I am a long-time blood bank director. Directed donations are discouraged primarily because it is almost impossible to accommodate a long list of people coming in and saying "I only want blood from these people". It is already hard enough to make this all work. (And as you can imagine, the requests quickly go from “no mRNA vax blood” to “No vax of any sort blood” or “No black blood” or “No blood from anyone who drinks” ad infinitum. We have seen it all.)
Reports are that the parents had recruited a large pool of potential donors. While they all claim to not have been spikeshotted, we assume at least 10% of the responses we get to questions are not correct. And many of those patients will have had covid (which makes the same spikes) and, for that matter, may have it at the time they are donating -- many cases remain subclinical
Matching is pretty arbitrary: Units are ABO/Rh typed and then pretty randomly selected (usually by expiration date) to be crossmatched. A major side crossmatch is all that is generally done which makes sure that there are no antibodies in the baby's blood that will clot the incoming transfusion. (A minor side crossmatch, seldom done but considered when volumes are equally small, checks the reverse.) Most matches get through first time. If not, one moves on to another type/rH compatible unit.
There is a further layer to put on this. Red cells (which is all they really need to transfuse) are just sacks of hemoglobin with a membrane. They do not contain organelles (like a nucleus) and I expect would not contain (internally) spike protein either...no place internal to attach since the red cell has just a simple unit membrane. But the red cell DOES have CD147 receptors on the membrane (https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1108300), so spike proteins could stick to it.
As you noted, one would by default use packed, washed RBCs. Whole blood does not keep well and is seldom banked except for special needs. Most of the adhered spikes (if any) would have been washed off. And this, of course, beggars the question as to whether someone vaccinated, let us say one year ago, or someone who had covid six months ago would have any spike protein floating around in any case. Most would think not. (More on this below.)
Of course, one could test the units for spike protein if that were of merit. We test for many other things (among them: HIV, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Chaga's disease, HTLV, West Nile, Zika, Babesiosis, sometimes others.) It would not be that difficult to test for spike protein as well. That, too, would have helped everyone feel better. I believe the worry of the NZ health system is that everyone will then want every unit tested. If there were an indication that transfusing units were spreading disease it would already be tested; that is how all those other diseases got onto the testing list.
I am not aware of any published report of covid being transmitted through transfusion or of post-transfusion spike protein damage. Even though those are surely possible, most blood transfusions are pretty carefully monitored and such issues are usually exposed early. That is doubly true for something like covid where virtually everyone has already had it; if there were to be serious consequences, they likely would have already been detected.
One has to assume that most transfusions given in the last year have come from covid infected (and/or vaxxed) patients. The spikes are the same. One can anguish over some of the other spikeshot components (lipid nanoparticles, etc.) but these are unlikely to have a long lifespan or to survive washing.
As an aside, people underestimate how much “stuff” there is in EVERY transfusion – even with washed, packed cells, there is likely to be detritus in tiny amounts from many previous infections the donor has had, whether or not they even knew about many of such infections. Luckily, recipients, even tiny babies, are quite good at dealing with such – after all, it is the whole point of the immune system. And it is why we screen for the things we know are an issue. But many transfusion patients do run fevers, etc. as they process the “non-RBC” components of the transfusion that were not screened out. This virtually never results in significant morbidity, however.
Most patients do OK with their transfusions -- usually if you are being transfused you have far larger issues with which to deal and having tissue oxygenation is more important than the other potential transfusion issues. (This goes without saying if you are going on the pump.) We monitor each transfusion to see if we are seeing effects from covid and, for that matter, anything else. As readers of various stacks know, I am a long-term opponent of spikeshotting most patients, but that does not necessarily extend to assuming that such blood is contaminated in some way.
Another approach: The beauty of RBCs is they last only 120 days which means the average lifespan of an RBC in a sample is only 60 days. It would be relatively easy to use the general pool but to screen (we screen for endless things) patients who were last spikeshotted six or 12 months before and who have had no known covid in the past six months. As long as giving packed, washed red cells, the chance of spike contamination would be virtually zero. This is likely unnecessary but could be covered under precautionary principles for those concerned.
So is any screening done on whole blood to detect any presence of spike protein? Or no? And can you in your position as a director, do this?
Is there any simple way to differentiate between omicron spike proteins and alpha/Wuhan within blood?
New Zealand for example never had any of the earliest strains and only a brief number ever became infected during the delta period as the borders were closed. Almost all here have been infected with omicron strains only.
