Baby W

Who would have thought a beautiful, beloved four-month-old baby could teach us so much about ourselves?

NOTE: The Care of Children Act 2004 prohibits publication of particulars that may lead to the identification of Baby W.

About where people, with metaphorical masks off, really stand, about heroes and what our true priorities are, our position on issues of basic human rights, on the rights of parents throughout the nation, and also about love, compassion, care and seeking the best possible outcome for a brave family who, at their most vulnerable and defenceless, arrive at the doorstep of those trained to provide life-saving surgery and have the fervent hope, and every right to expect, they are entering a safe and reassuring haven, with a medical team on one’s side who will help support them on this journey, as they seek a life-saving operation for their precious son. For in this story the dark and the light are illuminated — for all to see.

This is the unfolding journey of exemplary parents seeking help for their cherished son. It is one of the utmost courage on their part and also one of those who are dismally failing them, while others hold them close and walk with them on this trail of the utmost challenge. It is a story of good and beautiful souls and one of those who have strayed, for whatever reason, from what is true and honest and right.

Meet baby W.

A beautiful, wise soul whose calm, gentle demeanour and big blue eyes could win over the hardest of hearts. It is said that eyes mirror the soul, and one look at W cannot help but flood the heart with love and a deep desire to do our utmost to protect him, while walking with his family as they travel on what has dramatically unfolded into a far more arduous, challenging journey requiring escalating reserves of strength they didn’t know they possessed. They climb one insurmountable mountain only to find another before them and when that is done there is another — yet still they have to continue to place one foot in front of the other as they walk into previously uncharted and frightening  territory, with no map.

W is a twin. He and his brother were born to their loving parents, S and C in July, 2022. The couple also have a two-year-old toddler. Early on, with a mother’s intuition, S realized that all was not well with W. After an echocardiogram she was advised that there was nothing wrong, but an inner feeling there was something seriously wrong remained, and this proved to be the case, for on the third echocardiogram it was found that W has a heart condition for which he requires urgent surgery. Little W was admitted to the Starship Children’s Hospital, with a surgeon and operating theatre available.

So far, so good.

S and C had just one simple requirement: That all blood required during the operation be from donors who had not received the experimental gene-based therapy injection on trial until 2023. They realised this could be administratively awkward, especially if blood wasn’t identified in this way at the blood bank, so they took responsibility for this and found 20 donors whose blood was matched, screened, and approved for paediatric use.

It all unravelled from there. The surgeon said no, he would use whatever blood the blood bank provided, the blood bank refused to differentiate on what blood would be used and the hospital concurred, creating a fruitless, suppressive, completely needless obstruction to a beautiful family while at their most vulnerable, for there is obviously no harm in administering blood from available donors who have no traces of the experimental .gene-based therapy in their blood, as they have not had the injection

In the middle of an already stressful situation, the parents suddenly found themselves in a hostile environment with key medical professionals blocking the way to what they knew, from their salient research, to be the safest option for their beloved son.

They have every right to make the choice they did and there are many key international specialists who would not only fully support them in their decision without question, but would consider their requirement imperative for W’s health. There are key doctors in New Zealand who also fully support their decision, with reasons that make it clear the parents are right to insist on this requirement.

Arguments for and against the experimental mRNA injection have raged between medical professionals since its release. Leading cardiologist and surgeon, Dr Aseem Malhotra, one of the most celebrated doctors in the UK, had earlier been an advocate for the experimental injection and was one of the first to receive it. He was also involved in helping to address “vaccine hesitancy” in the UK, but now calls for the experimental injection rollout to be halted. When his father, who was previously fit and healthy, died of cardiac issues after the experimental injection, Dr Malhotra took a closer look, and after extensive research he bravely spoke out publicly, advising against the injection, explaining why, and calling for an immediate  halt to this experimental gene-based therapy.  He took this further by addressing the current misinformation in medicine and how this has occurred.

Dr Peter McCullough in the US is also a cardiac specialist and concurs with the views of Dr Malhotra. Dr McCullough is one of the most extensively published cardiac specialists in the US and was also at the top of his field. His qualifications can be seen here.

Dr Michael Yeadon, a former chief scientist and Vice President of Pfizer, has also warned the public against receiving the vaccine. He had worked with that corporation for 20 years before resigning.

Dr Robert Malone, inventor of the RNA technology, also warns of children receiving an injection that forces their body to make toxic spike proteins that often cause permanent, irreversible damage to major organs including the heart and blood vessels and can cause blood clots and lesions in the brain. He explains that it is a novel technology that genetically resets the immune system, is not adequately tested and it would need at least five years to discover the full side effects.

For every specialist eminently qualified to bravely speak out and warn the public, there will of course be a corresponding rebuttal and ad hominem attack on those courageous doctors. Pharmaceutical corporations acting in concert with complicit governments who refuse to make their agreements public have deep pockets.

