The Case of Baby W: Trust, Experts, Lies and Truth – A Tangled Web

Baby W Tangled Web
Photo Credit - © Canva Pro Content License

The Reasonable Concerns of Baby W’s Parents

We have recently been provided with an interesting opportunity to observe the mainstream media squirm with discomfort, demonstrate blind faith, ignorance and lack of curiosity, obfuscate, omit and fabricate as well as let slip a few truths.  And all this with respect to a tiny baby with the most piercing and wise blue eyes.

Baby W needed heart surgery and his parents were asking for the precautionary principle to apply and wanted their son to have blood from donors who had not been vaccinated against covid 19.  Not because they were convinced the blood was dangerous, but because there was a possibility that there could be problems with the blood and there was a safer alternative.

They had reasonable questions and concerns that were not addressed satisfactorily by the medical professionals involved in his case.


The family engaged the services of lawyer Sue Grey who was interviewed, somewhat reluctantly it seems, by a few mainstream media ‘journalists’.  Media Watch on Sunday seemed to admit that censorship can only go so far and perhaps censoring the lawyer involved in a case might overstep the mark: “It was probably not realistic to ban Grey from media appearances under those circumstances.” 

Some journalists therefore had to step up to the plate and do the deed.  Corin Dann on Morning Report had a go and got increasingly agitated as he tried repeatedly to insist that, as he and Sue were both lay people, they should just trust the experts and not consider or discuss the questions.

“There is no conversation to be had when the medical experts, and the medical professionals in this country, in just about every country in the world, when the WHO, are adamant there is no risk here” and “Oh, come on I’m sorry, were not going to have that discussion.” 

And then, referring to the surgeons who accepted the blood bank’s unfounded reassurances, “They accept the truth that there is no risk here.”

It felt a bit like observing a child putting its fingers in its ears going “La la la la la la, I don’t want to listen.”

Another one who was brave enough to speak to Sue was Heather du Plessis-Allen: “Sue Sue Sue I don’t want to go into your beliefs on this one, let’s just stick to the facts.  I’ve got to be honest, I just can’t go there. I cannot be bothered…”

Perhaps the advice from Stewart Sowman-Lund of The Spinoff would have been better received in advance.  Referring to Sue, Sowman-Lund suggested: “Those interviewing her should either be fully prepared to counter – in detail – her anti-vaccination rhetoric or – given the likelihood it will quickly descend into conspiracy territory – cut it off early.”

A quote springs to mind here:

Baby W Truth Questioned

If Corin and Heather were so sure of their positions and knew the science supported them, surely they could articulate their points in a discussion with Sue without having to resort to cancelling her, talking over her and shutting her down.  Corin was obviously threatened by the fact Sue is not actually a layperson on this matter. He tried on several occasions to ignore or belittle the science qualifications (a BSc with double major in microbiology and biochemistry, and a diploma in public health inspection) she has in addition to her legal ones (LLB (Hons)), as well as her knowledge and expertise, but he ended up sounding rather pathetic and petulant.

These journalists appear not to have a good grasp or understanding of scientific matters. In itself this is not a problem, but part of their job is to explore all views, including scientific ones, in an unbiased manner.

On another occasion Michael Laws spoke with Alia Bland and decided on the basis of 24 hours of research that Prof Byram Bridle (Canadian viral immunologist​​​​​​​) was a discredited nutter.  It seems Laws’ research consisted of looking at Fact Checkers’ reports, rather than actually reading or looking at any of Dr Bridle’s work or listening to him speak.  Easier to trust someone else rather than get to grips with the issues. Mind you, Laws is in good company. One of us had our referenced statements dismissed by the Medical Council on the grounds that Facebook fact checkers had said they were incorrect!

Sean Plunket 5 Dec 2022: “I trust people who run the health system.”

Corin Dann’s misplaced trust again: “OK, so they trust the medical science behind those surgeons carrying out that operation, yet they don’t trust those same doctors who do trust the blood service’s blood?  Where is the logic in that?”

Let’s help Corin here. He was referring to surgeons, who are highly qualified and skilled at operating on baby’s hearts.  That does not make them trustworthy experts in infectious disease, immunology, haematology or ‘vaccinations’ using a new gene therapy.  That would be a bit like trusting a science teacher to take the classical music class.

From media reports it appears that no specialist from the blood service was willing to talk to the parents initially and when one did appear, she was distracted, rushed and unwilling or unable to engage in conversation in a meaningful way.  Hardly the way to engender trust.

Trust should be earned, and trust can be lost if it is not respected.  Perhaps some critical thinking should be applied when deciding WHO to TRUST.


Which brings us to the questions of who or what is an expert, where do they come from, what credentials do they need or have, do they have hidden conflicts of interest and should we trust them?

Mainstream media appears to trust the ‘experts’ and brings them out frequently for comment.  There seems to be an unquestioning faith among NZ journalists, and our covid ‘experts’ are rarely challenged with probing questions.

Corin Dann speaking with Sue Grey: “I don’t want to have a discussion about the research because you and I are lay people.  We trust the experts.”

If we consider the ‘experts’ we have been exposed to over the past 3 years (Baker, Turner, Wiles, Bloomfield, Jackson, Petousis-Harris to name a few), they all seem to come from our ivory towers of academia, or from the government, which means they most likely automatically have at least one conflict of interest. 

When have you heard a journalist questioning who funds Otago or Auckland University, IMAC, The Science Media Centre or the Disinformation Project?  Is it possible that funding comes with strings attached and there are some things you must say and some things you can’t say if you want your funding to continue?

We would like to hear from experts who aren’t being paid to say something, who are speaking solely from their knowledge and respect for humanity.

