18.2 C
Auckland
Thursday, April 25, 2024

Popular Now

Watch: Liz Gunn gives Baby W update

The guardianship order expired on 31 January.

Baby W is doing well, and he’s loving being home.

Gunn revealed further details of what happened in the moments after he was uplifted from his hospital bed by police, the night before his operation.

Authorities required mum to sign documents if she wanted to see him. One condition prohibited her from holding the baby if she wanted to be in the room – even if he cried for food. To ensure compliance two police officers and two security guards were stationed in the room. Gunn said mum was told she would be arrested once the baby went for the operation. ‘There was zero reason to do that kind of mental torture except for it to be a kind of mental torture.’

‘She could not hug her baby, and another condition was if she fell asleep for one moment, if her eyes shut for a moment… they made it clear she was to be taken up to the ward and not be allowed to see Baby W before he was taken to this forced operation.

‘Her love for that baby was so incredible that she sat in that room, she stayed awake. She’d just come off this terrible trauma of the kidnap.’

Before W was taken to the operation mum asked the nurses if she could give him a hug. As Gunn explained, a loving hug from mum or dad is important because it releases the ‘feel good chemicals’ in the brain. The request was declined, but mum was allowed to kiss her son’s hand.

Gunn said there is a story in how Starship acted throughout the episode, and believed there needed to be a full investigation into the hospital.

Talking about W’s condition, Gunn said, ‘He’s really, really healthy and doing well.’ While many had questioned whether he received unjabbed blood, Gunn said she didn’t know. ‘This government is the most opaque, as in the least transparent government I think we’ve ever had. And on top of that there was a lot of sneakiness and lying in every area that we can think of last year – in every area, from the Freedom Village right throughout the year. Do you think they’re going to be open about something as important as that? What I can say is the baby is not showing any adverse signs from the blood transfusion he had to have. What I can also say is I have information that there are children in hospital who may be deeply compromised by transfused blood.

‘I would very much here beg nurses, doctors, who are starting to question, for whom the Baby Will story shook you up and thought ‘are we doing the right thing?’, kidnapping a baby like this, force operating… If any of you are feeling that, if any of you are witnessing something in the ward, in the ICU there, that you think is not right, where perhaps a blood machine might be clotting up, a child is under long-term comas – some of the things I’m being told… so unless I verify those stories, or you are willing to speak… I can only beg you doctors, this will haunt you if you don’t tell the truth… If there are these stories of compromises from transfused blood you could become a story that saves others from being damaged, injured.’

Promoted Content

No login required to comment. Name, email and web site fields are optional. Please keep comments respectful, civil and constructive. Moderation times can vary from a few minutes to a few hours. Comments may also be scanned periodically by Artificial Intelligence to eliminate trolls and spam.

9 COMMENTS

  1. The New Zealand Bill of rights Act 1990 isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Here is what Wikipedia has to say…

    “The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (sometimes known by its acronym, NZBORA or simply BORA) is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand part of New Zealand’s uncodified constitution[1] that sets out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a bill of rights,[2] and imposes a legal requirement on the attorney-general to provide a report to parliament whenever a bill is inconsistent with the bill of rights.”

    So apparently our “uncodified constitution” is also worthless.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Bill_of_Rights_Act_1990

    • The “medical experts” were the primary reason the entire situation devolved into a s*** show in the first place. They behaved like petulant, spiteful children, refusing to grant the baby’s parents a simple request that would have cost them precisely NOTHING in terms of time or effort.

      They acted like the unhinged authoritarian Covid cultists we all know they are. Nikki Turner went on the radio and openly admitted it was about saving face: “if we allow this then we’re assumed to be supporting the position that there’s something wrong with the jabs. We won’t do that.”

      They denied the baby and his parents a fairly routine request (a sh!t ton of people in the past have received direct donor blood – ever hear of Jehovah’s witnesses?) because they feared the PR response it would generate.