The omicron spike is so different from the original variant spikes (Alpha/Delta) eg immune escape, that I am not sure it has the same risk profiles anymore either and this could be why it is seen as a milder complaint.
The earliest spike proteins only ever got into the population of NZ one way. Through a needle.
Conway, Good questions. Because there are (to my knowledge) no documented cases of serious coronavirus-based diseases being transmitted via transfusion, spike testing (of any sort) is not normally done. (Understand that a third of all of the colds you (and everyone else) have ever had have likely been coronaviruses with spikes and as such blood recipients have likely been infused with endless numbers of virions, spikes, whatever over the years. Part of the issue with covid was giving it such monumental "worse-than-anything-ever" news status against its many disease/virus peers -- but in most ways, it just was not that different other than a disproportionate effect on very old people. [Keep in mind that the average age of death from COVID is 82 -- the average lifespan is 79.])
So yes, tests could be developed for rapid testing of the presence of covid spikes, even separating omicron (or whatever is next) from alpha. But the spikeshot spike is the same as the wild alpha spike which has surely been transfused innumerable times already. So it is unclear what is to be gained other than psychic "no vax spikes for me" reassurance. (And if this is a big enough deal to enough people, perhaps it could/should be done. But it is hard to get these kinds of cumbersome and expensive procedures implemented if there is no demonstrable health effect.)
If you are worried about alpha spikes, then why not be equally worried about all of the other spikes and debris likely in the transfusion in very, very small amounts? (Probably picograms, but still there.) Because this one is big on this year's news?
This spike discussion sets aside the "Well, what about all the carrier molecules and such in the spikeshot" conversation. I am not sure that anyone has answers other than noting that manifestations of impacts of those have not been seen post transfusion (and there are many other such carrier molecules from other vaccines, medications, whatever in everyone's blood).
The fact is that if you are getting transfused, you generally have a bigger problem than potential infectants in well screened blood. But no unit of blood can be guaranteed absolutely "safe" -- it is why one does not give transfusions cavalierly. All things considered, it is amazing how few problems there actually are with this biologic agent. And it has saved far, far more lives than those that may have been deprecated by the fact that it is manufactured in each body and, therefore, has virtually no standardization nor complete calibration.
Hope this is helpful. I am a pretty strident no mandates and no spikeshots for anyone under 50 (and often older than that) kind of physician based on all the data, but the transfusion case is somewhat tangential and merits these kinds of conversations, I think.
Just to give you some context as to why I am personally concerned about the Alpha spike and not other fragments. Is because I in particular research genotoxicity and mutagens including the emerging fields in epigenetics.
So if you assume the spike protein is carcinogenic for example (we don't actually know it is) then how many spike proteins are required to begin this carcinogenic process? Is one enough? Do we need hundreds? Thousands?
How much Dioxin (agent orange) was required to cause the nasty effects like cancers and birth defects?
How much asbestos is required to cause mesothelioma?
Remember they have not screened the jabs for genotoxicity. Remember most genotoxic substances have delayed effects. Remember not all DNA is found in the nucleus, like mitochondrial DNA for example which has been shown to be damaged due to spike protein etcetera.
If you follow this chain of thought, the risks are enormous and unknown. But again I stress this is hypothetical and not entirely known yet. But the mechanisms described as to how these work, and research to date including case studies of adverse events... Makes you wonder.
Dr. K, is there any possibility that there could be prescreening, as advocated by Dr. Ana? In the case of the unjabbed, such modalities as EDTA, ozone therapy, etc. could be implemented PRIOR to giving blood. Lives are much too precious to do anything less.
P.S. Dr. Joseph Lee now posits his theory that the RBCs are actually a viral trap. Of course, the RBCs do not have the machinery to support the growth of a virus. They die. And the RBCs do have the CD147 receptor that you referenced.
I thought what we all learned after 3 years of hell is that medicine must be individualized. Institutional consensus is what lead us into the hell we're clawing out of now. The right thing to do for the child is do the surgery with toxin free blood. Just like taking the jab selects for rationalizing it, administering the jab selects for defending it. The argument, "these things are done a certain way and we're not deviating for one person" is exactly the argument that benefits the system. Because the system cannot afford to have headlines like, "Doctors and hospital admit; mRNA tainted blood too risky in child heart surgery" The mRNA and pharma must be defended. The individual must be rejected in favor of the greater good. We've been watching this horror movie for 3 years.
