Posted on by Californiacontrarian

“We Don’t Know!”

Granted in general there are a lot of things we do not know and we pay them little mind. For instance, “Is it going to rain tomorrow? … “We don’t know.” Okay, whether it rains or not tomorrow is not a big deal.

Whereas, if you needed surgery and asked, “Has the surgeon ever done this surgery before?”, an answer from the nurses of, “We don’t know,” would not inspire confidence. In this situation perhaps you might not sign the consent form until you had been reassured that indeed, the surgeon had done this type of surgery many times before.

What about, “Is the blood I might receive during my surgery tainted?” Think about this personally. If you are unvaccinated and never had Covid would,  “We don’t know.” inspire confidence. Would you just say, “que sera, sera,” cross your fingers and proceed?” Before you answer that question, remember what happened back in the 1980’s with AIDA and blood transfusions.

From the Epoch Times:

“in January 1983, after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed evidence strongly suggesting blood and blood products transmitted AIDS and the disease was sexually transmitted, it recommended blood banks directly question donors about their sexual behavior and run blood donations through a series of screening tests.

The blood bank community issued a statement soon after, stating ‘direct or indirect questions about a donor’s sexual preference are inappropriate’ and not recommending any laboratory screening tests. As noted by Encyclopedia.com:

‘In fact, in the early years of the disease, many of the people who contracted AIDS were infected through blood transfusions. Because it took more than five years to develop a test to check for AIDS in blood before it was used in a transfusion, many people got the disease in hospitals.’”

So back in the eighties “We don’t know,” was clearly not adequate for those who developed AIDS from a blood transfusion. 

According to Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, “If there were a safety signal from using vaccinated blood for transfusions, it would have surfaced by now.” 

Kirsch added,

“If they agree to use unvaccinated blood, it could be interpreted as an admission that vaccinated blood is not safe and could lead to everyone requesting unvaccinated blood which would then create severe blood shortages for a dubious benefit.”

Does this argument sound similar to what happened with AIDS and blood transfusions back in the 1980’s? When considering the safety of blood transfusions is “We don’t know” adequate?

For what it’s worth, Dr. Peter McCullough, who is usually not one who typically agrees with the mainstream on Covid, vaccines, masks, etc. thinks that segregating unvaccinated blood donors into a separate group is practically impossible.

12/23/22

136 Replies to ““We Don’t Know!””

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.