angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
Father sentenced to life in prison for 'murder' after daughter dies following MMR vaccine
moostraks
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 9,640
And those who are hesitant to jump on the bandwagon of a modest risk of fatality are idiots because no level of proof of the dangers seems to be acceptable to folks like you when it comes to vaccines. That is logical. Some of us aren't keen with playing russian roulette and in the case of vaccines it is between a rock and a hard place that parents are forced to make this choice and pray they have chosen correctly. I don't take kindly to people who smear my reputation because I disagree with their assessments of the risks esp. when they corporations who manufacture these products have been showed to be run by unethical individuals and there is a financial interest in misconstruing data regard the side effects.
http://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-news/may-2011/in-memoriam--infant-deaths---vaccination.aspx
From:
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
Multiple Vaccinations and the Shaken Baby Syndrome
F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
Child abuse is a terrible crime and the failure to recognize it is unforgivable. An erroneous diagnosis of inflicted head trauma is just as tragic and the resulting destruction of a family is one of the gravest injustices of modern times. Many have recently questioned the existence of the so-called “Shaken Baby Syndrome” and the concept that the last caretaker must have been guilty. Careful reviews often uncover relevant findings that were missed or ignored. Recent pediatric vaccinations have been suspected as precipitating factors. A recent combination of seven antigens is the focus of this investigation.
The problem
I have recently reviewed several pediatric records in order to determine whether infants diagnosed with “Shaken Baby Syndrome” (SBS) had underlying medical conditions that could explain the findings attributed to inflicted trauma.
The similarity between four cases intrigued me and prompted this investigation. Although geographically distant, the four infants (two boys and two girls) had much in common. They all had complicated past histories and medical conditions that could have very well explained their pathological findings. They had not been abused as far as I could tell and they had received the same three vaccines within three weeks of their apparent life-threatening event (ALTE).
The three vaccines in question were
•A 5 in 1 vaccine combination
•A HIB conjugate vaccine
•A 7-valent pediatric pneumococcal vaccine
The 5 in 1 vaccine combination was licensed in the United States in December 2002. It contains the diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis vaccines in addition to the hepatitis B and the inactivated-polio-virus vaccines. Infants receiving the recommended dose of vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age, after the neonatal dose of hepatitis B vaccine, would be receiving four doses of hepatitis B vaccine. The pentavalent vaccine is thimerosal-free but contains more aluminum per dose than any other vaccine. The patient information pamphlet published in 2004 states that “Brain or nervous system disease, collapse or periods of unconsciousness or lack of awareness and seizures have occurred with other pertussis-containing vaccines. Other serious events including death have occurred after vaccinations; however, these risks are extremely small…
Both the DTaP and Hepatitis B components of the vaccine had been previously licensed and used in the United States. The IPV component had been used in several European countries since 1996 but had not been approved or licensed by the FDA.
The HIB (Haemophilus influenzae B) vaccines available in the United States since 1990 are produced by several manufacturers. They are conjugate vaccines prepared by adding a diphtheria-, meningococcal-, or tetanus-related component to the HIB polysaccharide vaccine to improve immunogenicity. For the purpose of this report, they will not be further identified because they differ ever so slightly and are, in fact, interchangeable. The HIB vaccine primary series is administered at 2, 4 and 6 months of age.
The 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine was licensed in the U.S. in early 2000 and the primary series is also usually administered at 2, 4 and 6 months of age.
The thimerosal-free mega-combination contains 1200 mcg of aluminum salts as an adjuvant (850 mcg in the 5 in 1 vaccine, 225 mcg in the HIB vaccine and 125mcg in the pneumococcal vaccine). It is presently recommended for the primary series because it provides seven antigens in only three injections.
According to the FDA, “Chapter 21 of the US Code of Federal Regulations [610.15(a)] limits the amount of aluminum in biological products, including vaccines, to 0.85 mg/dose.” [http://tinyurl.com/2eou96]
The Investigation
Two VAERS searches were conducted and the findings were carefully tabulated.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a cooperative project of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is essentially a post-marketing surveillance program, collecting information about side effects that occur after the administration of U.S. licensed vaccines.
VAERS provides a “nationwide mechanism by which adverse events following immunization may be reported, analyzed and made available to the public. It also provides a vehicle for disseminating vaccine safety-related information to parents/guardians, healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, state vaccine programs and other constituencies.”
The FDA and the CDC point out that “When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. VAERS is interested in all potential associations between vaccines and adverse events. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.”
There is no argument with the last sentence but it should be noted that:
1.On July 16, 1999, the manufacturer of RotaShield ®, a rotavirus vaccine, suspended further distribution and administration of the vaccine “until more data on the potential association between vaccine administration and intussusception became available. The action was taken in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration following a recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to postpone administration because of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of a possible association between the use of RotaShield and the development of intussusception.” The vaccine was withdrawn from the market on October 15, 1999.
2.[http://www.fda.gov/cber/recalls/rota101599.htm ] On September 30, 2005, the FDA and CDC alerted consumers and health care providers to five reports of Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS) following administration of a new Meningococcal Conjugate Vaccine A, C, Y, and W135. Because of the serious nature of the adverse events, the two agencies asked anyone with knowledge of any possible cases of GBS occurring after vaccination “to report them to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to help the agencies further evaluate the matter.”
3.[http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2005/NEW01238.html ] In testimony on May 18, 1999, in front of a Congressional sub-committee, Susan Ellenberg PhD, Director of the Biostatistics and Epidemiology Division of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the FDA stated that “Although VAERS has methodological limitations inherent in passive surveillance systems, VAERS is essential to the U.S. vaccine safety monitoring system. It is the only surveillance system which covers the entire U.S. population and includes the largest number of case reports of events temporally associated with vaccination in the U.S. It provides timely availability of data from a geographically diverse population, allowing rapid detection of possible new, unusual or rare adverse events. Such detection generates hypotheses that may then be tested in other databases.”
4.[http://www.fda.gov/ola/1999/vaers.html ] Researchers from the FDA, the CDC and the NIH (The National Institutes of Health) have repeatedly published research papers based on VAERS findings in peer-reviewed medical journals.
It would certainly be a colossal loss of funds and effort if the valuable information revealed by this, the best-supervised post-marketing surveillance program in the world, is discounted, just because of a small percentage of clearly flawed reports. Those of us who are well-acquainted with the program and who regularly review submitted reports have no difficulty interpreting the information and identifying any errors.
Relative to this investigation, reports to VAERS have the following limitations:
1.Only a small proportion of adverse events is ever reported;
2.The parents of the “SBS victim” are usually too busy defending themselves and very often not aware of the potential role of the recent vaccinations;
3.The physicians involved in the care of the “shaken” infants:
•Rarely inquire about recent vaccinations and or promptly discount any role they could have played.
•Usually jump to the conclusion that every subdural or retinal hemorrhage and every fracture or pseudo-fracture must have been due to shaking and abuse and refuse to consider other plausible causes or differential diagnoses.
•Tend to be less informed about the adverse events of pediatric vaccines than about their benefits.
•Are therefore most unlikely to take the time to complete a VAERS report.
•“DTAPHE” is the official abbreviation of the 5 in 1 vaccine (DTaP + HePB + IPV) in VAERS and “PNC” is the official abbreviation of the heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. The HIB conjugate vaccine is usually listed as “HIBV”.
The 2005 VAERS Search
The first-conducted VAERS search was limited to reports received during the first 334 days of 2005 (January1 through November 30). There were few reports related to vaccinations administered in 2004 and several adverse events occurring in 2005 but only reported in 2006 were not included. Most often DTAPHE, HIB V and PNC were administered at the same time but in separate syringes.
As previously noted, it would have been difficult to find reliable information on the post-vaccinal incidence of retinal and subdural hemorrhages, the two findings that are considered by many as pathognomonic of SBS. The search was therefore focused on other findings often seen in alleged “child abuse by shaking”, namely apnea, cardio-respiratory arrest, convulsions and deaths.
A total of 659 reports to VAERS concerning DTAPHE were filed in the first 11 months of 2005. In 486 (74%) of the cases, the infant had received HIB and PNC on the same day.
There were 31 death reports related to the administration of DTAPHE. In 28 cases (90%), the infant had received all three vaccines. In two cases, the babies had received DTAPHE and HIB, and in one case, just DTAPHE. (See Table I below.)
There were 22 reports of apnea, 45 reports of seizures and two reports of encephalopathy (reports 233066 and 233419). Ten reports cited SIDS as the cause of death.
In summary, there were approximately two reports per day of events following DTAPHE vaccination alone or with other vaccines. One “SIDS” death and two other infant deaths were reported each month, on average.
Continued...
F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
Child abuse is a terrible crime and the failure to recognize it is unforgivable. An erroneous diagnosis of inflicted head trauma is just as tragic and the resulting destruction of a family is one of the gravest injustices of modern times. Many have recently questioned the existence of the so-called “Shaken Baby Syndrome” and the concept that the last caretaker must have been guilty. Careful reviews often uncover relevant findings that were missed or ignored. Recent pediatric vaccinations have been suspected as precipitating factors. A recent combination of seven antigens is the focus of this investigation.
The problem
I have recently reviewed several pediatric records in order to determine whether infants diagnosed with “Shaken Baby Syndrome” (SBS) had underlying medical conditions that could explain the findings attributed to inflicted trauma.
