Connect with us

Health

Child Was Removed From Family At Gunpoint Because Dad Showed The World His Son’s Vaccine Reaction

Published

on

“Imagine this scenario: Your perfectly healthy baby boy begins having 14 seizures a day, the day after receiving the Meningitis B Vaccine. You get no answers from your GP, or anybody else, for that matter. You make a video of your young boy to warn other parents that there might be something wrong with the vaccine. You think that’s only right: Let people see what happened to your boy and make their minds up on whether to opt out of that particular vaccine. You start looking into vaccines and conclude you won’t be vaccinating your child/children anymore. This results in your boy being removed from your home, because your anti-vaccine stance might harm him. Imagine it. Luke Maguire and Louise McKever don’t have to imagine that scenario. They’ve lived it for the last year.”

advertisement - learn more

– Richie Allen, radio presenter

In the last year, Luke Maguire and his partner, Louise, have been through a living hell. Ever since their child received a new meningitis vaccine called Bexsero, which caused a massive reaction within a day of receiving it, their son had suffered from a strange new twitch.

“At the two month vaccine, Bobby developed a twitch,”  Luke told radio host Richie Allen. “We knew straight away it was from the vaccines as it started that night. He was sleepy, floppy and pale. But after we alerted the nurses to the twitching, they assured us that vaccines were 100% safe.”

After receiving no help from their GP, or anyone else in the medical field, the outspoken father started sharing their experiences on Facebook with a video of Bobby having his seizures. He hoped to warn other parents that Bexsaro might be unsafe. He said it caused a quick decline in their son’s health and gave him severe epilepsy, which he did not have prior to receiving the vaccine.

After Father Spoke Out About First Vaccine Causing Issues, Social Services Threatened to Take Child

After receiving some mainstream press, the story became well-known in the UK and due to a Facebook video Luke made, went viral overseas. While Luke and Louise knew that the vaccine had caused severe harm and didn’t want to give Bobby any more, social services threatened to take Bobby away from their care if they didn’t continue to vaccinate him. Reluctantly, the parents had him vaccinated again. After this second lot, Bobby’s health deteriorated even further, which meant he was now having severe fits that sometimes lasted for minutes at a time.

advertisement - learn more

Since receiving these vaccines, Bobby has visited the hospital over 55 times. Luke took to Facebook to share Bobby’s story with as many people as possible, and the family has sought help outside the medical system to try to improve their son’s health. They have been giving him organic food, have tried homeopathy and other natural remedies, and took him off dairy. Bobby’s health and seizures began to improve, and as you can see from the photo below, he looks a lot better.

Is This Where We Are Heading: Speak Out Against Vaccines and Children Will Be Removed?

Earlier this week, Luke spoke with UK radio host Richie Allen to share what has been going on since Bobby had the vaccines, and what has happened since he started to speak out about them. He also described the last few weeks’ events, which ended in police raiding their house and removing Bobby at gunpoint. Luke shared this with Richie:

One told us to be quiet, that we were making too much noise about vaccines. She told me in front of two police officers – and I have a recording of her saying this – to stop talking publicly about vaccines, then they’d leave us alone. I said to the police officer “can she say that?” and the police officer said “no, she can’t.” But by that time, I’d got the story in the newspapers.

Why should parents be threatened for speaking out about something that has happened to their child? Shouldn’t we be allowed to have a choice to say no to medical treatment, especially if it had caused issues in the first place? Shouldn’t we be allowed to voice our concerns regarding the safety of something our child has been given?

UK Judge Said In 2013 Jail Social Workers Who Take Children Away For No Reason

Whilst many people will dismiss this article and say ‘it can’t possibly be true, kids do not get removed because parents are against vaccines, or for speaking ‘badly’ about them, so ‘something’ else may be the reason for the removal. However, a top UK family Judge spoke out about social workers taking children away for no valid reasons.

