The Weaponization of Medicine, Part II: Activists First, Doctors Second
The Weaponization of Medicine, Part II: Activists First, Doctors Second
The Medical Community Comes Out of the Closet as Political Partisans
The Political Weaponization of the Medicine Full Article
The Political Weaponization of Medicine Part I: Introduction
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part III: Medicalizing Gun Control
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part IV: Medicalizing Racism
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part V: Medicalizing Climate Change
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part VI: Unmitigated Academic Insanity
The Actions and Statements of the Medical Community reveal a hotbed of activism. It’s almost as though med schools are activist indoctrination camps rather than schools to impart medical knowledge.
The official positions taken by mainstream medical institutions and the manner in which they conduct themselves leave no doubt as to the activist nature of the mainstream medical community.
1. 2022 Annual Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates
The American Medical Association (the ‘AMA’ in JAMA) recently held their annual meeting where they decide on what their ‘platform’ will contain (it is very similar to the GOP/Dem political conventions in that way). Delegates from around the country had the opportunity to suggest and vote on all sorts of resolutions. They did not disappoint.
In a nutshell: the AMA convention is indistinguishable from the Democratic Party Convention judging by the content.
The AMA delegates passed a series of openly political resolutions declaring radical Democrat agenda items to be critical for people's health, in the latest brazen deliberate polarization of medicine.
Let’s take a look at some of the specific resolutions entertained at the AMA convention to get a sense of just how rabid the political activism is inside the AMA:
(Note: the numbering scheme resets a few times for different categories of resolutions.)
RESOLUTION 002 – OPPOSITION TO DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF HAITIAN ASYLUM SEEKERS
Recommendation: Adopt
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association oppose discrimination against Haitian asylum seekers which denies them the same opportunity to attain asylum status as individuals from other nations.
Immigration is a hot issue that evokes strong emotions. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to severely restrict or even shut down immigration that are strongly held by tens of millions of people, it’s not some black/white issue, economically or morally. Don’t be fooled by the faux humanitarianism that this may superficially look like.
RESOLUTION 003 – GENDER EQUITY AND FEMALE PHYSICIAN WORK PATTERNS DURING THE PANDEMIC
Recommendation: Adopt
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association advocate for research on physician-specific data analyzing changes in work patterns and employment outcomes among female physicians during the pandemic including, but not limited to, understanding potential gaps in equity, indications for terminations and/or furloughs, gender differences in those who had unpaid additional work hours, and issues related to intersectionality (Directive to Take Action); and be it further.
They came out in favor of the politically controversial so-called gender-wage gap (which is factually mythical when disaggregating to control for confounding factors like education or marital status).
“Equity” is a term of art used specifically to mean NOT equality of treatment, but ‘equality’ of outcome in the Marxist sense. It is a blatantly racist and bigoted concept that is straightforwardly evil. We will discuss Health Equity in depth later.
RESOLUTION 007 – EQUAL ACCESS TO ADOPTION FOR THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY
Recommendation: Adopt
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association advocate for equal access to adoption services for LGBTQ individuals who meet federal criteria for adoption regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation (Directive to Take Action); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA encourage allocation of government funding to licensed child welfare agencies that offer adoption services to all individuals or couples including those with LGBTQ identity.
The resolution was accompanied by this gem:
“Testimony was heard in unanimous support of this resolution.”
Unanimity on a controversial issue implies that the group is a cult and thus incapable of thinking or reasoning logically about the various arguments surrounding the issue.
And the fanatical extremism here is also alarming - forget political activism, they are openly advocating that the government defund all religious adoption agencies - which would cripple the foster care system. In other words, it is preferable to cruelly deprive children of loving foster parents and a stable home in order to promote “LGBTACBSFIWBFBFIIEFIW +_)*^$ rights”. This is twisted and demonic.
Also alarming is that there no discussion of children’s rights. It is obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense and honesty that men and women do not have the same emotional relationship with their children, there are differences, and children need both. At a minimum, it would be a relatively uncontroversial stance that there at least exists a compelling argument that a child has a right to a mother and a father.
