I sometimes like to write about things happening in my neck of the woods that are relevant to the kinds of things I normally blog about every day. This habit of mine dates back at least to the days when investigative reporter Steve Wilson of our local ABC affiliate used to lay down fear mongering barrages of nonsense about mercury in vaccines that would have made Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. proud if he ever knew about them. Then there was a report on "orbs" seen in photographs where the reporter speculated whether they were actual spirits. Then there's the periodic fascination with veterinary quackery that pops up on local newspapers and media from time to time, including reiki and acupuncture for Fido.
This time around, it's about vaccines. It started a week ago, when I saw this headline on the website of one of our own local news stations, basically Wilson's old stomping ground WXYZ, Metro Detroit mom could be thrown behind bars for not getting son vaccinated. Now there's a clickbait title if ever I saw one, guaranteed to inflame antivaxers andeven a lot of people who aren't antivaccine with the image of overweening state power throwing a mother in jail to force her to vaccinate. Hell, ad a couple of apocalyptic adjectives, and this could be a NaturalNews.com headline! Watching the video of the report and reading the text made me wonder if the malign influence of Steve Wilson's antivaccine "reporting" is still hanging around the WXYZ newsroom, even nearly ten years after he left.
So here's the story:
Basically, Rebecca Bredow and Jason Horne are divorced. Horne wants their children vaccinated. Bredow doesn't. A week ago, the case was in court, and Bredow was ordered by the judge to vaccinate her children within a week or face jail. (Spoiler that will surprise no one. She didn't vaccinate her children and yesterday was sent for jail for contempt of court. More on that in a moment.) Now, try not to grind your teeth as you read the first passage of the story:
If you have kids, their health, their safety is your top priority. However, what if doing what you think is best, could land you behind bars?
A Metro Detroit mother is facing jail time because of her beliefs when it comes to vaccinations and her kid.
"I would rather sit behind bars standing up for what I believe in, than giving in to something I strongly don't believe in," says Rebecca Bredow.
This isn't putting the reporter's finger on the scale (or producer's or whoever's responsible for this framing). It's dropping a brick on the scale on the side of the mother. She's basically painted as a martyr for her beliefs, and the portrayal continues throughout the entire story. In the video, there is even a voiceover during the interview, "Wow. Rebecca Bredow, what a position this parent has been put in." Elsewhere, the reporter, Andreana Isom, intones, Some may label this metro Detroit mother as overprotective, stubborn, strong, or...all of the above." Seriously? That voiceover was about as unprofessional as anything I've ever seen, on local or national media. As I watched, I felt a bilious gurgling in the back of my throat.
Then I saw this:
Rebecca tells 7 Action News that she and dad made the decision to space out and delay some their little ones vaccines.
"It wasn’t until they started grouping them together that I backed off of doing vaccines," she says.
Rebecca hit the books, educated herself, she says, on the research, literature and studies. She concluded that waivers were the best way to go, the best for her baby boy. After all, the state of Michigan offers that option, explains Joel Dorfman.
"We’re fortunate in the state of Michigan that’s still permitted, still allow religious, personal and medical exemptions for parents who chose to delay, to skip a vaccine to make various choices," says Doorman.
Rebecca and her ex-husband do not see eye-to-eye. Their conflict has become a court battle.
According to court documents. the child’s father wants their son vaccinated. Rebecca makes it clear where she stands on the issue.
A bloggers at the antivaccine blog Age of Autism or Thinking Moms' Revolution couldn't have portrayed Bredow more heroically themselves. Heck, just look at Ms. Isom at the end of the story, basically touting how brave Ms. Bredow is, about how she will fight going to jail, in order to be there for her children. Gag me with a spoon.
Come to think of it, I'm rather surprised that I haven't seen anything on antivaccine websites about this case, although I expect that will change now that this story has made national news and even international news, with a report on the BBC, which tells a different tale:
Rebecca Bredow would not let her nine-year-old be immunised after initially agreeing with the father to do so.
Her ex-husband has now been awarded temporary primary custody in order to get the boy the jab.
Michigan parents are legally allowed to skip or delay their children's vaccinations due to personal beliefs.
But Bredow fell foul of the law because she reneged on agreements with her former spouse dating back to November 2016 to have the boy immunised.
So now it becomes more clear. Horne and Bredow divorced in 2008 and shared parental custody, although Bredow was the primary caregiver. When they were married, apparently they were of the "Dr. Bob" Sears ilk of vaccine-averse, in which they wanted to "space out" the vaccinations. Reading between the lines, the father remained in that camp, but the mother became more and more antivaccine as the years went by and she did more of her "own research."
Sadly, even the BBC report indulges in false balance of a sort I thought to have been mostly banished from reporting on vaccines and autism in recent years, quoting a woman to whom I refer as the grande dame of the antivaccine movement, Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the Orwellian-named National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). In the case of the WXYZ ABC report, the false balance comes in interviewing a representative of a local antivaccine group, Joel Dorfman, without identifying him as such:
Rebecca hit the books, educated herself, she says, on the research, literature and studies. She concluded that waivers were the best way to go, the best for her baby boy. After all, the state of Michigan offers that option, explains Joel Dorfman.
"We’re fortunate in the state of Michigan that’s still permitted, still allow religious, personal and medical exemptions for parents who chose to delay, to skip a vaccine to make various choices," says Doorman.
Actually, Dorfman is (very) briefly identified in the video in a "blink and you'll miss it" caption as being a representative of Michigan for Vaccine Choice, but not in the accompanying online article.
So, yesterday, having failed to vaccinate her child, Bredow appeared in court again, as described in this Detroit Free Press story, Ferndale mom jailed for refusing to vaccinate her 9-year-old son, where we also learn that Bredow lied about claiming a religious exemption:
The court initially ordered the immunization Nov. 16, 2016, but it still hasn't happened. In between, Bredow cited religious objections.
But Horne's attorney said in court pleadings that the religious objection was phony arguing that both Bredow and her current husband, Gary, "testified that they do not practice the tenets of any organized religion," and calling a waiver document the couple filed with the child's school "a convenient lie."
Bredow said in court pleadings that her ex-husband has long known of her objection to vaccines and is only making an issue of it now because she's been attempting to collect back child support.Last week, McDonald issued an ultimatum, to Bredow.
"You have seven days to get your child vaccinated," McDonald told Bredow Sept. 27. "If not, you will appear here Wednesday and if you have not, I'll send you to jail. Let me say it one more time, you have seven days. It's ridiculous. Don't make me do that."
But when Bredow appeared in court today, the child still had not be vaccinated, and McDonald made good on her promise and ordered Bredow to jail.
First off, I don't understand why Bredow would have lied about religious belief to claim a religious exemption, given that Michigan allows personal belief exemptions to school vaccine mandates. In any case, the story sounds complicated. It also sounds as though Bredow either lied to the judge when she promised to vaccinate or later reneged on a promise to vaccinate. Either way, judges do not take kindly to that; so it's not surprising that Bredow is now spending a week in jail for contempt of court.
But what of Bredow's claim that Horne is only pushing the vaccine issue now because she has been trying to collect back child support? Certainly divorce and custody battles are often complicated, and it's rare that there aren't...issues...on both sides. Who knows? What I do know is that the reporting of this case has been sensationalistic and full of the false balance that used to irritate the hell out of me back in the day, when seemingly any story on vaccines would inevitably have an antivaxer interviewed for "balance." Unfortunately, the Free Press falls prey to this same trope:
Horne will have temporary custody of the child with an opportunity to get the boy vaccinated, a prospect that alarmed Joel Dorfman of Michigan for Vaccine Choice, a group that advocates for parents' rights to refuse vaccines.
"If this child is injured as a result of being given eight immunizations, who do you think is going to take care of the child?" Dorfman told the Free Press. "The judge?"
I've discussed Michigan for Vaccine Choice before. It was one of the sponsors of a visit from Del Bigtree, producer of the antivaccine propaganda movie VAXXED, in which Bigtree got—shall we say?—a bit overwrought, basically calling for armed rebellion against the government for forcing children to be vaccinated. Basically, Michigan for Vaccine Choice is rabidly antivaccine. Unfortunately, local media have elevated its status to that of a legitimate advocacy group, treating it not as the crank group that it is but as a group whose views are as valid as those of scientists and physicians who cite the evidence that vaccines are safe and effective.
Meanwhile,. antivaxers are sliming Jason Horne with memes like this:
As an aside, I can't help but mock the man, Joseph Sikora, for posting things like this:
Dude, it's "laboratories," not "labratories."
And this is his profile pic:
You get the idea.
Basically, local antivaxers are attacking Horne in a most despicable manner by claiming that the reason he wants his child vaccinated is because, if that child dies, he won't have to pay child support any more. Yes, they really are that depraved. Meanwhile, local antivaxers protested outside the court hearing.
It's never a good thing when divorced parents fight over custody issues. The child always loses. In this case, the addition of antivaccine beliefs only makes it worse, as the child's health care hangs in the balance. I suspect that this is only going to get uglier. I also predict that antivaccine groups will latch onto this case to portray vaccine mandates as fascistic assaults on American freedom. Cue Mike Adams. You know it's coming. I'm only surprised it hasn't happened yet. Maybe by the time this post goes live, it will have.
I saw this on Google News. There was a link to an article by the Washington Times. Even that was riddled with false balance.
New Zealand press reports that Bredlow, through her attorney, had agreed with the November court order to vaccinate. Her attorney also "told ABC last week that the legal dispute was not about vaccinations."
As far as I know, Washington Times is still owned by the Moonies and is the farthest thing I can think of from being a source of anything resembling legitimate news. It's a rich trove of crankery and quackery and has had some truly scary facsimiles of health and medical "news." Unfortunately a few desperate pseudo-journalists who obviously need a steady paying gig give it cover so that it's hard to tell that its "news" is coughed-up propaganda from the Unification Church or whatever front group now owns it.
In her court statement Bredow referred to being prolife. Note that the fact that she doesn't belong to an organized religion doesn't make her statement a lie: the question is whether her personal faith is against vaccines. And who knows? She may have bought into the "aborted fetal tissue" myth.
Still seems her main issue is buying into anti vaccines myths about safety, of course.
I think several of them think religious objections are a stronger claim because of the first amendment.
Of course anti-vaxers will turn this into an emotional firestorm....
The child and public health are the losers here.
Maybe Bredow, and hopefully others, will learn that they are court orders, and not court suggestions.
So the dad can't sack up and take his kid to get access to health care?
IN this case it seems the dad the dad's actual access to and time with the child was very limited. One of the thing his lawyer asked, and the judge said she will decide that another time, were more rights in that area, more time together.
It looks like the child will be vaccinated. The comments in the places where I've read this story, were almost 100% in favor of vaccination, which I found encouraging. As far as this ex family? IMO, it's another case of two people hating each other more than they love the child.
"Prolife' usually is code for 'I don't give a rip for living children.' I expect people not to care about other people's kids, but this mom takes it a step further. In my opinion, neither parent should have custody. Hopefully the rest of the child's family isn't as bad.
Reviewing the usual cesspits of woo and anti-vax, I notice that none of the usual suspects is yet writing about this but wait...
@ ginger taylor retweets @ Katie wright with wxyz.
So they'll soon be up and at 'em
There seems to be quite a difference in the coverage that Orac links and the coverage that Stuartg links yet it seems to be the same station.
Am I misreading the TV stations or is the WXYZ newsroom in open civil war?
BTW, labratories are much worse than laboratories. Labratories are members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador who hail from Labrador.
If this woman is worried about the health of her child she wouldn't be in front of a judge for this. I just talked with my doc (I work in a health center) about a rash that my step-daughter has, she is 10,000 miles away in Thailand. Luckily, it is a fairly simple heat rash.
