How would you prove it's overstated when child services cases are sealed and impossible to determine the ratios of "overstatement"? Sure I can prove of several examples even despite the fact parents rarely speak out because the child snatchers have sanctioned them for doing so. For reference, it's estimated 7% of children with "signs of abuse" actually have an underlying medical condition[0]. But the child snatchers have designed the system to make it impossible whether it is overstated or not, because they rely on people like you, making such claims, while hiding under the fact the true total numbers are hidden under auspices of "think of the children" and parents scared shitless to speak out because the child snatchers will sanction them.

For instance, 160 kids were taken with OI in one French study. [1] [2]

  A French study following over six million children found that out of 160 later diagnosed with O.I., three had first been hospitalized under suspicion of abuse. That equals about 2% (CRESS, 2024).

Another review of 61 families showed that in 70% of cases where O.I. was misdiagnosed as abuse, children were actually removed from their families before the correct diagnosis was made (PubMed).

This "70% of cases where OI was misdiagnosed" also seems to influence the US, for example [3]:

  “This doctor made a misdiagnosis after looking at an X-ray,  never seeing us, never seeing my kids - and had the power to tear us apart,” said Melissa Geers. 

  Geers says her five kids were taken from her for more than two months because of one child protection team doctor’s finding. 

A survey of the data reveals example out of example of this in the US. Many other segments have been aired. But of course the child snatchers in the US have these cases sealed so although we can turn up many, many cases (like the 160 the French document, since they can actually study the data there), we can't disprove it is "overstated." Of course the child snatchers intentionally have set it up that way, because they want to operate in the shadows and then say "nuh uh, you don't have the data to prove how much we're fucking you over in secret!" It's actually quite genius because they suppress the data while turning the burden of proof on it's head while pretending to just "be wanting to look at the data" (that they have hidden) expecting you to prove why they should stop rather them proving why their ilk deserve to not be fired and then put on trial for kidnapping and deprivation of rights under color of law.

[0] https://oif.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Child_Abuse__Chil...

[1] https://www.tonyjacobsen.com/blog/when-o-i-is-mistaken-for-c...

[2] https://cress-umr1153.fr/en/hospitalization-for-child-physic...

[3] https://www.wxyz.com/news/region/washtenaw-county/parents-wh...