Shot forced on newborn over parents' objections

[Guest guest]

The html links can be found in Larry's archives. Sorry I can't process

html right now. Thanks Larry. Nicky

 

 

REPOSTS on June 18, 2003

Date:

Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:40:58 -0500

" Larry Lawson " <hitech

To:

" LLNews " <LLNews2 >

 

 

 

 

REPOSTS ON: 06-18-AD2003 Archived at:

LLNews2

Out:11:41am

To be removed from future mailings just reply with REMOVE in the subject

line, and email to hitech

 

Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:31 AM

WorldNetDaily Shot forced on newborn over parents'

objections.htm

 

Send this to your friends!!! This is the couple Rick interviewed and we

have 2 different doctors that can vouch for the

couple! This was the couple that they pulled together a makeshift

courtroom and used a staff lawyer as the attorney to

force the vaccine on the baby!

 

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER

Shot forced on newborn

over parents' objections

Orwellian nightmare for 'persecuted' couple

as armed guards ensure infant's vaccination

Posted: June 18, 2003

1:00 a.m. Eastern Land of the FREE??????

 

By Diana Lynne

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

 

What was supposed to be a joyous occasion – the birth of their first

child – turned out to be an Orwellian nightmare for a

young Colorado couple whose newborn was vaccinated for hepatitis B over

their religious and philosophical objections,

while armed guards stood by to prevent them from intervening.

 

" It makes me feel like the country I live in is no better than communist

China or the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany,

and that's a very sobering and scary outlook, " the father, who does not

want to be named, told WorldNetDaily.

 

The saga of " Baby M, " as the family calls her to protect her privacy,

started with an emergency Caesarean section at St.

Mary's Hospital in in Grand Junction, Colo., on April 2. The couple, who

has no medical insurance, had attempted to

home birth but wound up rushing to the emergency room after the baby's

position went transverse.

 

" Baby M " was born without complication. But as the new parents were

basking in the afterglow of the birth, a neonatal

doctor informed them a vaccination was in order for the baby and

pressured the couple to sign a consent form.

 

" He told me the initial screening test [on the mother] had come back

positive for hepatitis B. I told him that was

impossible, " said the father. " And he said, 'Well, I didn't think it was

very likely either so I had them run it again and I'll

probably get those test results back soon. If those test results come

back positive again, then I'm going to have to

vaccinate the baby.' "

 

According to the couple's personal physician, the screening test gives a

false-positive 40 to 60 percent of the time.

 

A call for comment from the neonatal physician was not returned.

 

After the second test also came back positive, the doctor insisted the

couple sign the consent form. Citing text he

referenced in a medical guide, he informed the parents that the baby

must be vaccinated within 12 hours of birth, if the

mother has hepatitis B.

 

Said the father: " We said that we weren't going to authorize him to do

so because we did not believe she had hepatitis B

and that we believe vaccinations would not be good for the baby even if

she did, based upon our religious convictions

and also medical evidence. "

 

While not eschewing modern medicine, the couple prefers to avoid it when

possible and has a strong conviction against

vaccinations.

 

" We believe in God, and that God has created us in his image. In being

created in God's image, we are given his perfect

immune system. We are bestowed with His gift, the immune system. We

believe it is sacrilegious and a violation of our

sacred religious beliefs to violate what God has given us by showing a

lack of faith in God. Immunizations are a lack of

faith in God and His protection, the immune system, " the father

maintains.

 

Vaccination danger

 

The couple had also done extensive research into the potential serious

dangers of vaccinations.

 

WorldNetDaily reported last week that various studies indicate there is

epidemiological evidence of a link between

neurodevelopmental disorders and mercury exposure from childhood

vaccines. Many medical experts suspect vaccines

may be behind a growing epidemic of autism in American children.

According to data provided by the U.S. Department

of Education, most states experienced a doubling of the rate of children

diagnosed with full-syndrome autism over the

past few years. I PERSONALLY KNOW SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE PROBLEMS

WITH THE CHILDREN

'AFTER' VACCINATION. IN FACT, I RESEARCHED SOME INFO WITH THEM AND

DISCOVERED A

WORLD OF INFORMATION MY DOCTOR 'NEVER' DISCUSSED WITH ME. I HAD ALWAYS

JUST

GONE ALONG WITH THE NORM. WHAT I FOUND SCARED ME. BEFORE YOU SHRUG

YOUR

SHOULDERS LOOK THIS UP FOR YOURSELF. THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM. I KNOW

SEVERAL PEOPLE

WHO DON'T ALLOW DOCTORS TO GIVE THIS SHOT TO THEIR CHILDREN.... I AM ONE

OF THEM. I

AM NOT SAYING MEDICINE IS A BAD THING. THE IMMUNIZATION ARE BERY

ABUSED....THEY

MAKE A LOT OF MONEY OFF OF THEM.

 

U.S. infants are exposed to mercury levels from their

childhood-immunization schedule that far exceed the EPA

[Environmental Protection Agency] and FDA [Food and Drug

Administration]-established maximum permissible levels

for the daily oral ingestion of methyl mercury, " wrote Dr. Mark Geier,

president of the Genetic Centers of America, in a

recently published study in the Journal of American Physicians and

Surgeons.

 

According to Geier, the EPA limit is 0.1 micrograms of mercury per

kilogram body weight per day.

 

" It doesn't take a genius to do the calculations when on their day of

birth children are given the hepatitis B vaccine, which

is 12.5 micrograms of mercury, " Geier told Insight magazine. " The

average newborn weighs between six and seven

pounds, so they would be allowed 0.3 micrograms of mercury – but in this

one shot they are getting 12.5 micrograms.

That's 39 times more than allowed by law. " HM...HELLO, WE WONDER WHY

THERE IS SO MUCH

CANCER. WE ARE KILLING OURSELVES.

 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12,000

infants are infected with hepatitis B every year by

their mother during birth. Infants and children who become infected with

hepatitis B are at the highest risk of developing

life-long infection, which often leads to death from liver disease and

liver cancer. Approximately 25 percent of children

who become infected with life-long hepatitis are expected to die of a

related disease as adults.

 

The National Network for Immunization Information, or NNii, a resource

for parents recommended by the American

Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP, maintains the vaccine is " safe. "

 

NNii addresses the risk of mercury in the vaccine in a fact sheet posted

on its website. It explains that Thimerosal, a

derivative of mercury, has been used in " small amounts " as a

preservative in some vaccine and states " there is no

evidence that any child has been harmed by exposure to the amounts of

Thimerosal in vaccines. "

 

" In addition, the risk of disease from not immunizing a child is greater

than the risk of exposure to low levels of mercury in

Thimerosal-containing vaccines, " the fact sheet states, but then adds

the U.S. Public Health Service and the AAP

recommended reducing or eliminating the use of Thimerosal-containing

vaccines " to make safe vaccines even safer. "

 

NNii states " infants are at high risk for hepatitis B infection if their

mothers are infected with the virus " and recommends

these infants be given the hepatitis B vaccine " within 12 hours of

birth. "

 

NNii adds that most children who become infected with hepatitis B are

born to mothers who are not infected with

hepatitis B, and as a result, further recommends all children be

vaccinated.

 

The AAP recommends the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine be

administered to infants born to infected mothers

" before they leave the hospital. "

 

'Emergency' hearing

 

Faced with opposition from the parents over the vaccination of " Baby M, "

the doctor called in hospital social service

worker Joni Vohs, who reportedly threatened the parents with the loss of

custody of their baby if they did not comply

with the vaccination schedule.

 

Next, hospital administrators called in attorneys who persuaded Chief

District Court Judge Charles Buss to hold an

emergency, after-hours hearing at the hospital on the basis that the

baby's life would be in danger if she was not

vaccinated within hours. The family was given 15 minutes' notice of the

hearing and was unable to secure competent legal

help in time.

 

As the father describes it, he went up against a 10-person panel of

attorneys, social workers, hospital administrators and

the doctor who argued for the immediate vaccination.

 

The father pleaded for second opinions. He also pleaded for the judge to

wait for the results of a more confirmatory test

which were scheduled to arrive in 16 hours.

 

During the four-hour hearing, the father cited the Constitution, the

Declaration of Independence and Colorado revised

statute, which states there are religious, medical and philosophical

exemptions to medical treatment.

 

Rather than share the 19-year-old's passion for U.S. constitutional

history, the lawyers reportedly mocked him.

 

" When I was reading, the lawyers were whispering back and forth almost

laughing at me, " the father told WorldNetDaily.

" In retrospect, reminding them of the Constitution hurt me more than it

helped. "

 

The judge ruled the baby should be vaccinated immediately and also

ordered her put into protective custody with the

Mesa County Department of Human Services, which the parents were told

meant social-service agents had the ability to

intervene in the medical treatment of the baby at any time and could

take physical custody of the baby if deemed

necessary to " protect the child's best interests. "

 

A call for comment from Buss was referred to judicial administrator Judy

Vanderleest. Vanderleest told WorldNetDaily

the judge would not comment on the case. She also said the emergency,

after-hours hearing held at the hospital was the

first such hearing held that she could remember.

 

Matt Weber, an attorney who represented St. Mary's Hospital told

WorldNetDaily he was " not authorized to speak on

behalf of the hospital on this case. "

 

With armed guards lining the ICU, the first of three ordered

vaccinations was administered to the baby. According to the

family's physician, the baby immediately exhibited the typical side

effects of the vaccine.

 

A day later, the third hepatitis B screening on the mom came back

negative.

 

By the time the second shot was due to be administered, the father had

succeeded in persuading county social worker

Dan Overmeyer the vaccination posed more risk than good for the baby's

health. Overmeyer opted to not administer any

more shots and recommended the release of " Baby M " from protective

custody.

 

Overmeyer was unavailable for comment.

 

While the baby appears to be doing fairly well, the parents fear the

damage is already done, and can only wait and

wonder when the adverse effects of the vaccine will appear.

 

" Most of the doctors that I've talked to from around the country that

know about vaccinations have said that it takes

months and sometimes years for things to show up, " the father told

WorldNetDaily. " The scary thing is that there are

babies that just die out of the blue supposedly for no reason. ...

There's a lot of evidence that these SIDS [sudden Infant

Death Syndrome] victims are actually a result of vaccination. "

 

The Institute of Medicine, a medical research organization that provides

health information to the government, released a

report last March that concluded all available evidence shows no link

between vaccines and unexplained infant deaths.

 

Religious persecution?

 

Having recently graduated from college with an associate's degree in

telecommunications engineering, the father has now

launched a campaign to alert expecting parents about his family's

ordeal. He posted their story online with a link to an

article outlining the research behind the dangers of vaccinations.

 

" I want [parents] to know that their rights are no longer being upheld

by our government, " he said. " If people don't speak

out and voice their disapproval and talk to their congressman and make a

big deal out of things like this then we will find

ourselves very soon in a sort of police state where we have no

individual freedoms and the government tells us what to

do, what not to do and basically raises our children for us. "

 

The website includes a link for readers to make contributions to a legal

defense fund. The family hopes to raise sufficient

funds to sue the hospital. They feel both the hospital staff and the

judge persecuted them for their religious conviction

against vaccinations.

 

" The doctor and hospital thought we would be easy targets as we were

young and penniless. They do not like people

who try to avoid the system and they don't like anyone to question

whether or not their practices are truly in the best

interests of the patient, " the father said. " Our aim in legal action

would be to get a precedent that protects families from

this ever happening again. "

 

Kim Williams, the director of marketing at St. Mary's Hospital declined

to discuss the case, citing the Health Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which outlines

patient-confidentiality rules.

 

Social worker Joni Vohs adamantly denied the hospital would persecute

anyone over their religious beliefs or

discriminate against them because of a lack of insurance.

 

" St. Mary's is a Catholic hospital. We treat everybody regardless of

their ability to pay. It's a very compassionate and

caring place. "

 

After stressing she was bound by confidentiality rules not to discuss

the details, Vohs said the " Baby M " case triggered

her recollection of another case in which a 13-year-old girl died a

" very slow death " because the family belonged to a

church that " believed in prayers over medical treatment " and failed to

seek treatment for her until she was almost dead.

 

" Having worked in child protection for 25 years, to allow a child to

suffer or die a horrible death is child abuse, " Vohs

told WorldNetDaily.

 

Colorado legislators passed a law as a result of that case which allows

the court to step in and override parents' religious

beliefs in the event of a medical emergency. Vohs said this law was

applied to the " Baby M " case.

 

" The hospital doesn't do anything on a whim. There's a lot of steps that

need to be taken. There was a legal hearing ...

and the law was followed, " she said.

 

She also added that the family's story posted online " stretches and

alters " the truth in the case.

 

" Baby M's " father argues there was no emergency and emphasizes that had

the staff simply waited the 16 hours for the

third, more confirmatory test of the mother's blood to come back

negative, the entire " nightmare " could have been

avoided.

 

I SENT EMAILS REGARDING THIS PROBLEM BACK ON 10/02 AND STILLHAVE SOME

ARTICLES IF

ANYONE IS INTERESTED. THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM. WITH A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF

RESEARCH A

PERSON CAN GET BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE. THERE ARE MANY LEADING EXPERTS

WHO ARE

VERY MUCH AGAINST IMMUNIZATION. IF YOU LOOK UP WHAT IMMUNIZATION MEANS

YOU

WILL FIND THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING DELIVERED....

 

KELLY COLLET

 

Related stories:

 

Vaccines fueling autism epidemic?

 

Parents fight hospital over care of preemie