Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Politics Popular culture

Antivax nonsense about “PureBloods” endangers the lives of children

The antivax idea of “purebloods” is back and endangering a child’s life. Same as it ever was, unfortunately.

As hard as it is to believe, it’s been over a year since I first wrote about a particularly pernicious phenomenon in the antivaccine movement, the concept of “purebloods,” more specifically the concept that those unvaccinated with one of the COVID-19 vaccines have “pure blood” and that the vaccines somehow “contaminate” the blood. As I pointed out at the time, there is nothing new about “purebloods” other than “new school” antivaxxers having chosen a name based seemingly on disturbingly fascist concepts about “purity,” sparking an obvious comparison to a character from one of my favorite movies of all time, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper from one of my favorite movies of all time, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Specifically, the concept reminds me of how Gen. Ripper would seemingly reasonably rant about how fluoridation is a Communist plot to “sap and impurify” the “precious bodily fluids” of real Americans, noting that anti-fluoridation, antivaccine, and anti-GMO pseudoscience all tap into the alternative medicine fear of “contamination” as a cause of ill health and “purity of essence” (again, from Dr. Strangelove) as key to good health.

“Mandrake, have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?”

And who can forget this scene?

““I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”

I can predict how antivaxxers will react to my starting this post with clips of Gen. Ripper ranting about “contamination” of his “precious bodily fluids” and how that “contamination” is the result of a Communist plot. They won’t like it. They’ll say I’m being unfair and uncharitable in my comparison and using it to poison the well. Here’s the problem, though, from a science-based perspective that led me to lead with this: Huge swaths of alternative medicine relies on the concept that “contamination” (these days more frequently referred to as “toxins”) cause most, if not all, disease. Over the years, I’ve discussed how various “detoxification” regimens that make up so much of alternative medicine (and, not coincidentally, the basis of many treatments for many conditions—like autism—that antivaxxers used to attribute to vaccines) have more in common with religious ritual purification rituals than they do with science or medicine. This concept of “purity” versus “contamination” (implied to be with evil) also has a lot to do with the idea that “natural immunity” to a disease (which in reality should be called post-infection immunity given that vaccine-induced immunity is natural) and has infected the discourse over COVID-19 vaccines. Not coincidentally, concepts of “contamination” versus “purity” (or even “pureblood” or “purebloods”) are also behind the fear stoked by antivaxxers that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines “permanently alter” your DNA, thus contaminating and corrupting it with evil (the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein).

I won’t belabor the point (yet), having discussed the concept of “purebloods” and antivax “purity of essence” multiple times, but with that background, consider a story I saw just a couple of days ago from New Zealand about this very issue related to a child referred to as Baby Will:

Health New Zealand is heading to court over the guardianship of a baby in need of heart surgery as the boy’s parents are refusing to allow blood from vaccinated people to be used in the operation, it is understood.

Court records show documents had been filed with the Auckland High Court yesterday and Health New Zealand/Te Whatu Ora is listed as the applicant for proceedings set down for tomorrow.

The NZ Herald understands Te Whatu Ora is seeking the guardianship of the 4-month-old be shifted from his parents to the courts so consent to use donated blood in the required open-heart surgery can be given.

After the court hearing:

Justice Layne Harvey said today’s hearing at the High Court in Auckland is purely administrative to set the date for an urgent hearing.

Representing Te Whatu Ora, lawyer Paul White flagged the urgency of the case saying medical professionals have said the child with such a condition would have been treated several weeks ago in normal circumstances.

The parents’ lawyer, Sue Grey, said the case was unusual and different from other medical guardianship cases where parents are refusing medical care. For this one, she said, the parents want better care than what the state is offering.

So what is going on? The whole idea of “purebloods” (unvaccinated) has led parents with a child with a congenital heart defect to refuse surgery unless the hospital can guarantee that their child will only receive “unvaccinated blood”:

The parents of the baby discussed their son’s health situation and their medical preferences in an interview with an anti-vaccination campaigner.

In the interview the parents say their baby has severe pulmonary valve stenosis, and that he needs surgery “almost immediately”, but that they are “extremely concerned with the blood [the doctors] are going to use”.

“We don’t want blood that is tainted by vaccination,” the father said. “That’s the end of the deal – we are fine with anything else these doctors want to do.”

Before I go on, my position on this issue will come as no surprise. While a competent adult is free to refuse any medical intervention whatsoever, as long as the consequences of doing so are understood, the same is not true for parents refusing life-saving medical interventions for their child. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, is free to refuse blood transfusions based on their religion, even if that refusal will result in their deaths, they should not be allowed to refuse such transfusions for their children. If they do, the state has a duty and obligation to step in to see that the child gets proper medical care. Del Bigtree, to name another example, is perfectly free to refuse “vaccinated blood” after bleeding down to a very low hemoglobin level due to his hemorrhoids, even at the risk of his life, but he does not have the right to let one of his children die a transfusion is needed too save that child’s life. Of course, Bigtree also had adoring fans who paid for a flight to a quack clinic in Cancun to receive just such a transfusion of “unvaccinated” blood, thus ensuring his ability to continue to exist as one of the “purebloods,” but most people are not so fortunate.

In any event, unsurprisingly this case has become a cause célèbre among the antivaccine crowd, with the court hearing earlier this week packed by supporters, who also regularly flood articles about the case with support, rants against Health New Zealand/Te Whatu Ora, and, of course, conspiracy theories about how supposedly deadly spike proteins used as the antigen in COVID-19 vaccines are. Also unsurprisingly, there is a publicity campaign, with the parents appearing in videos filmed by antivax former presenter Liz Gunn featuring them and their lawyer Sue Grey:

Note the “Remember Nuremberg” sign in the background, in case you don’t think these are antivaxxers. They are. The co-optation and misuse of the Nuremberg Trials as being relevant to vaccine programs is a longstanding trope used by antivaxxers and arguably Holocaust denial.

Images like this are very powerful propaganda for antivaxxers because everyone with a few cardiac muscle cells able to contract feels for a mother with a young child with a life-threatening heart defect that requires semi-urgent surgery. Similarly, it’s hard not to sympathize with fear of blood transfusions, because such fear has existed since transfusions first entered medical care and the concept of taking blood from another person is, on a primal level, a very frightening one. Similarly, the idea of “parental rights” is also very powerful, not just in the US but all over the world, including in New Zealand.

Here in the US, you might remember an incident from nearly eight years ago that I like to cite to point out how so often children are viewed not as autonomous beings but rather the property of their parents during the time they are being raised. I’ve written about this attitude more times than I can remember, encapsulating it with a quote by Senator Rand Paul that sums up this attitude about as close to perfectly as I can. It’s an attitude that permeates every discussion about the health care of children. He said it three years ago at the height of the Disneyland measles outbreak, when calls were just starting to be made in California to ban nonmedical “personal belief exemptions” to school vaccine mandates, calls that ultimately led to SB 277, the law that did ban nonmedical exemptions in California:”The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.” Parental rights are not, nor should they be, absolute, and there is no evidence that “vaccinated” blood is any less safe than “unvaccinated blood.”

