What's behind demands for unvaccinated blood?

Amidst the fallout of the COVID shot, many needing blood transfusions are requesting unvaccinated blood. 

Blood banks across the world make no distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated donors' blood. The American Red Cross states that the “vaccine does not enter the bloodstream & poses no safety risks to the recipient” but many would-be blood recipients are skeptical. They would like to be able to get their blood transfusions from a donor who did not receive the COVID injection.

SafeBlood is an organization that proposes to satisfy this demand. Founded about two years ago by George Della Pietra, a retired naturopath living in Switzerland, SafeBlood has a growing database of unvaccinated people who are willing to donate blood. They aim to coordinate between donors and recipients, but finding blood processors to cooperate in this endeavor has been challenging.  So far, they have found cooperative clinics only in the U.S.; even those processors choose to cooperate quietly and do not advertise their affiliation with SafeBlood. 

Learning from the past

Donated blood is routinely tested for many potential infectious vectors, but there is always the possibility of new, emerging pathogens. "We have to be pretty much on our toes for those sorts of threats all the time," said American Red Cross Chief Medical Director Richard Benjamin in 2011. 

In the early 1980s, it was determined that hemophiliacs were at risk of acquiring AIDS from donated blood and it was thus desirable that they receive donations only from donors who were screened to eliminate potential carriers of HIV. Since there was no test for HIV at the time, such screening entailed asking questions about the donor’s sexual activity. Eventually, a laboratory test to detect HIV in donated blood eliminated the need to ask uncomfortable questions — although the ability of MSM (men who have sex with men) to donate blood in the U.S was restricted until recently. Since it was confirmed that HIV was a real risk to blood recipients, donated blood is regularly tested for HIV and rejected if positive.

Many people who didn’t take the COVID vaccine worry that they are in a position today similar to that of hemophiliacs before it was recognized that one could be infected with HIV via blood transfusion. The mRNA technology is quite new and its use in a vaccine is still being studied, even as it was rolled out as an emergency measure against COVID. There have been studies published that indicate that the vaccine can affect the blood, despite the claims of the American Red Cross.

The concern 

One study, published on January 17, 2023, followed a group of patients with chronic hepatitis C (HCV patients). Their blood was regularly tested for hepatitis C mRNA, so the researchers were able to compare samples from before and after COVID vaccination. Those who weren’t vaccinated provided a convenient control group. The researchers "surprisingly found fragments of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA up to 28 days post-vaccination in blood from chronic HCV patients vaccinated with mRNA vaccines from both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna."  

While partial to full vaccine mRNA sequences were detected in only 9.3% of the vaccinated HCV patients, the study raises legitimate concerns about the blood in those who were vaccinated. Another study, published in June 2022, “found that vaccine-associated synthetic mRNA persists in systemic circulation [in blood plasma] for at least 2 weeks."

Other studies have detected foreign materials or changes in the structure of blood after vaccination. Spike protein has also been found circulating in the blood of people who developed myocarditis after vaccination. 

Even amongst researchers who support the use of mRNA vaccines, there is recognition that “adverse effects (AEs) following vaccination have been noted which may relate to a proinflammatory action of the lipid nanoparticles used or the delivered mRNA (i.e., the vaccine formulation), as well as to the unique nature, expression pattern, binding profile, and proinflammatory effects of the produced antigens – spike (S) protein and/or its subunits/peptide fragments – in human tissues or organs.”

Who’s decision

A case in New Zealand pitted hospital staff against the parents of a four-month-old baby named Will who needed urgent heart surgery. The baby would certainly need blood as part of the surgery, and the parents wanted to do the surgery and receive a blood transfusion, however, they wanted the blood to come from an unvaccinated donor. They were told by the New Zealand Blood Service that, “it does not make a distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated donors.” 

The baby’s mother explained that they didn’t want to “take a risk with a boy who already has a heart condition”. The parents insisted on waiting to do the surgery until they could get blood from unvaccinated donors and reportedly located 20 acceptable donors. However, the medical staff didn’t think the surgery should wait and thought the demand for unvaccinated blood was unnecessary. The chief pediatric cardiac surgeon told the parents it was “simply impractical to have a directed donor.” and eventually a court ordered the operation done without the parents’ consent. 

The parents were concerned by a case of another baby, Alex, earlier the same year in the U.S. Alex also needed surgery, and his parents also wanted him to receive only unvaccinated blood. They were informed by hospital staff that it was very expensive to get a directed donation, which they later found out was not true. But there would be more paperwork, and that would take additional time. 

Baby Alex luckily did not need the blood during his surgery, but a doctor decided he needed blood a few hours after the surgery and gave him from the general supply. The next day, Alex developed a blood clot that did not respond to blood thinners and died a few weeks later. 

When she heard of the Baby Will case, Alex's mother Cornelia asked the hospital for copies of Alex’s hospital records, but the hospital reportedly claimed to have no record of his case.

There is still no definitive evidence of harm from blood donated by vaccinated individuals, but there are indications that the question is not as settled as the American Red Cross suggests. In Baby W’s case, the judge determined that “[t]here is no evidence that trace amounts of the vaccine in blood or blood products could cause myocarditis”.

The absence of evidence, nevertheless, is not evidence of absence, especially in the presence of signals of possible harm, as the papers above and the case of baby Alex represent. The British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) writes that transfusion patients “have the right to be involved in discussions and make informed decisions about their care”. 

Do patients, or the parents of a minor patient, truly have the right to make their own treatment decisions? Should doctors have the right to overrule the patient’s decisions? This is a complicated ethical issue, but perhaps it could be avoided if the authorities were willing to be flexible and allow the acquisition of directed donor blood when possible. This is what organizations like SafeBlood are fighting for.

Warning: This article contains information about COVID-19. To better protect yourself from government-sponsored misinformation please visit Frontline News' Frontline Pedia.