Written by Mike Bee

The right of parents to refuse for their child blood they believe could be contaminated by the Pfizer vaccine is being challenged in a case in Auckland involving a four-month old baby who needs open-heart surgery.

In New Zealand – if mainstream news is to be believed – the Pfizer vaccination, mandated to much of the population, is entirely “safe and effective”, and anyone who disputes this is labelled an “anti-vaxxer” and possibly a “conspiracy theorist”.

Despite widespread censorship of the many scientific reports that shed doubt on the dogma of vaccine safety, more and more New Zealanders are having their faith in the reliability of mainstream information shaken and are becoming aware that they have been lied to by experts around the world, many of whom are now scrambling to avoid going to jail.

In New Zealand, as in other parts of the world, awareness of the fraud is growing, but there is still great ignorance on the part of those who watch only mainstream reports. This ignorance has been on display in recent days because of “Baby Will” and the parents who are battling to save his life.

Baby Will’s parents know that there is a huge risk in accepting regular blood from the blood-bank and have organized twenty people whom they know to be unvaccinated and whose blood is suitable for their baby to be standing by.

All that is needed would be for surgeons to accept the parents’ wishes and allow this to go ahead. In other cases, such as with the followers of certain religions, people’s wishes are respected even if medical authorities do not share the beliefs of the patients themselves.

However those who have the power to alter protocols in this case have painted themselves into a corner. The medical establishment has from the beginning been forced to conform to the government’s dogma of vaccine safety, and doctors who disagreed and spoke up about what they were seeing with their patients or in their medical research have been threatened with disciplinary action and even had their medical licences revoked.

The surgeon who should be operating on Baby Will assures the parents that there is absolutely no danger from the blood of the vaccinated and that any remnant of vaccination is broken down in the body shortly after vaccination. And to show any tolerance to the parents’ views is seen by many as a loss of face and a dangerous concession to “anti-vaxxers” that might make the public question the safety of the Pfizer vaccine.

Health New Zealand, Te Whatu Ora, has now gone to court to ask that the parents guardianship of their child be removed in order that their wishes be bypassed and that Will be treated as any other patient, but the parents are adamant that they will do all they can not to comply.

“We don’t want blood that is tainted by vaccination,” the father said. “That’s the end of the deal – we are fine with anything else these doctors want to do.”

By way of reply, a spokesman for Te Whatu Ora stated that, “The decision to make an application to the court is always made with the best interests of the child in mind and following extensive conversations with whanau.”

On Wednesday 30^th November a date was set for a court hearing to decide the case on the following Tuesday, and the judge urged that mediation would take place between the hospital and the parents. Until now the parents say there has been little dialogue and that they have been bullied into complying with the hospital.

The case is attracting international attention, and if Health NZ is sensible, they will indeed show some flexibility in this case.

However flexibility is unlikely to be granted without a struggle. Too much rests on this case for those who have supported a government who claimed to be our “single source of truth” to show weakness, even where a child’s life is involved.

In front of the High Court, with Baby Will in his mother’s arms, the father spoke on Wednesday of the freedom of choice that he was asking for on behalf of his son.

Freedom of choice – that’s been taken away by the governments and the so-called powers. This baby doesn’t seem to have freedom of choice. They want to conduct medical experiments on him with unknown results, and we’re not prepared for that. We’re not prepared to just offer our baby up for experimentation. … We’re standing not only for him but for all of us.

A poem:

A man and a woman open themselves
and a child is received.
What expectations are living in this child?

A place to grow, a place he can trust,
a place where he’ll be nurtured by those who surround him
and given what he needs to unfold his life…

One baby brings with him an injury to his heart.
It can easily be healed, but the times have changed.
He is offered blood that his parents know will kill him.

His parents fight for his right to go on living.
But the nameless ones, the ones with the power,
speak with the judgement of a broken system
and do all that they can to deny his right to live.

Now the nameless ones are huddling in corridors,
asking, “How do we go on concealing the truth?”
There are simple solutions, but they will not consider them
as innocence is weighed against corruption and deceit.