Christina England
vactruth.com
06/01/2010

In 2006, I was lucky enough to to be given permission to interview Professor Gordon T Stewart at his home in Edinburgh and he really opened my eyes to just how devious the Government really is and how information is withheld from the public for many years on the adverse reactions to vaccines. Prof Stewart who was 91 at the time of the interview, wanted the truth to be told, about what really goes on when it comes to the Department of Health agreeing to a vaccine being given to the general public. To back up his evidence he gave me the unique experience of examining with him an array of letters, documents and papers that he had kept over many years, some of which have still never been seen by the public today. He explained exactly what evidence he had, the in depth studies that he had carried out and about his research. He explained about how shocked he had been about the attitudes of the Department of Health, the Joint Committee of Vaccine and Immunization and the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, when he presented them with his evidence and how they chose the ignore the facts in favour of mass vaccination. After studying much of his research and many of his letters, I agree after much thought that the public do indeed have a right to know the truth, especially about what really goes on behind closed doors.

Professor Stewart had been speaking out on the adverse reactions to vaccines since 1950′s.

His main work was surrounding the Whooping Cough and DPT vaccine. Over the years he has written letter after letter raising concerns with the Department of Health and the Government. Most of his concerns were ignored but they were discussed at meetings involving the Joint Sub Committee on Adverse Reactions to Vaccination and Immunisation and evidence can be found to support this.

Professor Gordon Stewart’s views make him unconventional among medical men.

Here is a little of Professor Stewart’s background:

GORDON T. STEWART, M.D Emeritus professor of Public Health, University of Glasgow Consultant physician, NHS (Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine), Emeritus Fellow, Inf Dis Soc of America. Former consultant, New York City, US NIH, WHO, UNICEF etc.

MAIN PUBLICATIONS RELATING TO VACCINATIONS are

1951 Infectivity and virulence of tubercle bacilli. Lancet 2; 562

1952 do J Hygiene, Cambridge 50; 37.

1962 Organisation of Clinical Trials Lancet 1, 1394

1968 Limitations of the germ theory Lancet 1; 1077

1969 Determinants of sickness in US Marine recruits Amer J Epid 89;254

1969 Resistance factors in the control of tuberculosis J Inf Dis 120; 389

1976 Immunisation against whooping cough Brit med J 1; 93.

1976 Immunisation against whooping cough ibid 1; 583

1976 (with WR Bassili) Whooping cough: epidemiological evaluation of immunisation and other factors in the control of infection. Lancet 1; 474.

1977 Vaccination against whooping cough: efficacy versus risks. Lancet 1; 234.

1977 Whooping cough vaccination. Lancet 1; 804

1978 Whooping cough vaccination Brit med J 2; 768

1978 Pertussis vaccine: the United Kingdom’s experience: Invited position paper at the NIH Symposium on Pertussis at Bethesda, Md.,1978. US Government Printing Office: 1979.

1979 Toxicity of pertussis vaccine. frequency and probability of adverse reactions. J Epid Comm Health 33; 150

1979 Infection and immunisation Scot med J 24; 47

1979 Deaths of infants after triple vaccine Lancet 2; 353

1979 Whooping cough in Hertfordshire, UK Lancet 2; 473

1979 Whooping cough in Shetland, UK Brit med J;

1980 Vaccination and notification rates for whooping cough Lancet 1; 1299

1980 Pertussis vaccine: benefits and risks. New Eng J Med 302; 634

1981 Whooping cough in relation to other childhood infections. J Epid Comm Hlth 35; 139 1981 Pertussis vaccine and acute neurological illness in children Brit med J 282, 1968 (with John Wilson)

1981 Medicine and the Community. Chapter 3 in “Legal Issues in Medicine” ed MacLean, SMM, Gower Pub Co., Aldershot, UK.

1982 ABC of whooping cough Brit med J. 284; 1263

1983 Whooping cough in the United States and Britain New Eng J Med 308; 464

1983 Whooping cough and pertussis vaccine Brit med J 287; 287

1983 Whooping cough and pertussis vaccine: Report commissioned by the Chief Scientist, Dept of Health and Social Security (UK) on Risk-benefit of pertussis vaccines in UK, 1964-82 (pp 135).

——————————————————————————————————————

Pretty impressive I am sure that you will agree.

So here is a top M.D and a Emeritus professor of Public Health, who knew exactly what he was talking about and who tried desperately to get the authorities to sit up and take notice of his advice. Sadly however, his advice fell on deaf ears, as all the evidence I am about to expose shows very clearly and the UK Government took no notice of him what so ever, seemingly viewing him as more of an annoyance than a help.

In one of his papers Whooping cough vaccination—Prof Gordon Stewart he said the following about the whooping cough vaccine.

“The contrary view, with which I am identified; is that vaccination has been at best only partially effective in controlling whooping cough and has never been proved to be adequate in protecting infants below one year of age who are in the United Kingdom at least, the only group of children whose health is seriously menaced by whooping cough.

As I view the problem, the marginal advantages of the vaccine in children over one year of age have to be offset against adverse effects of the vaccine itself, which are very common indeed and may be followed occasionally by irreversible brain damage, paralysis and mental deficiency. Because of this danger, or for fear of it, many parents and doctors are reluctant to vaccinate their children.”

Prof Stewart again and again showed his research to the authorities, and it is important to remember that he did not pluck his figures out of thin air nor did he make up evidence, this was something he had studied and researched for many years and he naturally expected that the Government would sit up and take notice, but true to form they did not. Vactruth.com has decided it is high time to expose a couple of Professors Stewart’s letters and show our readers just what does goes on behind the scenes and the type of evidence that our Governments choose to ignore when it comes to using our children as pincushions.

Letter number 1 was written to Mr P Allen the Secretary of the Committee on Safety of Vaccines on the 13^th February 1980.

The letter begins by pointing out that it is very important that all information should be made available to the public about a vaccine. Prof Stewart writes about information regarding the whooping cough vaccine.

“In reply to yours of 11^th February, I am sorry to say that I do not agree with you that there is nothing more that can or should be done; Let me say again that the important matter confronting us is the safety of the vaccine. It is not in the public interest to withhold additional information relating to the safety of a vaccine, which has come to our attention as a result of a collaborative programme and which is highly germane to our report.”

The letter continued a little later to say-

“The situation changed when Dr Pollock, saw fit to assure the public on more than one occasion that the vaccine was ‘perfectly safe’, that fears which had been expressed were groundless and that parents and doctors could therefore use it without fear. The reassuring statements issued by Sir Charles Stuart-Harris and Professors Dudgeon and Miller were in the same vein, although the NCES to which they refer is nowhere near completion”

Then the letter says (and this is worst part)-

“This was so much at variance with what, by that time, our Committee knew to be the case that a caution if not a corrective statement was certainly called for. The lack of a corrective statement amounts to a repetition of the same dismal history which caused the problem in the first place and led to the Ombudsman to blame your department in no uncertain terms.”

I might mention that Sir Charles Stuart-Harris and Professors Dudgeon and Miller were on the the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunization at the time.