In the end, the steering committee voted to recommend adoption of open religious bigotry over the adoption of children, and did so unanimously.
Definitely wildly partisan.
RESOLUTION 028 – PRESERVING ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
Recommendation: Adopt
AKA Abortion on Demand.
This one is too long to reproduce the full text of, so we’re just going to go with a screenshot:
It’s nice to know that abortion is a “core value” of the AMA (2nd line from bottom), which places them in a distinct minority of society who do not regard abortion as a “core value”, most of whom are also pro-life at an earlier stage than the “core values” of the AMA allow.
And here the testimony was “passionate, ” indicating just how hysterical the AMA is regarding abortion:
“Testimony was heard in strong and passionate support of Resolution 028”
50-year culture war issues are unequivocally not the province of empirical medicine.
RESOLUTION 004 – ENCOURAGING LGBTQ+ REPRESENTATION IN MEDICINE
Recommendation: Adopt (probably unnecessary for this one)
This is advocacy for (continuing the) social transformation of society. The majority of the country for instance believes that there are only two genders - male and female - and that they are immutable1. Furthermore, the major religions of the world all hold that ‘unorthodox’ sexual practices are forbidden and morally wrong. That is the hard reality, however you think or feel about these issues.
The AMA however is content to dismiss the views of 1.5 Billion Muslims, and hundreds of millions of Christians (not all Christians still adhere to the Christian orthodoxy on sexuality), as well as the overwhelming majority of humanity alive today. To quote Justice Scalia, “no social transformation without representation”. The AMA is not whatsoever representative of the citizenry or humanity generally.
RESOLUTION 006 – COMBATING NATURAL HAIR AND CULTURAL HEADWEAR DISCRIMINATION IN MEDICINE AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALISM
Recommendation: Adopt
I’m actually unclear how to judge this one being unfamiliar with the issue. It is mildly entertaining though.
RESOLUTION 008 – STUDENT-CENTERED APPROACHES FOR REFORMING SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY POLICIES
Recommendation: Adopt
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association support evidence-based frameworks in K-12 schools that focus on school-wide prevention and intervention strategies for student misbehavior (New HOD Policy) and be it further etc.
The AMA wants to fundamentally change how school discipline works. After the same basic attitude has resulted in the collapse of discipline at schools across the country. Realize that “evidence based” means in the sense that Remdesivir✔/ Ivermectin❌ is “evidence based”.
RESOLUTION 010 – IMPROVING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF SEX WORKERS
Recommendation: Adopt (easiest one to pass, every man on the committee was obviously going to vote for this one)
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association recognize the adverse health outcomes of criminalizing consensual sex work (New HOD Policy); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA: 1) support legislation that decriminalizes individuals who offer sex in return for money or goods; 2) oppose legislation that decriminalizes sex buying and brothel keeping; and 3) support the expungement of criminal records of those previously convicted of sex work, including trafficking survivors (New HOD Policy); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA support research on the long-term health, including mental health, impacts of decriminalization of the sex trade. (New HOD Policy)
Liberal Land: supporting prostitution = empowering women.
The AMA wants to medicalize prostitution to prevent society criminalizing prostitution - as a health issue, it can be declared ‘unhealthy’ to foreclose this career option from aspiring women (or non-gender-specific clumps of cells). Criminalization of prostitution (or any other form of social sanction) is not a medical judgement to make, but a societal determination to be resolved in the political arena, as it implicates a wide and diverse set of factors and moral values. Most people don’t share the AMA’s promiscuous ethos.
RESOLUTION 011 – EVALUATING SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLES FOR RACIAL AND ETHNIC BIAS
Recommendation: Adopt
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association support major journal publishers issuing guidelines for interpreting previous research which define race and ethnicity by outdated means (New HOD Policy); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA support major journal publishers implementing a screening method for future research submission concerning the incorrect use of race and ethnicity. (New HOD Policy)
This one is too complicated to explain here, but suffice it to say that this could be very damaging to diagnosing & treating patients, and keeping high quality data.