But what about the claim of the parents that they are just seeking “better medical care” for their child:

The issue has created an impasse between the two parties and Sue Grey—the parents’ lawyer described by the Guardian as a “prominent anti-vaccination campaigner”—claimed the parents are simply demanding better care for their child than what the state is offering and that the state has written them off as conspiracy theorists.

With antivaxxers arguing:

Here are two sincere parents who have already been traumatised by the heart condition of their four month old which necessitates an operation. They would like unvaccinated blood to be used, and they arranged for matching donors.

But the surgeon and the New Zealand health system have refused this easy option. Instead, they decided to go for the jugular. They are seeking custody of the child to enforce the use of blood from the public blood bank. They are refusing to admit that studies finding persistence of spike protein indicate any risk. An extreme position. It is of note, as we have previously written that even pro-vaccine advocates overseas are admitting the existence of novel blood clots, (whilst arguing implausibly that their causes are unknown).


Both national dailies have decided to demonise the parents, abandoning all semblance of humane compassion. There can’t be any greater condemnation of the effect of vaccination. Apparently, it makes people angry and uncaring.

At a time when the parents deserve understanding and support, all semblance of recognition of the provision of medical choice in the New Zealand Bill of Rights has been abandoned. Medical choice is off the table and it is open season for vicious attacks on the unvaccinated.

I have not really seen evidence of this “demonization” of the parents reading various New Zealand-based accounts of the story. What I have seen is the appropriate refutation of their conspiracy mongering about “vaccinated blood” being “tainted” and somehow unsafe and questioning why parents would risk their baby’s life based on unscientific nonsense. Of course, to antivaxxers, any science-based criticism that points out that a child’s life should not be endangered because of fear of a medical treatment that isn’t based in any evidence that that medical treatment is, in fact, dangerous.

But what about this “easy option”? To be honest, I’m somewhat conflicted. It does seem “easy” simply to give in to “purebloods” conspiracy mongering and let the parents line up 20 donors that they claim to have recruited for directed donation, all for the good of the child. However, first consider this:

New Zealand’s blood service said it does not separate or label donated blood by vaccination status nor is there any evidence suggesting vaccination adversely affects the quality of blood for transfusion.

Correct. Also, nowhere in the world that I’m aware of routinely separates donated blood by COVID-19 vaccination status—or any other vaccine status. Also, as bioethicists point out:

A lecturer in bioethics at the University of Otago, Josephine Johnston, told RNZ it was very rare for a case to get this far. It was a distressing case for everyone involved, she added, because there was significant disagreement between the parents and the healthcare teams, both of whom were trying to act in the best interests of the child.

“Parents have a lot of decision-making authority over their child’s life – there’s a huge zone of discretion for parents to make decisions including about medical issues,” Johnston said.

“But there are limits to that, and this is one of those tragic cases where the limit has life and death consequences.”

Gray counters that there’s no “downside” to using directed donation other than administrative difficulty and expense. That’s not entirely true. As this review points out, there is actually a significantly increased risk of transfusion-transmitted infectious disease from directed donation compared to standard anonymous pooled community donations, specifically HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HTLV, and syphilis. It’s a risk that remains even when the donor is a parent of the patient, leading to a conclusion:

Thus, increased  risk of transfusion-transmitted infections in directed donor blood products should be considered because the detection of such infections would preclude the donated blood products from use.

Why might this be? The answer might surprise you, but probably doesn’t surprise physicians:

Directed donations may be influenced by extrinsic pressures, such as coercion or monetary compensation, particularly in times of crisis.2 Ramifications of such pressure may include inaccurate answers on predonation screening questions.

The review also notes that infectious disease testing of donated blood is not foolproof. Consequently, if a donor pool is more high-risk, then there’s a higher risk that infectious agents will slip through the screening.

In addition, people underestimate the supposed “simple” extra administrative requirements for directed donation:

The turnaround time for this required testing is often overlooked when planning for directed donations. Directed donations are not immediately available for transfusion; their release is contingent upon testing completion and acceptable test results. Depending on the testing and product preparation process of the particular blood bank, the period from collection to product availability for transfusion may be >48 hours. Because of the turnaround time, directed donation is a less feasible option than the use of voluntary, nonrenumerated blood donations when a transfusion is needed expediently because the latter products would have already been tested and prepared for transfusion.

In addition, directed donations have increased administrative requirements. Facility-specific circumstances may require that blood products be donated and collected at a separate facility than where the patient receives the transfusion. In comparison, a facility would already have blood products from voluntary, nonrenumerated blood donations in stock. Extra care must be taken to ensure the directed donation units are appropriately labeled, tested, and cross-matched for the intended patient, transported to the patient’s specific location, and transfused to the correct patient.30,31 Directed donations therefore involve administrative burdens as well as time constraints.

The review ends up concluding first that directed donation often remains the best or only option for patients with rare blood types, IgA deficiency, or significant alloimmunization, but, more importantly for this case, that there are not insignificant risks to directed donation compared to pooled community donations. Of course, given these parents’ “purebloods” belief system about vaccines, they undoubtedly would not be swayed even if informed of the additional risks, which brings up the question of whether the New Zealand hospital is obligated to accede to the unscientific demands of these parents.

There’s also another consideration, something that I had meant to write about before this child’s story hit international news, namely the “safe blood” movement, sometimes called “SafeBlood,” which is based on the same nonsense:

Anti-vaxxers are trying to create a new global infrastructure for the supply of unvaccinated blood, driven by conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific beliefs about the dangers of mRNA COVID vaccines. 

SafeBlood Donation was founded by a Swiss naturopath, George Della Pietra, who considers global coronavirus vaccination campaigns to be “the crime of the century.” 

He and his supporters believe, wrongly, that mRNA coronavirus vaccines “contaminate” the blood and destroy the immune system, and that unvaccinated people will be harmed if they receive transfusions of blood supplied by vaccinated people.

When a movement is founded by a naturopath, that should tell you all you need to know about the science behind it, namely that it’s very bad at best and nonexistent at worst. Indeed, this naturopath claims that his own studies of “vaccinated blood” has revealed horrifying “contamination,” with him adding, “I’ve never seen blood like this. This was, to be honest, the main reason I started the whole thing, because when I saw this, I was so horrified.” The story also notes that he believes there is an an agenda afoot to vaccinate everyone on the planet in an effort to control the world’s population.

Holy depopulation conspiracy theories, Batman!

Whatever infrastructure has been built up for these “purebloods” so far, however, the initial goal of this movement appears to be:

SafeBlood Donation, which has members in at least 16 countries, eventually hopes to open blood banks providing unvaccinated plasma for its members. But the group’s initial goal is to pressure hospitals and health authorities worldwide into permitting so-called “directed donations” of unvaccinated blood – through which recipients could nominate donors who hadn’t had COVID vaccinations to provide the blood directly for their treatment. 

Although it is tempting in this case to accede to the parents’ wishes, as unscientific as they are, in the name of the child, I would make the argument that if the parents are willing to let their child die rather than let him receive “unvaccinated blood,” chances are very good that their children won’t be getting any of the other recommended childhood vaccines and will receive quackery for medical care in other areas; so a good case can be made for revoking the parents’ rights with respect to medical care. After all, the only difference between the blood of those vaccinated and the unvaccinated is likely to be the presence of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which, increasingly, more and more unvaccinated people also have given how many have had and recovered from COVID-19. Moreover, as I’ve pointed out, the amount of spike protein generated by the vaccine is tiny compared to the amount generated by an actual…oh, you know…COVID-19 infection.

