How Denial of Informed Consent and Due Process Led to the Wrongful Imprisonment of the Michigan Vaccine Risk Aware Mom

Views 1126

Formerly imprisoned vaccine-risk aware Michigan mom Rebecca Bredow is the first person to admit she’s not perfect. She keeps her word. She tries to avoid conflict, especially for her children. And she certainly would rather be left alone to make medical decisions about her children

On the books, at least, the State Legislature of Michigan agrees.

Vaccination rights are a huge issue in the US — and worldwide. So when a Judge in Michigan (Judge Karen McDonald) decided to imprison her for seven days for, as the media across the globe would have you believe, not vaccinating her son as she allegedly agreed to, one would think the media would have done their homework.

The Washington Post conveniently dodged any relevant details of the case, simply reporting

“…a Michigan mother was put in jail for ignoring a court order to vaccinate her 9-year-old son…”

Here’s the BBC’s Oct 5, 2017 story:

“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.”

Newsweek wrote:

“Rebecca Bredow told the local ABC News affiliate WXYZ that a judge had ordered her to vaccinate her 9-year-old son. On Wednesday, the Associated Press reportedthat Bredow was sentenced by Judge Karen McDonald, who ruled that Bredow’s ex-husband (the son’s father) “gets a say” in the decision. Though the parents have shared custody of their two children, Bredow is the primary caregiver. In response, Bredow told the judge that she takes ‘full responsibility’ for her actions, but that she is philosophically opposed to vaccinating her son for transmissible, potentially fatal and otherwise preventable diseases such as measles.”

“WXYZ reported on Wednesday that Bredow was ‘sentenced for contempt of court.’ The judge had given the mother one week to get her son vaccinated, but she didn’t follow through. The network found she’s been ignoring orders for even longer. Documents obtained by the news station state that a court previously asked Bredow to get immunizations for her son in November 2016, but she didn’t comply.”

Newsweek then later wrote

“A mother who served jail time after refusing a judge’s order to vaccinate her son…”

The Daily Mail reported

“when Bredow did not ensure the child received the shots, despite agreeing to do so during a November 2016 court case, Judge Karen McDonald her to be in contempt of court and sentenced her to a week in the Oakland County Jail.”

People Magazine had a different representation of the events:

“Rebecca Bredow, 40, was in contempt of court after she ignored an order from a judge who told her she had one week to get her son vaccinated. The court initially ordered the vaccination in November 2016.”


“There is no civil or criminal penalty for refusing to vaccinate your child in the U.S., and every state allows parents to opt out for medical reasons, while some states permit parents to decline vaccinations due to philosophical or religious reasons. Bredow’s case is about her refusal to follow court orders she previously agreed to, according to the judge.

The Detroit Free Press offers a different story

“(Judge) McDonald took the unusual step of finding Bredow in contempt of court for refusing an earlier order to vaccinate her son. McDonald had made her intentions clear at a hearing the week before.

‘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.

Vitale said that those pleadings, filed by a previous attorney, were made in error and Bredow never intended to consent to vaccinations. Bredow, citing religious objections to vaccinations, has avoided giving them to the boy since he was born.

Vitale said that Horne never questioned Bredow’s decisions to not vaccinate the boy until recently.”

Agreement, Order, Accidental Pleadings? What really happened?

Did the Judge actually order the Rebecca to vaccinate her own son, against her own personal and religious beliefs? It would seem so:

“You have seven days to get your child vaccinated. 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.” (McDonald, Sept 27th)

Looking at the court documents, it’s clear that Rebecca was not present at the meeting when the ex-husband’s lawyer hastily wrote a hand-written order, which the judge signed.

It is now confirmed that Rebecca never signed the so-called “agreement”.

Further, the Judge’s previously order to vaccinate in November 2016 came into existence under scurrilous circumstances.


It began as a point of contention raised by the father, via his lawyer, in filing in which they were responding to complaints of lack of payment of child support.

Rebecca was not served notice of that hearing.

Let’s look at the first so-called “order”. Judge McDonald is seen here Horne, James vs Rebecca 11–16–16, at a hearing that Rebecca was never informed of, requesting that the ex-husband’s attorney, Mr. Richardson, draft the order:

“JUDGE MCDONALD: Okay. All right. Can you draft the order please?

