“I want to make it perfectly clear. We’re leaving here today. Dad’s picking the child up and he’s going to be vaccinated regardless of what Mom did or didn’t do.”
These were the words of Oakland County judge Karen McDonald during the open minutes of the recent court room proceedings that continue to grab international headlines. Metro Detroit’s Rebecca Bredow, the Mom, now sits in an Oakland Country jail with a criminal record forever attached to her name. Her 9-year-old son is now in temporary custody of his father who is ordered by the court to bring the child up to date on the boy’s vaccination status, which will be up to eight vaccines “…as rapidly as medically necessary.”
Unfortunately in America, the end result of cases like Bredow’s are becoming more and more common.
Some are saying Bredow refused to vaccinate her child and is getting what she deserved but is it really that simple? The mainstream, corporate media narrative is attempting to paint a picture that Bredow’s case is an uncommon, one-and-done occurrence. The narrative is also suggesting that the family court process, when vaccination status is concerned, is a stone solid justice machine based on ‘settled vaccine science.’ The reality is that the judge and the court are taking a known and dangerous medical risk with another person’s child that they have no right to take. Do courts have the right to order an unavoidably unsafe medical intervention like vaccination in custody cases?
At minute 3:30 Judge McDonald makes clear her forced vaccination agenda.
Joel Dorfman of Michigan for Vaccine Choice, a group that advocates for parents’ rights to refuse vaccines told the Detroit Free Press, “If this child is injured as a result of being given eight immunizations, who do you think is going to take care of the child? The judge?”
NOTE: Thanks to JB Handley for this great post on Medium.com. Bookmark his site and make sure to read his work regularly!
CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI — Anne Dachel is a relentless advocate for the health of America’s children. The mother of an adult son on the autism spectrum, Anne has been a teacher for three decades and has seen the stunning increase in the number of sick children (both mentally and physically) in America’s schools. She writes:
“We keep looking for ways to explain what’s happening to our children, while we pretend nothing has changed. I’ve heard lots of teachers say things like, ‘they come with so many issues from home,’ ‘they used to be kept at home,’ and ‘they used to be in institutions.’
The truth is, kids today live in a chemical soup. Toxins are everywhere. They breathe toxins, eat toxins, and have toxins injected into their bodies. It’s amazing they’re doing as well as they are.
When you look at the number of chronically sick kids that fill our schools, is it such a stretch to realize that their developmental health (social and behavioral) has been equally impaired?”
“The more highly skilled and educated populations are clearly questioning vaccinations.” That statement was recently made by Lorraine Baker, MD, president of AMA Victoria—a medical trade association representing doctors in Australia’s southeastern state of Victoria.1It is not an unusual statement to make when referring to people who veer from mainstream vaccine science orthodoxy—either a little bit or a lot.
In a study published last year in the journal EBioMedicine seeking to gauge the level of confidence in the necessity, safety and effectiveness of vaccines in 67 countries, investigators found that people holding Masters or PhD degrees were “not associated with more positive views on vaccine importance and effectiveness.” People with “no education” had more positive views about vaccination.2
The fact that people, who are educated, trained in critical thinking, and financially solvent, are choosing to do their own research and make independent decisions about vaccination is commonly recognized in the evolving debate on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and the ethics of mandatory vaccination policies. You can see this theme in numerous media articles with headlines that read:
Of course, this recognition by mandatory vaccination apologists of the high education level and earning power of vaccine dissenters is, curiously, often delivered as an insult. Beneath the insult lies a subliminal question: “If you are so smart, then how can you be so stupid and disagree with us about vaccination?” It’s a great question.
However, it assumes that the science supporting the belief that vaccines are safe and effective is rock solid—that those who disagree with the majority view about vaccination are wrong. It assumes that vaccine science “is settled” and cannot or should not be revisited or revised. Both assumptions are entirely up for debate.
Oddly, it is many of those within the mainstream medical and public health communities who adamantly believe they are right on the issue of vaccine science who tend to shy away from looking beyond mandatory vaccination policy and openly debating the continually evolving science. Their preference is to simply shut the door on any contrarian talk by anyone who challenges any piece of the mainstream vaccine paradigm. One must either accept the paradigm in its entirety or risk being labeled a heretic and a danger to the public health, deserving of being punished and banished from civilized society.