Medsafe, charged with the responsibility of ensuring medicines are safe in New Zealand, also warns on its website about cardiac issues being a possible side effect and although they have a “voluntary” system for reporting Adverse Events Following Injection (AEFI), even they record over 63,425 adverse events, with over 12500 noted as “chest discomfort” up to 31 August 2022. The statistics on some parts of their page are only “monitored” 21 days after the second dose, which leads one to ask why patients are asked to stay at a medical centre for at least the first 20 minutes after an injection. Some have died within 24 hours of their first dose. Their site also notes the “expected deaths in monitoring period” and includes children in that morbid list of anticipated death. And all while another government site explains children are at little risk from covid, stating: “COVID-19 generally has mild effects in children and is rarely severe or fatal.” So why give these children a potentially fatal experimental gene-therapy injection that often causes irreversible side effects, particularly when it has not been approved in NZ for the ages of 0 — 5?

Pfizer is a corporation that holds the dubious record of being one of the top in its field for paying billions of dollars in fines for bribing doctors and for fraud. That hardly inspires confidence. In 2022, a US Judge ordered Pfizer to release documents in regard to the covid injection that it wanted kept confidential for 75 years. Within this raft of documents were nine pages of tightly-worded text detailing possible adverse events of the experimental gene-therapy injection of which clotting, strokes, and cardiac issues are just some. Mainstream media don’t appear to have stumbled across this information yet.

To date, no one (except Pfizer) has a full list of the contents of the experimental injection as Pfizer has not released them. Not even to doctors.  So how can doctors categorically state the experimental injection is safe and why would anyone consider it was safe to be contained in the blood one was going to put into a four-month-old baby with heart issues

Is the injection still on trial until 2023/24? Yes. So it is still experimental? Yes.

So if doctors don’t know all of the contents of the injections of an experimental gene-based therapy never globally unleashed on this scale before, that is still on trial until 2023/24, then how can it  be determined as safe? If one of the side effects can be cardiac-related and one is about to operate on a tiny defenceless patient with a cardiac issue, why would that risk be taken?

And as blood is available that is screened and approved that does not have the contents of the experimental gene-based therapy injection contained in it, why would a medical professional decline to use it? This defies common-sense.

Would the screened, approved blood from available donors who have not been given the trial injection provide a better outcome for the baby? Undoubtedly. Would it allay the concerns of the parents? Yes.

The experimental mRNA injection can be detected in the blood. The thousands of adverse events listed on the Medsafe website surely confirm this, for if it remained in the deltoid muscle of the arm it would hardly cause death or severe adverse effects such as myocarditis and pericarditis and clotting would it? So why risk that on a four-month-old baby? Or on anyone?

Long term side-effects and adverse reactions are still unknown. Surely then, providing blood that has no risk of an experimental gene-based therapy injection in its contents is the safest option and the medical staff should be in full support of the parents? Again, the blood from the donors who have not been injected with the experimental gene-based therapy, is ready to go and has been approved.

In a further meeting at the hospital S and C were categorically informed that the surgeon would use whatever blood was provided by the blood bank and they didn’t differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated blood. It was alleged that the blood provided by the “vaccinated” was “safe”.  Ad hominem attacks were then targeted towards S and C  who were told they were believing in “fairy tales” and they were “conspiracy theorists”. Despicably, Samantha was asked if she wanted to see a psychiatrist or psychologist, before the medical team stormed from the room.

In my view this is an extremely cruel form of psychological torture and abuse that has been exercised on wonderful caring and responsible parents, who simply want the best for their beloved baby, and it has been done in an attempt to coerce them to agree to have their baby transfused with blood that contains an experimental gene-based therapy that would potentially cause serious harm. There can be no argument with that.

The parents want the operation for their son, they accept that he will need blood during the operation and they have made one vital, logical and sensible requirement and provided the means for that to be achieved. Not even Medsafe advise this experimental gene-therapy for children under five.

The Hippocratic Oath states, First, Do No Harm. Doing no harm is surely to ensure there is absolutely no chance of baby Will being the recipient of blood contaminated by components in the blood of an experimental gene-based therapy, with nine pages of possible adverse events, published by Pfizer, for an injection still on trial until 2023.

It is difficult to imagine the strain this treatment by those concerned must have placed on two wonderful parents with newly-born twins who simply want the very best for their son. S is breast-feeding her boys and this sort of stress and tension is the last thing a new mother needs — even more so with twins. The fact that one of their sons has to undergo major surgery is stressful enough. This wonderful family need a nurturing warm environment where they feel that the medical team has their back, that they are protected and made to feel both safe and welcome in the strange environment in which they find themselves.

When I was an NZRN (New Zealand Registered Nurse), part of what many of us considered to be paramount in our duty, was to provide comfort, compassion and genuine care to our patients. That included helping to alleviate stresses and concerns by offering comfort, reassurance, to help reduce the worry of an operation or any type of hospital stay, for it can be a frightening environment at any time. It is so important to help allay any concerns and care enough to listen and help solve any problems It was a large part of what I saw my job to be (a part that I loved) and one that could make all the difference to outcomes. It is also vital to advocate on behalf of the patient. An ally. To stand up for them and to protect them. And that can mean standing up to senior medical professionals — nurses, doctors, or surgeons — to go into bat for the patient.

