Vaccinated Blood Case

Vaccinated Blood Case

Re: the Legality of Medical Authorities forcing the use of Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated Blood

Facts of the Case

Dates: Nov 30 2022 & Dec 6 2022
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Court: High court of Auckland
Case #: ?
Plaintiff: Te Whatu Ora (Health NZ- the government health service)
Plaintiff’s Lawyer:

Defendant: Sam & Cole Savage-Reeves (Parents)
Defendant’s Lawyer: Sue Grey
Trial Type: Guardianship of minor — baby Will
Justice: Ian Gault
Status: Decided
Verdict: for the Plaintiff

*updated Dec 7, 2022

Background

Parents Sam and Cole Savage-Reeves want to ensure their baby, Will, who needs open heart surgery has unvaccinated blood during the operation. But shockingly, the surgeon and NZ Blood Service won’t allow them the human right of the freedom to choose or refuse what goes in their baby’s body.[1]

The New Zealand (“NZ”) Blood Service at present does not separate blood or blood products depending on vaccination status and many people, quite rightly, have concerns about potentially receiving blood from vaccinated donors. The right to choose what goes into our bodies has come to a head in the case of four-month-old baby Will. [1]

The boy has a congenital heart defect which has become more severe since he was born. He needs surgery “in order to survive” and his heart will “continue to deteriorate” without it. [9]

He is likely to need plasma products, which are formed from pooling blood from various donors. Doctors said it was “simply impractical” to get this from directed donors. [9]

Doctors had also checked whether it was possible to perform the surgery using cardiac bypass, without blood or blood products, but decided “this was not an available option”. [9]

On Tuesday Dec 5 2022, the High Court in Auckland will decide whether to grant the health service, Te Whatu Ora, temporary guardianship of the baby so it can remove the child from the family and perform the surgery. [2]

Justice Gault Conflict of Interest

The Justice does seem to have ties to the Pfizer company . He is on the board of NZAS trust and was a former Bell Gully partner whose board brokered the Pfizer deal. and was especially picked by PM Ardern to be a judge [15]

In the case of the safety of the blood supply, US pathologist Ryan Cole has a message, [5]

“We don’t know.”
“The bottom line is that Baby Will’s parents are correct. They have made a responsible decision and their decision should be respected by the medical community.”

Request for Interim Order

The lawyers acting on behalf of the parents have asked for an interim order compelling the NZ Blood Service to provide a direct donor service. [4]

That would allow the compatible blood to be collected and processed from unvaccinated individuals. [4]

But Adam Ross KC, representing the Blood Service, said straying from clinical judgement could lead down a “slippery slope” that would ultimately “damage” the blood service. [4]

He said should that order be made, there would be nothing stopping people from saying they “don’t like those types of people’s blood or these types of people’s blood”. [4]

The baby’s parents earlier said they were “extremely concerned” that blood donated by people who have had the Covid-19 vaccine would adversely affect their child. [4]

Discussions between the parents and Te Whatu Ora had continued between hearings, with the parties unable to reach a compromise. [4]

The couple said they had “screened” the donors they had lined up, but doctors insisted on using blood from the NZ Blood Service. [4]

The operation could be completed within 48 hours of any order given, White said. [4]

While the matter is subject to automatic suppressions under the Care of Children Act 2004, both lawyers for Te Whatu Ora and the parents have given leave for the proceedings to be reported on. [4]

Justice Gault reserved his decision, but said he understood the “urgency” involved in the case. [4]

Dr. Guy Hatchard defended the parents in an article

For two years now, vaccine advocates have been asking for separation between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Expressing a deep, yet unfounded, fear of the unvaccinated. Even seeking to avoid breathing the same air. This has been encouraged by government publicity. Now they want the unvaccinated to exclusively and compulsorily receive vaccinated blood transfusions. [1]
At a time when the parents deserve understanding and support, all semblance of recognition of the provision of medical choice in the NZ Bill of Rights has been abandoned. Medical choice is off the table and it is open season for vicious attacks on the unvaccinated. [1]
Baby Will has a heart condition. It is admitted by our government that heart inflammation – myopericarditis – is a risk of vaccination. It is admitted that some studies indicate the persistence of spike protein in the blood. So why on earth would the government insist there is no risk? This is further evidence of a bunker mentality and a hint of madness. [1]

Virologist Dr Angelova writes on her Substack [7]

“Blood donations are important and save lives, but the mass use of COVID-19 vaccines all of which are in the early clinical research stage raises questions.
Blood donations from people who participate in clinical research are unethical and illegal.
All COVID vaccines are still in the clinical research stage then are we used (again) as lab rats by the governments?” [7]
So the state will decide what is best for the child and may even take it away from his parents. The mother who carried him is accepted as incapable for taking care of him for no legitimate reason. Again, the hospitals and courts are simply services paid by the parents. [8]

Concerns listed by the NZDSOS [6]

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. [6]

Questions and Concerns to NZ Blood: [6]

1. 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 NZ 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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?

7. 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 a 140x increased risk of clinical myocarditis in teenage boys aged 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.

8. 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.

9. 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?

10. 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

Associate Prof. of Viral Immunology Dr. Byram Bridle: On Blood Transfusions from Vaccinated People

Significance

Believed to be the first case worldwide to decide upon on right or not to receive unvaccinated blood if requested. But the case is more important even than that. It also calls into question the right & power of the state to make decisions for the parents and to remove the children from the parents if it deems it necessary

Plaintiff’s Argument

The plaintiff, the New Zealand government health service, Te Whatu Ora, has denied the family’s request to use blood from unvaccinated volunteers and says that the vaccines pose no risk to donor supplies. [2]

The plaintiff, (the Medical Authority) is asking for the court to take over guardianship of the four-month-old baby to allow him to have the surgery that has been delayed because his parents do not want any blood used to be from a donor vaccinated against Covid-19. [3] [4]

A full hearing was held on Tuesday, Dec 5 2022 at the High Court at Auckland by Justice Ian Gault. [4] Te Whatu Ora’s lawyer Paul White opened its case, saying the baby had loving parents whose beliefs contrasted with the medical science. [3]

Speaking to the court, Paul White, the lawyer representing Te Whatu Ora, said the parents’ strong opposition to the transfusion was “curious” given that the child had already been given blood as part of earlier treatment, which the mother had consented to. [4]

It was clear the child had loving parents who had the best interests of their child at heart, White said, but they also held views that contrasted with medical science. [4]

He said the health authority had no other motives than the best interests of the child. [4]

The boy’s survival depended on the guardianship application being granted as it wasn’t known the damage that was being done to the child’s heart while treatment was delayed,he said. [4]

Defendant’s Argument

As lawyer Sue Grey said on her way into court yesterday:

“This family want the best for their baby … This family actually want better for the baby than what the government is offering … They want safe blood for their baby. They don’t want their baby to be contaminated with something that could cause more harm than the poor baby is already facing.” [1]

You can watch a detailed brief from Grey after the court case yesterday HERE. [1]

But Sue Grey, acting for the family, said the long-term effects of the vaccine were “untested”. [4]

Although doctors had given an earlier transfusion, “it doesn’t mean we should play blood roulette”, she said. [4]

Grey said if it took a “couple of more days” to get “safe” then that was worth the risk. [4]

Delaying the surgery was “a case of balancing up a risk that we don’t fully know about and another risk we don’t fully know about”. [4]

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

US Baby Alex died two weeks after he had a blood transfusion using vaccinated blood. This is how his Mother Cornelia describes her nightmare from the blood transfusion her baby was given : (see the video below)

We begged the hospital to let us get pure blood.
They refused and gave the blood to him without our consent.
He developed a blood clot instantly that stretched from his knee to his heart.
He made it two weeks before he died. “

Decision

Justice Ian Gault granted Health NZ’s application, meaning the surgery can go ahead, using blood from people vaccinated for Covid. [9]

