Child Vaccination Case

Child Vaccination Case

Child Vaccination Case

Re: the Legality of which Parent may decide if their child(ren) should be vaccinated or not

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: (heard) Feb 18, 2022
  • Location: Ontario, Canada
  • Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
  • Case #: J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198 (CanLII)
  • Plaintiff: Father
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Jesse Herman
  • Defendant: Mother (Self-Represented)
  • Trial Type: Family Court
  • Judge: A Pazaratz
  • Status: Decided (Feb 22, 2022)
  • Verdict: for the Defendant


*updated March 11, 2022

 

Background

A father applied for an order that his two children, LEG age 12 and MDG age 10, receive covid vaccinations, while their mother opposed this. [1] Here, the parents, both in their mid-30s, separated more than seven years ago.

The oldest, a 14-year-old boy, lives primarily with his father and chose to vaccinated against COVID-19 last fall – a decision both parents supported, the ruling says. [2]

The two younger children, a 12-year-old girl and a 10-year-old boy, live primarily with their mother. Both were interviewed twice by a social worker and explained why they didn’t want to be vaccinated, with the youngest also expressing fears that his father would force him to get the shots, the document says. [2]

The mother stressed she is not against vaccines overall, adding all three have received their regular immunizations, the ruling says. She also stated she would be open to having the younger two – who have already had the virus and recovered – get COVID-19 shots at a later date “if safety concerns can be better addressed,” it says. [2]

 

Significance

This case makes significant the importance of evidence, and careful judgment

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The mother’s material included an article by Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine; a Pfizer fact sheet; a peer-reviewed article entitled “Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Lead to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS virus”; and an article from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) entitled “Clinical Considerations: Myocarditis and Pericarditis after Receipt of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccines among Adolescents and Young Adults”. [1]

 

Defendant’s Argument

Finally, the Court considered information obtained from the internet including a “Position Statement” from the Canadian Paediatric Society;  a document from the Government of Canada entitled “Vaccines for Children: Deciding to Vaccinate”; and an article from the Canada Communicable Disease Report entitled “COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations Surge Among Children”, all proffered by the father.  [1]

The father, meanwhile, submitted fact sheets issued by the government and the Canadian Paediatric Society, as well as “numerous downloads” from the mother’s social media accounts on allegations she was promoting conspiracy theories, the ruling says. [2]

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

Other similar cases have ruled in favor of the children being  vaccinated

 

Decision

The judgement

The decision was in favor of the mother who presented more evidence. [1]

Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz rejected a father’s motion to have his two younger children – ages 12 and 10 – vaccinated despite their mother’s and their own objections, and cautioned against dismissing certain viewpoints without evidence. [2]

The Judge stated that the children’s mother has the responsibility to make decisions for the children in her care; and that she has consistently made informed and child-focused decisions. He says she is not a bad parent, simply by virtue of asking questions of the government. The father’s application to vaccinate the children is dismissed [1]

The Ontario judge says he is not prepared to accept as fact that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is what’s best for them simply because it’s encouraged by the government, noting a number of factors – including the children’s own preferences – must be taken into account. [2]

Weighing the Evidence

The mother’s evidence focused entirely on medical and scientific evidence while the father focused on labelling and discrediting his children’s mother in a dismissive attempt to argue that her views were not worthy of consideration. Why? Because she had a political affiliation with the People’s Party of Canada led by Maxine Bernier; had perpetuated covid-related conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy on social media; and failed to wear a mask at a large rally. [1]

Puzzled by this evidence, Justice Pazaratz queries how any of these allegations and many similar ones are relevant and how far is one to take “guilt by association”? [1]

He remarks that “it is of little consequence that an individual litigant chooses to advance such dubious and offensive arguments. Even though the father may not admit this, this is still a free country and people can say what they want…including him. But there’s a bigger problem here. An uglier problem.” [1]

the children’s views took centre-stage in the analysis. A Views of the Child Report indicated that neither child wished to be vaccinated, and Justice Pazaratz agreed that their views were not determinative, but also could not be completely ignored, relying on Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the list of factors to be considered as set out in Decaen v. Decaen 2013 ONCA 218. The Court reviewed the children’s histories of regular immunizations, and their consistent reasons for rejecting a covid vaccination, which did not appear to be frivolous, superficial, or poorly thought out. [1]

Finally, the Court considered information obtained from the internet including a “Position Statement” from the Canadian Paediatric Society;  a document from the Government of Canada entitled “Vaccines for Children: Deciding to Vaccinate”; and an article from the Canada Communicable Disease Report entitled “COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations Surge Among Children”, all proffered by the father. [1]

Justice Pazaratz noted that information obtained from the internet can be admissible if it is accompanied by indicia of reliability, including whether it comes from an official website from a well-known organization, whether the information is capable of being verified and whether the source is disclosed so that the objectivity of the person or organization can be assessed. [1]

However, he also remarked that in almost all cases in Canada where COVID vaccinations have been ordered the court has made a finding that on the face of it, the internet materials presented by the objecting parent have been grossly deficient and at times, dubious. “The lack of an equally credible counter-point to government recommendations may have well been determinative in those earlier cases”. [1]

