On Wednesday, Dec. 7, a New Zealand court ruled against a sick baby’s parents who declined the use of “vaccinated” blood for the baby’s surgery. The court’s ruling instead gave the child’s custody to the country’s health agency.
The parents of the infant, who urgently requires open-heart surgery, had requested that the blood for the surgery come from people who have not received the Covid-19 vaccine.
The 4-month-old baby has severe pulmonary valve stenosis, the parents said. Surgery is needed “almost immediately,” but the couple are “extremely concerned with the blood [the doctors] are going to use.” “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.”
Sounds pretty reasonable, right?
Yet, in response, New Zealand’s health agency claimed guardianship of the child and applied for custody, against the wishes of the parents. The baby now awaits surgery in a hospital in Auckland.
On Wednesday, High Court Judge Ian Gault, in a landmark ruling, said he accepted the affidavits of health experts who said there have been millions of blood transfusions performed around the world since the “vaccines” were introduced, and the “vaccines” had not led to any known harmful effects.
Gault’s ruling was clearly out of touch with reality, in light of the countless deaths and injuries already known worldwide as a result of “vaccine”-induced symptoms such as cardiac arrest, pericarditis, and more.
Observers noted that the ruling will probably set a precedent for healthcare groups that collect and use donated blood.
Gault ordered that the baby be put under the guardianship of the court “from the date of the order until completion of his surgery and post-operative recovery to address obstruction to the outflow tract of his right ventricle and at latest until 31 January 2023.”
The ruling elaborated that, except for the medical matters covered in the order, the baby’s parents remain his legal guardians.
The judge asked Starship Children’s Hospital in Auckland, where the baby is awaiting surgery, to keep the parents updated about their baby’s condition and treatment at all times.
In his ruling, the judge also mentioned that he accepted that the parents of the baby had genuine concerns about the risk of using blood from vaccinated donors.
“However, the issue here is what is in [the baby’s] best interests,” Gault said, again ignoring (knowingly or unknowingly) the fact that many people have died suddenly or been injured by the Covid-19 “vaccine.”
The parents’ alternative proposal was not viable, the judge said.
“I cannot conclude it is a safe alternative that is in [the baby’s] best interests. For these reasons, and given that [the baby] needs urgent surgery, an order enabling the surgery to proceed using [NZ Blood Service] blood products without further delay is in [the baby’s] best interests.”
A lawyer acting for the family, Sue Grey, told Morning Report that the parents want what is best for their baby, who was born with the congenital heart defect and has already had one operation. She also said that the parents had found their own blood donors for the surgery. “The question is whether this is an appropriate case for direct donor blood.”
The battle for custody of the infant was begun by New Zealand authorities on Tuesday, Dec. 6. Health New Zealand said it applied to the court “with the best interests of the child in mind” following “extensive conversations” with the family. “We know that it can be worrying when parents have a child who is unwell, and are making decisions about their care,” Dr. Mike Shepherd from Health New Zealand said in a statement
New Zealand’s blood service does not differentiate between donations from those vaccinated or unvaccinated against Covid-19.
According to a peer-reviewed investigative study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), one in every 500 children under the age of 5 who received the Pfizer Covid shot were hospitalized as a result, and one in 190 had symptoms ongoing in the subsequent weeks or months.
Yet authorities worldwide are still injecting these experimental shots into young children, in line with the comments of Dr. Eric Rubin, one of the FDA’s vaccine advisors: “We’re never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine [for children aged 5 to 11] is until we start giving it. That’s the way it goes.”
The case has showcased public skepticism about the mRNA so-called vaccines and fueled local protest. Activists on the side of the baby’s parents with justified concerns about the “vaccine” in New Zealand convened outside the court to rally support for the parents.