I am a long-time blood bank director. Directed donations are discouraged primarily because it is almost impossible to accommodate a long list of people coming in and saying "I only want blood from these people". It is already hard enough to make this all work. (And as you can imagine, the requests quickly go from “no mRNA vax blood” to “No vax of any sort blood” or “No black blood” or “No blood from anyone who drinks” ad infinitum. We have seen it all.)
Reports are that the parents had recruited a large pool of potential donors. While they all claim to not have been spikeshotted, we assume at least 10% of the responses we get to questions are not correct. And many of those patients will have had covid (which makes the same spikes) and, for that matter, may have it at the time they are donating -- many cases remain subclinical
Matching is pretty arbitrary: Units are ABO/Rh typed and then pretty randomly selected (usually by expiration date) to be crossmatched. A major side crossmatch is all that is generally done which makes sure that there are no antibodies in the baby's blood that will clot the incoming transfusion. (A minor side crossmatch, seldom done but considered when volumes are equally small, checks the reverse.) Most matches get through first time. If not, one moves on to another type/rH compatible unit.
There is a further layer to put on this. Red cells (which is all they really need to transfuse) are just sacks of hemoglobin with a membrane. They do not contain organelles (like a nucleus) and I expect would not contain (internally) spike protein either...no place internal to attach since the red cell has just a simple unit membrane. But the red cell DOES have CD147 receptors on the membrane (https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1108300), so spike proteins could stick to it.
As you noted, one would by default use packed, washed RBCs. Whole blood does not keep well and is seldom banked except for special needs. Most of the adhered spikes (if any) would have been washed off. And this, of course, beggars the question as to whether someone vaccinated, let us say one year ago, or someone who had covid six months ago would have any spike protein floating around in any case. Most would think not. (More on this below.)
Of course, one could test the units for spike protein if that were of merit. We test for many other things (among them: HIV, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Chaga's disease, HTLV, West Nile, Zika, Babesiosis, sometimes others.) It would not be that difficult to test for spike protein as well. That, too, would have helped everyone feel better. I believe the worry of the NZ health system is that everyone will then want every unit tested. If there were an indication that transfusing units were spreading disease it would already be tested; that is how all those other diseases got onto the testing list.
I am not aware of any published report of covid being transmitted through transfusion or of post-transfusion spike protein damage. Even though those are surely possible, most blood transfusions are pretty carefully monitored and such issues are usually exposed early. That is doubly true for something like covid where virtually everyone has already had it; if there were to be serious consequences, they likely would have already been detected.
One has to assume that most transfusions given in the last year have come from covid infected (and/or vaxxed) patients. The spikes are the same. One can anguish over some of the other spikeshot components (lipid nanoparticles, etc.) but these are unlikely to have a long lifespan or to survive washing.
As an aside, people underestimate how much “stuff” there is in EVERY transfusion – even with washed, packed cells, there is likely to be detritus in tiny amounts from many previous infections the donor has had, whether or not they even knew about many of such infections. Luckily, recipients, even tiny babies, are quite good at dealing with such – after all, it is the whole point of the immune system. And it is why we screen for the things we know are an issue. But many transfusion patients do run fevers, etc. as they process the “non-RBC” components of the transfusion that were not screened out. This virtually never results in significant morbidity, however.
Most patients do OK with their transfusions -- usually if you are being transfused you have far larger issues with which to deal and having tissue oxygenation is more important than the other potential transfusion issues. (This goes without saying if you are going on the pump.) We monitor each transfusion to see if we are seeing effects from covid and, for that matter, anything else. As readers of various stacks know, I am a long-term opponent of spikeshotting most patients, but that does not necessarily extend to assuming that such blood is contaminated in some way.
Another approach: The beauty of RBCs is they last only 120 days which means the average lifespan of an RBC in a sample is only 60 days. It would be relatively easy to use the general pool but to screen (we screen for endless things) patients who were last spikeshotted six or 12 months before and who have had no known covid in the past six months. As long as giving packed, washed red cells, the chance of spike contamination would be virtually zero. This is likely unnecessary but could be covered under precautionary principles for those concerned.
So is any screening done on whole blood to detect any presence of spike protein? Or no? And can you in your position as a director, do this?
Is there any simple way to differentiate between omicron spike proteins and alpha/Wuhan within blood?
New Zealand for example never had any of the earliest strains and only a brief number ever became infected during the delta period as the borders were closed. Almost all here have been infected with omicron strains only.
The omicron spike is so different from the original variant spikes (Alpha/Delta) eg immune escape, that I am not sure it has the same risk profiles anymore either and this could be why it is seen as a milder complaint.
