vaccinated blood

Parental Concerns About Covid-Vaccinated Blood Donations : Response to Dr Nikki Turner

Professor Nikki Turner on the facts around vaccinated blood – The Platform
Health NZ head to court over baby guardianship after parents request unvaccinated blood used in heart surgery – NZ Herald
Immunisation expert on facts of vaccination and blood donation – Radio NZ

Dr Turner of the Immunisation Advisory Centre at Auckland University has been busy doing interviews, above, to deflect concerns about blood from vaccinated donors.  Radio NZ, The Platform and print media outlets are all quoting her, although the state radio station does not apply an even hand in gathering its information. Here, host Corin Dann demonstrates his desperation to shut down discussion with a lawyer in a landmark legal case and assure us all that we can ‘have faith in the experts’ and ‘trust the science’. 

Dr Turner seems to be avoiding the main concerns in her interviews, and appears confused or mistaken. We have complained officially before, about her misleading the public on vital issues of safety, and an eminent US materno-fetal medicine specialist (mums and babies) has been extremely critical of her statements, claiming they have led to unnecessary deaths. Throughout, she has been the face of the government’s message that the jabs are safe in all stages of pregnancy – and of course compulsory for many pregnant women in mandated sectors. 

However, we have learned that the VAERS database in the US classifies New Zealand’s deaths and injuries during pregnancy and breast feeding as from “off label” use of the vaccine, as that is what Pfizer has said all along! They do not recommend the vaccine in pregnancy or breast feeding. When they are used in these circumstances, Pfizer considers the use “off-label” and therefore is not collecting data on adverse effects. The UK government, too, has acknowledged, then attempted to backtrack, the ongoing lack of safety data for women of child-bearing age. It now recommends women have individualised nuanced discussions with their doctors.  This is also what NZ’s Medsafe datasheet recommends.

Can we really trust that Dr Turner is up to speed on all this, including the issue of vaccinated blood, or is she just following orders, like so many, to discourage vaccine hesitancy?

