SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME - THE VACINATION LINK

[Guest guest]

S

Tue, 22 Aug 2006 06:51:20 -0700 (PDT)

Fwd: SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME - THE VACINATION LINK

 

 

 

(Allopathic medicine almost always blames the victum.)

 

 

 

 

SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME - THE VACINATION LINK :

 

 

 

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/shakenbaby1.html

 

 

Shaken Baby Syndrome

- the vaccination link -

 

Many infants who suffer the so-called 'shaken baby syndrome' may be

victims of undiagnosed vaccine damage.

 

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 5, #5 (August-September '98).

PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor

Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381

From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

 

© 1998 by Viera Scheibner, PhD

178 Govetts Leap Road

Blackheath, NSW 2785

Australia

Telephone: +61 (0)2 4787 8203

Fax: +61 (0)2 4787 8988

Email: vscheibner

 

Recently there has been quite an " epidemic " of the so-called " shaken

baby syndrome " . Parents, usually the fathers, or other care-givers

such as nannies have increasingly been accused of shaking a baby to

the point of causing permanent brain damage and death. Why? Is there

an unprecedented increase in the number of people who commit

infanticide or have an ambition to seriously hurt babies? Or is there

something more sinister at play?

 

Some time ago I started getting requests from lawyers or the accused

parents themselves for expert reports. A close study of the history of

these cases revealed something distinctly sinister: in every single

case, the symptoms appeared shortly after the baby's vaccinations.

 

While investigating the personal medical history of these babies based

on the care-givers' diaries and medical records, I quickly established

that these babies were given one or more of the series of so-called

routine shots-hepatitis B, DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus), polio

and HiB (Haemophilus influenzae type B)-shortly before they developed

symptoms of illness resulting in serious brain damage or death.

 

The usual scenario is that a baby is born and does well initially. At

the usual age of about two months it is administered the first series

of vaccines as above. (Sometimes a hepatitis B injection is given

shortly after birth while the mother and child are still in hospital.

However, a great number of babies now die within days or within two to

four weeks of birth after hepatitis B vaccination, as documented by

the records of the VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] in

the USA.) So, the baby stops progressing, starts deteriorating, and

usually develops signs of respiratory tract infection. Then comes the

second and third injections, and tragedy strikes: the child may cry

intensely and inconsolably, may stop feeding properly, vomit, have

difficulty swallowing, become irritable, stop sleeping, and may

develop convulsions with accelerating progressive deterioration of its

condition and mainly its brain function.

 

This deterioration may be fast, or may slowly inch in until the

parents notice that something is very wrong with their child and then

rush it to the doctor or hospital. Interestingly, they are invariably

asked when the baby was immunised. On learning that the baby was

indeed " immunised " , the parents may be reassured that its symptoms

will all clear up. They are sent home with the advice, " Give your baby

Panadol " . If they persist in considering the baby's reaction serious,

they may be labelled as anxious parents or trouble-makers. So the

parents go home, and the child remains in a serious condition or dies.

 

Until recently, the vaccine death would have just been labelled

" sudden infant death " , particularly if the symptoms and pathological

findings were minimal. However, nowadays, with an alarmingly

increasing frequency, the parents (or at least one of them, usually

the father) may be accused of shaking the baby to death. The accused

may even " confess " to shaking the baby, giving the reason, for

example, that having found the baby lying still and not breathing

and/or with a glazed look in its eyes, they shook it gently-as is only

natural-in their attempt to revive it. Sometimes, ironically, they

save the baby's life, only to be accused of causing the internal

injuries that made the baby stop breathing in the first place, and

which in fact were already present when they shook the baby to revive it.

 

No matter what the parents say or do, everything is construed against

them. If they are crying and emotional, they will be accused of

showing signs of guilt. If they manage to remain composed and

unemotional, they will be called calculating and controlling-and

guilty because of that.

 

In another scenario the distraught parents try to describe the

symptoms to an attending doctor in hospital or a surgery but are

totally at a loss to understand what has happened to their baby. To

their shock and dismay, they later discover that while they were

describing the observed symptoms, the doctor or another staff member

was writing three ominous words in the medical record: shaken baby

syndrome.

