing to sign waivers releasing the hospital from any liability if either one was to die of CV.

This religious objection isn't unique. It's held by millions of pro-life Christians. Agree or disagree, you still should be respecting one's personal religious beliefs. At least, that's what I think.

Considering the recipient has tested positive for antibodies and both are willing to sign waivers, the hospital has given a rather lame reasoning why it can't perform the transplant. “Patients who have received a transplanted organ are at significant risk from COVID-19. Should they become infected, they are at particularly high risk of serious illness, hospitalization and death. … A living donor can pass COVID-19 infection to an organ recipient, even if they initially test negative for the disease, putting the patient’s life at risk." Newsflash: Patients not receiving a needed transplant is putting the patient's life at risk.

This has nothing to do with CV or risk or science. This is a Woke hospital that doesn't care if patients of a perceived political belief receive proper treatment or not.

Sorry I said the "p" word. I've already received two, Dean Wormer, double secret demerit points for apparently making "p" posts.

There are no fetal parts from aborted babies used in the development of the vaccines. There are cell lines used for development and production of *some* vaccines that are derived from cells that were obtained 35 or 50 years ago but the vaccines themselves do not contain any aborted fetal cells.

Here is an information sheet on the topic.

It would appear the main religions do not object to the vaccines. How far should we go with allowing someone to invent their own religion customized with objections to the issue of the day?

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

I have researched it. It is NOT approved for use in humans for the treatment of COVID. PERIOD.

Aren't you one that previously complained about the vaccines not being approved for the treatment of COVID?

No. I have never said anything about the vaccines not being approved. You are mistaken.
I may have mentioned that moderna has not been approved for a booster, YET.

[macawlaw]

Originally Posted by lkagele

The religious objection is due to using fetal parts from aborted babies used in the development of the vaccine. Also, recipient has recovered from CV previously and tests positive for antibodies. Both donor and recipient were willing to sign waivers releasing the hospital from any liability if either one was to die of CV.

This religious objection isn't unique. It's held by millions of pro-life Christians. Agree or disagree, you still should be respecting one's personal religious beliefs. At least, that's what I think.

Except this is not true. J&J tested the vaccine using a line originally started in the 70s from aborted cells. No aborted cells are in the vaccine.

Neither Pfizer nor Moderna used aborted cells in the vaccine or tested the vaccine on a cell line from an aborted fetus.

Thus, 2/3 of the vaccines available have no ties to abortion.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

And those using it under medical supervision are NOT using "Horse Dewormer"... But you knew that...

I did and was using the pop colloquialism which the "other side" love to do to belittle progressives.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

You mean the doctors who are actually prescribing Ivermectin?

Are you familiar with doctors prescribing medicine "off label"? It happens all the time...

But sure... Try to mock those who prescribe it by calling it "Horse Dewormer"... It adds sooo much to your argument...

Hmm, so it is okay to use drugs off-label if you want it, but not okay to use vaccines actually approved for emergency use.

I understand.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

No. I have never said anything about the vaccines not being approved. You are mistaken.
I may have mentioned that moderna has not been approved for a booster, YET.

I apologize, my mistake. It was certainly a common complaint and I should have checked.

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by macawlaw

Except this is not true. J&J tested the vaccine using a line originally started in the 70s from aborted cells. No aborted cells are in the vaccine.

Neither Pfizer nor Moderna used aborted cells in the vaccine or tested the vaccine on a cell line from an aborted fetus.

Thus, 2/3 of the vaccines available have no ties to abortion.

You know that an anti-vaccer is not likely to be interested in FACTS. They make up their own.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

I apologize, my mistake. It was certainly a common complaint and I should have checked.

True, some were complaining or using that as a reason to decline vaccination. Had my vaccination at the beginning of the year.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by macawlaw

Except this is not true. J&J tested the vaccine using a line originally started in the 70s from aborted cells. No aborted cells are in the vaccine.

Neither Pfizer nor Moderna used aborted cells in the vaccine or tested the vaccine on a cell line from an aborted fetus.

Thus, 2/3 of the vaccines available have no ties to abortion.

From what I read (right or wrong) J&J was produced from infected monkey excrement.

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

Hmm, so it is okay to use drugs off-label if you want it, but not okay to use vaccines actually approved for emergency use.

I understand.

"I understand."

I certainly agree with what you say as the truth, but due to it making no sense and is so hypocritical, I can't honestly say that - " I understand."

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by tvbound

"I understand."

I certainly agree with what you say as the truth, but due to it making no sense and is so hypocritical, I can't honestly say that - " I understand."

In what way is my post hypocritical?

[lkagele]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

Explanation of "fetal cells" used in COVID vaccination testing - the following was copied from a state health department website:
----
Historical fetal cell lines were derived in the 1960’s and 1970’s from two elective abortions and have been
used to create vaccines for diseases such as hepatitis A, rubella, and rabies. Abortions from which fetal
cells were obtained were elective and were not done for the purpose of vaccine development.

Any vaccine that relies on these historic cell lines will not require nor solicit new abortions."
----
And the hospital's decision is not "lame". There is a policy of no transplants for un-vaccinated to give the donated organ the best chance of surviving. If they make exceptions, they will enter into a quagmire of having to spend time and money making decisions on every case.

There are not enough organs to supply all patients that need them. The patient made the decision to NOT be vaccinated and they were aware that would disqualify them from receiving a transplant to save their life. If we had a plethora of organs sitting on the shelves waiting, then I would say you have a point. But we don't. And your position is that somehow this person is more worthy to receive the transplant than the other people who may die because this one wants to risk the organ by not following doctors' advice.

I completely disagree with that rationale. The doctors have to make decisions to ration organs every day. This is not new, other than COVID is involved and so suddenly anti-vaxxers want to take the decision out of the doctor's hands and put it in the hands of the courts.

Just like the case a couple of weeks ago of forcing a hospital to provide horse de-wormer medication and using hospital resources and beds and personnel to provide a treatment that is not recommended. So, again, they went to court.

Yes, I'm aware of the fetal history. Just telling you what these ladies believe.

Should have mentioned that the kidney was being donated by her friend. That organ isn't going anywhere else so no one is missing out.

Yes, the hospital's excuse is lame to the extent of being cruel. 'We're trying to protect you from getting an infection for which your body has antibodies by denying you treatment that will certainly kill you.'

And what's with the horse dewormer? The hospital was requested to prescribe Ivermectin. Ivermectin is approved for human use and has been so effective its creators won a Nobel prize. Merck owns Ivermectin, $0.50 per pill, and is coming out with a touted therapeutic pill, $700+ for treatment. What are the odds the pills will work the same? Follow the money.

[lkagele]

Originally Posted by Velvet

You know that an anti-vaccer is not likely to be interested in FACTS. They make up their own.

Dude. Reading comprehension problems? I'm well aware of the histories of the fetal cells in these vaccines. I was simply relaying the religious reasons these ladies stated were their reasons in refusing to get a vaccine.