 

Notably, the Court recited the warning from Pfizer, a company that makes the vaccine, as follows: [1]

“There is a remote chance that the Pfizer vaccine could cause severe allergic reaction… Signs of an allergic reaction include difficulty breathing, swelling of the face and throat, a fast heartbeat, a bad rash, dizziness and weakness. Inflammation of the heart have occurred in some people who have received the Pfizer vaccine….” [1]

Justice Pazaratz also quotes from Dr. Robert Malone who warns that [1]

“therapeutic approaches that are still in the research phase are being imposed on an ill-informed public” and that  “public health leadership has stepped over the line and is now violating the bedrock principles which form the foundation upon which the ethics of clinical research are built.” [1]

‘Anyone reading even some of the articles presented by the mother would likely conclude that these are complicated and evolving issues, and there can be no simplistic presumption that one side is right and that the other side is comprised of a bunch of crackpots. That’s why the court should require evidence rather than conclusory statements.” [2]

The father, meanwhile, provided no evidence that the mother’s views had been debunked, the judge wrote. [2]

 

On Government Mistakes

Justice Alex Pazaratz found that the vaccines’ potential side effects justified her caution. He cited a long list of rights abuses to explain why courts should not simply defer to government experts. [3]

Justice Pazaratz points out other areas of life and the law where the government was wrong, including the Motherrisk expert evidence that turned out to be disastrous for families; the residential school system; the sterilization of Eskimo women; and the thalidomide crisis of the 1950’s. [1]

“What about the residential school system? For decades the government assured us that taking Indigenous children away – and being willfully blind to their abuse – was the right thing to do. We’re still finding children’s bodies,”[3]

“How about sterilizing Eskimo [sic] women? The same thing. The government knew best. Japanese and Chinese internment camps during World War II? The government told us it was an emergency and had to be done. Emergencies can be used by governments to justify a lot of things that later turn out to be wrong.” [3]

 

on “Judicial Notice”

Taking judicial notice means recognizing certain facts as indisputable, so they can be introduced as evidence by one side or the other without having to verify them. The Supreme Court of Canada has said courts may take judicial notice of facts that are so generally accepted as to be beyond debate among reasonable persons. [5]

Should judges sit back as the concept of ‘Judicial Notice’ gets hijacked from a rule of evidence to a substitute for evidence,” he wrote (emphasis in the original). [5]

“After considering all of the evidence– or often the lack of evidence—can the court just fill in the blanks and take judicial notice of the fact that all children should get vaccinated?… Because if “all judges just “know” that children should be vaccinated, then we should clearly say that that’s what we’re doing”. [1]

 

on tolerance

Justice Pazaratz then identifies the intolerance, vilification, and dismissive character assassination in family court. He presumes that he is seeing more of it because it is “rampant outside the courtroom” and appears to be socially acceptable to denounce, punish and banish anyone who doesn’t agree with you. An example? A recent case where a mother sought to terminate a father’s equal parenting time with their child because he was “promoting anti-government beliefs”. Judge Pazaratz declares: “…in Communist China that request would likely have been granted”. But not in Canada, [1]

 

On Previous Cases

The ruling represents a departure from earlier Canadian cases involving disputes over COVID-19 vaccinations, where courts have taken what’s called “judicial notice” – essentially accepting statements as fact – that immunization is beneficial for children, said Alyssa Bach, an associate lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLp. [2]

We now have cases where judges have taken that judicial notice that the vaccine is in the best interest, and now one where it was decided that that wasn’t the case. And so it’s a reminder that each family’s circumstances, and the circumstances of the children, are going to be taken into consideration on a case-by-case basis,” she said Tuesday. [2]

“It’s notable that Justice Pazaratz, in his decision, did go through the other cases where this judicial notice had been taken and distinguished it and how this case was different than the other cases.” [2]

  • In most of the previous cases, the children were younger, so their views on COVID-19 shots were “either unascertainable or less relevant because of the child’s lack of maturity,” the judge wrote in his ruling. [2]
  • And in the cases where the children’s preferences were overridden, the court found the parent seeking vaccination had presented more reasonable information to the children and made more compelling arguments in court, Pazaratz said. [2]
  • As well, the court in many of those cases found the materials presented by the parent opposed to vaccination were “grossly deficient, unreliable and – at times – dubious. This lack of an equally credible counterpoint to government recommendations may well have been determinative in those earlier cases,” he said. [2]
  • Not so in the case at hand, the judge noted. [2]

 

Aftermath

The parties agreed in Minutes of Settlement that each party would have sole-decision making authority for the child(ren) in their care and control, however, their agreement also stated that: “The issue of LEG and MDG receiving a covid vaccine shall remain a live issue and shall be determined at a later date. The child CBG can determine whether or not he wants to be vaccinated now”. [1]

Jesse Herman, who represents the father, declined to say whether his client would seek to challenge the ruling. [2]

‘At this time, all I can comment is that we strongly disagree with the decision that was made,” he said in an email. [2]

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:
  • …More information is needed…

 

Media


……

source: ….


