Vaccine Safety Research Foundation

Donations are tax deductible and we need your support to continue our work. Text-to-donate, text VSRF to 53555. This week on VSRF Live, we examine a growing but largely unspoken concern: the safety of the blood supply in the era of mRNA technology. Our guest is Dr. Clinton Ohlers, PhD, Vice President and Director of Media Relations for SafeBlood, an international organization educating the public about blood safety and helping patients access directed donations from non-mRNA-vaccinated donors. Dr. Ohlers earned his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania and previously served as an assistant research professor at the University of Hong Kong. His work now focuses on a critical medical-freedom issue: a patient’s right to refuse blood from mRNA-injected donors for non-emergency transfusions—and what this means for informed consent and blood safety. Founded in Switzerland in 2021, SafeBlood emerged after clinicians reported structural abnormalities in blood samples from individuals who had received mRNA injections. The organization now operates in more than 55 countries. At the same time, studies have reported prolonged persistence of spike protein following mRNA vaccination, raising serious questions for patients requiring surgery and multiple units of blood. Yet long-standing options like directed and autologous blood donation are increasingly being denied. This is not a theoretical debate. It’s about patient rights, transparency, and who decides what enters your bloodstream. Join us for an important conversation about blood safety, informed consent, and why transfusion choice matters now more than ever. This week on VSRF Live, we confront a growing but largely unspoken crisis: the safety of the blood supply in the era of mRNA technology. Our guest is Dr. Clinton Ohlers, PhD, Vice President and Director of Media Relations for SafeBlood Donation—an international organization working to protect life and health by educating the public about risks in the blood supply and enabling patients to receive blood from non-mRNA-vaccinated donors through directed donations. Dr. Ohlers earned his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania, where he focused on intellectual history and the history of science, and later served as an assistant research professor at the University of Hong Kong. Today, his work centers on one of the most urgent medical freedom issues of our time: a patient’s right to refuse blood from mRNA-injected donors for non-emergency transfusions. This speaks to the critical issue of the overall safety of the blood supply itself. SafeBlood was founded in Switzerland in 2021 after European clinicians and naturopaths began closely examining blood samples from individuals who had recently received COVID-19 mRNA injections. What they consistently observed were visible abnormalities and structural malformations in the blood compared to healthy samples, even among people who were outwardly asymptomatic. From those early findings, SafeBlood has grown into a global organization now operating in more than 55 countries. At the same time, the scientific picture has become increasingly alarming. Multiple studies, including the Yale LISTEN study and the Yogendra/Patterson research, show that spike protein can persist in the bloodstream 700 days or more after mRNA vaccination, with some vaccine-injured individuals still measuring circulating spike more than 1,600 days post-vaccination. For patients requiring surgery and multiple units of blood, they face harsh reality that they are likely to receive blood tainted by mRNA spike protein from Covid jabbed donors. Those concerns are compounded by recent disclosures identifying DNA contamination in mRNA vaccine products, including SV40 promoter sequences in the Pfizer shots. Packaged within lipid nanoparticles, these materials may enter the cell nucleus and lead to a host of other diseases, including cancers. In an alarming development, the right to direct that a specific blood be used for transfusion is being stripped away. Directed blood donation, where recipients select specific donors, and autologous donation, banking one’s own blood prior to surgery, have been standard and accepted practices for non-emergency procedures. These options are fundamental expressions of informed consent and bodily autonomy. Since 2023 and the rollout of mRNA vaccines, however, those rights have quietly eroded. Many hospitals now refuse directed or autologous donations, telling patients they must accept whatever blood is “on the shelf,” regardless of donor vaccination status. In response, a growing number of states are acting to restore these long-standing protections. Legislation introduced or passed in states including Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Idaho, South Dakota, Illinois, South Carolina, Maryland, and Kentucky seeks to require disclosure of donor COVID-19 vaccination status and to explicitly permit directed and autologous donations for non-emergency transfusions—choices that were routine until just a few years ago. SafeBlood exists to help patients reclaim those choices, reconnecting transfusion recipients with donors who meet their specified criteria and restoring a level of medical autonomy that many assumed was permanently secure. This is not a theoretical discussion. It is about informed consent, patient rights, and whether individuals retain the authority to decide what enters their bloodstream. Join us for a critical conversation about tainted blood, suppressed risks, and why the fight over transfusion choice may be one of the most consequential health-freedom battles of our time.