Clinton Ohlers PhD’s ANALYSIS: Autologous & Directed Blood Transfusion

The Spaces featured host Dr. Margaret (MD anesthesiology/critical care) and guest Dr. Clinton Ohlers (Safe Blood), examining patient choice in transfusions and alleged conflicts in the blood industry. Ohlers characterized a global, export-driven “Big Blood” market and argued hospital policies and FDA guidance discourage directed and autologous donations, citing regulatory capture and studies he believes are misleading. He presented case studies: a Texas heart-surgery patient initially denied directed/autologous blood (later offered cell saver), and two beta‑thalassemia sisters whose long‑standing directed donors were cut off—used to argue fresher, known-donor blood quality versus older shelf blood. Ohlers also described reported Red Cross paperwork changes that burden clinicians, Vitalant pricing barriers, and state legislative efforts (Wyoming, Texas). He critiqued a large Korean dataset, claiming increased tuberculosis/common colds with more COVID‑19 doses and a pertussis artifact, and raised concerns about lingering vaccine DNA/SV40—while noting FDA/mainstream sources say vaccinated blood is safe and supplies should not be separated. Dr. Margaret closed with practical perioperative strategies (ask EBL, request autologous/directed blood, cell saver, controlled hypotension) and directed listeners to Safe Blood’s site/substack and advocacy.

Blood sovereignty, directed donation, and "Big Blood": Summary of the discussion with Dr. Clinton Ohlers

Participants and roles

• Dr. Margaret (host): Anesthesiologist and critical care physician; PhD in Forensic Science; led the discussion and provided clinical practices for minimizing transfusion needs.
• Dr. Clinton Ohlers (guest): Director of Media Relations/US spokesperson for Safe Blood Donation; historian of science; presented industry analysis, case studies, legislative context, and his reading of the scientific literature.
• Laura Bartlett (co-host referenced): Founder of idonotconsentform.com; sister of Dr. Richard Bartlett; associated with informed consent and patient rights.
• Jan Wade, Esq. (co-host referenced): Noted for contributions to running Spaces.
• Additional figures referenced: Kathleen McLaughlin (author), Liz James (Blessed By His Blood), Tom Renz (attorney/advocate), Dr. Marty Makary (physician-author), Brett Weinstein (commentator), Kevin McKernan (researcher), Dr. James Thorp (OBGYN), Alex Newman (journalist).

Session overview

The session centered on “blood sovereignty” and patients’ rights to autologous and directed blood donations—especially requests for donors who have not received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Dr. Ohlers outlined Safe Blood Donation’s mission, critique of the US blood industry (“Big Blood”), recent legislative efforts, and his interpretation of studies and policies he believes are used to dissuade directed donation. Dr. Margaret contextualized clinical options to minimize transfusion needs and advised on practical steps patients can take prior to surgery.

The host reiterated that mainstream institutions (e.g., FDA, large blood banks) do not recognize specific vaccine-related blood risks or separate vaccinated from unvaccinated donor blood; the session therefore focused on advocacy, transparency, and alternatives through private matching and legislation.

Safe Blood Donation and allied efforts

• Safe Blood Donation: A global registry facilitating matches for recipients who prefer donors unvaccinated against COVID-19. Core principles include informed consent, transparency in the blood supply, and patient choice for autologous/directed donation.
• Differences with Blessed By His Blood (Liz James): Blessed By His Blood focuses on unvaccinated donors for unvaccinated recipients and operates entirely as a volunteer organization. Safe Blood positions itself as mostly volunteer but aims for a financially self-sustaining model to scale services and support a broader population (including vaccinated recipients who want unvaccinated donor blood).
• Membership and access: safeblood.com and safeblood.substack.com; discount code “Dr Margaret” noted by the host.

"Big Blood" industry and economic context

• Reference: “Blood Money: The Story of Life, Death and Profit Inside America’s Blood Industry” (Kathleen McLaughlin, 2023). Dr. Ohlers is using it as part of his research.
• Claims highlighted by Dr. Ohlers:
  • US plasma/blood product exports are a multibillion-dollar market; he cited ~$24B as the US share of the global blood/plasma trade and ~70% of global supply stemming from US sources (asserted as astounding and flagged for fact-checking).
  • Allegation that economics drive practices: reserving “best” or fresher units or particular phenotypes for higher-margin downstream products (e.g., IVIG, specialty biologics), creating incentives to clear older inventory first for direct transfusions.

Case studies and hospital/blood bank policies

• Texas open-heart surgery case (Baylor St. Luke’s):
  • The family sought autologous donation and directed donors (including a universal donor spouse), with the blood bank allegedly willing to process. Hospital policy prevented directed/autologous use; the surgeon sought it but administrators vetoed.
  • Dr. Ohlers framed this as an ethical problem where administrators can override physician judgment and patient preference without patient-safety rationale.
• Texas beta thalassemia case (two adopted girls from China):
  • For ~10 years, the family organized carefully screened directed donors due to the girls’ need for frequent transfusions.
  • Carter BloodCare allegedly cut off directed donations in 2023; the girls then received “off-the-shelf” blood, which the family reports led to health decline. One child reportedly developed oral herpes (HSV-1) and teachers noted reduced vitality and academic performance. Dr. Ohlers argued this underscores quality differences he believes exist between curated directed donors and standard inventory.
• Minnesota/Wisconsin region (unnamed blood center):
  • A patient awaiting bone marrow transplant had used directed donations; after policy changes attributed to rising requests for donors unvaccinated for COVID-19, directed donations were reportedly curtailed. The patient traveled to Florida for transfusions but later became too ill to travel. Dr. Ohlers emphasized the stress and risk placed on medically vulnerable patients.
• Washington State pediatric case: Parents allegedly denied directed donations at a children’s hospital; the family traveled to Pennsylvania for surgery.
• Red Cross paperwork change (July 2024, reportedly national):
  • Dr. Ohlers described leaked documents requiring the prescribing doctor to personally contact each prospective directed donor and read a checklist of risks (to the recipient), not delegable to staff. He views this as an administrative burden that dissuades doctors and patients, effectively suppressing directed donations. He reported an American Red Cross staff denial of “policy change” despite confirming national scope, interpreting this as PR downplaying.
• Vitalant pricing (Wyoming/Montana):
  • Directed donation pricing allegedly ~$800 per unit, out-of-pocket (insurance not accepted), which Dr. Ohlers argues functions as suppression by cost. He noted this roughly matches what centers obtain from insurers per unit, and he questioned the rationale for not accepting insurance.

Legislative efforts and regulatory context

• Texas and Wyoming:
  • Bills sought to protect rights to autologous and directed donations. In Texas, the bill reportedly died on procedural grounds despite momentum. In Wyoming, failure by one vote due to disagreements on price caps.
• FDA statement (October 2023):
  • The host noted FDA and mainstream sources do not consider COVID vaccine-related risks in donor blood an issue. Dr. Ohlers alleges FDA guidance dissuades directed donation for preference-based reasons (including vaccine status) and reflects regulatory capture—he claims it reproduces large blood bank positions and relies on misleading studies.

Evidence critique and scientific claims (as presented by Dr. Ohlers)

• AIDS-era parallels:
  • He invoked historical failures to protect hemophiliacs in the 1980s (e.g., Arthur Ashe) as cautionary context, citing Marty Makary’s writing on “bad blood” and an eight-year lag in addressing HIV in the blood supply.
• Studies used against directed donation:
  • Hepatitis C/first-time donor risk: He argues comparisons of repeat donors (already screened repeatedly) vs. first-time directed donors (newly screened) unsurprisingly show higher detection of infections in first-time donors. He contends this does not translate to harm because blood is screened prior to release, and increased detection improves public health by informing donors to seek care.
  • “Lying” survey: He reports a study where ~22% of respondents said they “might lie” to ensure a directed donation; he argues the question’s ambiguity makes it unsuitable for policy and that established screening safeguards exist. He says invoking “window periods” (e.g., 10–24 days for HIV/HBV/HCV detection) ignores real-world donor integrity and the screening process.
• Blood “freshness” and quality:
  • He claims the thalassemia case shows fresher blood matters for certain patients and alleges centers reserve fresher units or specific phenotypes for higher-margin uses. He referenced a study reportedly finding “no difference” by blood age but says the cutoff compared “young” vs. “middle-aged” blood (e.g., up to 25 days) rather than including near-expiry units (40 days), hypothesizing the design obscures degradation.
• South Korea insurance dataset analysis:
  • Dr. Ohlers, crediting conversations with Nick Holsher (Mercola Foundation), claims supplementary materials—not the main text—show:
    • Tuberculosis incidence rises stepwise with the number of COVID vaccine doses (he cited ~35% higher incidence at 3 doses vs. unvaccinated baseline).
    • Among ages 0–19, common cold incidence increased with each dose (he cited an increase >500% at 4 doses compared with baseline in that age group).
    • Pertussis appears reduced with more doses, but he argues this is a demographic artifact: the “0–1 dose” cohort in South Korea is overwhelmingly young children (who rarely vaccinated), and pertussis is a pediatric disease; therefore, comparing 0–1 vs. 2–4 doses conflates age with vaccination.
  • Broader point: He alleges a pattern of publication design choices that bury signals unfavorable to official narratives; he calls for rigorous re-analysis of supplementary data and transparent stratification.
• Comparisons to COVID therapeutics trials (hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin):
  • He alleges some RCTs in Brazil and UK/Oxford were designed to fail (e.g., excessive dosing of HCQ approaching toxicity thresholds; undertreatment of ivermectin, fasting administration), describing this as “murder by randomized control trial.” These claims are contested by mainstream reviewers.

Pfizer’s alleged role

• Training materials: Dr. Ohlers reported (via Liz James) a blood center training video featuring a Pfizer representative who referenced Texas legislation and advocated dissuading directed donations; he interprets this as aligning with downstream buyers of blood products who benefit from centralized control over inventory.
• Cancer and vaccine contaminants (as alleged by Dr. Ohlers):
  • He cited analyses (e.g., Oncotarget meta-summary of post-vaccine cancer case reports) and claims of site outages after publication. He asserts Pfizer’s product is over-represented among reported post-vaccine cancers and ties this to alleged residual DNA and SV40 promoter presence in vials, referencing Kevin McKernan’s findings and claiming inadequate disclosure to FDA.
  • He further claims persistent detection of sequences long after vaccination suggests integration (epizomal vs. chromosomal to be determined), linking to broader concerns about transfusion risks. Mainstream regulatory agencies and large blood banks do not endorse these conclusions and maintain current blood screening protocols are adequate.

Clinical guidance and practical steps (from Dr. Margaret)

• Before surgery, ask:
  • Estimated blood loss (EBL): Understand expected transfusion likelihood. Rough orientation: ~300–400 mL approximates one packed RBC unit (exact volumes vary by center). If EBL may be high (e.g., cardiac surgery), proactively explore autologous or directed donation.
  • Blood conservation strategies: Ask whether your anesthesiologist will use controlled hypotension to reduce bleeding and whether “cell saver” (intraoperative autotransfusion) is available. Cell saver can reduce reliance on banked blood and, per Dr. Ohlers, may be less costly than banked units but not routinely offered unless requested.
  • Autologous donation timing: If medically safe, pre-donate your own units.
  • Directed donors: Identify family/friends/church members with compatible blood types; coordinate with the hospital’s contracted blood bank early (note hospitals typically use one blood-bank vendor).

Calls to action and movement strategy

• Patient rights and legislation: Continue advocating for protected rights to autologous and directed donation irrespective of donor vaccination status; support state bills and engage with legislators.
• Transparency and independent analysis: Scrutinize study designs, insist on stratified reporting, engage with supplemental datasets; develop expertise to detect publication bias.
• Practical engagement: Use Safe Blood Donation (and allied networks) to pre-arrange donors; document cooperative hospitals/blood banks (while keeping lists private to avoid targeting); leverage membership discounts and Substack for updates.
• Regulatory engagement: The speakers argued that pressure on agencies (FDA) and public awareness are necessary to counter alleged regulatory capture.

Closing note

The session ended with Dr. Margaret’s practical guidance for patients and a prayer. Throughout, the host reminded listeners that mainstream authorities do not recognize the vaccine-related blood risks claimed by guests, and that hospital policies and blood bank practices vary by region. The discussion emphasizes informed consent, patient choice, and proactive planning for transfusions, alongside a sustained push for legislative and institutional reforms.