The Rhode Island Supreme Court has rejected an amicus brief filed in a case set to be heard on Thursday in which dozens of medical doctors and academic scientists argue that the risks associated with giving children the Covid-19 shot outweigh the benefits.
The case in question involves Lauren and Joshua Nagel, the parents of two daughters, ages 5 and 8. Nearly three years ago, Lauren and Joshua were granted a divorce by a final decree in September 2020. According to the former couple’s divorce agreement, both Lauren and Joshua would share in all major decisions affecting their children’s health — including elective medical choices.
Upon the rollout of the Covid shots, Lauren wanted to give her children the experimental jab, but Joshua did not. Unable to come to an agreement, Lauren sought an order from a trial court last year that would grant her unilateral authority to give her and Joshua’s daughters the shot based upon her pediatrician’s advice, which was to vaccinate. In her testimony, Lauren’s pediatrician claimed she was following guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and that she would change her recommendation if AAP were to change its guidelines.
According to its website, AAP — a left-wing activist health organization that’s advocated for pediatricians helping minors get abortions without their parents’ knowledge and harmful puberty-blocking drugs for children — recommends the Covid jab for most “infants, children, and adolescents 6 months of age and older.” AAP also advises parents to get their children boosted in accordance with CDC guidelines.
While the trial court found Joshua’s refusal to consent to give the girls the Covid shot was not “objectively unreasonable,” it nonetheless overrode the divorce agreement in January, deciding it would be within the “best interests” of the Nagel girls to receive the jab. In its ruling, the court essentially married “best interests” to whatever AAP recommended. So, if AAP changed its recommendation, then the “best interests” of the Nagel girls would be changed in tandem. In other words, ideologically corrupt medical organizations such as AAP, and not Joshua, get to decide whether these girls get the Covid shot.
In the amicus brief filed ahead of Thursday’s hearing, dozens of medical professionals disputed AAP’s guidelines, arguing that giving the Nagel girls the Covid shot “would not be in their best interests” as the “potential benefits of vaccinating them are far outweighed by the certain risks of harm to them.”
“[I]n addition to overestimating the benefits and downplaying the risks of vaccinating children, these recommendations do not fully account for the effects of the natural immunity which the Nagel girls enjoy; are out-of-step with the recommended practices of professional medical organizations in other countries; and fail to consider the presently unknowable long-term ill-effects of vaccines which have been, after all, approved for use as emergency measures under the duress of fighting a global pandemic,” the brief reads. Signatories include former AAP President Joseph Zanga; Jan Breslow, a former president of the American Heart Association; and Jay Bhattacharya, an epidemiologist and professor at Stanford’s School of Medicine, among others.
The court, without explanation, rejected the brief, which is available below.
As The Federalist previously reported, children are the least at-risk age demographic with respect to Covid-19. Studies conducted in Sweden and Germany have found Covid fatalities among healthy children in each European country to be nearly nonexistent. In addition to children not being super-spreaders of the virus, research has shown the majority of American children have already recovered from Covid and therefore possess immunity to reinfection. Numerous scientific studies have shown individuals previously infected with the virus possess robust natural immunity.
In addition to their inability to prevent transmission of Covid, the Covid shots have been documented to have significant risks, particularly for young people. An analysis from Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo found “an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination.” Ladapo’s office also issued guidance in March 2022 advising against offering the experimental jabs to children under 18 due to the “[l]imited risk of severe illness” posed by the virus, the “[h]igh prevalence of existing immunity,” and the risk of myocarditis, among other things.
Additionally, countries such as Germany, France, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway have all recommended against “the distribution of the Moderna Covid shots for individuals under the age of 30,” with all of them “citing the documented risk of heart inflammation among young people as justification.”
Pending the outcome of Joshua’s appeal, both girls remain unvaccinated.
Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
Originally Posted on: https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/13/rhode-island-supreme-court-rejects-brief-from-doctors-advising-against-giving-children-the-covid-jab/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rhode-island-supreme-court-rejects-brief-from-doctors-advising-against-giving-children-the-covid-jab
[By: Shawn Fleetwood