S and C didn’t have that. Their desperate and totally reasonable requirement fell on deaf ears.

The surgeon and lawyers of Starship hospital have taken the case to the High Court, in a bid to obtain a court order to temporarily take the baby from the parents and perform the operation without stating what blood will be used, even though blood from those who have not received the experimental gene-based therapy is available, screened, approved and ready to be used.

This is appalling and completely unnecessary. Unless there are hidden influences instructing the medical team, the hospital and the blood bank? If so who? Who is doing this? Is it the Medical Council who suspend and remove the licenses of doctors who dare to speak out against the government rhetoric on this trial gene-based therapy injection, despite the mountain of evidence from top international specialists across the globe? Is it the government, the Ministry of Health, and/or the Prime Minister’s Office? Who? They need to show themselves. And several hours ago a Dr N. Turner did the rounds of some government-sponsored radio stations who faithfully reported what she alleged, much of which was incorrect. An excellent rebuttal by nzdsos.com has since been published, although not reported on by mainstream media.

Regardless, the duty of the medical staff is to the patient, not to those butting in from the side-lines. Government has no place interfering in the decision of the parents for themselves individually or for their children. That is not the job of government. Nor does government have any right to dictate to medical professionals and order what they are permitted to say, or not say, while threatening to end their careers if they don’t obey. That is fascism. They don’t know the patient and have no place invisibly putting themselves between the medical professional and the patient. Medical decisions are an inalienable right for every individual and for their children. The light reveals a politicised medical profession.

In desperation, S and C turned to alternative media for help. They chose FreeNZ where they spoke to the indomitable Liz Gunn, lawyer and journalist, who dropped everything and arrived at their side, providing unstinting support. A stronger, more compassionate and understanding advocate in such a ghastly predicament would be near impossible to find.

Liz has done several interviews on this desperate situation and many Kiwis have rallied beside Liz and the family to offer help. Like-minded compassionate professionals in support of S and C have also stepped in. Lawyer Sue Grey dropped everything to appear in the High Court on 30 November 2022 to appeal this travesty. She was flanked by Liz and at least two or three other lawyers, including the courageous Kirstin Murfitt  and key doctors in support, especially from the admirable, brave and ethical www.nzdsos.com team where you’ll find most of the doctors who dared to stand for their patients and honour their Hippocratic Oath and have been suspended or lost their licenses for that courageous stand.

The Judge has urged the two parties to resolve this by Friday or the case will be back in Court on 6 December 2022.

The operation could already have been done by now, and W could be making a safe recovery with the blood received from donors who have not had the experimental injection. It was a very simple issue to obtain the required blood from any of the 20 donors who had already been screened and approved to donate blood to baby Will. It was so easy to help make the journey for this wonderful family as smooth as possible.

This story is not only about W. It is about the medical freedom and inalienable rights of every single living being in this country. We owe baby W, and all New Zealanders, our best.

Who would have thought a beautiful, beloved four-month-old baby could
teach us so much about ourselves . . .

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. Anon.

By Mary Hobbs

Further Reading

• NZDSOS, A Challenge to NZBlood – What’s the Issue with Blood from Vaccinated Donors?
• Kirstin Murffit, Open Letter to Parliament
• NZDSOS, The Pfizer Documents – A First Glance
• NZDSOS, Injection or Infection – Associating Myocarditis and Pericarditis with COVID-19
• NZDSOS, Dr. Renee de Monchy – Vaccinating 5-12 Year Olds
• NZDSOS, Read ‘Em and Weep – Thank Goodness for Substack
• NZDSOS, Vaccine Injuries Part 7 – Treatment
• NZDSOS, Dr. Matt Shelton on TNT Radio – Horrific Injuries and Deaths
• NZDSOS, Dr. Mike Yeadon on COVID Crimes
• NZDSOS, Hippocratic Oath Discussed by Dr. Renee de Monchy

More resources from FreeNZ

• Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion (2022) Oracle Films
• Over 1000 studies: Over One Thousand Scientific Studies Prove That the COVID-19 Vaccines Are Dangerous, and All Those Pushing This Agenda Are Committing the Indictable Crime of Gross Misconduct. The jabs are not licensed even in the US to be used in children under 6 months of age. It would be gross misconduct to potentially expose a young child to spike or mRNA without any scientific data on safety.
• A study (in vitro) that has found mRNA can be converted to DNA in human liver cells
• Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line
• This page states the approval status of applications from Pfizer in NZ. Pfizer is provisionally approved for 12yrs and older at a dose of 30 µg/0.3 mL. Pfizer is provisionally approved for 5 years and older at 10 µg/0.2 mL. Pfizer have made an application for 6 months to 4 years which is currently under assessment, which means that the current permitted dose is 0 µg (ie nothing). There are no approvals or applications listed for children under 6 months of age, so their permitted dose is also 0 µg (ie nothing).
• Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) proteins were measured in longitudinal plasma samples collected from 13 participants who received two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine.
• Auckland Hospital are directly violating their Medical Ethics and funny enough it seems to have disappeared off the internet unless you use Wayback Machine.