The similarity between four cases intrigued me and prompted this investigation. Although geographically distant, the four infants (two boys and two girls) had much in common. They all had complicated past histories and medical conditions that could have very well explained their pathological findings. They had not been abused as far as I could tell and they had received the same three vaccines within three weeks of their apparent life-threatening event (ALTE).
The three vaccines in question were
•A 5 in 1 vaccine combination
•A HIB conjugate vaccine
•A 7-valent pediatric pneumococcal vaccine
The 5 in 1 vaccine combination was licensed in the United States in December 2002. It contains the diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis vaccines in addition to the hepatitis B and the inactivated-polio-virus vaccines. Infants receiving the recommended dose of vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age, after the neonatal dose of hepatitis B vaccine, would be receiving four doses of hepatitis B vaccine. The pentavalent vaccine is thimerosal-free but contains more aluminum per dose than any other vaccine. The patient information pamphlet published in 2004 states that “Brain or nervous system disease, collapse or periods of unconsciousness or lack of awareness and seizures have occurred with other pertussis-containing vaccines. Other serious events including death have occurred after vaccinations; however, these risks are extremely small…
Both the DTaP and Hepatitis B components of the vaccine had been previously licensed and used in the United States. The IPV component had been used in several European countries since 1996 but had not been approved or licensed by the FDA.
The HIB (Haemophilus influenzae B) vaccines available in the United States since 1990 are produced by several manufacturers. They are conjugate vaccines prepared by adding a diphtheria-, meningococcal-, or tetanus-related component to the HIB polysaccharide vaccine to improve immunogenicity. For the purpose of this report, they will not be further identified because they differ ever so slightly and are, in fact, interchangeable. The HIB vaccine primary series is administered at 2, 4 and 6 months of age.
The 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine was licensed in the U.S. in early 2000 and the primary series is also usually administered at 2, 4 and 6 months of age.
The thimerosal-free mega-combination contains 1200 mcg of aluminum salts as an adjuvant (850 mcg in the 5 in 1 vaccine, 225 mcg in the HIB vaccine and 125mcg in the pneumococcal vaccine). It is presently recommended for the primary series because it provides seven antigens in only three injections.
According to the FDA, “Chapter 21 of the US Code of Federal Regulations [610.15(a)] limits the amount of aluminum in biological products, including vaccines, to 0.85 mg/dose.” [http://tinyurl.com/2eou96]
The Investigation
Two VAERS searches were conducted and the findings were carefully tabulated.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a cooperative project of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is essentially a post-marketing surveillance program, collecting information about side effects that occur after the administration of U.S. licensed vaccines.
VAERS provides a “nationwide mechanism by which adverse events following immunization may be reported, analyzed and made available to the public. It also provides a vehicle for disseminating vaccine safety-related information to parents/guardians, healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, state vaccine programs and other constituencies.”
The FDA and the CDC point out that “When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. VAERS is interested in all potential associations between vaccines and adverse events. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.”
There is no argument with the last sentence but it should be noted that:
1.On July 16, 1999, the manufacturer of RotaShield ®, a rotavirus vaccine, suspended further distribution and administration of the vaccine “until more data on the potential association between vaccine administration and intussusception became available. The action was taken in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration following a recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to postpone administration because of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of a possible association between the use of RotaShield and the development of intussusception.” The vaccine was withdrawn from the market on October 15, 1999.
2.[http://www.fda.gov/cber/recalls/rota101599.htm ] On September 30, 2005, the FDA and CDC alerted consumers and health care providers to five reports of Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS) following administration of a new Meningococcal Conjugate Vaccine A, C, Y, and W135. Because of the serious nature of the adverse events, the two agencies asked anyone with knowledge of any possible cases of GBS occurring after vaccination “to report them to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to help the agencies further evaluate the matter.”
3.[http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2005/NEW01238.html ] In testimony on May 18, 1999, in front of a Congressional sub-committee, Susan Ellenberg PhD, Director of the Biostatistics and Epidemiology Division of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the FDA stated that “Although VAERS has methodological limitations inherent in passive surveillance systems, VAERS is essential to the U.S. vaccine safety monitoring system. It is the only surveillance system which covers the entire U.S. population and includes the largest number of case reports of events temporally associated with vaccination in the U.S. It provides timely availability of data from a geographically diverse population, allowing rapid detection of possible new, unusual or rare adverse events. Such detection generates hypotheses that may then be tested in other databases.”
4.[http://www.fda.gov/ola/1999/vaers.html ] Researchers from the FDA, the CDC and the NIH (The National Institutes of Health) have repeatedly published research papers based on VAERS findings in peer-reviewed medical journals.
It would certainly be a colossal loss of funds and effort if the valuable information revealed by this, the best-supervised post-marketing surveillance program in the world, is discounted, just because of a small percentage of clearly flawed reports. Those of us who are well-acquainted with the program and who regularly review submitted reports have no difficulty interpreting the information and identifying any errors.
Relative to this investigation, reports to VAERS have the following limitations:
1.Only a small proportion of adverse events is ever reported;
2.The parents of the “SBS victim” are usually too busy defending themselves and very often not aware of the potential role of the recent vaccinations;
3.The physicians involved in the care of the “shaken” infants:
•Rarely inquire about recent vaccinations and or promptly discount any role they could have played.
•Usually jump to the conclusion that every subdural or retinal hemorrhage and every fracture or pseudo-fracture must have been due to shaking and abuse and refuse to consider other plausible causes or differential diagnoses.
•Tend to be less informed about the adverse events of pediatric vaccines than about their benefits.
•Are therefore most unlikely to take the time to complete a VAERS report.
•“DTAPHE” is the official abbreviation of the 5 in 1 vaccine (DTaP + HePB + IPV) in VAERS and “PNC” is the official abbreviation of the heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. The HIB conjugate vaccine is usually listed as “HIBV”.
The 2005 VAERS Search
The first-conducted VAERS search was limited to reports received during the first 334 days of 2005 (January1 through November 30). There were few reports related to vaccinations administered in 2004 and several adverse events occurring in 2005 but only reported in 2006 were not included. Most often DTAPHE, HIB V and PNC were administered at the same time but in separate syringes.
As previously noted, it would have been difficult to find reliable information on the post-vaccinal incidence of retinal and subdural hemorrhages, the two findings that are considered by many as pathognomonic of SBS. The search was therefore focused on other findings often seen in alleged “child abuse by shaking”, namely apnea, cardio-respiratory arrest, convulsions and deaths.
A total of 659 reports to VAERS concerning DTAPHE were filed in the first 11 months of 2005. In 486 (74%) of the cases, the infant had received HIB and PNC on the same day.
There were 31 death reports related to the administration of DTAPHE. In 28 cases (90%), the infant had received all three vaccines. In two cases, the babies had received DTAPHE and HIB, and in one case, just DTAPHE. (See Table I below.)
There were 22 reports of apnea, 45 reports of seizures and two reports of encephalopathy (reports 233066 and 233419). Ten reports cited SIDS as the cause of death.
In summary, there were approximately two reports per day of events following DTAPHE vaccination alone or with other vaccines. One “SIDS” death and two other infant deaths were reported each month, on average.
Continued...
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
Dangerous Vaccines Found to Cause Symptoms of Shaken Baby Syndrome
Over the years, parents have more and more commonly been blamed of child abuse if their child is diagnosed with the “triad” of injuries associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) after receiving a vaccine. The “triad” includes bleeding inside the brain, bleeding behind the eyes and swelling or inflammation of the brain.
When a medical professional suspects that a baby has been violently shaken, they will examine the baby for the “triad” of injuries associated with SBS. These are subdural haematoma (bleeds inside the brain), retinal haemorrhages (bleeds behind the eyes) and cerebral edema (swelling or inflammation inside the brain).
The Triad of Injuries
Bleeding Inside the Brain
Norma Guthkelch, a retired neurosurgeon, wrote the first description of Shaken Baby Syndrome in 1971 in his paper Infantile Subdural Haematoma and its Relationship to Whiplash Injuries, in which he discussed 23 cases of strongly suspected parental assault on children under the age of three. He concluded that:
“It has been shown that there is a discrepancy between the frequency of subdural hematoma occurring in battered children and of the same condition complicating head injuries of other origin, the incidence in the former being unexpectedly high, though in most of those in whom there was no actual skull fracture there was not even clear evidence of the application of direct violence to the head. This suggests that when the head is not the main target of attack the likely mechanism of production of the hematoma is one in which repeated sheering strains of one sort or another are applied to the cranial contents.
It follows that since all cases of infantile subdural hematoma are best assumed to be traumatic unless proved otherwise it would be unwise to disregard the possibility that one of these has been caused by serious violence, repetition of which may prove fatal, simply on the basis that there are no gross fractures or other radiological bone changes in the limbs, nor any fractures of the skull.” [1]
However, the violent shaking of a young child is not the only cause of the triad of injuries. These injuries can also occur after short falls, illnesses such as encephalitis and meningitis, birth trauma, vitamin deficiencies and genetic illnesses such as brittle bone syndrome. These causes are identified on the British Medical Journal’s online guide Best Practice: Abusive Head Trauma in Infants. [2]
Bleeding Behind the Eyes
The paper written by attorney Dermot Garrett entitled Overcoming Defense Expert Testimony in Abusive Head Trauma Cases indicates this fact very strongly when the author discusses retinal bleeding on page 35. [3] Garrett writes that a presentation at the 2010 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Annual Meeting analyzed the results of 62 studies of pediatric retinal hemorrhages published since 1965.