I am 10,000 miles away and I am worried about heat rash and this woman won't protect her child from diseases that could kill him. I know who I think is the better parent and I haven't even held my step-daughter yet (can't wait for Nov 20th).
jrkrideau; My back yard used to be a labratory, I had two black labs.
Come to think of it, I’m rather surprised that I haven’t seen anything on antivaccine websites about this case, although I expect that will change...
Over at the Bolen Report, Kent Heckenlively calls Bredow ‘the bravest woman in America’, and compares her to Rosa Parks.
Also, it seems he has a new White House petition. This was started 18 Sep, and has a whopping 299 signatories.
Sticking to your beliefs isn't a virtue when you're wrong, Mrs. Bredow.
"I'm just doing what I think is best." So are suicide bombers. So what?
The mother is getting a lot of support in West Michigan (Grand Rapids area) from a mix of anti-vaccination folks, but also from our infestation of libertarians. Their comments range from "vaccines are bad" to "I don't know about vaccines but children are the property of their parents" bit -- the latter means, apparently, that parents can do whatever they wish because they own the child.
While I didn't see this story emerging yet on NN (mostly they're too busy whooping up a Las Vegas shooting conspiracy), there IS a devastating article on BABY FORESKINS being co-opted by Big Pharma to make vaccines.
NN tells us that a baby boy dies every two days in the U.S. from complications of circumcision, including when "their little lungs burst from crying".
*the CDC says cirumcision-related deaths are extremely rare, with zero such deaths in one recent year for which they analyzed stats. But we know that's just a coverup. :(
@Politicalguineapig #11: “Prolife’ usually is code for ‘I don’t give a rip for living children.’
As someone who is generally Pro-Life, I don't appreciate this statement. I don't actually know any pro-life person who doesn't care about children; the vast majority of them volunteer at children's (and adult) charities/have adopted children/have foster children/fight for legislation to protect born children.
I'm not trying to get into a debate on this topic, at all, but really, this is quite a wide brush you're painting with, and it doesn't describe any of the people I know who believe abortion is wrong.
As for this woman and the media portrayals for her, it's sadly not surprising. The media no longer even pretends to be unbiased. Portraying this woman as some kind of freedom fighter when she's actually borderline abusive--using her son's health and life to score points against her ex-husband--is SOP for them. I like how they don't really bother to go into what made her switch from "delayed vaccine schedule" to "no vaccine." Couldn't possibly be the level of fawning attention she's received for her ridiculous anti-science stance, could it?
As I pointed out on another site, it wouldn't be as sensational if the header of the article is "Mom jailed for refusing to comply with custody agreement".
Over at Yahoo News, you'll be happy to hear the comments have been overwhelmingly in favor of the correct narrative -- this isn't a "evil government forcing vaccinations" story, it's a "woman makes promise to court and to the father of her children, is given a year to take care of it, reneges, and is surprised this has consequences".
Ms. Mantooth: "I don’t actually know any pro-life person who doesn’t care about children; the vast majority of them volunteer at children’s (and adult) charities/have adopted children/have foster children/fight for legislation to protect born children."
Obviously that does not include the congress critters who were trying to strip maternal and pediatric health care to almost nothing. The poster child for the legislature that care more about the fetus than the living people is the state of Texas. Though it seems they are trying to address:
Still does not excuse them from what they did to Planned Parenthood:
Oh, I have seen that guy with the memes pop up elsewhere. He also claims that its the water in the vaccine "viles" [sic] causing the poisoning of babies. He seems to think that there are 26 x 0.5 mL vaccines administered at one time.
I doubt WXYZ is anti-vax per se. This strikes me as a faux Fox (faux Faux?) attempt to mine the vein of 'evil big guvmint usurping parents and jailing anyone who dissents from their socialist agenda' ideology for the purpose of, as Orac says, mere clickbait. I'd say the give-away is that the 'news item' just grazed by the child support allegation and focused on the judge, where the AVs are demonizing the Dad, who after all, is the one who took the kid to get his shots.
The relationship between total anti-vax and delayed schedule is kind of interesting. Without a delayed-schedule-willing pediatrician, the Dad may have joined the Mom in denying the child immunizationb. OTOH, while the Dr. Bob-ish approach seems to have satisfied the Dad, it seems to have acted as a sort of 'gateway drug' of full-on hard-core anti-vax for the Mom.
# 20 MI Dawn
“Mom jailed for refusing to comply with custody agreement”.
Worse, it should be “Woman jailed for contempt of court”.
That was not a happy judge.
Calli Arcale's version is better than mine but to long for a headline for TV or newspaper.
"NN tells us that a baby boy dies every two days in the U.S. from complications of circumcision, including when “their little lungs burst from crying”."
If this was true, there wouldn't be many Jews or Muslims left in the world..
Dorothy Mantooth: I tend to think actions speak louder than words. The prolife movement, the people you know, put Paul Ryan, Donald Trump, and numerous other bad actors in charge. Your group doesn't fight for health care or believe that maybe babies and their families need food. And the work at baby scoop centers i.e. crisis pregnancy centers does not impress me. And then there's the Pearls and the rehoming problem you guys have.
What would change my mind is if prolifers conceded that women have rights (like voting, working, and expecting to be safe outside the home) rape and abuse are bad things, and that the price of health care might be a factor in what medical care women might access.
Well done on the bearing false witness front though. Just like the commandment said.
The relationship between total anti-vax and delayed schedule is kind of interesting. Without a delayed-schedule-willing pediatrician, the Dad may have joined the Mom in denying the child immunization
I'm not entirely convinced that Jason Horne is antivaxx. From where I'm standing, while they were married, Horne went along with Bredow, but after they divorced Horne didn't go down the rabbit hole and in fact moved back to rationality. That is, assuming he was antivaxx in the first place, which I'm far from sure about.
"the WXYZ ABC report"
Oh, the ecstasy of alphabetic sequences. I'm a believer.
@Politicalguineapig: Clearly there is no point discussing anything with you; you've gone from telling me I don't care about children to telling me I'm a liar, I don't care about women's right to vote and leave the house, and I think rape and abuse are a good thing (and you've backed that up with a study about maternal mortality and a study about contraception). I'm sure your assumptions make you feel very superior to me, and very convinced that you are a good person and I am a bad one, based on the extremely strong evidence of your feelings. (BTW, I'm not religious at all, and my feelings about abortion come from a very different perspective; I assume your comment about the "commandment" was referring to religion, but I'll go ahead and disregard it, as I will any further rudeness and smugness you care to throw my way.)
Old Rockin' Dave @26: “NN tells us that a baby boy dies every two days in the U.S. from complications of circumcision, including when “their little lungs burst from crying”.”
If this was true, there wouldn’t be many Jews or Muslims left in the world.."
The stupid never ends, does it? Do these people honestly think that if circumcision was killing almost two hundred baby boys every year in the U.S., it wouldn't be news? Do they honestly think this can be happening but nobody knows about it except themselves? I've been alive for forty-four years, and have known a lot of people in that time, and I've never met a single one who ever even *knew* or *heard of* anyone losing a baby boy due to circumcision, least of all because they "burst their little lungs from crying," which I assume was the M.E.'s official verdict on the death certificate. (How many uncircumcised babies have died from this, that Big Pharma haven't told us about? Those baby-sleep-training people must have a LOT of deaths to answer for! There's blood on their hands!)
I'm guessing you're new here. Just wanted to let you know that PGP tends to express a lot of very black-or-white hand-line opinions here (in case you're wondering why the rest of us aren't responding).
The only incident I've heard of babies dying of circumcision was in a small, hard-line sect in NYC where the person performing the circumcision removed the blood with his mouth (eww), while he had an active herpes outbreak, which was transmitted to the babies, who died of the infection. It's one of those memorable public health stories, mostly because it was so weird and so rare.
Completely off topic, but - - -
I was at the used book store, and I found, for the low, low, price of $.50, a copy of MJD's book Vaccine Delivery and Autism The Latex Connection. It's in surprisingly good shape. I suspect the original owner didn't finish it.
I did my civic duty, and got it out of the store before someone gullable came along and bought it.
I've not had a chance to tuck into it yet, but, so far, I'm inclined to think friend Prometheus was just a little generous.
@ #32 Johnny
Ssshhhh. Mentioning "he who should not be mentioned" and has a sense of humor that makes my uhm. . . peculiar, singular, idiosyncratic tendencies seem commonplace is likely to cause the imp to appear.
I agree that the coverage has been sensationalized, and some groups have been purposefully misleading. If nothing else, I hope this story will lead parents to discuss these issues before having children. What I would like to know more about is what type of agreement about vaccination did the parents reach before they got divorced? Orac brings this up but then dismisses it with a "Who cares?"...not surprising. This would seem to be at the heart of the matter...if they had an agreement and now the father is going against that, that would seem to suggest that he is acting in bad faith. And if it really were true that this only came up after she had sought child support...would that change anyone's minds?
What is very unfortunate for the child in this case is that since the mother did not comply with her original agreement with the court to vaccinate, now the child will be vaccinated on the court's time. And clearly the court does not believe there is such a thing as vaccine safety issues, which is made perfectly clear when it ordered the mother to fully vaccinate the child within one week's time.
David @34: It seems pretty clear to me that the father has not changed his vaccination position (not on schedule, but do get them) while the mother did change her position to "none".
I think that it is highly unlikely that the court would actually expect or demand 8 years worth of vaccination in a week, but more likely wanted to start on the important stuff and have a plan in place with the child's pediatrician to get the rest on the accelerated "catch up" schedule.
The point of a booster shot is to "boost" the existing immunity, therefore there must be time (usually several months) between the prime (first shot) and the boost.
PGP asserts that the father hates the child -- of course, being PGP -- and that the child should be seized from both parents and cast into the loving arms of the government.
I presume her reasoning (so to speak) is that if the father didn't hate the child, he would have had him vaccinated without need of a court order.
Given the way the case is described, it appears that the mother had primary custody and therefore the legal right to consent to medical treatment. The father might very well have found himself in legal hot water if he had proceeded with vaccination over her objection. Now that *he* has primary custody, he can take proper care of the child.
@LW: "Now that *he* has primary custody, he can take proper care of the child."
Right...by giving him all vaccinations in 4 days.
Mr. Foster, please tell us why that might be a problem. Please provide verifiable citations in the form of PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers.
If I had to pick the most unstable antivaxer, Joseph Sikora would be in my top there. Joel Lord and Erwin Alber from Vine would be the other two. That this group is hooking up with him is telling. He espouses ALL THE CRAZY. You name it.
Well, I guess my point is that agreeing to a delayed schedule isn't being 'antivax', which really ought to be reserved for 'none' in the case of parent decisions. I take Orac's position to be that publicly promoting a delayed schedule is broadly 'antivax' in the sense it still advances unsupportable fears about vaccines causing autism...
Of course i'm speculating that Dad MAY have opted for 'none' if 'one at a time, over time' hadn't been available. He may have opted for on-schedule MMR. Or he may have, as you suggest, been leaning toward that himself from the get-go and just agreeing with Mom on an earlier provision from her he could live with.
I'm just willing to consider that physicians who accommodate vax-hesitant parents by providing a delayed schedule MAY be performing a public service at least some of the time by getting kids immunized before school age who otherwise wouldn't be. But I'm also willing to consider that even just accomodating a delayed schedule, even if they do so quietly without any public advocacy of the practice, may harm public health at least some of the time by giving too much credence to vax fears. I'm just saying I doubt this is a black and white thing, and this case just MIGHT be evidence of that. (Or not...)
David Foster: Here in Mormonvile, Utah, the feed store carries vaccination kits for puppies, horses, and the like but, surprising though you might find it, no vaccination kits for people. For vaccines for people-children, there is this class of people with expertise in the ins and outs of that arcane subject: they're called, around here, "pediatricians". Part of their resources (should they need any) is information on how to deal with vaccination for people-children who've been abused by the likes of a Sears-type schedule, or even not having been vaccinated at all.
Such is the case even here in the quackery capital of the US. Is there any reason to believe that Michigan would not have the same advanced features?
What reality are you all living in? This woman was given one week which meant 4 business days to get her son fully vaccinated. Not started on some catch up schedule..."vaccinated". Here is what the Judge said, he was very explicit:
“You have seven days to get your child vaccinated,” McDonald told Bredow Sept. 27. “If not, you will appear here Wednesday and if you have not, I’ll send you to jail. Let me say it one more time, you have seven days. It’s ridiculous. Don’t make me do that.”
At least in the video of the court, the judge referred to the language in the agreement of the parties, which addressed medically necessary vaccines. That's not "give both MMR doses now together." That does suggest "get him started on the catch up studies for the doses he missed" (since the judge also mentioned he was fully vaccinated up to a year of age).
It does mean give him several vaccines. But it doesn't mean not separating out booster doses.
Ok...so all this talk of "false balance" aside. I think the concern is that whether or not the particulars of her decisions to not vaccinate were even mentioned, that is not the issue taken with those who disagree with Vaccinating their children. Its the fact that such a court decision can and may very well create some legal precedent to bar parents from choosing not whether or not to vaccinate. Anyone who says that isn't a serious probability is just simply out of touch with the legalities associated with this case. Furthermore, author of this article seems to be very very biased in their views as though there is no merit to the claims by people who are opposed to the current vaccine schedule as dictated by the CDC. Most of these people are NOT anti-vaccine. They are mostly opposed to the current vaccination schedule that overload's the children's bodies with all sorts of chemicals at such an early stage of development. I just think the author of this article needs to tone it down a bit.
The judge can order fully vaccinated within a week, but I doubt the judge really meant to get completely caught up within a week.
In any case, the pediatrician is probably going to have the kid come in once a month over a two or three months to get all the first doses in, then follow the catch up schedule.
David is just being histrionic.
LW: I don't think the father 'hates' the child and that's not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting the judge award custody to a relative. The father didn't seek primary custody in the first place, so why is that? And the fact that he didn't notice the kid wasn't vaccinated for seven years..well, that worries me. It suggests there are a lot of other things he might be oblivious to.
Dorothy: Wow, are you confused. The only reason for opposing abortion is a religious reason, or needing men to rule your life. (Which is religion in a nutshell, but I digress.)
Anyway, own your crap. You and your friends put the crazies in power, and you and your friend want to us to return to the baby-scoop days and the days of women dying in hospital or prison.
What it boils down to is who's life is worth more. God says it's the fetus, but I don't agree. Just because you think your life is worthless, doesn't mean you get to make that decision for every other woman.
David, you know they are not going to give him all the vaccines in 4 days. Quit being dramatic. There is a catch up schedule. The doctors will vax him according to this schedule, with intervals between doses, etc.
Um, thanks those who mentioned that there is an actual catch up schedule. I kind of knew of that since to get the vaccines I needed to travel to South America when I was ten years old the Army meds gave them over a couple of months. But I was not sure how they applied since they included things like yellow fever and some other one that I forgot (typhoid?).
Just a heads up I've been lurking here for about a year now and have only just worked up the courage to comment.
Orac, I always appreciate the light you shed on these situations and you have showed me that not everything is peaches and cream in the world. I understand how hard it is living with chronic health issues and how it can be a knee-jerk reaction to blame it on the wrong thing. Keep up the good work sir
Back in 2010, I was back in a city where I met an antivax mother whose daughter, today, is training to be a veterinarian doctor.
I didn't try hard enough on her mother but today, the vet doctor apprentice has to be all up to date regarding her vaccines.
I'm glad for that but doesn't mean I can be glad for the whole situation as her mother is still antivaxxine; and has a second daughter who's much younger.
And clearly the court does not believe there is such a thing as vaccine safety issues, which is made perfectly clear when it ordered the mother to fully vaccinate the child within one week’s time.
NO. It mean you doesn't care about the four year training medical doctor get after their bachelor degree plus the residency to make medical decision regarding peoples health.
Being a medical doctor include legal requirement which has been verified way before the current case was decided and which jurisprudence dictate that the current juge go along what any previous juge has decided upon the case of vaccines and, matter of fact, every fuck!ngh medical matter having legal incidence.
It ain't for nothing that medicine must be based in science but will never be a science, part of that include legal matter but never is limited to legal matter. There's much more to medicine compared with science and law.
@JustaTech 31: Thank you. I wouldn't say I'm "new" here, but I don't comment often (I think the last time was a year or so ago) and only visit sporadically. I see what you mean now.
And I remember reading about that case when it happened! I guess the blood-removal-by-mouth is some very traditional/old practice rarely done anymore (thankfully). What a horrible thing--but as you said, it made national news because it was so unusual, so the idea that it's an almost-every-day occurrence is ridiculous.
@David Foster 34: I don't think there's any more evidence that the father is acting in bad faith than there is that the mother is, or rather, there is *less* evidence that the father is acting in bad faith, since the mother is the one who agreed to follow a court order and then reneged. And no, it doesn't make a difference if it has anything to do with child support. The father wants the right thing done, and the mother is violating a direct court order because of woo beliefs. I don't care about reasons in this case. The kid needs to be vaccinated. (And isn't it possible that the father used to hold some anti-vax beliefs, but the recent outbreaks and deaths brought him to his senses? Isn't that just as likely as it is that he decided to somehow "get revenge" on his ex by making her ensure their child's health?
And I seriously doubt the judge meant, "Go have them give that child every shot he's missed his whole life, or will ever need later, in the next week."
@Stan44: But there IS no merit to the claims of people who are opposed to the CDC's current vaccination schedule. So why wouldn't a doctor act as though that's the case?
Its the fact that such a court decision can and may very well create some legal precedent to bar parents from choosing not whether or not to vaccinate. Anyone who says that isn’t a serious probability is just simply out of touch with the legalities associated with this case.
Um, no it won't. Cases like these (where one parent wants the child vaccinated and the other one doesn't) have come up several times. Every time, the Court has ruled that the child be vaccinated.
When both parents agree that the child should not be vaccinated, the Courts stay out of it.
I’m just willing to consider that physicians who accommodate vax-hesitant parents by providing a delayed schedule MAY be performing a public service at least some of the time by getting kids immunized before school age who otherwise wouldn’t be.
Fair enough. But consider: Bredow started out "vaccine hesitant" and insisted on a delayed schedule, only to stop vaccinating altogether. One could just as easily argue the opposite: that providing a delayed schedule can lead to further doubts about vaccines and to a parent going the whole antivaccine hog.
The reporting here in New Zealand says the mother, via her attorney, agreed with the court in November to start vaccinating.
My assumption here is that she didn't, and the court, in September, gave her yet another week to start the vaccinations.
She obviously didn't follow the requirements of the court, hence contempt of court.
Since my wife is in jail and can't clarify, she's asked me to help make sure the truth comes out. So for starters, this is probably the most incorrect and inconsistent blog I've ever read. First off, SHE ISNT 'ANTI VAX' she openly says this in just about every interview. She is for 'VACCINE CHOICE.' Meaning, you want to vaccinate your children? Awesome! Do it!! But since it's LEGAL to sign a waiver in Michigan for Religious or philosophical reasons, we like to keep that freedom to CHOOSE. There's nothing 'anti' about wanting to excercise state law. The blog calls her Rachel. Her name is Rebecca. Then, you call him Jason, his name is James. And third, she NEVER signed anything or agreed to anything. And here's the reality of this situation for anyone who actually is interested in fact vs fiction.
The first 'order' was never actually ordered by the judge. Happy to post the transcripts from the court. The judge said that vaccinations would be discussed at an evidentiary hearing. However, the shady ass attorney wrote it in, knowing it would get stamped. So, when Rebecca filed a motion to FULLY VACATE the order, her attorney went in the back room, signed for her and said 'don't worry, you have the waivers for each year of school, they can't force vaccines against state waivers.' So of course, why wouldn't one believe their attorney.. they're all super stand up folks. Fast forward to December.. our 8 year old starts having horrible night terrors tells us that while in his fathers care, he's been exposed to pornography repeatedly on all of his fathers devices since he was around 5 years old.. so, knowing that 'were protected by waivers' our FULL ATTENTION went to filing motions to change custody to protect this kid from an environment he didn't feel safe in. THAT was the top priority. CPS did an investigation and the case was confirmed as a Category 3, with a preponderance of evidence that Our child was in fact exposed on numerous occasions and that he suffered from trauma. So CPS imposed a safety plan on good ole' dad.. safety plan was 'put passcodes on your devices.'
Think that happened? Nope. Our child was exposed again multiple times, resulting in one of the top child abuse psychiatrists in the state calling CPS and telling them the child 'absolutely should not go with the father.'
So we take this to the court with a motion. They say 'the child saw a doctor without the fathers permission and refused to hear anything.'
So now, his scumbag attorney says... hmmm.. how about we file another motion for vaccines, take some of the heat off of this pesky porn stuff that keeps coming up.
Meanwhile, the biological father is $8000 behind in child support.. and is using his NEW FOUND passion for vaccines as a way to distract the court, knowing it's the ONE THING my wife wouldn't do. (Even though he was on the same page for the previous 8 years)
Fast forward to September 22nd. The SIXTH time our son refused to go with his father because he said he 'doesn't feel safe' and it takes 4 Madison Heights cops 2 1/2 hours of the child begging them to not making him go until finally a supervisor calls and says 'you can't force this kid to go.'
We take this to the court last Wednesday, and they 'don't want to hear it.' They want to talk about fucking vaccines.
So finally, when the judge said vaccine or jail, my wife actually made an appointment.. and simply could it do it.
This man does NOT CARE about this child's health. He doesn't give a fuck. My wife, SHE cares, did the research, spoke to countless doctors and took the state required classes at the health department to be in FULL COMPLIANCE with the state. And for the record according to Michigan Law, ONE PARENT CAN CHOOSE EXEMPTION. ONE. so she did everything she was supposed to do.
So here we are, our child stuck with this man he doesn't trust and doesn't feel safe with, evades child support and a CPS case showing that he has a pretty severe porn addiction.. but let's put Rebecca in jail. Sounds fair to me. Here's the video from the 28th at the kids school. Dads a real stand up guy.
Yes, she didn't follow the order. But according to state law, vaccines should've never been ordered in the first place.
And regardless of your stance on Vaccines, the state of Michigan gives us the right to choose. You want to live a fascist country that tells you what to do with your body.. fantastic. Maybe we should overturn Roe V Wade while we're at it! For such a open free thinking community.. I'm shocked to see such a conservative approach to citizens having a right to choose.
I’ve ever read. First off, SHE ISNT ‘ANTI VAX’ she openly says this in just about every interview. She is for ‘VACCINE CHOICE.
No, her rhetoric that I've seen in several interviews clearly indicates that she's definitely antivax. She rattles off every trope, the "I've done my research" trope, the "I'm not 'antivax'; I'm pro-choice" trope; etc. In the WXYZ report, she goes on about what if her child were seriously injured by vaccines ordered by the judge. She clearly believes that vaccines cause autism and a variety of other problems that science clearly shows they do not, in fact, cause. The group speaking out for her, Michigan for Vaccine Choice, is an antivax group masquerading as a "vaccine choice" group, a very common camouflage. She's very intentionally courted press narratives painting her as the Brave Mother Willing To Go To Jail To Protect Her Child From The Evil Vaccines. No, Mr. Bredow, although I cannot comment much on the accuracy of your other claims about Mr. Horne and acknowledged above that family disputes are messy, I can comment very clearly on this: Your wife is antivax. Period. Her claims otherwise are BS. Hell, she is willing to go to jail rather than submit to an order to vaccinate her son. That is about as hard core antivax as it gets.
Another analysis by an actual lawyer:
In court, too, Ms. Bredow tried to claim she did not agree to the order and the judge called her out and said that was untrue.
The judge also said Ms. Bredow did not appear before her to overturn the order.
And as Orac said, Ms. Bredow is very clearly anti vaccine. She said several times she oppposes vaccines, using multiple arguments, and her younger daughter is completely unvaccinated.
Here's the courtroom vid from WXYZ and a transcript of the judge kicking azz and taking names:
Mom: "Babbling about being an educated vaccine choice mom and ... Lies, lies, lies. Says she has followed all laws (must've forgot court orders). Starts accusing ex of nefarious activity in adding vaccinations to a 2006 order..."
@1:26 - Judge shuts her down abruptly at this point in exasperation:
Judge: "Ok, ma'am. I'm going to stop you... because the truth matters.
November 30th  you appeared to set that order aside. You never went before me.
- You agreed in a consent order to vaccinate your child. One.
- Two. I understand you love your children, but what I don't think you understand is that your son has two parents and Dad gets a say. And the record - I urge you to review it, and anyone else -
- What you just said, "that he has a new found objection Is Not True. You acknowledge in your own pleadings your child at a year old was up to date on all his vaccinations. You acknowledge that in your own pleadings... [holding hand up to silence Mom] I'm not going to take time, today, to listen to the facts as you see them.
- I just urge you to really read the record... because I have. And what you're saying is just not true.
Contempt is a serious and critical power the court has. It's available to the court so it can enforce orders and so the people before me have confidence that an order means something. And I don't take it lightly.
It's clear to me that you don't care about orders even if you agree to them. WHICH YOU DID. You agreed on Nov. 30th; your attorney signed that order.
- I reviewed your testimony at the FOC hearing where you acknowledged that you enrolled the minor child in a different school without Dad's consent.
- You've admitted in this court previously that you unilaterally changed the child's therapist without the court's approval or Dad's consent.
- You signed a waiver for vaccinations without Dad's consent. [nodding head with each word for emphasis]
- And you've repeatedly stated over the last several days, publicly, that you will not follow this court order. So I am sentencing you to seven days in jail, and I also award Dad temporary physical custody while you are incarcerated and until enough time has passed for him to bring your son's vaccinations up to date as rapidly as medically necessary, which is the language in the order."
Judge then instructs Dad to pick up child at school and to set up the vaccinations per the order. She sets a status update hearing in a week.
Mom starts to whine and discuss and judge shuts her down. "No. I'm done here."
Mom's lawyer tries to raise an objection and judge shuts him down... "MR. VITALE, WE ARE DONE HERE."
It seems the judge doesn't like to be lied to. Taking away the babbling lie seems to have taken the wind out of anti-vax mommy's sails. Without that tool she, as the judge demonstrated, has no arguments.
Note that Dad's temp. custody is for enough time to bring the "son's vaccinations up to date as rapidly as medically necessary". The vaccines will be given according to medical convention and Dad retains custody until that time - not just for 7 days.
Note the judge explains the jailing in consideration of Mom's prior abuse of court orders and her unilaterally taking action and cutting Dad out of approval and publicly announcing her intention to disregard the court's current order(s). Not much said about vaccination as a reason... just mommy being dishonest and an outlaw.
All I can think of is "man, what was she thinking?"
Rarely is it a good idea to go against a friggin court order!
Not following through with her agreement probably immediately made her case look even worse, even to those who were unbiased.
I don’t know about vaccines but children are the property of their parents” bit — the latter means, apparently, that parents can do whatever they wish because they own the child.
Of course, this is a battle between the mother and father, so even if that were true, it is an issue of which parent can do whatever they wish because own the child. Does the father not own the child, too?
(The correct answer, of course, is that neither parent "owns" their child)
I’m not entirely convinced that Jason Horne is antivaxx. From where I’m standing, while they were married, Horne went along with Bredow, but after they divorced Horne didn’t go down the rabbit hole and in fact moved back to rationality.
My understanding is that the child is 9. That means when this came up, they were talking about vaccinating him when he was 8. There are no vaccines on the standard schedule at 8, so it sounds to me like this is a case where they agreed to space them out, and then she went full bore denial. But that means he agreed to space them out.
She is for ‘VACCINE CHOICE.’ Meaning, you want to vaccinate your children? Awesome! Do it!!
But she doesn't want to. Why not? Does she have something against vaccines or something?
"Choice" is manifested in the ability to choose, not in the choices that are made. She can be pro-choice and vaccinate, or she can be pro-choice and not vaccinate. She refuses to vaccinate. Why would she do that if she was not anti-vax?
Quote PGP: "The father didn’t seek primary custody in the first place, so why is that?" If the dates given are correct, they divorced in 2008 and the child is now nine; that means he was a baby. The father might have thought a baby belonged with his mother, or his lawyer told him not to fight because no court would take a baby from a mother who wasn't murderously unfit and fighting would make matters worse.
" And the fact that he didn’t notice the kid wasn’t vaccinated for seven years..well, that worries me." They've been fighting in court over this for a year now (order entered in Nov). He may very well have noticed but, given her intransigence, didn't want to spend his savings for the child's college tuition on this fight. He may have calculated that the child could hide in the herd until he was old enough to make his own decisions. Who knows?
Who knows why the father started fighting this in court a year ago. Maybe he got alarmed at the outbreaks. Maybe he personally knew someone affected by the outbreaks. Maybe a trusted person sat him down and explained things. Maybe he started reading RI.
I think most situations are less black-and-white than PGP imagines.
Alain #51: I know what you mean. I've had a couple of nursing students whose parents are antivax, and the students were raised that way. We require vaccination for DPT, MMR, polio, Hep B, and varicella to enter our program, and you have to get a flu shot every year you are in our program. The students tried to resist getting the vaccines (which they'd never had), but this is non-negotiable in our program. You either provide a titer proving immunity, or you provide documentation of vaccination.
They tried appealing it to the President of the college, who knows nothing about nursing and has been known to override our best judgement as a result. He didn't on this, however, and really couldn't as our hospital partners require this of us in any event.
Mr. Bredow seems to think that because a parent obtains a waiver for vaccines in Michigan, that means a judge can't issue a court order to vaccinate if the other joint custodial parent requests it.
He also seems to think that just because one parent can choose exemption, that a judge can't override that either.
The judge can, if Ms. Bredow had agreed in a consent order to vaccinate. The rest is all smoke and mirrors: if she agrees to do something in a consent order, then she must comply or she is in contempt of court and that is why she's in jail.
Honestly, Mr. Bredow, I don't know why you think airing your family's dirty laundry here is doing your wife's position on this matter any good.
The "exemption laws mean we win in family court" argument has been raised by anti vaccine lawyers in the past, occasionally successfully.
Apologies for the self plug, but I wrote a short law review article explaining why it's incorrect - yes, sounds obvious, but seemed worth doing, since the argument was in use.
I think it's strange that only the Bredows talk about a CPS case. I'm quite certain that the judge wouldn't have put the child with his father if there was a high level CPS case - wouldn't she be made aware of this?
I agree that the CPS story, given the judge's decision, is suspicious.
It does show that the relationship is at a very acrimonious stage.
@gary bredow - Thanks for bringing some addition background information into the conversation. Nice of you to inform us of the additional issues at play in this case. In this forum, if you voice any disagreement with the current CDC vaccine schedule or support for vaccine choice you will be considered anti-vaccine.
You're implying it's unfair to describe this particular case as anti vaccines. But the comment your accept so readily describes vaccines as evil. Do you think it's unfair to describe it as anti vaccine, when it does that?
@Dorit: indeed. And while I don't approve of missing child support payments, the whole comment from Mr Bredow seems to be written to make Mr Horne to be totally unfit as a parent and dangerous. So, I'm going to take everything with many grains of salt, knowing we don't have the full story but the judge presumably does.
And does anyone else feel sorry for this poor child? He's been probably so programmed to fear vaccines that the very thought of getting any has him petrified.
Going "comlpetely" off topic, and admitting it, is an act of kindness in this post.
@Gary Bredow (#57),
Thanks for sharing your perspective in this very controversial blog.
When Orac calls your wife "antivax" understand that such a term has never been clearly defined and the associated "tropes" (comment #58) are often wordplay in an effort to distract and confuse.
Future happiness and good health to you and your family, Gary
Thanks for the link, Dorit. It was a good read, and I've bookmarked it. :)
Beth Clarkson's reaction is what Mr. Bredow was hoping for when he posted here. He's posted the same dreck on other web forums, mostly anti vax friendly. It's a blatant grab for sympathy.
He came to the wrong place for that. While I certainly sympathize with the child, I have none for the step father or the mother.
When MJD says that the term "antivax" has never been clearly defined, he's engaging in his own "effort to distract and confuse." Orac has written several long (but then this is Orac, after all!) posts laying out his reasoning and justification for applying the "antivax" label to those who would rather use different labels. MJD knows this.
Ms. Mantooth: “I don’t actually know any pro-life person who doesn’t care about children ..."
Chris: "Obviously that does not include the congress critters ..."
Well, she did specify "person"
Sorry, couldn't help it. Will go back to lurking now.
@gary bredow – Thanks for bringing some addition background information into the conversation. Nice of you to inform us of the additional issues at play in this case. In this forum, if you voice any disagreement with the current CDC vaccine schedule or support for vaccine choice you will be considered anti-vaccine.
And thank you Beth Clarkson for further demonstrating what an uncritical, biased dupe you are by accepting, at face-value, the rantings of the current husband because he says what you want to hear and believe. It sounds like the lot of them are a bunch of a-holes. My sympathies go to the child who has to deal with the fallout of these "parents".
@Dorit #72 - The implication you ask about was not my intention. Different forums use different definitions of the term anti-vaccine. I was telling someone who is new to this forum that here the term is applied to people who vaccinate themselves and their children while supporting the right of others to choose otherwise. IMO, that is not anti-vaccine.
@Science Mom - This may be foreign concept to you, but it's possible to be open and friendly to someone without necessarily "accepting, at face-value, the rantings" of that someone. In fact, it's not only possible to be nice to people with whom you disagree, but doing so increases the likelihood they might listen to you and consider your differing opinion on the matter.
Science Mom: I have no doubt this kid has been suffering serious psychological harm as a result of this contentious divorce. Hence, Mr. Bredow's comment about the kid crying and resisting visits with Dad. There is no question in my mind the mother and stepfather have scared this kid to death with bovine excrement about being tortured at the doctor's office.
It would explain why the judge was so unhappy about mom moving the kid to a different therapist without the court's consent. The original therapist probably saw this too and was either having success in addressing it, or reporting unfavorable information to the court on the kid's progress.
@Panacea: yeah, I can imagine mom and step-dad telling the kid, if you go to your dad's, he's going to drag you to a doctor who is going to give you 76 shots in 1 day, and then you'll get really sick and miserable and he won't care. I'm sure the kid is scared silly to go to dad's and it's no wonder he has nightmares. Interesting how they started around age 5 - right around time for getting UTD for school.
(sadly, I've seen this kind of mental brainwashing in divorces, and it's really depressing that 2 so-called adults can't be civil about each other regarding their child.)
It's ridiculous to say that someone willing to defy a judge and go to jail to keep her child from getting a vaccine is "antivaccine." Obviously, she's just going this far for the pure principle of choice: the plain and simple right that every American has to use their child as a petri-dish for disease. Shame on those who call her "anti-vaccine"!
TonyLurker: "Well, she did specify “person”"
Especially after the soon to be ex-congress critter from Pennsylvania blatant display of hypocrisy:
@Science Mom – This may be foreign concept to you, but it’s possible to be open and friendly to someone without necessarily “accepting, at face-value, the rantings” of that someone. In fact, it’s not only possible to be nice to people with whom you disagree, but doing so increases the likelihood they might listen to you and consider your differing opinion on the matter.
Oh please, you thanked him for providing "addition [sic] background information". He said what you wanted to believe; you didn't disagree one damn bit.
I was telling someone who is new to this forum that here the term is applied to people who vaccinate themselves and their children while supporting the right of others to choose otherwise.
Another right load of bollocks. Anti-vaxx is applied to to those who make all the anti-vaxx squawky noises and actions thinly-veiled behind "vaccine choice". Persecution complex?
Doesn't matter whatcha call 'em they're still inconsiderate to the plights of those who cannot vaccinate like newborns and people with immune deficiencies. :/
You could call rotting vegetables fertilizer but that wouldn't make it smell any better.
Beth Clarkson: "In this forum, if you voice any disagreement with the current CDC vaccine schedule or support for vaccine choice you will be considered anti-vaccine."
No, in this forum if one repeatedly regurgitates classic antivax tropes while posing as someone who's Just Asking Questions (while disregarding contrary evidence) - that person will be recognized as antivaccine, and deservedly so. Beth has behaved in this manner repeatedly.
Antivaxers hate to be called out as antivaccine and go to ridiculous lengths to pretend they're not. Thus we get the spectacle of fans insisting that the movie "Vaxxed" is not antivaccine, Andrew Wakefield is not antivaccine etc.
MI Dawn: The kid becomes a pawn in a power struggle. Sadly, I've seen it too. When one parent brings a kid in for a medical screen alleging all kinds of shit that more often than not ain't true.
She’s a nutcase and an arrogant one at that. Why does she have custody of the kid at all, for any amount of time ?
Different forums use different definitions of the term anti-vaccine. I was telling someone who is new to this forum that here the term is applied to people who vaccinate themselves and their children while supporting the right of others to choose otherwise.
I could have sworn that this was the comments secton of a blog, rather than a "forum." (More seriously, whatever is left of the MDC stuff is closer to the mark. Rectification of names, and all that.)
Just to reiterate: she wouldn't go to jail over the non-vaccinating issue alone. The judge had an easy way to deal with that, and did: give custody to the father and order vaccinating. That took care of vaccinating.
She went to jail over repeated defiance and ignoring of court orders.
The local CBS station in Los Angeles ran the story of the mother being sent to jail for a week. It was clear that the sentence was based on violation of a court order. There was no discussion of anti-vaccine tropes and no anti-vaccine spokesmen were presented. Based on how this station used to handle stories such as Burzynski, I think this suggests that KCBS is improving. I wonder whether this improvement is just the fallout of budgetary constraints on their part, or whether it is partly the result of protests against their previous unscientific approach.
389 compensable vaccine claims vs. 2.8 billion doses of vaccines given in the US between 2008 - 2015. She's a hair dresser for crying out loud. She can't even figure out that the odds of her son suffering a severe side effect from being given a vaccine are far less than teeny-tiny. The woman may be a very good hair dresser and it appears that her business is thriving - but she is NOT an epidemiologist. She shouldn't have signed that court order in November 2016 if she wasn't going to follow through with it. I'm glad her ex-husband now has custody of their son. She had been denying him visitation too. Stupid woman. Well, she'll make all sorts of interesting friends in jail. Maybe she won't be hassled too much if she tends to her fellow inmates tresses.
@Dagian you arrogant SOB. "She’s a hair dresser for crying out loud." Right. And a hair dresser couldn't possibly figure out that the risks of vaccines have been drastically underestimated, and the benefits wildly exaggerated, right? So somehow an epidemiologist is the Gold Standard of scientific inquiry? Good grief, haven't you learned yet that epidemiology is the easiest way to make inconvenient truths go away? We've been watching this for years.
And a hair dresser couldn’t possibly figure out that the risks of vaccines have been drastically underestimated...
Citation/supporting evidence needed for this claim.
...and the benefits wildly exaggerated, right?
Citation/supporting evidence needed for this claim too.
Good grief, haven’t you learned yet that epidemiology is the easiest way to make inconvenient truths go away?
Translation: I can't refute the evidence, so I will accuse the experts of gross incompetence and gross malfeasance.
Amusing how you and that hairdresser are convinced that you know better than people who do this for a living.
Lol.. what a bunch of keyboard commandos we have on here! A 'hair dresser?' I think you meant business owner. She doesn't actually work as a 'hair dresser.' I can't help but think that these posts are coming from a couple pimple faced teenagers down in their parents basement being paid to think of cool 'burns' or just copy and paste 'scientific evidence' from big studies done over long periods by the folks who profit from our illness, but either way, hats off to you moxie! I never really found myself wrapped in reading responses from insignificant people, but this is downright entertaining. Keep up the great work kids. And please, keep being sheep! These companies REALLY need folks like you. Especially now.
Oh, no! Mr. Bredow's unleashed the dreaded, "You must be pimple-faced teenagers living in their parents' basement" burn. How will we ever recover?
Seriously, though, dude, There's only one person sounding childish here, and it isn't any of my regular commenters. I do appreciate your resisting the urge to use the word "sheeple," though.
Oh, boy! The Pharma Shill Gambit! As if we hadn't seen that one hundreds of times, and still none of us has ever gotten any of that massive lucre.
A ‘hair dresser?’ I think you meant business owner. She doesn’t actually work as a ‘hair dresser.’
Interesting. In the states where The Wife owned several beauty shops and nail shops, the business owner was required by law to be licensed in the field. Have you just bragged that your wife is violating your state's health codes, in addition to the damage she's doing to her kid's health??
And again, I 100% encourage all of you to PLEASE take your kids and TRIPLE CHECK that can't squeeze in a few more vaccinations. I mean, how can you be sure? How do know they have enough? You all should maybe even double up the dose so you'll be that much more safe and protected from our gross, walking infections of children. And as all of you are HIGHLY EDUCATED, I'm talking 'top of class' type of people, you already that you need to OBEY whatever the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies tell you, you need to comply, and comply without question immediately. They care about you. They care about your children. And you being sick does NOT help their bottom line at all in any way shape or form. But I know you already know all this. NOW GO!! Get those flu shots up to date! There is new strain of flu going around and it's killing people by the thousands in your area. Get TWO flu shots, it can't hurt. And make sure those kids are UP TO DATE. See.. I'm not antivax! I just really want all of you and your children on this 'blog' to be safe and free from all illness. Now GO! Times a wastin'!
That's amusing. You claim your wife is not antivax, even though she spouts every antivax trope known to antivaxers. Now you join in. I can see how you two were made for each other: Antivax peas in a pod.
The crap you're posting here isn't doing your wife's case a bit of good, you know. It's just convincing us that the court decision was absolutely correct, so far as it went, but that it probably should have gone further.
With regard to Ms. Bredow's woes, are you cause or effect?
“Not anti-vax” - first and best sign that a person is, in fact, anti-vax.
A ‘hair dresser?’ I think you meant business owner.
minor nitpick: Trump is also a business owner. It remain to be seen if being a business owner makes one a better epidemiologist as opposed to a hair dresser :)
Gary: "OBEY whatever the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies tell you, you need to comply, and comply without question immediately. They care about you. They care about your children."
Most importantly, they care about their own children. It may come as a shock to Mr. Bredow, but there are millions of human beings employed in healthcare and working for drug companies, who want to protect their kids as well as those of other people.
As a physician, I get an annual flu shot not just to lower my odds of getting the flu, but also to protect patients and visitors to the hospitals I work at, who don't really want to contract influenza from caregivers.
Ok, now I'm not sure if you're pimple faced teenagers in a basement or 'troll bots' because no one is THIS stupid. No wonder this irrelavent blog is on the 8th page of the google search. I'm out.
Of course, you clicked way down to the 8th page of your Google search looking for places to whine. So what does that say about you?
Dude I am nowhere near talented to be a pharma shill, or repetitive enough to be a bot. Also, that flu vaccine post reeked of sarcasm so much you could bottle it and sell it as a perfume.
Rebecca Lynn Bredow is a licensed cosmetologist in the state of Michigan. She is also a business owner. I noted both in my post.
She's also terrible at math.
Date range 01/01/2006 - 12/31/2015
(379/2,845,946,816)(100) = ?
(2,824/2,845,946,816)(100) = ?
Any particular reason she's sitting in the Oakland County jail under her maiden name, rather than Bredow?
I did get my flu shot last week, thanks. I get one every year. I'm also planning on getting vaccinated against shingles as it's no joke. A family member has scarred corneas due to shingles. It's a shame they make people wait until they are a certain age as shingles can strike anytime after someone has suffered a bout of chicken pox.
No, he probably received up to four shots last week and in one month, he will receive two more. It depends on what immunizations he received already. The judge noted that he was fully vaccinated when he was a year old.
If the boy is to stay with his father until he's caught up with his vaccinations, then he may be living with him for a month. It may not be that long, of course.
No wonder this irrelavent blog is on the 8th page of the google search.
It all comes down to search terms.
For example, I downloaded Chrome on an iPad, so that I had a fresh browser that had nothing in it’s history or cache, and putting in the search terms ‘Gary bredow’ (no quotes) brings up a lot of articles about a producer. Changing the terms to ‘Gary Bredow vaccine’ (again, no quotes) brings this page up as the 3rd result.
Searching ‘Rebecca bredow’ (no quotes) brings this up on the 4th page. Note that the first 3 pages are mostly news articles from multiple media outlets.
Enjoy the google juice you’ve made for yourself, Gary.
Having had a bit of time this morning to review the record, I find it curious that Gary Bredow's comment simultaneously invokes "our child" and whines about not getting eight grand from "the biological father."
Narad: that probably explains why Ms. Bredow is in jail under another name. If she remarried, her ex might be able to petition for a reduction in child support, or alimony if he's paying that as well.
Mr. Bredow . . . he doth protest too much.
Hmmmm...pimples - not for many years. I'm far from a teenager, own my own house (well, the bank and I own it) and since it doesn't have a basement, I'm not living in one.
Mr Bredow shows he's really classy with his comments. Nope, I'm not a pharma shill. I am up-to-date on most vaccines (flu shot coming Tuesday, woo hoo!!) but no, I don't need more than one, sir. If you were truly educated about vaccines, you'd understand a little more about how the immune system works.
As for my kids - they are both fully up-to-date with vaccines, and since they show immune titres, they don't need to renew any at this time.
"Having had a bit of time this morning to review the record, I find it curious that Gary Bredow’s comment simultaneously invokes “our child” and whines about not getting eight grand from “the biological father.”
I think that is actually very slightly in his favor. He's an involved stepfather. I disagree with not vaccinating the boy and yes, his biological father gets a say, but at least he loves the child. I think from things I've read that they've been refusing to let the boy see his father and probably winding him up too, which isn't good at all. Even if Mr. Horne is behind on his child support payments (and he damn well should be making those payments!), that doesn't mean they can deny him his time with his son and expect the court to go along with their decisions. If they're scaring the kid on top of it, that may also bite them in the butt.
It's very sad.
Becoming a child's stepfather does not remove the fatherhood of child's living father. Perhaps Mr. Bredow should rethink his role in the child's life, and actually listen to the judge.
I agree, it doesn't deprive Mr. Horne of being the boy's father. I was trying to find something in this whole sordid mess that was in Mr. Bredow's favor. He loves his stepson. That's good. He's trying to deny Mr. Horne his rights as a parent by fiat. That's not in his favor.
Mr. Horne may be a mess (and I have no way of knowing either way), but that doesn't mean he's always wrong. Rebecca may regret her marriage to him, but at this point they need to focus on the fact that they all love this boy more than they hate one another. They haven't reached it yet. I hope they do soon.
"...but at this point they need to focus on the fact that they all love this boy more than they hate one another. They haven’t reached it yet. I hope they do soon."
I became a part of a stepfamily when I was eleven. Except it was because the death of my mother. Since her family did not like my father they were going to petition to remove my father's rights, and take myself and my sister away from him. This prompted him to marry a friend of my mother, a single woman with a daughter, very quickly.
Trust me, things got very interesting over the next few years, and not in a good way. So, yeah, folks: don't make it harder on the kids.
I think that is actually very slightly in his favor. He’s an involved stepfather. I disagree with not vaccinating the boy and yes, his biological father gets a say, but at least he loves the child.
For certain values of "involved."
If she remarried, her ex might be able to petition for a reduction in child support, or alimony if he’s paying that as well.
Quoth Gary Bredow: "Since my wife is in jail and can’t clarify . . . ."
I don't know what the law is like in Michigan,* but if he's going to publicly assert some sort of property interest in the child, he should damn well not be complaining about funding it. I mean, he's a big shot, semiliterate prose stylings notwithstanding.
* It can't be as bad as Massachussetts, where they still burn witches.
'For certain values of “involved.”
Yes, very true. I was looking for the pony somewhere around the mountain of manure. James Horne and Rebecca Bredow love their son. Gary Bredow loves his stepson. They don't seem to agree on anything else.
You know what else drives me crazy about anti-vaxxers? They are applying their craziness to their pets. There is a NASTY strain of canine flu going around and there are idiots who are refusing to get their dog immunized. Despite the vaccine being extremely effective. They would rather see their dog incredibly sick, possibly die, or go through extensive expensive support therapy than go get their pet vaccinated.
It's also interfering with making vaccines for other animals. Did you know that gorillas can get Ebola? So developing Ebola vaccine for humans has also led to the development of an effective Ebola vaccine for great apes. But there are idiots who are ballyhooing protecting gorillas from Ebola. *disclaimer - I participated in an Ebola vaccine trial. It worked quite nicely (my titer is high).
She was released from jail yesterday. I hope that she and her ex-husband resolve to be better co-parents.
Did you know that gorillas can get Ebola?
Of course. Did you know that the massive ZEBOV outbreak in West Africa was actually a false-flag operation to forcibly vaccinate people and that RT-PCR is a fake, because Kary Mullis? I read it at AoA, so it must be true.
Narad - Gorillas can get Ebola and it isn't funny. Rhesus macaques can get measles, so we test them regularly to ensure their titers are still high enough.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/7/2987.abstract (our friend, the rhesus)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39229625 (gorillas and Ebola)
Here comes another one: http://www.wxyz.com/news/metro-detroit-mom-in-court-over-not-vaccinatin…
Dagain, I think you misread Narad; he's being sarcastic about the ludicrous "reporting" that goes on at AoA.
OH! Sorry, Narad. Sometimes I don't catch tone very well.
Hey at least you know that you'll have a good response in the horrifying case that someone was actually serious about that.
And yeah it is pretty scary how easily Ebola can spread and it's awesome they've gotten a vaccine made for it.
Jailed mom 'devastated' to learn son was vaccinated
"You have seven days to get your child vaccinated," McDonald told Bredow Sept. 27. "If not, you will appear here Wednesday and if you have not, I'll send you to jail. Let me say it one more time, you have seven days. It's ridiculous. Don't make me do that."
Bredow said she couldn't bring herself to have the child immunized. McDonald said Bredow had consented to the shots in court pleadings in November 2016. Her refusal to do so amounted to contempt of court, McDonald ruled."
Well, the judge also told the father to pick up the child and make arrangements to have his vaccination series restarted, I don't know why she is surprised it happened. If she can go to jail for not doing what she agreed to do, so could her ex-husband. He didn't want to go to jail and he wanted his child vaccinated.
@Dagian: I've noticed the story has changed (gotta love the Freep...) and now the boy was unvaccinated since birth.
I'd go with the Judge on that (which, as you all know - but to remind those that came in late - said the child was fully vaccinate up to a year old).
Sometimes I don’t catch tone very well.
My understanding is that I don't convey it very well.
Well apparently Judge McDonald has another nutcase in her court trying to get out of an agreement to vaccinate a child.
Mom wants genetic testing to identify any "predisposition" to a vaccine reaction, which is nonsense. But even if there is none, Mom wants to avoid vaccination because of "aborted fetal cells" which even the Catholic Church doesn't have a problem with.
Mom wants genetic testing to identify any “predisposition” to a vaccine reaction, which is nonsense.
Of course it's nonsense, especially since she's relying on the results of a 23 and Me test. The judge will hear from the mother's "expert" before ruling. I can't wait to see who that "expert" is going to be.
I wonder if she will have one, or will try again to impress the judge with her personal knowledge.
Mom wants genetic testing to identify any “predisposition” to a vaccine reaction
And I would like a pony.
Hopefully her lawyer isn't that stupid to try and pass off testimony as science without an expert. Because Judge McDonald made it pretty clear to me that isn't going to fly.
I say hopefully because no one should have incompetent legal representation, and I'm not too impressed with this mother's lawyer given the very public fracas with another defendant over the same issue that led to a client spending nearly a week in jail.
I didn't realize she was relying on 23 and me. It doesn't give that kind of evidence and even the company (which has had its own issues with the FDA) isn't claiming that, to my knowledge.
"In a separate case, Lori Matheson and her ex-husband, Michael Schmitt, are arguing in front of McDonald on whether or not to vaccinate their 2-year-old daughter. Matheson testified on Tuesday that she objects to vaccines on both religious and medical grounds."
"Judge McDonald stated during the hearings, "I was expecting you to bring forth a medical professional so that the court could make a meaningful determination." So far in the case there has been no medical testimony."
Yes, that's the exchange I was referring to. Her lawyer was foolish to let her client try to pass off opinion as expert evidence.
She's incompetent if she tries it again.
I'd just qualify that with "unless the lawyer clearly warned against but client insisted."
Like adult patients in sound mind, adult clients in sound mind have the right to reject advice and do things detrimental to their case.
I would also add that if that was the initial situation, it may be hard to find a doctor willing to testify in short notice that can come. Though there are, of course, anti vaccine doctors, they may not be readily available to her for this.
Fair enough. I should have made that clear in my last post.
As for anti vax docs: she also may not be able to afford them. They would at least expect her to pay for the plane ticket and hotel, and I expect at least $500/hour to testify.
According to USA Today, Bredow was released from jail after 5 days and was DEVASTATED to learn that her son was vaccinated ( 4 times yet),
Seriously, it's not like he was hit by a truck.
She was hoping his father would defy the court order and go to jail, I guess.
She's also shocked - SHOCKED - that she and her ex-husband now have joint custody instead of her having primary custody.
Here is the link DW speaks of:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/12/a-moth…
Not sure what she expected given the judge's order.
In the second case, court adjourned after rejecting the qualifications of Dr. Toni Bark to serve as an expert witness: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2017/10/12/v…
Dr. Bark, here, is showing, I think, why she is not a great expert witness.
Oh this is rich:
Asked about her qualifications, Bark told the court she is an expert on “adversinomics,” the study of adverse reactions to vaccines.
Judge McDonald responded:
“I’m not even sure if adversinomics is a proper field of study, and you haven’t shown that,” McDonald said. “Do not come in here again without looking at the case law and the court rules and knowing what you’re doing. This is just not how I conduct court proceedings.”
"Andversinomics" is not a recognised field despite an appearance by Dr. Hyphen in the comment section claiming it is because there's a single paper on it. One wonders where Dr. Bark would have received the training to deem herself an expert in that field.
In the video she claimed she is an expert because she used to give vaccines when she was in residency and because she "treats vaccine injuries" constantly.
Her website makes it clear she practices homeopathy.
Also from that article:
“We need the right to choose which vaccines your child gets,” Kallis said. “Parents should have the right to selectively choose vaccines, delay vaccines or skip vaccines, based on their research and beliefs.
Only the rights of parents who refuse vaccinations should be respected?
One of the anti-vaccine protesters in the video says the moms have done their research and the dads haven't, implying, yes, that only the anti-vaccine parent knows what's what.
Of course it’s nonsense, especially since she’s relying on the results of a 23 and Me test.
While 23andme doesn't 'identify any “predisposition” to a vaccine reaction' as part of their service, they do allow you to download and examine your genome bit by bit.
Of course, I still haven't heard that they identified the genes responsible for vaccine reactions, but I freely admit I'm not an expert.
I’m not even sure if adversinomics is a proper field of study...
The great Google is no help. Plugging in 'adversinomics vaccine' turns up the Detroit news article Dorit posted.
WHY is Dr Bark an expert?
Well, according to the woo-meister-in-charge @ prn.fm, she, her anti-vax colleagues ( Drs Banks, Tenpenny, Humphries, etc) and the aforementioned woo-meister have all spent
" over 14000 hours" each studying/ researching vaccines.
( So if you spent 40 hours a week times 50 weeks a year...
oh you get the idea..) heh
In other news...
I know that Someone-We-Know is writing about the new AJW so-called docu elsewhere
and I know how the "un-baised" film maker, Miranda Bailey met Andy.
It was through Louise Kuo Habakus
Look at her site, Fearless Parent ( or Fearless Parent Radio) and you'll see a recent interview with Bailey and AJW prefaced by LKH's written intro that she herself hooked them up.
If LKH is a source...
we then know lots about Bailey if she knows her for 10 years
I think the Poland et al. paper Dr. Hyphen invoked spelt it "adversnomics". In any event, it's not a field, just a concept and there are no experts in it.
Somewhat off topic, but relating to another strident anti-vaccine activist. I'm watching CNN and they keep posting a tweet from Trump quoting Sharyl Attkisson (who they insist on calling "Atkinson"). It's related to Puerto Rico and has nothing to do with vaccines, but it alarms me (but doesn't surprise me) that she has the ear of the POTUS.
Of course, I still haven’t heard that they identified the genes responsible for vaccine reactions, but I freely admit I’m not an expert.
There aren't any per se. There are conditions, that can be of genetic aetiology but you can't look at a 23andMe test and proclaim a gene alteration in isolation is indicative of a vaccine reaction. That is not to say a numpty like Tony Bark wouldn't try.
Not entirely off topic, as it concerns another "journalist" who shills for the anti-vaccine movement. I'm watching CNN and all day they've been showing a tweet from Trump quoting Sharyl Attkisson (who the CNN anchors keep calling "Atkinson"). The subject is Puerto Rico relief and has nothing to do with vaccines, but it disturbs me (although it doesn't surprise me) that she has the ear of the POTUS.
I think the Poland et al. paper Dr. Hyphen invoked spelt it “adversnomics”. In any event, it’s not a field, just a concept and there are no experts in it.
Coining a marketing label for one's speciality grift does not make it a science.
Did y'all hear that after the judge granted the father one additional day with the child, the father up and left with his lawyer to go to Los Angeles so they could be on The Doctors TV show?
Del Bigtree was on the same flight and asked them some questions at the airport while taking cell phone video. Questions like why are you abandoning your son after the boy's mother has been in jail for a week? The guy is exactly how I imagined him.
Rebecca and Gary Bredow and anti-vaxxers are taking a drubbing over at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/12/a-moth…
It's pretty interesting to read.
Rebecca Bredow and anti-vaxxers are getting a drubbing at The Washington Post.
23andme can only sell genetic testing for 10 conditions, and vaccine reactions are not among them. And the test doesn't prove you'll get the disease, it only identifies genetic markers that may tell you that you have risk.
I just can't imagine why this woman's attorney goes along with this.
23andme is not even as useful as the similarly-effective genetic tests that can be invoked to indicate that a dog isn't part pit bull so that it can be allowed into an apartment.
Slightly OT, but in the comments in an article elsewhere about this woman and child, I mentioned that there were antivaxxers who thought disease was a way to thin the herd, and prove survival of the fittest. I was challenged to prove that, so gave the person quotes from and a link to AoA, but was pooh poohed because it was "only one person." Once upon a time, I would have endeavored to provide more information, but I've learned (particularly from here) that it would be spitting in the wind.
Judge McDonald responded:
“I’m not even sure if adversinomics is a proper field of study, and you haven’t shown that,” McDonald said. “Do not come in here again without looking at the case law and the court rules and knowing what you’re doing. This is just not how I conduct court proceedings.”
I like Judge McDonald.
I think the Poland et al. paper Dr. Hyphen invoked spelt it “adversnomics”.
Google found it, 'adversomics'
...which we have called adversomics (the immunogenetics and immunogenomics of vaccine adverse events at the individual and population level, respectively).
23andme can only sell genetic testing for 10 conditions, and vaccine reactions are not among them.
They've approval for a few more than that. Nothing about vaccines, of course.
Genetic Health Risk reports
Age-Related Macular Degeneration
2 variants in the ARMS2 and CFH genes; relevant for European descent
Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency
2 variants in the SERPINA1 gene; relevant for European descent
Hereditary Hemochromatosis (HFE-Related)
2 variants in the HFE gene; relevant for European descent
2 variants in the F2 and F5 genes; relevant for European descent
Late-Onset Alzheimer's Disease
1 variant in the APOE gene; variant found and studied in many ethnicities
2 variants in the LRRK2 and GBA genes; relevant for European, Ashkenazi Jewish, North African Berber descent
Carrier Status reports
1 variant in the SACS gene; relevant for French Canadian descent
Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum with Peripheral Neuropathy
1 variant in the SLC12A6 gene; relevant for French Canadian descent
Autosomal Recessive Polycystic Kidney Disease
3 variants in the PKHD1 gene
Beta Thalassemia and Related Hemoglobinopathies
10 variants in the HBB gene; relevant for Cypriot, Greek, Italian, Sardinian descent
1 variant in the BLM gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent
3 variants in the ASPA gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent
Congenital Disorder of Glycosylation Type 1a (PMM2-CDG)
2 variants in the PMM2 gene; relevant for Danish descent
28 variants in the CFTR gene; relevant for European, Hispanic/Latino, Ashkenazi Jewish descent
D-Bifunctional Protein Deficiency
2 variants in the HSD17B4 gene
Dihydrolipoamide Dehydrogenase Deficiency
1 variant in the DLD gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent
1 variant in the IKBKAP gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent
Fanconi Anemia Group C
3 variants in the FANCC gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent
1 variant in the BCS1L gene; relevant for Finnish descent
Gaucher Disease Type 1
3 variants in the GBA gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent
Glycogen Storage Disease Type Ia
1 variant in the G6PC gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent
Glycogen Storage Disease Type Ib
2 variants in the SLC37A4 gene
Hereditary Fructose Intolerance
3 variants in the ALDOB gene; relevant for European descent
Herlitz Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa (LAMB3-related)
3 variants in the LAMB3 gene
Leigh Syndrome, French Canadian Type
1 variant in the LRPPRC gene; relevant for French Canadian descent
Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy Type 2D
1 variant in the SGCA gene; relevant for Finnish descent
Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy Type 2E
1 variant in the SGCB gene; relevant for Southern Indiana
Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy Type 2I
1 variant in the FKRP gene; relevant for European descent
3 variants in the ACADM gene; relevant for Northern European descent
Maple Syrup Urine Disease Type 1B
2 variants in the BCKDHB gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent
Mucolipidosis Type IV
1 variant in the MCOLN1 gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent
Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (CLN5-Related)
1 variant in the CLN5 gene; relevant for Finnish descent
Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (PPT1-Related)
3 variants in the PPT1 gene; relevant for Finnish descent
Niemann-Pick Disease Type A
3 variants in the SMPD1 gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent
Nijmegen Breakage Syndrome
1 variant in the NBN gene; relevant for Eastern European descent
Nonsyndromic Hearing Loss and Deafness, DFNB1 (GJB2-Related)
2 variants in the GJB2 gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish, European descent
Pendred Syndrome and DFNB4 Hearing Loss
6 variants in the SLC26A4 gene
Phenylketonuria and Related Disorders
23 variants in the PAH gene; relevant for Northern European descent
Primary Hyperoxaluria Type 2
1 variant in the GRHPR gene; relevant for European descent
Rhizomelic Chondrodysplasia Punctata Type 1
1 variant in the PEX7 gene
1 variant in the SLC17A5 gene; relevant for Finnish, Swedish descent
Sickle Cell Anemia
1 variant in the HBB gene; relevant for African descent
1 variant in the ALDH3A2 gene; relevant for Swedish descent
4 variants in the HEXA gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish, Cajun descent
Tyrosinemia Type I
4 variants in the FAH gene; relevant for French Canadian, Finnish descent
Usher Syndrome Type 1F
1 variant in the PCDH15 gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent
Usher Syndrome Type 3A
1 variant in the CLRN1 gene; relevant for Ashkenazi Jewish descent
Zellweger Syndrome Spectrum (PEX1-Related)
1 variant in the PEX1 gene
they do allow you to download and examine your genome bit by bit.
Freaking awesome if they allow for that. I think I'll do mine.
Alain - note this -
"23andMe performs a process called SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) genotyping. The raw data provided by 23andMe is an advanced view of all the uninterpreted raw genotype data (the A’s, T’s, C’s, and G’s), including data that is not used in 23andMe reports. This data has undergone a general quality review however only a subset of markers have been individually validated for accuracy. As such, the data included in the Browse Raw Data feature is suitable only for research, educational, and informational use and not for medical or other use."
You might be interested to know the following:
1. For years the two parents had both agreed to not vaccinate the child.
2. The father had previously attempted to get 50% custody of the child, but failed several attempts. Do you wonder why?
3. This current case was rushed by the father, with a new judge and new lawyer, and their first court appearance was not communicated to the mother. His lawyer berated the mother for not appearing, saying it was typical behavior for her.
4. There were at least three previous CPS reports, one of which was for the father watching porn in front of the child, which for some reason were thrown out by this judge. The police had to be called to the school when the father went to pick up his son...because he was afraid to go with his father.
5. While the mother was in jail the father was awarded joint custody. He was given an extra day with the child the day after the mother got out of jail.
6. On that extra day the father was given with his son, he left his son to travel to Los Angeles...with his lawyer...so he could appear on The Doctors TV show. He was paid for this appearance.
I've posted a comment but its not showing up. Have I been blocked?
I really, really like Judge McDonald.
This "testing for susceptibility" for vaccine reactions was something pushed by Professional Ignoramus Lawrence Solomon before he suddenly stopped talking about vaccines. Of course, the fact that such testing does not exist was a mere detail. Also, a convenient reason not to get vaccinated.
Thank you for that Shay. I can't believe that two crucial questions weren't asked.
1.) Is Adversnomics a recognised field and by what body? And
2.) What research have you performed on the subject and your list of studies?
Even though Bark was disqualified as an expert witness, that is important information to have as it goes to her credibility since she claims she sees "vaccine injured children and adults" in her practice. I also can't find anything supporting her claim she is an expert witness for the NVICP. She may have written some rubbish for a petitioner but that doesn't qualify her as an expert. Hopefully the ex's witness will have this information.
Followup story on abcnews.com with Rebecca Bredow interview:
"Bredow said she has received an "overwhelming amount of support" from her community. "It's helped me get through this, truly," she added."
I can't tell if by "community" she is referring to the antivax community or her neighbors.
Interesting that the ex-husband's lawyer claims this kerfuffle isn't really about vaccination, but instead about trying to skirt court orders and frustrate the ex's parental rights.
Child custody cases must be a treat to adjudicate.
Wow! What a clusterf***.
She claims to study "adversomics" but she can't even pronounce it correctly. It's not a recognized field of study and she has no training in immunology or virology.
She claims to have written articles that she can't produce or even remember their titles or what journals they were published in.
Did anyone notice she said one journal might be the Journal of Translational Science? That's a predatory journal IIRC.
And the bullshitting is so obvious . . . no wonder the judge just up and walked out on it.
Dr. Bark is a horrible witness. If opposing counsel brings his own witness, he'll demolish Bark on cross examination.
My fears about the mother's attorney are bearing fruit, because either she doesn't know how to qualify a witness, or she's deliberately skirting the process because she knows how bad this witness is.
When I'm qualified as an expert witness (and I have been qualified by a court), the attorney asks about 30 questions just exploring my professional background, and the generalities of the specific field of nursing practice I'm to testify in (a field in which I've actively practiced nursing and/or teach), and one of the first questions is about my licensure and my CV.
I have to tell the court what states I'm licensed in. That information is on every formal report I write for the court, and in ever affidavit I submit. The attorney in this case never asked that question.
I update my CV as soon as possible to include a new publication, certification, committee work, and so on. And you know, you don't have to be published in anything specific, though it helps if you're testifying about a very narrow topic. I probably update my CV several times a year (though, to be clear, that's as much a part of my tenure bid as anything else).
I looks like the judge is going to let Bark testify about the "vaccine injured" patients she personally sees, but most of the diagnoses are either BS or are gross distortions of real pathologies not associated with vaccines.
I hope the dad's lawyer has looked at this woman's web page. He can challenge her credibility by attacking her use of homeopathy. And he needs to get an expert and make sure the expert sees the footage of Bark's "testimony" because it can quickly be rebutted by anyone with a real background in immunology, virology, or vaccine science.
This is the only article of Dr. Bark I know of -
Tomljenovic, L., Wilyman, J., Vanamee, E., Bark, T., and Shaw, C. (2013). HPV Prevention Series. Infectious Agents and Cancer, 8(6): 37.
It's a letter to the editor. Of course, I might be missing something, so if anyone knows, please add.
For someone who proudly claimed to have repeatedly served as an expert witness, she is not very familiar with what to do.
I don't have speakers on my computer. I suspect this is Bigtree's usual hatchet job. Maybe someone else can listen and hit the "highlights".
Wow. Even more wow.
I read Bark's LTE. I'm surprised the editors even published it, given it's inaccuracies. Then again, maybe they just wanted to liven up that issue of the journal.
Bark claims, with her cronies, that Gardasil doesn't meet criteria for fast track FDA approval, because "Gardasil is demonstrably neither safer nor more effective than Pap screening combined with the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) in preventing cervical cancer . . . ."
Uh . . . Pap smears and LEEP don't prevent cervical cancer. The former is a screening tool, the latter treatment. Neither prevent cervical cancer.
" nor can it improve the diagnosis of serious cervical cancer outcomes "
I have no idea what that even means.
Their safety claims are not backed up by anything remotely resembling peer reviewed clinical trial data, but by an article Shaw and Tomljenovic wrote in a law journal, which tortures data from the VAERS database.
In any case, Bark cannot claim to have published peer reviewed research based on this letter. This is why the judge said adequate notice is important: so opposing counsel can prepare a rebuttal. Without a history of actual research in the field, an expert who does have those credentials will be taken seriously by the judge, while Dr. Bark will not be. Credibility matters.
This is why Bark tried to avoid the qualification questions and just start testifying, and why the mom's attorney let her do that.
I don't have the strength to go on with this:
Dr. Bark has been the medical director for various departments and hospitals and has extensive post-residency training in aesthetic medicine, nutritional medicine, and classical homeopathy with the top trainers in the various fields.
^ OK, I couldn't help myself. This is what I'd want from an expert witness:
Doctor Bark is an athlete and a dancer and works intimately with other movers and shakers.
"I've never claimed to be anything but a nice guy and an athlete."—HST
Yeah, this is exactly the kind of bulls***ing she tried to pull in court; vague claims at expertise without providing specifics of what departments at which hospitals when, or who her top trainers were.
^^ I also note that one can see the mascara on the right side from the left profile on the video. Very natchrul.
I trained as a pediatric intern at Bellevue NYU and then in Rehab medicine. I quickly was offered the directorship of the pediatric emergency room at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago.
I'm somewhat mesmerized by that construction, but anyway:
Dr. Bark completed her Pediatric Residency training at the University of Illinois, Chicago, in 1991, and trained at New York University in Pediatrics from 1986 through 1987 and Rehabilitation Medicine from 1987 through 1988. Immediately post-residency, Dr. Bark worked as attending staff in the Neo-Natal Intensive Care Unit at Michael Reese Hospital. She then took a position as the Director of the Pediatric Emergency Room at Michael Reese Hospital until 1993 when her commitment to natural remedies led her to begin her study of Holistic Medicine.
She has maintained a private practice in Homeopathy for more than fifteen years and was the Medical Director for the integrative Medicine department of Advocate Health Care Systems at Good Shepherd Hospital from June of 2000 until July of 2003.
In 2012 Dr. Bark was bestowed the honor of becoming the 2nd Vice President of the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH). She also received her Masters in Healthcare Emergency Management (MHEM) from Boston University Medical School that same year.
Note that the "source" link back to Bark's site is 404. I'm really not going looking for more this time.
^ But happily archived.
Dr. Bark has studied extensively with internationally renowned Homeopaths such as Massimo Mangialavori, Vasillies Ghegas, Rajan Sarkaran, Divya Chabra, Jan Scholten, Paul Herscu and Louis Klein.
She initially studied homeopathy at The New England School of Homeopathy in Massachusetts and completed her initial training at The National Center for Homeopathy in Virginia. She finished her training in Hypnotherapy with Dr. Ericca Fromm and with the American society for Clinical Hypnosis.
Hi, I'm an Expert Witness! You are getting sleepy, very sleepy . . . .
Interesting how she wrote this to a state senator in Oregon when she lives in Illinois.
Unfortunately she is "flying out of the country" when the Oregon state senate is holding hearings apparently on removing vaccine exemptions, or she'd "fly out" there.
It's probably a good thing. She was such a disaster as a witness in court, she'd really look foolish speaking before a legislative body. She must realize how poorly she did on the stand in Michigan, and I suspect it's why she's "unavailable."
Oh, interesting. She's American Loon 1345.
Did anyone notice she said one journal might be the Journal of Translational Science? That’s a predatory journal IIRC.
That's the OAText parasites who took Dwoskin money to give Mawson's retracted survey a home; then unpublished it, and extorted additional $$$ if the authors wanted to see it again.
No record of a Bark-authored paper in their archives. But she thinks she might have published there. OK.
Looking at the defunct Michael Reese Hospital, she was probably hired because she would take the job and was cheap to hire. I bet better qualified doctors ran away from the facility.
Dr Bark previously came to the attention of RI in the context of the narrowly-titled "Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge", after the IPAK leadership started pimping Mawson's opinion poll.
It is not easy to find stuff at the IPAK website because they keep changing it to insert more grifting, but there was this from 2008:
Dine with Dr. Obukhanych, Dr. Bark, Dr. Theresa Deisher and Dr. Lyons-Weiler. All proceeds are donations to The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge.
At one point she was listed as a speaker at the 2017 IPAK FOCUS meeting (with Shoenfeld as Plenary Speaker -- they're all aboard the Aluminium-toxicity scamwagon), but the full program seems to have vanished now.
Yes, IPAK have claimed the term "Adverscomics", and would like your donations to help them work out what it means:
In other antivax news, the Oakland Public Library is disgracing itself by hosting a showing of "Vaxxed" later this month, organized by a Dr. Benjamin Benulis.
Benulis is a chiropractor who aside from being an antivaxer, is into a variety of woo that just has to be better than your garden variety neck and back-cracking:
"As a chiropractor, he practices a technique called Network Spinal Analysis (NSA) which treats tension patterns in the body as potential energy that when released in the proper manner can be transformed into fuel for creating healthier habits and a better life."
@Panacea - the next hearing is on the 14th of November.
Not Horne/Bredow - the other couple. With Toni Bark.
Did anyone catch the 7 minute "interview" by Bigtree with Mr. Horne? I don't have sound at the moment and it's not closed-captioned. It's on Del Bigtree's FB page. The poutrage exhibited by the commentators is fierce. Maybe they're upset that Rebecca Bredow isn't flying out to be taped for an episode of "The Doctors".
Yes, IPAK have claimed the term “Adverscomics”, and would like your donations to help them work out what it means:
I thought your spelling AdversComics was a typo. Then I looked at the website and now I'm not so sure.
Is there any particular reason my comments haven't posted in a few days? Is it something I said?
Daigan: yes, should be entertaining. I hope the local news tapes the hearing again (I assume that's where it came from) because the last bit was pure comedy gold.
It gives the dad's attorney plenty of time to find a medical expert to refute Bark.
Popcorn is on the ready. https://i.imgur.com/NnoGhN1.gif
Just a warning, we take our knowledge of anti-vaxx Illuminati and arguments for granted. A local expert may be completely unaware of Bark and her nonsense and come off as canned. We can only hope the dad's expert is a reader of this blog.
It's a real concern. I know of at least one case Dr. Bark appeared to have had an impact in the trial level (decision overturned on appeal).
I hope the lawyer considers reaching out to the local immunization coalition which can help him find someone who is also versed in anti-vaccine claims.
That'll all depend on what kind of expert dad's lawyer hires.
He knows mom is anti vax; that's the crux of the whole case. He's probably read the news coverage. So hopefully he has the wherewithal to hire an immunologist, virologist, or vaccine expert who can explain how Bark is barking mad, and how badly she distorts her "expertise" with adversomics and misappropriated Dr. Poland's original work (which is solid science and has nothing to do with anti vax lunacy).
But if dad's lawyer simply hires a pediatrician or general medicine doc, then it becomes the battle of the experts and the water will get badly muddied.
I predict if Bark returns to the stand she will persist in trying to present herself as an expert, and give inappropriate testimony (as in outside her real area of expertise, which is general medicine and surgery).
Maybe a real expert in the field will volunteer their time and testify on the father's behalf. I know, wishful thinking on my part, but it does happen sometimes.
It would be doubly great if they were able to get Dr. Poland to testify and out Dr. Bark as a real idiot. Dr. Poland may be very annoyed with how that paper and research has been mangled by the confederacy of dunces.
Dr. Henneke sure was pissed off when he came to testify, for free, years ago on behalf of Marsha Parkinson.
@ Science Mom:
You are correct.
We know a lot about woo and its meisters.
Perhaps someone should inform the father and his legal rep about Bark.
a well-known economist/ prof/ political figure was a guest on prn-
the hoary old host kowtowed to the guy and played economist himself as usual- ( later he spoke as though the prof agreed with his nonsense)
I believe that the prof did NOT know who this idiot was or his sordid history and he agreed to come back as a guest.
I wrote to him and told him what I knew including how this person was using him to make himself credible to his fans-
but how he always spewed fake medical theories, fake social sci and frankly sickening politics - which I detailed
( the idiot in charge especially hates the prof's political colleagues, university etc) and I cited Quackwatch and Orac.
AFAIK the gentleman never appeared again and I did check it out well on the net.
Occasionally, woo-meisters fool legitimate experts and the latter may appear in films or shows usually misrepresented.
You might be interested to know the following:
1. For over 8 years the two parents had both agreed to not vaccinate the child.
2. The father had previously attempted several times to get 50% custody of the child, but failed. That usually doesn't happen unless there are some serious underlying circumstances. Do you wonder why?
3. This current case was rushed by the father, with a new judge and new lawyer, and their first court appearance was not communicated to the mother. His lawyer then berated the mother for not appearing, saying it was typical behavior for her.
4. There were at least three earlier CPS reports, one of which was for the father watching porn in front of the child, which for some reason were thrown out by this judge. The police had to be called to the school when the father went to pick up his son...because the boy was afraid to go with his father.
5. The day the mother was let out of jail the father was awarded joint custody at a hearing which was not even supposed to be about custody. He was also given an extra day with the child the day after the mother got out of jail.
6. On that extra day he left his son to travel to Los Angeles...with his lawyer...so he could appear on The Doctors TV show.
It's possible that an expert would testify for free but not very likely. Experts are very expensive. I highly doubt Dr. Bark is donating her time.
At one point [Bark] was listed as a speaker at the 2017 IPAK FOCUS meeting (with Shoenfeld as Plenary Speaker — they’re all aboard the Aluminium-toxicity scamwagon), but the full program seems to have vanished now.
No sign of her in the clown-car-crew listed in the press release:
FOCUS 2017:VACCINE SAFETY SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY
Join us as we share knowledge. June 15-17, 2017.
WYNDHAM GRAND HOTEL, PITTSBURGH PA
CONFIRMED INVITED SPEAKERS
Dr. Yehuda Schoenfeld, Plenary Speaker
Dr. Paul Thomas, MD FAAP ABAM ABIHM, Physicians for Informed Consent, Oregonians for Medical Freedom
Autism: Causes, Informed Consent and The Future
Mary Holland, J.D., New York University School of Law
Vaccine Law, International Human Rights and Common Sense
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge
Safe or Effective? The Future of Artificial Immunity
Dr. Bob Sears, MD, Immunity Education Group
How to Counter the Lies Politicians and the Media Use to Pass Mandatory Vaccination Laws
...but that could just be an omission by the IPAK nimrods, who could not even spell the name of their plenary speaker correctly ("you had just one job...").
The meeting was four months ago, but no record of the proceedings at the IPAK website, which is focussed more on selling the remaining tickets. Grifters gotta grift.
Oh I know the odds are against it, but it has happened once in a great while. It would make great viewing too.
Vinu is busy being a pest at the WaPo site. He's not making much headway.
Vinu is busy being a pest at the WaPo site. He’s not making much headway.
Which is a good time to remind everyone that Vinu contributed a chapter to Shaw & Dwoskin's forthcoming exercise in manufactrovery:
8. Vaccine Induced Allergies
Pre-order price was US$140 but already reduced to $119.
Well, with any luck, the father has a better attorney who understands that a GOOD expert witness - as opposed to Quack Bark - is necessary.
Wow. Elsevier is publishing this dreck?
My already low opinion of them just dropped.
I mentioned in another comment above that Kent Heckenlively had a new White House petition to stop vaccines (his 4th, I believe). Well, the signing window has closed, and he didn't get 7000 signatures, nor 6000, or even 1000. The final total was 458.
I wonder if most of the loons are smart enough to know it's a waste of time to sign his petitions, or if they are to dumb to not understand that these are all separate petitions, and the signatures don't carry over.
Kent doesn't have a new one up yet, but there is this one from 'J.A.'
The vitriol stemming from the topic of vaccination is far-reaching. Many parents believe that their children have been injured by vaccines, while others insist that the unvaccinated population puts others at risk.
Parents have requested that a study be performed which compares a vaccinated pediatric population with an unvaccinated population. The CDC denies this request, citing danger to the control group.
The time has come to perform a double-blind, placebo-based study that evaluates the vaccine schedule. The only acceptable study compares vaccines with an inert substance, and not with adjuvants. It must not be based on ICD-10 coding or rely on data mining tactics. No mincing words; just a fair review.
Please hold the CDC accountable for performing this study.
It has a deadline of 24 October, and needs 99,771 more signatures. I don't think they will make it.