The Reconciliation

Take Action Idaho

The Reconciliation — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 00:01:07 GMT

House Bill 528 protects your right to:

✔ Choose your own blood donor (Directed Donation)
✔ Use your own blood (Autologous Donation)

This is about medical choice and patient rights.

If passed, H 528 ensures Idaho patients can receive blood from a donor they trust or from themselves, when medically appropriate.

Hearing Monday 2-23-26

Idaho Senate Health & Welfare Committee

5 PM Eastern
4 PM Central
3 PM Mountain

Watch live:

https://www.idahoptv.org/shows/idahoinsession/Legislature/

The Goal (Under 5 Minutes)

Please, urgently:

1. Call the legislative line and leave a message for your Senator and the Health & Welfare Committee

2 Email your senator and the Health & Welfare Committee

Leave a message:

Please vote YES on House Bill 528.

That’s it.

Step 1 — Find Your Senator (30 seconds)

Use this link:

https://legislature.idaho.gov/legislators/whosmylegislator/

Enter your address.

Step 2 — Call (2 minutes)

Idaho Legislature’s Information Center: Local: 208-332-1000

Tell them:

Please record my message for all members of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, and my state senator:__(Senator’s NAME)__

Call Script (30 seconds)

Hello,

My name is ______ and I live in ______ Idaho.

Please urge Senator ______ to vote YES on House Bill 528.

This bill protects my right to choose my own blood donor or use my own blood.

This patient right matters to Idaho families.

Thank you for your service to our community!

Alternatively, you can call your senator’s office directly, and also Health & Welfare Committee Office directly at 208-332-1319.

Optional: Send an Email (2 minutes)

Email:

shel@senate.idaho.gov

Copy and Paste Email

Subject: Please Vote YES on H 528

Dear Senators Chair John Vander Woude
Vice Chair Marco Adam Erickson
Dori Healey
Jordan Redman
Josh Wheeler
Robert Beiswenger
Tanya Burgoyne
Lucas B. Cayler
Ben G. Fuhriman
David J. Leavitt
Lori Ann McCann
Faye Thompson
Don Hall
Steve C. Tanner

Ilana Rubel
Megan Egbert,

I respectfully urge you to vote YES on House Bill 528.

H 528 protects the right of Idaho patients to choose their own blood donor or use their own blood when medically appropriate.

This is an important patient rights issue and it matters deeply to Idaho families. Without it, many people would be denied access to essential medical care. Patient autonomy is a medical necessity.

Please support H 528.

Respectfully,

(YOUR Name)
City, Idaho

Subscribe now

Now, a Special Thanks

Representative Bruce has led the charge on H 528.

As a leukemia survivor who required repeated blood transfusions, he understands personally why blood choice matters.

This bill exists because of his leadership.

I also appreciate the advocates who have worked tirelessly on this issue, including:

Safe Blood — Clinton Ohlers

https://safeblood.com

Blessed By His Blood — Liz James

https://blessedbyhisblood.com

The Reconciliation— Sierra Hamm

https://thereconciliation.org

Watch the Hearing Live

https://www.idahoptv.org/shows/idahoinsession/Legislature/

What Happens Next

If H 528 passes committee:

It must still pass:

• Senate Calendar Committee
• Senate Floor Vote
• Governor Signature

More action may be needed.

Please Take Action Today

Total time: Under 5 minutes

✔ Find your senator
✔ Call your senator and Senate Health & Welfare Committee

If you do not own the right to your own blood, what are you? What do you have, anyway?

The Reconciliation Joins Gandalph and Friends

The Reconciliation — Tue, 16 Sep 2025 18:13:41 GMT

Listen in on an exciting talk with Gandalph and friends. You'll learn a lot about blood health, healing anemia, and how your body works.

Listen Now

Subscribe now

Open Letter to Brown University Health Services

The Reconciliation — Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:36:59 GMT

August 2025

Brown University Health Services

Brown Health Medical Group Obstetrics and Gynecology

Interested Members of the Brown Community

To Whom It May Concern:

We are writing as concerned healthcare practitioners and advocates for informed consent in response to your June 2025 article, "Pregnancy, Breastfeeding, Coronavirus, and COVID-19 Vaccine." (Perry et al). While we appreciate your efforts to guide patients during a complex public health landscape, we find the article’s lack of transparency and omission of informed consent principles unacceptable from a medical ethics perspective. These principles are not optional—they are the cornerstone of ethical medical practice, particularly for interventions affecting pregnant women, their infants, and future generations.

An honest look at COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant and breastfeeding women and children would include more disclosure, rather than the open-and-shut one-sided case presented in this article. Alerting families of the potential financial conflicts of interest in the organizations making these recommendations would also be a necessary ethical disclosure. A shared decision-making mindset must be adopted by Brown University Health, Brown Health Medical Group in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and affiliated medical organizations to take steps toward rebuilding public trust. Respect for the principles of informed consent would not only be appropriate but ethically mandatory in an article recommending medical treatment.

Disclosure about FDA and Legal Protections

Medical ethics require that pregnant women be informed that the safety of medical interventions in pregnancy and breastfeeding is a judgment call by medical doctors and professional organizations. Many of these doctors and organizations such as ACOG, receive federal funding to incentivize them to say the vaccines are safe. ACNM also received millions of dollars from the federal government as an influential mouthpiece (Redshaw, 2023). These financial biases are not being disclosed by the authors of the Brown article.

In the published article by Brown Health of June 2, 2025, the weighing of risks and benefits has been done for pregnant women and families—not by them—and does not necessarily reflect the important contribution made by personal values or beliefs of these families. The gatekeeping of information by aligned axis of government aid recipients must cease

Furthermore, women and families should know the truth about federal law 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-22, which provides unique legal protection to vaccine manufacturers and recommending professionals, shielding them from lawsuits over vaccine injuries. This stands in contrast to other pharmaceuticals, where adverse outcomes may result in legal recourse. Mention of this is entirely absent from the article.

Subscribe now

Shared Decision-Making and Informed Consent

Informed consent from patients is mandated by federal law in the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990. The tenets of informed consent include patients understanding to the best of their ability and highest point of satisfaction, the benefits, risks, alternatives to medical treatment offered to them, as well as what happens if they choose not to decide. It is crucial to highlight that leading professional bodies state that this is the mandate for professional conduct in communicating with patients about their medical options, including:

American College of Nurse-Midwives, ACNM, Position Statement: "Shared Decision Making in Midwifery Care" (2016):

“Shared decision making is a central tenet of the midwifery model of care. It includes respectful exchange of information and supports the individual’s autonomy in health decisions.”

This is echoed by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG, Committee Opinion No. 439, Informed Consent (reaffirmed 2021)

"Informed consent is a process of communication between the patient and physician that results in the patient’s authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention."

And it is further elucidated in the ACNM Code of Ethics (2015):

“Midwives have a professional obligation to provide full and accurate information and to respect the informed choices of the individual receiving care, including choices that may differ from the midwife’s recommendations.”

And finally, ACOG Committee Opinion No. 664, Refusal of Medically Recommended Treatment During Pregnancy (June 2016), clearly states:

"Pregnant women should be supported in their decisions, and their autonomy should be respected. Coercive or punitive legal approaches to maternal decision making are not appropriate."

Informed consent is undergirded by the freedom to refuse or decline medical treatment without coercion, and without fear of retribution (such as having social services contacted for declining vaccinations). This guidance underscores that healthcare decisions must not be imposed through manipulation, pressure, or fear-based tactics (such as inability to enroll a child in day care or school). True consent cannot exist in the absence of freedom to decline. Coercion—whether implicit or explicit—violates ethical standards and undermines trust in the clinician-patient relationship.

In the context of mRNA vaccines in pregnancy, shared decision-making is not only legally and ethically appropriate but essential. Women deserve the right to receive complete, transparent information, including acknowledgment of unknowns, so they can make informed decisions consistent with their beliefs, values, and vision for their family.

Brown University should state unequivocally that they fully support women’s decisions about vaccination and reject on moral and ethical grounds practices such as social services consults for declining this or other vaccinations. While providing a one sided view of medical decision making may not be overtly coercive, doing so steers women towards the outcome desired by the practitioner, and does not guide women towards making their own personal decision. In short, it manipulates women and their families. Manipulation may not be identical to coercion, but it is a close cousin, unequivocally unethical, and a stark violation of informed consent principles.

Risks

Acknowledging Scientific Uncertainty

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, while authorized for emergency use, lack long-term safety data, especially in pregnant and pediatric populations. Similarly, the long-term adverse effects of COVID-19 injections were not fully understood initially. Now numerous research studies show that the vaccines are fraught with serious risks. The article’s assertion that mRNA vaccines are unequivocally safe in pregnancy overlooks these uncertainties and the wealth of data indicating harm. Both SARS-CoV-2 infection and mRNA vaccines introduce spike protein, which some studies have concluded has serious adverse effects, sometimes termed “spikeopathy” (Parry et al., 2023). Presenting vaccination as basically risk-free while highlighting infection risks creates an imbalanced narrative that undermines informed choice.

Transparent Risk Assessment

Severe COVID-19 outcomes in children and young adults are exceedingly rare, with a mortality risk near zero for healthy individuals under 18 (CDC, 2024). In contrast, mRNA vaccines carry documented risks, including myocarditis (1–2 cases per 10,000 in young males), and rare cases of anaphylaxis or Guillain-Barré Syndrome (Vaillant et al., 2023) and blood clots (Bergman, 2025). For pregnant women, short-term data suggest no significant increase in miscarriage or preterm birth (Nature Communications, 2022), yet long-term fetal outcomes remain unstudied. Other data dispute this, showing a far increase in miscarriage rates (Thorp, 2023), pointing to major flaws in research and potential oversights of data or even cover-ups. Families deserve a clear presentation of these trade-offs. Dismissing vaccine hesitancy as unscientific ignores the rational basis for caution with novel therapies during pregnancy.

Vaccination and use of novel therapies during pregnancy has, in the history of obstetrics been regarded as an unacceptable risk to both mother and developing baby. The reasons for the violation of this historically sacrosanct rule have not been explained in the article and, for informed consent to be applied properly, must be fully explained.

Alternatives to Vaccination

From the beginning of the pandemic, prevention as an intervention was often dismissed, including well-established nutrition-based immune support protocols. Safety concerns and pregnancy risks are paramount concerns when something as precious and sacred as a burgeoning human life is in balance, and the medical system has historically recognized this truth. Pregnant women should be informed how to naturally strengthen their immune systems, for example, by optimizing vitamin D levels, which are linked to reduced severity of viral infections (Aygun, 2022). Ferritin and hemoglobin levels should also be evaluated, as iron deficiency is common and associated with increased infection severity (Strauss, 1978).

Many people with COVID-19 reportedly benefited from hydroxychloroquine and zinc administration (Zelenko, et al, 2020). Hydroxychloroquine is among the most well-researched medications globally and has a long-standing history of use during pregnancy and lactation—unlike mRNA-based genetic vaccines, which are novel and lack longitudinal safety data. Hydroxychloroquine is actually prescribed during pregnancy complicated by autoimmune disorders of the mother to reduce complications such as preeclampsia. Furthermore, this drug is well studied and does not enter the breastmilk in sufficient amounts to cause problems for the nursing infant. Yet the Brown article completely avoids mention of any alternatives to vaccination.

The Valid Choice of Doing Nothing

Another medical option that goes unmentioned in the article is to proceed without medical intervention and allow nature to take its course. The absolute risk of COVID-19 causing severe harm to a developing baby is exceedingly low. The highest risk appears to occur when infection strikes late in pregnancy and leads to surgical delivery, which is a physician's preference rather than a clinical indication (Haphsey et al, 2021). These scenarios represent the worst outcomes for mother and baby.

Relative risk assessments may suggest that complications from COVID-19 vaccination may be more likely to affect the unborn child than the infection itself. Families need to be informed of this, and its omission is a flagrant violation of informed consent.

Respecting Personal Choice

Medical decisions are deeply personal and shaped by diverse values. Recommending that pregnant women vaccinate without acknowledging potential risks or respecting individual beliefs is unethical, especially in a climate where religious exemptions are well-recognized and completely legal in 46 out of 50 states. Shared decision-making requires full disclosure of known and unknown risks, empowering parents to make choices aligned with their values.

Recommendations

We urge Brown University Health Services to revise its guidance as follows:

1. Disclose any institutional conflict of interest -such as liability protection of vaccine manufactures and financial incentive to encourage vaccination.

2. Acknowledge the experimental nature of mRNA vaccines and the absence of long-term data in pregnancy and pediatric populations.

3. Disclose serious adverse events, such as myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell's Palsy, anaphylaxis, and blood clots alongside potential benefits like maternal antibody transfer to infants.

4. Emphasize patient autonomy in the shared decision-making process and respect diverse values, providing assurance of non-retaliation and respect for autonomous decision-making.

5. Engage with patient advocacy groups and independent researchers to address public concerns and restore trust in the medical profession.

6. Retract their article on pregnancy, breastfeeding and the COVID-19 vaccination.

7. Publish a corrective article reflecting the many risks to pregnancy that some of the science suggests indicates is present for COVID-19 vaccination.

8. Publish an article showing the lack of evidence of COVID-19 vaccination’s benefits to pregnant women and their developing babies.

9. Respond to this letter within 14 days, indicating your willingness to take corrective action, and to avoid further action on this matter by the World Council for Health. We can be reached at wchusa.org@gmail.com

Conclusion

Ethical medical guidance requires honesty, transparency, and respect for patient autonomy. By presenting mRNA vaccine science as settled, Brown Health continues to undermine public trust. We call on Brown Health to revise its guidance, provide balanced information, and empower families with tools for informed decision-making. It is not only okay to trust women and families to make the best decision for their families - it is prohibited by medical ethical considerations around informed consent not to do so. Together, we can uphold the principles of ethical care and rebuild trust in healthcare institutions.

In Truth and Honor,

Sierra Hamm, RN, BSN

Mark Brody, CCH

Bretigne Schaffer

Lisa Lopes, M.S. NBC-HWC

Good Friday Blood Drives Explained

The Reconciliation — Fri, 27 Jun 2025 08:44:14 GMT

Watch Sierra explain Good Friday Blood Drives on Rumble!

Passionate about an mRNA-uninjected Blood Supply but Donation Ineligible?

The Reconciliation — Wed, 25 Jun 2025 20:44:23 GMT

Let’s be honest: there’s nothing more disheartening than wanting to help, but being told you’re not eligible.

Maybe you’ve had a past diagnosis, are over a certain age, under a certain weight, on a medication, or just… red-flagged. Whatever the reason, you’ve been excluded from traditional blood donation. And in a world where the need for clean, ethical, mRNA-injection free blood is rising by the day, it can feel like you’re sitting on the sidelines of something urgent and historic.

But here’s the truth: you don’t need to donate blood to help build a safe, sovereign supply.

In fact, some of the most important roles in this movement aren’t about rolling up your sleeve—but rolling up your sleeves metaphorically and getting to work in other ways.

1. Become a Research Participant

You might not be able to donate blood—but you ARE blood. Your story, your records, your health status, your lived experience… all of it is invaluable data.

Are you mRNA-free? Do you have bloodwork from before and after injections, transfusions, or surgeries? Are you pregnant or postpartum and navigating your own choices? Your data could inform future blood screening technologies and shape ethical collection protocols.

📌 Join a participant-funded study through groups like the Control Group Cooperative, The World Council for Health Detox Study, or review a dozen of other research projects at React19. There are many citizen-led initiatives documenting the effects of mRNA injections vs. mRNA injection- free.

2. Sponsor a Donor

Just like missionaries or athletes, many qualified donors simply can’t afford to take unpaid time off work, travel to collection sites, or cover childcare costs. That’s where you come in.

💉 Cover the costs of someone else’s donation. Pay for transportation, time off, or even just a high-quality meal post-draw. One healthy, mRNA injection-free donor could impact multiple lives—but they may need a little logistical help getting there.

3. Host or Promote a Local Blood Freedom Event

Not everyone knows there are efforts underway to create an mRNA injection-free blood supply. You can change that.

🎤 Host a home gathering, screen a documentary such as Blood for Profit, or speak at your local church or community center. Invite someone from The Reconciliation or another freedom-focused blood initiative to present. Set up a booth at a wellness fair. Awareness is the first domino. Be a megaphone. Share, repost, and tag like it matters—because it does.

4. Lobby for Directed Donation Rights

Believe it or not, in many states, the ability to choose if you can donate blood to yourself, or select your own donors is not protected by law, and nearly impossible to choose your own blood donor—even if that person is healthy, willing, and mRNA injection-free.

🗳️ Call or write your state legislators and demand support for Directed Donation Bills. Better yet, connect with teams already working on the front lines of blood sovereignty legislation (like ours!). We’ll equip you with templates, bill summaries, and talking points.You can even volunteer to track legislation or be a district contact for your area.

5. Offer Professional Skills

Are you an attorney? A graphic designer? A nurse? A lab tech? A marketing strategist? A homeschool mom with a gift for organization?

🎯 Your skills could be the missing link in launching a clean blood pilot site or bringing awareness to a state bill. Join Impact Reconciliation and tell us what you love to do—we’ll match you with a need.

6. Pray—and Let People Know You’re Praying

We believe this is a spiritual movement just as much as a medical one. If you feel called to intercession, cover this initiative in prayer. And tell us you’re doing it.

🙏 Whether you pray by name for donors, labs, legislators, or soon-to-be parents facing hard hospital decisions, your quiet support adds a ripple of power that we feel.

And when you say it out loud, you normalize something deeper: that blood is sacred. That life has meaning. That we’re not just meat sacks in need of a fluid refill. We’re human beings, created in the image of God, and our genetic integrity matters.

A blood system built on choice, transparency, and truth needs more than just clean veins.

It needs clean hearts. Brave voices. Steady hands. Wide networks. Faithful supporters. Thoughtful givers. Persistent advocates. Prayer warriors. It needs you.

So if you’ve ever felt like your “disqualified” status puts you on the bench, think again. You are already in the bloodstream of this movement. Welcome to the heart of it.

Ready to Take Action?

🔗 Join the Impact Reconciliation Movement

Thanks for reading The Reconciliation! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Episode 91 on Real History with Melissa

The Reconciliation — Fri, 20 Jun 2025 13:45:15 GMT

Please listen to episode 91 of Real History with Melissa, from Cutting through the Matrix, as she interviews Sierra about the global quest for unvaccinated blood.

They discuss current events such as Black Rock investing in blood banks and laboratories capable of mass gene editing, the open unleashing of self-replicating vaccines “Replicon”, and what you can do to protect yourself and your loved ones.

First 13 minutes were youtube acceptable per our censorship overlords…. click the subsequent player to continue the podcast, and be sure to visit

https://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/and find the links mentioned in the show.

This is some seriously FREE SPEECH right here! Click below to continue listening if download not available

https://www.bitchute.com/video/4QuZTVdBvAFA/

Subscribe now

The Case for Screening Donated Blood for mRNA Contamination

The Reconciliation — Wed, 18 Jun 2025 17:11:21 GMT

The history of blood transfusions is marred by preventable tragedies. The spread of Hepatitis C and HIV through tainted blood supplies in the 20th century serves as a grim reminder that delayed action in screening blood for emerging threats can have catastrophic consequences. Given these lessons, it is imperative that we confront a new and pressing concern: the transmission of mRNA vaccines through blood transfusions.

A New Form of Contamination?

The scientific community is increasingly recognizing that mRNA vaccines are transmissible. Several independent laboratories and researchers have provided compelling evidence supporting this claim:

Kevin McKernan, a genomics expert, presented findings at the Back to Basics conference showing that synthetic DNA samples, originating from mRNA vaccines, are found in the body at a greater volume than the vaccine itself, indicating replication.
Created for Health Vaccine Residual Analysis has further corroborated these findings with a quantum based analysis and is conducting research with the goal of turning off the production of spike protein.
My Cycle Story, published peer-reviewed research article demonstrating over 6,000 incidents of non-mRNA vaccinated women experiencing severe symptoms after close exposure to someone who had recently received the mRNA vaccine.
Basic blood labs reveal that people who never became sick with covid, nor produced antibodies (confirmed by negative IgG nucleocapsid testing), denied taking the genetic vaccination, and yet are somehow still manufacturing spike protein.
Genetic testing for synthetic mRNA based is available through a German company.
Dr. Ana Mihalcea, has demonstrated the presence of lipid nano particles housing synthetic mRNA in blood samples from donors who never received the gene vaccine.

If a pharmaceutical product is capable of replication and transmission, it must be classified accordingly—as a communicable disease or, as some legal arguments suggest, a genetically modified organism (GMO).

The Legal Framework

Globally, there is an effort to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for potential harms caused by their products. In Australia, a legal case is being built against Pfizer and regulatory agencies, arguing that mRNA vaccines should be classified as genetically modified organisms. Notably, Moderna already applied for and received approval as a GMO in Australia—an admission that should raise serious concerns worldwide.

In the U.S., Kentucky law mandates that blood establishments screen for any known causative agent of blood-borne communicable diseases using FDA-approved tests (KY Rev Stat 214.452). This statute presents both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, the transmissibility of mRNA vaccines should logically necessitate their inclusion in required screenings. On the other hand, the requirement for FDA-approved testing creates a significant barrier, as history has shown that regulatory agencies are slow to act—often at the cost of human lives.

The Cost of Inaction

We have been here before. The refusal to promptly screen for HIV in blood donations resulted in thousands of hemophiliacs and patients with clotting disorders receiving contaminated blood products. The scandal of the contaminated blood crisis in the U.K., where children were given infected transfusions at school, is a tragic example of systemic failure.

Recent history shows that regulatory agencies and blood banks often operate reactively rather than proactively. A 5-cent test for Hepatitis C contamination was ignored by the Australian Red Cross, leading to untold suffering and preventable deaths. How many lives were lost simply because the industry refused to acknowledge an emerging risk?

Subscribe now

A Call to Action

The case for screening blood for mRNA contamination is clear:

If communicable diseases are screened for in donated blood, and the mRNA vaccine behaves like a contagious agent, it must also be screened.
The burden of proof should not fall on the public to demonstrate harm; rather, the medical establishment must prove safety beyond doubt.
Waiting for FDA approval of mRNA blood screening tests means countless individuals will continue to receive potentially tainted transfusions.

The parallels between the tainted blood scandals of the past and today’s concerns about mRNA transmission are too stark to ignore. If history teaches us anything, it is that waiting for regulators to act after the damage is done is not an acceptable strategy. We must demand transparency, accountability, and immediate action to protect the integrity of the blood supply.

Lives depend on it.

Prion Contamination in Blood Supply 2.0?

The Reconciliation — Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:55:19 GMT

Introduction

Prion diseases, once considered rare, are now on the rise. According to data from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) in the U.S. increased from 2007 to 2020, with annual cases rising from 264 to 511. The causes of this increase remain unclear, raising concerns about potential contributing factors, including medical interventions such as mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. Given the catastrophic history of prion diseases infiltrating the blood supply, it is crucial to explore potential risks and ensure the safety of current medical practices.

Understanding Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and the History of Mad Cow Disease in the Blood Supply

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) is a rare but fatal neurodegenerative disorder caused by prions—misfolded proteins that trigger a chain reaction, leading to brain damage and death. Symptoms of CJD include rapidly progressing dementia, muscle stiffness, and neurological deterioration, culminating in a vegetative state before death. The disease is part of a broader category of prion diseases, which affect both humans and animals.

One of the most infamous prion diseases is Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as Mad Cow Disease. BSE emerged in the 1980s in the United Kingdom when cattle were fed protein supplements derived from infected animals. The disease spread rapidly, leading to an outbreak that ultimately resulted in the transmission of its human variant, Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), through the consumption of contaminated beef.

The risk of prion contamination extended beyond food sources and into the blood supply. In the early 2000s, several cases were documented where individuals contracted vCJD through blood transfusions from asymptomatic donors who later developed the disease. This discovery led to widespread blood donation restrictions in many countries, particularly for individuals who had spent significant time in regions affected by BSE outbreaks.

What Are Prion Diseases?

Prion diseases are a unique class of neurodegenerative disorders characterized by the accumulation of misfolded prion proteins in the brain. Unlike viruses or bacteria, prions contain no genetic material. Instead, they propagate by inducing normal proteins to adopt their abnormal structure, leading to a cascade of neuronal damage.

Prion diseases include:

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and its variant (vCJD)
Kuru (transmitted through ritualistic cannibalism in Papua New Guinea)
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Mad Cow Disease)
Chronic Wasting Disease (affecting deer and elk)

These diseases are invariably fatal and have no known cure. Transmission can occur through contaminated medical equipment, surgical procedures, and, as history has shown, blood transfusions.

The Need for Research on Prion Disease and COVID-19 mRNA-Based Injections

In recent years, concerns have emerged regarding the potential relationship between mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines and prion diseases. Some researchers hypothesize that the spike protein produced by these vaccines could contribute to protein misfolding disorders.

Furthermore, over 20 individuals have been reported to have developed and died from prion disease within two weeks of receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine. This alarming pattern underscores the urgent need for deeper investigation. The theoretical mechanism involves the possibility that the synthetic mRNA used in vaccines may induce the misfolding of specific proteins, triggering a prion-like cascade. Some studies suggest that certain regions of the spike protein share structural similarities with prion-related sequences, potentially leading to unintended consequences.

Given the past experiences with vCJD entering the blood supply, it is imperative to investigate whether mRNA vaccine components or their byproducts could have prion-related implications. Research should focus on:

Long-term neurological follow-ups of vaccinated individuals
Prion detection in blood from vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals
Animal studies assessing potential prion-like activity from vaccine-induced spike proteins
Independent studies free from pharmaceutical industry influence to ensure unbiased results

Conclusion: Transparency and Scientific Integrity

Public health policies must be guided by rigorous scientific inquiry, which was suspended during the panic of 2020. Historical lessons from Mad Cow Disease and blood transfusions serve as a warning against dismissing potential risks without thorough investigation. Governments, research institutions, and independent scientists must work together to ensure the safety of medical interventions, particularly those with widespread administration. Transparency, independent verification, and continued research into the potential risks of prion diseases associated with mRNA vaccines will help rebuild public trust in the medical system while ensuring long-term safety for all.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Prion diseases overview. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/prions/about/index.html

Classen, J. (2021). COVID-19 RNA-based vaccines and the risk of prion disease. Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 5(1), 1-3. Retrieved from https://www.scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdf

National Institutes of Health. (2023). New method accurately detects prions in blood. Retrieved from https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/new-method-accurately-detects-prions-blood

Nishijima, Y., et al. (2023). Emergence of a new Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: 26 cases of the human version of Mad Cow Disease days after a COVID-19 injection. Preprint. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367167725

Seneff, S., et al. (2023). Spike protein-induced neurodegenerative conditions following COVID-19 vaccination. Journal of Neurological Disorders, 10(2), 45-59. Retrieved from https://x.com/blacktomthepyr8/status/1882493405563097423?s=12

University of Nebraska Medical Center. (2023). Prion disease rising in the U.S. Retrieved from https://www.unmc.edu/healthsecurity/transmission/2023/12/12/prion-disease-rising-in-the-u-s

Ueda, J., Motohashi, H., Hirai, Y., Yamamoto, K., Murakami, Y., Fukushima, M., & Fujisawa, A. (2024). Concerns regarding transfusions of blood products derived from genetic vaccine recipients and proposals for specific measures. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202403.0881.v1

mRNA free blood supply testimony from Nurse Sierra

The Reconciliation — Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:35:38 GMT

Click to view Sierra explain Direct Blood Donation

WATCH: The Reconciliation Testifies on Behalf of Blood Legislation in WY

The Reconciliation — Fri, 13 Jun 2025 18:56:05 GMT

Subscribe now

A Turning Point in Wyoming: The Day Competing Clean Blood Coalitions Stood United

On February 26, 2025, something extraordinary happened in the Wyoming Senate Labor, Health & Social Services Committee hearing on SB0135: a group of organizations that could be seen as competitors came together to fight for a common cause—the right to directed blood donation.

Though the bill ultimately did not make it to the Senate floor this year, the hearing marked a historic moment of unity among grassroots leaders, practitioners, and advocates for medical freedom.

The testimony portion of the hearing starts “getting good” around minute 11, with three key speakers that lit the room on fire with conviction and clarity:

Clinton Ohler of Safeblood – [Minute 12]
Liz James of Blessed By His Blood – [Minute 17]
Sierra Hamm of The Reconciliation – [Minute 21]

These three leaders represented separate organizations, each with its own mission, model, and following—but on that day, they stood shoulder to shoulder with one message: the people must retain the right to choose who gives them blood.

A Stacked Deck

Getting to speak wasn’t easy. The opposition—namely a representative from a large blood establishment and a local hospital lab tech—were given generous time and priority to speak against the bill. Supporters of SB0135 were cut off early and had to fight to even have their voices heard. Many of us were left feeling it was a deeply unbalanced process, especially considering that committee members had to vote on whether the bill would progress.

In the end, the bill was held back. It didn’t move to the floor for a full vote. But what did move forward was the foundation of a coalition—forged through fire and opposition. That moment of collective testimony proved that we’re stronger together, and that this cause transcends organization names, logos, and lists.

What’s Next?

We believe this issue will come back next year—stronger and more unified than before. The voices that weren’t given full room to speak will not be silenced. This is only the beginning.

To watch the full hearing replay, visit:
📺 Senate Labor, Health & Social Services Committee, Feb 26, 2025
🔖 Start around minute 11 for the most compelling testimony.

Global Good Friday Blood Drives

The Reconciliation — Fri, 13 Jun 2025 18:51:57 GMT

March 24, 2025

This Good Friday, we’re organizing a unique kind of blood drive—one made up entirely of unvaccinated donors offering blood into the general supply.

It’s happening on April 18th, and it’s more than a logistical effort. It’s a spiritual one. It’s a declaration of love and a call to healing.

🧬 Why the Distinction Matters

The introduction of mRNA technology into the human bloodstream—through COVID-19 vaccines and other gene therapies—has raised important ethical, scientific, and spiritual questions. While the broader public may still be learning about these developments, many individuals who’ve declined mRNA-based injections have done so out of a desire to preserve their genetic integrity—to remain “unaltered,” in a world rapidly embracing synthetic and transhuman interventions.

But here’s the problem: blood donation systems don’t distinguish between mRNA-injected and non-injected donors. There is no labeling, no separation, no informed consent for recipients. This will change, but it takes time that emergencies don’t wait for.

💉 Why Unvaccinated Blood?

Many of us who refused the gene therapy product called the COVID-19 vaccine were disgraced, bankrupted, ostracized, and heartbroken—not just by media narratives, but by friends, family, coworkers, and even strangers. We were accused of being selfish, ignorant, dangerous. Some of us lost jobs. Others lost relationships. Still others lost everything.

And yet, many of us stood firm. Not out of rebellion, but out of conviction—to protect what we believed to be sacred: the human genome as God created it, and the integrity of our bodies and blood.

Now, years later, the data is emerging, and it’s abundantly clear: the vaccinated need unvaccinated blood just as desperately as we do. The health effects of the mRNA injections are undeniable—causing myocarditis, immune dysregulation, fertility disruptions, and even increased mortality in the young and healthy.

But this blood drive is not a told-you-so moment.

It’s a Good Friday moment.

Subscribe now

✝️ Why We’re Donating Anyway

Even as many still cling to the belief that the injections were good, necessary, or even virtuous—we give.

Even as the systems that oppressed us remain unrepentant—we give.

We donate—not to prove a point—but as an act of unconditional love and sacrifice. As a picture of what Christ did for us on the cross. While we were still sinners… He shed His blood for us.

We are choosing to let go of the transgressions committed against us, to release bitterness, to heal broken hearts, and to love our enemies—not with words, but with something far more powerful:

Our blood.

🧬 Why Your Blood Matters

If you are one of the few who resisted the pressure, who said no to gene therapy, your blood carries a legacy that is now rare, valuable, and deeply needed.

It can give peace of mind to patients who are also trying to avoid synthetic mRNA products
It can support future research, registries, and a more transparent, ethical blood system
And it can serve as a living witness of grace in a world desperate for it

Imagine if you were in an accident and needed blood sooner than you could arrange for an unvaccinated donor… If we, the covid-19 unvaccinated, donate our blood, we will dilute the supply and increase the likelihood of receiving an mRNA injection- free blood transfusion.

🌿 How to Participate in Good Friday Blood Drives

Contact a local blood bank and ask how to donate during the week of April 14-18.
Join a clean blood registry
Host a donation event with your community or church
Connect with us at impactreconciliation.care to stay informed, get involved, and support our ongoing work
Share this message with others who resisted and are looking for a way to give back

“God… gave us the ministry of reconciliation.” — 2 Corinthians 5:18

Let us be ministers of reconciliation today, not with pride or bitterness, but with blood.

Because Christ shed His blood for our transgressions—even before we knew we needed forgiveness.

Will you do the same?

This isn’t just a donation—it’s a declaration.

That healing is possible.
That truth and love can co-exist.
That we can be reconciled, even when the world says we should stay divided.

Ep. 115 "Sierra: Blood, Spooky Particles, and Quantum Connections"

The Reconciliation — Fri, 13 Jun 2025 17:13:19 GMT

Dear Melissa interviews me on her podcast, Real History. We cover a plethora of subjects, including the Blood and Quantum Midwifery/ Biology.

Listen to hear how “Mother’s bodies are the first MedBeds”, and more! Please visit the following Podcast links:

"Real History" with Melissa - Ep. 91 - "Blood and Reconciliation" - Nov. 7, 2024

Impact Reconciliation …

Eleven States Filed Direct Blood Donation & mRNA Labeling Bills 2025

The Reconciliation — Wed, 11 Jun 2025 08:44:16 GMT

In recent years, the conversation around blood safety and transparency has gained momentum. As medical advancements introduce new technologies, including mRNA-based therapies, a growing number of patients and healthcare advocates are calling for greater transparency in the blood donation system.

Across the United States, multiple states have introduced legislation addressing the rights of blood recipients, the disclosure of donor vaccination status, and the ability to request directed blood donations. This article provides an overview of the latest legislative efforts and their potential implications.

The 2025 legislative session has seen bills proposed in Tennessee, Illinois, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Idaho, South Carolina, Maryland, and Kentucky. These bills seek to empower patients with greater choice. Below is an analysis of the key legislative efforts across these states.

Overview:

Idaho – H0131: Blood Donation and Transfusion Act

Illinois – HB1105: An Act to Amend the Illinois Clinical Laboratory and Blood Bank Act

Kentucky: HB155, HB601, and HB745078: An Act to Establish Provisions Related to the Disclosure of COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Blood Donations

Maryland – HB1456: Blood Donation Transparency Act

Rhode Island- House Bill H5864

South Carolina – H3119: Blood Donation Choice Act

Tennessee – SB0828: An Act to Amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Relative to Blood Donations

Texas – SB125

Utah – HB0400: Blood Transfusion Amendments

Subscribe now

States and Bill(s) Information

Idaho – H0131: Blood Donation and Transfusion Act

∙ Key Provisions:

o Donor Disclosure: Requires blood donors to provide information about their vaccination status, including details on COVID-19 vaccinations.

o Recipient Rights: Permits patients to request blood from donors with specific vaccination profiles in non-emergency scenarios.

∙ Legislative Progress:

o Introduced in the Idaho House.

o Currently pending review by the Health and Welfare Committee.

∙ Implications:

o Focuses on increased transparency regarding donor vaccination history, which may affect donor willingness and overall supply if not balanced by public health data.

Illinois – HB1105: An Act to Amend the Illinois Clinical Laboratory and Blood Bank Act

∙ Key Provisions:

o Mandatory Testing: Requires blood banks to test all donated blood for the presence of any COVID-19 vaccine components and other messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine components.

o Donor Disclosure: Mandates that blood donors disclose whether they have received any COVID-19 or other mRNA vaccines.

∙ Legislative Progress:

o Referred to the Rules Committee on January 9, 2025.

∙ Implications:

o Testing Logistics: Implementing universal testing for vaccine components could strain laboratory resources and increase operational costs.

o Donor Privacy: Requiring disclosure of vaccination status may deter potential donors concerned about privacy.

o Scientific Validity: The necessity and efficacy of testing for vaccine components in blood donations may be subject to scientific debate.

Kentucky Bills: HB155, HB601, and HB745

HB155

∙ Key Provisions:

o Patient Option for Unvaccinated Blood: Establishes a framework allowing patients to request blood exclusively from unvaccinated donors in non-emergency situations.

∙ Legislative Progress:

o Introduced in the Kentucky House.

o Referred to the Health and Family Services Committee for review.

∙ Implications:

o Reflects growing patient interest in directed donations based on vaccination status, though it may conflict with broader public health data indicating the safety of all donor blood.

HB601

∙ Key Provisions:

o Segregation and Labeling: Mandates that blood banks segregate and label donated blood based on the donor’s vaccination status to facilitate directed donations.

∙ Legislative Progress:

o Introduced in the House.

o Currently awaiting assignment to a committee.

∙ Implications:

o Introduces operational complexities in blood bank management and could impact the efficiency of blood processing if not carefully implemented.

HB745

Key Provisions :

o Focus on Internal Tracking: Focused on enhancing internal tracking and reporting of donor vaccination status for regulatory and quality assurance purposes.

o Privacy and Data Security: The bill includes provisions to ensure that any collection of vaccination data remains confidential and is used solely for maintaining high safety standards in blood donation practices.

∙ Legislative Progress:

o Introduced in the Kentucky House.

o (The correct committee referral should be verified on the official Kentucky legislative website; initial reports citing a Judiciary Committee referral have been revised.)

Maryland – HB1456: Blood Donation Transparency Act

∙ Key Provisions:

o Transparency and Informed Consent: Requires blood banks to disclose donor vaccination status when requested, ensuring that patients are fully informed about the blood they receive.

o Data Handling: Establishes protocols for how vaccination data is collected and shared with patients.

∙ Legislative Progress:

o First reading in the House Health and Government Operations Committee.

o A hearing is scheduled, with further debate expected as the session progresses.

∙ Implications:

o Seeks to reinforce informed consent in blood transfusions while balancing public health safety and privacy concerns.

The Rhode Island House Bill H5864 was introduced on February 28, 2025, and referred to the House Health & Human Services Committee. A hearing was held on March 13, 2025, where the committee recommended the measure be held for further study.
LEGISCAN.COM

The bill is sponsored by Representatives Charlene Lima (D) and Paul Santucci (R).
LEGISCAN.COM

If enacted, H5864 would allow individuals to request autologous or directed blood donations in writing, provided such requests are medically feasible.
STATUS.RILEGISLATURE.GOV

South Carolina – H3119: Blood Donation Choice Act

∙ Key Provisions:

o Directed Donations: Provides patients the option to designate specific blood donors for their medical procedures.

o Facility Obligations: Requires healthcare facilities to accommodate reasonable patient requests for directed blood donations.

∙ Legislative Progress:

o Prefiled in the House in late 2024.

o Referred to the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

o Awaiting further committee action.

∙ Implications:

o Aims to boost patient satisfaction and perceived safety; however, it may introduce challenges in maintaining an efficient, broadly compatible blood supply.

South Dakota – HB1078: An Act to Establish Provisions Related to the Disclosure of COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Blood Donations

∙ Key Provisions:

o Donor Disclosure: Requires blood donors to disclose their COVID-19 vaccination status at the time of donation.

o Recipient Information: Obligates blood banks to inform recipients of the COVID-19 vaccination status of the blood they receive, upon request.

∙ Legislative Progress:

o First read in the House and referred to the House Health and Human Services Committee on January 21, 2025.

o Scheduled for a hearing on January 30, 2025.

∙ Implications:

o Transparency vs. Privacy: While promoting transparency for recipients, the bill raises concerns about donor confidentiality.

o Operational Adjustments: Blood banks may need to modify their data collection and storage practices to comply with disclosure requirements.

o Public Perception: Providing vaccination status information could influence public perception of blood safety, regardless of scientific evidence.

Tennessee – SB0828: An Act to Amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68, Relative to Blood Donations

∙ Key Provisions:

o Donor Disclosure: Requires individuals or entities collecting blood donations for transfusions to mandate that donors disclose their COVID-19 vaccination status.

o Recipient Rights: Allows patients in non-emergency situations to request blood transfusions from donors based on the donor’s COVID-19 vaccination status.

∙ Legislative Progress:

o Filed for introduction on February 4, 2025.

o Passed on first consideration on February 10, 2025.

o Passed on second consideration and referred to the Senate Health and Welfare Committee on February 12, 2025.

∙ Implications:

o Operational Challenges: Implementing donor disclosure requirements may necessitate changes in blood collection protocols and record-keeping.

o Supply Impact: Segregating blood based on vaccination status may affect the availability of compatible blood units.

Texas – SB125

∙ Updated Provisions:

o SB125 replaces the earlier SB1584. The current version refines requirements related to autologous and directed blood donations.

∙ Key Points:

o Physician Orders & Compliance: The bill continues to require that blood banks follow physicians’ orders concerning autologous or directed donations.

o Enhanced Donor Screening: New language in SB125 introduces or clarifies enhanced screening measures for donor eligibility, ensuring safety and transparency.

o Communication Requirements: There are updated provisions regarding the notification process for patients about donor characteristics and blood sourcing.

∙ Status:

o SB125 represents Texas’s current legislative approach, reflecting changes meant to modernize donor eligibility and safety standards.

Utah – HB0400: Blood Transfusion Amendments

∙ Key Provisions:

o Patient Autonomy: Empowers patients by allowing them to supply their own blood or choose specific donors for their transfusions.

o Disclosure Requirements: Mandates that healthcare facilities clearly inform patients about the source of transfused blood.

∙ Legislative Progress:

o Introduced in the House early in the 2025 session.

o Referred to the House Health and Human Services Committee and received favorable committee recommendations.

o Currently under review in the Senate Rules Committee.

∙ Implications:

o Enhances patient choice in transfusion practices while potentially raising questions about the impact on blood supply logistics and overall donor pool diversity.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Wyoming- HB 0135 “Autologous or Direct Blood Donations,”

Key provisions:

Hospital and Healthcare Facility Requirements: Licensed hospitals and healthcare facilities in Wyoming must permit patients scheduled for medical procedures to make autologous or direct blood donations if the facility offers blood donation services.
Blood Bank Compliance: Blood banks are required to adhere to healthcare providers’ orders for autologous or direct blood donations, unless the donor is unfit due to health concerns such as illness, heart conditions, insufficient weight, or other medical reasons.
Fee Structure: Blood banks may charge up to their standard fees for facilitating these donations and may impose storage fees for the donated blood until it is utilized by the intended recipient

The Bigger Picture: What This Means for Patients and Donors

The growing legislative focus on blood safety and transparency reflects a shift in public consciousness. As concerns about synthetic biologics and mRNA-based therapies rise, many patients are seeking greater control over the blood they receive during medical procedures. These bills highlight key themes that are shaping the future of blood donation policy:Informed Consent. Patients are demanding more transparency regarding the biological history of their transfusions.

Stay Informed and Get Involved

If you believe in the right to informed medical choices and ethical blood donation practices, now is the time to take action. Stay updated on legislative developments in your state, support initiatives promoting transparency, and join The Reconciliation, working to establish safe and ethical blood supply options.

The future of blood donation is changing—make sure your voice is heard.

Share The Reconciliation

Directed Blood Donation: Addressing Risk

The Reconciliation — Sun, 08 Jun 2025 13:16:13 GMT

Summary:

1. Directed blood donation has been practiced in the U.S. for over 30 years, originating in response to HIV and Hepatitis C contamination in the blood supply.

2. It is highly safe, as all donors—whether public or private—undergo the same risk assessments and screenings.

3. While directed donors test positive for diseases at a higher rate, no evidence suggests this affects recipients, as all transfused blood is screened to be disease-free. Directed donors benefit from early detection of conditions they might not have known about for years.

4. Studies show that directed donation is safer for premature infants.

5. Directed donation provides recipients with greater psychological well-being and peace of mind.

6. An invitation to donate blood to a loved one turns many people into first-time donors, expanding the blood supply.

7. Graft versus host disease risk can be drastically reduced with informed consent and patient education to avoid familial donors

8. Multidimensional health includes more than the physical body, but conscience and spirit too

Introduction:

When it comes to blood donations, the primary concern is always safety—ensuring that the blood supply is free from disease, contamination, and potential harm. There has been considerable debate about directed blood donations (where individuals donate specifically for a friend or family member), and some have raised concerns about potential risks, even suggesting that the practice should be avoided due to perceived safety issues. However, when we take a closer look at the evidence, it becomes clear that directed blood donations offer a host of benefits, with risks that are either negligible or theoretical.

Screening and Safety: Equal Treatment for All Donations

First, let’s address a key concern: the screening of blood. While some believe that directed blood donations are less safe than regular donations, this simply isn’t the case. According to the American Red Cross, all blood donations—whether directed, autologous (self-donated), or regular—undergo the same rigorous screening process for diseases such as HIV, hepatitis, and other infectious agents. The blood is tested to the highest standards, and there is no indication that directed donations receive any less scrutiny.

Theoretical Risks vs. Tangible Benefits

The blood establishment wants us to believe that direct donors are more dangerous because they may feel a pressure to lie on the risk assessment form. This is a theoretical risk, that could also be present at office blood drives. Someone may feel embarrassed if they are not able to donate blood with his or her coworkers and decide to lie on a risk questionnaire. Blood donors are told they must give truthful answers by law. If someone answers the risk assessment untruthfully, the screening of the blood is a secondary safety measure to protect the integrity of blood transfusions.

Moreover, an article in Transfusion (Strauss, Barnes, Blanchette, 1990) points out that using a single directed donor for multiple donations to a neonate (for instance) can actually reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted diseases when compared to using blood from multiple donors. The principle here is simple: the more familiar the blood source, the lower the risk of introducing a pathogen from an unknown or new donor. This is particularly crucial for sensitive patients, like infants, who may need small but frequent blood transfusions. Therefore, directed blood donations can be a safer option in specific contexts.

Another article that was published incorrectly reported on the findings of Dorsey, et al.This study was done on 40 million blood donations by the American Red Cross.The research did not evaluate transmission of virus, rather positive screenings for communicable disease markers. The only disease that was elevated in the direct donor group was Hepatitis C. This means that because of that individual being asked to donate blood to a loved one, they were then screened and found to have Hepatitis C, which would have gone undiagnosed for perhaps many years. This is an invaluable health screening service that further serves American communities, and should be promoted and protected, not prohibited.

Simply because a unit of donated blood screens positively for a disease, does not equate to transmission of that blood, because it is discarded! The transmission of hepatitis, HIV, and the 5 other communicable diseases mandated for screening by the FDA is less than 1 in a million chance in the blood supply as a whole.

Psychological Well-Being: A Motivating Force for Donation

While the science of blood safety is clear, another major benefit of directed donation is the psychological sense of well-being it offers to both the donor and the recipient. Many people feel a deep sense of comfort knowing that they are helping a loved one directly, and this often serves as a motivating factor for first-time blood donors. The Red Cross reports that directed donation programs have successfully brought many new individuals into the blood donation system, who, without this personal connection, might not have considered donating (Zeger, et. al., 2007).

Furthermore, for the recipient, receiving blood from someone they know can offer psychological reassurance. While there may be little tangible difference in terms of blood safety between directed and regular donations, the emotional comfort that comes from knowing the donor adds a layer of peace of mind that many find invaluable in stressful medical situations.

Health is the unity of mind, body, and spirit. If one of these is violated, then there can be no health. We are not merely flesh and blood, and as Americans, we have the freedom to act on more than physical reality, but on our conscience and religious convictions as well. We have a fundamental right to choose whose blood we receive into our bodies.

Now, let’s briefly touch on the theoretical risk some believe exists with directed blood donations. The FDA has stated that directed blood donations are “not medically indicated,” due to concerns that they could be less safe than standard donations. However, the scientific literature paints a different picture. A study published in Blood Transfusion (2019) demonstrated that directed blood donations are as safe as those from first-time donors, with no significant increase in the risk of adverse reactions.

The argument for avoiding directed blood donations based on theoretical risks simply does not hold up when weighed against the tangible benefits.

Valid Medical Concerns

There are valid medical considerations, such as graft-versus-host disease, particularly among first-degree relatives. This is when the blood transfusion causes a severe reaction in the host. However, this risk can be mitigated through proper counseling and education—something I do regularly for people seeking directed blood donation, including both covid-19 vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. When people realize the risks, they are more likely to choose nonfamilial donors, but not always. This is because people have different value systems and evaluate risk uniquely. There is also the option to irradiate the blood prior to reception, which is shown to reduce the risk of GVHD.

Moving Toward an Informed and Compassionate Approach

When it comes to the safety of the blood supply, the evidence is clear: directed blood donations are just as safe as other types of blood donations. They offer a number of unique benefits, including a higher degree of psychological well-being for both the donor and recipient and the potential for reduced risk in certain high-risk groups. The idea that directed blood donation poses a significant risk is unfounded, and the practice is both an ethical and effective way to help loved ones in need.

In conclusion, as we navigate the complexities of blood safety, it is important to consider both the science and the human element. Directed blood donations allow us to connect with our loved ones in a meaningful way, ensuring that we can help them in their time of need while still safeguarding their health. So, the next time you consider how to give blood, remember that directed blood donation can be a safe, compassionate, and effective option for all involved.

References:

Dorsey KA, Moritz ED, Steele WR, Eder AF, Stramer SL. A comparison of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis C virus, hepatitis B virus, and human T-lymphotropic virus marker rates for directed versus volunteer blood donations to the American Red Cross during 2005 to 2010. Transfusion. 2013 Jun;53(6):1250-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2012.03904.x. Epub 2012 Sep 25. PMID: 23003320.
Strauss, R. G., Barnes, A., & Blanchette, V. S. (1990). Directed and limited-exposure blood donations for infants and children. Transfusion, 30(1), 68-72. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1537-2995.1990.30190117635.x
American Red Cross. (n.d.). Autologous and directed donations. Retrieved from https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/how-to-donate/types-of-blood-donations/autologous-and-directed-donations.html
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2022, November 18). Important information about directed blood donations are not medically indicated. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/important-information-about-directed-blood-donations-are-not-medically-indicated
Zeger, G., Selogie, E., & Shulman, I. A. (2007). Blood Donation and Collection. Blood Banking and Transfusion Medicine, 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-06981-9.50016-8

The Tragic History of Tainted Blood: A Warning for Today!

The Reconciliation — Sat, 07 Jun 2025 05:00:25 GMT

The history of the blood supply is a sobering one. From the 1980s onward, thousands of people in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia were unknowingly exposed to deadly viruses, including HIV and Hepatitis, through contaminated blood transfusions. What was once a symbol of trust—medical professionals’ promise to care for their patients—became a nightmare for many who received blood products that had been tainted due to lack of proper screening and negligence.

This dark chapter in medical history, which continues to impact survivors and their families today, serves as an urgent reminder: we must ensure that the blood we receive is safe and uncontaminated. And yet, as new threats emerge in the form of synthetic mRNA and gene-editing technologies, we are once again faced with the uncomfortable question of whether the medical system is doing enough to safeguard our blood supply.

The HIV and Hepatitis C Crisis: A Failure to Protect Patients

In the 1980s, the blood supply was severely compromised by the presence HIV, which caused the global AIDS epidemic. Hemophiliacs, who relied on blood-clotting factors to manage their condition, were among the hardest hit. These individuals received contaminated blood products that were unknowingly infected with the HIV virus. At the time, blood banks did not have the necessary testing protocols in place to identify HIV, and it wasn’t until the early 1980s that blood banks began screening for the virus.

The tragedy did not stop with HIV. Alongside it, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C were also transmitted through contaminated blood products. Many hemophiliacs and patients receiving blood transfusions contracted these viruses, leading to chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and in many cases, death. While some countries acted quickly to implement better testing, others were slower to respond, and lives were lost as a result.

Subscribe now

The United Kingdom: A Scandal of Negligence

In the United Kingdom, the blood contamination crisis took on a more public dimension with the notorious “Tainted Blood Scandal.” Between the 1970s and 1980s, British hemophiliacs were given blood products infected with HIV and Hepatitis C, in some cases causing widespread illness and death. The blood was often sourced from foreign donors, particularly in the U.S., where screening was lax, and paid donors were common.

The scandal grew when it was revealed that government and health authorities had been aware of the dangers of imported blood but did little to stop the practice. In fact, even after it became clear that the blood was contaminated, the public was not informed, and patients continued to receive the infected products. This resulted in over 5,000 individuals contracting HIV and Hepatitis C in the UK alone.

A public inquiry, known as the Archer Inquiry, was launched in 1996 to investigate the scandal, but it wasn’t until much later, in the 2000s, that victims and their families began to receive proper compensation and acknowledgment. Many survivors of the contaminated blood scandal in the UK, as well as their families, continue to fight for justice, with calls for a full apology from the government and better support for those affected.

Australia’s Delay: The Price of Inaction

Australia’s experience with tainted blood was equally tragic, but the delay in testing for Hepatitis and HIV made the situation even worse. Like many countries, Australia relied heavily on imported blood products, particularly from the United States. The country’s decision to wait until the late 1980s to begin more rigorous testing for Hepatitis led to a significant number of hemophiliacs and others who received transfusions contracting the disease.

What set Australia apart, however, was the public outcry that followed. In the wake of the contaminated blood scandal, hemophiliac patients and their families sought justice for the harm that had been done. The Australian government eventually established a compensation program for those affected, but the process was slow, and many families were left struggling to care for loved ones who the virus had impacted.

A Lack of Accountability: How the System Failed

One of the most disturbing aspects of the tainted blood scandals in all three countries was the lack of accountability. Blood banks, health authorities, and pharmaceutical companies were slow to act, even after evidence surfaced that blood products were contaminated. In some cases, there was even evidence of a cover-up. Medical professionals were not given the information they needed to protect their patients, and patients were not told of the risks involved in receiving blood transfusions.

It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that widespread screening for HIV and Hepatitis began, but by then, many lives had already been irreversibly affected. The victims of this medical negligence were forced to endure not only the physical suffering caused by these deadly viruses but also the emotional pain of betrayal by a system they trusted.

The Need for Transparency and Accountability in Today’s Blood Supply

The tainted blood scandals of the 1980s and 1990s serve as a stark reminder of the importance of safety, transparency, and accountability when it comes to blood products. The failure to protect patients then was catastrophic, but the consequences of ignoring these issues today could be even more profound.

As the medical industry pushes forward with gene therapies and the introduction of synthetic mRNA into the human species and biological products, we are once again faced with the need to ask: Are we sure our blood is safe? How can we be certain that the blood we receive doesn’t contain genetic modifications or other untested technologies?

The public deserves transparency. Just as we have the right to know what’s in our food, we should have the right to know what’s in our blood. We can no longer afford to trust blindly in the medical system. We must advocate for a blood supply free from contamination, whether that contamination comes from viruses, synthetic mRNA, or gene-editing technologies.

Call to Action

The lessons from the past are clear: we must be vigilant, and we cannot simply trust the science or authorities to make swift and decisive action for our safety. We must protect our blood supply from the dangers of contamination, and we must demand accountability from the institutions responsible for our health. Join Impact Reconciliation in our mission to build an mRNA-free blood supply and ensure that everyone has access to clean, safe blood when they need it most.

Just like in the years before with HIV and Hepatitis, there was a waiting period before screening was introduced. Now, we can analyze blood to see if mRNA vaccines have been added to it through injection or transmission. Visit Impact Reconciliation to learn more.

Contagious Vaccines

The Reconciliation — Sat, 07 Jun 2025 04:31:37 GMT

During the 2021 pandemic of forced inoculation, many of us stood firm against the injections. For some, it was due to the experimentation on cell lines from aborted babies and the creation of humanized animals, for others it was the absence of safety data, and for some it was the simple principle of liberty and owning one’s body. No matter the reason, it was at a great cost to each person who resisted.

For many years, especially when the vaccine mandates were ramping up, those of us who were not jabbed knew we felt terrible after being in circumstances surrounded by vaccinated people. Many women reported menstrual irregularities. Yet, we were gaslit and told repeatedly that the vaccines cannot shed, because that is only what live virus vaccines do.

How Contagious Are the mRNA Vaccines?

Now, here we are, 3 years later, and we have verifiable proof that the COVID-19 injections utilize lipid nano particles that are designed to transmit themselves easily through topical and inhaled application. In fact, these injections utilize gene-altering technology. To put it into perspective, there are a million nanometers in a millimeter. These are infinitesimally small, and their job is to mimic natural exosomes used for cell signaling in the body.

The C-19 vaccines were the excuse to introduce gene-editing widely into the marketplace. Very few people would be willing to accept these medications if they knew what they really did, and the risks associated with them for our offspring. Now, many self-amplifying mRNA based vaccines are hitting the open population. The Artcurus mRNA Covid vaccine introduced October 1st of 2024 in Japan is so potent, only 5 micro grams (1/6th of the dose required by Cominarty), is needed to produce systemic effects. For reference, a microgram is 1 millionth of a gram.

Recently, Dr. Mark Trozzi wrote that “…just three molecules of this self-replicating RNA, delivered into one cell, can trigger a cascade of foreign RNA and spike protein production throughout the victim’s body.”

Hope for Healing

The moral of the story is that the mRNA platform is extremely transmissible from person to person. This presents a Pandora’s box of problems when it comes to the individual person’s autonomy and freedom to make his or her own medical decisions. If these medications are contagious, then you’re likely to receive them without consent. Luckily for us, there are scientists working tirelessly to help the body learn to heal itself from this technology. This research is funded by people like you, who have made a concerted effort to be and stay free. Consider joining the Hope for Healing participant funded research study here.