463

Shaken Baby Syndrome or Death by Vaccine? Doctor Speaks Out…

by Christina England and Michael Innis, MD

More and more innocent men and women are being falsely accused of committing shaken baby syndrome and later jailed for murder after a vaccine injury has occurred.

Unfortunately, an alarming number of medical and law enforcement professionals are quick to accuse caregivers of shaking their infants so hard that they have caused them to suffer from shaken baby syndrome (SBS), defined by a triad of serious brain injuries that can also be attributed to vaccine adverse reactions.

Medical professionals are quick to dismiss adverse reactions to recently administered vaccinations, or never consider them to begin with, while parents and caregivers are automatically assumed to be guilty of horrendous abuse, including the murder of young children. However, if these children have been shaken so violently that it has caused them to suffer extensive brain injuries, then why have so many suffered no external injuries as a result of their assault?

We need to ask ourselves whether just shaking alone can cause these injuries or if there are alternative explanations as to why these injuries occur.

Darryl Elliott is one of many caregivers serving a life sentence for a crime that he did not commit.

A Brief Synopsis of Darryl’s Story

Amelia Bowmar was a healthy, happy, mischievous toddler, until she received her MMR vaccination in May 2012. Within days, her caregiver, Mr. Elliott, noticed a lump on the back of Amelia’s head. The lump was obviously causing the little girl some discomfort, so when her mother (who wishes to remain anonymous) returned home from work, they took her to the local hospital.

When asked how she was injured, Mr. Elliott was unable to account for the lump, but thought that the family’s puppy may have knocked over Amelia. Later, it appeared that the injury might have occurred when she had banged her head on a coffee table while having her diaper changed at her grandma’s house.

“Blame the Parent” Theory

While Amelia was in the hospital, the doctor noticed that she had a small bruise on the back of her calf and the doctor contacted social services because he believed that the bruise was a human bite mark.

Social services decided to place the couple’s two children in the care of their grandparents, pending further investigation.

After a full investigation, the allegation that she had been bitten was unproven and social services returned both of the children.

However, everything suddenly changed two months later, when, after being “off color” all day, Amelia began vomiting.

Mr. Elliott informed us that to make Amelia more comfortable, he had decided to bathe her, and as he lifted her out of the bath, she slipped and banged her head, swallowing some water before bringing it back up. After drying and comforting Amelia, he checked her over and noticed no signs of head trauma.

However, around twenty minutes later, everything changed, he said:

“Around 20 minutes later I left her on a sofa (40cm) left the room briefly to fetch her a drink and returned to find her on the floor facing the ceiling. I picked her up and she curled into a c shape position. I turned her round to face me, tipped her head forward where I saw her eyes rolling to the back of her head and she looked like she gasping for air. I panicked and shook her about 6 times then called 999.”

Sadly, Amelia never regained consciousness and later died in the hospital of what medical professionals diagnosed as severe head trauma and pneumonia. Amelia was said to have suffered no back or neck injuries and reports do not identify that she suffered from any external injury whatsoever. Despite this fact, however, Mr. Elliott was accused of shaking the little girl so hard that he caused her brain to bleed and swell and was later charged with her murder.

Falsely Imprisoned for Murder

Try to imagine what it is like sitting in a jail cell for up to 23 hours a day, for a crime you did not commit. Sadly, this is the reality for more and more innocent parents and carers like Mr. Elliott.

In a bid to have this case reopened and the facts studied in detail, something which was not done at the original trial, retired hematologist Dr. Michael D. Innis asked VacTruth to publish a paper that he wrote titled Shaken Baby Syndrome – Shaken.

Shaken Baby Syndrome – Shaken, by Dr. Michael D. Innis

A pediatric consultant has testified in the trial of a child minder charged with assaulting a baby that some of the baby’s injuries represented a “classic text book case” of baby shaking. Obviously, this pediatrician, and others with similar views, need to be educated and abandon their habit of covering up the mistakes of their colleagues. They are menacing innocent parents and caregivers and are a danger to the whole community until they abandon the myth of the “shaken baby syndrome.” No apology has been made for the strident tone of this response, and some action must be taken to restore faith in the integrity of the medical profession which is under scrutiny.