The bottom line is that, as much as we might want to empathize with these parents, they are potentially endangering the life of Baby Will based on what are, in essence, religious (or very religion-like) beliefs devoid of evidence. In this, they are no different from adherents of religions that believe that disease should be treated with prayer rather than medicine, as was the case for Herbert and Catherine Schaible, who chose prayer instead of antibiotics to treat bacterial pneumonia in their son Kent Schaible, who died. The parents were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment, were sentenced to ten years of probation, and had to promise to take their children to a doctor when they were ill (i.e., not to do it again). That was 2009. Guess what happened in 2013? They did it again! Parents like these rarely change their minds.

We have to counter the attitude that children don’t have rights of their own as autonomous beings apart from their parents, that their parents have absolute power over them, and that the state should never interfere with that power, no matter how much it is abused. It’s an uphill battle, but it’s one worth fighting for the sake of the children.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

128 replies on “Antivax nonsense about “PureBloods” endangers the lives of children”

This infuriates me.
Barring a major issue, next year I will make my 125th donation. Donated blood goes through an absolute battery of tests to make sure it’s safe to be given to patients. That someone would refuse blood just because they fear “contamination” has me vacillating between laughter and rage.

One of Mike Adams’ lackeys, Ethan Huff, writing for YourNews reports on the NZ story noting that unvaccinated blood will become a highly valuable commodity. People will pay to be spike free.

A while ago, one of the loons I survey- probably Null- advised followers to stockpile their own blood in case they were in a serious accident or needed surgery: a situation which I’m sure will be completely easy to arrange with local blood banks or by having a really good refrigerator at home. Right.

Others alties/ anti-vaxxers warn of the danger even being close to vaccinated people, never mind getting their blood. Are spikes sexually transmissible I wonder? As I’ve noted elsewhere, one of the ways anti-vaxxers confabulate about Covid virus/ vaccines is to make them sound as if they were retro-viruses with all of their properties. An anti-vax mother worries about exposing children to vaccinated people rather than to Covid. Maybe wear a mask? or does that violate her stance of freedom from governmental control?

Are spikes sexually transmissible I wonder?

We had a candidate for sec state (republican, of course) who was infamous for telling anyone who would listen that demons were transmitted sexually, so spikes? I’m sure they are /snark

Now, don’t laugh but …
in the first 15 minutes of NN today, Mike elaborates that you might not want to date vaccinated people because they will not be able to have children… no demons though… YET.

Mike elaborates that you might not want to date vaccinated people because they will not be able to have children

Unrelated, but:

We child proofed the house but the little buggers got in anyway


NZ, having universal health care, probably don’t have private companies who buy blood as you see in the States, but like in the UK or here in Canada (my only direct experience) will have a state run blood service.

Also while its certainly possible for hospitals to take blood to use in surgeries, this happens for rare blood types, I doubt there is any appetite to pander to these loons and start down the road of taking unvaccinated blood just cos a few fools believe a very silly conspiracy theory.

You’re correct – blood donors get tea & cookies for their time, but there is no financial recompense (nor should there be IMO).

Unfortunately the loons are extremely loud & shouty. I hope they don’t get their way as will only encourage further outraged excesses. Also, they don’t seem to recognise the rank hypocrisy inherent in claiming that vaccination requirements are “medical apartheid” while simultaneously demanding that an entirely separate blood bank be set up.

As far as I know, blood centers i.e. the Red Cross are not set up for long-term storage of units donated by people for some nebulous time in the future when they might need blood.

Autologous (self) donation is set up via a physician’s order, prior to an anticipated procedure. Since it doesn’t go through the same disease testing as regular donations, it’s discarded if unused.

Vax-fearful persons who contact a blood bank thinking they can set up a deal for indefinite storage of their own “pure” blood “just in case” are bound to be disappointed. A rare private blood bank might be willing, but it probably would be expensive.

And autologous donations aren’t even possible in many areas (in the US). It’s just too much hassle. Possibly at larger facilities with their own donor centers, but regional donor orgs (like Vitalant here in the southwest) may not even accept autologous blood, like the NZ facility in the OP.

I’m too lazy to look up the state of blood inventory in NZ right now, but if it is as low as it is in the US right now that pisses me off even more. Have these directed donors just…donated? There was a few month period earlier this year when our supplier would not restock our O neg units. At several points we were down to a unit or two for a critical access hospital blood bank. It was not fun.

I don’t know about what blood stocks have been like in NZ, but as far as the main topic goes, the New Zealand Blood Service (NZBS) says:

The use of autologous blood is no longer recommended, unless the clinical circumstances are exceptional.

NZBS does not support the practice of directed donations

More detail at the link:

NZBS is a government-owned enterprise.

Perhaps someone might think setting up a bloodbank for unvaccinated people might be a way to make money. Though I wonder if clinics would use it, so perhaps they should also set up clinics for unvaccinated people. A kind of parallel health-care.

We have a political party which tries to start a kind of parallel society, with their own schools and an app to find like-minded companies and people.

Do they realise that if they’re stocking up on their own, they’ll be bleeding for their cause A LOT? After all, blood donations have a fairly short shelf life.

In preparation for planned surgery, this is actually not too wild of an idea (and not at all unheard of – autologous blood donation). However, without the likely need for a blood transfusion in the reasonably near future it’s rather pointless outside special circumstances like VERY rare blood types.

I had to go through a big ordeal to donate my own blood–and just one unit–for a relatively minor procedure because there was a good risk of hemorrhage. That was a long time ago, so maybe procedures have changed. I can’t imagine the burdens imposed on these organizations to accommodate safety screening for a directed donation. More selfishness from the “pure blood” nutsos. I hope they won’t be paying these donors–that’s a nightmare in the making–and will have to pay the extra admin expenses themselves. At the root of all this craziness is just pure selfishness and entitlement, I think: we are just so much better informed than the experts who manage and screen the blood supply, and we of course own our kid.

I had to have a transfusion recently. They had a hard time getting the sutures to stay intact in the ER, and in their haste to stop the bleeding they did some damage that required further corrective surgery. That’s OK. The problem got fixed in a very short period of time. That blood was available within about five minutes of getting to the ER and was ready to go. I wonder if NZ authorities have even fully tackled yet the many potential downsides with these people if there are further delays getting their “pure blood.”

OK I looked at the linked article and couldn’t even get past the opening paragraph. These people …

It is a sad fact that over here hospitals often encourage family and friends of a person in need of non-life-saving surgery to do a sort-of “directed donation”. Which works like this: if blood levels in blood banks are getting dangerously low, all non-life-saving surgeries that might reguire transfusion are usually stopped. But it the patient convinces enough of their family and friends to donate blood in their name, the blood bank then “frees” the same number of units of blood and the surgery can take place. I did it once, for the father of a friend – but this does not mean that he actually got my blood, I’m not even sure we have the same blood group.

And also, years ago, I did have experience with true “directed donation”, for someone with a rare blood type suffering from acute leukaemia. It was middle of the summer holidays, when blood reserves usually run low and that was his only chance. It did not work, unfortunately.