Garrett says that all of the children studied were younger than 11 years of age, had undergone a detailed examination by an ophthalmologist and had been diagnosed with retinal hemorrhages due to confirmed accidental head trauma or non-accidental head trauma. The results of the analysis showed that seventy-eight percent of patients with confirmed accidental head trauma had retinal hemorrhages, in comparison to just 5.3 percent of the non-accidental head trauma patients, proving that not all cases of retinal bleeds are necessarily caused by child abuse.
Swelling Inside the Brain
Another cause of the triad of injuries associated with SBS is vaccine-induced meningitis/encephalitis, a severe reaction to vaccinations.
In 2012, Marahendra K. Patel et al. published a paper in the Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics, which discusses the case of a five month-old baby boy diagnosed with suspected post-vaccination encephalopathy following the DPT vaccination. Tests concluded that a reaction to the DPT vaccination was probable and in their discussion, the authors discussed several other worrying cases of similar reactions from India. [4]
In 2010, Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic wrote an extensive paper exposing evidence that she uncovered surrounding many cases in which children developed encephalitis or meningitis after they received vaccinations from as early as 1983, which she says were deliberately covered up by the UK government’s JCVI (Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunization). [5]
Dr. Viera Scheibner mentions vaccine-induced encephalomyelitis, characterized by brain swelling and hemorrhaging, in 1998 when she wrote a paper published in Nexus titled Shaken Baby Syndrome: The Vaccination Link. She had become so worried that parents were being falsely accused after their children had suffered a vaccine injury that she opened her paper by stating:
“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 influenza type B) – shortly before they developed symptoms of illness resulting in serious brain damage or death.” [6]
Finally, Dr. Harold Buttram and F. Edward Yazbak wrote on the subject of false accusations of SBS and vaccine-induced encephalitis in their paper titled Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis: The Story of Baby Alan. [7]
Dr. Buttram opens his paper by stating:
“In the following report Dr. Yazbak and myself have reviewed the case of an infant death which we believe to have been mistakenly diagnosed as shaken baby syndrome, the true cause of death in our opinions having been a vaccine-induced encephalitis. Having carefully followed the case and its developments for nearly a year, the report represents untold numbers of hours of study and investigation into the many technical parameters of the case. From this study we have come to realize that this case is representative of an emerging pattern of increasingly frequent vaccine reactions on the modern scene, which are being overlooked or misdiagnosed by our present health-care system.
The Story of Baby Alan is a poignant one, all the more so because it is something that could happen to any young couple or parent. Although the story is necessarily technical, nevertheless we urge that you read it. If you are a young person contemplating having a family, it is something that could happen to you.”
Despite all of this evidence, however, parents continue to be blamed of shaking their babies before all other possible diagnoses have been fully explored.
The Reid Technique
When SBS or non-accidental head injury is suspected, the police will interview the parents or caregiver who was caring for the child at the time the child became ill. According to parents who have undergone this interview, the interview process is extremely intimidating, and many succumb to the bullying tactics used, either by admitting that they injured their child or by accepting a plea bargain.
This may be due to the use of the ‘Reid Technique,’ a technique which is often used when interviewing a person suspected of shaking their child. [8, 9]
The Reid Technique is used in police departments around the world. It is basically made up of nine steps, and in my opinion, it is put in place to intimidate and force a confession out of innocent people. The nine steps are:
1. The police officer will present the suspect with evidence that they committed the crime. (This evidence can be real or fake.)
2. The officer comes up with a story as to why they believe the suspect committed the crime.
3. If the suspect tries to deny that they committed the crime, the detective will immediately interrupt the suspect.
4. If the suspect tries to give a logical explanation as to why it is not possible for them to have committed the crime, this explanation will be refuted.
5. At this stage, the detective will pretend to be the suspect’s ally.
6. The suspect, at this point, is studied for body language to see if they are about to surrender.
7. The interrogator provides the suspect with contrasting possible motives for the crime.
8. The detective will urge the suspect to talk about the crime.
9. The confession: At this stage the suspect usually feels intimidated and anxious and a confession is taken.
The evidence that Sergeant Christopher Savage, a former police officer, gave to me in an interview last year discussing SBS demonstrates that this procedure is commonly used. [10]
Researchers Uncover The Truth
Early this year, Dr. Michael Innis published his latest peer-reviewed study in Clinical Medicine Research. His paper titled Autoimmunity and Non-Accidental Injury in Children discusses the cases of five children suffering from brain injuries and fractures after vaccinations. After studying each case in depth, he concluded that vaccination could be responsible for the triad of injuries commonly associated with SBS. [11]
In his paper, Dr. Innis outlines that the response to antigenic stimulation damaged the beta cells in the pancreas causing hypoinsulinaemia (unusually low levels of insulin in the blood), which inhibited the cellular uptake of vitamin C, resulting in liver dysfunction, failure of carboxylation of the vitamin K dependent proteins, resulting in hemorrhages and fractures associated with the triad. He concluded that fractures, retinal and subdural hemorrhages and encephalopathy in children are autoimmune responses to antigenic stimulation in a genetically susceptible individual.
He explains that common antigens are mandated vaccines, viral, bacterial and parasitic infections.
To understand exactly how cases of vaccine damage are frequently misdiagnosed as SBS, please read Dr. Innis’s paper in full.
I found his paper easy to read, interesting and revealing and I was particularly enlightened to see him open his paper by quoting the work of psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown, who in 1995-1996 became the first professional to identify that parents were being falsely accused of child abuse after their child had suffered a vaccine injury.
Do You Need More Proof?
Many other professionals support the fact that parents are being falsely accused of SBS. In 2008, Kent R. Holcomb published the paper Shaken Baby Syndrome: Actual Innocence Petition, in which he demonstrated that the Shaken Baby Syndrome theory was unstable by using a “hypothetical case.” [12]
In his paper, Holcomb states that the biomechanical branch of science is the one and only discipline with the expertise, experimental data, and responsibility to determine if a biomechanical event such as human shaking (SBS) or lethal minor falls (LMF) can or cannot cause potentially fatal injuries such as subdural hematoma (SDH).
For years, the triad of injuries has been the only evidence used in criminal procedures to convict parents of shaking their babies. According to a growing number of professionals, this misguided trust has resulted in many innocent parents being charged and convicted of murder.
However, times are changing, and as Holcomb explains, the history of medicine is full of examples of practices that, during their times, were generally accepted by a consensus of medical opinion, only to be later rejected as useless, potentially harmful, or sometimes even lethal.
Professionals are recognizing that Shaken Baby Syndrome is an unsafe diagnosis, due to the evidence being presented with the use of biomechanics. According to Holcomb, the study of biomechanics has proven that humans lack the physical strength needed to cause fatal brain injuries from manual shaking alone. He says that if a child were to be shaken as described in SBS cases, then this violence would result in a high incidence of spinal paralysis from neck injuries in infants, which has never been reported in association with SBS.
In 2009, Holcomb published a paper titled Justification for a Federal Injunction to Suspend All Vaccine Licenses Based on Unreasonable Health Risks and Causal Links to Chronic Disease Pandemics.
Holcomb states very clearly that vaccines are unsafe at all levels. He says that a hypothesis is not proven until all the data has been read. He says:
“When evaluating vaccine-safety-hypotheses, like all other hypotheses, the SHHS (Secretary of Health and Human Services) cannot accept the hypothesis as proven nor upgrade it to scientific theory, until said hypothesis is submitted to vigorous scientific testing and until all attempts at falsification have failed.
Assessing all the clinical trial and epidemiological studies that are available to support the “vaccines-are-safe” hypothesis, the SHHS would recognize that each one of these studies have flaws that would prevent them from earning QER I or QER II ratings. 21-day clinical trials that lack proper controls cannot support long-term safety claims. Every SHHS population study failed to either apply proper methodology/design or represent the proper population group. Other population studies, such as the secret VSD studies, though published, could not be classified as valid science since their methodologies and data sets were not disclosed. A hypothesis that cannot be examined or tested is not science but rather a faith-based belief system.”
Holcomb makes very clear throughout his paper that vaccinations have not been adequately tested or evaluated and states that when assessing the quality of data, the SHHS would know that “repeated opinions based on poor quality data cannot improve the quality of evidence.”
Holcomb states on page three of his paper, “a hypothesis that cannot be examined or tested is not science but rather a faith-based belief system.”
This statement is absolutely correct and I believe that the same could be said for the SBS hypothesis. The hypothesis that the “triad” of injuries can be caused by manually shaking a child has never been proven; therefore, it is a “faith-based belief system.” In fact, biomechanics have proven that it is not physically possible to manually shake a child with enough veracity to cause the “triad,” which is supported by the work of Dr. John D. Llyod and many others. [13]
Conclusion
There are many papers that state that children have died within weeks, if not days, of receiving multiple vaccinations. Many of these children have been misdiagnosed as suffering from Shaken Baby Syndrome.
Shaken Baby Syndrome is a hypothesis — a theory — as it has never been conclusively proven that a baby has been shaken to death. I have yet to find concrete evidence of someone physically shaking a baby so hard that the baby has later died solely from the “triad” of injuries. There are, however, a number of biomechanical studies stating that it is not physically possible to manually shake a baby to such a degree that it causes the triad of injuries associated with SBS.
Therefore, this leaves us with the question, Can vaccinations cause the “triad” of injuries associated with SBS?
