Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Health

Dad says 5-year-old develops autism after being forced to get 18 vaccines in 1 day

Published

18 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Nevradakis Ph. D., The Defender

As part of a custody battle, a Tennessee judge ordered a family to vaccinate all three of their children, all of whom had never been vaccinated. Five-year-old Isaac immediately became ill and was eventually diagnosed with severe regressive autism.

In 2016, David Ihben moved his wife and three children from Chicago to Jamestown, in rural Tennessee, with high hopes for a new and calmer life.

But the dream turned into a nightmare for David and his children in December 2019, when divorce proceedings and a subsequent custody battle resulted in the forced vaccination of the children – and changed the family’s fortunes forever.

Ihben said his ex-wife decided “this wasn’t the life she wanted.” So they were attempting to develop a parenting plan in family court – when Tennessee judge Todd Burnett “pulled up the vaccine issue” after discovering the couple’s children were unvaccinated – and forced the parents to vaccinate their children.

Ihben’s two oldest children – daughter Hannah and son Joseph – were spared significant adverse events following their vaccination.

But his youngest son, Isaac, wasn’t so fortunate. After receiving 18 vaccines in one day, Isaac developed severe regressive autism. Today, he requires around-the-clock care.

The children’s mother soon abandoned the children, leaving Ihben to raise them as a single parent – even though he is still obliged to pay child support.

‘How can a judge force medical care without a doctor’s input?’

Ihben told The Defender his entire family was unvaccinated. “I’ve never had any. My dad was drafted by the Army in 1961, and he didn’t get any either. We’ve never vaccinated,” he said. “Our children had to sign religious exemptions for school.”

During divorce proceedings though, his wife’s attorney used the vaccination issue to drive a wedge between the parents.

“When we went to court, I guess her attorney knew that [Burnett] was a pro-vaccine judge and that’s something that they could get me on,” Ihben said.

According to Ihben, Burnett told the couple that it was his “personal opinion that not vaccinating your children is child abuse.” He then told the couple that whichever parent would be willing to vaccinate the children that same day would leave the courthouse with custody.

“I said, ‘Your Honor, we have rights. It’s between the mom and their father,’” Ihben recalled. “Her attorney whispered to her, and she goes, ‘I’ll take them down and vaccinate them today.’”

“I was so surprised, because me and my ex-wife didn’t agree on much, but we did agree on that,” Ihben said, referring to their views on vaccination.

After the hearing, Ihben and his wife were granted joint custody of the children, with their mother as their primary guardian. Later that day, the children received their childhood vaccines – and Isaac immediately became sick.

“My daughter had previous allergies … so the doctor refused to give her all in one day. They split those … She didn’t have any side effects from what I can see,” Ihben said. “[Joseph] was in the ICU for a couple of days but seems to be okay. But [Isaac] spent 12 days in the ICU, eight days with a 106-degree fever.”

Isaac, who was 5 years old at the time, was “just a normal happy kid,” Ihben said.

Today, Isaac has severe regressive autism. Ihben told The Defender:

“He doesn’t talk. He wears a diaper. He eats out of a baby bottle 20-30 times a day, he has speech therapy and will require 24-hour care and supervision for the rest of his life.

“I haven’t had a full night’s sleep in four years. He has to be changed every two hours, or he will have an accident. If you have a child with regressive autism or know someone, you will understand what our days are like.”

Ihben didn’t learn about Isaac’s injuries right away, because the court initially slapped him with a six-month restraining order. When the six months were up, he finally made plans to pick up his children for “two-hour supervised visitation” at a local McDonald’s.

“My youngest comes walking out and I’m like, ‘What’s going on?’” He said his oldest children then told him about what happened to Isaac. “My children told me everything that’s going on. Basically, nobody’s given me information. I had to go off what 10- and 11-year-olds were telling me,” Ihben said.

Ihben tried to find out what happened to Isaac – but encountered more obstacles at Cookeville Regional Medical Center, his local hospital. “The judge had sealed the hospital records. I still cannot get them,” he said.

It wasn’t until he enrolled his daughter in high school that, while obtaining her records from the local health department, he had a chance to view Isaac’s records. That’s when he saw that Isaac had received 18 vaccines in one day.

“How can a judge force medical care without a doctor’s input?” Ihben asked. “I don’t think judges should be dictating medical treatment from the bench.”

According to Ihben, doctors at Vanderbilt University in Nashville said Isaac’s injuries “are a direct result from forced vaccination,” with one doctor telling Ihben that “she’s seen only one other kid that acts like Isaac does.”