 

Many of these parents end up indicted and even sentenced to prison for

a crime that somebody else committed. Some of these cases have been

resolved by acquittal on appeal or have been won based on expert

reports demonstrating vaccines as the cause of the observed injuries

or death. However, only God and a good lawyer can help those parents

or care-givers who happen to be uneducated, or have a criminal record,

particularly for violence, or have a previous history of a similar

" unexplained " death of a baby in their care, or, worse still, a

vaccine-injured baby with a broken arm or fractured skull. More and

more often, the unfortunate parents are given the option of a " deal " :

if they confess and/or plead guilty, they will get only a couple of

years in prison; but if they don't, they may end up getting 20 years.

 

I was told by a social worker in the United States that many foster

parents are rotting in US prisons. First, they are forced to vaccinate

their charges, and then, when side effects or death occur, they are

accused of causing them.

 

Inevitably the possibility exists that infanticide or child abuse is

involved in some of the cases. However, there is no determinable

reason why so many parents or other care-givers would suddenly begin

to behave like this. It is incredibly insensitive and callous to

immediately suspect and accuse the distraught, innocent parents of

harming their own baby.

MEDICAL STUDIES

 

Let's now have a look at medical literature dealing with shaken baby

syndrome and child abuse.

 

Caffey (1972, 1974)1,2 described the " whiplash shaken infant syndrome "

as a result of manual shaking by the extremities with whiplash-induced

intracranial and intraocular bleedings, linked with permanent brain

damage and mental retardation. He referred to his own paper, published

almost 30 years prior to the above-quoted papers, which described what

he called " the original six battered babies in 1945 " . The essential

elements in this description were subdural haematomas, intraocular

bleedings and multiple traction changes in the long bones. These

findings became a benchmark of the " evidence " that a child had been

shaken before developing these signs.

 

Reece (1993)3 analysed fatal child abuse and sudden infant death

syndrome (SIDS) and considered the critical diagnostic decisions. He

emphasised that distinguishing between an unexpected infant death due

to SIDS and one due to child abuse challenges paediatricians, family

physicians, pathologists and child protection agencies. On the one

hand, they must report instances of suspected child abuse and protect

other children in the family; and on the other, all agree that the

knowledge in this area is incomplete and ambiguity exists in many cases.

 

Duhaime et al. (1992)4 wrote that " patients with intradural

haemorrhage and no history of trauma must also have clinical and

radiographic findings of blunt impact to the head, unexplained

long-bone fractures or other soft tissue inflicted injury, in order to

completely eliminate the possibility of spontaneous intracranial

haemorrhage such as might rarely occur from a vascular malformation or

a bleeding disorder " .

 

While it is not disputed that some parents and care-givers may cause

the above injuries by mistreating infants, one must take great care in

interpreting similar pathological findings of injuries caused by other

insults which have nothing to do with mechanical injuries and

mistreatments of infants.

 

I shall never forget the father of a 10-month-old infant, who, after

being acquitted on appeal of causing shaken baby syndrome, said words

to the effect, " We still don't know what killed our baby " . It did not

occur to them and nobody told them that it was the vaccine that killed

their baby.

 

So what else can cause brain swelling, intracranial bleeding, ocular

retinal haemorrhages, and broken skull and other bones? Ever since the

mass vaccination of infants began, reports of serious brain,

cardiovascular, metabolic and other injuries started filling pages of

medical journals.

 

Indeed, vaccines like the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine are

actually used to induce encephalo-myelitis (experimental allergic

encephalomyelitis) in laboratory animals (Levine and Sowinski, 19735).

This is characterised by brain swelling and haemorrhaging of an extent

similar to that caused by mechanical injuries (Iwasa et al., 19856).

 

Munoz et al. (1981)7 studied biological activities of crystalline

pertussigen-a toxin produced by Bordetella pertussis, the causative

agent in pertussis and an active ingredient in all types of pertussis

vaccines whether whole-cell or acellular-in a number of laboratory

experiments with mice. They established that minute amounts of

pertussigen induced hypersensitivity to histamine (still detected 84

days after administration), leucocytosis, production of insulin,

increased production of IgE and G1 antibodies to hen egg albumin,

susceptibility to anaphylactic shock and vascular permeability of

striated muscle. A dose of 546 nanograms per mouse killed 50 per cent

of mice. Typically, the deaths were delayed. When a dose of five

micrograms of pertussigen was administered, most mice did not gain

weight and died by day five; the last mouse died on day eight. A

one-microgram dose of one preparation killed four out of five mice.

They first gained weight from days two to five, but then remained at

nearly constant weight until they died. Even the one that survived for

16 days (it was then killed) experienced crises (stopped putting on

weight) on the days when the others died. Had that one lived longer,

it might have died on day 24. This is another of the critical

days-identified by Cotwatch research into babies' breathing-on which

babies have flare-ups of stress-induced breathing, or die, after

vaccination.

 

Interestingly, when laboratory animals develop symptoms of vaccine

damage and then die, it is never considered coincidental; but when

children develop the same symptoms and/or die after the administration

of the same vaccines, it is considered coincidental or caused by their

parents or other carers. When all this fails, then it is considered

" mysterious " .

 

Delayed reactions are the norm rather than the exception. This has

been explained as a consequence of an immunological intravascular

complexing of particulate antigen (whole-cell or acellular pertussis

organisms) (Wilkins, 19888). However, vaccinators have great

difficulty with this, and as a rule draw largely irrelevant timelines

for accepting the causal link between administration of vaccines and

onset of reactions-usually 24 hours or up to seven days. However, most

reactions to vaccines are delayed, and most cases are then considered

unrelated to vaccination.

 

One only has to peruse a product insert of hepatitis B vaccine to see

that besides local reactions, a number of neurological signs may

occur, such as paraesthesia and paralysis (including Guillain-Barre

syndrome, optic neuritis and multiple sclerosis).

 

Devin et al. (1996)9 described retinal haemorrhages which are

emphatically being considered the sure sign of child abuse, even

though these can be and are caused by vaccines. Goetting and Sowa

(1990)10 described retinal haemorrhage which occurred after

cardiopulmonary resuscitation in children.

 

Bulging fontanelle due to brain swelling was described by Jacob and

Mannino (1979)11 as a direct reaction to the DPT vaccine. They

described a case of a seven-month-old baby who, nine hours after the

third DPT vaccination, developed a bulging anterior fontanelle and

became febrile and irritable.

 

Bruising and easy bleeding is one of the characteristic signs of the

blood clotting disorder, thrombocytopenia-a recognised side-effect of

many vaccines. Its first signs are easy bruising and bleeding and

petechial (spotlike) rash. Thrombo-cytopenia may result in brain and

other haemorrhages (Woerner et al., 198112).

 

The convulsions which follow one in 1,750 doses of the DPT vaccines

(Cody et al., 198113) can result in unexplained falls in bigger

children who can sit up or stand, which may cause linear cracks of the

skull and other fractures. When one considers that babies are supposed

to get a minimum of three doses of DPT and OPV (oral polio vaccine),

then the risk of developing a convulsion is one in 580, and with five

doses the risk rises to one in 350. This means that a great number of

babies develop convulsions after vaccination between the ages of two

to six months, at about 18 months, and at five to six years. The

convulsions often occur when the parent or another carer is not

looking, and the child, while standing or sitting on the floor, simply

falls backwards or onto its arm.

 

All these signs can be misdiagnosed as a result of mechanical

injuries, particularly so because vaccinators simply refuse to admit

that vaccines cause serious injuries, or they only pay lip service to

the damage caused by the pernicious routine of up to 18 vaccines with

which babies are supposed to be injected within six months of birth.

 

The court system should therefore be more open to the documented

viable and alternative explanations of the observed injuries, and be

more wary of the obviously biased statements of the provaccination

" experts " , that nothing else but vigorous shaking can cause retinal

haemorrhages-even though such statements only reflect their ignorance.

Such " experts " then go home and continue advising parents to

vaccinate, and thus, with impunity, they cause more and more cases of

vaccine-injured babies and children.

THE UK MEASLES EPIDEMIC THAT NEVER WAS

 

The term " Munchausen syndrome per proxy " has been used to identify

individuals who kill or otherwise harm a child in order to attract

attention to themselves. The term was used in many instances in the

1980s when earlier attempts were fashioned to explain some of the

cases of sudden infant death.