Points on Vaccinated Blood Needing Clarification and Discussion

  • The injections that have been given to the NZ population are not ‘vaccines’ in ordinary sense of the word that people have understood before.  They contain new technology – synthetic genetic instructions along with lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) which are proprietary and confidential, so it is not known what they contain or do.  Comparison to previous vaccines is not scientifically or legally valid.
  • This injection was developed under Operation Warp Speed, manufacturing was upscaled rapidly, quality control problems are rife, and the US military seem to be involved, which might explain why our regulators and police can’t act even if they wanted to. There are significant reports of many deaths and injuries worldwide and here at home, covered by independent media, but the mainstream is silent. 
  • The original Pfizer trial (or experiment) is not finished (and the control group was removed), and is due for completion in early 2023.  The full safety data is still being collected and is yet to be published.
  • The Pfizer injection has provisional consent in NZ, because Medsafe is not satisfied it meets the criteria for full consent.  There are still many unknowns, and some emerging data is very disturbing.
  • Dr Turner has stated there is no real science behind the parents’ fears regarding their young baby receiving vaccinated blood. There is substantial scientific proof for all the parents’ concerns. It is being submitted in court as we write. We have posted some already.  Is there any real science that proves the safety of the blood unequivocally?
  • When the experts say: “there is no evidence…”, it often means nobody has looked and no-one knows; that there is no evidence at all either way.  ‘Absence of evidence’ is not the same as ‘evidence of absence’.  Rather than accept this at face value it is important to ask for the evidence that demonstrates safety.  Dr Turner has not referenced any study proving that Covid vaccinated blood is safe for a baby with a heart condition. In contrast, Will’s legal team has plenty of evidence of concern. 
  • The concerns are NOT about naturally made antibodies to covid infection. It is well understood and accepted that donated blood will have antibodies to a variety of infectious diseases in it (whether induced by vaccination or natural infection).
  • Concerns are about the components of the injection, and what is actually in covid-vaccinated blood.  What exactly are the components, where do they go, how long do they persist, what effects and what adverse effects can they cause both in the short and long term, and are there undeclared substances present in the vials? The most substantial technical information was that provided to the European Medicines Agency by Pfizer, which completely negates the statement that ” the jab is all gone from the body in a few hours”. 
  • The synthetic mRNA is not the same as our own mRNA.  It has been modified in several ways to make it stick around longer and increase production of spike protein to far greater quantities than natural infection.  It is a complete untruth to say it is the same as natural mRNA. 
  • In theory the synthetic genetic material codes for the spike protein. This is the most harmful part of the coronavirus and is harmful in its own right with the ability to cause a variety of problems – damage to blood vessel walls, damage to the heart muscle, blood clots, auto-immunity (where the immune system starts attacking its own body).  If there is spike protein in the blood of vaccinated donors (and NZ Blood does admit it is present in “vanishingly small” amounts of vaccinated blood), has someone studied what it can do to a 4-month-old baby?
  • Dr Turner has repeatedly said the vaccine is quickly broken down once it is injected into the arm.  It states this on the NZ Blood website also.  It has also been stated many times that the vaccine stays in the arm where it is injected.  Neither of these statements are true.  Despite the fact that the Medsafe datasheet states “Pharmacokinetics: Not applicable”, animal studies have been done showing that the LNPs are rapidly and widely distributed in the body, likely via the blood.  mRNA has been found in human lymph nodes up to 8 weeks post vaccination.  Spike protein has been shown to be persistent and widely distributed in the body for many months. Pathologists have told us that we lack the ability to test for spike protein in vaccinated blood, so how would NZ Blood know their donations are clear?
  • Dr Turner states there is not a stand down period for any vaccines.  That is not true.  There is a stand down period of 28 days following administration of live-attenuated vaccines.  This is because residual vaccine in the blood may theoretically pose a risk to patients who are immune-suppressed or immunocompromised such as cancer patients.  “Most live vaccines require a mandatory wait of 28 days before donating. These can include tuberculosis (BCG), measles, mumps, Polio – Sabin oral polio vaccine (OPV), and varicella (chickenpox and shingles).”  (From NZ Blood).  The Pfizer injection does not need a stand down period.
  • Dr Turner said mRNA does not get into the cell!!  It needs to get into the cell to use cell machinery to make the spike protein, so presumably she meant nucleus of the cell.  It is not black and white as she states and a number of scientists are demonstrating that the mRNA can get into the nucleus. One possible mechanism of several  for this to happen is via reverse transcriptase which exists in the cytoplasm of cells, courtesy of other RNA viruses that may be present. Much of the human genome is the result of such viral insertions over eons, where over time harmful ones get weeded out via painstaking selection. Whereas, so much about the biotech industry’s headlong charge down the slippery slope risks sudden and irreversible changes to the genome with potentially severe consequences, unknown and known. Or might this be what is intended?
  • Dr Turner refers to ‘enormous amounts of safety data’.  Yes there is an enormous amount of data, but all of it is screaming blue murder!  People are dying and being harmed in unprecedented numbers and no-one is doing anything.  There are 3550 reports of serious adverse events suffered by New Zealanders in the Medsafe database which is known to have significant under-reporting, as well as being 3 months behind.
  • Dr Turner mentions vaxxed vs unvaxxed studies.  Please provide these Nikki. Our take is that in every respect, vaccinated people are suffering more and dying more, thanks to politically-driven ‘scientism’ that refuses debate and censors any evidence undermining the huge corporations that help fund Dr Turner and her colleagues.
  • There are many unanswered questions, and it seems they could be resolved by the doctors involved and the blood bank sitting down in a calm and civilised manner to listen to and try to understand the concerns of the parents as per their obligations in the Patients Charter, answer their questions, acknowledge risks and uncertainties, and come up with a plan that mitigates potential harm from their baby receiving vaccinated blood.
  • Doctors all take an oath to First Do No Harm. This oft-quoted phrase is more than mere rhetoric. It is all that prevents patients becoming victims of the God complex, and plundered lifelong by the medical industry. 
  • There is also the Precautionary Principle to consider.  If there are possible problems or a a lack of unequivocal evidence of safety then extreme caution should apply and if there is a safer way of doing things, that should be the path taken, especially for our smallest and most vulnerable.

All doctors have solemn obligations to our patients, and the many others we influence. The Medical Council is encouraging harsher penalties against conscientious doctors because their messages have the great reach of the internet. We suggest this must also apply to those with an improper understanding of the medical literature, especially if they are paid to promote a Single Source of Truth. 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 118 Average: 4.9]
Share this post

Similar Posts