Fact: Evidence in Vaccine Induced Injury Cases is Suppressed

In April 2009 Apple manufactured a new iPhone app. The app (or programme) was called the Baby Shaker. The phone showed an image of a baby wailing whilst imitating the sound of a small baby crying. To stop the baby crying the user was required to shake the phone violently until two red crosses appeared on the eyes of the baby. Organizations for Shaken Baby Syndrome were appalled and condemned Apple for even considering the manufacture of such a game. Apple apologized for this deeply offensive and disturbing game before quickly removing it from sale. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dLA7TnOVMM)

Apple however, is not the only organization to make light of the Shaken Baby Syndrome diagnosis. The criminal justice system do not seem to be taking Shaken Baby Syndrome seriously either. There has been reports that experts who give evidence in SBS cases are being sent home and discredited. In some instances courts are refusing to hear evidence if it differs from the mainstream hypothesis. This has been particularly evident in cases involving children with a vaccine injury. This total lack of regard is making a mockery of the legal justice system, giving parents and care givers accused of child abuse unfair trials.

The term Shaken Baby Syndrome describes the type of injury that is said to occur when a baby is shaken so violently that the babies brain bounces back and forth against the skull This causes the brain to bleed (subdural hemorrhages). Other bleeding said to occur is bleeding behind the eyes (retinal hemorrhages). It is estimated that approximately 1,300 U.S. children experience a severe or fatal head trauma from child abuse every year. (http://www.dontshake.org/sbs.php…)

On the 8th February 2011 news came to light of foul play involving SBS cases. Experts believe that attempts are being made to discredit them when they disagree with the prosecution evidence. According to several news reports, Dr Waney Squire a leading neuro-pathologist, claimed, that in the UK there has been attempts to remove experts from courts if they are willing to disagree with mainstream diagnosis in SBS cases. She and two other leading pathologists have accused Scotland Yard “of orchestrating a campaign to discredit them in “shaken baby” court cases.” She said that he has evidence to suggest that the Metropolitan police are in league with the Crown Prosecution Service and medical experts to infiltrate this.

Surprisingly the Metropolitan police denied everything. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article…)

It certainly came as no surprise to me when a radio programme scheduled on BBC Radio 4, covering the story was cancelled at the last minute.

This really should not shock us as the medical profession and child protection agencies close ranks when a vaccine injury is suspected. They instead tend to lean towards the ‘blame the parent’ hypothesis. Lisa Blakemore-Brown recognised this as far back as 1996. She became concerned as she regularly saw children with Autism whose parents claimed that vaccines caused their children’s problems. As soon as they had mentioned this to the doctors however, they were accused of Munchausen by Proxy. MSBP is another form of child abuse where parents/care givers make up or induce illness in otherwise well children, to get attention for themselves from medical staff.

Blakemore-Brown, like the experts above, found herself having to deal with complaints to her governing body as soon as she spoke out publicly about her concerns. To read her story read in full go to (http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/2010/…)

Last night in response to the news about the Metropolitan police and experts she said that she was not in least bit surprised:

In my case I challenged Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy (MSBP) and in no time at all was targeted by various shady characters, my professional body The British Psychological Society used in the process of trying to discredit me over many, many years affecting my career, my reputation and my family. I lost my home paying for lawyers to defend myself against staggeringly obvious vexatious allegations. Other things were interfered with as well in a sort of spatter gun approach.” (http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?id=5876#newspost)

There is certainly enough evidence to back up what Ms Blakemore-Brown and Dr Squire are saying.

Dr F. Edward Yazbak has had strong reservations about shaken baby syndrome cases for many years. He has gone as far to suggest that the syndrome does not even exist. Many parents he has seen have been falsely accused of shaking their baby. It appears listening to a recent interview that he would agree with Blakemore-Brown. He to, has said that this happens particularly after a vaccine injury has occurred. In his interview with Dr Mercola, Dr Yazak describes one such case. This is a case where not only was the evidence given by the prosecution team extremely below par but one of the strongest experts used by the defence team was made to sit out the entire trial and was refused permission to submit evidence.

Baby Alan Yurko was a baby who died shortly after routine vaccination. His father was jailed for his murder. Dr Yazbak was an expert witness in the appeal. In the interview he describes major problems regarding the autopsy reports. The expert writing the autopsy report made a series of grave errors in his reporting. These errors were so catastrophic that it is unbelievable that these reports were ever taken seriously in the first place.

First he managed to mix up the ethnicity of the child. Then he wrote in his report that the circumference of the babies head was 22cm, when in fact it was 22inches. However, he saved the best mistake until last when he described in huge detail the microscopic findings of the babies heart at autopsy. One slight problem he overlooked in his bid to blame the parents was the fact that the child’s heart had actually been given away as a donor organ. This meant that the baby he was describing did not have a heart at the time of the autopsy.

Due to the nature of his evidence, expert witness Archie Kalokerinos, MD who had flown in from Australia to testify was made to sit out the entire trial. Despite the fact that Dr Kalokerinois had incurred his own travel expenses which were estimated to be around $10,000 and was working pro bono the prosecution according to Dr Dr Yazbak refused to hear his evidence.

I wonder if his report had anything to do with this? (http://www.freeyurko.bizland.com/akalokrev.html)

Due largely to the evidence given by Dr Yazbak the case was proven to be due to a vaccine induced injury. The father was released from jail a short time later. To listen to the full Mercola/Yazbak interview click (http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/2011…)

For yet another case please read Prof Gordon Stewart’s evidence regarding the Sally Clark case. He is yet another expert whose evidence was turned away due to it’s content. (http://www.whale.to/vaccines/stewart1.html…)

It has now been proven without a doubt that experts who are giving evidence in cases surrounding the controversial issues of child abuse are having their views and opinions suppressed. History supports that this is particularly evident in cases of vaccine injury. It will not be long before experts will be too afraid to speak out on behalf of parents. Many pay thousands of pounds of their own money and fly thousands of miles across the world to give evidence. If they are then thrown out of court and prevented from protecting parents from this kind of accusation, then who will be left to protect the families? Sadly this is fast becoming the norm. It is not only unfair it is unjust. Testimony from professionals such as Professor Gordon Stewart, Dr Archie Kalokerinos, Lisa Blakemore-Brown and others are crucial. If they are refrained from giving evidence and are being destroyed, then it makes a mockery of the whole legal system. It is a serious abuse of power and uses scared and vulnerable parents as pawns in a political game. Parents have the right to have evidence from all sides to be heard. To have this right removed is legally immoral.

About the author

Christina England, BA Hons