One wonders how many of some varieties of “purebloods” would also demand that they only receive blood from the right race. Probably more than I care to think about.

Potentially unpopular opinion. I don’t have much sympathy for the parents. I do have a lot of sympathy for the cihld. I mean, you want to mash you hand with a hammer… Go ahead, I guess. But you don’t get to hit anyone else with it.

Not unpopular with me. I have no sympathy at all for parents that treat children as property. “Parents know best”? Give me a break. That is the barest whisker away from slavery.

A. I have said it before, but my suspicion is that Bigtree’s friends tricked him and there is no guarantee the blood used for him was unvaccinated.

B. I agree with Dr. Hickie that delaying this urgently needed treatment for a baby because of anti-vaccine misinformation is infuriating, and the anti-vaccine leaders that misled this parents – and are now leeching off their tragedy – are beyond contemptible.

C. Part of the problem appears to be the lawyer, who is also anti-vaccine. I hope the court moves quickly to help this baby. And that the parents are not driven to doing something stupid like running with baby.

On a related note- about lawyers:
I listened to Bigtree today – as awful as usual in so many ways – but he mentioned the ” great work” Mr Siri is doing for ICAN and others. I think that RI readers might be interested in how they are operating to counteract PH measures through courts and FOIA requests.
Your expertise is always appreciated.

Even pre-pandemic, billionaires would pay large sums to arrange for “young blood” transfusion from young and healthy individuals. (The Insider, Millionaires are dropping tens of thousands on young blood transfusions)

Somehow this is not a problem due to “self selection of donors”, as this blood is privately collected for this purpose from a similarly small group of self selected young people (looking to make money from their blood).

Now the New Zealand baby, with dozens of willing donors on standby, is somehow not eligible for what billionaires are paying for, except the baby is offered blood for free?

Why is the baby not allowed to get what billionaires are getting?

Because Jacinda cannot allow ONE baby to be saved by blood from volunteers that is offered and available.

On a related note, they want unvaccinated organ donors to continue being organ donors, despite hospitals denying transplants to unvaccinated patients. I am unvaccinated and an organ donor, and I am seriously thinking about fairness of this situation. My driver’s license renewal is coming up. Still deciding.

Great point about organ donation. Unfortunately, the purpose of hospitals is profit, not patient care so ethical decision-making isn’t really a thing. (And won’t be unless the “healthcare” model is fundamentally changed.)

In New Zealand? Citation needed on that one.

Not all of the world is the US and some of us have civilised healthcare systems.

Well if you are rich you can do what you want with your money. Doesn’t mean it’s the most sensible thing to do.
If a millionaire wants to spend his money on useless treatments, let him go for it.
Does that mean we should pay this for everyone?

I agree that paying for ethically sourced blood should not be a problem. I am fine with what these billionaires are doing, as long as donors are paid fairly and know the use of their blood.

In the case of New Zealand baby, there is a sick baby and no shortage of free and willing donors — so nobody needs to pay for anything other than routine expenses of blood collection.

And yet NZ govt refuses to allow it — all in the name of false vaccine propaganda to avoid stigmatizing “vaccinated blood”.

Oh for crying out loud.
Right, let’s start with “are any of these unvaccinated donors acceptable matches?”
“Are these unvaccinated donors safe matches?”
“Does this baby have the time for all these people to come in, donate, and have their blood tested for everything blood for transfusion must be tested for before the baby needs surgery?”
“Will these donors be rejected for having any antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, or only people who were vaccinated?”
Those are the simple, basic logistical questions that are also beyond silly when there is perfectly good tested banked blood available.

Also, you might not be aware of this, but the needless segregation of human blood on non-scientific grounds was a huge problem (in the US but other countries) because people were so dang racist they would literally rather die (or let someone else die) than receive a transfusion from someone of a different race. So you can see why this “purity of blood” thing really touches a nerve.

(And here’s a helpful tidbit: there are safety limitations on how often a person can donate whole blood, plasma, platelets and white blood cells, for their own safety. Are those billionaires with ‘blood boys’ respecting those limitations? Or are they offering so much money that their sources can’t turn them down, even at the risk of their own health and safety?)

So you can see why this “purity of blood” thing really touches a nerve.

It turns out that it’s been 20 years and a month since the first edition of Tim O’Shea’s The Sanctity of Human Blood.

O’Shea (a chiropractor, natch) dropped “the sanctity of human blood'” from the title in later editions, apparently because it sounded too loony. But it must be a big selling point again, because it’s reappeared for the alleged 13th edition, currently a huge bargain on Amazon.

It’s worse than that – restaurants refuse to hire people who do their own research and refuse to contaminate their hands with soap after defecating or urinating – but those same restaurants will gladly take my money if I eat their food.

Get woke Sheeple – washing your hands is the slippery slope to washing your brains!

Somehow this is not a problem due to “self selection of donors”, as this blood is privately collected for this purpose from a similarly small group of self selected young people (looking to make money from their blood).

Doesn’t happen in NZ.

And there’s a big difference between “people who are willing to donate” and “people who meet the strict criteria & rigorous testing outcomes that mean their blood is OK to donate”.

Igor Chudov, Jacinda has nothing to do with this. The Blood service here is an independent government funded entity, that could well be brought to it’s knees if this precedent requires it to cater to every patient’s unscientific ideas. This operation is time-critical and should have taken place weeks ago. We don’t have millionaires getting private transfusions here, just people getting coffee and a biscuit for their time.

I recently had an online commenter tell me that “vaxxed” kids compare unfavorably to “pristine” children.

It’s a sickness.

I think that parental requests to have their child transfused only with the blood of same-race donors would be summarily rejected. The emphasis on “pure blood” from unvaccinated donors isn’t all that different.

Strawman. This is not even remotely the same thing. A closer analogy would be blood types. It’s fair to say that refusing blood of an incompatible type isn’t tantamount to “racism”.

A closer analogy would be blood types. It’s fair to say that refusing blood of an incompatible type isn’t tantamount to “racism”.

That is complete nonsense. Incompatibility of blood types is based on scientific data. Blood from vaccinated people is not incompatible with anything, but a selfish belief system.

Refusing blood of the wrong type is tantamount to preventing attempted murder. Getting someone else’s IgG is often therapeutic. Try harder.

That “vaxxed kids compare unfavorably to ‘pristine’ children” comment derived from the ridiculous “study” by anti-vax idiots Paul Thomas and James Lyons-Weiler. The journal retracted the paper ( Thomas lost his license to practice medicine. Lyons-Weiler never had license to practice anything. But like every trope in the anti-vax-o-sphere, the false belief that unvaccinated children are “more healthy” will never die.


I always wanted to look into this Lyons Weiler article and the retraction story, but never got around to doing it.

I just read the retractionwatch page you linked to. It looks like the authors made two minor mistakes in counting not quite the most important things, that seem to have mostly favored vaccinated children in the comparison.

I have not seen any indications of any other mistakes.

The reason for retraction pretty much states that the conclusions of the article were unacceptable.

It might be time to go back to Substack, Igor, you are out of your league here. The two errors you cite were corrections the authors submitted to the article. They were not the reason for the retraction.