 

According to Meadow (1995),14 " Munchausen syndrome per proxy " is

flamboyant terminology originally used for journalistic reasons. It

was a term commonly applied to adults who presented themselves with

false illness stories, just like the fictional Baron von Munchausen

who travelled on cannon balls. The term is now used to apply to

parents of children who present with false illness stories fabricated

by a parent or someone else in that position.

 

While the term may have some validity in describing this special form

of child abuse in the documented cases of parents slowly poisoning

their child or exposing it to unnecessary and often dangerous and

invasive medical treatments, more recently it became a way for some

doctors to camouflage the real observed side-effects of especially

measles (M), measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and measles-rubella (MR)

vaccinations in the UK. Many thousands of British children (up to

15,000 in my considered opinion) developed signs of autism usually

associated with bowel symptoms after being given the above vaccines in

1994.

 

The Bulletin of Medical Ethics published two articles, in 1994 and

1995, dealing with this problem. The October 1994 article ( " Is your

measles jab really necessary? " ) stated that during November 1994 the

UK Government would be running a mass campaign of measles vaccination

with the intention of reaching every child between the ages of five

and sixteen.

 

It claimed that the purpose of this campaign was to prevent an

epidemic that would otherwise occur in 1995, with up to 200,000 cases

and up to 50 deaths. The article also showed that since 1990 there

have been only 8,000 to 10,000 cases of measles each year in England

and Wales, and that coincidentally there was an epidemic of only about

5,000 cases in Scotland in the winter of 1993-94. Between May and

August 1994 the notification rate in England and Wales dropped

sharply, so there was nothing that clearly suggested an imminent epidemic.

 

The nine-page article in the August 1995 issue of BME stated among

other things that on 14 September 1992 the Department of Health (DoH)

hastily withdrew two brands of MMR vaccines following a leak to the

national press about the risk of children developing mumps meningitis

after administration of these vaccines. Both brands contained the

Urabe mumps vaccine strain which had been shown to cause mumps

meningitis in one in 1,044 vaccinees (Yawata, 199415).

 

Based on the epidemiology of measles, there was never going to be a

measles epidemic in 1995 and there was certainly no justification for

concomitant rubella vaccination. The mass campaign was planned as an

experimental alternative to a two-dose schedule of

measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. The UK Government knowingly misled

parents about the need for the campaign and about the relative risks

of measles and measles vaccination. The DoH broke the European Union's

law about contracts and tendering to ensure that specific

pharmaceutical companies were awarded the contracts to provide the

campaign vaccines. All this must have been extremely fortunate for the

drug companies in question, since the supplies of measles and rubella

vaccines-which they'd been left with in 1992 and for which there was

virtually no demand-were soon to go out of date.

 

The vaccination campaign achieved very little. Indeed, in 1995 there

were twice as many cases of serologically confirmed rubella in England

and Wales as in the same period of 1994: 412 cases against 217. Six

cases of rubella in pregnant women were reported. The data indicate

that more measles cases were notified in the first quarter of 1995

(n=11) than in the first quarter of 1994 (n=9). Despite this, there

were several claims from government doctors that measles transmission

had stopped among school children. Higson (1995)16 wrote that two DoH

officials tried to justify the success of the measles and rubella

vaccination campaign by using data that cannot be used to give

year-on-year comparison for measles infections. Indeed, he wrote that

the data collected by the public health departments on the measles

notifications show no indication of benefit from the highly expensive

campaign. The British government spent some £20 million purchasing the

near-expiry-date measles and rubella vaccines.

 

Some 1,500 parents are now participating in a class action over the

damage (most often the bowel problems and autism) suffered by their

children.

 

Wakefield et al. (1998)17 published a paper in the Lancet in which

they reported on a consecutive series of children with chronic

enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder which occurred 1

to 14 days (median, 6.3 days) after M, MMR and MR vaccinations. They

also quoted the " opioid excess " theory of autism, that autistic

disorders result from the incomplete breakdown and excessive

absorption of gut-derived peptides from foods, including barley, rye,

oats and milk/dairy product casein, caused by vaccine injury to the

bowel. These peptides may exert central-opioid effects, directly or

through the formation of ligands with peptidase enzymes required for

the breakdown of endogenous central-nervous-system opioids, leading to

disruption of normal neuroregulation and brain development by

endogenous encephalins and endorphins.

