Divorced Rhode Island parents who are divided on having their children receive the Covid-19 shot have had their dispute moved to the State Supreme Court. The heart of the case centers around their divorce settlement, which acknowledges that both parents would make medical decisions for their children together. Their kids are 5 and 8.
The children’s father, Joshua Nagel, did not want his children to receive the shot. Lauren Nagel, the mother, presented her case in a lower family court and won. Justice Sandra Lanni ruled in favor of Lauren’s desire to have the children receive the shot on Jan 17.
The children’s pediatrician, Dr. Colleen Ann Powers, recommended the children receive the c-19 shot citing that she and her staff have administered 1,500 to 2,000 COVID-19 vaccine doses. Despite evidence to the contrary, Powers believes the benefits outweigh the risks, even with children.
Powers said she was leaning on the guidance of the CDC, which recommends nearly everyone aged six months or older receives the jab, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), an organization whose guidance mirrors the CDC. Unfortunately, both groups have been promoted propaganda during the pandemic. The AAP provided false information on the messenger RNA, saying it “broke down very quickly” once it entered the body. But that information has turned out to be false. Studies have detected the messenger RNA in the blood at 28 days following the shot and also in lymph nodes two months after vaccination.
Dr. Andrew Bostom, an epidemiologist previously working for Brown University, advised the court arguing, Florida and Denmark both advise against vaccinating some or all healthy children because side effects, including heart inflammation, were possible outcomes. He noted that only 40% of Rhode Island parents had decided to have their children aged 5-9 receive the shot. Both of the Nagel children have had covid 19 and have superior “natural immunity,” which, according to research, is more effective than an immunization.
Judge Lanni said Joshua Nagel’s opposition to the pediatrician’s recommendations was not “objectively unreasonable,”
“It is clear from the evidence that was submitted to the court that there is not uniformity of agreement in the medical community regarding whether children, in general, should receive the COVID vaccine and whether the benefits of the vaccine to children, in general, outweigh the risks or vice versa.”
Lawyers for Joshua Nagel quickly asked the state’s top court for a stay following Lanni’s verdict and received it.
Gregory Piccirilli, a lawyer representing Joshua Nagel, updated The Epoch Times via email, saying the Supreme Court of Rhode Island had granted them a stay, preventing the children’s mother from having their children injected,
“The court’s going to have to kind of maneuver around, issue a decision that’s not based upon their, maybe their personal beliefs, but on what the law and what the record should be. And hopefully, they’ll do that. I have confidence they will. I’m not saying that I’m going to win, but I’m confident that this case [will end] the right way. Hopefully, that’ll work in our favor.”