Child Vaccination : Dr. Julie Ponesse

source: CanadianCovidCareAlliance


….

source: ….

 

References

  1. Ground-Breaking Covid Decision in Family Law
  2. What? There ‘s A Common Sense Judge In The House , And The Mainstream Media Carried It?
  3. Ontario judge rules mother doesn’t have to vaccinate children against COVID-19

 

Keyword

Canada, Child, Children, China, Communist, ethics, Family, Father, Heart, Inflammation, Justice, Malone, mis-information, Mother, Motherrisk, myocarditis, Ontario, Parents, Pazaratz, Pfizer, sterilization of Eskimo women, thalidomide, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Vaccination


Back to All Cases

 

article-VaccineAR-data

article-VaccineAR-data

Article: Vaccine AR Data

Re: the under-reporting & risks of covid vaccine injury in Germany

 

Back to All Cases

English Translation from CoronaCases of original article: (as reported on achtung.com Feb 19, 2022)


The Revealing Accounting of Vaccine Damage

by Ulrich Adam

Since 1 April 2021, numerous cases of adverse reactions in connection with Covid-19 vaccinations have been documented in Germany and billed to health insurers – the picture painted there testifies to a comparatively poor safety profile. Who doesn’t know the obligatory slogan after every TV or radio advertisement for non-prescription drugs? At the end it always says in unison: “For risks and side effects, read the package leaflet and ask your doctor or pharmacist.”

The package leaflet is rarely seen with Covid 19 vaccines, and enquiries with doctors and pharmacists about possible side effects are often not very meaningful or informative. In view of the fact that the substances have only been on the market for just under 14 months,
longer empirical values are of course not available.

At the same time, there are a large number of articles and reports on side effects on the internet, most of which are anecdotal and suggestive and do not necessarily help to make a sober scientific assessment.

So where can an interested layperson start? One of the official pieces of information from the Federal Ministry of Health already makes one wonder: the risk of myocarditis is given here as 1:5000, an extremely poor value for a vaccine in terms of safety profile – both in
comparison to other classic inactivated vaccines and under medical ethical and regulatory aspects. After all, vaccines are usually administered to healthy persons and must therefore rightly meet the highest safety requirements. The latest report of the Paul Ehrlich Institute on reported suspected side effects is complex, but points in a similar direction: severe side effects are estimated in a similar order of magnitude (2/10,000).

Worrying data

It is good that there is the INEK database, which contains the services documented and billed in German hospitals. Unfortunately, there are no regular reliable summaries regarding the frequency and severity of Covid-19 vaccination reactions registered there. But as long as
you know that since 1 April 2021 the code U12.9 can be used for such adverse event diagnoses, you can do a little research yourself in the publicly accessible database.

The picture that emerges there for the period from 1 April to 31 December 2021 confirms the comparatively poor safety profile, and the full extent of toxicity does not yet seem to be covered.

Even taking into account the high number of Covid-19 vaccine doses administered in total during this period (around 110 million), the frequency and severity of side effects is considerable. 14,367 cases were treated in German hospitals, 1,652 of which involved a stay
in intensive care, and 170 people died.

In addition to the deaths, the intensive care stays are worrying, since it was precisely the avoidance of a potential temporary overload situation in intensive care units in Germany that was cited as the primary justification for the measures – and vaccinations – taken.
The breadth and (in some cases) severity of the adverse events recorded is also worrying.

Many of the primary diagnoses recorded in association with U12.9 as a secondary diagnosis (369 in total) are consistent with those in the emerging scientific literature. For example, the available data show significant adverse events in seven prominent areas (myocarditis,
pericarditis, non-pyogenic thrombosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, tachycardia, hypoaesthesia/paraesthesia of the skin, pulmonary embolism) – in addition to the numerous others (many of which, however, are also mild and temporary, such as headache).

Urgent data research needed

A comparison with the data for the previous year’s period also indicates a possible under-recording/under-use of the U12.9 code. For myocarditis (codes I40.8, I40.9, I51.4), an 80% increase in total cases compared to the previous year is reported. 4,478 cases in the last 9
months of 2021 were compared to 2,481 cases in the same period in 2020. Of the 4,478 total cases, 618, or about 30 per cent of the increase, were associated with a Covid 19 vaccine adverse event.

Although it cannot be excluded that other factors may have played a role in the massive increase in myocarditis cases in 2021, a possible under-reporting seems plausible. Further data research is urgently needed to clarify the situation in order to prevent possible harm to people.

Slogans and slogans can no longer help to overcome the existing uncertainties. Risks and side effects are not a banality, certainly not in the context of a mass vaccination campaign. A broader discussion and more extensive educational work on risks and side effects appear to be urgently needed.

Ulrich Adam studied history and political science in Tübingen and Cambridge (UK).

He has lived in Belgium for many years and worked, among other things, on EU regulatory issues of prescription drugs and vaccines.


related articles


Keywords

accounting, article, Data, deaths, evaluation, germany, INEK, Insurance, myocarditis, risks, Safety, side effects, Ulrich Adam, underreporting, Vaccination, Vaccine


Back to All Cases