In the 11/16 transcript, it is plain that the judge ordered that all matters were to be referred to The Friends of Court. This is not out of the ordinary in Michigan. The Friends of the Court provide a forum for mediation and saves the Court time. It can, under the right circumstances, aid a couple through the difficult process of divorce in less contentious atmosphere. However, in the motion-used-as-an-order, Rebecca’s ex-husband claimed, without proof, that the signature on the waiver form was no Rebecca’s:

“MR. HORNE: I agreed to joint legal custody and at the time my logic was, I cannot ask for any physical custody when the child is in the womb, so Ithats why I didnt push that matter.

JUDGE MCDONALD (speaking to the Family Counselor): Okay. What’s your recommendation?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (Family Counselor): Your Honor, I recommended that they have a hearing regarding custody due to the issues of attendance, religious issues as well, that…

JUDGE MCDONALD: What are the religious issues?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (Family Counselor): That now the mother is married to somebody who is stating that the child cannot get vaccinated due to religious beliefs and his —

JUDGE MCDONALD: What are the religious beliefs?

MR. RICHARDSON: We don’t know. This is —

MR. HORNE: They’re non-existent.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (Family Counselor): Unaware —

MR. RICHARDSON: Except that they’re listed on the immunization waiver form by the step-father, we don’t know what they are, his reason on the immunization form is, religiously do not believe in the injection of animal byproducts, and then it’s signedher name is signed by her husband. It doesnt match any of the prior old signatures my client has on record for her.

MR. HORNE: Re-enrollment forms are signed not by Rebecca or myself.

Neither Rebecca’s religious position and the reality of her signature were never given a proper hearing. Judge McDonald accepted these assertions without proof, or evidence of any kind.

The ex-husband’s lawyer wrote the order referring to paragraphs in his motion as an order from the judge. And, remarkably, Rebecca had never been served notice of the court hearing that eventually led to the first order.

The claim in the motion re: vaccine regarding Rebecca are factually incorrect, and the claim that the signature is Rebecca’s husband is also demonstrably incorrect. Clearly the signature on the waiver form had to be Rebecca’s. The waiver forms are signed at the end of the Oakland County Health Department immunization course, which is required for waivers. Gary Bredow, Rebecca’s husband, who according to the ex-husband signed the waiver, never attended the course offered by the Oakland County Health Department immunization.

By not holding a hearing for evidence, Judge McDonald accepted, without proof, the ex-husband claimed that Gary, not Rebecca, signed the waiver form.

As a cryptically numbered reference to the ex’s husband’s lawyer’s motion, the “order” drafted by the ex-husband’s lawyer barely qualifies as such.

The information in the motion comes at the end of the motion:

From Bullet Point C, Paragraph 21 (we’ll skip over A and B, which are juvenile attempts to malign Rebecca’s character):

“Joint/Legal Custody Violations

Additionally, the defendant mother, has violated the plaintiff father’s joint legal custody rights, it the follow matters:”

“C. The Defendant mother, whose new significant other, opposes vaccination of children, has filed Department Community Health immunization waiver forms with the school citing religious reasons. We attach as an exhibit the immunization waiver form.”

“Before the defendant mother took up with her current significant other, the child was up to date on his immunizations.”

This claim is demonstrably false, and the ex-husband knew that this was false. The motion, therefore, was baseless.

Rebecca began her relationship with the man mentioned as her “significant other” in 2009, and the couple was married in 2013.

Judge McDonald never issued an order to have the child vaccinated, in her own words, in plain language that all involved parties could understand.

One would think that Rebecca would have been given the order by her lawyer, and it would have been discussed and reviewed. Instead, she found the order taped to her front door, sent by courier. She was never made aware, by her lawyer, of what the contents meant. She did not see anywhere that she was to vaccinate in the single minute (60 second) it was discussed w/her in the hallway. Instead, she was told that she should be grateful that she “won back” primary custody — as if she had once lost it. The father had not yet been granted 50:50 custody.

The implication in the motion is that Rebecca was following Gary’s religious beliefs, when in fact as a legal custodial parent, Rebecca had, under Michigan law, every right to change her mind on vaccination or any other medical procedure based both on religious and philosophical grounds. The ex-husband has never attended the course that Rebecca attended. In fact, Rebecca has attended the course twice, to insure she has the most current up-to-date information.

It was not Rebecca who changed her position. It was her ex-husband.

The child’s immunizations were not up to date, as claimed in the motion, and the ex-husband was on board with spacing out vaccines since 2010 without objection. The ex-husband first brought up vaccines for the first in 2016.

Rebecca Bredow was Denied Due Process

Further, the Court (a.k.a Judge McDonald) was informed as much by Rebecca in an emergency motion:

Rebecca hired her attorney three days after the first order to help her with this emergency order, and together they filed a second emergency motion.

Judge McDonald never heard, nor discussed these motions in court.


Regarding the first ‘order’, Rebecca and her eventual attorney then, took up the FIGHTING with two (2) emergency motions to vacate the previous order to vaccinate in a CLOSED DOOR session, with Rebecca waiting in the hallway, as directed by her then-lawyer, Paul Sarnaki.

Rebecca had insisted that she be able to go in front of the Judge to fight for her motion. According to Rebecca Bredow, Mr. Sarnaki ignored this, and told her that this was the “best you’re gonna get” and that it was a “bad idea to go in front of the judge, you need to take the proposed order”. He shot down her objection, which was she wanted to go in front of the Judge, telling her it was a “bad gamble”. She asked about vaccination, because it was not on the order. Mr. Sarnaki then told her that the order was not about vaccines, and not to worry about, because she had the waivers, and that there would be a separate hearing on the issue of vaccination.

This is why Rebecca allowed the lawyer to sign.

In fact, the order that the Judge signed does not contain the term “vaccinate” or “immunize”. It was hastily hand-written in a meeting between Rebecca’s lawyer, the ex-husband’s lawyer, a family counselor and the Judge’s referee (Friend of the Court). There is no sign of Rebecca’s signature, the two signatures on the left-hand side of the order are Rebecca’s attorney, and the ex-husband’s attorney:


For the second, hand-written “order”, the reference to vaccinations were disguised behind references to paragraphs in the first order.

The paragraph references to the previous ruling actually references a motion, not a ruling. This mess (and there is no other word for it) obfuscates and prevents anyone, including the press, from pulling a direct quote from an order from Judge McDonald specifically to compel Rebecca Bredow to vaccinate her child.

These events, and her firm personal vaccine risk awareness and religious beliefs, caused Rebecca to hold firm, as she informed the Judge verbally, in court, to keep her word, and not vaccinate her child, exercise her rights under Michigan Law. She had, and has, as does every other parent, the right to opt out of vaccination, without coercion or duress.

It is specifically illegal in the US for anyone to coerce another person to undergo a medical procedure. Ironically, by refusing the Judge’s coercion, Rebecca was doing this Judge a favor by knowing her rights and holding firm — she actually prevented the Judge (and thereby the State of Michigan) from successfully coercing her into a medical procedure, and also successfully forcing her to participate in ongoing post-market surveillance safety studies.

It is also illegal in the US to coerce anyone to enroll in clinical studies without their informed consent.

Some Very Important Questions

Rebecca already had primary and partial legal custody. Why does Judge McDonald believe that she can ignore statute and law and order children to be vaccinated against the primary and legal custodial parent’s wishes?

Why would the Judge act in a manner that would result in the denial of due process?

Why would the Judge fail to use clear language, in her own words, to issue an order and instead rely on one of the litigants’ lawyer to draft the order?

Where in law and statute does Judge McDonald think she has the authority to tell a parent with primary custody that the dissenting parent must be the one to see to it that the child is vaccinated, when the state clearly affords all parents the rights to NOT vaccinate their children based on both personal and religious exemptions? Does she know better than the State Legislature of Michigan?

Although the Father’s lawyer tried to claim that Rebecca’s use of the right to religious exemption was unfounded, Judge McDonald never specifically ruled that her claim was that it was not allowed. Yet the encrypted order to vaccinate, signed by the Judge, denied Rebecca her right to exercise freedom of religion. Further, under Michigan law, she had the right to not engage in the act of vaccinating her child based on personal beliefs. Michigan law is very clear on that. All informed people would do well to see APB 2015–003,pdf

Proper Judicial Conduct requires, among other things, that Judges seek to have fair participation from both parties in any contest. In this case, the child’s best interest is not served by jailing their mother for exercising her right to not participate in a medical procedure, as allowed by Michigan law.

Where is the order, with words in plain English, compelling Rebecca Bredow to vaccinate her son, that Rebecca allegedly violated?

Why would Judge McDonald claim and act as though Rebecca had agreed to vaccinate her son, when clearly there is judiciary evidence to the contraryspecifically, filed emergency motions to FIGHT the motion that mentioned that her son was not vaccinated?

The father had partial custody. Why didn’t Judge McDonald tell the father just take the child to be vaccinated himself if Rebecca’s decision to not vaccinate her child, a right granted by the Michigan Legislature, can be so easily overruledWhy didn’t the Judge rule that the father was to take the child to be vaccinated? Why did she insist that the mother do it? If this is because the mother had the right to refuse, the court did not have the right to compel her. There was no agreement, and therefore no contempt of court could possibly have occurred.

Why did the Judge not throw the Father in jail for non-payment of child support?

For the highly informed, here is the Michigan Code Of Judicial Conduct. A comparison of Judge Karen McDonald’s conduct of these proceedings to the expected normative behavior of acceptable Judicial Conduct is revealing.

I highly doubt that the Judge’s actions in this, and other cases, will hold up what is certain to be intense scrutiny: Over 7,000 freedom-loving peoples from around the world have expressed their views in a petition online to Free Rebecca Bredow. You will note that the petition educates Judge McDonald on the rights afforded to patients under rules governing informed consent for both medical practice, and for clinical trials — including the fact that patients can opt out at any time (i.e., change their mind). It also educate Judge McDonald federal laws governing these matters, as well as international law (The Nuremberg Code).

Since Rebecca, and every other citizen, has the right, under Michigan and Federal laws and regulations to change her mind, or decide to not consent, before, during a medical procedure, it would appear that this autonomous right cannot be removed by Court Order, then this issue present is really an issue on the matter of Judge McDonald’s conduct, and thus an issue between Judge McDonald and the State Legislature of Michigan, and also the US Congress, who represent the People of the State of Michigan, and between Judge McDonald and the People of the United States of America.

Text of The Petition to Free Rebecca Bredow

Judge Karen McDonald and Governor Rick Snyder
 Re: Court Ordered arrest and imprisonment of Rebecca Bredow
 Date: October 9, 2017

All around the US, parents are witness to an epidemic of vaccine injury, as evidenced by the fact that The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) has paid out over $3.7 billion in damages to families with vaccine injured members.

There are some relevant facts of which should be made aware:

Miller, NZ. 2016. Combining childhood vaccines at one visit is not safe. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 21:47–49.

 Although health authorities including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claim that childhood vaccines are safe and recommend combining multiple vaccines during one visit, a review of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows a dose-dependent association between the number of vaccines administered simultaneously and the likelihood of hospitalization or death for an adverse reaction. Additionally, younger age at the time of the adverse reaction is associated with a higher risk of hospitalization or death.”

(2) Vaccine safety science in the US, including studies conducted or funded by CDC and vaccine manufacturers, is scandal-ridden. See Chatom Primary Care v. Merck (Case number 2:12-cv-03555), for example, in which two former Merck employees have alleged that they were told to falsify the efficacy data for Merck’s Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine. They allege that antibodies against the mumps virus from rabbits were added to human serum samples to increase the apparent effectiveness of the MMR vaccine; those data were in fact submitted to the FDA, Merck received continuation of their contract, edging out competition.

(3) CDC Scientist William Thompson has alleged that his supervisors removed results showing a positive association between on-time MMR vaccination and autism in two clinical groups. Thompson’s statements will be mailed to you under separate cover.

(4) All vaccines are watched for safety issues in post-market surveillance studies. When these studies find no safety issue, the resulting clinical studies are hailed by vaccine proponents as “science”. When the studies find issues, they are rejected and downplayed as mere “correlation studies”. Nevertheless, they are studies. Retrospective studies are used based on vaccine injury reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Thus, all individuals who choose to vaccinate are human subjects in a massive clinical study.

Under US Federal Regulations, all individuals in clinical studies are entitled to informed consent. The FDA states, “Post-marketing surveillance is a necessary component of vaccine safety monitoring” and because vaccine pre-clinical trials are relatively small and controlled, “previously unstudied components of a patient’s social or medical history may be risk factors which could impact the outcome of vaccination and contribute to the development of adverse events” (Post-marketing surveillance for adverse events after vaccination: the national Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System).

Most of the studies conducted on vaccine safety rely on post-marketing surveillance using weak “association studies” with data from passively collected data sources (such as VAERS). Patients are not informed that they, or their children are, in fact, participating in a large, shoddily-run, non-randomized retrospective clinical trial. This practice is widespread, and violates provisions of the National Research Act [Title II, Public Law 93–348], Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [45 CFR 46] and revisions of various regulations, rules, and laws ([21 CFR 50, [21 CFR 56], [45 CFR 46 Subpart D], [10 CFR 745].

Pregnant women and fetuses are afforded special protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart B], and children are afforded additional protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart D]. Yet the rights of pregnant women and fetuses are violated with each and every vaccine administered to them because not only is there a paucity of pre-licensing clinical trials, no vaccine is actually licensed for use to protect fetuses, and pregnant women are not told any of this as they are pressured to get vaccinated (FDA: Vaccines For Use in Pregnancy).

Of note, in the Common Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (“Common Rule”) [10 CFR 745] Sec 745.103(b)(3), none of these rights were revoked by any subsequent legislation, including [21 CFR 50.24], which allows the relaxation of requirements for informed consent during emergencies. In fact the Common Rule re-asserted safeguards both for informed consent, and for special protections against coercion:

Ҥ46.116 General requirements for informed consent.
 Except as provided elsewhere in this policy, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by this policy unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject’s legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence.”

“When some or all of the subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects.”

Here we provide the relevant text of the Nuremberg Code which offers protection under international law to all individuals from enrollment in clinical trials without their informed consent, and stresses the rights of patients to refuse:

“Permissible Medical Experiments
 The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.

The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.”

Rights to Informed Consent or Refusal of Medical Procedures

Under US Law, all individuals, and legal wards (custodians) of children have the right to choose or refuse medical procedures. The doctrine of informed consent is based upon the right of every individual to determine what shall be done to his or her body in connection with medical treatment. To exercise this right, the patient is entitled to information of a sufficient nature to allow him or her to make an informed decision on whether or not to consent or refuse treatment. Because patients are entitled to this information, physicians have a duty to make reasonable disclosures to their patients about the risks associated with proposed treatment. The duty to obtain a patient’s consent for treatment rests on the patient’s treating physician. Hospitals, nurses, surgical assistants, and referring physicians do not owe this duty to their patients. The treating physician’s duty to obtain a patient’s informed consent cannot be delegated. The duty is not eliminated, lessened, or spread by having the hospital nurse secure the patient’s consent prior to the procedure.

Here we provide to you the rules governing informed consent for medical procedures in the State of Michigan (R 330.7003):
 R 330.7003 Informed consent.