      That’s scummy enough in and of itself, but to then go and get the big bad government to literally strip parental rights away from two people acting in the best interests of their own child… my God. That is the REAL violation that’s been committed here, the vaccine-status of the blood is almost a secondary issue.

      Don’t even get me started on the bullish!t ruling from the obviously paid off judge, ruling that the blood service were reasonably complying with the parents’ request “which was to receive blood”. The request was to receive UNVACCINATED blood. Kind of an important detail to leave out of your ruling since it was the entire basis of the case 🤦🏼🤷🏼‍♂️

      And according to the parents themselves, they were told by someone involved that clean blood had been used in the end anyway (the ramifications of the baby potentially developing blood clots was too great a risk), making the entire circus pointless except to stroke those Stasi…er…Starship doctors’ egos. They’ve now set a pretty terrifying precedent; “you no longer get to decide what happens to your children, WE OWN THEM NOW. Do not f*ck with us.”

      What an utter betrayal, what a disgusting breach of the social contract (as if the preceding two years hadn’t been bad enough). Even the cops who seized the child on the big night were sick to their stomachs with what they were doing, go and rewatch the clip.

      I’m finished. Will never trust another “medical expert” ever again in my life. Their entire industry is corrupted and tainted with dark money, dodgy science, corporate cronyism, egregious malpractice lawsuits and a general callousness (if not open disdain) for the patients they supposedly serve.

      I’ll be keeping myself and my children as far from them as possible. Awful profession, bunch of stuck up arrogant medieval butchers posing as heroes for their own ego.

      • To Unquaccinated. What a fantastic comment. I totally agree with everything you said. I cannot “like” this comment because DT does not have that function, which they need to. So I will just tell you instead. Rock on!

  2. dont forget that if there was a court order, it was first the head of medical team who asked for it. The court always follows the doctors recommendations, them beeing right or wrong. And very often doctors dont want parents around. I have seen their brutality with children . And i have also experienced their brutality. So i am not ” neutral”
    Some are true bastards, and i could tell stories…..
    I am glad that baby wil and mother are fine.

  3. Tell the stories Anonymous and Unquaccinated.
    The counterfactuals to the highly successful interventions of the medical profession and the court had a potential to be tragic.
    Liz Gunn should retire from her anti-science crusade.

  4. “ The counterfactuals to the highly successful interventions of the medical profession and the court had a potential to be tragic…”

    Nope. No they didn’t, try again.

    1) Had the doctors granted the original request to use direct donor blood, it would have made no difference whatsoever in terms of the procedure or the baby’s wellbeing. It was THE ESTABLISHMENT who refused, delayed and went to court, costing time and putting the child’s life in jeopardy. Again all to save face.

    2) The court ruling is fundamentally flawed in that it omits the MOST IMPORTANT issue, the crux of the ENTIRE case. The parents were not asking “to receive blood”, they were asking to receive specifically UNVACCINATED, direct donor blood from a pool of donors that had already been preselected and screened. To deliberately leave out such an important cornerstone detail of the case, the judge either had to have been woefully corrupt or the dumbest person in New Zealand (and I sincerely doubt it’s the latter). There is literal decades of precedent including a Bill of rights (although it’s admittedly more like a Bill of suggestions these days).

    3)Liz Gunn should be free to report on whatever the hell she wants to. If you don’t like it, don’t watch Bro. And the only anti-science behaviour I’ve seen in the last two years came from the people banning ivermectin, denouncing vitamin D and telling pregnant women to just shut up and get jabbed. They’re all AWFULLY quiet now that those all cause mortality figures keep ticking up.

    Now please go ahead and reply with some pro-vaccine, pro-government mainstream drivel that makes me do a duck face harder than Paris Hilton with a selfie stick.

    I’m out 🎤

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest

Trending

Sport

Daily Life

Opinion

Wellington
broken clouds
15.7 ° C
16.8 °
14.4 °
71 %
12.4kmh
75 %
Thu
16 °
Fri
15 °
Sat
14 °
Sun
15 °
Mon
16 °
-- Free Ads --spot_img