 

A number of British parents approached me last year and complained

that their children had developed behavioural and bowel problems after

vaccination (as above), and that instead of getting help from their

doctors they were told that they just imagined the symptoms or caused

them in order to attract attention to themselves. The term " Munchausen

syndrome per proxy " was used. It caused a lot of hardship and marital

problems and did nothing for the victims of vaccination. Their stories

were horrifying.

EDUCATION ON VACCINE DANGERS

 

In summary, the trail of vaccine disasters is growing. Not only do

vaccinations do nothing to improve the health of children and other

recipients, they cause serious health problems and hardship for their

families by victimising the victims of vaccines.

 

Parents of small children of vaccination age should use their own

judgement and should educate themselves about the real dangers of this

unscientific, useless, harmful and invasive medical procedure. No

matter how much vaccines are pushed, vaccination is not compulsory in

Australia (though the Liberal Federal Minister for Health has

announced his plan to make it so in the near future-which, to me,

sounded more like a threat at the time), and parents do not have to

vaccinate their children. Those parents who think they are safe when

they follow the official propaganda may be in for a rude awakening:

they may be accused of causing the harm which resulted from vaccination.

 

I also urge medical practitioners to use their own judgement and

observations and study the trail of disaster created by vaccination.

They should listen when their patients and especially the parents of

small children report side effects of vaccinations.

 

The inability to listen and observe the truth has created a breed of

medical practitioners who inflict illness rather than healing, who

become accusers rather than helpers, and who are ultimately just

covering up-whether consciously or unknowingly, but with frighteningly

increasing frequency-for the disasters created by their useless and

deadly concoctions and sanctimonious ministrations. Maybe the term

" Munchausen boomerang " should be introduced to describe those members

of the medical profession who victimise the victims of their own

harmful interventions (vaccines in particular).

 

I would like to remind those who may still think the risks of vaccine

injury are outweighed by the benefits from vaccines, that infectious

diseases are beneficial for children by priming and maturing their

immune system. These diseases also represent developmental milestones.

Having measles not only results in a lifelong specific immunity to

measles, but also a non-specific immunity to a host of other, more

serious conditions: degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage,

certain tumours, skin diseases and immunoreactive diseases (Ronne,

198518). Having mumps has been found to protect against ovarian cancer

(West, 196619). So there is no need to try to prevent children from

getting infectious diseases.

 

Moreover, according to orthodox immunological research, vaccines do

not immunise, they sensitise; they make the recipients more

susceptible to diseases (Craighead, 197520). It is the vaccinated

children who suffer chronic ill health (asthma and constant ear

infections being two of many vaccine side effects); who develop side

effects to diseases like pneumonia or atypical measles (which carries

a 12 to 15 per cent mortality risk); or who may have difficulty going

through even such innocuous diseases as chicken pox because their

immune system has been suppressed by vaccines.

 

In my closing remark, I urge parents to ask themselves a few

questions. Have you noticed how much the vaccines are pushed by

threats, coercion, victimisation and monetary punitive measures, with

parents then being accused of causing what are clearly side effects of

the vaccines? Would you succumb to the same type of pressure if any

other product were pushed with the same vengeance? Wouldn't you be

suspicious and ask what's wrong with the product if it has to be

forced upon consumers? Why do so many informed parents, as well as

many informed medical doctors, now refuse vaccination? Shouldn't you

be suspicious of a medical system which forces itself upon you, which

won't accept responsibility for vaccine injuries and unlawfully tries

to take away your constitutional, democratic and legal right to have

control over your own and your children's health without being hassled

and victimised?

Endnotes:

 

1. Caffey, J. (1972), " On the theory and practice of shaking infants " ,

Am. J. Dis. Child 124, August 1972.

 

2. Caffey, J. (1974), " The whiplash shaken infant syndrome: manual

shaking by the extremities with whiplash-induced intracranial and

intraocular bleeding, linked with residual permanent brain damage and

mental retardation " , Pediatrics 54(4):396-403.