Required to continue paying child support, despite mother’s disappearance

Soon after seeing his children for the first time after the custody battle, another surprise was in store for Ihben and his family: Ihben’s ex-wife called to say she and the children had been evicted.

After he kept the children for a week, their mother “got a free house, everything furnished and paid,” and the children were returned to her.

“Then she got evicted from there” in May 2020, Ihben said. He again picked up the children – but that was the last they saw of their mother. According to Ihben, after her second eviction, she left town without a trace.

“We haven’t heard from her or seen her,” Ihben said. “It’ll be five years in May.”

Ihben still pays child support to the state, even though he alone takes care of the children. He said the child support money, which remains uncollected, goes to a state fund – and, if it remains unclaimed, will be confiscated by the state when the children reach adulthood.

Ihben said that though he has gone to court to request full custody of his children or a reduction of his child support payments, he has faced a catch-22 situation.

“The judge said, I can’t do anything unless you get her here in front of me,” Ihben said. “I was like, ‘I’ve served her. Nobody knows where she is.’”

Ihben said he believes the children’s mother didn’t realize Isaac was going to be hurt so badly, and “she just can’t face it.” He added, “I just don’t understand, if she’s been gone almost five years, why she still has full custody, why I still have to pay child support.”

Tennessee laws, local officials pose challenges for raising Isaac

Ihben described the day-to-day realities of caring for Isaac, who will turn 11 next month and just started the fifth grade in a special education program. He said:

“Our lives have changed forever. I can’t have a regular job. I pick up stuff here and there … I have an alarm that goes off every two hours to change Isaac. He eats in the middle of the night … We live out in the country. There’s no bus, so I take him to school back and forth.

“He doesn’t talk, so you don’t know if he’s sick, if he’s upset, if he’s hungry, if he’s cold, if he has a stomach ache … I’ve got a mental list, and I just check it off and hopefully I hit the one that calms him and provides what he needs.”

State rules also pose obstacles. “You’re not allowed to have home healthcare for a disabled child unless you have no other children in the home under 18,” Ihben said.

Ihben noted that Tennessee ranks among the states with the lowest level of funding for autistic children, adding that autistic children are frequently mistreated.

“Our local school district has restraint chairs for autistic children. They are allowed to put Isaac in a chair, to pepper spray him, to tase him. Police departments have no training for dealing with autistic children,” Ihben said.

Ihben said state, county and town officials have attempted to intimidate him and his family.

According to Ihben, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) showed up at his home on Dec. 5, 2023. “Somebody starts beating on the door … there’s a truck at the end of the road, a truck at the end of the other road and two trucks in the driveway. They had assault weapons.”

Ihben said the officers claimed that a social worker wanted to speak with him, but that he refused to open his door for them. He submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the state to find out why his home was raided, but was told there are “no records of anything.”

The TBI raid took a toll on him. “I had a heart attack that night,” he said. “I couldn’t breathe.” He said the incident still affects him today. “I’m sure I have PTSD from it. I’m still under treatment,” Ihben said.

In June 2023, Ihben said he went to his county commission meeting to tell them about what happened to his family. The county commissioner, Jimmy Johnson, left him a voicemail warning him not to hold any rally or protest.

“The commissioner called the sheriff,” Ihben said, but ultimately “they backed off.”

In another incident, Ihben said he was banned from his local Walmart store after a store manager called the police because Isaac “was causing a disturbance.” This obliged Ihben to shop at another Walmart, an hour away from his home.

Ihben said it’s also difficult to find a lawyer to represent him and his family. “No attorney is willing to take on the judge.”

Local officials ‘tried to scare us’ into not doing Vax-Unvax bus interview

Ihben credited CHD and its Tennessee Chapter for helping him and his family. “We wouldn’t be here without CHD helping us out,” Ihben said. “The Tennessee Chapter has helped us out a lot.”

Ihben said he recently saw “Vaxxed 3” with members of the state’s CHD chapter. “What we have to live through every day is horrible, but it could be worse,” Ihben said, citing stories in the film of children who died post-vaccination.

According to Ihben, his efforts to promote CHD initiatives in his community, such as the visit of the Vax-Unvax bus earlier this year, have also been met with intimidation.

“We put a little flyer together [for the Vax-Unvax bus] and we started passing it out,” Ihben said. But on Feb. 1, the day of his bus interview, Ihben said his wife’s attorney, her husband – who is the attorney for the local school board – and Burnett, who mobilized the TBI, “tried to scare us into not doing the bus interview.”

Getting the word out, spreading the message is ‘the only weapon we have’

Isaac has recently shown some improvement, according to Ihben. “He’s doing better slowly … He’s in a lot of therapy. He’s starting to write some numbers and letters on his own. Teachers think he’s reading, but he’s still never said a word.”

Ihben said this has been a learning experience for his oldest children, who will “have to take care of Isaac every day” after his death. “That’s a lifetime commitment.”

Another silver lining, according to Ihben, is that Isaac’s story has become a learning experience for his family and many members of his local community.

“This hasn’t just got me learning. My kids are learning. Hannah and Joseph are learning about their government and their food and their environment. They’re teaching their friends about this.”

For Ihben, getting the word out and spreading the message is “the only weapon we have.” He said, “It’s powerful that my kids’ friends come up and say ‘we’re sorry for what happened to you, we’ve seen the [Vax-Unvax] interview.’”

Ihben said he hopes the message will help other children avoid Isaac’s fate. “I hope Isaac will be the last,” he said.

This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Health

Organ donation industry’s redefinitions of death threaten living people

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Heidi Klessig, M.D.

Playing fast and loose with the definitions of death for the sake of organ donation must stop.

Another congressional committee is investigating more whistleblowers’ complaints regarding the organ transplantation industry. United States House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert are seeking answers from Carolyn Welsh, president and CEO of the New Jersey Organ and Tissue Sharing Network (NJTO), regarding multiple allegations of legal and ethical violations on her watch.

The complaints include the horrific case of a “circulatory death” organ donor who reanimated prior to organ retrieval. Despite the fact that the patient had regained signs of life, NJTO executives actually directed frontline staff to continue the organ recovery process. (Thankfully, hospital personnel at Virtua Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Camden, New Jersey, refused this request.) NJTO is also accused of pressuring the families of potential donors by falsely implying the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles had registered a consent to donate when that was not known to be the case. NJTO apparently also continued to insist that people were registered donors even after they had removed their consent to donate from their driver’s licenses. The official complaint further states that NJTO allegedly tried to delete evidence pertaining to the committee’s investigation.

Since 1968, when 13 men at Harvard Medical School redefined “desperately injured” people as being dead enough to become organ donors, organ procurement has continued to push the boundaries of life and death in a never-ending quest for more organs. When the first and only multicenter prospective study of brain death discovered in 1972 that a brain death diagnosis did not invariably correlate with a diffusely destroyed brain, principal investigator Dr. Gaetano Molinari pointed out that “brain death” was a prognosis of death, and not death itself. Dr. Molinari wrote:

[D]oes a fatal prognosis permit the physician to pronounce death? It is highly doubtful whether such glib euphemisms as ‘he’s practically dead,’… ‘he can’t survive,’ … ‘he has no chance of recovery anyway,’ will ever be acceptable legally or morally as a pronouncement that death has occurred.

But despite Dr. Molinari’s doubts, history shows this is exactly what has been accepted, and the rising numbers of people who have been taken for organ harvesting while still alive bears this out. Even though “brain dead” TJ Hoover III was still looking around and visibly crying such that two doctors refused to remove his organs, Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates ordered their staff to find another doctor to perform the procedure. “Circulatory death” donor Misty Hawkins was found to have a beating heart when her breastbone was sawed open for organ procurement. And Larry Black Jr. was rescued from the operating room table just minutes before having his organs removed, and went on to make a full recovery.

Given that we have been stretching the definitions of death for nearly 60 years, is it any wonder that organ procurement personnel appear to be thinking “he’s practically dead,” “he can’t survive,” “he has no chance of recovery anyway” as they push still-living people towards the operating room?

But it’s not just organ procurement teams that are pushing these new definitions of death. Just three weeks after failing in their attempts to broaden the legal definitions of death by revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) published a new brain death guideline that explicitly allows brain death to be declared in the presence of ongoing brain function. Since this obviously does not comply with the UDDA, which requires “the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain including the brain stem,” the AAN has been trying to get around the law by contacting state health departments, medical boards, medical societies, and hospital associations requesting that they acknowledge the AAN’s brain death guideline as the “accepted medical standards” for declaring neurological death.

The AAN has also just published a position statement of additional guidance on brain death discussing how to handle objections to the brain death diagnosis. Even though the AAN’s brain death guideline does not comply with U.S. law and has been proven to be unable to predict whether or not a brain injury is irreversible, the AAN still wants to make the use of their guideline mandatory. If a family’s objection to a brain death diagnosis cannot be overcome, the AAN says that life support may be unilaterally withdrawn – over the family’s objections. The AAN also says that clinicians are professionally obligated to make a brain death determination, and that they should be credentialed to do so according to the standards of the AAN guideline. Laughably, the AAN recommends the Neurocritical Care Society’s brain death determination course, which consists of a one-hour video, followed by unlimited attempts to correctly answer 25 questions, following which a certificate of completion can be had for as little as six dollars.

The Dead Donor Rule is an ethical maxim stating that people must neither be alive when organs are removed nor killed by the process of organ removal. Redefining neurologically injured people as being “brain dead” and redefining people who could still be resuscitated as being dead according to “circulatory death” standards have for too long allowed organ procurement teams to meet the letter of the Dead Donor Rule through sleight of hand. Playing fast and loose with the definitions of death for the sake of organ donation must stop. Patients with a poor prognosis must not be considered “dead enough” to become organ donors. People registering as organ donors must be given fully informed consent as to the risks involved.

Even utilitarian philosopher Dr. Peter Singer has called brain death an ethical choice masquerading as a medical fact. Imposing mandates that force patients and doctors to accept these questionable ethical choices is NOT the best way to establish trust.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta introducing dual practice health care model to increase options and shorten wait times while promising protection for publicly funded services

Published on

Enhancing access through dual practice

If passed, Bill 11the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (No. 2), would modernize physician participation rules to give doctors flexibility to work in both the public system and private settings. Dual practice would allow physicians to continue providing insured services through the provincial health insurance plan while also delivering private services.

Alberta’s government has looked to proven models in other jurisdictions to guide the development of a model that strengthens access while safeguarding the public system. Dual practice exists in New Brunswick and Quebec and is widely used in countries with top-performing health systems, including Denmark, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain and Australia.

“For years, governments across Canada have tried to fix long wait times by spending more money, yet the problem keeps getting worse. Alberta will not accept the status quo. Dual practice gives us a practical, proven tool that lets surgeons do more without asking taxpayers to pay more. It means shorter waits, better outcomes and a stronger health system for everyone.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

If passed, this dual practice model would be closely monitored to protect Alberta’s public health care system. The government, for example, would ensure that dual practice physicians maintain separate records for the services they provide, so no public funding subsidizes private services.

Bill 11 would include provisions to restrict participation, which could include:

  • Mandating that surgeons in dual practice must perform a dedicated number or ratio of surgeries in the public system to be eligible to perform surgeries privately.
  • Restricting specialties to public practice if shortages would compromise public care.
  • Potentially restricting private practice to evenings, weekends or to underutilized rural sites, as required.

Alberta’s government remains committed to its public health guarantee: No Albertan will ever have to pay out of pocket to see their family doctor or to get the medical treatment they need. These proposed changes comply with the Canada Health Act.

Alberta’s government is also committed to getting Alberta’s dual practice model right and to taking a thoughtful approach to ensure the best path forward. At this time, family medicine providers will not be eligible to be flexible participants within this new model. The priority is to focus on making sure all Albertans have access to a primary care provider. Additionally, surgeries for life-threatening conditions such as cancer and emergency procedures will remain entirely publicly funded with no private option available.

“Albertans are waiting too long for the health care they need, so we are taking bold and decisive action to shorten wait times, increase access and give Albertans more choices over their own health care. At the same time, we will continue building a strong public health system where no one is denied access to the services they need because of an inability to pay.”

Adriana LaGrange, Minister of Primary and Preventative Health Services

If passed, Bill 11 would create new options for doctors and patients. It would expand Alberta’s health system to provide more care by allowing doctors to treat more patients. Each time a patient chooses to pay for care in a private clinic or a clinic operating on evenings and weekends, for example, resources would be freed up so another patient could receive publicly funded care. This proposed new model would also support physician attraction and retention.

“As dual practice enhances flexibility for Albertans, physicians and medical professionals, safeguards will be established and utilized to protect and grow hospital and public health system capacity.”

Matt Jones, Minister of Hospital and Surgical Health Services

“Albertans deserve choice and timely access to safe care, whether in a private or public setting. With the creation of the dual practice model, we can extend treatment options to patients while helping hospitals focus their resources on the highest-acuity patients.”

