|
|
Post by GO30 on Dec 1, 2022 17:22:26 GMT 12
I listened to the blood service lady last evening. She is hard core a vaxxer and that is it, done no more discussion that's it.
They also spoke to a medical about the babies health and she said it is good all things considered and there is a wee window to work this thru. She also said the only block is the blood service refusing to budge.
My read is the management of the blood service are vaxxers and think any who aren't don't deserve any consideration what so ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Dec 1, 2022 19:00:39 GMT 12
If there is nothing wrong with the blood they should take it.
But I would like a plausible explanation first as to where all these never seen before blood clots are coming from that seems to have something to with this new sudden adult death syndrome disease that we didn't have before either, and aren't meant to talk about. That both just happened to turn up right about vaccine time.
Until you can explain all that to me, instead of just giving it a new name, how can I trust that you know the blood is safe too?
Aren't these the same people that still tell us the vaccine is safe and effective? A lot of the rest of the worlds Health Ministries seem to have some doubts about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 1, 2022 19:38:53 GMT 12
new sudden adult death syndrome disease that we didn't have before either, and aren't meant to talk about. That both just happened to turn up right about vaccine time. You can talk about it all you want. The first documented case of SADS was described in Germany in 1856 and had been researched in the U.S. since the early 1970s. The SADS Foundation (in the USA) was established on December 12, 1991 by Dr. Vincent and several dedicated colleagues and LQTS family members for the purpose of helping to prevent sudden and unexpected cardiac death in children and in young adults. In NZ we see around 6 cases of SADS per year. In the US they see around 210,000 cases per year. This is an example of misinformation causing some good - it has bought to the attention of many people that SADS is a real thing that has been around for a very long time... oif you have symptoms get checked, if you have family history get checked... Personally I never knew about SADS until a CT bought it to my attention. So talk about it - shout it from the rafters, the world needs to know about SADS. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 1, 2022 19:56:07 GMT 12
new sudden adult death syndrome disease that we didn't have before either, and aren't meant to talk about. That both just happened to turn up right about vaccine time. You can talk about it all you want. The first documented case of SADS was described in Germany in 1856 and had been researched in the U.S. since the early 1970s. The SADS Foundation (in the USA) was established on December 12, 1991 by Dr. Vincent and several dedicated colleagues and LQTS family members for the purpose of helping to prevent sudden and unexpected cardiac death in children and in young adults. In NZ we see around 6 cases of SADS per year. In the US they see around 210,000 cases per year. This is an example of misinformation causing some good - it has bought to the attention of many people that SADS is a real thing that has been around for a very long time... oif you have symptoms get checked, if you have family history get checked... Personally I never knew about SADS until a CT bought it to my attention. So talk about it - shout it from the rafters, the world needs to know about SADS. So how far above the long term average is 'all cause mortality' now? Serious question, I'm not being rhetorical or anything. There was a lot of chatter that all cause mortality was way up. I'm keen to see some NZ stats now some of the heat has gone out of the whole covid / jabs / mandates arguements. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 1, 2022 20:00:36 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Dec 2, 2022 18:27:08 GMT 12
Not yet. Whats your impression of it? Well researched? |
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Dec 2, 2022 18:35:20 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 3, 2022 9:36:36 GMT 12
The critical thing that the article refuses to mention, is that the baby is actually unlikely to need a whole blood transfusion, except in the case that the surgery goes bad and an emergency occurs while under the knife, which of course is a possibility that has to be accounted for with blood on standby. What will almost certainly be required is other specific blood products These are made in Australia from NZ donated AND Australia donated blood, they contain blood from many different individuals. These products come from the whole blood that is donated and they take many months to make. Fortunately the parents have seen reason on this and accepted that those blood products can come from vaccinated people. I find it interesting that they trust the science for those blood products but they do not trust the science for the rest of the blood. The article also fails to mention the incredibly stringent rules for pediatric whole blood. According to NZBS only 2% of NZ blood donors are cleared/screened to give blood that can be used in pediatric care. So I find it extremely unlikely that the family has managed to find 20 unvaccinated people that are cleared to give pediatric blood (as the article claims). |
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Dec 3, 2022 13:51:54 GMT 12
Interesting analysis, DM.