 

3. Reece, R. M. (1993), " Fatal child abuse and sudden infant death

syndrome " , Pediatrics 91:423-429.

 

4. Duhaime, A. C., Alario, A. J., Lewander, W. J. et al. (1992), " Head

injury in very young children mechanisms, injury types and

opthalmologic findings in 100 hospitalized patients younger than two

years of age " , Pediatrics 90(2):179-185.

 

5. Levine, S. and Sowinski, R. (1973), " Hyperacute allergic

encephalomyelitis " , Am. J. Pathol. 73:247-260.

 

6. Iwasa, A., Ishida, S., Akama, K. (1985), " Swelling of the brain

caused by pertussis vaccine: its quantitative determination and the

responsible factors in the vaccine " , Japan J. Med. Sci. Biol. 38:53-65.

 

7. Munoz, J. J., Aral, H., Bergman, R. K. and Sadowski, P. (1981),

" Biological activities of crystalline pertussigen from Bordetella

pertussis " , Infection and Immunity, September 1981, pp. 820-826.

 

8. Wilkins, J. (1988), " What is 'significant' and DTP reactions "

(letter), Pediatrics 81(6):912-913.

 

9. Devin, F., Roques, G., Disdier, P., Rodor, F. and Weiller, P. J.

(1996), " Occlusion of central retinal vein after hepatitis B

vaccination " , Lancet 347:1626, 8 June 1996.

 

10. Goetting, M. G. and Sowa, B. (1990), " Retinal haemorrhage after

cardiopulmonary resuscitation in children: an etiologic evaluation " ,

Pediatrics 85(4):585-588.

 

11. Jacob, J. and Mannino, F. (1979), " Increased intracranial pressure

after diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis immunization " , Am. J. Dis.

Child 133:217-218.

 

12. Woerner, S. J., Abildgaard, C. F. and French, B. N. (1981),

" Intracranial haemorrhage in children with idiopathic thrombocytopenic

purpura " , Pediatrics 67(4):453-460.

 

13. Cody, C. L., Baraff, L. J., Cherry, J. D., Marcy, S. C. and

Manclark (1981), " Nature and rates of adverse reactions associated

with DTP and DT immunizations in infants and children " , Pediatrics

68(5):650-660.

 

14. Meadow, R. (1995), " What is and what is not 'Munchausen syndrome

per proxy'? " , Arch. Dis. Child 72:534-538.

 

15. Yawata, Makoto (1994), " Japan's troubles with

measles-mumps-rubella vaccine " , Lancet 343:105-106, 8 January 1994.

 

16. Higson, N. (1995), " Evaluating the measles immunisation campaign " ,

British Medical Journal 311:62.

 

17. Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J. et al.

(1998), " Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and

pervasive developmental disorder in children " , Lancet 351:637-641, 28

February 1998.

 

18. Ronne, T. (1985), " Measles virus infection without rash in

childhood is related to disease in adult life " , Lancet, 5 January

1985, pp. 1-5.

 

19. West, R. O. (1966), " Epidemiologic studies of malignancies of the

ovaries " , Cancer, July 1966, pp. 1001-07.

 

20. Craighead, J. E. (1975), " Report of a workshop: disease

accentuation after immunisation with inactivated microbial vaccines " ,

J. Infect. Dis. 1312(6):749-754.

About the Author:

 

Viera Scheibner, PhD, is a retired principal research scientist with a

doctorate in natural sciences. During her distinguished career she

published three books and some 90 scientific papers in refereed

scientific journals.

 

Since the mid-1980s when she helped develop the Cotwatch breathing

monitor for babies at risk of cot death (sudden infant death syndrome,

or SIDS), she has done extensive research into vaccines and

vaccinations and in 1993 published her book, Vaccination: The Medical

Assault on the Immune System.

 

Dr Scheibner is often asked by lawyers to provide expert reports for

vaccine-damage court cases, and she regularly conducts lectures. Her

previous articles for NEXUS covered the SIDS/vaccines link (2/05) and

the brain-eating bugs/vaccines connection (3/03).