RESOLUTION 012 – EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF IATROGENIC INFERTILITY TO INCLUDE GENDER AFFIRMING INTERVENTIONS
Recommendation: Adopt
(Iatrogenic = caused by a medical intervention.)
Here’s an idea: if you want to remain fertile, don’t remove your reproductive organs. Why should society foot the bill because you feel like mutilating your anatomy? This is like saying that someone who chops off his arm because he ‘feels’ like he is a one-armed person is entitled to disability.
RESOLUTION 013 – RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL ANTI-LYNCHING LEGISLATION AS PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVE
Recommendation: Adopt
Lynching has been illegal for over a century before the ceremonial virtue-signaling law passed Congress adding a new crime to the already numerous crimes committed if you actually would lynch someone.
The notion that “anti-lynching” is *Public Health* is fully insane. Is the AMA gonna come out against wars next because of “public health”?? (By this standard, the war in Ukraine has crushed the public health of Ukrainians, and of humanity around the world too considering the famines already starting to be unleashed as a consequence of taking a massive chunk of global food production and distribution offline indefinitely.)
Also, gotta love the new category of ‘victim’ that the med community has invented: “phenotypic appearance”.
RESOLUTION 016 – ADDRESSING AND BANNING UNJUST AND INVASIVE MEDICAL PROCEDURES AMONG MIGRANT WOMEN AT THE BORDER
Recommendation: Adopt
I was unaware that migrant women were being sterilized by the US government at the border (🤔🤔). (Well if they are vaccinating the women, then maybe, but it’s highly unlikely that this was what the AMA had in mind.)
RESOLUTION 022 – ORGAN TRANSPLANT EQUITY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Recommendation: Adopt
This is a good illustration how for something they care about, institutional norms or prior medical standards are no obstacle.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES REPORT 21 – OPPOSITION TO REQUIREMENTS FOR GENDER-BASED TREATMENTS FOR ATHLETES
Recommendation: Referred
1. That our American Medical Association (AMA) oppose mandatory medical treatment or surgery for athletes with Differences of Sex Development (DSD) to be allowed to compete in alignment with their identity; (New HOD Policy)
2. That our AMA oppose use of specific hormonal guidelines to determine gender 19 classification for athletic competitions. (New HOD Policy)
This would be radically out of step with mainstream society.
Furthermore, it is instructive to realize that they are openly embracing ideas that most of society regards as factually deluded and ethically unfair.
RESOLUTION 005 – SUPPORTING THE STUDY OF REPARATIONS AS A MEANS TO REDUCE RACIAL INEQUALITIES
Recommendation: Referred
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association study potential mechanisms of national economic reparations that could improve inequities associated with institutionalized, systematic racism and report back to the House of Delegates (Directive to Take Action); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA study the potential adoption of a policy of reparations by the AMA to support the African American community currently interfacing with, practicing within, and entering the medical field and report back to the House of Delegates (Directive to Take Action); and be it further
RESOLVED, That our AMA support federal legislation that facilitates the study of reparations. (New HOD Policy)
To appreciate just how politically radical this is, even the Democrat Party platform rejected openly endorsing reparations (for now at least).
RESOLUTION 020 – COUNCIL ON ETHICAL AND JUDICIAL AFFAIRS GUIDELINES FOR TREATING UNVACCINATED INDIVIDUALS
Recommendation: Not be adopted
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association and the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs issue new ethical guidelines for medical professionals for care of individuals who have not been vaccinated for COVID-19. (Directive to Take Action)
You have to wonder just what exactly they had in mind here. The current guidance of the AMA on this issue already allows for a soft apartheid2:
This opinion is as factually specious as it is morally fallacious3. By the standard explicated in the AMA’s current standard, physicians can refuse to treat a patient with *any* contagious disease, even the Flu under the “right” circumstances.
Yet it was not quite radical enough for the AMA Weathermen4.
Last but certainly not least we have this proposal that did not end up as a formally proposed resolution (there’s always next year though):
Med Students Call for Comprehensive Sex Ed in Schools at the AMA Meeting
“Making families responsible for sex education isn't working, say advocates of proposed policy”
The Medical Student Section (MSS) sought to remove language from current AMA policy stating that the "primary responsibility for family life education is in the home," and pressed for a draft policy calling on "schools at all education levels to implement comprehensive, developmentally appropriate sexuality education programs.""
This is not only partisan, it is perverted. Understand that underneath the flowery language and sincere-sounding arguments, what they are in practice promoting is that little kids learn about the “birds and bees” from teachers. Teachers who will also explain how birds can actually become bees and vice versa. Or worse.
Regardless of the merits, doctors have no business proselytizing against parents and parental rights/control over their children’s education and values.
This isn’t merely limited to an abstract platform either. The medical students today will be the pediatricians in the years to come. Is it really such a far-fetched concern that your local pediatrician might have a ‘talk’ with your kid while you’re not looking or in the waiting room? What about a school nurse? (Oh wait, that’s already happening.)
At least this one didn’t make it to a vote, which cannot be said for the rest of this list.
To sum up the AMA convention, when it comes to organ transplants, discriminating against people with disabilities is unacceptable despite its being objectively justifiable since they have lower survival odds, but they have no problem discriminating against unvaccinated people despite there being no clearly demonstrable medical basis for such a requirement5.6
I think that all reasonable people can agree, the annual convention of perhaps the leading medical practitioner organization in the country should not resemble Bernie Sanders’ campaign platform.
2. Political Activism in The Lancet
The Spectator published the following piece on July 1, 2020:
The article starts off with the following stunning admission:
Doctors have always been political. Medical school is often a cradle of social activism, driven by a syllabus underlining health inequalities and the cultural aspects of disease.
This bears repeating:
“Medical school is often a cradle of social activism”
The aphorism ‘truer words have rarely been spoken’ comes to mind seeing this sentence.
The article explains further:
A different challenge posed, however, is when ideology begins to influence medical policy, corrupting medical decisions. This can be particularly problematic in the field of medical publishing.
Better still, the Spectator piece highlights a number of egregious examples of woebegone Lancet forays into politics:
President Trump (Described by the Spectator piece as “his pre-inauguration manifesto”)
A hundred days: what is to show for it? (Critiquing Trump administration)
The US election 2020 (an open call to vote out Trump)
Unexplored by the Spectator article is the Lancet’s rich history of political activism, such as the following papers:
In 2004, The Lancet published a commentary piece, “Health and social justice”, that sought to essentially reframe health as ‘an appropriate focal variable for assessing social justice’.
In 2006, The Lancet published “Politics and health inequalities”, which ‘reminded’ us that “medicine is politics and social medicine is politics writ large,” and that “medicine and politics cannot and should not be kept apart.”
The article further observed “But political activism does not fit easily with respectable academic research careers. How can the supposed objectivity of science come to terms with the contrasting political implications of our explanations of health inequalities?”
In other words, doctors must become social & political activists.
In 2007, The Lancet published “Global health governance and the World Bank”. Were this one a few rare instances of Lancet broaching the political world, then they could be forgiven for this piece on the grounds that almost everyone seeks to maximize their financial resources and funding, so it could be understood as largely apolitical in nature.
In 2012, The Lancet happily published a
commentary‘study’ on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a piece titled “Role of political factors in wellbeing and quality of life during long-term constraints and conflict: an initial study”.This was followed up by the publication of “An open letter for the people of Gaza” in 2014, proclaiming with unabashed grandiosity “on the basis of our ethics and practice, we are denouncing what we witness in the aggression of Gaza by Israel”.
As if the Lancet has ethics.
In 2015, The Lancet published “Chronic diseases—the social justice issue of our time”, whose central thesis is aptly communicated by its title.
Also in 2015, The Lancet published a treatise on Latin American political history called “Political roots of the struggle for health justice in Latin America”, the content of which would not seem out-of-place in a course on Marxist thought.
The Lancet’s appalling venture activism was finally called out in 2014 by NGO Monitor in a report, “The Lancet: A History of Exploiting Medicine for Political Warfare Against Israel”. They discovered that - among many improprieties - one of the authors on the Open Letter was affiliated with a US-designated terror organization.
The Lancet also has a ‘Group for Racial Equality’ which we shall examine a bit later.