“Rule 7003. (1) All of the following are elements of informed consent:
 (a) Legal competency. An individual shall be presumed to be legally
 competent. This presumption may be rebutted only by a court appointment of a guardian or exercise by a court of guardianship powers and only to the extent of the scope and duration of the guardianship. An individual shall be presumed legally competent regarding matters that are not within the scope and authority of the guardianship.
 (b) Knowledge. To consent, a recipient or legal representative must have basic information about the procedure, risks, other related consequences, and other relevant information. The standard governing required disclosure by a doctor is what a reasonable patient needs to know in order to make an informed decision. Other relevant information includes all of the following:
 (i) The purpose of the procedures.
 (ii) A description of the attendant discomforts, risks, and benefits that can reasonably be expected.
 (iii) A disclosure of appropriate alternatives advantageous to the recipient.
 (iv) An offer to answer further inquiries.
 (c)Comprehension. An individual must be able to understand what the personal implications of providing consent will be based upon the information provided under subdivision (b) of this subrule.
 (d) Voluntariness. There shall be free power of choice without the intervention of an element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, including promises or assurances of privileges or freedom. There shall be an instruction that an individual is free to withdraw consent and to discontinue participation or activity at any time without prejudice to the recipient.
 (2) A provider shall establish written policies that include procedures for evaluating comprehension and for assuring disclosure of relevant information and measures to ensure voluntariness before obtaining consent. The policies and procedures shall specify for specific circumstances the types of information that shall be disclosed and steps that may be taken to protect voluntariness. The procedures shall include a mechanism for determining whether guardianship proceedings should be considered.
 (3) Informed consent shall be reobtained if changes in circumstances
 substantially change the risks, other consequences, or benefits that were previously expected.
 (4) A written agreement documenting an informed consent shall not include any exculpatory language through which the recipient, or a person consenting on the recipient’s behalf, waives or appears to waive, a legal right, including a release of a provider or its agents from liability for negligence. The agreement shall embody the basic elements of informed consent in the particular context. The individual, guardian, or parent consenting shall be given adequate opportunity to read the document before signing it. The requirement of a written consent shall not eliminate, where essential to the individual’s understanding or otherwise deemed advisable, a reading of the document to the individual or an oral explanation in a language the individual understands. A note of the explanation and by whom made shall be placed in the record along with the written consent.
 (5) A consent is executed when it is signed by the appropriate individual.
 History: 1979 AC; 1998 AACS.”

In consideration of these laws and Codes, we assert that:

(1) With the unlawful detention of Rebecca Bredow, and the decision to usurp her right to choose for her child “X”, the state has enjoined as actors in the violation of informed consent for medical research on the safety of vaccines, and further,

(2) The Court has, with events leading up to Judge McDonald’s order to detain and imprison Rebecca Bredow, engaged in activities that are designed to coerce Rebecca Bredow to make a decision against her better judgement;

(3) The State of Michigan has, by following the order of Judge McDonald to arrest and imprison Rebecca Bredow, prevented her from exercising her international, federal and state-afforded rights to decide whether her child, X, should receive any, some, or no vaccines, and unlawfully denied her certain freedoms to which she is entitled under the laws of the State of Michigan and the United States of America;

(4) The State of Michigan has, by allowing her ex-husband to participate in the act of vaccinating X, countermanded the custodial decision handed down to Rebecca, in which she was given the rights, duties and responsibilities of primary custodial parent.

We are deeply concerned about Rebecca Bredow’s, and all citizens’ freedom to work, live and act according to the liberties afforded to her by the US Constitution and its Amendments. We are gravely concerned over the actions of the State of Michigan resembling those of a Police State, with arbitrary actions and issuance from the Court which show contempt for the right of parents to make medical decisions for and on behalf of their children. We would like to register, with the Court and with the Governor’s Office, a message that the State of Michigan should stand down on the issue of state-forced vaccinations; that morally and legally the State of Michigan should defend, not impinge upon parent’s rights to choose medical procedures; that the State of Michigan will be morally and legally responsible for any injuries to any children that state-forced vaccinations incur upon the population, and the freedom-loving people everywhere are deeply concerned about how far the State of Michigan will eventually go in the matter of State-forced medical tyranny.

We ask:

(1) That from this day forward, in all cases of in which questions legal custody are being decided or contested, that the Court see the wisdom in deciding on the custody issues first, independent of the question of whether the child is to be vaccinated, and then allow the custodial parent to exercise their right to choose, or refuse, to vaccinate their child. This will secure and guarantee parents’ rights and set the correct precedent for jurisprudence on this matter. These rights are provided by the State of Michigan to all citizens, including those engaged in custodial disputes.

(2) That you immediately order the release of Rebecca Bredow and any and all other citizens who are currently imprisoned for willfully exercises their rights to choose or refuse medical procedures. {Link to the Petition}

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Key Research Topics

This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

© Copyright 2008-2024, Journal Articles copyright of original owners, MeSH copyright NLM.