Sir James Mundy said during a case back in 2013 regarding social workers who did not tell the parents why their children were being taken and adopted out, that their behaviour was ‘deplorable’ and ‘symptomatic of a deeply rooted culture in family courts’.  He also accused the social workers in question of having a ‘slapdash, and ‘lackadaisical’ attitude to court orders.  He then went on to suggest that in future there could be consequences dished out to these social services workers who fail to respond to court orders asking for proof on why these children are being taken away.

How frightening it is to read this, that social services are sometimes found to NOT follow proper procedure and are ignoring court orders!

It seems we have many interlinked systems that are at times rife with fraud, where the law is not being followed.

I wonder what this judge would think about this case regarding Luke and Louise’s son Bobby.

Bruises Seen on Child After Being Removed From the Home — Father Went to Take Photos, Then Social Services Phoned Police

Luke also shared that, since Bobby was taken, they have only had several short visits to see their son and are watched over the entire time. Luke also voiced his concerns about seeing bruises on his son’s body that were not there before the raid. When Luke took his phone out to take photos of the marks, social services immediately rang the police.

The video above (this is not the link for the original video but was added to YouTube after) is what started the trouble for the family. When it was sent out on Facebook it went viral, quickly amassing 3.5 million views.

There Are Concerning Issues With Bexsaro Vaccine

We must consider, is there any evidence to show that Luke may be right, that Bexsaro did cause his son’s health issues? Has it even been proven to be safe for use in infants?

In the article “Are Ineffective New Meningitis B Vaccines Causing Harm to Children?world-renowned vaccine journalist Christina England shares some worrisome information she found in the vaccine insert, and reveals this vaccine has not been tested for use in infants: “In the UK, Bexsero is the main vaccination being recommended for babies between the ages of two and six months, a vaccine that, according to the manufacturers vaccine insert, has only been approved for individuals from the ages of 10 through to 25.”

The following image is taken from the actual Bexsero vaccine insert

Christina shared even more disturbing information from the vaccine insert, which clearly states it has not been tested for safety nor for effectiveness in children under the age of 10. In fact, if you take a look at the insert, which mentions the studies carried out, many of the people  it was tested on, were aged between 13-20 years.

Adverse reaction information was only recorded for  a 30 day period after the vaccine was given, which, I am sure you may agree with,  is hardly long enough to prove its safety. Surely we should be studying vaccines for adverse reactions many months after they are given, or even better, for years?

In the UK, this vaccine is now given to infants starting in the first year of their life, where their body weight is incredibly low. Surely its common sense to consider; how do we know an infant can detox the vaccine chemicals that were tested in much older children and young adults?

This Is Why We Urge Parents to Demand to See the Vaccine Inserts

How can a vaccine that has not been tested for use, or for safety in infants, but instead was tested on children much older (with much larger body weights), then be given to millions of infant children? How can our health agencies, which are supposed to act with the welfare of our children as their first priority, add a vaccine to the schedule whose safety has not been proven?

We as parents must must demand to see the actual vaccine insert before we vaccinate, not just the glossy leaflet given to us. Otherwise, we will remain ignorant of the risks involved.

Australian Boy Also Taken From Home After Parents Spoke Out About Vaccines and Stopped Using Hospital Food

While the Australian family are under a gag order by the courts not to speak out about their son’s removal publicly — and I am not going to mention their names here — I urge you to take a look at this article about what happened to their child, who was also removed at gunpoint by Australian police.

The parents of this other boy have also taken to Facebook, urging people to make sure they know the risks involved in getting their children vaccinated. This family, who was not ‘anti-vaccine’ by any means and ensured their son received most of his infant vaccines, were feeding their son organic food. They also were giving him CBD oil which was helping his seizures massively decrease in severity.  They also prevented him from eating hospital food, which he seemed allergic to, after discovering it contained synthetic vitamins, sugars, and non-organic milk and nothing that was ‘real food’.

The video of this child being removed from his parents, also went viral, and the disturbing footage was seen where friends of the family who were at the hospital protesting, were pepper sprayed by Australian police.

We have also just heard that a young mother of 4 children in the USA has reported that all of her children were taken from her care after a visit to the hospital for one of the children.  She says that she believes that its because all four children are unvaccinated.

