The Vaccine=Disaffected

"[The baby's parents believed there were] spike proteins in the blood of people who have been vaccinated and that these proteins were causing unexpected deaths relating to transfusions. In Baby W''s best interests [the court will take temporary custody."

Judgement, Justice Ian Gault

 

"[The New Zealand Health Service decisions are] always made with the best interests of the child in mind." 

"We acknowledge the decision made by the court, following our application in relation to the baby's surgery and recognize this is a difficult situation for all involved."

Dr. Mike Shepherd, Auckland's interim director of the New Zealand Health Service 

Anti-vax demonstrators support the mother and father of a 4-month-old baby outside the High Court in Auckland, New Zealand.   AP

The parents of a six-month-old baby boy, referred to as "Baby W" in court, have refused to allow doctors to operate on their child unless a needed blood transfusion could be guaranteed to come from an unvaccinated source. Cole Reeves, the baby's father, stated that he and the baby's mother, Samantha Savage, refused to permit their child to receive "any blood other than blood that did not contain the Pfizer vaccine, mRNA, the spike protein or any other associated contaminants".

They firmly believed that spike proteins circulating in the blood of those who had been inoculated with mRNA vaccines such as the Pfizer0BioNTech or Moderna vaccines were "causing unexpected deaths related to transfusions", conveying this information to health-care workers at Starship hospital in Auckland where their baby son is being treated.

Baby W was diagnosed with a congenital heart defect requiring surgery for him to survive the condition. He remains in urgent need of an operation, and "every day that the operation is delayed his heart is under strain", noted the court order, citing one of his doctors' explanations. The New Zealand High Court took official custody of the baby to circumvent the parents' demand, preventing doctors from performing the child's life-saving surgery.

Doctors at the hospital responded to the parents' demand explaining that making use of blood donated from outside normal channels was "impractical" for the situation. Performing the surgery without donated blood was "not an available option". An explanation that failed to satisfy the parents. And since the surgery's urgent nature to preserve the child's life was paramount despite the parents' ongoing objections, Judge Ian Gault ruled that "in Baby W's best interests" the court would take temporary custody of the baby until surgery took place.

Until the baby recovers from surgery and no later than the end of January, the child would remain under the court guardianship. The needed surgery is estimated to require 48 hours to bring to completion. Under the court ruling two doctors were appointed as Baby W's legal representatives to enable consent to surgery. The baby's parents were appointed for "all other purposes" as his legal representatives in the interim. 

The parents had been "distressed? on an earlier occasion in October when they discovered during a medical procedure that the child had received blood. In future, an alternative was requested by them, since they refused to have their child receive "any blood other than blood that did not contain the mRNA spikes"  

 

Late, the distressed parents appeared on Infowars, a podcast that notorious conspiracy theorist Alex Jones hosted. He was recently held liable in a court action for misinformation denying the 2012 mass murder at a Sandy Hook school in Newtown, Connecticut.

 

 

COVID Vaccines Trump 'Natural Immunity'

"There are some important practical considerations, in addition to medical/scientific ones."

"[First, it's harder to confirm a previous infection than to track vaccination. Early in the pandemic, when testing centres were overwhelmed, many people were diagnosed with 'COVID-19' based on symptoms only. But other viruses can cause similar symptoms, meaning] there is a considerable risk that someone who was misdiagnosed would remain vulnerable to infection while assuming they are immune."

Matthew Miller, associate professor, Michael G.DeGroote Institute for Infectious Diseases, McMaster University, Hamilton

"Back before we even knew we'd have vaccines so soon, many countries and groups who were strongly opposed to lockdowns and public health measures were using the argument that the quickest way to establish herd immunity and get back to normal would be let the virus run wild -- a reckless approach that would have resulted in far more deaths than we have already seen."

"Having said that, personally I feel immunity is immunity and immunity from natural infection contributes to herd immunity in the same way that vaccine-induced immunity contributes to herd immunity."

