It's considered child abuse for example to not want your child injected with lipid nanoparticles.
Please provide some examples where the county child protection authorities have opened a case file on parents who have not had their children vaccinated for covid.
From 2 years ago. There were 13 sets of rules for children in Canada. Depending on where they live the parents may or may not have had the right to determine if the child is vaccinated.
The term vaccination was modified to align gene therapy and lipid nanoparticles to be considered a vaccine. Ergo now relevant to case law for vaccination and thus child custody cases align with those that are preceded and targeted to parents who don't vaccinate.
It's you who are trying to obfuscate and it's obvious you are attempting to redirect to align your cause.
I'm simply saying it you choose to reject a forced injection through coercion or mandates there is case law that supports the crown case to take your child.
What are you attempting to do? Fool people into believing that the medical system is not planning for this? Since it's the national institute for health tracking the cases it's obvious they are planning to enstate the practice at some point, otherwise why track?
And I don't think in law it matters if there are nine or seven cases. Nine were opened and seven judged. All you need is one for precedence.
The ambiguity article is to show the fact that case law can be muddy water and lead to conviction for unwarranted cases.
I think you are attempting to fool the general audience into believing that no one will take a child for vaccination resistance when it has been done before.
Why are you doing that? You seem panicked that I have the evidence of my statement possibly because it comes across as you are spreading misinformation.
The word vaccine is from the latin word for cow: vacca, because it originally - in the late 1800s - meant being injected with cowpox. A lot has happened since then. This is not the first time the definition has been broadened.
those that are preceded
As your link illustrates: 7 convictions in 111 years in the US. So a conviction is theoretically possible but only just.
I'm simply saying it you choose to reject a forced injection through coercion or mandates there is case law that supports the crown case to take your child.
There is nothing in your link about the seven cases where the child was "deemed neglected" to indicate that any of the children were removed from the home. The link doesn't support your argument.
national institute for health
Among its myriad other programs it runs a library of research papers. It did not direct or sponsor the research you linked. Claiming it's responsible in any way is like saying you local library directs the National Geographic authors just because it has copies of the magazines on its shelves.
All you need is one for precedence.
Having a precedent does not guarantee a win. Especially not 7 instances in 111 years. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of cases tried every year, and the losing side quotes a lot of precedents.
I think you are attempting to fool the general audience into believing that no one will take a child for vaccination resistance when it has been done before.
You have provided no proof that a chid has been taken for lack of vaccination.
The ambiguity article
Does not show that any children have been taken for lack of vaccination.
Please provide some examples where the county child protection authorities have opened a case file on parents who have not had their children vaccinated for covid.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/
There have been nine cases in this article where vaccination led to neglect jugdements.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-s-covid-19-rules-fraught-with-ambiguity-judge-in-child-custody-case
Where there is ambiguity there is a threat to child custody.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-and-minors-where-does-canadian-law-stand-on-consent-1.5623287
Do you have anything relevant to the topic?
From 7 years ago. Only 7 convictions - not 9 - in the US in 111 years ending in 2016. Nothing to do with covid.
From 3 years ago. It's a child custody case. Nothing about vaccination.
From 2 years ago. There were 13 sets of rules for children in Canada. Depending on where they live the parents may or may not have had the right to determine if the child is vaccinated.
The term vaccination was modified to align gene therapy and lipid nanoparticles to be considered a vaccine. Ergo now relevant to case law for vaccination and thus child custody cases align with those that are preceded and targeted to parents who don't vaccinate.
It's you who are trying to obfuscate and it's obvious you are attempting to redirect to align your cause.
I'm simply saying it you choose to reject a forced injection through coercion or mandates there is case law that supports the crown case to take your child.
What are you attempting to do? Fool people into believing that the medical system is not planning for this? Since it's the national institute for health tracking the cases it's obvious they are planning to enstate the practice at some point, otherwise why track?
And I don't think in law it matters if there are nine or seven cases. Nine were opened and seven judged. All you need is one for precedence.
The ambiguity article is to show the fact that case law can be muddy water and lead to conviction for unwarranted cases.
I think you are attempting to fool the general audience into believing that no one will take a child for vaccination resistance when it has been done before.
Why are you doing that? You seem panicked that I have the evidence of my statement possibly because it comes across as you are spreading misinformation.
The word vaccine is from the latin word for cow: vacca, because it originally - in the late 1800s - meant being injected with cowpox. A lot has happened since then. This is not the first time the definition has been broadened.
As your link illustrates: 7 convictions in 111 years in the US. So a conviction is theoretically possible but only just.
There is nothing in your link about the seven cases where the child was "deemed neglected" to indicate that any of the children were removed from the home. The link doesn't support your argument.
Among its myriad other programs it runs a library of research papers. It did not direct or sponsor the research you linked. Claiming it's responsible in any way is like saying you local library directs the National Geographic authors just because it has copies of the magazines on its shelves.
Having a precedent does not guarantee a win. Especially not 7 instances in 111 years. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of cases tried every year, and the losing side quotes a lot of precedents.
You have provided no proof that a chid has been taken for lack of vaccination.
Does not show that any children have been taken for lack of vaccination.
You do not. You are pretending that you do.
Why are you doing that?
You dropped this
She might be one of the few who could possibly care folks.
Add it to your collection
Do you have more downvotes or boosters?
Don't know. Don't care.
But apparently this is important to her folks, so please upvote everything she posts so the poor thing can feel validated.
Sounds like she has a sad life if she has to come here for support.