Guardianship has been given to the court. Two medical specialists from the hospital have been made agents of the court, meaning they can make medical decisions for the boy until after his surgery. [9]

Justice Gault also denied a cross-application from the parents, seeking another order compelling the NZ Blood Service to provide a direct donor service. That would allow the compatible blood to be collected and processed from unvaccinated individuals. [9]

Justice Gault said it was in the baby’s best interests for him to have surgery “without further delay”. [9]

His order granting the doctors the power to make medical decisions for the baby come into force immediately and will last until after he has recovered from surgery. [9]

Aftermath

“The focus of our entire team at Starship is always on the health and wellbeing of all tamariki within our care, as well as their whānau. With this in mind, it is our priority to work alongside the baby’s whānau as we continue to care for him.” [9]

stuff.co.nz writes

“Doctors can make the medical decisions for a baby at the centre of a case about blood from donors vaccinated for Covid-19, a court has ruled.” [9]

Virologist Dr Angelova writes

“Many people say about baby Will, but this is it. The government made a decision. I’d like to remind you that government is simply a service. The government cannot tell you how to raise your children or what to put in your body” [10]

she continues:

the New Zealand Blood Service and doctors from Starship Children’s Health want to perform surgery on baby Will using blood that contains substances that will kill him. [10]
They are aware of it.
Studies back it up. [10]
https://rumble.com/v1zbdpc-liz-gunns-statement-on-baby-will.html
https://angelovalidiya.substack.com/p/re-blood-contamination-issue-people/comments
Blood from people who received so-called COVID-19 vaccines is unsafe and should not be used in blood donations. [10]
Some lipid nanoparticles LNPs formulations degrade quickly within tissues [10]; however, proprietary ionisable lipids in BNT162b2 (ALC-0315) were expected to be completely eliminated in rat livers after as much as 6 weeks [8]. Protein expression was shown to persist 7 to 10 days in previous studies on mice [10,11] and at least 9 days in BNT162b2 studies submitted to EMA [8].
A recent ultrasensitive single-molecule assay was however able to detect the S-protein in the plasma of some mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccinees at 15 days following injection [12], while in another study, both mRNA and S-protein could be found in axillary LNs after 60 days [13]. Moreover, extracellular vesicles decorated with S-proteins persist up to 4 months after vaccination with BNT162b2 [14]. This raises the possibility that LNP–mRNA complexes remain in circulation for extended periods of time, retaining their ability to induce S-protein expression in contacted cells. [10]
We found that vaccine-associated synthetic mRNA persists in systemic circulation for at least 2 weeks. [10]
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/10/7/1538
mRNA vaccination stimulates robust GCs containing vaccine mRNA and spike antigen up to 8 weeks postvaccination in some cases. SARS-CoV-2 antibody specificity https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00076-9#relatedArticles [10]
Those seeking clean blood. Nobody has the right to restrict you from using it. Your body, your choice! I proposed the establishment of clean blood hospitals and services. [10]
https://cleanblood2021.wordpress.com/
I see that such have already been created and will contact them so that we can collaborate. Their website can be found at https://safeblood.ch/en/. Also, look for private hospitals as well as hospitals that are more willing to assist. You can avoid contaminated blood by preserving your own blood, seeking blood from trusted relatives, and establishing clean blood hospitals. Check the cell salvage procedure as well. It is the process by which blood from the surgical field or wound drainages is collected, filtered, and washed to produce autologous blood for re-transfusion to the patient. [10]

GillianMcKeith Television Presenter. Nutritionist & Dietetic Technician. No.1 Bestselling Author writes:

“Parents of Baby Will lose right for their baby to receive blood of choice. And now have lost guardianship too! Heartbreaking and frightening precedent for the future.. High Court orders Baby Will placed in temporary guardianship order” [11]

UK MP A Brigden said in Parliament

“There have been more reported deaths & adverse reactions following mRNA vaccinations in 18 mths than there have been for every conventional vaccine administered worldwide in the last 50 yrs”[12]