The main reasons for the retraction are most likely that the patient data set represented a biased sample and the measure used to determine health has no useful relationship to health outcomes. These were records from a single practice that panders to anti-vaccine parents. The patients in no way will be a representative sample of the population. Secondly, the conclusions are all based on the number of office visits by children. This immediately builds in bias, because vaccinated children have more office visits to get vaccines than unvaccinated children.

All that is before the statistical approaches are considered.

Interesting. You can only find two “minor” problems with the Thomas/Lyons-Weiler study? Really? The Retraction Watch piece barely scratched the surface. There are plenty more critiques of their garbage available online – one of them right here on this blog. Here’s another ( The worst offense boils down to selection bias: how do we know that the parents of willfully unvaccinated children utilize healthcare at the same rate as the rest of the population? We don’t know, but those parents likely don’t use healthcare at the same rate, and the authors don’t address this fatal flaw in their analysis. Another fatal flaw – probably JLW’s contribution – is the specious metric the authors used for comparison. They want to claim that the differences in medical service billing rates are a proxy for child patient “health” – but in fact this is only a measure of billing for services – services which may be underused by anti-vax parents. If you don’t understand why these facts are fatal to their claims, you’re emblematic of all the reasons scientists pay scant attention to the uneducated opinions of non-scientists regarding vaccination.

I guess that they’re ‘minor errors’ when the publications support you confirms your beliefs…

As for Lyons-Weiler, he will attack you for raising the possibility of him having any errors, even when later ‘admitting’ to confusing basic concepts.

No doubt the authorities are funding research by an independent lab that is designed to determine whether any of the deleterious “vaccine” side-effects carry over to patients receiving a blood transfusion spiked with modRNA. I’ll wait for the results of that study, thank you very much. Until then, the authoritarian arguments presented here qualify as evidence-free, faith-based opinions. (Why so desperate to get this stuff into the bodies of children? And over the objections of their parents!?)

To be fair, the ethics of such a study are highly questionable, since patients would have to consent to the possibility of being injected with something (or byproducts thereof) they’d already made the decision to refuse. Not that that is of any concern to the author of this blog, who understands that VAERS is only intended to function as a “canary in a coal mine”, yet works overtime inventing excuses as to why that canary should be ignored.

“arguments presented here qualify as evidence-free, faith-based opinions”

What? Like blood from vaccinated people being harmful?

Cast out the beam in thine own eye first, sunshine.

VAERS does not prove causality, and that is not an excuse. How long spike protein is in the blood and what is the concenration ?
Actually every else u anivaxxrs speaak about vaccines. MRNA vaccines eleici an immune response, and not fix a lethal gene.

I would refuse to accept blood donated by anyone that wasn’t fully vaccinated, just like I would refuse blood from someone with metastatic cancer or organ-centered disease, or HIV, or hepatitis, or CJD. But I have to wonder how much of this “pureblood” nonsense is the result of the usual modus operandi of anti-vax grifters – two lies and one truth. AFAIK, recent recipients of many vaccines (including “experimental” vaccines) aren’t allowed to donate blood for periods ranging from weeks to months.

I support your desire to reject unvaccinated blood. I would like to reject vaccinated blood. We’d all be better off if vax status was kept with blood, especially since donors are asked about their vaccination status.

Since there is no risk from blood donated by people who have been vaccinated there is no intelligent reason to not want it. But then the people who want to avoid it are not the sharpest butter knives in the drawer.

Woah – if you’re unclear on the concept, it’s already law that people who are unvaccinated for a number of diseases cannot donate blood. This may be a hard concept for you to grasp, but being unvaccinated for a disease means in fact that there’s a chance that you may be carrying that disease.

Anti-vaxxers whine incessantly that vaccines are unacceptably dangerous because a tiny fraction of vaccine recipients experience exceedingly rare side effects, but completely reject the truth that members of the pool of unvaccinated people are far more likely to be carrying one or more of the diseases we routinely vaccinate for – diseases whose effects are unquestionably orders of magnitude more dangerous than vaccine side effects.

John, did you miss that my comment was addressed at people who don’t want blood from people who have been vaccinated?

Since there is no risk from blood donated by people who have been vaccinated there is no intelligent reason to not want it.

Or am I wrong and your “unclear on the concept” comment was aimed at someone else? If so: my apologies.

if you’re unclear on the concept, it’s already law that people who are unvaccinated for a number of diseases cannot donate blood.

Where I live (Australia), the online screening for eligibility to donate blood has no questions at all about vaccination status:

Because of my age, I’m haven’t been vaccinated against a lot of the childhood illnesses that are now routinely vaccinated for, and I have donated blood and plasma a good number of times.

I wonder if the pureblood types realize that the only reason they are alive and the only reason that blood donors are alive is because their blood contains varying amounts of a multitude of proteins that they didn’t have at birth and that are coded by DNA that they didn’t have at birth. There are a few exceptions. Some people do survive with severe hypogammaglobulinemia, but not, generally, “naturally.”

“Hypogammaglobulinemia” is long enough to pass for being German.

@ Igor Chudov

You write: “On a related note, they want unvaccinated organ donors to continue being organ donors, despite hospitals denying transplants to unvaccinated patients. I am unvaccinated and an organ donor, and I am seriously thinking about fairness of this situation. My driver’s license renewal is coming up. Still deciding.”

When someone receives a transplant they are put on immunosuppressant drugs for life, thus, their immune systems cannot protect them from covid which is everywhere. If they become infected, highly likely they will die. However, if they received vaccine prior to transplant, slightly higher chance their immune system, though suppressed, will have some ability to protect them. On the other hand, organ donors are tested extensively and if not infected with covid at time of donation, no problem. Just one more example of your immense ignorance.

As for billionaires paying for specific blood donors, unfortunately, we live in a world with immense socioeconomic disparities. However, there is NO evidence that blood transfusions from regular donors contain any risks over those who billionaires pay for. They may, ignorant like you, believe so; but so what? Millions of lives are saved every year from blood donations. At 76 I donate regularly, actually used to donate twice years; but since pandemic when they said there was a shortage of blood I began going every fourth Sunday, donating one unit plasma, one unit platelets and every 8th week also one unit red cells. Been doing it for two years now. And every donation is thoroughly tested before being used! ! !

So, the fact the New Zealander is as stupid as you doesn’t say much.


Yep. We used convalescent plasma for a 29 y/o guy who was on his second renal transplant that was failing and got covid in the pre vaccine era. He was in the ICU for weeks.

Similar patient score weeks ago, this guy was also in his early 60s; triple vaxxed. Covid gave him a headache and a mild fever. He stayed on his immunotherapy course.

but since pandemic when they said there was a shortage of blood I began going every fourth Sunday, donating one unit plasma, one unit platelets and every 8th week also one unit red cells.

Joel, you are an absolutely wonderful person. Thank you so much for your care for others.

@ Chaos Infusion

You write: “No doubt the authorities are funding research by an independent lab that is designed to determine whether any of the deleterious “vaccine” side-effects carry over to patients receiving a blood transfusion spiked with modRNA. I’ll wait for the results of that study, thank you very much.”

First, the vaccine stays in the body only a short time. Afterwards the immune cells; e.g., antibodies are what continue. Same thing with those who were actually infected with covid. Once well, only immune cells remain. No difference; but if you need a transfusion and the only person available received the vaccine, be my guest, refuse it. I won’t mourn your loss.