Welcome btw!
|
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Dec 3, 2022 14:46:39 GMT 12
The critical thing that the article refuses to mention, is that the baby is actually unlikely to need a whole blood transfusion, except in the case that the surgery goes bad and an emergency occurs while under the knife, which of course is a possibility that has to be accounted for with blood on standby. What will almost certainly be required is other specific blood products These are made in Australia from NZ donated AND Australia donated blood, they contain blood from many different individuals. These products come from the whole blood that is donated and they take many months to make. Fortunately the parents have seen reason on this and accepted that those blood products can come from vaccinated people. I find it interesting that they trust the science for those blood products but they do not trust the science for the rest of the blood. The article also fails to mention the incredibly stringent rules for pediatric whole blood. According to NZBS only 2% of NZ blood donors are cleared/screened to give blood that can be used in pediatric care. So I find it extremely unlikely that the family has managed to find 20 unvaccinated people that are cleared to give pediatric blood (as the article claims). You sound very much like a paid factchecker I must say.. much like someone on this forum not so long ago that had a melt down and threw his toys out of the cot so I'm not going to spend too much time debating with you.. but anywho.. It is absolutely possible to use "directed donations" when it comes to blood transfusions. The NZBS discourages it but the ability to provide that service is there. There is clearly a significant proportion of society that have no wish to partake, or continue to partake in the live human mRNA trials and they have a right to access blood that has not been exposed to these faux vaccines with high rates of adverse events. There have been significant medical red flags all around the world in highly vaxxed countries (excess mortality, myocarditis, increase in cancers, sads, low birth rates) so it is a no brainer to proceed with caution espiecially when it comes to a baby with a heart condition. There is no imminent armaggedon around the corner so there is no longer any urgency to move "at the speed of science", whatever that is supposed to mean. NZDSOS have done a good write up from a far more knowledgeble perspective.. nzdsos.com/2022/11/30/challenge-to-nz-blood/ |
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Dec 3, 2022 15:17:05 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 3, 2022 15:27:53 GMT 12
When you need to be given blood, it falls into two categories.
1 whole blood
2 blood products
Whole blood is effectively a transfusion. Blood from one person is given to the other person. It is traceable and they know exactly which donar gave every bag of whole blood. Whole blood is given when a patient has suffered significant blood loss, eg as a result of surgery or trauma.
Blood products on the other hand are made from blood donations.
You cannot use directed donations for blood products. They don't come from a single person.
They take the whole blood donation and split it into 4 different sub parts using centrifuges. Red cells, plasma, platelets and something else.
Red cells are what you see hanging from bags in the hospital. It's unlikely you'll ever see someone receiving whole blood unless you are in the operating theatre.
The other blood products are made from the plasma and platelets. This is shipped off to Australia where they make the products. Many different donors blood is mixed together to make these products.
The family has accepted the science behind those blood products. But they won't accept the science behind whole blood, (or I presume), red blood cells.
If they refuse to accept the science behind the red blood cells, then the 'directed donation' capability is moot. Because directed donation only applies to whole blood.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 3, 2022 15:39:41 GMT 12
From the article you link, it has a gaping hole, that nzdos isn't coming up with a solution.
They are just saying all the problems with vaccinated blood. No where are the antivax experts saying, this is how nzbs can produce vaccine free blood products.
They are actually just reinforcing the position of nzbs, that it's not possible to produce vaccine free blood products.
Given there's no way to detect if a blood donation is vax or Unvax. What would be good, would be if one of these experts could explain how nzbs could go about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Dec 3, 2022 15:53:30 GMT 12
Blood clots after a transfusion is a documented risk. When one of my kids needed blood electively 12yrs ago we were warned of the risks and had to jump through hoops to get it signed off by the Dr's as the best choice. One of the risks was increased chance of blood clots, there were lots of others, the worst was complete rejection of the blood resulting in immediate death. There was no mRNA 12yrs ago. Just the same good science we have today. Unfortunately people always look for a way to blame something or someone. |
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Dec 3, 2022 16:54:11 GMT 12
Very odd that someone joins a sailing forum and instead of talking sailing stuff heads straight to the discussion about the pro's and con's of mRNA and starts fact checking..
But anywho...
So science is unfallible? There is zero need to be cautious of a novel medical treatment mascarading as a vaccine because the scientists that support it have been put forward by politicians and the media over the thousands of Drs including nobel prize winning viroligists and ex pharma executives that question it?
We shouldn't be concermed that research papers as late as 2019 were saying that mRNA had significant issues including shutting down some peoples immune systems for no apparent reason?
You are clearly a devout follower of the ever diminishing cult of fizzer where rational and critical thinking is left at the door. Good luck with that.
|
|