There are no studies conclusively proving that vaccinations can cause the SBS triad, but since vaccinations have been never been proven to be conclusively safe, as it is classed as unethical to study equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, this hypothesis cannot be examined or tested, therefore rendering it not as science, but simply a faith-based belief system, as Holcomb suggested. Unfortunately, this belief syndrome has caused the incarceration of many innocent parents.
Not all parents who are accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome are child murderers, and as we have seen, there are many causes as to why children die from these horrendous brain injuries. The medical profession needs to examine the real causes of Shaken Baby Syndrome, especially vaccination, and stop using parents as their ‘get out of jail free card.’
References
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1796151/
2. http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/monograph/688…
3. http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Abusive HeadTrauma_NDAA.pdf
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3284047/
5. www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf
6. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/esp_salud33d.htm
7. http://www.freeyurko.bizland.com/storyofbabyalan.html
8. http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/nine-steps-reid-interrogation-technique
9. http://www.portland-criminaldefense.com/false-confessions-the-reid-technique/
10. http://vactruth.com/2012/11/08/brainwashed-police-ignore-vaccine-injuries/
11. http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo.aspx…
12. www.medicalveritas.com/man1828_1835.pdf
13. http://www.drergonomics.com/shakenbaby.html
http://vactruth.com/2013/06/22/shaken-baby-syndrome/
Over the years, parents have more and more commonly been blamed of child abuse if their child is diagnosed with the “triad” of injuries associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) after receiving a vaccine. The “triad” includes bleeding inside the brain, bleeding behind the eyes and swelling or inflammation of the brain.
When a medical professional suspects that a baby has been violently shaken, they will examine the baby for the “triad” of injuries associated with SBS. These are subdural haematoma (bleeds inside the brain), retinal haemorrhages (bleeds behind the eyes) and cerebral edema (swelling or inflammation inside the brain).
The Triad of Injuries
Bleeding Inside the Brain
Norma Guthkelch, a retired neurosurgeon, wrote the first description of Shaken Baby Syndrome in 1971 in his paper Infantile Subdural Haematoma and its Relationship to Whiplash Injuries, in which he discussed 23 cases of strongly suspected parental assault on children under the age of three. He concluded that:
“It has been shown that there is a discrepancy between the frequency of subdural hematoma occurring in battered children and of the same condition complicating head injuries of other origin, the incidence in the former being unexpectedly high, though in most of those in whom there was no actual skull fracture there was not even clear evidence of the application of direct violence to the head. This suggests that when the head is not the main target of attack the likely mechanism of production of the hematoma is one in which repeated sheering strains of one sort or another are applied to the cranial contents.
It follows that since all cases of infantile subdural hematoma are best assumed to be traumatic unless proved otherwise it would be unwise to disregard the possibility that one of these has been caused by serious violence, repetition of which may prove fatal, simply on the basis that there are no gross fractures or other radiological bone changes in the limbs, nor any fractures of the skull.” [1]
However, the violent shaking of a young child is not the only cause of the triad of injuries. These injuries can also occur after short falls, illnesses such as encephalitis and meningitis, birth trauma, vitamin deficiencies and genetic illnesses such as brittle bone syndrome. These causes are identified on the British Medical Journal’s online guide Best Practice: Abusive Head Trauma in Infants. [2]
Bleeding Behind the Eyes
The paper written by attorney Dermot Garrett entitled Overcoming Defense Expert Testimony in Abusive Head Trauma Cases indicates this fact very strongly when the author discusses retinal bleeding on page 35. [3] Garrett writes that a presentation at the 2010 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Annual Meeting analyzed the results of 62 studies of pediatric retinal hemorrhages published since 1965.
Garrett says that all of the children studied were younger than 11 years of age, had undergone a detailed examination by an ophthalmologist and had been diagnosed with retinal hemorrhages due to confirmed accidental head trauma or non-accidental head trauma. The results of the analysis showed that seventy-eight percent of patients with confirmed accidental head trauma had retinal hemorrhages, in comparison to just 5.3 percent of the non-accidental head trauma patients, proving that not all cases of retinal bleeds are necessarily caused by child abuse.
Swelling Inside the Brain
Another cause of the triad of injuries associated with SBS is vaccine-induced meningitis/encephalitis, a severe reaction to vaccinations.
In 2012, Marahendra K. Patel et al. published a paper in the Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics, which discusses the case of a five month-old baby boy diagnosed with suspected post-vaccination encephalopathy following the DPT vaccination. Tests concluded that a reaction to the DPT vaccination was probable and in their discussion, the authors discussed several other worrying cases of similar reactions from India. [4]
In 2010, Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic wrote an extensive paper exposing evidence that she uncovered surrounding many cases in which children developed encephalitis or meningitis after they received vaccinations from as early as 1983, which she says were deliberately covered up by the UK government’s JCVI (Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunization). [5]
Dr. Viera Scheibner mentions vaccine-induced encephalomyelitis, characterized by brain swelling and hemorrhaging, in 1998 when she wrote a paper published in Nexus titled Shaken Baby Syndrome: The Vaccination Link. She had become so worried that parents were being falsely accused after their children had suffered a vaccine injury that she opened her paper by stating:
“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 influenza type B) – shortly before they developed symptoms of illness resulting in serious brain damage or death.” [6]
Finally, Dr. Harold Buttram and F. Edward Yazbak wrote on the subject of false accusations of SBS and vaccine-induced encephalitis in their paper titled Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis: The Story of Baby Alan. [7]
Dr. Buttram opens his paper by stating:
“In the following report Dr. Yazbak and myself have reviewed the case of an infant death which we believe to have been mistakenly diagnosed as shaken baby syndrome, the true cause of death in our opinions having been a vaccine-induced encephalitis. Having carefully followed the case and its developments for nearly a year, the report represents untold numbers of hours of study and investigation into the many technical parameters of the case. From this study we have come to realize that this case is representative of an emerging pattern of increasingly frequent vaccine reactions on the modern scene, which are being overlooked or misdiagnosed by our present health-care system.
The Story of Baby Alan is a poignant one, all the more so because it is something that could happen to any young couple or parent. Although the story is necessarily technical, nevertheless we urge that you read it. If you are a young person contemplating having a family, it is something that could happen to you.”
Despite all of this evidence, however, parents continue to be blamed of shaking their babies before all other possible diagnoses have been fully explored.
The Reid Technique
When SBS or non-accidental head injury is suspected, the police will interview the parents or caregiver who was caring for the child at the time the child became ill. According to parents who have undergone this interview, the interview process is extremely intimidating, and many succumb to the bullying tactics used, either by admitting that they injured their child or by accepting a plea bargain.
This may be due to the use of the ‘Reid Technique,’ a technique which is often used when interviewing a person suspected of shaking their child. [8, 9]
The Reid Technique is used in police departments around the world. It is basically made up of nine steps, and in my opinion, it is put in place to intimidate and force a confession out of innocent people. The nine steps are:
1. The police officer will present the suspect with evidence that they committed the crime. (This evidence can be real or fake.)
2. The officer comes up with a story as to why they believe the suspect committed the crime.
3. If the suspect tries to deny that they committed the crime, the detective will immediately interrupt the suspect.
4. If the suspect tries to give a logical explanation as to why it is not possible for them to have committed the crime, this explanation will be refuted.
5. At this stage, the detective will pretend to be the suspect’s ally.
6. The suspect, at this point, is studied for body language to see if they are about to surrender.
7. The interrogator provides the suspect with contrasting possible motives for the crime.
8. The detective will urge the suspect to talk about the crime.
9. The confession: At this stage the suspect usually feels intimidated and anxious and a confession is taken.
The evidence that Sergeant Christopher Savage, a former police officer, gave to me in an interview last year discussing SBS demonstrates that this procedure is commonly used. [10]
Researchers Uncover The Truth
Early this year, Dr. Michael Innis published his latest peer-reviewed study in Clinical Medicine Research. His paper titled Autoimmunity and Non-Accidental Injury in Children discusses the cases of five children suffering from brain injuries and fractures after vaccinations. After studying each case in depth, he concluded that vaccination could be responsible for the triad of injuries commonly associated with SBS. [11]
In his paper, Dr. Innis outlines that the response to antigenic stimulation damaged the beta cells in the pancreas causing hypoinsulinaemia (unusually low levels of insulin in the blood), which inhibited the cellular uptake of vitamin C, resulting in liver dysfunction, failure of carboxylation of the vitamin K dependent proteins, resulting in hemorrhages and fractures associated with the triad. He concluded that fractures, retinal and subdural hemorrhages and encephalopathy in children are autoimmune responses to antigenic stimulation in a genetically susceptible individual.
He explains that common antigens are mandated vaccines, viral, bacterial and parasitic infections.
To understand exactly how cases of vaccine damage are frequently misdiagnosed as SBS, please read Dr. Innis’s paper in full.
I found his paper easy to read, interesting and revealing and I was particularly enlightened to see him open his paper by quoting the work of psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown, who in 1995-1996 became the first professional to identify that parents were being falsely accused of child abuse after their child had suffered a vaccine injury.
Do You Need More Proof?
Many other professionals support the fact that parents are being falsely accused of SBS. In 2008, Kent R. Holcomb published the paper Shaken Baby Syndrome: Actual Innocence Petition, in which he demonstrated that the Shaken Baby Syndrome theory was unstable by using a “hypothetical case.” [12]
In his paper, Holcomb states that the biomechanical branch of science is the one and only discipline with the expertise, experimental data, and responsibility to determine if a biomechanical event such as human shaking (SBS) or lethal minor falls (LMF) can or cannot cause potentially fatal injuries such as subdural hematoma (SDH).
