world

New Zealand court rules against anti-vax parents of ill baby

32 Comments
By NICK PERRY

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.


32 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

'High Court Judge Ian Gault said he accepted the affidavits of health experts who said there have been millions of blood transfusions performed around the world since coronavirus vaccines were introduced, and the vaccines hadn't caused any known harmful effects.' Because the 'Authorities' never look for jab-caused 'harmful effects'.

They just parrot the 'safe & effective' mantra, and blame something else.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

So, how will this impact the wishes of those whose Religion bar's the acceptance of Blood from Donors ?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Why were the Parent's not given the option for appealing for Blood from like-minded individuals, surely that would have been fairer ?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

The parents had said they had unvaccinated donors willing to give blood for their son's operation, but health authorities argued that such directed donations should only occur in exceptional circumstances, such as for recipients with very rare blood types.

Still, does not answer the question.... Why, other than sheer malice from the Authorities.

New Zealand has gone a bit strange of late.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

"discredited arguments and fringe theories"

They didn't accept the narrative, therefore the court must rule against them. Everyone knows mRNA has always been used as a vaccine. There's no possible way it can be called into question. It's perfect technology and we know this.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Parents who are willing to let their children die to make a political point are unfit parents.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Mr Kipling,

They were under the assumption that a blood transfusion from a vaxxed person would transfer mRNA spike proteins into their child. They were foremost afraid for the health of their child as informed or uninformed as that fear might have been. It wasn't about making a political statement. Thanks for your opinion though. Really good that you tried.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Yeah it’s totally not that parents should be able to decide what is best for their children instead of a liberal government.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

And if the baby, God forbid, dies?

Government and court just “oh sorry about that- guess the parents were right?”

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

They are actually “making a political point” by forcing the child to take vaccinated blood when unvaccinated donors are available and willing.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

It is a weird time to be alive. Parents in Canada won a court decision to withhold chemo from their daughter, who would have been saved with proper care, and send her to Florida so she could get a special "smoke and dance treatment" because of their cultural heritage. The little girl died.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Why do we care how people decided to treat their own children medically? There's this idea that the state should decide what's best for people except when it comes to abortion. That is the choice of the mother. The parents wanted to make a case that they can choose unvaccinated blood but the state doesn't approve of that stance. They should be able to have that choice but it goes against the mRNA campaign so the choice isn't allowed.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Why do we care how people decided to treat their own children medically?

Because in this case, the parents were not acting in the best interests of the child, they were acting in the best interests of their ideology, and it was a life and death situation.

You can have ideology until it causes harm to others. Especially children who cannot care for themselves. It's disgusting.

All anti-vaxxers own this one. This whole thing is on them, and is their fault. Sick people.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Unvaccinated donors are willing and ready.

This child could have already been treated instead of being made into a showcase of political power and authority.

Shame on the New Zealand government.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Shame on the New Zealand government.

Shame on the parents for not putting their child's interests over their ideology, and forcing the NZ government to step in and be the adults in the room.

And shame on all anti-vaxxers that support these parents in ideology over the child. You're all complicit.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Jeans and T-shirtDec. 7  10:40 pm JST

Good precedent set, and slippery slope avoided. Good decision.

The decision is the slippery slope.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Excellent !!!... Another hard blow for the antivaxxer losers..

Antivaxxers are a potential criminals..

Parents who are willing to let their children die to make a political point are unfit parents.

Must go to jail..

4 ( +7 / -3 )

They just parrot the 'safe & effective' mantra, and blame something else.

Since it can be proved scientifically there is nothing else they can say about the vaccines.

Still, does not answer the question.... Why, other than sheer malice from the Authorities.

Maing an irrational distinction and forcing the medical authorities to recognize it set a precendent that would encourage more people to follow, putting the lives of others at risk. That is a clear reason to avoid doing it.

They didn't accept the narrative, therefore the court must rule against them

They did not accept the objective scientific evidence, so the court have no other choice but to reject their personal irrational beliefs. That is what happens in every other situation where something can be proved.

Yeah it’s totally not that parents should be able to decide what is best for their children instead of a liberal government

Not a government but objective reality, this is the same reason parents are not allowed to let their underage children drink alcohol or smoke, even if they personally believe they should.

And if the baby, God forbid, dies?

Government and court just “oh sorry about that- guess the parents were right?”

No, that would not make the parents right, for that objective, validated scientific data that proves the risks they believe the blood have must be present at the moment of the decision.

hWhy do we care how people decided to treat their own children medically? 

Because parents committing abuse by choosing irrationally is not something that should be allowed, much less promoted.

The decision is the slippery slope.

