We know that there is graphene and other things in the vax, as demonstrated by a Spanish scientist and IIRC others as well. Graphene causes thousands of tiny cuts in arteries, which cause strokes and other injuries that kill people; hence all this "died suddenly" news. Knowing this, why don't blood banks screen people that have been vaxe…
We know that there is graphene and other things in the vax, as demonstrated by a Spanish scientist and IIRC others as well. Graphene causes thousands of tiny cuts in arteries, which cause strokes and other injuries that kill people; hence all this "died suddenly" news. Knowing this, why don't blood banks screen people that have been vaxed? They can still use their blood for folks who don't mind vaxed blood. That way, there would be larger pool of unvaxed blood for those who request it. I know if it were me, I wouldn't want vaxed blood. Thank you.
I am not a Jehovah's WItness, but I had a close friend who was. They do not accept blood transfusions ever, for religious reasons. They are often mocked by health professionals who think they are idiots not to accept a transfusion when "needed," but I had in the past read about this desire to avoid transfusion leading some methods to be developed to minimize need for transfusion - but Plan B could be in fact, to refuse a transfusion. In some cases, turns out you didn't need the transfusion anyway, or - maybe one would prefer to die vs. living with a disabling vax injury that no one believes, and you can't get help with. I don't know for sure what I would do - but - from things I have seen / read during the pandemic, I don't think I would ever go to a hospital. I am an older person, and I think if I die, I die, and I will do it at home without being tortured, abused, and just treated horribly in what passes for hospital care today. Keep the transfusion. I don't think I need vaxxed blood or that it will help me in the long run.
Interesting. Seems like having Mormon neighbors (food storage!) on one side and JW's on the other (no transfusions) is not a bad zombie appocalypse/prepper plan. :)
Agreed! they can keep their vaxxed blood. Thankyou.
Like my father back in the day saying he would "wait and see" before using thalidomide on his patients, I will likewise "wait and see" before taking vaxxed blood.
The problem is of course that it's not always possible to "wait and see". Let say someone had a fall or accident at home and was taken by ambulance into hospital where they said an emergency operation is required. It's not feasible to then say "no thanks, I'll go home for a few months, or years, while they decide whether the blood bank is safe or not". You'd pretty much have to go with whatever they offered
Yes, Pete, that is of course a worry. I am getting a bracelet made which will basically say "no thanks". It depends of course on the degree, category and rate of blood loss, but in animals anyway, if haemolysis has developed slowly, the system copes with quite low haematocrit. And in many cases there are alternatives such as plasma expanders if drop in volume is the problem. And then we need to support efforts to create access to unvaxxed blood products. I think I saw a list of initiatives on James Roguski's substack. Ideally we should aim our own hospitals where we can be confident the interests of the patient reign supreme.
It's a very individual choice, but I would rather pass away quickly due to blood loss than walk around not knowing what has gone into me. But that will be different for everyone. My mother worked briefly in a blood bank years ago. She never said why, but never wanted to accept blood products after that! that was decades back, so technology may have improved. However, my trust in the system is lower now.
I don't want to scaremonger, but I don't want anyone walking blindly into this the way many walked blindly into getting jabbed. If enough people start refusing blood they will have to start sorting donors as well as developing screening tests. PHARMA knows exactly what is in there. So they know for what and how to test.
The one confounding aspect is whether - and to what degree - an unvaccinated person can get the spike protein from a vaccinated person via "shedding", (through bodily fluids etc) without having had a jab themselves. It may be that not all unvaccinated blood would be as "good" as hoped. But that's for another day I guess, a separate unvaxxed blood supply would at least be a start. I don't think they will agree to it though, for fear of implicitly admitting there MAY be a problem with (some) vaccinated donors
We know that there is graphene and other things in the vax, as demonstrated by a Spanish scientist and IIRC others as well. Graphene causes thousands of tiny cuts in arteries, which cause strokes and other injuries that kill people; hence all this "died suddenly" news. Knowing this, why don't blood banks screen people that have been vaxed? They can still use their blood for folks who don't mind vaxed blood. That way, there would be larger pool of unvaxed blood for those who request it. I know if it were me, I wouldn't want vaxed blood. Thank you.
Agree, but what's your "Plan B" if you ever need it?
I am not a Jehovah's WItness, but I had a close friend who was. They do not accept blood transfusions ever, for religious reasons. They are often mocked by health professionals who think they are idiots not to accept a transfusion when "needed," but I had in the past read about this desire to avoid transfusion leading some methods to be developed to minimize need for transfusion - but Plan B could be in fact, to refuse a transfusion. In some cases, turns out you didn't need the transfusion anyway, or - maybe one would prefer to die vs. living with a disabling vax injury that no one believes, and you can't get help with. I don't know for sure what I would do - but - from things I have seen / read during the pandemic, I don't think I would ever go to a hospital. I am an older person, and I think if I die, I die, and I will do it at home without being tortured, abused, and just treated horribly in what passes for hospital care today. Keep the transfusion. I don't think I need vaxxed blood or that it will help me in the long run.
Interesting. Seems like having Mormon neighbors (food storage!) on one side and JW's on the other (no transfusions) is not a bad zombie appocalypse/prepper plan. :)
Agreed! they can keep their vaxxed blood. Thankyou.
Like my father back in the day saying he would "wait and see" before using thalidomide on his patients, I will likewise "wait and see" before taking vaxxed blood.
The problem is of course that it's not always possible to "wait and see". Let say someone had a fall or accident at home and was taken by ambulance into hospital where they said an emergency operation is required. It's not feasible to then say "no thanks, I'll go home for a few months, or years, while they decide whether the blood bank is safe or not". You'd pretty much have to go with whatever they offered
Yes, Pete, that is of course a worry. I am getting a bracelet made which will basically say "no thanks". It depends of course on the degree, category and rate of blood loss, but in animals anyway, if haemolysis has developed slowly, the system copes with quite low haematocrit. And in many cases there are alternatives such as plasma expanders if drop in volume is the problem. And then we need to support efforts to create access to unvaxxed blood products. I think I saw a list of initiatives on James Roguski's substack. Ideally we should aim our own hospitals where we can be confident the interests of the patient reign supreme.
It's a very individual choice, but I would rather pass away quickly due to blood loss than walk around not knowing what has gone into me. But that will be different for everyone. My mother worked briefly in a blood bank years ago. She never said why, but never wanted to accept blood products after that! that was decades back, so technology may have improved. However, my trust in the system is lower now.
I don't want to scaremonger, but I don't want anyone walking blindly into this the way many walked blindly into getting jabbed. If enough people start refusing blood they will have to start sorting donors as well as developing screening tests. PHARMA knows exactly what is in there. So they know for what and how to test.
The one confounding aspect is whether - and to what degree - an unvaccinated person can get the spike protein from a vaccinated person via "shedding", (through bodily fluids etc) without having had a jab themselves. It may be that not all unvaccinated blood would be as "good" as hoped. But that's for another day I guess, a separate unvaxxed blood supply would at least be a start. I don't think they will agree to it though, for fear of implicitly admitting there MAY be a problem with (some) vaccinated donors
Kudos to your father!