For years, the triad of injuries has been the only evidence used in criminal procedures to convict parents of shaking their babies. According to a growing number of professionals, this misguided trust has resulted in many innocent parents being charged and convicted of murder.
However, times are changing, and as Holcomb explains, the history of medicine is full of examples of practices that, during their times, were generally accepted by a consensus of medical opinion, only to be later rejected as useless, potentially harmful, or sometimes even lethal.
Professionals are recognizing that Shaken Baby Syndrome is an unsafe diagnosis, due to the evidence being presented with the use of biomechanics. According to Holcomb, the study of biomechanics has proven that humans lack the physical strength needed to cause fatal brain injuries from manual shaking alone. He says that if a child were to be shaken as described in SBS cases, then this violence would result in a high incidence of spinal paralysis from neck injuries in infants, which has never been reported in association with SBS.
In 2009, Holcomb published a paper titled Justification for a Federal Injunction to Suspend All Vaccine Licenses Based on Unreasonable Health Risks and Causal Links to Chronic Disease Pandemics.
Holcomb states very clearly that vaccines are unsafe at all levels. He says that a hypothesis is not proven until all the data has been read. He says:
“When evaluating vaccine-safety-hypotheses, like all other hypotheses, the SHHS (Secretary of Health and Human Services) cannot accept the hypothesis as proven nor upgrade it to scientific theory, until said hypothesis is submitted to vigorous scientific testing and until all attempts at falsification have failed.
Assessing all the clinical trial and epidemiological studies that are available to support the “vaccines-are-safe” hypothesis, the SHHS would recognize that each one of these studies have flaws that would prevent them from earning QER I or QER II ratings. 21-day clinical trials that lack proper controls cannot support long-term safety claims. Every SHHS population study failed to either apply proper methodology/design or represent the proper population group. Other population studies, such as the secret VSD studies, though published, could not be classified as valid science since their methodologies and data sets were not disclosed. A hypothesis that cannot be examined or tested is not science but rather a faith-based belief system.”
Holcomb makes very clear throughout his paper that vaccinations have not been adequately tested or evaluated and states that when assessing the quality of data, the SHHS would know that “repeated opinions based on poor quality data cannot improve the quality of evidence.”
Holcomb states on page three of his paper, “a hypothesis that cannot be examined or tested is not science but rather a faith-based belief system.”
This statement is absolutely correct and I believe that the same could be said for the SBS hypothesis. The hypothesis that the “triad” of injuries can be caused by manually shaking a child has never been proven; therefore, it is a “faith-based belief system.” In fact, biomechanics have proven that it is not physically possible to manually shake a child with enough veracity to cause the “triad,” which is supported by the work of Dr. John D. Llyod and many others. [13]
Conclusion
There are many papers that state that children have died within weeks, if not days, of receiving multiple vaccinations. Many of these children have been misdiagnosed as suffering from Shaken Baby Syndrome.
Shaken Baby Syndrome is a hypothesis — a theory — as it has never been conclusively proven that a baby has been shaken to death. I have yet to find concrete evidence of someone physically shaking a baby so hard that the baby has later died solely from the “triad” of injuries. There are, however, a number of biomechanical studies stating that it is not physically possible to manually shake a baby to such a degree that it causes the triad of injuries associated with SBS.
Therefore, this leaves us with the question, Can vaccinations cause the “triad” of injuries associated with SBS?
There are no studies conclusively proving that vaccinations can cause the SBS triad, but since vaccinations have been never been proven to be conclusively safe, as it is classed as unethical to study equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, this hypothesis cannot be examined or tested, therefore rendering it not as science, but simply a faith-based belief system, as Holcomb suggested. Unfortunately, this belief syndrome has caused the incarceration of many innocent parents.
Not all parents who are accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome are child murderers, and as we have seen, there are many causes as to why children die from these horrendous brain injuries. The medical profession needs to examine the real causes of Shaken Baby Syndrome, especially vaccination, and stop using parents as their ‘get out of jail free card.’
References
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1796151/
2. http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/monograph/688…
3. http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Abusive HeadTrauma_NDAA.pdf
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3284047/
5. www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf
6. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/esp_salud33d.htm
7. http://www.freeyurko.bizland.com/storyofbabyalan.html
8. http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/nine-steps-reid-interrogation-technique
9. http://www.portland-criminaldefense.com/false-confessions-the-reid-technique/
10. http://vactruth.com/2012/11/08/brainwashed-police-ignore-vaccine-injuries/
11. http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo.aspx…
12. www.medicalveritas.com/man1828_1835.pdf
13. http://www.drergonomics.com/shakenbaby.html
http://vactruth.com/2013/06/22/shaken-baby-syndrome/
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
IT WAS MENINGITIS—NOT SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME
Nothing is more anti-American than a man being sent to prison because of a corporate cover-up, and that corporation's power over a local government and justice system. This time their heinous actions will be coming back to haunt Mercy Medical Center of Redding, California (“Mercy”) and the Shasta County Justice System. A “whistle blower” has now come forward with previously hidden medical documents that question Mercy’s actions, and the Stanford Medical Center has confirmed that Baby Bria Hess’ condition was caused by Spinal Meningitis. A condition Bria was born with due to Mercy’s negligence, and this they hid from everyone, then alleged “Shaken Baby Syndrome” (“SBS”) to shift the blame from themselves to the baby’s father.
In the get tough on crime era we now live in, over zealous authorities have developed a mind set that only allows them to look for the worst in every situation, to find a crime where none actually exists. Because it is politically correct, authorities take the attitude that where anything bad happens—a crime must be responsible. There can be no other explanation! This attitude flows from, and has become part of, the "tough on crime” rhetoric, and seems to get politicians reelected.
However, our American way is threatened when “get tough on crime” is achieved without regard for truth and justice, this transgresses the expectations and norms of a civilized society. This happens when authorities, without regard to the actual facts and reasonable inferences therefrom, over zealously develop a worse case scenario theory, then pursue that theory with a vengeance. Becoming so narrow-minded that they only look for or accept facts that support their theory, while at the same time suppressing facts and information which point to a more reasonable but crime free conclusion.
An example of this recently occurred in Redding, California, where Shasta County and Redding City authorities vehemently pursued a criminal theory, at the urging of Mercy, when world and national medical research reports more properly explain symptoms exhibited by then five week old baby Bria Hess as being caused by Spinal Meningitis. NOT Shaken Baby Syndrome! All medical indications, and tests run shortly after birth, pointed to Bria suffering from Meningitis. Doctor Geddi's of Mercy Medical Center in Redding originally suspected Meningitis to be the cause of Baby Bria’s medical problems, yet there is no record of Mercy ever performing a specific test for Meningitis. Then, after failing to take the normally expected timely medical action, somehow, someone at Mercy planted the seed in the minds of authorities that a crime—not a pre-existing medical condition must be the cause of Baby Bria’s medical problems.
Once the authorities began their witch hunt for a crime, they never looked back at the overwhelming evidence of a pre-existing medical problem. They pursued their criminal theory and prosecution with a vengeance, they tried the baby’s father in the press and media, they suppressed and possibly hid the relevant medical evidence with the help of a now malpractice concerned Mercy Medical Center, and they subsequently convicted the father of shaking baby Bria so severely that “Shaken Baby Syndrome” was the alleged cause of all her medical problems. Because of the suppression of medical information, the jury was never allowed to hear the medical evidence surrounding baby Bria’s Meningitis. In the middle of the trial, a “Whistle Blower” employee at Mercy anonymously mailed previously hidden medical reports to baby Bria’s mother. Nevertheless, the jury only heard the prosecution’s shaken baby syndrome theory, while the justice system refused to allow the defense to present Meningitis information. The father, Gary M. Hess, 42, was subsequently convicted of assault with great bodily injury and sentenced to nine years in state prison.
From the beginning, Shasta County Children’s Protective Services (“CPS”) also accepted only the criminal theory, while rejecting the medical explanation of Meningitis. Accordingly, CPS immediately pursued a termination of parental rights action in the Shasta County Superior Court. Baby Bria was placed into the Foster Care Program. Her same medical problems continued, and on March 1, 2002, she was rushed to the Lucille Packard wing of the Stanford Medical Center, whose specialty is infants and children. Bria was extensively tested resulting in an unequivocal showing that Bria suffers from a form of Spinal Meningitis that can only come from the birth canal. In other words: Bria was born with Meningitis!
On June 7, 2002, a hearing was held in the Shasta County Superior Court before Judge Gallagher to terminate the parental rights of both parents. Much to the chagrin of authorities, potentially embarrassing testimony was heard that brought forward the information showing the existence of Meningitis in baby Bria from the time of her birth, thus seriously questioning the father’s culpability. The testimony showed the father could not possibly be guilty of Shaken Baby Syndrome, because Bria’s condition and symptoms matched Meningitis, but not Shaken Baby Syndrome. SBS normally requires a showing of brain bruising, brain bleeding, neck tissue damage, and the existence of body bruises. None of these existed in Bria according to medical reports. Instead, she exhibited brain swelling, which resulted in retinal damage, both of which are conditions, when existing without the other SBS symptoms, can only be caused by Meningitis or Encephalitis. The previously hidden or suppressed evidence, and the new evidence from the Stanford Medical Center, which is now available, shows Spinal Meningitis to be the culprit, NOT a shaken baby. Also, the “whistle blower” has now come forward by name with even more evidence.
