Featured Image

(LifeSiteNews) — Following reports in 2021 of unvaccinated patients requesting “untainted blood” from unvaccinated donors, a study was commissioned to investigate the phenomenon in October 2021. Now, a nonprofit organization is offering to match requests with mRNA injection free donors, whilst a Swiss brokerage for unvaccinated blood donation is operating in seventeen countries and across Africa and Asia. 

The case may appear to be one of choice. However, it is a question of whether parents or the state have the right to decide what is best for children. In a further blow to the institution of the family, the High Court of New Zealand has ruled that a baby be taken from its parents and placed in the custody of the state – because the parents refused to accept blood transfusions for the child from mRNA vaccinated donors during the child’s forthcoming vital heart surgery. 

WATCH: New Zealand police take baby away from parents over vaccinated blood transfusion dispute

In a similar case earlier this year, an Italian couple was denied the right to decide whether their child was to be given a blood donation from mRNA injected donors. Despite producing a list of forty willing – and unvaccinated – donors, the judge ruled against them, saying that vaccinated blood was safe to use. This is despite the fact that the parents did not object on safety, but on religious grounds.  

Catholics have objected in principle to mRNA vaccines as aborted fetal cell lines were used in the development and the minimal testing of the experimental treatments. To overturn this objection is to nullify any ethical objections on the grounds of religious belief, a sentiment which expresses the sense of complete and unquestioned moral supremacy characteristic of a contemporary liberalism which discards Christian conviction as readily as it undermines the rights of the individual to disagree. The issue is clearly more than a medical matter, and is one which opens questions about the limits of freedom – and of rights – in the West. 

This week a second New Zealand family have reopened the debate with a similar refusal to consider blood from vaccinated donors in their child’s heart surgery. Their objection differs inasmuch as they describe themselves as “natural minded,” preferring not to vaccinate their children at all. Having ceased to do so ten years ago, they now face a costly trip to India to secure the treatment they prefer for their infant son.   

The news comes in a year which has seen patients refused organ transplants in Colorado and in Boston for having declined the experimental jab, whose side effects are becoming much more widely acknowledged.  

READ: Hospital denies unvaccinated 14-year-old girl a life-saving kidney transplant

Are these parents and patients simply risking their children’s health and their own through paranoia? According to pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole, they are taking a sensible precaution against an as yet unknown risk. So is there a definite danger in accepting vaccinated blood transfusions? 

“We don’t know.” said Cole in a recent interview.

“Nobody knows. I have clots from unvaccinated deceased that were transfused and formed large clots post transfusion and died. No blood bank is checking.” 

Cole’s conclusion is telling. 

“One cannot find, that for which they do not look”. 

The motives for not looking, and for preferring instead to attack those who raise the issue, reveals the deeper structure of this controversy. It is not a battle between the forces of reason and some irrational conspiracy theorists, but the expression of a model of political management which requires no evidence aside from its own authority to dictate to its subjects. Referring to the tainted blood scandal of the 1980s, Cole’s insight shows precisely how personal politics has become. 

READ: Baby dies of large blood clot after doctor ignores parents’ request for unvaxxed transfusion

“This is akin to blood banks and hemophiliacs and HIV in the 1980s. It may not be a problem. However, it may be. There are assays academically available to check for circulating spike protein. It is criminal negligence to not assure the safety of the blood supply based on bureaucratic declarations without scientific explorations.” 

For those readers concerned with the issue, the American Red Cross advises here on how to store your own blood for future use in surgical procedures. Known as an autologous donation, it is offered alongside the Directed Donations provision, which allows for patients to request being transfused only with blood they have provided from friends and family members. You require a completed Special Collections Order Form from your physician to access the service, which can be obtained by contacting the Red Cross here. Neither of these measures are routinely available in the UK, for example, which may help to explain the increasing demand for unvaccinated blood services in Europe. Across the US, more services are appearing, such as the Blessed By His Blood cooperative. Founder Liz James retired from her 29 year career as a pharmacist as she refused to administer the novel mRNA injections. 

Speaking of her mission in creating the BBHB initiative, she remarked: “We simply don’t know what we don’t know (yet) about the long term effects of the COVID-19 shots and mRNA technology. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness very much includes medical freedom. I believe everyone should have the freedom to choose what should (or should not) go into their bodies. BBHB is an avenue to protect that freedom when it comes to a potential need for blood transfusions” 

For those outside the US, Safeblood provides a network and contact service to coordinate international access to unvaccinated blood. Then there is unjected, which goes beyond the blood issue, presenting itself as the world’s #1 unvaccinated platform. It operates in over 85 countries worldwide, offering “Dating, friendship and medical freedom” to help the unvaccinated “easier connect in a world of medical discrimination and censorship”. 

If the vaccine controversy is to be best understood as a health issue, it must include a discussion on the health of our politics and the methods used to expedite them. What has been heavily propagandized as a moral obligation has resulted in a deep division whose reinforcement in the reduction of rights of the unvaccinated promises to make it permanent. We are faced with the emergence of a new parallelism in our culture – between the pure and the polluted – and it is a question of power as to whom these labels are applied.