Although the journalists may still ‘trust the experts’, increasing numbers of New Zealanders are aware of the lies we have been told by experts, the same lies that have been regurgitated unquestioningly by the media, to the point that experts and media no longer have our trust.  And the media is aware of this.

There are various levels of evidence used when referring to medicine as demonstrated by the following diagram.  Expert opinion is low down on the list and modelling is down at the bottom too.  New Zealanders have been exposed to a lot of expert opinion and modelling over the last 3 years.

Baby W Hierarchy of Evidence

Experts can however, earn respect by speaking the truth.  When an expert consistently speaks the truth, s/he will be trusted.


Moving on to the little lies – either overt or by omission or obfuscation – that we have been told by experts.  Here’s a list of just a few of them from the  last 3 years:

Covid is a severe illness for everyone. Many people (who test positive) are asymptomatic false positives or have a mild illness.
There was no treatment early on and now all we have are expensive new pharmaceuticals.There were cheap, effective and in fact, life-saving treatments available from early in the ‘pandemic’.
Vitamin D levels are irrelevant.Vitamin D is crucially important, with much more significant illness in those with low vitamin D levels.
The vaccine is 95% effective.The ARR (absolute risk reduction) in the interim report of the original Pfizer trial was just 0.84%.  It was the illusory RRR (relative risk reduction) that was 95%. Many vaxxed with covid would say 95% ineffective. In fact, there is negative efficacy in most groups.
The vaccine is safe. This is the most dangerous vaccine in the history of medicine.

In speaking about the Baby W case, Dr Nikki Turner has been one of the more prolific voices, obfuscating the truth repeatedly.

She has made multiple statements without a shred of evidence and with no scientific references to back them up.  And the journalists accept it all as gospel.  More shame on them.  Here are some of her incorrect remarks.  See this article for more in depth discussion about their veracity or otherwise.

  • The parents were worried about covid antibodies in the blood 
  • The synthetic vaccine mRNA is the same as the mRNA from covid infection
  • The mRNA is quickly degraded
  • The quantity of this spike protein produced after vaccination is much lower than the amount seen in people with COVID-19 infection
  • The spike protein is dismantled inside specialist cells as soon as it is produced
  • The rate of myopericarditis is higher after COVID infection than after vaccination
  • The numerous ‘safety reports’ demonstrate safety​​​​​​​

More on lies.  One of the media ‘news’ outlets even had the gall to suggest lying to the parents would be the best way to solve the issue.

Josh Thomson on ThreeNow’s The Project: “Yeah, you shouldn’t just give kids random street blood, but I think they should, they should just LIE,  [What, the medical people?] like, that’s what I’d do, yeah yeah it’s totally unvaxxed blood. I just got it now from Brian Umbrella and Sarah Watercress, we’ve put it through a teatowel, it’s sweet as.”

The presenters of The Project all seemed to think the idea of lying to the parents was a great joke, rather than completely insulting and disrespectful.


Despite all the above, a few little truths have slipped out amid the lies and obfuscation.  Firstly, that one of the main reasons for not allowing Baby W to have blood from unvaccinated donors is that it might set a precedent, and there can’t be anything that casts doubt on the narrative of ‘safe and effective’.

Nikki Turner: “But even if we could do that and then what if people think there is a problem and that is why we did it, so then 100 people ask us to do that, then 200 people and we did it for no logical reason.  We’d be sort of opening up a problem that wasn’t a problem.”

Corin Dann speaking with Sue Grey: “I want to come back to the other issues, which is the danger around a precedent here.  Are you concerned, this is the danger here, and even having this interview, that there may now be somebody who goes to A and E and demands to have blood that is unvaccinated and puts their life at risk?”

That’s right folks, it can’t appear that there is a potential problem with this vaccine.  Pfizer would not allow it.  It will be written in the secret contract somewhere.

The second little truth to escape is that there is a lack of trust amidst the population.

Michael Daubs of The Internet, Social Media, and Politics Research Lab speaking with Lisa Owen on Checkpoint: “But the best thing to do is to listen to experts in the field.  The issue with that is that there is a lot of mistrust of people like medical professionals, people in government, academics like me, journalists like you, and so we are really looking at the fact that we need a social program, not just in NZ, but in several countries throughout the world that rebuilds trust in all of those social institutions, a long-term almost generational effort to get people to believe in basic science again.  And that’s not a happy prognosis, but there are tons of people working really, really hard to make that happen right now.”

Why would we need a ‘social program’ to get us to believe in basic science again?  A ‘social program’ sounds dangerous and very controlling, if not 1984.  And ‘belief’ in science sounds like a religion.  Surely science stands up by itself.  We don’t need to believe, we just need to see and understand.

Dr Turner, too, hints at a lack of trust of health professionals at present.  She said we need ‘to build up trust again’, which acknowledges that trust has been lost.  ‘We need to work through where these fears have come from.’

Dr Turner, this lack of trust and these fears are due to health professionals abandoning their principles and ethics.  The mistrust is due to the fact that doctors, scientists, the media and ‘experts’ have lied to the NZ public for the last 3 years.  It is due to the fact that doctors have actively harmed and killed people – some even pregnant (and on YOUR irrational assurances Dr Turner) – by insisting they take a medical procedure many did not want and nobody needed.

Why should the public trust anything the government, the MoH, the experts or the media say?

What a topsy turvy world we live in.  We’re supposed to trust the experts even though we know they have lied to us.  At the same time we have mainstream media, who we are supposed to believe, telling us lies are acceptable.

Time to listen to that inner voice, the one that knows the difference between truth and lies, the one that knows which experts  to trust .  Time to trust ourselves and set the truth free.

Baby W Truth Lion
Click to rate this post!
[Total: 234 Average: 4.8]
Share this post

Similar Posts