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.
You have not provided a single instance in 111 years where a child has been removed from the home for lack of vaccination of any kind, let alone a covid vaccine.
You're claiming people should be worried about something that has never happened. It's just your opinion that it might, and you aren't supporting it very well.
You have provided no proof that a child has been taken for lack of vaccination.
Where is your proof they weren't?
That's not the way it works. "That which is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
You have provided no evidence that any child has ever been removed from a home simply for not being vaccinated.
You're claiming people should be worried about something that has never happened. It's just your opinion that it might, and you aren't supporting it very well.
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?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/
The article said that the parents were deemed negligent for vaccine resistance.
https://www.propublica.org/article/some-constitutional-rights-dont-apply-in-child-welfare
You can have your children removed if deemed negligent.
Nothing about removing children from the family.
Nothing about vaccination.
Your original claim was "It's considered child abuse for example to not want your child injected with lipid nanoparticles." You have expressed the opinion that if "you choose to reject a forced injection through coercion or mandates there is case law that supports the crown case to take your child..
You have not provided a single instance in 111 years where a child has been removed from the home for lack of vaccination of any kind, let alone a covid vaccine.
You're claiming people should be worried about something that has never happened. It's just your opinion that it might, and you aren't supporting it very well.
Where is your proof they weren't?
That's not the way it works. "That which is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
You have provided no evidence that any child has ever been removed from a home simply for not being vaccinated.
You're claiming people should be worried about something that has never happened. It's just your opinion that it might, and you aren't supporting it very well.