According to statements made by persons who were present at the June 7, 2002, hearing, Judge Gallagher was visibly upset at hearing this Meningitis testimony, and asked questions himself in an unsuccessful judicial attempt to discredit what now appears to be a mountain of irrefutable documentary evidence. After the presentation of evidence, the parents requested the termination of parental right action be continued (put-off) to allow for a new and complete investigation. Notwithstanding the indisputable evidence of Meningitis having caused baby Bria’s injuries, and the now apparent cover-up of this evidence by Mercy Medical Center and the authorities, the parents were amazed, shocked and astonished when Judge Gallagher chose to immediately terminate the parental rights rather than pursue the truth which would have lead to true justice. At this point in time, with the overwhelming evidence now available, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind who has heard or viewed the evidence, that this incredible decision by Judge Gallagher, as well as the criminal conviction of the father, which was obviously achieved by a cover-up of facts and evidence, will soon come back on appeal to haunt the Shasta County Justice System and its District Attorney Office, who apparently were more interested in achieving high get tough on crime conviction statistics than truth and justice.
Continued...
Nothing is more anti-American than a man being sent to prison because of a corporate cover-up, and that corporation's power over a local government and justice system. This time their heinous actions will be coming back to haunt Mercy Medical Center of Redding, California (“Mercy”) and the Shasta County Justice System. A “whistle blower” has now come forward with previously hidden medical documents that question Mercy’s actions, and the Stanford Medical Center has confirmed that Baby Bria Hess’ condition was caused by Spinal Meningitis. A condition Bria was born with due to Mercy’s negligence, and this they hid from everyone, then alleged “Shaken Baby Syndrome” (“SBS”) to shift the blame from themselves to the baby’s father.
In the get tough on crime era we now live in, over zealous authorities have developed a mind set that only allows them to look for the worst in every situation, to find a crime where none actually exists. Because it is politically correct, authorities take the attitude that where anything bad happens—a crime must be responsible. There can be no other explanation! This attitude flows from, and has become part of, the "tough on crime” rhetoric, and seems to get politicians reelected.
However, our American way is threatened when “get tough on crime” is achieved without regard for truth and justice, this transgresses the expectations and norms of a civilized society. This happens when authorities, without regard to the actual facts and reasonable inferences therefrom, over zealously develop a worse case scenario theory, then pursue that theory with a vengeance. Becoming so narrow-minded that they only look for or accept facts that support their theory, while at the same time suppressing facts and information which point to a more reasonable but crime free conclusion.
An example of this recently occurred in Redding, California, where Shasta County and Redding City authorities vehemently pursued a criminal theory, at the urging of Mercy, when world and national medical research reports more properly explain symptoms exhibited by then five week old baby Bria Hess as being caused by Spinal Meningitis. NOT Shaken Baby Syndrome! All medical indications, and tests run shortly after birth, pointed to Bria suffering from Meningitis. Doctor Geddi's of Mercy Medical Center in Redding originally suspected Meningitis to be the cause of Baby Bria’s medical problems, yet there is no record of Mercy ever performing a specific test for Meningitis. Then, after failing to take the normally expected timely medical action, somehow, someone at Mercy planted the seed in the minds of authorities that a crime—not a pre-existing medical condition must be the cause of Baby Bria’s medical problems.
Once the authorities began their witch hunt for a crime, they never looked back at the overwhelming evidence of a pre-existing medical problem. They pursued their criminal theory and prosecution with a vengeance, they tried the baby’s father in the press and media, they suppressed and possibly hid the relevant medical evidence with the help of a now malpractice concerned Mercy Medical Center, and they subsequently convicted the father of shaking baby Bria so severely that “Shaken Baby Syndrome” was the alleged cause of all her medical problems. Because of the suppression of medical information, the jury was never allowed to hear the medical evidence surrounding baby Bria’s Meningitis. In the middle of the trial, a “Whistle Blower” employee at Mercy anonymously mailed previously hidden medical reports to baby Bria’s mother. Nevertheless, the jury only heard the prosecution’s shaken baby syndrome theory, while the justice system refused to allow the defense to present Meningitis information. The father, Gary M. Hess, 42, was subsequently convicted of assault with great bodily injury and sentenced to nine years in state prison.
From the beginning, Shasta County Children’s Protective Services (“CPS”) also accepted only the criminal theory, while rejecting the medical explanation of Meningitis. Accordingly, CPS immediately pursued a termination of parental rights action in the Shasta County Superior Court. Baby Bria was placed into the Foster Care Program. Her same medical problems continued, and on March 1, 2002, she was rushed to the Lucille Packard wing of the Stanford Medical Center, whose specialty is infants and children. Bria was extensively tested resulting in an unequivocal showing that Bria suffers from a form of Spinal Meningitis that can only come from the birth canal. In other words: Bria was born with Meningitis!
On June 7, 2002, a hearing was held in the Shasta County Superior Court before Judge Gallagher to terminate the parental rights of both parents. Much to the chagrin of authorities, potentially embarrassing testimony was heard that brought forward the information showing the existence of Meningitis in baby Bria from the time of her birth, thus seriously questioning the father’s culpability. The testimony showed the father could not possibly be guilty of Shaken Baby Syndrome, because Bria’s condition and symptoms matched Meningitis, but not Shaken Baby Syndrome. SBS normally requires a showing of brain bruising, brain bleeding, neck tissue damage, and the existence of body bruises. None of these existed in Bria according to medical reports. Instead, she exhibited brain swelling, which resulted in retinal damage, both of which are conditions, when existing without the other SBS symptoms, can only be caused by Meningitis or Encephalitis. The previously hidden or suppressed evidence, and the new evidence from the Stanford Medical Center, which is now available, shows Spinal Meningitis to be the culprit, NOT a shaken baby. Also, the “whistle blower” has now come forward by name with even more evidence.
According to statements made by persons who were present at the June 7, 2002, hearing, Judge Gallagher was visibly upset at hearing this Meningitis testimony, and asked questions himself in an unsuccessful judicial attempt to discredit what now appears to be a mountain of irrefutable documentary evidence. After the presentation of evidence, the parents requested the termination of parental right action be continued (put-off) to allow for a new and complete investigation. Notwithstanding the indisputable evidence of Meningitis having caused baby Bria’s injuries, and the now apparent cover-up of this evidence by Mercy Medical Center and the authorities, the parents were amazed, shocked and astonished when Judge Gallagher chose to immediately terminate the parental rights rather than pursue the truth which would have lead to true justice. At this point in time, with the overwhelming evidence now available, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind who has heard or viewed the evidence, that this incredible decision by Judge Gallagher, as well as the criminal conviction of the father, which was obviously achieved by a cover-up of facts and evidence, will soon come back on appeal to haunt the Shasta County Justice System and its District Attorney Office, who apparently were more interested in achieving high get tough on crime conviction statistics than truth and justice.
Continued...
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
Cry of the Heart
Stop Hurting the Children
Pharmaceutical Terrorism & The Medical Insanity of Vaccines
by Mark Sircus Ac., OMD
http://www.worldpsychology.net
Murder By Injection
SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME is murder. The only question is guilt. District Attorney Ray Gricar said last week that he'd pursue the death penalty for a Boalsburg man accused of killing his 3-month-old son about a year ago. 'Because of the age of the child, it will be a capital case,' Gricar said after a district justice ruled there is enough evidence against 29-year-old Alejandro Mendez Vargas to send the case to trial. Vargas was charged with first- and third-degree murder last month in the death of his infant son Lucas, whom medical officials say died of shaken baby syndrome Sept. 2, 2002.
'Recently there has been quite an "epidemic" of the so-called "shaken baby syndrome". Parents, usually the fathers, or other caregivers 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?' (Viera Scheibner PhD)
We can now begin to wonder if Gricar will turn the same legal criteria on the doctors and nurses who injected this and other children with vaccines. Meaning when the cause of death is determined to be the vaccines will doctors and health care officials be charged with first degree murder and will the death penalty be invoked like in the above case? Or if we are going to go ahead with murder charges against doctors and public health care officials perhaps we should consider thinking of it along the lines of negligent homicide because we have to factor in the ignorance of physicians, or some mental handicap that prevents them from really understanding what they are doing to young infants.
'"Crib death" was so infrequent in the pre-vaccination era that it was not even mentioned in the statistics, but it started to climb in the 1950s with the spread of mass vaccination against diseases of childhood.' (Harris Coulter, PhD)
Of 253 infant death cases awarded more than $61 million by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in the 1990s under the compensation program designed to compensate parents for the loss or serious harm of their children, 224, or 86 percent, were attributed to vaccination with DTP, the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) shot. In these cases, mortality was originally attributed to SIDS in 90, or 40 percent, of them. Of 771 total claims filed by parents from 1990 through mid-1998, 660, or 86 percent, contained assertions that DTP was the cause of death. 43 percent were classified by medical authorities at time of death as SIDS cases. A second federal database tends to draw a similar connection. This one, for the 1990s from the Food and Drug Administration, contains 460 reports of children who died within three days of receiving shots containing DTP. Of those 460 reports, 266, or 58 percent, listed SIDS as a 'reaction.'
Death after whooping-cough vaccination was first described by a Danish physician in 1933. Two Americans in 1946 described the deaths of identical twins within 24 hours of a DPT shot. William C.Torch, M.D., Director of Child Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Nevada School of Medicine, at the 34th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics stated clearly that, 'Data shows that DPT vaccination may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits.'