You write: “VAERS is only intended to function as a “canary in a coal mine”, yet works overtime inventing excuses as to why that canary should be ignored.”

Orac has written several articles explaining why VAERS stats do NOT represent actual problems, simply Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Take heart attacks, for instance, on average about 2,500 every day in US, so if someone get a flu shot and has heart attack a couple days later, does that mean flu shot caused it. NOPE. Experts have done the research, look at number of heart attacks before flu shot season, if not change, then not the shot; but over the past decade the number of antivax websites, etc have proliferated, including encouraging people to report to VAERS, etc. so the number of reports are up; but numerous studies have shown only Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

So, as usual, you are just one more ignorant antiscoience moron.

Whenever I hear these “pure blood” ideas, my mind goes full Godwin and I immediately pigeon-hole them as being no different to the fascists. They really are. The idea that someone else may not be good enough to associate with, because they don’t have the same beliefs as you is the equivalent of racism.

Another factor to include in the parent’s demand for unvaccinated blood is this takes time and resources to manage and administer, New Zealand has a socialised health system where resources are not elastic. Extra effort put into one patient can mean delays in treating another patient, sometimes to the second patient’s detriment. These parents are also being incredibly selfish.

Their lawyer is not helping. Her strategy seems to be to get involved in organisations promoting conspiracy theories, draw out the legal challenges for as long as possible with appeals, lose, and then exit left leaving the entities to be liquidated because they cannot pay the costs awarded against them. I have heard the relationship being described as parasitic.

Let’s say that, mid operation, there’s a problem with the private supply of blood. Maybe not enough. Maybe keeping it separate means there was a problem with storage or access. Maybe it’s not kept in separate storage and there’s a problem with identification. Does anyone think that the surgeons would stop and wait for the parents to pony up another few pints? Does anyone think it would be safe to do so?

The other day, WaPo reported that Twitter has ended its ban on COVID misinformation. The article goes on to note that Elon Musk is unvaxed and was putting COVID denialism into practice with workplace policy at Tesla.

Maybe the antivaxers will now busy themselves there, resulting in reduced trolling here. One can only hope.

I doubt it, because I have WordPress set up to Tweet links to each new post as it goes live; it might attract new antivaxxers here.

@ Orac

Though nothing wrong with calling them antivaxxers, I believe it is a symptom of either overall antiscoience and/or anti-intellectualism. Pulitzer prize winning historian Richard Hofstadter authored an essay over 60 years ago entitled “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.” I believe it still applies, perhaps, even more. And numerous surveys have found 70+ % of Americans lack basic understanding of science. Even worse nowadays because of internet with so many blogs and social media, so instead of checking out various positions, many just confirm their biases. Bottom line, anti vaccination is just a symptom of an underlying much more profound dysfunctional state in many Americans. Dysfunctional in that it often leads to positions that actually harm the holders. Besides anti vaccination, one example is right-wingers, especially racist southern rural whites who opposed Medicaid not realizing that Medicaid funds almost all rural hospitals which are rapidly closing.

” I believe it is a symptom of either overall antiscience and/ or anti-intellectualism” Joel PhD, MPH

Sure. It may explain why people who believe in one conspiracy frequently believe in several ( e.g. Karen Douglas) due perhaps to an underlying type/ style of thought. Usually, acceptance of one altie idea ( e.g. vaccines are bad) is associated with accepting other ideas like dietary woo or germ theory denialism. If you fail to understand how SB consensus works, you might be prone to accept all sorts of BS/ outlying results. In contradistinction, SBM has organising principles that reflect its reliance upon observation, data and statistical testing as well as establishing exactly who qualifies as an expert.

Those who study CTs discuss how believers do not accept hierarchies of expertise so that anyone can challenge experts of long standing. Definitely anti-intellectualism that we witness daily here as with AoA, NN, CHD, prn etc..

More parents who are so obsessed with worshiping their Grand Idea, that the health and lives of their children, including ill and helpless infants, are not important.

I have officially gone over to the Dark Side.

I now have my own Substack.

It is not however about vaccines, medicine, woo or quackery. And I’m not aiming to haul in lots of filthy lucre from tens of thousands of eager subscribers (being a Pharma Shill is profitable enough).

There will be a certain amount of controversy and hell-raising though. Should be fun.

@Dangerous Bacon

Awesome and good luck!!! You will enjoy having your substack and hell raising!

With respect to spike protein, do mosquitos prefer unvaccinated or vaccinated blood? In Minnesota (USA), a differential could be life changing.

@ Orac,

I’m publishing a respectfully insolence review article describing how the USPTO inhibits cancer research. Of course when submitted here at RI, your approval is necessary because MJD is shackled in auto-moderation.

Access to health care in NZ has faults but not for a baby with a heart condition. It’s just insane

With respect to spike protein, do mosquitos prefer unvaccinated or vaccinated blood? In Minnesota (USA), a differential could be life changing.

That’s profoundly stupid even for you, Doucheniak.

Snappy answer to a stupid question: No.

In slightly more detail: there is no reason to think they would have a preference, and even if they did prefer unvaccinated blood, that wouldn’t be a good reason not to be vaccinated.

What a horrific image Orac uses at the beginning of this post. In the blood bag, are those white thingies insoluble agglomerates caused by vaccinated blood? Just being facetious…


Q. Why doesn’t Denise Walter get “like” responses.

They’re air bubbles, because that’s a photo of a whole blood donation, and the blood is coming out of the person’s arm and going into the bag.

(Answering because someone will actually want to know.)

The measles outbreak in Ohio keeps expanding, now up to at least 50 cases with 20 hospitalizations. All of those affected are unvaccinated.


I do not understand why so many kids with measles are hospitalized. Measles is ordinarily a mild disease. Sounds a bit odd to me.

The global vaccine conspiracy has been releasing genetically modified viruses into the population that cause more severe symptoms to scare more people into becoming addicted to vaccines. It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Anti-vaxxers being the consummate liars that they are it is most likely because there are actually a lot more cases in the anti-vax community but the anti-vax parents are hiding those cases in their children due to fear of reporting to an Illuminutty NWO health organization.
We have previous reports from a Cali outbreak that anti-vax parents were lying to PH caseworkers about the details of their children’s infection. The nutters were evenly openly discussing on social media how to lie and mislead the caseworkers to protect other anti-vaxxer families who had members that had contact with active measles cases.
They were actually promoting the expansion of the outbreak and interfering with PH efforts to stem it.
Nice people, eh?
More like ghoulish maniacs.

Hello, Reality! **

Sure. Your scenario might be especially important for Covid numbers:
— many anti-vaxxers don’t subscribe to SBM so they may not visit a physician opting instead for altie providers or self-care
— if the illness is mild, it won’t be reported to anyone and they may forego testing
— they may deny that their condition is a virus due to their beliefs
— they wouldn’t therefore be part of contact tracing as sources
Of course, the serious cases and deaths would be noticed ( as Dr Yeti’s ICU reports show)
So, many cases would not be officially recognised and it might appear that these unvaccinated never got sick at all

** I do so enjoy saying that

Did you notice that every one was unvaccinated ? Any case; sample is to small to calculat statistics:

@Igor – you surely must be too young to remember when measles was every parent’s second worst nightmare for their kids, after polio.