Abstract

Parents and carers are often falsely accused of injuring a child, asserting that unexplained bruises, fractures, retinal and subdural hemorrhages with ischemic encephalopathy, the so-called “triad” are signs of physical abuse. However, these features can be the result of tissue scurvy, defined here as a disorder of vitamin C metabolism in which vitamin C, although abundant in the plasma, is unable to enter the cell and ensure cell function because of a lack of insulin, which is necessary to transfer the vitamin C into the cell. The cause is an autoimmune reaction which destroys the insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas, as evidenced by the invariable associated hyperglycaemia in these children. Here it is shown that the evidence of the prosecution experts, alleging death from the shaken baby syndrome, was demonstrably flawed. The shaken baby syndrome diagnosis is false and an innocent man was incarcerated. This irrational diagnosis should be abandoned. It is destroying the lives of hundreds of innocent people. 

Introduction

Mr. Darryl Elliot was convicted for the murder of Amelia Bowmar based on the evidence of doctors who alleged Amelia was shaken to death. The basis of this allegation was the presence of a subdural hematoma, swelling of the brain with ischemic changes and haemorrhagic contusions in the cortex of the right and left superior frontal gyri of the brain. The brain and spinal cord showed evidence of old and recent injury, which was attributed to “non-accidental injury.” 

The condition of which the carers of the child could offer no explanation for fractures, bruises, retinal and cerebral hemorrhages with ischemic encephalopathy was given the name “shaken baby syndrome” in 1971 by neurosurgeon Dr. Guthkelch, who, unsurprisingly, could offer no other explanation for the lesions in the brains of these children, and as incredible as it may seem, nor could the doctors in the UK who reported on Amelia Bowmar a year ago.

Amelia had a disorder of the coagulation system as shown by a raised INR of 1.3,(NR <1.2) and an APTT of 39.6.(NR <39.0), which would explain the brain hemorrhages and others, but the evidence was ignored by the doctors who alleged murder, obviously uninformed in the interpretation of these and other laboratory results.

Their preoccupation with the shaken baby syndrome hypothesis also caused them to ignore the elevation of the level of glucose in the blood and the presence of glucose in the urine of Amelia. Both of these features are manifestations of an autoimmune response to antigenic stimulation, as I have explained.

Until the medical profession realizes that the shaken baby syndrome is a fabricated diagnosis without a shred of scientific evidence, they are going to continue to falsely accuse innocent people, deceive the judiciary system and send innocent people to prison.

Mr. Justice MacDuff said, when he sentenced Darryl Elliott for the murder of his partner’s baby, Amelia Bowmar:

‘You have been convicted, on overwhelming evidence, of the murder of Amelia Bowmar, a little girl of 14 months whose care had been entrusted to you by your partner, her mother. Your job was to look after and protect her but, instead, she died at your hands.

It is clear to me that because you perceived her to be misbehaving, or perhaps because you had to deal with her when she was sick, or just because you lost your temper at something wholly unconnected with her behaviour, you so violently and deliberately shook her as to the catastrophic injuries from which she died. Only you know exactly what went on inside that house on July 28 last year.

I accept that this was a spur of the moment loss of temper and also that you did not intend to kill. I also accept that you were immediately full of remorse – although that remorse has to be seen alongside an attempt to distance yourself from what you did and a failure to acknowledge your responsibility. Your failure to tell the truth in those early hours meant that the medical teams spent time investigating other possible causes. I am satisfied that Amelia was so seriously compromised that she would have died anyway. Buy you were not to know that.’

The judge believed the evidence of the doctors and the “overwhelming evidence” he refers to is analyzed here and is demonstrably “overwhelmingly non-sense.” (emphasis added)

The Testimony of Dr. P.H.T. Cartlidge, Specialist Field Pediatrics

Dr. P.H.T. Cartlidge, in his evidence, said:

“In my opinion the head injury was not caused by a fall from the seat of the settee and I struggle to conceive how Amelia could have climbed higher.”

He went on to say that:

“The mechanism of non-accidental head injury causing an acute encephalopathic illness, acute subdural bleeding and retinal haemorrhages is thought to be shaking, an impact or a combination of both. In shaking a child is often grasped around the chest and shaken.