How? allowing irrational decisions made to increase the risk of the patients is a very clear example of a slippery slope, avoiding this by listening to clear, objective medical data of safety and efficacy is something that is already being done regularly.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Blacklabel

Yeah it’s totally not that parents should be able to decide what is best for their children instead of a liberal government.

The government aren't making any decisions here. It's the High Court that made this decision on behalf of the baby.

They are actually “making a political point” by forcing the child to take vaccinated blood when unvaccinated donors are available and willing.

There is nothing political about it. It's a scientific point that the blood is completely safe for transfusion.

Bronco

Unvaccinated donors are willing and ready.

And most likely unsuitable due to blood type difference. It also significantly goes against standard procedure for no actual gain. But there would be massive disruption if it set a precedent. Hence the negative effects of allowing the unvaccinated donors would be huge.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The NZ government is trying to make an example of these parents, and if the child has to get contaminated with blood tainted with toxic spike protein, so be it, right?

Another reason why governments have crossed the line from semi-benign incompetence to outright malice.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The NZ government is trying to make an example of these parents

No.

if the child has to get contaminated with blood tainted with toxic spike protein

Stick with real-world science please.

so be it, right?

Your question is based on a flawed premise, and therefore cannot be answered due to a lack of real-world context.

Another reason why governments have crossed the line from semi-benign incompetence to outright malice.

As your conclusion is based on a flawed conspiracy-theory based argument, the conclusion itself cannot be anything other than flawed, and indeed, is just another conspiracy theory.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The NZ government is trying to make an example of these parents, and if the child has to get contaminated with blood tainted with toxic spike protein, so be it, right?

There is no tainted blood except on the imaginarion of antivaxxers, making up imaginary things to be scared of is no argument to put unnecessary complications to a medical procedure that would be abused to no end if allowed.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The parents had said they had unvaccinated donors willing to give blood for their son's operation, but health authorities argued that such directed donations should only occur in exceptional circumstances, such as for recipients with very rare blood types.

Still, does not answer the question.... Why, other than sheer malice from the Authorities.

New Zealand has gone a bit strange of late.

Accepting the unvaccinated donors' blood would be acknowledging that there is any risk with the vaccinated blood. They will never allow that. The state chose to place an unnecessary risk on the child's life/health, rather than going against the pharma narrative.

And if the baby, God forbid, dies?

If the child has any health issues or dies, they will certainly blame the operation, never the tainted blood.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

There is no tainted blood except on the imaginarion of antivaxxers, making up imaginary things to be scared of is no argument to put unnecessary complications to a medical procedure that would be abused to no end if allowed.

Are you seriously claiming that spike protein hasn't found its way into the bloodstream? You have no argument, so you have to resort to smear people who are smart enough to reject the narrative and phoney "The Science" as "anti-vaxxers". Face it, you're losing.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Accepting the unvaccinated donors' blood would be acknowledging that there is any risk with the vaccinated blood.

That is irrelevant because every kind of blood comes with a risk, the actual problem is accpeting irrational, antiscientific reasons to demand specific kinds of blood, which is unacceptable.

There is no extra risk comming from blood donated from vaccinated people, bowing to this magical belief would open the door to every other magical belief to be taken seriously.

The state chose to place an unnecessary risk on the child's life/health, rather than going against the pharma narrative.

No unnecessary risk except on the minds of the antivaxxers, and it is not a "pharma narrative" but the scientific consensus.

If the child has any health issues or dies, they will certainly blame the operation, never the tainted blood.

Since the obvious health problem as well as the medical procedures have well known risks for the life this would be perfectly valid, the blood on the other hand is as safe as any other available, so there is no need listen to imaginary risks when there are real ones.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

You should read some updated studies and stop parroting the campaign rhetoric of 2021. The science has progressed rapidly on the dangers of mass mRNA vaccination.

nameless "studies" are not evidence, there is a reason why no respected institution of science or medicine in any country of the world support the claim that the vaccines are "dangerous", what makes you believe you have a better ability to interpret the scientific literature than the experts of all those institutions around the world?

What study proves that vaccination is more risky than letting people get infected? if you claim these peer reviewed, validated studies published in indexed journals exists obviously you can bring references to them, right?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It is a proven case the Covid kills, and if it does not kill can leave one very sick for a long time. I chose to wear a mask and get vaccinated because it was the responsible thing to do and because I did not want to pass on any germs that I might had caught. I am sure these parents could have taken a less publicized way of doing this but opted for their 5 mins of fame. The child needed emergency treatment, sooner rather than later, the authorities were given none or little choice but to act quickly. Yes, there must be blood donors who are not vaxxed, but remember, before using their blood, they have to be tested to make sure they are not carrying any diseases, and that takes time.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites