A Challenge to NZ Blood: What’s The Issue With Blood From Vaccinated Donors?
A number of people have had concerns about potentially receiving blood from vaccinated donors. The NZ Blood Service at present does not separate blood or blood products depending on vaccination status.
“We do not separate or label blood based on a donor’s COVID-19 vaccination status. There is no evidence that previous vaccination affects the quality of blood for transfusion.”
There are many potential reasons for concern because there are many unknowns with this. NZ Blood has said that there is no evidence that blood from vaccinated individuals is harmful. It is very important to understand that an ‘absence of evidence’ is not the same as ‘evidence of absence’. NZ Blood can say there is ‘no evidence’ but is that because no-one has looked and there is no evidence full stop? Or does it mean someone has looked and determined through meticulous study that vaccinated blood is safe in the short and long term?
The onus must be on NZ Blood, and the doctors prescribing and administering blood and blood products, to provide the evidence that the blood is safe (both short and long term). The public needs to ask for this evidence.
If there is no evidence that satisfactorily reassures potential recipients of the safety of the blood, then the precautionary principle should apply and blood from unvaccinated donors should be provided. History is littered with examples of products and procedures that were initially thought to be safe that later turned out not to be.
Questions and Concerns to NZ Blood:
- The Pfizer injection uses new technology and there are many unknowns with its use. The original clinical trial is ongoing until 2023 and the injection still only has provisional consent in New Zealand suggesting that Medsafe is not satisfied it has all the information it needs to grant full consent. This is the original consent. This is the renewal of consent.
- The vaccine mRNA has been modified in several ways (use of pseudouridine in place of uridine, poly-A tail, is guanine-rich). These modifications mean that the vaccine-induced spike protein is not the same (in amount, location, structure, duration of production or persistence) as the ‘naturally occurring’ spike protein from infection. It is not clear how long the mRNA will persist or how long the vaccine-induced spike protein will persist, but both have been shown to remain in the body and blood far longer than the original blanket reassurances. It is possible that both these substances may be present in donated blood.
- The Medsafe data sheet says “5.2 Pharmacokinetic properties Not applicable.” Does this mean that it is not clear or not important exactly what happens to the vaccine mRNA and lipid nanoparticles (or the resultant spike protein) once they are injected into the human body, with regards to biodistribution, metabolism and excretion? It is not clear how NZ Blood can state: “Any COVID-19 vaccine in the blood is broken down soon after the injection.” This is a flat out lie if ‘soon’ is still defined as within 48 hours as originally suggested.
- The lipid nanoparticles are also a significant part of the vaccine and it has been demonstrated in animal studies that they are widely distributed in the body. They can be highly inflammatory and, as their ingredients are still proprietary, it is not clear what short- and long-term effects they could induce.
- The spike protein has been shown to be toxic in its own right, with adverse effects on cells lining the blood vessels and cells in the heart muscle among others. A recipient of blood from a vaccinated donor could potentially be exposed to spike protein and it is absolutely possible that this may cause harm to these organs. This study shows that the spike protein can persist in vaccinated individuals.
- Spike protein can cause clotting both at a micro and macro level which could potentially be harmful. Has it been proven that blood from vaccinated donors does not cause or contribute to abnormal clotting? What about the bizarre structures being found by funeral directors in the blood vessels of the suddenly dead following vaccination?
- Myocarditis is a recognised adverse effect of Pfizer Comirnaty vaccination, presumably due either to direct damage from the spike protein or possibly due to an autoimmune phenomenon. Has it been demonstrated that there is ZERO risk of myocarditis from coming into contact with blood of vaccinated donors? It is emerging that subclinical (i.e hidden) heart inflammation is thousands of times more common than is quoted by “experts”. Recent studies from Thailand and Switzerland (which suggest that every vaccinated person gets a degree of heart damage!) should force an immediate stop of the shots and examination of donated blood. Even CDC data shows 140x increased risk of clinical myocarditis in teenage boys age 12-15 in the week following their 2nd dose. There has been another sudden death just last weekend of a 14 year-old Kings College boy, following myocarditis from the “vaccine”. Another 14 year-old Dunedin boy and a 13 year old girl from Auckland, both active and sporty, have collapsed and died in the last several months. Even CDC data shows 140x increased risk of clinical myocarditis in teenage boys age 12-15 in the week following their 2nd dose. There has been another sudden death just last weekend of a 14 year-old Kings College boy, following myocarditis from the “vaccine”. Another 14 year-old Dunedin boy and a 13 year old girl from Auckland, both active and sporty, have collapsed and died in the last several months.
- It is possible that mRNA is persistent in individuals for some weeks/months after vaccination which means that a person could be exposed to the components and/or products of the vaccine from the donated blood and any potential adverse effects they may cause.
- What is the risk of autoimmunity? Medsafe requested that Pfizer address this issue in condition 5 of the original provisional consent. Is it possible that blood from vaccinated donors contains odd or unusual proteins that may set up an autoimmune reaction in recipients?
- There have been concerns raised about the manufacturing standards of the Pfizer product. Has it actually been made to satisfactory standards? This article and associated video detail a litany of problems with the manufacturing processes such that it appears impossible to say exactly what has been injected into people and what adverse effects may occur. Receiving blood from someone who has been injected may be a lottery. Many of these conscientious blood donors will be none the wiser as they were not informed of the many unknowns and uncertainties.
According to the HDC Code of Rights New Zealanders should be respected when dealing with health professionals. Their questions should be answered and their concerns taken seriously.
Right 1(3): Every consumer has the right to be provided with services that take into account the needs, values, and beliefs of different cultural, religious, social, and ethnic groups, including the needs, values and beliefs of Māori. (Justice Cook validated the right for religious exemption to the mRNA vaccine, so this establishes a precedent for declining vaccinated blood too, surely.)
Right4 (4): Every consumer has the right to have services provided in a manner that minimises the potential harm to, and optimises the quality of life of, that consumer.
Comments are closed.