Feature Article — Consequences of Unfounded Vaccine Safety Concerns: Where Do the Real Risks Lie? (Part 1)

Post

May 12, 2026

Virtually everyone has heard at least one concern about the safety of vaccines, and many people hear or see concerns regularly, whether on their social media feeds or in conversations with family members or friends. Sometimes, even if the concern seems like it probably isn’t true, families will decide they don’t want to take a chance that what they heard might be true. So, they make a decision that feels like a compromise. Maybe they delay a vaccine, or they skip a routine recommendation because it seems like the risk is small and the recommendation is overkill. In many cases, the effects of these choices will not be immediately, or ever, realized, but that will not be so for everyone. These situations are the ones that healthcare providers hear about, and they’re also the situations that haunt these providers because they wonder what they could have said or done differently to prevent the life-changing outcome that followed.
Over the next three months, we are going to highlight some of the consequences of unfounded safety concerns that live in the shadows of these “compromise” decisions. We hope after reading this series, readers will ask more questions when they see and hear concerns about science and medicine, realizing that the nuance is important and that seemingly simple, alternative (“what if”) choices do in fact come with their own risks and considerations.

We’ve all done it — sat in front of an insurance agent or computer screen considering the relative costs versus protection levels for an auto insurance policy. After all, most of the time, we pay the premiums, but we don’t file a claim. So, for many the calculation becomes what is the minimum coverage I need or what is the maximum coverage that I can get for the price I am willing, or able, to pay? In most cases, even those who underbuy don’t realize the consequences of having done so because, again, most often we don’t file a claim. But that isn’t always how the story goes because for some, a calamity occurs, and they find themselves learning just what was missing with those lower coverage levels. The outcomes for other individuals involved in the accident are also shaped by those choices. Indeed, so many people underbuy on their insurance that today’s policies include coverage if you are the victim in an accident in which the other driver was underinsured (or uninsured).

This scenario relates to a growing trend resulting from unfounded fears about COVID-19 vaccine safety: requests for “directed” blood donations, meaning blood that has been specifically donated for use by a particular patient. Unfortunately, for some transfusion recipients, premiums don’t cover their additional risk when these donations make their way into the blood supply.

COVID-19 vaccine and blood from unvaccinated donors

One misconception that has circulated since COVID-19 is that people who got mRNA vaccines have nanolipid particles and spike proteins circulating in their blood, and that these vaccine components attach to blood vessels and cause small blood clots throughout the body. The theory suggests that this occurs over a long period of time and will lead to progressive organ damage and ongoing inflammation, resulting in increases in heart attacks, strokes and vascular disease.

These concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety were not supported by the evidence. First, processing of these vaccines primarily occurs near the injection site and is time limited. Based on how the mRNA was designed, it cannot continue to replicate in the body (see resources at end of article). Second, it has been five years since millions of people started receiving COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and rates of organ damage or diseases of the circulatory system have not dramatically increased.

However, these unfounded concerns continue to circulate. And they have led some people to become worried about accepting blood from individuals who received the COVID-19 vaccine. Since blood donations do not track vaccination status, some people have started refusing blood from the national supply when they, or their children, require a transfusion. Instead, these individuals ask for directed blood.

Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of the request to use unvaccinated blood are numerous and accumulating:

Some patients have become sicker while waiting for the directed blood donation.
Some patients have had to delay or cancel surgeries because they won’t accept blood from the national supply.
In several cases, these choices have been made for children by their parents, creating ethical issues that medical providers need to consider since children cannot give consent.
Because directed blood donations do not undergo the same series of safety analyses, this blood is more often positive for infectious diseases.
In some cases, directed blood has been donated and used in situations where it may not have been needed, simply to prevent expiration.

Often, directed donations come from family members. When directed blood donations are from biological relatives, additional concerns arise:

Familial donations require an extra step to prevent transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease, which can be fatal. Sometimes, this extra step is inadvertently overlooked because it is not a part of the normal blood supply process that healthcare providers are used to.
Because recipients may develop antibodies against some of the markers on blood cells, if that recipient later requires a stem cell or organ transplant, they may not be able to use a donation from previous directed blood donors.
If a mother donates blood to their child, there is an increased risk of a condition known as transfusion-related acute lung injury because the mother often has antibodies against fetal antigens that share genetic similarity with the father. This condition can also be fatal.

Further complicating things, when directed donation blood is not needed, it may be added to the general supply for use by other patients — after all, we have all heard the pleas from the American Red Cross about the need for blood donations. However, when directed donations are added to the blood supply, it is not marked in any special way. As a result, recipient patients, and their healthcare providers, remain unaware that the blood they received did not go through the rigorous testing that would have been done under regular donation protocols. In this scenario, the seemingly isolated choice of an individual increased the risk for others who didn’t get a say in the decision.

Also, the public may not realize that some supporters of these unfounded concerns have been working to introduce bills related to individual rights and directed blood supplies in state legislative sessions. By late February 2026, 16 bills had been proposed. While the bills varied in terms of their goals and how far they progressed with policymakers, over time, these kinds of efforts could negatively impact safety protocols, frontline healthcare, and already tenuous blood supplies.

When risky choices cause unnecessary suffering

Requesting directed blood because of unsubstantiated concerns around COVID-19 vaccines may seem like a safer “compromise” choice without consequences. However, like purchasing insurance policies, each choice comes with its own risks, and unfortunately, some of those choices may mean the risks are realized when it is too late, or they may be endured by others who had no part in the original decision.

Resources

mRNA vaccine processing

Long-term Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccine? What We Know. (See “mRNA vaccine” section of article.)
What Stops the Body from Continuing to Produce the COVID-19 Spike Protein after Getting an mRNA Vaccine? (video)
How COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Work (animation)

Blood donation laws

Download a PDF version of this article.

Virtually everyone has heard at least one concern about the safety of vaccines, and many people hear or see concerns regularly, whether on their social media feeds or in conversations with family members or friends. Sometimes, even if the concern seems like it probably isn’t true, families will decide they don’t want to take a chance that what they heard might be true. So, they make a decision that feels like a compromise. Maybe they delay a vaccine, or they skip a routine recommendation because it seems like the risk is small and the recommendation is overkill. In many cases, the effects of these choices will not be immediately, or ever, realized, but that will not be so for everyone. These situations are the ones that healthcare providers hear about, and they’re also the situations that haunt these providers because they wonder what they could have said or done differently to prevent the life-changing outcome that followed.
Over the next three months, we are going to highlight some of the consequences of unfounded safety concerns that live in the shadows of these “compromise” decisions. We hope after reading this series, readers will ask more questions when they see and hear concerns about science and medicine, realizing that the nuance is important and that seemingly simple, alternative (“what if”) choices do in fact come with their own risks and considerations.

We’ve all done it — sat in front of an insurance agent or computer screen considering the relative costs versus protection levels for an auto insurance policy. After all, most of the time, we pay the premiums, but we don’t file a claim. So, for many the calculation becomes what is the minimum coverage I need or what is the maximum coverage that I can get for the price I am willing, or able, to pay? In most cases, even those who underbuy don’t realize the consequences of having done so because, again, most often we don’t file a claim. But that isn’t always how the story goes because for some, a calamity occurs, and they find themselves learning just what was missing with those lower coverage levels. The outcomes for other individuals involved in the accident are also shaped by those choices. Indeed, so many people underbuy on their insurance that today’s policies include coverage if you are the victim in an accident in which the other driver was underinsured (or uninsured).

This scenario relates to a growing trend resulting from unfounded fears about COVID-19 vaccine safety: requests for “directed” blood donations, meaning blood that has been specifically donated for use by a particular patient. Unfortunately, for some transfusion recipients, premiums don’t cover their additional risk when these donations make their way into the blood supply.

COVID-19 vaccine and blood from unvaccinated donors

One misconception that has circulated since COVID-19 is that people who got mRNA vaccines have nanolipid particles and spike proteins circulating in their blood, and that these vaccine components attach to blood vessels and cause small blood clots throughout the body. The theory suggests that this occurs over a long period of time and will lead to progressive organ damage and ongoing inflammation, resulting in increases in heart attacks, strokes and vascular disease.

These concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety were not supported by the evidence. First, processing of these vaccines primarily occurs near the injection site and is time limited. Based on how the mRNA was designed, it cannot continue to replicate in the body (see resources at end of article). Second, it has been five years since millions of people started receiving COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and rates of organ damage or diseases of the circulatory system have not dramatically increased.

However, these unfounded concerns continue to circulate. And they have led some people to become worried about accepting blood from individuals who received the COVID-19 vaccine. Since blood donations do not track vaccination status, some people have started refusing blood from the national supply when they, or their children, require a transfusion. Instead, these individuals ask for directed blood.

Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of the request to use unvaccinated blood are numerous and accumulating:

Some patients have become sicker while waiting for the directed blood donation.
Some patients have had to delay or cancel surgeries because they won’t accept blood from the national supply.
In several cases, these choices have been made for children by their parents, creating ethical issues that medical providers need to consider since children cannot give consent.
Because directed blood donations do not undergo the same series of safety analyses, this blood is more often positive for infectious diseases.
In some cases, directed blood has been donated and used in situations where it may not have been needed, simply to prevent expiration.

Often, directed donations come from family members. When directed blood donations are from biological relatives, additional concerns arise:

Familial donations require an extra step to prevent transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease, which can be fatal. Sometimes, this extra step is inadvertently overlooked because it is not a part of the normal blood supply process that healthcare providers are used to.
Because recipients may develop antibodies against some of the markers on blood cells, if that recipient later requires a stem cell or organ transplant, they may not be able to use a donation from previous directed blood donors.
If a mother donates blood to their child, there is an increased risk of a condition known as transfusion-related acute lung injury because the mother often has antibodies against fetal antigens that share genetic similarity with the father. This condition can also be fatal.

Further complicating things, when directed donation blood is not needed, it may be added to the general supply for use by other patients — after all, we have all heard the pleas from the American Red Cross about the need for blood donations. However, when directed donations are added to the blood supply, it is not marked in any special way. As a result, recipient patients, and their healthcare providers, remain unaware that the blood they received did not go through the rigorous testing that would have been done under regular donation protocols. In this scenario, the seemingly isolated choice of an individual increased the risk for others who didn’t get a say in the decision.

Also, the public may not realize that some supporters of these unfounded concerns have been working to introduce bills related to individual rights and directed blood supplies in state legislative sessions. By late February 2026, 16 bills had been proposed. While the bills varied in terms of their goals and how far they progressed with policymakers, over time, these kinds of efforts could negatively impact safety protocols, frontline healthcare, and already tenuous blood supplies.

When risky choices cause unnecessary suffering

Requesting directed blood because of unsubstantiated concerns around COVID-19 vaccines may seem like a safer “compromise” choice without consequences. However, like purchasing insurance policies, each choice comes with its own risks, and unfortunately, some of those choices may mean the risks are realized when it is too late, or they may be endured by others who had no part in the original decision.