Squeezing the chest impairs the return of blood to the heart and thereby causes an increase in venous blood pressure. This in turn causes engorgement of the veins that traverse the subdural space on the surface of the brain. Shaking the child and/or hitting the child’s head on a firm object leads to marked accellaration-decellaration forces that rupture these engorged veins, resulting on subdural haemorrhage The same shearing forces generated by shaking-impact can damage the parenchyma of the brain and also the spinal cord and cord roots.”

Comment from Dr. Innis

“Dr. Cartlidge gave an account of the fanciful speculative mainstream opinion of shaken baby syndrome, which ignores crucial biochemical evidence such as increased glucose in the blood (hyperglycemia), abnormal liver function test, abnormal coagulation tests and glycosuria (sugar in the urine), which proves that this condition is actually an autoimmune disease known as TISSUE SCURVY.

The shaken baby syndrome theory is actually unscientific speculation, as demonstrated in the peer-reviewed manuscript, Autoimmunity and Non-Accidental Injury in Children, in which it was shown that the shaken baby syndrome conceived by Guthkeltch to explain bruises, fractures, retinal and cerebral hemorrhage and encephalopathy in children, (called the “triad”), can instead be explained by an autoimmune reaction to antigens in a genetically susceptible child.

Children diagnosed as suffering from non-accidental injuries were investigated for evidence of immune response reactions following mandated vaccination and childhood illnesses. In the results, it was found in all the reported cases that the response to antigenic stimulation damaged the beta cells in the pancreas caused hyperinsulinemia, which inhibited the cellular uptake of vitamin C. This resulted in liver dysfunction. The failure of carboxylation of the vitamin K-dependent proteins resulted in hemorrhages and fractures associated with the triad.

Fractures, retinal and subdural haemorrhages and encephalopathy in children are autoimmune responses to antigenic stimulation in a genetically susceptible individual. Common antigens are mandated vaccines, viral bacterial and parasitic infections.”

Testimony from Dr. S.J. Hamilton, Forensic Pathology, Unit Leeds

Dr. S.J. Hamilton, Forensic Pathology Unit Leeds, who, with his colleague Dr. Malcomson, performed the post-mortem examination on Amelia, also gave evidence for the prosecution, in which he stated:

“Having considered all the findings with respect to the death of Amelia, it is my opinion that she as died of a head and spinal injuries. Neuropathology has revealed recent injuries including subdural bleeding, axonal injury in the medulla and spinal nerve roots, and fresh bleeding within older contusions within the brain itself. There is also evidence of older injury including older subdural bleeding and cerebral contusions. These are indicative of at least one, but possibly more than one, episode of significant head trauma. These neuropathological appearances are entirely consistent with non-accidental injury also referred to as paediatric head injury or sometimes “Adult Induced Injury.” Although some authors have proposed theoretical models that would indicate a natural single underlying cause leading to the finding of subdural haematoma brain swelling and retinal haemorrhage to my knowledge these theoretical models have not been accepted by the Courts. The presence of this combination of findings is entirely consistent with a traumatic aetiology. The lack of external injury means that it is not possible to state that there has been an impact to the head, although the possibility of an impact that has not left an external injury must exist.” (sic)

Comment from Dr. Innis

“I am one of the authors that ‘have proposed theoretical models that would indicate a natural single underlying cause leading to the finding of subdural hematoma brain swelling and retinal hemorrhage.’ Amelia had elevated blood glucose levels and glucose in her urine, features which confirm a diagnosis of tissue scurvy, as reported in the manuscript below.

 (Research from Dr. Jayamohan Jayaratnam, Consulting Pediatric Neurosurgeon)

Dr. Jayamohan Jayaratnam discussed all the available evidence, including the fact that initial blood-clotting tests show some raised clotting times with an INR of 1.3, an APTT of 39.6 and an APTT ratio of 1.3. With support from the evidence of Dr. Al-Sarraj, he concluded:

‘In my view this sufficient support for my already formed view that there is likely to have been a traumatic explanation for Amelia’s collapse. In view the globalized findings of ischemia, it was hard to place exactly what may have occurred. However with the focal injuries described by Dr. AL SARRAJ, in view of the absence of external signs of injury and in view of the bilateral severe ophthalmology findings, I believe it is highly indicative that a non-impact traumatic injury otherwise known as a shaking type injury has occurred to Amelia.’ 