You may be thinking about “German” measles – AKA rubella – which usually does have a mild course in children. Rubella is included on the childhood vaccination schedule because if a pregnant woman contracts the disease it can have a devastating effect on her developing fetus.

Fear not, for there are those of us who do know why. If my pathophys recollection from years back is right, something like 1:20 get a pneumonia. It can be life-threatening.

Any kid who came in measles+ with meningeal signs is getting an LP. They just are. You would be toast if you missed a co-infection or severe measles encephalopathy. That plants them on the floor overnight, at least.

A lot get a diarrhea profound enough to warrant admission for volume replacement.

Thankfully, I’ve never seen a live measles case. Some of the folks who trained me had and said it’s bad news. SSPE? No thanks. Thank you, vaccines.

I think this is my first comment here. I can’t even convey my horror about these parents. I lost my child. I let science do everything they could to save him. it never occurred to me that I knew better. I don’t believe in hell, but I believe there should be a place for lawyers like (name redacted)

@ Igor Chudov

You write: “I do not understand why so many kids with measles are hospitalized. Measles is ordinarily a mild disease. Sounds a bit odd to me”

I guess you haven’t bothered to research history of measles. During the 1950s when US population less than half today’s and no vaccine existed an average of almost 50,000 kids were hospitalized yearly with measles and ca 500 died. In addition, up to 1,000 suffered various life-time disabilities.

So, during 1950s around one million kids per year simply suffered from measles at home. From Wikipedia. Measles: “Measles is a highly contagious infectious disease caused by measles virus. Symptoms usually develop 10–12 days after exposure to an infected person and last 7–10 days. Initial symptoms typically include fever, often greater than 40 °C (104 °F), cough, runny nose, and inflamed eyes. Small white spots known as Koplik’s spots may form inside the mouth two or three days after the start of symptoms. A red, flat rash which usually starts on the face and then spreads to the rest of the body typically begins three to five days after the start of symptoms. Common complications include diarrhea (in 8% of cases), middle ear infection (7%), and pneumonia (6%). These occur in part due to measles-induced immunosuppression. Less commonly seizures, blindness, or inflammation of the brain may occur.”

Maybe you think a fever greater than 104 F is mild; but I doubt any intelligent person would. And notice both the common complications and the less common ones. Overwhelming evidence finds the MMR vaccine to be extremely safe and prevents the suffering and more serious complications.

Just one more example of your STUPID COMMENTS. Why do you KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.

@ Igor Chudov

Just a couple more points. First, given your difficulties with simple math, 50,000 hospitalized out of one million is 20%, 1/5th. And in the 1950s antibiotic resistance was low, so treatment for opportunistic bacterial pneumonias, ear infections, etc worked quite well. Nowadays with the explosion of antibiotic resistance if we didn’t have a measles vaccine then hospitalized cases would exceed 100,000 and more deaths, possibly many more. Including deaths from nosocomial infections, that is, the rise of infectious bacteria in hospitals infecting patients.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

Just a couple more points. First, given your difficulties with simple math, 50,000 hospitalized out of one million is 20%, 1/5th.

I am sorry, but YOU have “difficulties with simple math” 🙂

50,000 out of one million is 1/20, or 5%. Try calculating it

So, out of 50 random kids with measles, 5% means that 2-3 would be hospitalized. And we have 20 hospitalized. Something does not add up.

I am not trying to stir up anti-measles-vaccine propaganda here, I am just wondering why the reported numbers seem inflated.

@ Igor Chudov

If you noticed I corrected my error before you did. Oh well. As I explained I had a terrible bought of insomnia; but the main point is you, out of your typical ignorance, made a statement that measles was a benign disease. So, even 5% hospitalized, with double the population today, meaning 100,000 kids, and, as I wrote with antibiotic resistance high, many would die. But, of course, you could care less.

I suggest you read the Wikipedia. measles. Maybe you will learn something; but I doubt it.

And notice when I corrected my math error I had NO problem admitting it. I am human and on occasion do make errors; but as soon as I notice them or they are pointed out I admit them. So far I you haven’t got anything right, except correcting my math error after I did, so one error on my part to many dozens on your part. And never admitting you were wrong.

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

It’s okay, we all make mistakes, I make mistakes also, we are human, not holding it against you and I hope that when I turn 80 I will be able to think with the same clarity as you do — even though I do not agree with some of your ideas I respect you as a human being.

“5% means that 2-3 would be hospitalized. And we have 20 hospitalized. Something does not add up”

Which means there is likely some factor you’re not aware of.

Reading the story, the kids were unvaccinated. You could easily hypothesize that the actual outbreak is much greater than known but the mild cases aren’t being reported. The known cases could just be the ones that the parents panicked about. Is Ohio, or this area of Ohio, a hotbed of anti-vax activity?

I lived in the Columbus, OH area for many years and never noted a lot of antivax sentiment. A local “health freedom” group sent me an antivax book at work after I had a pro-vaccination letter published in the local paper. One pro-vaccine activist (a pediatrics resident at Ohio State) was bitterly attacked, but that seemed to be mostly by outsiders enraged by his social media postings.

Reported measles immunization rates dropped far enough in central Ohio to compromise herd immunity. I haven’t seen anything to confirm that the situation is worse there than in other comparable communities.

Think of it this way.

A typical elementary school might have 500 students, and when I was in elementary school that meant 500 cases of measles. But students rotate out every year, and students move in and out of the neighborhood, so your child might encounter a thousand or so children who get measles.

There’s quite a difference between “one in a thousand” and “a kid in Johnny’s school died.” Everyone took it seriously back then.

Either there are a lot more kids infected than reported (likely) or the standards for hospitalization have changed in the last 70 years (also likely).
Given that nowadays a temperature of 104F is a medical emergency (depending on the age of the person) and all the advice says to call a child’s doctor when they have a fever that high, it’s likely that children are hospitalized now who might not have been in the past.

First, given your difficulties with simple math, 50,000 hospitalized out of one million is 20%, 1/5th.

My reckoning has 50,000/1,000,000 as 5% or 1/20.

@ prl

Guess you missed that before you posted your correction I already admitted my error three hours before your post. You really should pay better attention to the comments.

@ Igor Chudov

Oops! For reasons I won’t go into I got very little sleep last night. So, my math was wrong. Notice I have NO problem admitting when I am wrong. In any case, 50,000 hospitalizations of one million cases is 1/20 or 5%; but many were for pneumonia and if you actually read the Wikipedia article, prior to advent of antibiotics many died and with antibiotic resistance will happen again.

I love Wikipedia articles. First, I have a huge book on Measles, including history, etc, over half dozen chapters in various books on infectious diseases and over 300 medical journal articles, all that I have read. What I like about Wikipedia science articles is they usually have good reference lists. The one on measles has 188 references. And if I question a Wikipedia article I actually find number of references on internet to check.

Just one more example of your immense stupidity, mouthing off with no real knowledge. You are a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, that is “too stupid to know you are stupid!”

” I love Wikipedia articles.”
I do too.
It is telling that alties despise it and write scores of seething tomes against it. ( see prn) They argue on WP talk pages that sources such as QuackWatch should be eliminated or that entire SB pages about alties should be removed or changed to suit their PR talking points. They send in paid reps to argue for their cause.
Of course, they really hate Orac and his colleagues at SBM.