Another letter written by Professor Stewart that I came across on my travels, is one written by him to a Dr John Badenoch, who was none other than the Chairman of the JCVI at the time. This letter was written on 15^th May 1981 which was more than a year after the first one. He appears very angry and says:-

Report on Whooping Cough 12.5.81

“The editorial in the BMJ reassures Doctors that pertussis vaccine can safely be given to 600,000 infants and that only two will have serious reactions with permanent disability. This is a dangerous conclusion to draw from your report”

He later says:-

“ The assertion made on pages 179 and 182 that attack rate is significantly affected by rates of vaccine acceptance is statistically untenable and the Department has admitted this in correspondence with me.”

The problem I see with all this, is that many thousands of children suffered permanent disability and death through having the whooping cough vaccine and the Government sat back with their fat cigars and allowed this to happen.

The (4/18/97) The Tainted History of the DPT Vaccine says this about Professor Stewart research

At the moment there is a large push for children to be vaccinated against whooping cough, I would urge parents to read the evidence and weigh up the risks against the benefits and realise that even a vaccinated child can still get whooping cough Whooping cough still infecting millions of vaccinated children …

It is a fact that the Governments do lie and hide facts in a bid to push parents into vaccinating their children as my evidence has shown. Next time you open your newspaper and read about a vaccine and how ‘perfectly safe’ it is, please think twice, it might not be as safe as the Government lead us to believe.

Click here to see both letters.

.
.
.
.
Christina England
Vactruth.com
04/06/2010

(Part: 1 | Part: 2 | Part: 3 | Part: 4 | Part: 5 | Part: 6)

Vaccines, a differential viewpoint

For many years professionals have been linking adverse reactions to vaccines with autism, neurological disorders, sudden infant death and symptoms mimicking those of shaken baby syndrome, however, professionals are now also linking adverse reactions to vaccines with a rise in false allegations of child abuse. These come in the guise of MSBP, SBS and murder after a child dying of SIDS.

One of the first professionals linking adverse reactions of vaccines with SIDS is Prof Gordon Stewart. He wrote a large number of papers including one in the Lancet in 1979 “Deaths of infants after triple vaccine Lancet 2; 353” listed here on work by Professor Gordon Stewart under a letter he wrote to the BMJ . The letter details much of Stewart’s in depth work in the 1970′s showing links that he had seen to the vaccine DPT and children dying suddenly of SIDS. Part of the letter relates to Sally Clark, a British women jailed for the killing of her two children after they had died cot deaths Prof Stewart says:-

“Stewart (1976), GT; Immunisation against whooping cough; British Medical Journal, 31 January 1976; letters:

This correspondence recalls your earlier reports about the conviction of Sally Clark for murder in trials for the sudden deaths of her two infants, and about her own death after the conviction had been annulled. I am writing about this because on 18th August 1999 I was approached by solicitors in Manchester who were defending Mrs Clark against the charge of having murdered her two infant sons, Christopher in 1996 and Harry in 1998. They asked me to read and advise them on reports on these deaths by paediatricians, pathologists and other experts beginning with the autopsies performed by Dr Williams, the Coroner’s pathologist at Macclesfield, Cheshire.

I found, as Dr Williams did, that the two deaths were different and that for this and other reasons, the reports sent to me were confusing, contradictory and inconclusive. None of them offered a conclusion fulfilling the requirement that a verdict of unnatural death had to be beyond reasonable doubt, so I wrote back to the defending solicitors to say that a charge of murder was unjustified. The same opinion was given by one of the experts, Professor John Emery, a leading authority in the UK on Sudden Unexplained Infant Deaths (SUID). Christopher had been cremated but Professor Emery had conducted a second autopsy on Harry in the presence of another expert witness. He was unable, under the circumstances, to give a definite opinion about the cause of death but he did exclude, as I did, unnatural death due to murder. We agreed that the deaths were different and noted that Harry had received an injection of triple vaccine about 4 hours before his death which could have occurred after admission to hospital. I had already asked the solicitors for more details, and was awaiting a reply from them to enable me to write a fuller report.

I was therefore astonished to read some months later in The Times that Sally Clark had been tried at Chester Crown Court and found guilty of murdering her two infant sons. I wrote immediately (on 24th April, 2000) to the solicitors questioning this verdict. They did not reply but I learned that neither Professor Emery’s report nor mine had been quoted in Court, and that conviction by the jury had apparently been based on the Judge’s acceptance of the opinion of Sir Roy Meadow that the chance of the second death (of Harry) being natural in the circumstances was one in 73 million. I regarded this as an absurd and unproven statistic, and was surprised also that the Defence had failed to refer to Emery’s report and mine which were favourable to their client.

The solicitors in Manchester did not reply to a second letter but I then received a call from a new solicitor (JB) who wanted to consult me about the verdict, and his instruction by Sally, her husband and father to appeal against it. They were consulting me because Dr W H (Bill) Inman, former Principal Medical Officer at the Ministry of Health and Chief Medical adviser to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines had recommended that they should do so because of my experience with vaccines. We arranged a meeting at my home and he came there with Sally’s father (FL) and more evidence. We discussed the case and the reasons for appeal for several hours, and arranged a further meeting, at Sally’s father’s residence in Salisbury where he had been Superintendent of Police until his retirement, A long sequence of telephone calls, correspondence and a further meeting followed, and led to the Appeal, which was rejected by three Judges who sidelined the one in 73 million statistic. Additional evidence was available from a professor of paediatric neurology and a professor of epidemiology, both from centres of excellence respectively in USA and UK. Their opinion was that the injection of pertussis vaccine given along with other vaccines was more likely than not to have been the cause of Harry’s death, and that Christopher’s death was different.

All of this and much more clinical and forensic detail about the two deaths is available in the transcripts, correspondence and especially in the book Stolen Innocence by John Batt, all of which contain additional reasons for questioning the conviction. For instance, it was revealed that the medics who transported Harry alive to the hospital in Macclesfield and the three doctors – a casualty officer, a registrar and a consultant paediatrician – who examined and tried unsuccessfully to revive him were not called to give evidence. There is no proof anywhere that the vaccines used (DTP/Hib/Polio) cause death but the pertussis component was the whole cell preparation are known to be associated with apnoea, shock, encephalopathy, and very occasionally with deaths, which led Sir Graham Wilson, former and first Director of the PHLS, to say in his book on Hazards of Immunization that life-spoiling and threatening reacticns, especially after pertussis vaccine and in the context of incomplete or non -protection were too frequent to justify mass vaccination. These features, widely-recognized internationally, led some countries in the 1960’s and others later to omit pertussis from childhood programmes and to replacement of the whole-cell vaccine with an acellular replacement. In the UK, this did not happen until 2006. It should be noted also that the three main manufacturers of pertussis vaccine in the UK and 10/13 in the USA withdrew their products between 1978 and 1986. These facts are important because vaccination is compulsory in most States of the USA and some in the EC. This removes the safeguard of parental option, respect for contraindications and medical discretion.

This information was understandably lacking in Clare Dyer’s short article. Sally Clark was acquitted after five years in prison only because bacteriological reports about a questionable staphylococcal infection had been with-held by Dr Williams and others from the previous hearings. The success of Dr Williams’s appeal ensures that expert witnesses can overlook or with-hold essential evidence without fear of the penalty that can be imposed legally on criminal defendants, of whom Sally is just one. [2008] Rapid Responses to Does cot death still exist?”

The most interesting fact about the Sally Clark trial was the Expert Witness used by the prosecution was Professor Roy Meadow who had known for some years that adverse reactions to vaccines and SIDS were linked. He knew about Prof Gordon Stewart’s work and had had access to his papers when they were discussed because he was a member of the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunization in the UK, this is the committee who advises the British Government on the safety of vaccines. As a member of the JCVI he sat on meetings in the 1980′s Sir Roy Medows Meetings hearing the evidence of links between the DPT vaccine and sudden infant death. However. despite this knowledge and clear conflict of interest, he has testified as an expert witness in many trials where parents have been accused of child abuse and refused to acknowledge that vaccines may have contributed to their child’s condition or death.

In the article Professor Sir Roy Meadow reports: Michael Nott: A Failure to Learn … Michael Nott an advocate for mothers accused of Munchausen Syndrome (factitious illness) by proxy says:-

“Meadow was struck off by the British General Medical Council (July 2005) for serious professional misconduct relating to statistical evidence he gave at the trial of Sally Clark. At his professional misconduct hearing, Meadow’s principal defence was that he had not held himself out and should not have been treated as an ‘expert’ witness in child abuse. However, he has written numerous articles and edited books on child abuse. He forged a substantial career as an expert witness in this area. In Australia, he has presented himself as an expert in child abuse, provided expert opinions on cases involving deaths of children and MSBP, and has liaised with many Australian professionals on the issues.

According to Stephen Clark, Sally Clark’s lawyer husband, when Meadow was asked to produce the data supporting the evidence at his wife’s committal hearing (and which underpinned his entire career) he initially prevaricated, then eventually admitted he was unable to do so because his secretary had ‘shredded it’. This meant that his evidence could not be properly tested.

Clark said Meadow was found guilty of serious professional misconduct not simply because he made a one-off mistake. ‘It was because he gave “misleading and erroneous evidence” outside his expertise that was “compounded by repetition over a considerable period of time”, the British General Medical Council (GMC) found. Meadow went on to embellish it and failed to disclose evidence that provided balance.’

Clark said the GMC rejected Meadow’s arguments that he was not an expert and that everyone except him was to blame. ‘The GMC determined that Meadow had “abused” his position as a doctor and may have seriously undermined the authority of doctors giving evidence.’

Stephen Clark made the point that at Sally’s second appeal hearing 12, leading British and international medical experts made statements, with varying degrees of certainty, but all to the effect that following the discovery of medical reports which had previously not been disclosed, his son Harry had died from an overwhelming bacterial septicaemia. The appeal court, Clark states, held that Meadow’s statistics were ‘grossly misleading’ and ‘overstated’ and sufficient on their own to make Sally’s conviction unsafe.

The statistical evidence that Clark is convinced resulted in the original false conviction of Sally Clark and the disbarring of Meadow has been used in a similar fashion at the committal hearings of a NSW woman who was subsequently convicted of killing her four children. The USA professional, Dr Janice Ophoven, who provided the statistical evidence for the woman’s committal hearings also gave expert opinion in a similar case in Victoria.

Meadow is also responsible for the child abuse belief of MSBP, or Munchausen syndrome (factitious illness) by proxy (The Lancet, 1977) that is widely accepted in the child protection sector, police and judiciary in Australia. The basis of this allegation is that a parent or other carer has deliberately fabricated or induced an illness in a child. There is no scientifically-based evidence to support Meadow’s beliefs that were based on anecdotal comments on two of his patients. Meadow fails to consider other reasons for a child’s death or illness. These include vaccination damage, adverse reaction to drugs or the combination of drugs, toxic poisoning, allergies to foods or food additives or an adverse reaction to chemicals, genetic problems, doctor negligence or misdiagnoses and the like. Rather, when the matters are fully investigated there are compelling evidentiary alternatives to an unsupported belief that a mother killed her child or caused the child to be sick”.

Mr Nott studied law at the University of Western Sydney and was a senior media and communications officer for Australian federal and state government departments and agencies and was formerly a journalist.

Lisa Blakemore-Brown was one of the first professionals in the world to notice a link between vaccines, the children she was assessing with Autism and false accusations of child abuse called Munchausen by Proxy (MSBP). She voiced her fears and suspicions again and again but instead of being listened to, she was ignored and patronised.

In June 1998 an article appeared in The Therapist written by Lisa Blakemore-Brown, this was a year after Sir Roy Meadow had himself written an article for The Therapist. She was asked to write this when on reading Lisa Blakemore-Brown’s letter in the ‘Psychologist’ Psychologist letter the Editor of the The Therapist contacted Lisa Blakemore-Brown to ask if she would write an article showing the opposite view to start debate. The Therapist article began :-

“A young mother took her son for one of the routine vaccinations of childhood. That night he developed a dangerously high temperature and soon afterwards started banging his head, soiling and gradually lost all his language. His behaviour became erratic, he couldn’t relate to others and he was difficult to control. Investigations followed which led to the diagnoses of Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism. Suspecting that the vaccination might have been the cause, although nothing could be proven, the mother decided not to have her next three children vaccinated.

As time went on she kept pestering the social services department for respite care, because she found her eldest boy so difficult to deal with. She became to been seen as a bit of a nuisance. It was suggested despite the known diagnoses of Asperger’s Syndrome that his symptoms might perhaps of been induced by the mother herself. An expert was called in and she was accused of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP). – deliberately her child. Her two youngest children were taken into foster care and the youngest was taken from the foster home against the mothers wishes to be vaccinated. Instantly and tragically , the child’s behaviour deteriorated in the same way her eldest brother’s had done.

The foster mother had videotapes of the little girl’s behaviour before and after the vaccination and yet the younger children are even now being put up for adoption.”

This is just one of many of Blakemore-Brown’s accounts of a change of behaviour immediately after vaccination, and a subsequent MSBP accusation.

In a speech she gave in 2005 at the House of Lords Lisa Blakemore-Brown
speech at House of Lords she said :-

“The range of conditions on the increase in the last few years include: Apnea, Reflux, Allergies and food intolerances, gastro-intestinal problems, autistic spectrum disorders, ADHD, ME/CFS etc. It is the mothers whose children have these conditions who are likely to be accused of causing them or exaggerating them. All of these have been implicated in iatrogenic abuse, which is NEVER considered as part of the differential diagnosis, for some curious reason. Auto immune disorders, congenital abnormalities, birth trauma and the greater likelihood of problems given prematurity, are simply not considered as the suspicion of the demonised mother in the MSBP theory swamps reasoning.

In a Survey of families undertaken in 2003 and presented at Portcullis House, mainly from the Isle of Wight but including others experiencing the same problems of feeling blamed for their children’s difficulties and being totally unable to access appropriate services for them, over 80% felt blamed and targeted, over 70% felt the process was highly stressful and over 90% felt frightened. Amongst this group, 28% of the babies were in Special Care Baby Units and 13% were prescribed essential medication during pregnancy. The range of their children’s problems echoed those listed above as having increased dramatically over the last few years, with over 70% displaying obsessional behaviour and literacy difficulties, over 65% suffering from anxieties, attentional problems, social exclusion and learning difficulties, 50% suffering from motor impairments and bowel problems, over 30% suffering from allergies and 30% suffering from depression.

The effects of Vitamin K and C deficiencies following vaccines in vulnerable children have been misinterpreted as fractures or cigarette burns. (Kalokerinos 1981, Innis 2002. Clemetson 2002) and Professor Meadow’s own paper makes interesting reading in this regard. Mercury effects from thimerosal in vaccines (Simpsonwood meeting 2000) are never introduced as part of the differential diagnosis. Neither are the side effects of drugs such as Cisapride given for gastro-intestinal problems, now taken off the market due to serious side effects and sudden death”.

Dr Michael Innis another professional worried about the false allegations of child abuse, has been speaking on the issues of Vitamin K and C deficiencies following vaccines, in vulnerable children, that have been misinterpreted as fractures or cigarette burns for many years. He says in his paper [pdf] Vaccines, Apparent Life-Threatening Events, Barlow’s Disease, and Questions about Shaken Baby Syndrome by Michael D. Innis, MBBS that

“Apparent Life-Threatening Events (ALTEs), as defined by the National Institutes of Health, encompass all the findings hitherto attributed to .Shaken Baby Syndrome. (SBS), and may follow

routine vaccination. Vaccines may also induce vitamin C deficiency (Barlow.s disease), especially in formula-fed infants or infants whose mothers smoke. This could account for some of the changes seen in these infants, including haemorrhages, bruises, and fractures. Vitamin C deficiency should be excluded in patients suspected to have SBS”.

Another worried expert is Charles Pragnell who left Britain to work in Australia. Pragnell has a Diploma in Social Work and Letter of Recognition in Child Care and is Expert Witness – Child Protection and Social Care Consultant and Child/Family Advocate. He has written many articles on the subject and in 2007 he wrote one called Iatrogenic Child87 Abuse and another Vaccines and Child Abuse Accusations he stated-

“There can be no debate that some vaccines cause very serious injury and even death, to some children. This has been recognised by both the British government(1980) and the U.S.A. government (VAERS Act 1986) for over 20 years and both governments have provided compensation schemes to families with children who have suffered such adverse reactions. Under both Schemes doctors are required to report every adverse reaction of a child to a vaccine to a central government body but it is reasonably estimated that less than one in ten are so reported.

Many parents in many places around the world have given personal testimony that following the administration of vaccines to their child, the child has become seriously ill within hours or days. Such illnesses have taken many forms but commonly they are febrile, listless, and some are reported to have experienced epileptic seizures.

Within days or a few short weeks, parents report that their child then takes on a totally different personality – they are distant, unable to make eye contact, they are constantly restless and hyperactive – “they have gone into their own little world” is an often stated assessment by the parents. The parent, quite naturally, becomes extremely anxious and fraught as they lose contact with their child. They want their child to be healthy and normal, as the child was in the first few weeks after birth. So what has happened they wonder?.

In the Britain, the parent will usually seek help and advice from the Health Visitor and perhaps their General Practitioner but this is when they are hit with the first of the `Double Whammies’.

The Health Visitor reports them to the Child Protection agencies as their child is “failing to thrive” and is not reaching its expected developmental milestones. They are seen as over-anxious and if they seek a second medical opinion, they are accused of `Doctor-shopping’. In the UK they are then called to a Child Protection Conference with all the assembled professionals usually after being subjected to an extremely invasive child protection investigation. They are not allowed representation although they are being accused of a criminal offence of neglecting their child and they are summarily found guilty merely on the opinions and suppositions of the professionals present, many of whom they have never met before. Their child’s name is placed on the Children `At Risk Register’ and they are now branded and stigmatized as `Child Abusers’ in their local community. They can expect no sympathy nor understanding from their neighbours, friends, or even some of their relatives, many of them with the horrifying thought, “there but for the Grace of God, go I” .

If they are fortunate, the parents will only experience this state of stigmatization and the accompanying isolation and societal condemnation, if they are unfortunate the matter will be taken to Court and the child will be removed from their care, often permanently. Child Protection agencies are reluctant to take this latter step, not because they think the parents are innocent or can manage the care of the child, but because such children with mental and/or physical disabilities are not usually suitable for adoption or long-term fostering which would be immensely expensive to the agency.

Health Visitors, Doctors, and social workers lack the knowledge, or find it incomprehensible, or simply collude in the Dept of Health propaganda that “vaccines are safe” and deny even the possibility that the vaccines are to blame for the child’s mental or physical disabilities and developmental delays. To challenge the received wisdom of the Department of Health would be a heinous sin in professional circles with appropriate chastisements and sanctions likely to follow.

But worse is to follow for the parents of the mentally and/or physically disabled child. Firstly they are left to cope alone with the demands and needs of their child who requires almost 24 hours a day supervision, sometimes has to be fed, and their personal care needs met. The parent becomes gradually and totally exhausted and emotionally and mentally drained. But worse awaits them – the Triple Whammy!. If they have been persistent with seeking help for their child or just lucky, they may have obtained a diagnosis by a psychologist that their child is autistic within the Spectrum of Autistic Disorders and requires special education provision suitable to his/her needs. The child is probably now aged 7. 8. 9, or 10 years. They then face years of battling with the Education Authority to obtain a Statement of Special Needs and even when this is finally achieved, and usually only after appealing to a Special Tribunal, the Education Authority can’t or won’t make the appropriate provision. Either because the Special Schools in the area have all been closed under the central government policies of `integrating’ all disabled children into mainstream schools or because the Education Authority do not wish to bear the very high costs of such special education.

Although it can occur earlier, it is usually at this point that the parent is accused of `Fabricating or Inducing the Child’s Illness/Disability’ a catch-all theory of child abuse based on the scientifically fraudulent and infamous `Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy’. The parents are stunned – it is unbelievable!. They are now accused of causing their child’s autism or other disability, perhaps Asperger’s Syndrome, or ME/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, or Cystic Fibrosis, or ADHD, or any combination of these disabilities or diseases. !.”

Dr Harold Buttram also an expert concerned that parents are being falsely accused of child abuse after their child has suffered an adverse reaction to a vaccine, wrote the paper Dr Harold Buttram
Shaken Baby Syndrome And Non Accidental Injury Are Parents and Care Givers Being Falsely Accused? In his introduction he says:-

“These cases fall in three general categories: (1) Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), in which it is assumed that a parent or caretaker, exhausted and irritated by a fussy baby, picks up the infant by its chest or heels and shakes the baby with such violence that any onlooker would recognize it as excessive and dangerous. (2) Non-accidental trauma in which there may be incidental head or body impact against a solid object during the shaking, and (3) infants with multiple fractures. The latter is addressed in a separate monograph. Based on personal observations of more than 10 years, in each of these categories there have been patterns of precipitous diagnoses of inflicted child abuse without first establishing a differential diagnosis and ruling out other possible causes of the findings. Due to these deficiencies, many parents and caretakers are being falsely accused and criminally convicted. In any other medical speciality, these failures to establish a differential diagnosis.”

He goes on to say later in the paper -

“One of the gross errors throughout the history of childhood vaccines has been a failure to take into account the fatty nature of the brain, a large portion of which consists of polyunsaturated fatty acids and therefore highly vulnerable to inflammatory lipid peroxidation.”

Lisa Blakemore-Brown remains convinced that professionals are covering up the truth in favour of blaming the parent and said as much in a letter to the BMJ rapid responses. Sadly the letter was not published in full and one can only presume from this, that this was due to her blunt honesty which left some with a bitter taste. The group One Click News did however print this in full a few weeks later Omissions Prove What is really going on in the system. In the letter Blakemore-Brown makes her feelings very clear.

“Adverse reactions to vaccines are well known”

Everyone working in public health knows that there are adverse reactions to every drug and vaccine that’s ever been manufactured. These reactions are multiple and have been studied by medics for decades. What is shocking is that instead of admitting this, extraordinary efforts have been put in place to damn those who dare to mention them, including the innocent parents who took their child for vaccine and watched them react. Ms Coombes, sad to say, joins the ranks of the establishment who will do anything rather than admit that sometimes vaccines cause adverse reactions to some people. That includes blaming the parents and hounding them to their own graves.”

After studying the above evidence from many experts worldwide and bearing in mind that this is only a small fraction of the growing volume of professionals speaking out for parents who now believe that their false accusation of child abuse, came after a vaccine injury, it begins to paints a very scary picture of what is really going on in the world of child protection. Are parents being falsely accused of injuring or even killing their children in a bid to hide what is really going on and that is that vaccines are not the quick fix to a healthy world after all?

(Part: 1 | Part: 2 | Part: 3 | Part: 4 | Part: 5 | Part: 6)

.
.
.
Christina England
American Chronicle
1/25/2010

For many years around the world, doctors, scientists and professors of medicine have been debating as to whether ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ or SBS as it is known, actually exists. For a diagnoses of SBS a baby will need to display a serious acquired brain injury, which is said to be caused when a frustrated or angry adult holds an infant or toddler by the trunk or arms and shakes back and forth in a jerking, whiplash motion. Most cases occur in children under one year of age, although there are documented cases of SBS in older children.

Shaken Baby Syndrome” (SBS) is the term used to describe the collection of signs and symptoms resulting from a child being shaken violently. However,Shaken Baby Syndrome is sometimes difficult to recognize and even more difficult to prove. Which is why many parents claim they have been falsely accused. The doctors say the reason for this is, that many babies who are shaken show no outward signs of abuse, their injuries only become evident when a CT scan or MRI of the head detects subdural haematomas. Another test used in SBS to detect injuries is a simple eye exam, which can detect the presence of retinal haemorrhages. Which doctors claim is another symptom of a shaken baby.

However, common sense tells us, that if a baby was shaken this hard there were be at least some bruising. Sadly it seems that this does not convince doctors as more and more parents are being accused of SBS, which is worrying some doctors, especially as many of these cases are occurring shortly after vaccines and seem to occur particularly in the two to four month age range.

Dr Viera Scheibner in Shaken Baby Syndrome Diagnoses on Shaky Ground said:-

“An epidemic of accusations against parents and baby sitters of Shaken Baby Syndrome is sweeping the developed world. The United States and the United Kingdom are in the forefront of such questionable practise. Brain (mainly subdural, less often subarachnoid) and retinal haemorrhages, retinal detachments and rib and other bone ‘fractures’ are considered pathognomic. However, the reality of these are very different and well documented: the vast majority occur after the administration of childhood vaccines and a minority of cases are due to the documented birth injuries and pre-eclamptic and eclamptic staes of the mothers.”

So why are more parents than ever being falsely accused of shaking their babies? Is it one big cover up, to hide that many of these injuries are being caused by the vaccines?

Dr Buttram believes that all parents accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome are 100% innocent as he believes the syndrome is physiologically impossible.

In an email to me he said:-

“As far as I am concerned, parents accused of shaken baby syndrome are 100 percent innocent, as the syndrome is physiologically impossible, having been totally discredited by the scientific (Ph.D.) speciality known as bio-engineers, which has found that if such violent shaking were actually taking place, it would be fatal in virtually all cases, not from head injury but from a broken neck. The same is true for multiple fractures in infants, the vast majority of which are from metabolic bone disease,.the biggest risk factors being congenital rickets (vitamin D deficiency) and prematurity.”

Harold Buttram, MD

In a paper written by him on SBS called Shaken Baby Syndrome and Non-Accidental Injury: Are Parents and Caretakers Being Falsely Accused Dr Buttram proves his theories by using examples of experiments that have been used to dispel the theory. He shows how an experiment on monkeys used to show how babies can have bleeding inside the brain with no sign of any other injury, which has since been used to prove SBS cases, actually falls down because there is no comparison between the head and neck of an adult monkey and the head and neck of a small infant child who is barely able to hold their head up.

Quoted from his paper he says:-

“As pointed out in the Uscinski report,(1) the brain and head of an infant is nearly seven times larger and heavier than that of a monkey. In addition, adult monkeys are known to be incredibly strong, approximately four times stronger than humans. There would be no comparison, therefore, between the neck muscle strength of an adult monkey and that of an infant, barely able to hold up his or her head by age six months, so that if violent shaking were actually taking place, the incidence of neck injuries in the SBS should be exponentially greater than in monkeys. With these facts in mind consider the following:

Most SBS cases in the USA take place during the first six months of life, when there are negligible infant neck muscles. As will be shown further on, the major impact of violent shaking would fall at the junction between the base of the skull and brainstem area and upper cervical spinal cord. In most if not all nstances this would result in instant death or paraplegia from brain stem or cervical spinal cord injuries.

11 of the 19 monkeys (over 50 percent) in the Ommaya experiments had significant neck as well as brain injuries.

Although human brain injuries may occur in rear-end vehicle collisions, whiplash injuries to the neck comprise an overwhelming majority of adult injuries, in which ligaments and muscles are torn, resulting in estabilization of the cervical (neck)vertebral column. Since infants have only rudimentary neck muscles and connective tissues as cushions, the full impact of shaking would fall on the highly vulnerable cervical spinal cord at the base of the brain, which almost certainly would cause death or paraplegia.

In view of these considerations, one would expect a far greater incidence of severe cervical skeletal and spinal cord injuries in infants than took place in the monkeys, and yet this type of injury has not been documented in any SBS case to date. In view of these

facts, the Shaken Baby Syndrome theory defies both reason and common observation. As a simple statement, it is physiologically impossible.

As a final observation concerning “Non accidental Injury,” in which it is assumed that

there is a head impact in the process of shaking, there must be substantiating evidence in

the forms of head/scalp bruising and/or subgaleal (scalp) hematoma in order to justify

such an assumption.”

Dr Buttrams papers and his evidence has been used in many cases.

Over the years it has been proven that vaccines have been the cause of the death of babies and have caused symptoms seen in cases of SBS. The most famous of those being that of Alan Yurko. The Yurko Project: Triumph Over Tragedy tells the tragic story of baby Alan. Alan died aged 2 months of suspected SBS, his father was accused of his murder and given a life sentence plus 10years. Alan had always been a sickly baby. One should always question whether a baby this sick should be given multiple vaccinations all at one time.

This is from one website and is written by his mother:

“Alan and Francine Yurko’s baby boy, Alan, was born on September 16, 1997. Francine’s pregnancy was severely compromised with refractory and recurrent E. coli infection, gestational diabetes, group b Streptococcal infection, and an overall weight gain of only two pounds. Labor was induced at 35 weeks because of life-threatening oligohydramnios (loss of amniotic fluid). Baby Alan was born grayish blue with respiratory distress and hypoglycemia. He spent the first week of his life in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and Special Nurseries, where his parents spent their days with him until his release. A breathing monitor was sought because Baby Alan was rasping and grunting; however, insurance would not cover it, and the doctors assured that it wasn’t necessary.

Over the next six weeks, the family went to weekly pediatrician visits. Baby Alan was seriously jaundiced during his entire neonatal period, and was still rasping and grunting with short periods of apnea. In addition, on November 2, 1997, Alan and Francine rushed the baby to the hospital late in the night because they noticed blood on a burp rag. He was examined by several doctors and nurses, and it was decided that he must have scratched the inside of his nose with his fingernails. Francine pointed out that his fingernails were very trimmed and that, as a preemie, her baby didn’t have such muscle control to have scratched himself. However, the doctors disregarded the concerns, and remarks were made about being “overprotective parents.”

On November 11, 1997, at his weekly pediatrician visit, baby Alan was still not well: He was congested, rasping and grunting, and he had abnormal bowel movements. Despite this and other concerns, such as prematurity, he was injected with six vaccines. Within 24 hours he became lethargic, feverish, fussy. His feeding and sleeping patterns were markedly reduced and changed. The doctor warned that he could be this way for a week or so, but not to worry because it´s “normal” for some babies after their vaccinations. This desensitized the parents to those reactions.

Over the next ten days, baby Alan’s condition did not improve, and he then developed a high-pitched cry. Francine and Alan became concerned, but the doctor said this was normal, and they’d already been chastised for being “overprotective.” On November 23, 1997, they decided that if baby Alan did not improve, they would take him to the pediatrician the next day after Francine returned from work. They never got the chance.”

Alan his father spent over six years in prison for his murder but eventually was freed on appeal when it was found that a combination of adverse reactions to vaccines and the drug Heparin caused his death and it was not SBS.

Dr Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati PhD, DABT, DABVT had this to say:-

My review of the medical evidence in baby Alan’s case clearly shows that he died as result of adverse reactions to vaccines and medications. The tissue bleedings were caused by his treatment of heparin following his respiratory/cardiac arrest. The medical examiner and other physicians who evaluated failed to consider heparin’s ability to cause bleeding in tissue. They also overlooked the role of the adverse reactions to vaccines in the baby’s health problems. Detailed descriptions of the clinical data and other medical literature explaining the pathogenesis of the baby’s illness and supporting my conclusions are presented in this report. Analysis of Causes That Led to the Bleedings in the Subdural Spaces and Other Tissues in Baby Alan Ream Yurko´s Case

In March 2010 another case very similar to the case of baby Alan Yurko goes to court. This is the case of baby T who became ill less than 48 hours after he received a selections of vaccines. His mother Emily says:-

“This story begins August 13th, the day he received his shots. He received his DTaP-IPV-HIB, second dose of Hep B, and oral rotavirus vaccines. Less than 48 hours later, on August 15th, T***** began projectile vomiting. He would not keep much of anything down. I took him in to the local ER, where they rehydrated him and sent him home. He kept vomiting. I took T***** in again on August 18th to the ER. The doctors checked him for pyloric stenosis, which was found to not be ailing him. The doctors suggested switching his formula, that perhaps he was becoming intolerant of the formula he was on. No other explanation was offered as to why he kept vomiting. I followed up with his pediatrician August 21st, and again he could not offer any explanation for his vomiting. I had been feeding him often, and with smaller amounts. He would keep the feeding down for a while, and then sometimes vomit at the next feeding. It was almost always projectile. He was progressively sleeping more and when he was awake, he seemed fussier, almost in pain.

Early morning August 24th, 2009, T***** was at home with his father, Patrick. I work 3rd shift and was at work. T******s older brother and sister were also home sleeping. Patrick called me at work, saying T*******had awoken him with a high-pitched screaming and was acting funny. He said he was pale and crying in a whining fashion. He wasn’t sure what was going on with him. He was later holding him when he stiffened up and arched his back, rolled his eyes and then became limp. 911 was called.

When T****** was admitted into the local ER, he was unresponsive. He was not breathing well on his own and was intubated. Once stabilized, he was transferred across the street to the PICU. T****** heart was not functioning properly and an echocardiogram was performed. It showed diminished heart function. A CT scan was also performed, which showed subdural bleeding in his head. T***** was transferred by helicopter to the University of ***** Hospital.

Once at the University Hospitals, T*****’s father and I were questioned by the Department of Human Services and the ********* Police as to the events which led up to his hospitalization. We hadn’t even been allowed to see him yet and had no idea what was going on with him, yet we were being questioned as to whether we had shaken him. Patrick was at home with the children at the time of his collapse, so he has been the main target of their investigations.

T****** was in very grave condition. The doctors did not expect him to live. They said there was bleeding in his subdural spaces, both acute and sub-acute, or chronic. The doctors stated that his projectile vomiting was a sign that pressure was building in his head, though during the three trips we had made to the doctor that was never discovered. T***** had also had a stroke.They said he was intentionally hurt. Non-accidental Head Trauma, or Shaken Baby Syndrome.”

Like Alan Yurko, baby T was also given Heparin and also became ill within 48 hours of vaccination. Baby T had no bruising, no fractures and no bleeding anywhere else on his body. Baby T survived his injuries and is now in foster care, the older two children were also removed and live with their father.

Emily said in an email:-

“From the first hospital and CT scan he had, they thought SBS, or non-accidental trauma. They never stepped outside of that box. Sure, they tested for bleeding disorders, but that was it. None of the 3 times I took him to the doctor after he began vomiting did they ever think vaccine reaction. I even asked. I had no idea what was going on, only that my other two children had never thrown up like this after their shots. They told me that his vaccines wouldn’t cause that. That since he hadn’t vomited within the first 24 hours, it wasn’t a reaction. I know now how ridiculous that idea is.”

Of course she is right this is ridiculous ,as vaccines were found to be the cause of Alan Yurkos death and he had his reaction the day after his vaccinations. The doctor at the hospital in his case had said “The doctor warned that he could be this way for a week or so, but not to worry because it´s “normal” for some babies after their vaccinations”

I am not medically trained but common sense would tell me that vaccines followed by a combination of the huge number of medications listed for me by his mother, is more like feeding him from a witches cauldron than hospital treatments, especially considering this child was only two months old.

This young mother entrusted her beloved son to the care of hospitals who she believed would help her son. Instead they fed him a massive cocktail of drugs that combined with the lethal ingredients in the vaccines, may have contributed to yet further problems. Then when things became so bad that this small baby was fighting for his life ,they ban her from being with him and accuse her and her partner of shaking him so violently that they caused bleeding to the brain.

It really is time for parents to be believed and the medical profession to take on board that vaccines in some cases can and do cause brain damage.

For more information on SBS, Vaccinations and false accusations and papers by Dr Harold Buttram and Dr Michael Innis on Shaken Baby Syndrome go to Profitable Harm SBS

Shaken Baby Syndrome and Lethal Minor Falls:
Analysis of Causes of Death of Amanda M. Sadowshy

Harold E. Buttram and Alan Yurko
Medical Veritas

.
.
.
Christina England
American Chronicle
December 30th, 2009

Christmas time is a time for families and a time for children but sadly many families this year faced a Christmas without their children because child protection agencies and paediatricians misdiagnosed very real conditions, opting instead to accuse parents of shaking their babies. As a result many families could not join in the seasons festivities with the children they love, they could not buy them presents or prepare their Christmas stockings and some were left with no idea where their children were or even who they were with. One such family is Zabeth and Paul Baynes, their children were removed from their care on October 22, 2007 after they say they were falsely accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Their story began after their baby daughter of just a few weeks old, lay on the floor on a blanket, her two year old brother came running along, tripped and fell, landing on her, banging her head with his. The baby showed no visible injuries at the time but just to be safe Zabeth and Paul had her checked by their GP who also found no apparent injury. A few days later however, she vomited after a feed and gasping for air she suddenly became listless, her parents rushed her to emergency giving her CPR on the way. Despite the need for emergency resuscitation on route the hospital were dismissive and Zabeth and Paul were surprised when, after initially hooking her up to oxygen she was given a brief examination and sent home as the hospital said that they were not equipped to treat infants. No further tests took place at the time.

Over the next few weeks the infant was repeatedly taken to the hospital, Zabeth was worried as she remained dazed and began refusing her feeds. Eventually she was transferred to another hospital where she was diagnosed with anaemia and reflux and began medication. This medication included Domperidone, Ranitidine and at one point Diazepan, it should be noted that Zabeth was also taking Domperidone to stimulate breast milk. Over the next few weeks the babies vomiting became worse and she became weaker. Zabeth also noticed that she began to have fit like episodes. On the 6th October a CT scan was requested due to the swelling of her head, however, due to sickness of the technician this could not be done for another 12 days, eventually some weeks after her initial injury had taken place a CT scan finanlly revealed subdural haemorrhaging. As soon as a bleed was identified, instead of the facts of this case being examined in detail, Dr. Colbourne a child protection doctor was brought in and accused Zabeth and Paul of shaking their little girl in a fit of rage, an accusation this couple have always refuted.

So lets examine the facts.

It took a total of 22 days from the first visit to a hospital for this vital CT scan to take place despite swelling to the head being noted. This child had endured several episodes where she stopped breathing and at one point she flat lined altogether, this is an obvious sign that all is not well, she visited a total of four hospitals, was seen by eight doctors which included the GP, she had been given a combination of various drugs including Domperidone a drug known to be dangerous and a drug that her mother was also on.

Zabeth said

“There were many other visits that I have lost track of. We went many times to the Hope Clinic, went to the Public Health Department, called the 24 Hour Nurse Helpline and also went to office visits to Dr. Sorial and Dr. Ebesch. There were also more visits to the Fraser Valley Emergency as she would not stop vomiting and the nurse helpline advised me to go back. I was always sent home.”

Immediately after the accusation of child abuse their two boys were placed in the care of their grandparents, even though both boys were reported to be healthy. Due to the couple making a TV appearance they were then abruptly removed from their grandparents care in the middle of their sons third birthday party which caused two very young children a great deal of unnecessary distress and trauma.

“They told us to pass the children to their arms, while our children were reaching out to us to come back out of these strangers arms. They were shoeless, coatless and they did not wait for any of their supplies like training diapers, clothes, stuffy toys, etc.

My screams had caught our neighbors ears and they were standing outside their homes looking at what was happening. I cried so hard my nose was bleeding.” Zabeth said.

What stands out about this case is not only was a highly potent cocktail of drugs including the highly controversial drug Domperidone given to this sick baby but that no one even noticed that Zabeth had also been prescribed Domperidone at the time for the stimulation of breast milk and that this would drastically alter the intake of Domperidone that this small baby was taking, it beggars belief that this major fact was totally overlooked and instead this family was accused of shaking this child so violently that it caused severe bleeding in the brain and behind her eyes.

Another very interesting fact is that this is not the only case where Domeridone has featured and parents have been falsely accused of injuring their children.

English case paves way for woman to appeal salt death-bid

Ordeal of innocent mother in salt baby death investigation | Mail

In fact in the USA Domperidone has been banned completely for mothers breastfeeding because it has been found to be unsafe, the FDA also have chosen against its use for gastric conditions. In 2004 in the paper FDA Warns Against Women Using Unapproved Drug, Domperidone, to Increase Milk Production the FDA said :-

“Although domperidone is approved in several countries outside the U.S. to treat certain gastric disorders, it is not approved in any country, including the U.S., for enhancing breast milk production in lactating women and is also not approved in the U.S. for any indication.”

Another major fact not picked up until this child was in care was that she had the genetic condition Glutaric Acidemia. This was innocently divulged by one of the other children’s foster carers to the mother, although this diagnoses has since been denied by the MCFD or Ministry of Children and Family Development . It is easy to see why it may be denied because it would be crucial to the Baynes defence, this is because it has been repeatedly reported that some individuals with Glutaric Acidemia have developed bleeding in the brain or eyes that could be mistaken for the effects of child abuse.

Med Pedia – Glutaric Acidemia Type reports the following:-

“Glutaric Acidemia type I is an inherited disorder in which the body is unable to process certain proteins properly. People with this disorder have inadequate levels of an enzyme that helps break down the amino acids lysine, hydroxylysine, and tryptophan, which are building blocks of protein. Excessive levels of these amino acids and their intermediate breakdown products can accumulate and cause damage to the brain, particularly the basal ganglia, which are regions that help control movement. Mental retardation may also occur.

Some babies with glutaric acidemia type I are born with unusually large heads (macrocephaly). Affected individuals may have difficulty moving and may experience spasms, jerking, rigidity, or decreased muscle tone. Some individuals with glutaric acidemia have developed bleeding in the brain or eyes that could be mistaken for the effects of child abuse. Strict dietary control may help limit progression of the neurological damage. Stress caused by infection, fever or other demands on the body may lead to worsening of the signs and symptoms, with only partial recovery.”

Sadly, instead of receiving the treatment that this vulnerable and ill baby needed in foster care, and despite the fact she was ill and continuing to vomit despite being removed from her parents this baby was given yet another cocktail of lethal chemicals, this time in the form of her routine vaccines.

Zabeth said:-

“We were told she was sick, but that she was scheduled to have her vaccinations that day. Both my father and I called the social worker trying to get them to stop the vaccinations. She was vomiting and had even been taken to the hospital the night before due to fever and vomiting.

They called late that night to tell us that the vaccines had been done anyways and that they gave her Tylenol. They promoted the caregiver and told us that they thought she was a medically fragile baby.

On Nov 9, 2007 the social worker called to tell us that she was bleeding still behind the left eye. I don’t know if this was true or not. I do know that she has been constantly sick while in care.”

I am not a medical professional but common sense tells me that something in this case does not add up. Here is an obviously sick child, who not only has had a lethal mixture of medications in her short life but has a genetic illness which has according to her family been left untreated, then whilst in care an environment meant to protect her she is vaccinated with a combination of vaccines which according to a growing number of physicians are also known to cause bleeding in the brain as seen in the on Shaken Baby Syndrome the Vaccination Link Were these vaccinations so important they could not wait until this little girl was stronger?

Ten leading professionals agree and all have written reports saying that in their professional opinion this baby was not a victim of child abuse.

In a lengthy report Dr Peter J Stephens M.D Board certified in Anatomic, Clinical and Forensic Pathology summarized:-

“In summary I see no evidence whatsoever of any intentionally inflicted injury.”

Dr Harry J Bonnell M.D Pathology says:-

“I agree with the comments made by Dr John Plunkett and opine that the findings are totally consistent with the history of accidental injury. To say anything more would be repetitively verbose: suffice it to say that there is no evidence of abuse in the manner in which these injuries were suffered.”

So why is this family, who have no less than ten full medical reports written by some of the top SBS experts in the world, including Dr Michael Innis and Dr Horrace B Gardner stating that in their opinion there is no evidence to support that this case is a case of child abuse, still being hounded and why are their three children still in care? Could it be that the hospital that diagnosed this as a SBS case have a massive conflict of interest? It has since materialised that at the same time as this case came to light that this hospital received $1.4 million of government money in an education and prevention program that will give every new parent in B.C. resources and information to better understand inconsolable crying in infants and help lower the incidence of Shaken Baby Syndrome, Children and Family Development. It has now been revealed that are they involved very heavily in a programme with specialists from around the world including UK’s very own Prof Roy Meadows, an expert who has been proven to get it wrong time and time again Great Britain and who has been found guilty of sending innocent parents to prison.

Prof Meadow has appeared as an expert witness for the prosecution in several trials. His evidence has seen many mothers go to jail for murder of their babies. The General Medical Council (GMC) struck off Meadow after he was found to have offered “erroneous” and “misleading” evidence in the Sally Clark case. Clark was a lawyer wrongly convicted in 1999 of the murder of her two baby sons, largely on the basis of Meadow’s evidence; her conviction was quashed in 2003 after she had spent three years in jail. In 2006 an appeal court reversed the decision on Meadow and the GMC reinstated him.

It has also been revealed that the child protection doctor that the hospital brought in, who should have been impartial had lectured worldwide on Shaken Baby Syndrome at some very impressive conferences along with others involved in this case. This surely shows that this doctor was not impartial and had possible conflicts of interest.

In two weeks from now this case goes to court. So far reports from experts have been ignored and good character witnesses have also been ignored and this has resulted in this family being torn apart for not just one Christmas but two. This time let justice be done and the truth be seen, there is a strong possibility that this was not a case of Shaken Baby syndrome and any number of other causes could so easily have led to this babies head trauma.

Zabeth says:-

“We feel heartbroken daily as we wake up in the morning. We no longer feel a little hand pushing our shoulders to wake up. We no longer have a tiny one crawling into bed with us to wrap our arms around. We have no one to make breakfast for and to dress in the morning. We pass by empty rooms and toys placed neatly around the room. We long for the sound of children laughing, crying and running around the home. We long to have toys to clean up, eyes to dry, times of sharing the good and the bad life brings. We long for the privilege to care for our children and to bring them the security of a loving and caring home, where they feel unconditionally loved by both of their parents and extended family. We long for the opportunity to have our rights restored that belong to so many other families to raise their children with their own values, ethics and religious beliefs.

Our thoughts are constantly with our dear children and our hearts will always mourn them until they are returned.

We also however feel the sting of being falsely accused. We abhor child abuse and to live under the blanket of that title is one that brings such humiliation. We are seen as guilty and have not had the opportunity to defend ourselves in court. We have endured the disregard of the protection of our rights and our children’s rights under the Act and are frustrated with the disrespect seen here regarding the Law. We have been horrified to learn that it is not about what is the best interests of the children, but rather making a case and when the facts don’t stand then the manipulation and introduction of false information to try to make the case. We have been appalled by the lack of care from the government regarding the conditions our children must do visitations with us in and other issues regarding our children’s safety and well being in care. We have been disappointed in the governments one track focus on making a case around a medical misdiagnosis and not seeking further medical opinion, instead of looking at the possibility of the ten experts reports we submitted that support the accident that occurred. It is hard to be branded as guilty of such a horrific crime and are in fact innocent.

This case does not seem to be mindful of the truth, ethical practices, justice, the welfare of our children or justice. We pray that in a legal system where so many innocent people slip through the cracks our family does not wind up another statistic. Daily the tears flow. We weep after visitations. We cry as we hear of the problems our children have in care and our hearts break as we hear their pleas to come home.

After you have children. there is no life without them. They are your very heart and soul and life is devoted to their needs, welfare and complete unconditional undying love.

Yesterday when we had to put our children back in the drivers van to take them away our son ***** pulled Daddy to the back of the van and whispered. “Daddy do I have to go in her van again. When can I come home?” Daddy told him that it would be soon…..In the van as I hugged them goodbye I said in three more sleeps we will see you again. He kicked his feet and said yeah in three sleeps I can come home. Sadly I told him no we would only be visiting, but we see the king (judge) in I think sixteen sleeps and we are asking him to have you come home. Our children are praying too.”

To prove a case of abuse, there has to be proof that goes beyond all reasonable doubt that abuse took place. There are several sound possibilities as to why this baby had subdural haemorrhaging, ranging from her brother falling on her, a genetic condition, Hypoxia from an Apparent Life Threatening event causing subdural and retinal haemorrhages (as mentioned in report from Dr Michael Innis) through to the possible overdose of Domperidone and poor medical care from the hospital.For a guilty verdict the court will have to disprove ten reports from leading experts and prove this couple shook this baby so hard that they caused her brain to bleed.

I would like to thank Zabeth and Paul for giving me their permission to highlight this case and wish them all the best in their court case. May God Bless you all.

I would also like to congratulate Mike and Elizabeth Bruce, a case I highlighted some months ago and who I featured in my webinar in October, this family were reunited just before Christmas, when Dalton their beautiful son was returned home to them. Daltons return was down to the dedication and love of his devoted family and especially Mike his father who researched over many months to uncover the truth of what happened to Cameron, Daltons twin brother who sadly died aged two months.

The Zabeth Case goes to Court January 12th.