Please Listen to the Father’s Interview

There seems to be more and more cases of parents having their rights stripped away (you might like to check out the website medical kidnap which is as it sounds – a website dedicated to cases where parents lost their children to the hands of the medical industry) particularly when it comes to saying no to vaccines, or voicing concern about ones that have already been given.

At this stage, no one knows yet when, or if, Bobby will be returned to his parents.

Before commenting on this story, please listen to the interview with Luke speaking about what has happened to his family over this past year.

For other press articles regarding Bobby, please click here.

Information regarding Bexsaro.

To look at other vaccine inserts, please click here.

Related CE Article: The Top 6 Reasons Why Parents Should Never Be Forced To Vaccinate Their Children

 

 

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Boy or Girl – Baby Gender Selection Issues

Published

on

Some parents have the possibility to opt for gender selection; however, being able to decide whether to have a baby boy or girl is a controversial issue.

Many couples expecting a baby do not think it’s a big issue whether they have a boy or a girl; however there are several medical, social, and personal reasons that could influence parents to recur to some form of gender selection.

Like many other controversial practices, the legality of gender selection, also known as sex selection, varies from country to country.

The Legality of Baby Gender Selection

The United States has perhaps some of the most relaxed laws regarding baby gender selection in the world. Most European countries and Australia, on the other hand, have bans on sex selection and only allow it for medical reasons. For example, if a parent is a carrier of a mutation or gene with more chances of manifesting itself in a certain gender, baby gender selection is valid. However, if parents simply wish to balance the ratio of boys and girls in their family, they are not allowed to recur to sex selection.

This has generated a form of medical tourism in which couples from countries where gender selection is illegal, like the UK, travel to the US in order to be able to choose whether to have a baby boy or girl.

On the other hand, sex selection is illegal in the two most populated countries on Earth, China and India. In these countries, baby gender selection has been performed clandestinely for many years and for reasons other than family balancing or avoiding genetic diseases. In these societies, having a baby boy is preferred mainly for cultural and economic reasons. Parents believe that boys have better chances of earning income and eventually support them when they reach an old age.

advertisement - learn more

Methods of Baby Gender Selection

There are two major types of gender selection methods: the first one is called sperm sorting, and involves separating X-chromosome sperm from Y-chromosome sperm by flow cytometry, a purification technique in which chromosomes are suspended in a stream of sperm and identified by an electronic detector before being separated. Intra-uterine insemination or in-vitro fertilization can then be performed with the enriched sperm. The success rates for this method vary from 80% to 93%.

The other method, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, consists in generating several embryos through in-vitro fertilization, which are then genetically tested to determine a baby’s gender. The chosen embryos can then be implanted. This method has a success rate of almost 100%; however, it can be quite expensive, costing up to $15,000.

Issues Regarding Baby Gender Selection

While there are few objections against baby gender selection when it is performed for medical reasons, it has become a highly controversial issue when it is used for balancing the number of boys or girls in families. Some people raise the obvious ethical question of whether people who opt for gender selection are “playing God” by manipulating whether to have a baby boy or girl. Others believe that new parents will raise a baby more appropriately if he or she belongs to their preferred gender.

Gender Imbalance Caused by Baby Gender Selection

Gender selection has caused demographic concern in China and India since it has contributed to generate a gender imbalance in the populations of those countries. In some regions of China, for example, the sex ratio for newborns is 118:100, boys to girls. This phenomenon has in turn been associated with social problems such as an increase in violence and prostitution.

It seems like a logical solution for governments around the globe to legalize baby gender selection but to analyze the personal reasons why each couple intends to select a baby boy or girl. Gender selection for medical reasons should even be encouraged, since it could prevent serious genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and Haemophilia A. Balancing the gender ratio of a family should be accepted if by doing this, a healthy family environment is created. On the other hand, China and India have shown that baby gender selection as a result of a bias towards a particular gender can not only create a gender imbalance in the population, but contribute to social problems as well.

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

Organic Certification: What the USDA Organic Label Means

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Organic and natural labels mean different things, and various types of labels tells you what percentage of ingredients are actually organic. We'll explore what to look for.

  • Reflect On:

    Do you sometimes buy products thinking they are organic or fully natural based on their wording? Have you later found out that those products aren't natural or organic at all? Read labels more closely at grocery stores to be aware.

Don’t get conned by fraudulent claims of “natural” or “organic.” Learn what to look for, and why it’s important, to ensure you’re getting the quality you are paying for.

The industrial age of the 20th century brought about changing agricultural practices that have generated increasing alarm about the effects of these practices on the environment and health. The use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, irradiated and genetically altered food and fiber products has created a groundswell of rightful concern. It has led to the growing demand for non-toxic, organic products that many are willing to pay a higher price for to ensure the healthful purity of food and clothing provided for their families.

With such profit opportunities, it’s little wonder that the lucrative organic product market has suffered abuse with so-called “organic” labels being fraudulently placed on products that have not earned the right. As a result of pressure from farming and consumer groups, legislation for the standardization of organic certification was introduced in the 1980s. It has been updated to include more vigorous enforcement and control methods since, with the current standards established in 2002 by the USDA.

The Standards of USDA Organic Certification

Specific standards must be met in order to legally claim a product as USDA certified organic. Organic producers must utilize methods that conserve water, maximize soil health, and reduce air pollution. The specific standards to earn USDA organic certification include:

Free of synthetic chemicals such as insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, and additives

Free from irradiation and genetically modified organisms

advertisement - learn more

Agricultural products grown on land that has been free of prohibited substances for a period of three years

Animals used for meat, eggs, milk or other animal products must be exclusively fed foods that are organically grown, may not be given antibiotics or hormones, and must have access to outdoors.

Clean and sanitized harvesting and processing equipment throughout the process from harvest to finished, packaged product

Detailed chain-of-handling records from the field through final sales

Physical separation of certified organic products from non-organic products throughout the process of production

Regular on-site inspections from USDA-approved inspectors to ensure compliance

Understanding the Certified Organic Label

Once the rigorous process of certification has been completed, organic producers may place the USDA certified organic seal on their products. Currently, there are four levels of certified organic products, with a specific definition of the percentage of organic ingredients the final products contains. They are as follows:

• 100% organic: all production methods and ingredients are USDA certified organic.

• Organic: at least 95% of the production methods and ingredients are USDA certified organic with remaining ingredients included on the National List of allowed ingredients.

• Made With Organic Ingredients: at least 70% of the ingredients are USDA certified organic with remaining ingredients included on the National List of allowed ingredients.

• No organic wording or seal: less than 70% of the ingredients are USDA certified organic and no claims may be made on the front or back of the product.

Manufacturers or producers who knowingly label a product “organic” when it does not meet the USDA standards are subject to fines up to $11,000 per violation.

Why Organic Certification is Important

When you see the official USDA organic certification seal on food, clothing, and bedding products, you can be assured that these products have met the meticulous standards required and are free of chemicals, toxins, antibiotics, and hormones. When you see the USDA certified organic label, you will understand the value of the higher priced organic products as compared to non-organically produced products.

With the current stringent organic certification requirements enforced by regular inspections from USDA accredited agents, the USDA certified organic label has great meaning and importance to the consumer. Look for the label to know that you are getting the quality you are paying for.

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

WHO Finds Global Lack Of Inactivity Rising Especially In Wealthier Countries — What You Can Do

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Inactivity is on the rise and it's the cause of a wide range of health concerns. Our population is only becoming more inactive, not less, and it's time to change that.

  • Reflect On:

    There are many factors of our modern world that make us less active. Our jobs, driving rather than walking/biking, too much screen time. What can you do differently to bring more activity into your life? What story stops you from starting?

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that more than a quarter of the entire population on this planet are not getting enough physical exercise, this number has barely improved since 2001. There are many factors that contribute to this, but just how much damage are we doing by failing to be active?

The lack of physical exercise raises the risk of many health problems, such as heart disease, type-2 diabetes and various types of cancers.

Interestingly, according to their study published in The Lancet Global Health, higher income countries, such as the UK, were among the least active population. Women were also found to be more sedentary throughout the world, excluding two regions in Asia.

The study looked at self-reported data on activity levels from 358 population based surveys covering 168 countries and included 1.9 million people.

The populations of higher income countries, which include the UK and USA showed an increase in the proportion of inactive people and had actually risen from 32% in 2001 to 37% in 2016, in the lower income countries it remained at 16%.

Those who were classified as inactive did less than 150 minutes of moderate exercise and around 75 minutes of intense activity per week.

advertisement - learn more

It was found that women were less active than men overall, except for in South and Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and higher-income Western countries. The authors believe that this was caused by a few different factors including extra childcare duties and cultural perspectives that may have made it more difficult for them to exercise.

Why More Inactivity In Wealthier Countries?

According to the researchers, in the wealthier countries, many of the jobs have transitioned to more office or desk jobs, meaning a more sedentary type of lifestyle. On top of that much of the population of these countries drive automobiles or take public transit to and from work which in many cases accounts for a lot of their time.

In the lower income countries, many of the jobs require the people to be more active, are physically demanding and people often have to walk to and from their jobs.

The WHO has had a goal to reduce the global levels of inactivity by 10% by 2025, the authors of the study feel that at the rate we are currently going, this target will be missed.

Lead author of the study, Dr. Regina Guthold said, “Unlike other major global health risks, levels of insufficient physical activity are not falling worldwide, on average, and over a quarter of all adults are not reaching the recommended levels of physical activity for good health.”

Regions with increasing levels of insufficient physical activity are a major concern for public health and the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases.”

Co-author, Dr. Fiona Bull added, “Addressing these inequalities in physical activity levels between men and women will be critical to achieving global activity targets and will require interventions to promote and improve women’s access to opportunities that are safe, affordable and culturally acceptable.”

According to the WHO,

Exercise guidelines for 19- to 64-year-olds

How much?

  • at least 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous aerobic activity every week
  • strength exercises on two or more days a week that work all the major muscles
  • break up long periods of sitting with light activity

What is moderate aerobic activity?

  • Walking fast, water aerobics, riding a bike on level ground or with a few hills, doubles tennis, pushing a lawn mower, hiking, skateboarding, rollerblading, volleyball, basketball

What counts as vigorous activity?

  • Jogging or running, swimming fast, riding a bike fast or on hills, singles tennis, football, rugby, skipping rope, hockey, aerobics, gymnastics, martial arts

What activities strengthen muscles?

  • lifting weights, working with resistance bands, doing exercises that use your own body weight, such as push-ups and sit-ups, heavy gardening, such as digging and shovelling, yoga

What activities are both aerobic and muscle-strengthening?

  • circuit training, aerobics, running, football, rugby, netball, hockey

Final Thoughts

I was surprised to see that the WHO didn’t touch on inactivity due to too much screen time — watching television, Netflix, Facebook scrolling, messaging, texting, browsing etc. Certainly, the increase in screen time plays a roll with the amount of inactivity, especially in the higher income countries. If you are someone who spends too much time staring at a screen, then it is important to consider the above information. Can you limit your screen time and replace it with something active? Or would you consider jumping rope, or rebounding while watching the television? Our health is our greatest wealth and having awareness about an issue is the first way to create change and take responsibility for our lives.

Could you walk or bike to work instead of drive? What about trying a new sport? Could you commit to adding a few hours each week of physical activity? These small decisions could have a profound impact on your health, longevity and overall well-being.

Much Love

Free Franco DeNicola Screening: The Shift In Consciousness

We interviewed Franco DeNicola about what is happening with the shift in consciousness. It turned out to be one of the deepest and most important information we pulled out within an interview.

We explored why things are moving a little more slowly with the shift at times, what is stopping certain solutions from coming forward and the important role we all play.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL