A B C. The judge ordered the vaccination of two children on the objections of his mother, who questioned the safety of immunization.
The case went to a provincial court in Salmon Arm, in the interior of southern British Columbia, due to the father’s concerns about recent measles outbreaks and a warning that education officials may not allow their two children to attend school during an outbreak unless they are immunized.
The mother tried to present an evidence report written by an American doctor who testified in the high profile case of a Michigan mother who struggled for years to avoid vaccinating her young daughter.
But Judge Stella Frame questioned Dr. Toni Lynn Bark’s qualifications to talk about immunology, virology or epidemiology, as well as her claims to be an expert on “vaccine adversity.”
“It is difficult to know whether or not this is junk science or a recognized emerging field,” Frame wrote in his eight-page decision.
“Presented as it is in your report, your theory or opinion sounds like a conspiracy theory.”
‘Vaccination is preferable to non-vaccination’
The ruling highlights the role of the courts in awarding divisions between divided parents on vaccination.
Frame’s decision refers to a previous B.C. Supreme Court decision in which a judge rejected attempts to link vaccines with autism. Frame said he had reached the same conclusion.
“The best current evidence is that vaccination is preferable to non-vaccination, that it is necessary to protect those who cannot be vaccinated, as well as to protect ourselves, and that any adverse reaction the person may have from the vaccine it is widely compensated for the risk of contracting the target disease, “wrote Frame.
The parents at the center of the case are mentioned by their initials in the ruling, which comes after a request from the parent – DRB.
DRB and DAT have two children from a five-year relationship that began in 2012. Both children are healthy, have no immunity problems and have no medical conditions that make them ineligible for live vaccines.
But DAT has refused to give consent for vaccination or x-rays performed at the dentist’s office.
According to the ruling, his opposition to radiographs led to a child needing a root canal, a filling and extracted teeth.
“DRB said several dentists in the dentist’s office had recommended that they do those x-rays,” says the ruling.
‘That is simply not the case’
DAT said he worked in a health center and “was discussing with several people about what was happening with these flu shots.”
She said she had gone to see a naturopath who talked about adverse reactions. DAT decided that he wanted the children to be tested for a genetic variant, as well as allergies and food sensitivities before being vaccinated.
DRB objected to paying for the tests it deemed unnecessary.
Bark’s report was actually written for another child, but the mother offered it to DAT to help her argue her case.
Bark, an Illinois doctor, has spoken frequently in opposition to vaccines and has testified as a witness in support of Lori Matheson, a Detroit mother who made headlines in the United States in the fight against vaccination.
Although the judge in that case allowed Bark to testify about his own practice, he refused to qualify Bark as an expert witness in vaccinations, reaching a conclusion similar to Frame on Bark’s claims and credentials.
“One of the diseases that she says is very low risk of contracting is measles,” wrote Frame.
“That is simply not the case. It also identifies tuberculosis, which is also not eradicated in some parts of Canadian communities. He believes that these vaccines are unnecessary because the diseases identified or directed have essentially disappeared from developed countries.”
‘The responsibility of parents’
For its part, DRB introduced two B.C. The decisions of the Supreme Court in which the judges concluded that the benefits of vaccination outweighed the risks of not being immunized, together with excerpts from reports on the value of immunization from a number of medical and research organizations.
Frame noted that not all are recommended for immunization, but the two children did not fall into that category.
“That does not mean that parents should blindly follow any medical advice given to them. Pharmaceutical and medical industries can make mistakes, sometimes catastrophic,” the judge wrote.
“It is still the parents’ responsibility to listen to the advice, ask the questions, investigate and make the right decision for their children.”
Frame decided that DRB should be solely responsible for medical and dental treatments for both children and that they should be immunized according to the immunization schedule of Immunization B.C.