"But I DEFINITELY don't think anyone, anywhere should have 'ripped off the Band-Aid' to quickly establish herd immunity."

Rodney Russell, professor of virology and immunology, Memorial University, Newfoundland

"The argument is, 'See, they don't really care about the science, all they care about is their vaccine agenda'."

"It's really kind of a stealth way to critique vaccine policy."

"Natural immunity has become an anti-vaxxer talking point."

Timothy Caulfield, health policy expert, University of Alberta

Third-dose COVID-19 vaccine 'booster' programs have already begun in Israel, and data about their effectiveness are starting to come in.  Credit: Kobi Wolf/Bloomberg via Getty

There are some issues with post-COVID immunity and the immunity conferred by vaccines as opposed to those presumed to be present in the wake of recovery from a COVID infection, that are controversial, misunderstood, complex and little discussed. The type of immunity called 'natural immunity' resulting from a prior bout with the coronavirus is touted by some as sufficient unto itself, worthy of recognition, and those having natural immunity are to be regarded as fully immunized, as much so as those who have been treated with two vaccine doses.

The issue is one that concerns officials in that it may lead to some people making the decision to become infected with COVID, rather than submit to a COVID-19 vaccination. In so doing, risking serious consequences; hospitalization, Long COVID, even death. Moreover, the messaging to the public of the imperative to be properly vaccinated as protection against contracting COVID can be muddied, and ultimately lost. 

 

Recent studies on the other hand, suggest as well that immunity gained with an infection can provide formidable protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus; that people previously infected and then follow up with vaccination may turn out to be the most fully protected of all. Leading some people who have recovered from COVID to complain at the unfair treatment in being shut out of non-essential businesses; even terminated from employment should they not agree to being vaccinated.

"Problems linger", explained Dr.Miller, in that even if lab-confirmed prior infections were to be considered since as testing capacity increased and was offered to anyone, studies show that those who have asymptomatic or mild infections mount a much less robust immune response than those who exhibited coronavirus symptoms "and also less robust than those who have received a full vaccine series".

 

There are, in fact, no clear safety signals in association with inoculation of the previously infected, so it might appear prudent to require the same proof-of-vaccination for the COVID-recovered, from a standpoint of reliably standardized policy.And, points out Dr.Russell of Memorial University, the Delta strain complicates the situation by its very steep infectability. People infected in the pandemic's early stages would have seen their immune system respond to a weaker variant "So do we know they can handle more recent variants months or potentially years after their original infection?" 

 

And then there are the results from two recent studies which suggest that immunity from a previous infection confers longer-lasting and stronger protection. Furthermore, people who never  had COVID and received two doses of the Pfizer shots were six to 13  times more likely to contract Delta than those who were previously infected with COVID, according to a large study of tens of thousands of Israelis. Yet another version of the same study found the COVID-recoverd who were unvaccinated were twice as likely to be reinfected as the COVID-recovered receiving a single dose of Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine.

 

Virologist Shane Crotty wrote in Science magazine that people with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection "mount unusually potent immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines". Which may explain why it is they are also likelier to experience side effects such as fever and fatigue. Published in Nature, a study out of Rockefeller University found memory B cells which can linger for decades unleashing potent antibodies every time the body is re-exposed to COVID outperformed memory B cells produced by mRNA vaccines.

 

The body's immune system reacts to the entire virus, not merely the spike protein generated from the vaccines, with natural infection. And then there is that little matter of natural infection that "can also kill you", pointed out Michel Nussenzweig of Rockefeller University. All of which leads inevitably to the message that everyone should become vaccinated, irrespective of previous infection, and nor should anyone intentionally plan to become infected with COVID to spur 'natural immunity'.

 

Johns Hopkins University

"[The problem with considering the once-infected as potentially having adequate immunity], is that we have no idea how much immunity they had then, or now."

"But with vaccination, we at least know that everyone received the standard amounts of the vaccines."

Rodney Russell, Memorial University