Dr. Brett Habijanac, doctor of medicine in dentistry and fellow of the Royal College of Dentists of Canada

“I believe all options to improve access to health care for Albertans should be on the table. Therefore, the government’s dual practice legislation is a welcome option. Appropriate guardrails must be in place to ensure the spirit of the Canada Health Act is maintained.”

Dr. Emmanuel Gye, family physician

Quick facts

  • Physicians would continue to bill the provincial plan for public services and may offer private services separately.
  • Physicians may still choose to work entirely in public or entirely in private settings.

 

Proposed legislation would modernize physician rules, drug coverage, food safety and health cards while improving oversight and administration in Alberta’s health system.

If passed, Bill 11, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (No. 2), would amend several pieces of legislation to reflect Alberta’s evolving health needs, strengthen the ability of health care professionals to deliver care and improve accountability and efficiency across the system.

“This legislation represents a new era for health care in Alberta. By putting patients first and supporting providers, we are improving transparency, flexibility and access. With modernized physician rules, stronger drug coverage, enhanced food safety and better health information sharing, Albertans will have world-class care.”

Adriana LaGrange, Minister of Primary and Preventative Health Services

Protecting drug coverage for Albertans

If passed, amendments would improve coordination between public and private drug plans, ensuring taxpayer-funded programs are used efficiently and remain available for those who need them most.

Private plans would become the first payer for individuals who have them, with public programs acting as a safety net. The legislation would also protect older Albertans by ensuring employers cannot reduce or terminate health benefits for employees aged 65 and older who remain actively employed.

“People shouldn’t be punished for getting older – it’s that straightforward. With this legislation, we’re protecting Albertans by ensuring employers can no longer kick folks off their health benefits when they need them most.”

Jason Nixon, Minister of Assisted Living and Social Services

Ensuring consistent billing and remuneration practices

Alberta’s government is also proposing amendments to the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act to ensure health care providers and clinics are not engaging in improper billing practices and making inappropriate claims. The proposed amendments would strengthen accountability and transparency while generating cost savings by introducing penalties for systemic non-compliance.

Strengthening food safety in Alberta

If passed, amendments to the Public Health Act and related regulations would strengthen food safety across all establishments by improving training for staff, increasing transparency of inspection results and giving inspectors new tools for oversight and investigation.

The changes would also update the Food Regulation, Food Retail and Food Services Code, Institutions Regulation and create a new Public Health Investigator Regulation, ensuring consistent standards, better reporting and increased public confidence in Alberta’s food safety system.

“Enhancing food safety in Alberta is an important step to making sure Albertans have the safeguards and protections in place to keep them healthy and well. If passed, these amendments to the Public Health Act will ensure food establishments are following best practices and that enforcement measures are in place to support proper food safety.”

Dr. Sunil Sookram, interim chief medical officer of health

Improving health cards and information sharing

If passed, the legislation would create a new process for health card renewal, prevent card misuse and allow cards to be seized or suspended if tampered with. The changes would also permit information sharing with the ministries of Technology and Innovation and Service Alberta and Red Tape Reduction to support continued efforts to modernize health cards.

Amendments to the Health Information Act would support a more integrated health care system and seamless patient experience to help improve care for Albertans who are accessing the system.

It would also add new authority to enable health foundations to better connect with patients to support innovation and advancement of care in their community in an appropriate manner, in accordance with the requirements set out in regulations.

“Albertans generously support enhancements to health care delivery, innovation and research in their communities each year. We look forward to working with our health partners across the continuum to better communicate with grateful patients. With these changes, we will join other Canadian jurisdictions in connecting patients with health foundations in their community while ensuring the strongest protection of Albertans’ private health data.”

Sharlene Rutherford, president and CEO, Royal Alexandra Hospital Foundation

Advancing a new era of health care

If passed, proposed amendments to the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act and the Provincial Health Agencies Act would support operational changes to implement previously announced objectives like transitioning Alberta Health Services to a hospital-based acute care service provider.

The proposed amendments would also result in the repealing of the Hospitals Act, as all hospital governance and operational provisions would be moved into the Provincial Health Agencies Act.

New dual practice model to increase access and choice

The Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (No. 2) includes proposed amendments to the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act that would modernize how physicians participate in Alberta’s publicly funded health insurance plan. The changes would introduce a new dual practice model, giving physicians greater flexibility to provide care in both public and private settings while maintaining safeguards to ensure Albertans continue to have access to publicly funded health services.

Continue Reading

Trending

X