An expert has explained why a baby whose parents are refusing to give him blood from vaccinated donors can’t just be given blood from those who are unvaccinated.[…]
“We need to offer this baby safe, quality blood product. We can’t just give the baby any blood off the street,” […]
She said the point of the NZ blood services is to ensure people get safe blood, which requires matching the blood type and screening to make sure there aren’t any real threats in the blood such as viruses like HIV and Hepatitis.
Prof Turner said doing a one-off emergency screening to get blood from someone who is unvaccinated to the baby would open up a whole other can of worms.
Note how she says “real threats” as if the danger of heart problems from the vaccine isn’t a real threat. Ben Jonutz in Dunedin is well aware of the real threat the vaccine poses to young men in particular.
The baby in question already has heart problems. The parents want to eliminate the real threat of vaccine-tainted blood so why won’t the MOH allow it?
Look closely at Turner’s words to find the answer.
“[…] doing a one-off emergency screening to get blood from someone who is unvaccinated to the baby would open up a whole other can of worms.“
She’s basically saying if we allow this baby to have safe, screened, unvaccinated blood it’ll open up a can of worms and risk giving people the idea that maybe something is wrong with vaccinated blood, which will lead to more and more wanting unvaccinated blood.
This is not about what is best for the baby this is about protecting the government narrative at all costs. Even at the cost of the baby’s life!
Dr Nikki Turner is spinning the issue and deflecting. She said that everyone has Covid in the blood – the antibodies – from either the virus or the vaccination and made out that there is no difference between the two.
The blood service can still screen the blood, so that’s just a smokescreen.
“Even if we could do that, then what if people think there is a problem and that’s why we did it, so a hundred people ask us to do that and then 200 people, and we did it for no logical reason. We would be sort of opening up a problem that wasn’t a problem,” Prof Turner said.
Newshub
And that’s the obvious problem. They don’t want to set a precedent.
The stupid thing is that in this case, they foolishly said no. If they’d said, ‘ok, fair enough’, and just done it, none of this would have hit the media.
Now because of the desire to protect the government narrative that it is safe and effective, they are risking a baby’s life and the story is now public.
They have two options: Stay the course OR capitulate citing anything but the actual blood. ‘In this case, we’ll make an exception because [something suitably soft].’
They’re now stuck between a rock and a hard place. Not only will others demand ‘special’ blood, but it’s also a tacit acknowledgement that there might be a difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated blood. This is a can of worms for Starship.
Below is the statement post court. I think Sue Grey spoke well – and I like that the mum stood up to the media and said “don’t put words in my mouth”: she needs that gumption.
Read more here. Discuss it on The BFD.