Although just one journal, The Lancet is representative of the ideological disposition and activist bent of the broader medical community, besides for wielding sizeable influence upon the medical community in its own right from which these values would trickle down to infect the whole of its body politic.
3. Medical Schools: ‘The cradle of social activism’
The medical schools are the real bastion of looniness where the cray-cray reigns supreme. I am not sure how else to convey as potent a sense of sheer derangement but with churlish and inane language.
Let’s see what the world’s prestigious bastions of medical knowledge have to offer:
Commitment to being “Anti-Racist”
The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) - which speaks for medical schools - ran the following article on May 25, 2021:
Select quotes from the article:
If a doctor is NOT and activist, that’s the real problem:
The ‘experts’ say. Of course.
And this is practically straight out of the Nazi handbook:
Understand what this means. The foundation for medical ethics is the principle that medicine treats every patient as an individual person, with the sole objective of helping the patient. Adding a ‘lens’ is a fancy way of saying that patients should not be viewed only as the individual person being treated, but also as a manifestation of the political and social environment, so that treatment decisions take into account not only the welfare of the patient but also the broader impact on social phenomena like “inequity” or “systemic racism”.
The article refers readers to a grand doctrinal treatise, the “Racism in Medicine Report”, or as it refers to itself at the top of every page, “Creating Leadership & Education to Address Racism”.
Especially useful for us here are Appendices D & E (screenshots in footnotes7,8).
Appendix D, entitled “External Review Of Aspirational Institutions And Programs,” is basically a compilation of the programs or efforts of a few medical schools to address systemic racism (page 34 of the PDF).
Appendix E is a Glossary of Terms (or concepts) used by CRT. I really suggest you read through it to appreciate just how deranged the medical world has become.
Finally, there is a sidebar in this reprehensible call for indoctrination that directs the reader to the following resource for “teaching anti-racism”:
This attitude is absolutely manifest in medical schools:
Here are a couple of examples to illustrate how medical schools have integrated this odious ethos into their identity and curricula:
Almost every medical schools has some form of the following on their home page. This is from the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, which proudly features this menu on their homepage:
Many medical schools also have some form of manifesto that lays out their guiding imperatives in organizing “anti-racist” indoctrination into their curricula and programs. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai features the following disquisition detailing how they intend to ‘transform’ medical education:
Just to be clear:
Like all American institutions, medicine has been shaped by a legacy of racial injustice. Racism permeates clinical practice and biomedical research, public health policy, and academic advancement. Its influence on medical education is even more profound. It is through medical education that racism and bias in medicine are perpetuated across generations.
They’re flat-out claiming that medical education is one of the premier perpetuators of racism today. Maybe we should shut them down then?
Hillsdale needs to open a medical school ASAP.
Decolonizing Medicine
How does one implement “Anti-Racism” into action at med school? By decolonizing the curriculum.
Medicine is (still) a ‘colonialized’ ‘territory’ of Euro-centric Cis-ness, or so it would seem judging by the mountain of medical literature raising awareness of this alleged travesty.
Science Open published a clarion call, ‘Decolonising the Medical Curriculum‘: Humanising medicine through epistemic pluralism, cultural safety and critical consciousness.
The BMJ proffered an editorial entitled “Diversifying and decolonising the medical curriculum”.
The Annals of Global Health asked “How Do We Decolonize Global Health in Medical Education?”
And of course, we needed a paper to weave in the popular but radical racist concept of ‘white fragility’, “Decolonising medical education and exploring White fragility”.
Unsurprisingly, psychiatry is (allegedly) having a uniquely difficult time with such a direct macroaggressive challenge, reported in “Decolonising the medical curriculum: psychiatry faces particular challenges”.
Have those medical schools taken up the mantle? Yes they have:
Harvard: Harvard Chan Student Committee for the Decolonization of Public Health
Oxford: Decolonisation Lecture Series
Exeter: Decolonizing Medicine, an Introduction
University of Bristol: Decolonising the curriculum
University College London: Decolonising the Medical Curriculum
UCL has a great Intro to their decolonization enterprise where they helpfully define what is meant by ‘decolonizing’:
This sounds like fanatical Marxist bellicism run amok:
“‘decolonising the curriculum’ refers to the aim to overturn power imbalances rooted in historic and institutional biases along axes of race, ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, sexual orientation and disability that are reflected in medical curricula”
Anyone sensing a pattern here?
This is but a drop in the bucket. The ideological radicalization and Balkanization of medical schools against societal norms is not limited to CRT, rather it carries through to pretty much every other political issue in society.
Clearly, our medical schools have become partisan indoctrination mills.
Hillsdale needs to establish a medical school ASAP.
Decolonization Postscript:
While editing this article, I found the following tweet from the AMA promoted in my twitter feed:
On the bright side, even on far-left Twitter, decolonizing medical curricula could barely get a measly 8 RT/11 Likes despite being promoted.
The Political Weaponization of the Medicine Full Article
The Political Weaponization of Medicine Part I: Introduction
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part III: Medicalizing Gun Control
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part IV: Medicalizing Racism
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part V: Medicalizing Climate Change
The Political Weaponization of Medicine, Part VI: Unmitigated Academic Insanity
Most Americans Side With J.K. Rowling: Only Two Genders
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 75% of American Adults agree that there are only two genders, male and female. That total includes 63% who Strongly Agree. Eighteen percent (18%) disagree. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Their ‘opinion’ actually starts off the way you would expect anyone adhering to the Hippocratic Oath to respond:
It is important to realize that very rarely will an organization like the AMA simply come out and bluntly say something morally ‘controversial’ like “it’s ok to discriminate against unvaccinated patients”. What they do is release a statement or opinion that pays lip service to the principle they wish to violate, but articulate the details in such a way that their target audience gets the message that it is ok to “push the envelope” so-to-speak.
Thus when the AMA gives guidance suggesting various scenarios where discriminatory treatment of an unvaccinated patient is ok, they do this understanding full well how their guidance is going to be interpreted and implemented by doctors across the country (in practice this means that a % of doctors will be the revolutionary cutting edge, setting a new tone that will gradually trickle down to the rest of the medical profession). They also grasp that acknowledging the legitimacy of the premise that there is a basis to discriminate against the unvaccinated can create momentum and/or shift the culture to create an atmosphere where the unvaccinated are regarded as unworthy of standard human rights and treatment.
The Devil truly is in the details.
Case in point: their official conclusion still pays lip service to the principle of providing care regardless of patient’s personal characteristics:
“A patient’s vaccination status in and of itself is not sufficient reason, ethically, to turn that individual away.”
Recall that September 15 2021 is after the CDC admitted that the vaccines don’t prevent transmission - to quote the fateful line that was heard ‘round the world uttered by Walensky, “But what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission”:
CNN characteristically played down what Walensky said in their title:
MSN got the title right, but for dated the article more than 4 months after the fact:
If the rebarbative demeanor shown towards the unvaccinated by the medical community is anything to go by, the mindset of the AMA delegates is downright frightening. Consider that the AMA membership as illustrated by these resolutions is to the left of the Democrat voters, who themselves are so radicalized that roughly half of them agree that unvaccinated parents should lose custody of their children and unvaccinated people in general ought to be prohibited from leaving their homes except in the event of an emergency.
Regardless of the AMA’s opinion, there is no shortage of doctors who are willing to deny treatment to unvaccinated patients:
There is a wealth of literature attesting to the immunological insufficiency of the vaccines in patients both awaiting and post transplantation, even absent the safety concerns. Here are a few examples (a couple of them do touch on safety):
Clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients
The Immunology of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccines in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Low immunogenicity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among liver transplant recipients
("To our knowledge, no studies or reports so far have demonstrated convincing protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated organ-transplant recipients")
Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in liver transplanted patients: The debate is open!
("The safety of these vaccines has not been established in immunocompromised patients")
Immunogenicity of COVID-19 Tozinameran Vaccination in Patients on Chronic Dialysis
("These data raise immunologic concerns about using Ab response as a sole metric of protective immunity following vaccination for SARS-CoV-2")
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
