Inside a Court Case
COVID-19 Jabs and Blood Transfusion Products
There are a growing number of debates occurring around the world with respect to COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and the safety of blood products being used in medical procedures. This is largely being driven by rapidly accumulating evidence in two areas. First, there are now plenty of publications showing that public guarantees that injectable COVID-19 products do not get widely distributed throughout the body were false. Secondly, there is a large body of literature showing that components and derivatives of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ have many potential mechanisms of harm should these products get beyond the injection site and local draining lymph nodes.
I was asked to serve the High Court of New Zealand as an expert witness in a case about a baby (Baby W) who required life-saving surgery for a heart condition.
The parents requested that the surgeons utilize blood from donors that had not received a COVID-19 jab. Their rationale was to ensure that there would be no risk of potentially harmful contaminants from COVID-19 inoculations being introduced into the circulation of the infant.
The core issue that I was asked to address is whether there was the potential for Pfizer’s COVID-19 ‘vaccine’, and/or components (i.e., lipid nanoparticles, synthetic mRNA) and/or derivatives thereof (i.e., spike protein) to be in the blood of people who donated following receiving a jab. I was also to note whether any of these contaminants would have the potential to cause harm should they be introduced into the systemic circulation of an infant.
At short notice, I submitted an affidavit to assist the court with rendering a decision. In addition to this, five affidavits were provided, at short notice, by three physicians. Only two of these were available at the time that I wrote mine.
The court’s decision went against the parents. As a result, joint custody was awarded to a physician to ensure the surgery could be performed as they saw fit, with the baby being returned to the parents afterwards. The joint custody is to remain in place until the final post-surgical check-up.
Redacted copies of all six affidavits have been provided to me. Since they are part of the public record I thought you might like to take a look at them. I have provided links to them below.
In the setting of a court, one is to review all affidavits and determine where the overall weight of the scientific evidence lies. Part of this process is to evaluate the experts that are providing the evidence, as well as the volume and quality of the evidence.
When reviewing these affidavits I encourage you to ask yourself the following:
How many published peer-reviewed scientific papers are cited in the affidavit? Ideally, there should be quite a few. Otherwise, how can the affidavit be objective and scientifically accurate?
How much raw data are presented and overlaid with interpretations? An ability to do this demonstrates genuine expertise.
Overall, who demonstrates the greatest mechanistic understanding of the science?
I also encourage readers to avoid getting distracted by hearsay evidence such as deferrals to statements made by organizations. This is what I like to refer to as ‘reputational science’. Many statements made by public health and health regulatory agencies are all-too-often of such low scientific rigor that they would never pass the bar required for consideration in a peer-reviewed journal. Among many other things, authors are typically not disclosed, nor are potential conflicts of interest, citations are often absent, few in number, or highly selective, materials and methods are often not described, etc. Many people who have not followed the publication of original scientific findings and/or who do not understand it at the most fundamental level often lean heavily on what various organizations have to say when composing affidavits.
Further, a true expert is not swayed just by the conclusions drawn by authors of papers. Instead, they look at the original raw data on which any conclusions rely. Of even greater importance, an expert should always look at the methods and materials used to generate the data to determine if they were appropriate. Conclusions are not valid if the data and/or methods used to produce them are invalid.
Another consideration is that one should never rely on the number of people drawing a particular conclusion. Scientific truths should never be defined by a majority vote. It is the overall weight of validated data, adjusted for its quality, that defines scientific paradigms.
Finally, when it comes to medical risk-benefit analyses, one must always consider what data are missing. Are there key questions that need to be answered? It is never appropriate to assume safety, especially in the absence of active safety monitoring programs being performed in the context of rigorously controlled clinical trials. The formerly cherished precautionary principle advises that people promoting a new medical product should prove safety rather than the onus being placed on bystander scientists to prove harm.
Here are links to the six affidavits…
Such detailed work. You work so hard to give judges the best advice based on the most current science and it's almost as if they can't be bothered. That must be so frustrating for you. I was a nurse with the Canadian Red Cross during the HIV blood products tragedy and having learned nothing, they repeated it with Hepatitis C. The medical director at the time told us at a meeting that blood does not transmit HIV. This was in 1981 or 1982. I remember thinking as a 24 year-old-nurse that this was going to harm a lot of people and the rest is history. A Canadian made tragedy. When SARS 1 was in Toronto in 2003, the modeling was predicting millions would die. It was hundreds. Dr. Fauci wrote a paper on how well Hydroxychloroquine was working for this coronavirus. There was talk of quickly finding a vaccine that worked, but the virus was pretty much gone before that happened. That first SARS virus was also leaked from a lab in China, however the reports stated it was an accident via a lab technician. When it came to SARS 2 aka Covid, I knew I wanted no part of the jabs and when I heard you on that radio program speaking about the bio distribution of the jab all over the body, I immediately tried to warn our adult kids hoping they would decide against it especially for their own children. I did not succeed. Thank you for standing up for truth.
The ruling against the parents was another sad and sorry day in NZ courts over this whole covid debacle. Thank you Byram for your amazing work and tireless pursuit of the truth through true science and for your honest, measured and heartfelt manner. Even though things have often gone against us here in our little country, it all counts and you have been instrumental in inspiring and helping us. The pressure against the authorities narrative is building and the house of cards is about to tumble I’m sure... the truth will eventually prevail! Arohanui from down under.