The earliest spike proteins only ever got into the population of NZ one way. Through a needle.
Conway, Good questions. Because there are (to my knowledge) no documented cases of serious coronavirus-based diseases being transmitted via transfusion, spike testing (of any sort) is not normally done. (Understand that a third of all of the colds you (and everyone else) have ever had have likely been coronaviruses with spikes and as such blood recipients have likely been infused with endless numbers of virions, spikes, whatever over the years. Part of the issue with covid was giving it such monumental "worse-than-anything-ever" news status against its many disease/virus peers -- but in most ways, it just was not that different other than a disproportionate effect on very old people. [Keep in mind that the average age of death from COVID is 82 -- the average lifespan is 79.])
So yes, tests could be developed for rapid testing of the presence of covid spikes, even separating omicron (or whatever is next) from alpha. But the spikeshot spike is the same as the wild alpha spike which has surely been transfused innumerable times already. So it is unclear what is to be gained other than psychic "no vax spikes for me" reassurance. (And if this is a big enough deal to enough people, perhaps it could/should be done. But it is hard to get these kinds of cumbersome and expensive procedures implemented if there is no demonstrable health effect.)
If you are worried about alpha spikes, then why not be equally worried about all of the other spikes and debris likely in the transfusion in very, very small amounts? (Probably picograms, but still there.) Because this one is big on this year's news?
This spike discussion sets aside the "Well, what about all the carrier molecules and such in the spikeshot" conversation. I am not sure that anyone has answers other than noting that manifestations of impacts of those have not been seen post transfusion (and there are many other such carrier molecules from other vaccines, medications, whatever in everyone's blood).
The fact is that if you are getting transfused, you generally have a bigger problem than potential infectants in well screened blood. But no unit of blood can be guaranteed absolutely "safe" -- it is why one does not give transfusions cavalierly. All things considered, it is amazing how few problems there actually are with this biologic agent. And it has saved far, far more lives than those that may have been deprecated by the fact that it is manufactured in each body and, therefore, has virtually no standardization nor complete calibration.
Hope this is helpful. I am a pretty strident no mandates and no spikeshots for anyone under 50 (and often older than that) kind of physician based on all the data, but the transfusion case is somewhat tangential and merits these kinds of conversations, I think.
Just to give you some context as to why I am personally concerned about the Alpha spike and not other fragments. Is because I in particular research genotoxicity and mutagens including the emerging fields in epigenetics.
So if you assume the spike protein is carcinogenic for example (we don't actually know it is) then how many spike proteins are required to begin this carcinogenic process? Is one enough? Do we need hundreds? Thousands?
How much Dioxin (agent orange) was required to cause the nasty effects like cancers and birth defects?
How much asbestos is required to cause mesothelioma?
Remember they have not screened the jabs for genotoxicity. Remember most genotoxic substances have delayed effects. Remember not all DNA is found in the nucleus, like mitochondrial DNA for example which has been shown to be damaged due to spike protein etcetera.
If you follow this chain of thought, the risks are enormous and unknown. But again I stress this is hypothetical and not entirely known yet. But the mechanisms described as to how these work, and research to date including case studies of adverse events... Makes you wonder.
Thank you and Dr. Reid so much!
Dr. K, is there any possibility that there could be prescreening, as advocated by Dr. Ana? In the case of the unjabbed, such modalities as EDTA, ozone therapy, etc. could be implemented PRIOR to giving blood. Lives are much too precious to do anything less.
P.S. Dr. Joseph Lee now posits his theory that the RBCs are actually a viral trap. Of course, the RBCs do not have the machinery to support the growth of a virus. They die. And the RBCs do have the CD147 receptor that you referenced.
Here is one study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35269703/
Again, wonderful, kind insights. THANK YOU!
I recently donated blood and had to indicate my injection status. Thank you for posting the link to this study: A Deadly Embrace.
Good insights. Thank you.
I thought what we all learned after 3 years of hell is that medicine must be individualized. Institutional consensus is what lead us into the hell we're clawing out of now. The right thing to do for the child is do the surgery with toxin free blood. Just like taking the jab selects for rationalizing it, administering the jab selects for defending it. The argument, "these things are done a certain way and we're not deviating for one person" is exactly the argument that benefits the system. Because the system cannot afford to have headlines like, "Doctors and hospital admit; mRNA tainted blood too risky in child heart surgery" The mRNA and pharma must be defended. The individual must be rejected in favor of the greater good. We've been watching this horror movie for 3 years.