Her Baby Needs Heart Surgery. But She Is Demanding ‘Unvaccinated’ Blood.


HR Legend
Apr 1, 2002
Without commenting on the parents, it's not the same thing. The fact that you think it's the same thing worries me.

As a a parent, I would save my child's life first and foremost.

I didn't say it's the same...I said it reminds of it. Parents taking their own idiotic opinions over the safety of their child is similar in both situations


HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
Seems like a reach. The couple isn't refusing anyone blood.

The couple is probably wrong in their fears but I don't think it's putting any undo burden on the hospital to use the blood of the unvaccinated volunteers. If it's going to cost the hospital money make the couple pay for the expense.

Personally I'd let my child get the "vaccinated" blood.
I support the right of the parents to foot the bill themselves, except we are talking about a vulnerable infant they are needlessly putting at risk. There aren't two systems because there doesn't need to be two systems.
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed


HR King
May 29, 2001
New Zealand’s High Court on Wednesday took custody of an infant whose parents insisted that he receive blood only from donors who had not been vaccinated against the novel coronavirus, a demand the court said prevented doctors from performing lifesaving surgery.

Are you on Telegram? Subscribe to our channel for the latest updates on Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The 6-month-old boy, referred to as “Baby W” in court filings, has been diagnosed with a congenital heart defect and needs surgery to survive, according to the court order.

“He remains in urgent need of an operation, and every day that the operation is delayed his heart is under strain,” the order said, citing one of his doctors.
Baby W’s parents, Cole Reeves and Samantha Savage, had insisted that he could be operated on only if the blood used in the surgery came from unvaccinated donors. Doctors said that using blood donated from outside the normal channels was “impractical” for the situation and that doing the surgery without donated blood was “not an available option.”

With time running out and the parents still objecting, Judge Ian Gault ruled that it was “in Baby W’s best interests” for the court to take custody of him temporarily until the surgery could be completed.
Baby W was placed under the guardianship of the court starting Wednesday until he recovers from surgery, but no later than the end of January. The surgery, which is set for Friday morning, is estimated to take 48 hours to complete. Two doctors were appointed as Baby W’s legal representatives for the purpose of consenting to surgery, and Reeves and Savage were appointed as his representatives for “all other purposes.” Doctors said they would “take the parents’ views into consideration” whenever possible — as long as doing so would not compromise “Baby W’s interests.”
The decision followed a tense period of several weeks fraught with baseless claims, according to the order.

After Baby W underwent a procedure in late October, his parents “were distressed” when they learned that he had had to receive a “top up” of blood. They requested that in the future, an alternative be found, as they did not want 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,” the order said.
How wellness influencers are fueling the anti-vaccine movement
Reeves and Savage later told health-care workers at Starship Children’s Hospital in Auckland that they believed spike proteins in the blood of people who had received mRNA vaccines — such as the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines — were “causing unexpected deaths relating to transfusions.”
A meeting between Baby W’s parents and doctors in November was “hijacked by the parents’ support person” who spewed “her theory about conspiracies,” according to the order. The person claimed that infants who had received transfusions had died at Starship hospital.

Two days earlier, doctors had met with Savage to explain “that they could not spend more time considering” their requests that Baby W receive blood from special donors and that the parents would need to come to a decision whether to consent to the surgery. Savage “became extremely upset,” according to the order, and accused the doctors of “cornering her without any support present.”
Gault, the judge, said in a court filing Thursday evening that Reeves and Savage also had obstructed the medical staff’s efforts to prepare Baby W for surgery. “You touch our child and we will press criminal charges against you,” they told the staff, according to the filing.
In the filing, Gault wrote that Sue Grey, a representative for the parents, sent the court medical opinions from doctors in Texas and Hawaii, who evaluated Baby W “closely” via Zoom video call and argued that “this is not an urgent situation” and that the surgery should be delayed by a week to “further evaluate other options.”

“It was previously common ground that Baby W needed surgery,” but now the parents were objecting to the surgery and preparations, not just the use of blood transfusions, Gault wrote. The development made it “clearly necessary” for him to order the parents not to interfere, he said.
Reeves and Savage appeared Wednesday on Infowars, the podcast hosted by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who filed for bankruptcy Friday after he was held liable for lies he spread about the 2012 mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
“It’s so much bigger than us. It’s so much bigger than the baby. God does not want this to be perpetrated on mankind. He doesn’t want this to be perpetrated on the baby,” Reeves said as a baby babbled in the background.

“We stand from a godly point of view that this is not right,” he added.

Grey, a self-proclaimed expert on medicinal cannabis and “biological harm from electromagnetic radiation,” did not respond to a request for comment. Grey has been known to spread baseless claims, especially about coronavirus vaccines. She told CNN in a statement before Gault’s filing Thursday that after “many hours” of consideration, Reeves and Savage had concluded that there was “no time to appeal,” adding that “the priority for the family is to enjoy a peaceful time with their baby until the operation, and to support him through the operation.”
Nikki Turner, the medical director of the Immunization Advisory Center at the University of Auckland, said in an affidavit filed in the case that any components of the vaccine were unlikely to be present in donated blood and that, regardless, they would not be harmful.
Coronavirus vaccines, including those using mRNA technology, have repeatedly been shown to be safe and effective tools to combat severe covid-19.


Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
Grey, a self-proclaimed expert on medicinal cannabis and “biological harm from electromagnetic radiation,” did not respond to a request for comment

Good Lord
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole