Tag: medical-intervention

  • Police report reveals reasons police took Idaho newborn

    We have an incredible piece of information regarding the case of the removal of baby Elijah from the care of his parents in North Idaho. The mother gave birth on November 20, 2017 via c-section in a hospital in Kootenai County (Kootenai Health). The police took the newborn on the 22nd after dad refused vaccinations while mother and child were still in the hospital awaiting release. One of the accusations listed in the police report  is that “the staff feared the parents would not complete follow-up medical care.” The police report states erroneously that Ari, the newborn’s father, is against medical intervention. This is just one of the accusations they used the child from his family claiming the parents as unsafe and unfit.

    “Ari is against medical intervention such as vaccinations. It is feared that Ari would not take Elijah to get medical attention or do any sort of follow-up after his birth.”


    Police Report for the removal of newborn

    If this family was against medical intervention, they  would not have birthed their child in a medical facility. If this family was against medical care, would the mother be receiving ongoing treatment for her cerebral palsy? Clearly, this family does believe in receiving medical care, they are opposed to the hep b vaccination used against an STD for their newborn son.

    And if they WERE against medical intervention…Where in Idaho statute  does it grant the police authority to remove a healthy newborn due to the possibility that family might not participate in ‘wellness visits’ at a local pediatrician?  ***Furthermore, it is a God given right of parents to determine the modality that they use to pursue wellness for their children. This line must never be crossed.***

    Diamond’s disability was clearly another excuse police and CPS used to remove the newborn from his parents. The hospital staff identified some specialized needs of this family, and instead of assisting the young couple, they called the police to take their child. 

    The police report states:
    “There are times when Elijah was being suffocated when being breastfed. There were no actions taken to prevent him from suffocating.”

    The couple wants their infant breastfed and needs support in understanding of proper latching and positioning of the infant, as is the case with many first time parents. Diamond’s physical limitations require Ari to assist with nursing positions. The police report states “No actions were taken to prevent the newborn from suffocating.” If the baby was in fact suffocating and no actions were taken to prevent it, as the officer alleges, then one would have concluded the baby suffocated, however Elijah is, in fact, alive and well. It is commonly understood that to suffocate means to:  die or cause to die from lack of air or inability to breathe.

    The fact that the child wasn’t nursing correctly that doesn’t warrant his removal from his parents. There are many ways to resolve breastfeeding issues, specialized training with clear direction from hospital staff on how to position the child safely on his mother’s breast could have easily corrected the issue.

    In an effort to discredit Ari as a loving and capable father, the police report identifies some outrageous reasons to claim he is unfit to parent his child:

    • (Father) left the infant with mom while they were both in the care of hospital staff.  Are we not to trust hospital staff for the care of our loved ones? Many fathers have been known to leave the hospital trusting in the medical care provided by staff for their families.
    • Father and infant slept together with infant resting safely on his father’s chest. 


    A baby needs to be held for physical, emotional and mental well-being yet authorities are using the father’s moments of restful bonding with his newborn son as an excuse that he is an unfit father?

    • The infant cried and wasn’t attended to immediately. Sleep – deprived parents have been known to not awaken to a cry immediately. The young family, still in the hospital was adjusting to their newborn. Taking advantage of the security of a safety net of nurses scurrying to and fro, this father didn’t awaken instantaneously. Can you imagine if someone was monitoring your sleep patterns to determine how long your baby cried before you were alert enough to meet his needs? If that was a determining factor in your right to parent a child, would CPS be coming to take your child away?

      This family wasn’t even given the opportunity to develop their new family rhythm. They have the support of a close knit church, with experienced parents willing and able to be available to support in any way necessary.

    This mother’s disability and father’s protective action against vaccinations gave the state an excuse to remove the newborn.  Now, the family suffers from the constant threat that CPS will come in, under the guise of ‘safety investigations’ and snatch their precious baby again.

    This family needs our continued support.

    Police Report for the removal of newborn

    UPDATE: CASE DISMISSED. DECEMBER 18, 2017

    The case against baby Elijah’s parents has been dropped. It NEVER should have happened to begin with. Please take the time to read the police report. In addition to lies about the parents, they admit in the report that CPS took the baby because of the parents’ choice to opt their baby out of the Hep B vax. There was no neglect, no drug use, no reason at all to believe the baby was in danger.

    We WILL NOT allow the kidnapping of children in Idaho. It was because of the public pressure and outrage that this baby is safely back home with his loving parents. Thank you to everyone who called and emailed and took the time to stand against this injustice.

    We must be vigilant to hold those in authority accountable for their actions, for the sake of our own liberty and freedom.

  • Are anti-vaxxers against all modern medicine, or just vaccines?

    Are anti-vaxxers against ALL modern medicine, or just vaccines? The question has been posed several times. Here is a well written article by Allie Fujito answering the concerns that many people who find the conflict of interest in the pharmaceutical industry disconcerting, the declining health of our children alarming and the explosive list of mandated vaccines alarming. 

    Here is my answer to that:

    1) The word “anti-vaxxers” is a pejorative, meant to demean and polarize. If I criticize how Ford and Toyota handled their problems with stuck accelerators (denied that there was a problem, produced their own data showing no problem, blamed the drivers….and eventually admitted there was a problem),
    that does not make me “anti-accelerator,” “anti-car,” or even “anti-Ford” or “anti-Toyota.”

    Using pejoratives like “anti-vaxxer” puts the focus on the critic, rather than where it belongs: on the problem pointed out by the critic.

    See how that works?

    2) Criticizing today’s bloated vaccine program does not mean that the critic is against everything the medical/pharmaceutical industry does.

    IT MEANS THAT WE’RE CRITICIZING TODAY’S BLOATED VACCINE PROGRAM.

    So let’s stick to discussing THAT.

    In case you do not already know:

    3) Statins, antibiotics, cough syrup, antihistamines, steroids, antacids, and chemotherapy are not mandated in order for your child to attend daycare, school, or summer camp, nor are they mandated in order to attend college, nor are they mandated to work in a hospital, clinic, doctor’s office, or school. But vaccines are.

    4) If you have a severe adverse reaction to statins, antibiotics, cough syrup, antihistamines, steroids, antacids, chemotherapy or any other pharmaceutical product, and you can prove that the product could have been made to have a better safety profile, you can sue the manufacturer.

    You cannot sue the vaccine manufacturers. They are protected by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which indemnifies all vaccine manufacturers, as well as those who administer them, no matter how severe your reaction is.

    5) If your doctor prescribes a drug that’s inappropriate for you–say, amoxicillin when you’ve already had an allergic reaction to it–you can sue him or her for malpractice.

    You cannot sue doctors for giving you the wrong vaccine — say, giving an infant Gardasil, which is not designed for infants, and is not part of the infant schedule –nor can you sue them for giving you a vaccine where a past dose of the same vaccine had already caused you to have a bad reaction. They’re protected by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

    Their liability free vaccines means that vaccine manufacturers have absolutely no motivation to make vaccines safer. THEY cannot be sued for adverse reactions. THEY staff the government committees that decide the vaccine schedule. THEY define what is and is not considered a vaccine reaction. THEY control legislators via the most aggressive lobbying of any industry.

    Here is an excellent discussion of just some of the problems:https://www.ebcala.org/unanswered-questions/vaccine-epidemic

    6) Vaccines are not held to the same standard of safety testing that all other pharmaceuticals are required to undergo. Classified as “biologicals,” rather than as “medication,” they are not required to be safety-tested against an inert placebo, nor are they required to show long-term health outcomes.

    In fact, the package insert for every vaccine clearly states, “___ [this vaccine] has not been assessed for carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or impairment of fertility.”

    Take a look at how the vaccine schedule increased after the implementation of that 1986 Act. Remember, it protects the manufacturers, not the people who get vaccinated. Keep in mind, the members of the CDC’s Advisory Council on Immunization Practices — who determine which vaccines are on the schedule — are mainly from the vaccine industry.

    That’s called “conflict of interest.”

    The conversation continued on facebook with these valid points: 

    If the chances of a severe reaction from a shot are x, and the chances of successfully preventing the disease (that the shot is supposed to immunize against) is y, what values of x and y are acceptable to go ahead with the shot?  

    Allie Fujito says: You put your finger on a major part of the issue, Grant Sbrocco .

    A couple of problems: 

    1. We don’t KNOW what the chances are of severe reactions, because reactions go unrecognized and unreported. 
    2. It’s a bit of a fallacy to compare the chance of preventing a disease with the chance of adverse reaction from the vaccine because many of the diseases we vaccinate for are not problematic for the vast majority who get them. 

    What we should be looking at is: WHO IS SUSCEPTIBLE?

    Who is likely to have complications from disease? What can we do to improve their chances?

    Who is likely to have adverse reactions to vaccines? 

    We know some of these susceptibilities, yet we do NOTHING to screen for them. 

    • We KNOW that vitamin A deficiency is responsible for most measles complications. And we know that both complications and death rates are low in developed countries. So why is vaccinating the entire population considered the one and only answer?
    • We know that some people have genetic mutations, such as MTHFR mutations, that impair the ability to excrete the heavy metals that are in vaccines. We also know of other predispositions, that may be either genetic or acquired, such as mitochondrial dysfunction, celiac disease, and other autoimmune issues. So whey THE HELL aren’t we screening for these issues before vaccinating? 

    And why has the government allowed vaccine manufacturers to completely skip studying long-term health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations? 

    READ THIS CAREFULLY.

    “Objectives: We sought to investigate roles that Merck & Co Inc played in state human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization policymaking, to elicit key stakeholders’ perceptions of the appropriateness of these activities, and to explore implications for relationships between health policymakers and industry.”

    “Conclusions: Although policymakers acknowledge the utility of manufacturers’ involvement in vaccination policymaking, industry lobbying that is overly aggressive, not fully transparent, or not divorced from financial contributions to lawmakers risks undermining the prospects for legislation to foster uptake of new vaccines.”

    MY TRANSLATION: “We looked at how Merck influences government policy regarding Merck’s most expensive–and most controversial–vaccine. We saw that the entire process is corrupt. We are afraid to say so in so many words.”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483914/  

    Learn More About @ Icandecide.com

    original article above posted by Allie Fujito on facebook October 19, 2017

    Here’s some additional points Health Freedom Idaho would like to add:

    7) The SAME Pharmaceutical Companies that create vaccines have ALL pled guilty to FRAUD in the last seven years. These companies have NO motivation to create safe vaccines (since any damage their vaccines cause don’t reduce profit). These corporations do not comply to laws in place to protect consumers admitting fraud. See our well cited article at Vaccine Makers Fraud 

    8) Are children healthier NOW then children in the early 80’s? Is this explosive schedule of vaccines REALLY about increasing HEALTH? Or is it about increasing the WEALTH of the pharmaceutical companies. 54% of our children are dealing with chronic (long-term) disease. 
    Have we traded acute illness for chronic disease?