Dr. Jayamohan clearly identified an abnormality of the clotting mechanism and then, for no apparent reason, chose to ignore it as a cause of the bleeding in the skull and elsewhere. His illogical conclusion needs to be further investigated for the safety of others with similar coagulation profiles.

Other caregivers may suffer the same fate as Darryl Elliot did if medical personnel continue to hold this view.” (emphasis added)

Testimony from Dr. Neil Gordon Stoodley, Consulting Neuroradiologist

Dr. Neil Gordon Stoodley, a consultant neuroradiologist, concluded his assessment of the situation with the remarks:

“I cannot think of a biologically plausible mechanism that would potentially directly link any event occurring toward the end of May 2012 and Amelia’s presentation with a severe (indeed fatal) encephalopathic illness at the end of July.

The scan abnormalities are all explicable on the basis of being due to an episode of non-accidental head injury. The mechanism of the injury is likely to have involved shaking. Majority medical opinion is of the view that what is likely to be required to produce such injuries is the backwards and forward movement of the unsupported infant head pivoting on the neck. It is believed that this leads to a degree of acceleration/deceleration and rotational forces and that the consequent differential rotation of the brain and skull leads to stretching of the subdural veins which cross the subdural space and it is this which leads to bleeding in the subdural space.” (emphasis added)

Comment from Dr. Innis

“Dr. Stoodley could not ‘think of a biologically plausible mechanism that would potentially directly link any event occurring toward the end of May 2012 and Amelia’s presentation with a severe (indeed fatal) encephalopathic illness at the end of July.’

The MMR vaccine, administered on May 25, 2012, was the biologically plausible mechanism Dr. Stoodley had difficulty in thinking that would potentially directly link an event occurring toward the end of May 2012 and Amelia’s later presentation with severe (indeed fatal) encepalopathic illness at the end of July.

An account of the condition, tissue scurvy, of which doctors, including Dr. Stoodley, are obviously unaware, is featured below. When doctors understand tissue scurvy can be induced by vaccines and also causes the signs and symptoms found in Amelia, they will stop misdiagnosing shaken baby syndrome.” (emphasis added)

Research from Dr. Al-Sarraj, Consulting Neuropathologist

Dr. Al-Sarraj provided a detailed account of the findings and concluded:

“The clinical history indicates presence of extensive bilateral retinal haemorrhages. These injuries, in addition to the presence of subdural haematoma and generalized ischemia (ischaemic encephalopathy) form the triad frequently seen in patients with non-accidental head injury. This is further supported by presence of subdural haematoma in the spinal cord, axonal injury in the pyramids of the medulla and axonal injury in the spinal nerve roots.

The presence of axonal injury in the pyramids and spinal nerve roots suggest head and spinal cord injury resulting from violent hyper-extension and hyper-flexion of the head and neck similar to those seen in shaking. The presence of extensive retinal haemorrhages supports this suggestion.

The pathological findings in the brain have to be considered closely with other findings of autopsy examination, radiological examination, eye examination and other investigations, before final conclusion. I will review the pathological findings in the brain and my interpretation if further information becomes available.

Conclusion

Head and spinal cord injury consistent with non-accidental injury. (emphasis added)

Comment from Dr. Innis

“There is no conflict with Dr. Al-Sarraj’s findings, but it is the interpretation of those findings which I dispute. He is evidently prepared to review his interpretation if further information becomes available and I would like to draw his attention to the fact that Amelia had biochemical as well as anatomical abnormalities. The biochemical diagnoses of hyperglycaemia, glycosuria, coagulation abnormality (INR 1,3, APTT 39.6) all suggest she was suffering from an autoimmune disorder tissue scurvy, [1] which I am sure Dr. Al-Sarraj is willing to consider.” (emphasis added)

Dr. R.E. Bonshak, Consultant Ophthalmic Pathologist

Dr. Bonshak gave a detailed account of the pathological changes seen in the eye when exposed to infection and injury and concluded:

Non-traumatic injuries which might possibly cause this form and extent of pathology include severe coagulopathy (bleeding disorder) leukaemia (with coagulopathy) septicaemia (with coagulopathy) meningitis (with coagulopathy) and catastrophic intracranial bleeding. I am not aware that these conditions have been identified.” (sic) (emphasis added)

Comment from Dr. Innis

“The hospital records and pathology report of Amelia clearly did show a severe coagulopathy, which Dr. Bonshak did not recognize.