One insists that WP isn’t an actual encyclopaedia like Britannica because EB lists experts who contribute to each entry and WP uses various “anonymous” contributors who could be ‘writing from their mother’s basement w/o doctorates’. Hilariously, he misses that expert sources are listed for each article and that his own doctorate isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.-btw- suing WP or its editors didn’t work out for him.
Orac has a few articles about WP and guerilla sceptics. Fun!

“Hilariously, he misses that expert sources are listed for each article”

Wikipedia is not without its problems. But I’ve yet to see a woo-natic who summarily dismisses an article on medicine or quackery because it’s “Wikipedia har-har-har” acknowledge the authoritative sources that the article cites.

And, most likely, he would also insult experts at Britannica because they advocate SBM/ chem/ bio/ physics, not altie BS, hiv/aids denialism and other CTs as he does.

@ Igor Chudov

You write: “It’s okay, we all make mistakes, I make mistakes also, we are human, not holding it against you and I hope that when I turn 80 I will be able to think with the same clarity as you do — even though I do not agree with some of your ideas I respect you as a human being.”

As I wrote, I was up pacing most of the night. Did the math 1/20; but somehow wrote 20%. Then tried to take a nap; but within a few minutes realized my mistake and corrected it; however, when you disagree with my ideas, they aren’t mine; but based on extensive study/knowledge of the sciences underlying vaccines, etc. while yours are just opinions based on ? ? ?

I live alone with a dog, don’t own a TV, so I devoted large part of day reading, etc. Since I learned microbiology, immunology, etc many years ago, I got hold of latest textbooks and actually found free lectures on line, so read a chapter and listen to lectures. While I don’t expect people to read undergraduate textbooks, I have several times recommended one book that is excellent for understanding the immune system. Doesn’t go into detailed chemistry, etc. which I even find difficult at times. If you really want to understand vaccines, I highly recommend it, only 150 pages, extremely well-written: Lauren Sompayrac How the Immune System Works (Sixth Edition). Available from Amazon. If you at all consider yourself open-minded, get it and read it.

And read the Wikipedia. Measles. Maybe you will learn to check on your opinions before expressing them???

@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH

Thanks for the recommendation. I just bought that immune system book on Amazon. I will definitely read it. I am personally laid down with a broken foot that needs to be elevated and is in a cast, so I totally get the parts on not sleeping etc. I have occasional moderate pain but it does interfere with sleep on some nights.

Also own a dog.

I do own a TV set but I never watch TV — other family members watch it.

I believe that the story of major vaccines like measles and polio is as complicated as the Covid vaccine, and I do not want to get into those too deeply for now. I do not want to have half-assed opinions and do not have time to research those in-depth. I did read the wikipedia article on the measles vaccine trying to figure out how many kids get hospitalized or die from measles.

@ Igor Chudov

Sorry about your foot. Actually, Wikipedia has separate articles on measles vaccine and on measles. I suggest you read the one on Measles as it explains just how nasty it could be, etc.

Hardly any, anymore…because the vaccine has reduced the incidence of measles by more than 99%.

@Igor – the CDC posts excellent primary data on rates of hospitalization and death from most infectious diseases – including measles. TBH you’re better off checking there than you would be by relying on Wikipedia or on the surfeit of truly bad/false/unreliable information readily available on grifter websites (such as Children’s Health Defense).

@ johnkelly932

I am quite aware of the CDC websites as well as UK, Swedish, Canadian, and WHO; however, I often recommend Wikipedia article because they include more than on one specific website and are well-documented with often extensive reference list. It is NOT one or the other. Sometimes I also link directly to CDC or other like websites

As you might expect, pathologist Ryan Cole has leaped into the transfusion fray, spreading FUD about the blood supply. An online commenter known as “Fred” has taken the warnings to heart:

“With so many people dropping dead from the jab there’s things I’ll no longer do:

I will not have a blood transfusion, I’ll die first.
I will not ride on a plane, all the pilots are jabbed and could clot and die anytime.
I will not get a shot in the Dr.s office, I don’t trust them to not slip the jab in.
I will not get tested for Covid, don’t trust them having me in their database
I will not do anything where a mask or jab is mandatory.”

Hopefully he is staying at home with the windows and doors sealed up tight. With all those vaccinated people lurking nearby, they are undoubtedly leaking a bevy of spike proteins, posing dreadful hazards to purebloods like Fred. He could have his food delivered by DoorDash and essentials via Amazon, but those parcels would have to go through some sort of decontamination chamber in order to be safe.

*Fred is a good example of why references to Dr. Strangelove’s Col. Jack D. Ripper and his precious bodily fluids are not over the top.

Anything’s possible. But Fred seems like one of Steve Kirsch’s more mainstream followers.

For what it’s worth, I don’t care if the blood comes from an unvaccinated donor; we just NEED blood!

I couldn’t two units earlier for a trauma patient.

@ Everyone

I was a volunteer in the Phase 3 Moderna COVID vaccine trials. I have also been a blood donor for almost 50 years. I was NOT allowed to donate blood once I got my first shot, placebo or vaccine; but when it was given Emergency Usage Authorization, those who already had experienced covid and those who had been vaccinated were encourage to donate plasma, called convalescent plasma. The hope was that because of the antibodies to covid in the plasma that it could be used for hospitalized covid patients. Last time I looked it didn’t help all that much; but the bottom line is that they actually wanted vaccinated blood and it certainly didn’t hurt. In any case, I used to donate whole blood couple of times per year; but one can donate plasma every four weeks, so for a while I donated 2 units of plasma every four weeks, then switched to one unit plasma and one unit platelets and every eighth week they also take on unit red cells. As an old man makes me feel that I am doing something for others.

The bottom line is that vaccinated blood has antibodies to the specific vaccine microbe, antibodies that can NOT do any harm to anything else but the microbe.

I guess I should be pleased, but will they now think they have a contaminated kid?

Congenital pulmonary stenosis is relatively easy to correct and has a good prognosis.

I’m pleased that the anti-vaxxers lost on this one, but there’s no question that if this little boy dies before he’s 90, they are going to loudly blame the vaccine.

This was the correct outcome. IMO if the parents don’t get over their court loss immediately they should lose all custody.

Removing a child from a home is always extremely traumatic for the child and should only be done in extreme circumstances (which I know you agree with, so please don’t take that open to the post the wrong way).

I guess I would want to know whether this is an isolated incident regarding medical care for the boy or whether they have other woo-based views on medical “treatment”. If the history is that they regularly forego real doctors in favor of quackery then there is a good case for removal.

Apparently the parents are now trying to stop the doctors from prepping the baby for surgery. Middle of the night here, in tears.

Pretty sure I sprained something rolling my eyes at the comment from the parents’ lawyer.
“We have concluded that the government cannot afford anything to go wrong for Baby W as the world is watching. He is likely to get the best possible care with the best safest blood.”

Sorry lost my own boy when he was 22. Multiple transfusions. Never questioned the team. What the hell is wrong with these people. Mods please delete me if appropriate.

I don’t understand. When my boy was sick it never occurred to me not to trust his medical team. At what point did glam lawyers and ex journalists become medical experts?

Comments are closed.


Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading