Montana- Where Solid Scientific Information Comes From Movies and Morticians

Unfortunately, a large concentration of intellectual zombies live in Montana and hold Republican seats in the state legislature

Intelligence arouses fear and respect, the lack of it keeps one on the narrow minded road of disrespect, stupidity and inferiority complex.

• Michael Bassey Johnson

Here we are, in March 2023, fully three years after the madness that was the COVID-19 pandemic began. You’d think the fact that we know more about the disease and the vaccines would be enough to put the minds of even skeptics at ease. But, sadly, that’s not proving to be the case. There are still those so resistant to the science behind the vaccines that no amount of empirical data will convince them of their safety or efficacy.

There are still those out there for whom it’s become an article of faith that Big Government and Big Pharma are out to control our bodies. Never mind all the other vaccines these folks have received throughout their lifetimes. None of those vaccines have made them grow horns, male breasts, an extra ovary, or suffer any other horrible side effect.

Ah, but the COVID-19 vaccines. How could they have been sufficiently tested? How could their safety and efficacy have been proven? In truth, they have been. There’s a mountain of data that proves both, but the anti-vaxxers are so dug in, so confirmed in their ignorance, that they refuse to see the truth.

Now comes the piece de resistance; the Montana legislature is considering a bill prohibiting anyone who’s received any COVID-19 vaccines from donating blood.

A bill to ban donors who have received the COVID-19 vaccination from giving blood will “decimate” blood supply in Montana and leave patients at risk of even death, said opponents of House Bill 645.

“Montana’s blood supply could be cut by up to 80%, leading to adverse patient outcomes including unnecessary and unconscionable death,” said senior vice president of blood collection nonprofit Vitalant, Cliff Numark.

Numark said most blood banks are barely meeting the needs of patients today, and with an 80% reduction in blood supply, procedures for accident victims, pregnancy complications and more mundane blood transfusions would not be possible.

House Bill 645 would ban individuals who received the COVID-19 vaccine from donating blood, making it a misdemeanor with a $500 fine to donate or accept blood from vaccinated donors. The bill would also ban people who have had a diagnosis of “Long COVID,” medically defined as “postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 due to chronic 27 SARS-CoV-2 viral infection.”

Of course, none of the information cited in the proposed legislation is based on actual science, nor are any of the sponsors credentialed medical personnel. Unsurprisingly, they’re anti-vaxxers who last year introduced a bill that would’ve legalized discrimination based on vaccination status.

Stupid is as stupid votes.

In addition to creating a severe shortage of blood in the state, opponents said there’s no way to test blood for both Long COVID or the vaccines.

However, proponents said the bill, a continuation of anti-vaccine legislation that passed last session, was about medical autonomy and the right to receive blood from donors had not been vaccinated against COVID-19.

“We hear these two words ‘safe and effective’ a million plus times. Does that make them true?” said bill sponsor Rep. Greg Kmetz, R- Miles City.

Emails exchanged during the drafting process show Kmetz included language from anti-vaccine legislation passed last session, House Bill 702, which outlawed discrimination based on vaccination status. A portion of that bill was struck down as unconstitutional in December.

Proponents included Rep. Lola Sheldon-Galloway, vice-chairwoman of the House Human Services Committee, which heard the bill on Friday. She repeated claims made in the film “Died Suddenly” that were debunked prior to its release.  She said the vaccine caused issues with blood flow, citing her brother, a mortician.

Of course, when looking for medical advice, I know where I DON’T go- to a guy who specializes in working on DEAD people.

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), respiratory viruses aren’t usually transmitted person-to-person via blood transfusions. So, the idea that blood might be “tainted” by COVID-19 vaccines is fallacious.

Sadly, this legislation is based on debunked “scientific” claims from a mortician and a movie whose claims were shot down even before it was released. No competent medical professional has endorsed this bill. Its basis is pure ignorance, fear, and animus.

The North Stars & Cowboy Bars paywall launch special:

Subscribe to an annual plan- $50.00- before 3.15.23 and receive a 20% discount!

As for “We hear these two words' safe and effective’ a million plus times. Does that make them true?” Yes. Yes, it does, because the claim is backed by empirical scientific data showing that the vaccines are indeed “safe and effective.”

Does NOT believing them make them UNtrue? Of course not. You can believe something all you want, but science doesn’t care what you believe. Science only cares about what it can observe and prove. And it’s been proven that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.

Are they completely, absolutely 110% without risk? Of course, but what in life is? Taking a chance on COVID-19 isn’t a great strategy- unless you think ending up on a ventilator and dying is a great way to prove the eggheads “wrong.”

Other proponents said that blood recipients should not have to worry about adverse effects in an emergency situation.

“I’m one of many who believe in the God given right of medical freedom, which is having access to genetically unmodified blood during a time of need,” said Jo Vilhauer from Miles City. “This is a vital part of health autonomy.”

Dr. Michael Busch, director of the Vitalant Research Institute, which monitors antibody levels in U.S. blood supply samples, told Kaiser Health News more than 90% of current donors have either been infected with COVID or vaccinated against it.

Opponents slightly outnumbered proponents and included the Montana Nurses Association, the Montana Hospital Association, the Montana Medical Association, the the Montana Primary Care Association and others.

Chief Medical Officer for the American Red Cross in the Western U.S. Dr. Walter Kelley said this bill would “decimate” blood supply in Montana as 80% of the state has received at least one dose of the vaccine.

“This bill will put patients’ lives in jeopardy, and this bill needs to be removed,” Kelley said.

“[H]aving access to genetically unmodified blood during a time of need?” What does that even mean? COVID-19 vaccines don’t “genetically modify” blood or anything else. Instead, they add a layer of protection against COVID-19 and its variants. The vaccines don’t turn recipients into walking mutants, nor do they endanger the blood supply.

Nor do they create “genetically modified blood” that would present a risk to a patient “during a time of need.”

Additionally, there’s currently no available blood test that could detect the presence of any of the COVID-19 vaccines in a person’s blood.

Numark, senior vice president of a blood collection nonprofit, said there’s no way to test for the components outlined in the bill, including “gene-altering proteins, nanoparticles, high-count spike proteins from long COVID-19, and other DNA chemotherapies, among other COVID-19 related restrictions.

“There’s no test to do that, so we would not be able to comply to determine whether people have received it or not,” he said.

In response to committee questioning, Numark said it would be possible to ask donors if they had received the COVID-19 vaccine as part of an intake form, but that the criminal liability attached to the bill adds complications.

How do legislators think they’ll be able to maintain needed blood supplies if donors face possible criminal liability should they answer a question incorrectly or misunderstand a question regarding their vaccine status? How many potential donors would be willing to take that risk? I’ve donated blood regularly for 45 years and certainly wouldn’t.

It’s called a blood “donation,” and if any part of it puts me at risk for potential criminal action, you can bet that I’m out of there. And I suspect many in Montana would feel the same way. You can’t treat blood donors as potential criminals.

This is not a bill based on rigorous (or any) science. Instead, it’s based on fear, ignorance, and a political agenda that cares little about people's health. If they cared about people, the legislators behind this bill would pull, apologize profusely, and promise to do better.

Instead, they’re doubling down on the stupid as if their position is defensible.

It’s not. And they could well be responsible for the deaths of patients in Montana who won’t be able to receive the blood they need to survive.

But they’ve staked their flag in ignorance and false science. It’s what happens when you get your scientific support from a movie and a mortician.

Why do Republicans and stupid so often go together like peanut butter and jelly? Because critical thinking is for losers and Liberals.