https://rumble.com/v7emw8m-would-you-take-this-blood-the-contamination-of-americas-blood-supply.html
The Question Nobody Wants Answered
Imagine you are rushed into an emergency room after a serious accident.
You need blood. Not tomorrow, but now.
You trust that what is entering your body has been thoroughly screened.
But Dr. James Thorp and a team of researchers are raising a question they believe deserves far more attention: Are we testing donated blood for everything we should be?
The researchers are calling for direct testing of donated blood for possible COVID vaccine-associated materials, including spike protein, vaccine-derived mRNA, plasmid DNA, and abnormal fibrin microclot complexes.
In one part of their research, investigators examined nine unvaccinated patients who developed serious medical complications following blood transfusions. Reported events included blood clots, heart inflammation, progressive clotting disorders, multi-organ failure, and death.
The researchers acknowledge these cases do not prove the transfusions caused the conditions. But they argue the findings warrant a much larger investigation.
If We Can Test for It, Why Aren't We?
That may be the biggest question raised by the research.
Blood banks routinely screen donated blood for established infectious threats. But according to these researchers, donated blood is not routinely screened for vaccine-derived mRNA, spike protein, plasmid DNA, amyloid material, or fibrin microclot complexes.
Their companion analysis of reports submitted to the federal VAERS database also identified reporting signals involving hemorrhage, thrombosis, transfusion complications, and other serious conditions following COVID vaccination.
A reporting signal does not establish cause and effect. But the researchers argue it provides another reason to investigate rather than assume there is nothing to find.
Because when you need a transfusion, you don't have weeks to research the donor.
You simply have to trust that everything worth testing for has been tested.
Dr. Thorp and his colleagues are asking whether that assumption deserves another look.