1. INR (International Normalized Ratio) 1.3 (Normal Range 2 – 4.5)
2. APTT (Accelerated Partial Thromboplastin Time) 39.6 sec (Normal 27-35 sec)

Having been a haematologist in a teaching hospital, I HAVE REPORTED ON MANY THOUSANDS OF HEMATOLOGICAL RESULTS. These results indicate that a coagulopathy is present due to the reduction in the clotting factors XII, XI, IX, and VIII and spontaneous bleeding is inevitable. It also indicates that the liver is damaged because these factors are formed in the liver.

Dr. Bonshak has the evidence of a coagulopathy he requires to conclude ‘non-traumatic injuries which might possibly cause this form and extent of pathology.’”

Conclusion: Words from Dr. Innis

“Darryl Elliot has been found guilty of murder based on the evidence of doctors who are not competent in interpreting the hematological evidence which clearly indicated a coagulopathy caused the death of Amelia Bowmar.

Prior to migrating to Australia, I was one of the pathologists working for the coroner in The West Riding of Yorkshire.

I declare that I have not made any statement that I know to be untrue.

Michael D. Innis, MBBS; DTM&H; FRCPA; FRC Path”

A Letter From Darryl Sent to Dr. Innis From Prison

“Amelia had her MMR vaccine on May 23rd 2012, part from the nausea she experienced for a few days, how subtle would the vaccines have been in regards to any further illness? If Amelia collapsing was due to the reaction from the MMR vaccine, would my accident of dropping her heighten the risk to her? If Amelia had any blood disorder that caused her to bruise easily, would (in the words of the crown prosecution) my vigorous and violent shaking have brought on any external bruising to her upper torso? Did my panic and subsequent shaking cause Amelia more harm? I didn’t mention to the hospital that I had shaken Amelia in panic, if I had told them sooner, could it have save her life?

Medical experts did not believe my version of events, they don’t believe Amelia could have entered into the condition I found her in, unless she was involved in some kind of severe head trauma or NAI, I believe you have my version of the events, could you offer any explanation as to why Amelia’s condition turned so rapidly?

Amelia’s scan at Grimsby showed no abnormalities to a trainee radiologist, however, at Sheffield the next day a trained radiologist saw severe abnormalities, from 18.30 on the 29th July to 10.30 on the 30th, doctors didn’t know about anything going on in Amelia’s brain until a 2nd scan was done at 13.30 due to Amelia’s pupils being a different size, how much could have gone on in her condition between 18.30 and 13.30, that the doctors didn’t see?

Would more seizures in this period of time have caused more damage to her brain, why was a trained radiologist not available in such a life threatening situation, we was told they was checking for meningitis, diabetes, metabolic conditions, what else should have been explored? And if it wasn’t explored, why wasn’t it?

The coagulation condition you found, how long did Amelia have it? How would it or should it have been spotted, and how did it affect Amelia’s condition, before and after she collapsed?

What could have caused her levels of glucose to elevate and why wasn’t it spotted? What did glucose in her urine represent? What effect would it have had on Amelia? Plunkett’s report is now 14yrs old, has there been any other short fall fatalities since then? Finally, was Amelia’s death my fault?

Thank you for taking so much time out to try and answer my questions, thank you also for helping me in my struggle to clear my name, I loved my daughter and never unlawfully harmed her in any way, nor would I ever.

Myself and my family are truly grateful for the work you are doing for myself and Amelia’s mum and family, they need the truth just as much as me, many thanks Dr. Innis I am truly grateful.

Darryl Elliott
12/03/2014”

Dr. Innis hopes that by publishing this paper, Darryl Elliott’s case will be reopened and the truth of what really happened to Amelia Bowmar will be discovered.

 

[feature_box style=”16″ title=”References” alignment=”center”] [/feature_box]

Photo Credit

Christina England, BA Hons