Recently, I conducted a highly revealing interview with my friend and research colleague, Dr. James Thorp, MD. This conversation underscored a vital and often overlooked clinical reality: Directed blood donations can act as an indispensable safety net for pregnant mothers during delivery.
Dr. Thorp is a double board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist specializing in maternal-fetal medicine, with over 47 years of clinical experience and more than 200 peer-reviewed publications. As a military veteran whose medical education was funded by the United States Air Force, Dr. Thorp spent his career on the front lines of high-risk obstetrics. Before his sudden firing on June 29, 2023, he saw over 27,500 high-risk pregnant patients within a four-and-a-half-year period. He was terminated by his hospital group, SSM Health in St. Louis, because he refused to remain silent about the unprecedented safety signals he was observing in his practice and in public databases.
The Expectant Mother’s Advantage
During our conversation, Dr. Thorp emphasized a striking statistic:
Pregnant mothers are approximately 10 to 13 times more likely to require a blood transfusion than the general population.
High-risk complications such as placenta previa, placenta accreta, and unexpected postpartum hemorrhage make blood transfusions an anticipated clinical possibility during delivery.
Yet, pregnant mothers possess a unique strategic advantage that patients facing sudden trauma do not: mothers approaching delivery almost always know exactly when they are likely to deliver. They have a window of months to prepare.
In a captured medical system, this predictability is a critical advantage. For families concerned about the presence of mRNA vaccine components in the general blood pool, the ability to plan ahead allows expectant mothers to secure directed donations of unvaccinated blood before they ever enter the delivery room.
Pregnant mothers are uniquely situated to protect themselves and their unborn by having their preferred blood set aside ahead of delivery through directed donations. If unused, that blood often goes into the supply and helps others.
What’s more, the 10 -13x figures are pre-COVID-19 vaccine numbers. VAERS data shows increased need for transfusions among the mRNA vaccinated. (See min 1:19:00 in the full video about our forthcoming two-part peer reviewed study.)
An Ongoing Threat to Blood Supply Integrity
This planning has become a matter of common sense. Mainstream, peer reviewed literature has now demonstrated that mRNA, DNA plasmids, SV40 promoters, and the synthetic spike protein can remain circulating in the blood of some vaccine recipients for years after their last injection.
The most recent public health data also indicates that over 30 million Americans, representing about 8.9 percent of the population, received the latest mRNA booster during the past season. A portion of this highly boosted population routinely donates blood. Because centralized blood banks adamantly refuse to screen, track, or label blood based on mRNA vaccination status, the risk of receiving mRNA-vaccinated donor blood during an undirected transfusion remains a reality for the foreseeable future.
We do not know the exact level of the risk, but we know it is not zero. We also would never recommend a patient refuse a life-saving blood transfusion because of these risks. Rather, we want to enable patients to minimize all risks as much as possible.
From Fetal Carnage to Statistical Confirmation
The warning signs of this crisis appeared early in the vaccine rollout. Clinicians on the ground witnessed unprecedented rates of fetal demise. Dr. Daniel Nagase, a Canadian physician, reported that Lionsgate Hospital in British Columbia, which historically averaged one stillbirth every two months, suddenly recorded 86 stillbirths in a six-month period. Similarly, Nurse Michele Spencer, formerly Gershman, in Fresno, California, witnessed stillbirths jump from an average of one per quarter to an average of nearly one per day, recording 23 stillbirths in August 2022 alone. This represented a staggering 28.6-fold increase in late-stage fetal deaths.
While the medical establishment attempted to dismiss these reports as mere anecdotes, Dr. Thorp went to work to verify them. In “COVID-19 Vaccines: The Impact on Pregnancy Outcomes and Menstrual Function,” Dr. Thorp and his coauthors conducted the first formal, peer-reviewed analysis of the government’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database. The results are horrifying. The data were worse than the clinical observations.
In the first 10 months of the vaccine rollout, VAERS recorded 2,737 pregnancy losses, compared to 1,965 fetal deaths reported for all other vaccines combined over the previous 30 years. This yielded a Z-score of 51, indicating an astronomical statistical probability that these events were not due to chance. Fetal malformations stood at 725 in 10 months, compared to just 182 over 30 years for all other vaccines.
When Dr. Thorp compared the COVID-19 vaccine to the influenza vaccine in pregnant women, the risk ratios were so extreme that he had to utilize a semi-logarithmic scale. The risk ratio for stillbirth was well over 100. The “anecdotes” reported by front line clinicians were completely vindicated by the official government data.
Comparing the VAERS data for COVID-19 against those reported for prior flu vaccines, the authors identified a 177x increase in miscarriages, a 135x increase in stillbirths, and a 4257x increase in menstrual abnormalities.
Then, there is the evidence directly from Pfizer that its vaccine produced a miscarriage rate as high as 83%, which social media is ablaze with.
In a coincidence of timing, shortly after recording this interview, the breaking news on X was Anthony Fauci and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky’s private texts discussing the heightened risks of miscarriage with the second dose. The texts are dated in late January of 2021, while at the very same time they publicly assured pregnant women of its safety and exhorted their compliance with vaccination.
What’s more, the latest disclosure included Fauci email correspondence discussing increased fetal birth defects from the mRNA vaccines, with Dr. Vivek Murthy, then US Surgeon General—on the very same dates as his discussion with Walenski.
In their study of the VAERS data, Dr. Thorp and his co-authors, quantified this increase in reported birth defects, compared with flu vaccines, at an astonishing 22x. That is a 2200% increase in reporting.
Evidence of mRNA-Vaccine Transmission via Blood Transfusions
This transition from observation to formal data is central to how scientific progress actually occurs. It is also a slow process. Historically, human beings observe cause and effect in real life long before centralized institutions codify it as official science—and they protect themselves and survive by doing so. British sailors learned from Native Americans who observed that certain tree barks, pine needles, and fruit cured the symptoms of what British sailors called scurvy, hundreds of years before it would be accepted medically.
Today, we find ourselves in a similar historical window. Patients who strictly avoided the mRNA injections are receiving transfused blood and subsequently developing severe reactions typical of mRNA vaccine injuries, such as abnormal microclotting, neurological complications, and cardiovascular damage.
A prominent, tragic example of this phenomenon is the case of Baby Alex, an infant who required a transfusion for a medical procedure, received unscreened blood, and subsequently developed an aggressive, solid clot that extended from his knee all the way to his heart, ultimately ending his life.
During our interview, I held up a physical example of these abnormal, white amyloid structures to the camera. This specific specimen was extracted by embalmer Richard Hirschman from a deceased individual and was provided to me by Tom Haviland and Laura Kasner at a recent scientific conference in Rhode Island. It is a solid, elastic, proteinaceous mass, entirely distinct from ordinary red blood jelly clots.
Dr. Thorp and I are co-authors, along with several other prominent contributors, of a forthcoming two-part peer-reviewed study designed examining these types of cases. Part one documents these critical case studies of patients who avoided the vaccine but suffered post-transfusion injuries. Part two analyzes the safety signals within the VAERS database, revealing that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with a dramatic, unprecedented increase in the recipient’s need for blood transfusions and an elevated risk of subsequent transfusion reactions.
These studies will be a first step in establishing that these patterns are real, recurring, and require immediate scientific recognition.
Opposed by a 32 Billion Dollar Cartel
The blood banking industry in the United States is a 32 billion dollar enterprise. Blood product exports alone account for approximately 24 billion dollars annually, representing a staggering 2.6 percent of all United States export products. Centralized blood banks maximize their revenue by dividing raw donor blood into individual components, such as packed red cells, plasma, and specialized concentrates like RhoGAM, which is manufactured from pooled plasma sourced from thousands of individual donors.
Allowing patients to demand directed donations or utilize autotransfusion technologies, like Cell Saver systems, disrupts this business model. It places control back into the hands of the patient and the physician, taking it away from the corporate entities that manage blood as a high-volume commodity.
Recognizing this, no one should be surprised by resistance to acknowledging risk, properly investigating the evidence of it, or seeking to assess just how great the risk is.
Building the Parallel Path
If we cannot rely upon captured regulators, compromised medical journals, or corporate blood banks to protect patient safety, we must build parallel systems.
SafeBlood is not a blood supplier, but a global matching network. We connect individuals locally who need blood with donors who have not been vaccinated, ensuring that patients can secure compatible, unvaccinated blood for planned medical procedures and deliveries. Through safeblood.com, we operate our global matching platform, while our 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, the SafeBlood Foundation (safebloodfoundation.org), funds independent research and advocates for medical choice.
We invite you to support this vital work. You can follow Dr. Thorp’s continued clinical research and find his books, including Sacrifice: How the Deadliest Vaccine in History Targeted the Most Vulnerable (co authored with Celia Farber) and his forthcoming devotional In God We Heal, at drjamesthorpe.com and support his research at advancedbiologicalresearchgroup.org.
The numbers do not lie, and neither does the evidence. If you cannot choose what enters your bloodstream, you do not have informed consent. Science progresses through inquiry, ethics progresses through consent, and both require courage. We invite you to stand with us.
Dr. R. Clinton Ohlers, PhD is Vice President and Director of Media Relations for SafeBlood Donation. He holds a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania and taught and conducted research at the University of Hong Kong, returning to the US in the early COVID outbreak. His work focuses on blood safety, medical ethics, and informed consent, with an emphasis on restoring transparency and patient choice in transfusion medicine.
About SafeBlood
SafeBlood Donation is a global initiative dedicated to protecting informed consent in blood transfusions. Our core principle is simple: If you cannot choose your donor, you do not have informed consent.