About 61,900 baby deaths were classified as SIDS between 1983 and 1994 by the CDC. By definition, SIDS is something that you don't know the cause for.
The VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Registry) database since 1990 contains almost 200,000 adverse effects reports. Even with an estimated maximum of only 10% of the adverse vaccine reactions being reported to the government in the US there were nearly 25,000 VAERS hepatitis B reports from July 1990 to October 31, 1998, showing 439 deaths and 9673 serious reactions involving emergency room visits, hospitalization, disablement or death. This means that according to estimates by the FDA 4,390 deaths from this one vaccine alone could easily be possible when applying the estimated reporting of only 10%. That number doubles to 8,780 deaths at five percent reported and 43,900 deaths, if as some believe, only 1 percent of vaccine accidents are being reported. It must be noted that in the third world these numbers expand out exponentially because vaccines are administered to broad populations who are already weakened by malnutrition, poor sanitation, and HIV infections (reduced auto-immune function). In the first world when a child even has just a cold vaccinations are counter indicated yet many times doctors and nurses go ahead and administer multiple shots anyway.
Continued...
Stop Hurting the Children
Pharmaceutical Terrorism & The Medical Insanity of Vaccines
by Mark Sircus Ac., OMD
http://www.worldpsychology.net
Murder By Injection
SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME is murder. The only question is guilt. District Attorney Ray Gricar said last week that he'd pursue the death penalty for a Boalsburg man accused of killing his 3-month-old son about a year ago. 'Because of the age of the child, it will be a capital case,' Gricar said after a district justice ruled there is enough evidence against 29-year-old Alejandro Mendez Vargas to send the case to trial. Vargas was charged with first- and third-degree murder last month in the death of his infant son Lucas, whom medical officials say died of shaken baby syndrome Sept. 2, 2002.
'Recently there has been quite an "epidemic" of the so-called "shaken baby syndrome". Parents, usually the fathers, or other caregivers 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?' (Viera Scheibner PhD)
We can now begin to wonder if Gricar will turn the same legal criteria on the doctors and nurses who injected this and other children with vaccines. Meaning when the cause of death is determined to be the vaccines will doctors and health care officials be charged with first degree murder and will the death penalty be invoked like in the above case? Or if we are going to go ahead with murder charges against doctors and public health care officials perhaps we should consider thinking of it along the lines of negligent homicide because we have to factor in the ignorance of physicians, or some mental handicap that prevents them from really understanding what they are doing to young infants.
'"Crib death" was so infrequent in the pre-vaccination era that it was not even mentioned in the statistics, but it started to climb in the 1950s with the spread of mass vaccination against diseases of childhood.' (Harris Coulter, PhD)
Of 253 infant death cases awarded more than $61 million by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in the 1990s under the compensation program designed to compensate parents for the loss or serious harm of their children, 224, or 86 percent, were attributed to vaccination with DTP, the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough) shot. In these cases, mortality was originally attributed to SIDS in 90, or 40 percent, of them. Of 771 total claims filed by parents from 1990 through mid-1998, 660, or 86 percent, contained assertions that DTP was the cause of death. 43 percent were classified by medical authorities at time of death as SIDS cases. A second federal database tends to draw a similar connection. This one, for the 1990s from the Food and Drug Administration, contains 460 reports of children who died within three days of receiving shots containing DTP. Of those 460 reports, 266, or 58 percent, listed SIDS as a 'reaction.'
Death after whooping-cough vaccination was first described by a Danish physician in 1933. Two Americans in 1946 described the deaths of identical twins within 24 hours of a DPT shot. William C.Torch, M.D., Director of Child Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Nevada School of Medicine, at the 34th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics stated clearly that, 'Data shows that DPT vaccination may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits.'
About 61,900 baby deaths were classified as SIDS between 1983 and 1994 by the CDC. By definition, SIDS is something that you don't know the cause for.
The VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Registry) database since 1990 contains almost 200,000 adverse effects reports. Even with an estimated maximum of only 10% of the adverse vaccine reactions being reported to the government in the US there were nearly 25,000 VAERS hepatitis B reports from July 1990 to October 31, 1998, showing 439 deaths and 9673 serious reactions involving emergency room visits, hospitalization, disablement or death. This means that according to estimates by the FDA 4,390 deaths from this one vaccine alone could easily be possible when applying the estimated reporting of only 10%. That number doubles to 8,780 deaths at five percent reported and 43,900 deaths, if as some believe, only 1 percent of vaccine accidents are being reported. It must be noted that in the third world these numbers expand out exponentially because vaccines are administered to broad populations who are already weakened by malnutrition, poor sanitation, and HIV infections (reduced auto-immune function). In the first world when a child even has just a cold vaccinations are counter indicated yet many times doctors and nurses go ahead and administer multiple shots anyway.
Continued...
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
I can only assume this is in General Politics because DonnaY is desperate for attention?
And of course there's no source for the story, so Donna is just pulling her usual stunt of throwing a bunch of other shit at the wall p hoping that some of it will stick.
And she posts here on a regular basis. Lucky us!
And of course there's no source for the story, so Donna is just pulling her usual stunt of throwing a bunch of other shit at the wall p hoping that some of it will stick.
And she posts here on a regular basis. Lucky us!
Last edited:
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/07/the-vilest-antivaccine-lie-that-wont-die/
It's beyond crazyville to think we have to defend against this absolute garbage here.
NorfolkPCSolutions
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,580
Angelatc, my wife and I have chosen not to vaccinate our boy. When asked why, we explain our position rationally, and expect the asker to make up his own mind.
Doesn't that just piss you off to no end?
Doesn't that just piss you off to no end?
Is Angelatc getting paid by big pharma to defend them? People know that vaccines hurt kids. This isn't facebook where a handful of bully tricks can sway some of the random people watching. Big pharma would kill you if it made them money. The entire medical system is wrecked and has been wrecked for a long time. And if the CEOs of all the big pharma cos heads were on pikes it would be a great day for America.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
If they do, then why would they post stuff like the OP?
People who have actual fact-based reasons to oppose vaccines should be the loudest voices repudiating this kind of thing.
If anything, big Pharma might be paying Natural News and Donnay.
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
“Shaking” Contradicts BioMechanical Science
Abstract
In May of 2009 the AAP published their bizarre policy statement that endorsed “shaking” as a biomechanical injury-causation mechanism for traumatic brain injury (TBI). Biomechanical experiments that had tested and eliminated ‘shaking’ as a TBI mechanism are audaciously cited by the authors as somehow supporting ‘shaking’ as a TBI mechanism, while the leading biomechanical research on the subject of shaken baby syndrome (SBS), shaken impact syndrome (SIS), and lethal minor falls (LMF) are not cited by the authors in their “Abusive Head Trauma in Infants and Children” position paper, as the biomechanical research consistently contradicted their position. In this critique the authors are requested to rescind their paper and its flagrant misrepresentation of the biomechanical sciences that have consistently and repeatedly proven that ‘shaking’ is not a valid TBI mechanism or medical diagnosis.
Key words: Shaken baby syndrome (SBS), shaken impact syndrome (SIS), lethal minor falls (LMF), traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Read more: http://www.medicalveritas.org/MedicalVeritas/Shaken_Baby_Syndrome_Fraud.html
Abstract
In May of 2009 the AAP published their bizarre policy statement that endorsed “shaking” as a biomechanical injury-causation mechanism for traumatic brain injury (TBI). Biomechanical experiments that had tested and eliminated ‘shaking’ as a TBI mechanism are audaciously cited by the authors as somehow supporting ‘shaking’ as a TBI mechanism, while the leading biomechanical research on the subject of shaken baby syndrome (SBS), shaken impact syndrome (SIS), and lethal minor falls (LMF) are not cited by the authors in their “Abusive Head Trauma in Infants and Children” position paper, as the biomechanical research consistently contradicted their position. In this critique the authors are requested to rescind their paper and its flagrant misrepresentation of the biomechanical sciences that have consistently and repeatedly proven that ‘shaking’ is not a valid TBI mechanism or medical diagnosis.
Key words: Shaken baby syndrome (SBS), shaken impact syndrome (SIS), lethal minor falls (LMF), traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Read more: http://www.medicalveritas.org/MedicalVeritas/Shaken_Baby_Syndrome_Fraud.html
E
Eagles' Wings
Guest
decided to delete my post
Last edited:
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
Yes and yes. On the advice of doctors.
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
Faulty Science?
Mistaken diagnoses of Shaken Baby Syndrome may have sent thousands of innocent people to prison, according to a new study
Read the research here
Exclusive to The Crime Report
In October, 1995, when police charged Audrey Edmunds, a Waunakee, Wis. day care provider, with the murder of a seven-month-old girl who had been left in her care, prosecutors said she had shaken the baby to death.
A medical expert testified at trial that the child had suffered critical injuries that were the hallmarks of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A jury convicted Edmunds and she was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
At the time the case was unremarkable—one of thousands of successful prosecutions during the past 30 years of parents and other care-givers who have been found guilty of charges ranging from manslaughter to murder, based on findings of what is known as the triad—retinal hemorrhage, bleeding in the brain and brain swelling. Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) is one of the few instances in the criminal justice system where the diagnosis is the basis for prosecution.
Last year, however, in a remarkable turnaround, one of the physicians that testified against Edmunds told a judge that he was no longer confident that the injuries were inflicted by Edmunds and that they could have occurred many hours before the baby was dropped off.
Edmunds was granted a new trial by a judge who ruled that the testimony “shows that there has been a shift in mainstream medical opinion.” In effect, the scientific foundation of the syndrome had been undermined to the extent that a new jury would probably have a reasonable doubt about Edmunds’ guilt.
The case was dropped and Edmunds was freed.
That was good news for Edmunds—whose freedom is the result of work done by the Wisconsin Innocence Project—but what about the thousands of others convicted during the past two decades as a result of the same medical testimony that put Edmunds behind bars?
A soon-to-be-published analysis of shaken baby cases and recent developments in the medical community by University of Maine School of Law professor Deborah Tuerkheimer presents persuasive evidence and raises troubling questions about whether many of these convictions were of innocent people who were found guilty on the basis of faulty science. The analysis is scheduled to be published in September by Washington University Law Review.
Tuerkheimer, who is joining the DePaul University College of Law faculty on July 1, points to new research in the United States and abroad showing that a variety of circumstances, including something as seemingly innocuous as falls from a short height, can cause fatal head injuries that appear very similar to injuries routinely diagnosed as SBS.
If research shows that the physical conditions that once automatically resulted in a prosecution could actually have been the result of an accident, the implications are enormous.
“Given the scientific developments…we may surmise that a sizeable portion of the universe of defendants convicted of SBS-based crimes is, in all likelihood, factually innocent,” Tuerkheimer writes, adding that a far greater number of defendants among the group were likely convicted on legally insufficient evidence.
“While we cannot know how many convictions are ‘unsafe’ without systematic case review, a comparison of the problematic category of SBS convictions to DNA and other mass exonerations to date reveals that this injustice is commensurate with any yet seen in the criminal justice arena,” Tuerkheimer writes.
Keith Findley, a clinical professor of law and co-director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, who headed Audrey Edmunds legal team, said, “The system is sending people to prison based on findings of beyond a reasonable doubt when in many of the cases the only evidence is medical evidence on which many medical experts…have a substantial doubt.”
He added, “This is not about being opposed to child abuse prosecutions. No critic of SBS theory wants anyone to get away with child abuse, but when the diagnosis becomes the entire basis for the prosecution, that’s problematic.”
In a 1974 medical journal article, American pediatric radiologist John Caffey described what would become SBS, saying, "Our evidence, both direct and circumstantial, indicates that manual whiplash shaking of infants is a common primary type of trauma in the so-called battered infant syndrome." The first appeal of an SBS-related criminal conviction was reported in 1984, according to Tuerkheimer's research.
During the next five years, there were less than two reported appellate decisions per year. While counting reported appellate decisions is a decided undercount since the majority of convictions do not result in such rulings, Tuerkheimer notes that beginning in 1990, the number of appeals grew rapidly. There were 74 published appellate decisions from 1990 to 1994; 160 from 1995 to 1999; and 315 from 2000 to 2004. And the upward trend is continuing: the first half of the current five year period—from 2005 to June 20, 2008 shows 259 opinions. Approximately 1,500 babies are diagnosed with SBS each year, but no information is collected to analyze how many of these cases result in criminal prosecutions, and of those how many prosecutions are based solely on the SBS triad.
Questions about the SBS diagnosis have emerged over the past two decades, but the critical debunking of the theory began in earnest following the 1997 prosecution of Louise Woodward, a 19-year-old British au pair. Woodward was charged with the murder of eight-month-old Matthew Eappen while he was in her care in his home in Newton, Mass. Dubbed the "Nanny Trial," the case was the subject of intense media scrutiny in the U.S. and the United Kingdom.
The prosecution presented testimony that the boy's injuries were the result of violent shaking and his head hitting a hard surface. Defense experts testified the boy's injuries could have occurred days earlier. Woodward was convicted of second degree murder, but the judge later reduced the charge to involuntary manslaughter, noting the possibility of another cause for the SBS symptoms.
Wisconsin law student Molly Gena, who was part of the Edmunds defense team, wrote an article for the Wisconsin Law Review in 2007, noting that “there is no consensus among medical professionals as to whether the symptoms that have traditionally been attributed to SBS are necessarily indicative of intentional shaking.”
Earlier this year, for example, two British pathologists, in a study published in the Journal of Pediatric Developmental Pathology, found that SBS symptoms can be found in babies before they are taken home from the hospital for the very first time. The Daily Telegraph in London quoted the pathologists as reporting that the symptoms can occur without violent shaking.
Dr. Irene Scheimberg told the newspaper, “When there is no evidence of physical abuse, apart from the hemorrhaging, we may be sending to jail parents who lost their children through no fault of their own.”
Closer to home, Dr. Bruce Gross, a Fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners, writing earlier this year in The Forensic Examiner, noted that studies have called into question the SBS triad as the result of only violent shaking. “The prevailing notion is that the injuries ‘characteristic’ of SBS are equivalent to those seen in a 35 mph automobile accident in which the infant victim was unrestrained, or a fall from a two –story building. Yet, research (including biomechanical analysis) has shown that, although fortunately not the norm, infants and toddlers can and do die from falls as short as 1-4 feet.”
Gross added, “In brief, biomechanical research suggests that basing the diagnosis of SBS only on the presence of the triad of symptoms lacks scientific certainty.”
Tuerkheimer writes that despite the potential for a large number of wrongful convictions, the United States criminal justice system “has yet to respond to new scientific realities.” Investigations of past SBS-based prosecutions have been undertaken in both the United Kingdom and Canada. “When viewed in global perspective, our continued adherence to a prosecution template that rests on discredited science is particularly jarring,” Tuerkheimer writes.
Findley, of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, said that in the wake of the Edmunds case, he has been inundated by requests from scores of defense attorneys for information about the case. “I am hearing anecdotally that defense lawyers are getting acquittals or cases are being dropped once they bring in evidence calling SBS into question,” he said.
Indeed, earlier this year, a jury in Iroquois County, Illinois, acquitted day care operator Connie Rieken of first degree murder in the 2005 death of a six-month-old boy who had been left in her care.
Defense attorneys Kenneth Leshen and Scott Sliwinski presented testimony from experts that suggested the baby’s injuries could have been the result of being dropped by his father days earlier.
One of the prosecution’s chief witnesses, Dr. Jill Glick, of the University of Chicago, testified that the baby was the victim of violent shaking, basing her diagnosis on the classic SBS triad of symptoms.
However, Rieken denied shaking the baby and there was no testimony from anyone that she had abused the baby in any way, according to Sliwinski.
The jury acquitted Rieken after about three hours of deliberation.
In her article, Tuerkheimer calls for a comprehensive inquiry, perhaps by the National Academy of Sciences, which recently issued a broad criticism of forensic science in the courts.
“SBS from inception to current iteration is fully embedded in the domain of the law,” Tuerkheimer writes. “This reality creates a special kind of urgency: around the country, murder convictions are resulting weekly from evidence that is a source of significant scientific controversy…To date our system has failed.”
Maurice Possley is a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and author who left the Chicago Tribune in 2008. He was a visiting lecturer at the University of Michigan Law School in 2009 and in the fall will begin work at the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law.
http://www.thecrimereport.org/archive/faulty-science/
Mistaken diagnoses of Shaken Baby Syndrome may have sent thousands of innocent people to prison, according to a new study
Read the research here
Exclusive to The Crime Report
In October, 1995, when police charged Audrey Edmunds, a Waunakee, Wis. day care provider, with the murder of a seven-month-old girl who had been left in her care, prosecutors said she had shaken the baby to death.
A medical expert testified at trial that the child had suffered critical injuries that were the hallmarks of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A jury convicted Edmunds and she was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
At the time the case was unremarkable—one of thousands of successful prosecutions during the past 30 years of parents and other care-givers who have been found guilty of charges ranging from manslaughter to murder, based on findings of what is known as the triad—retinal hemorrhage, bleeding in the brain and brain swelling. Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) is one of the few instances in the criminal justice system where the diagnosis is the basis for prosecution.
Last year, however, in a remarkable turnaround, one of the physicians that testified against Edmunds told a judge that he was no longer confident that the injuries were inflicted by Edmunds and that they could have occurred many hours before the baby was dropped off.
Edmunds was granted a new trial by a judge who ruled that the testimony “shows that there has been a shift in mainstream medical opinion.” In effect, the scientific foundation of the syndrome had been undermined to the extent that a new jury would probably have a reasonable doubt about Edmunds’ guilt.
The case was dropped and Edmunds was freed.
That was good news for Edmunds—whose freedom is the result of work done by the Wisconsin Innocence Project—but what about the thousands of others convicted during the past two decades as a result of the same medical testimony that put Edmunds behind bars?
A soon-to-be-published analysis of shaken baby cases and recent developments in the medical community by University of Maine School of Law professor Deborah Tuerkheimer presents persuasive evidence and raises troubling questions about whether many of these convictions were of innocent people who were found guilty on the basis of faulty science. The analysis is scheduled to be published in September by Washington University Law Review.
Tuerkheimer, who is joining the DePaul University College of Law faculty on July 1, points to new research in the United States and abroad showing that a variety of circumstances, including something as seemingly innocuous as falls from a short height, can cause fatal head injuries that appear very similar to injuries routinely diagnosed as SBS.
If research shows that the physical conditions that once automatically resulted in a prosecution could actually have been the result of an accident, the implications are enormous.
“Given the scientific developments…we may surmise that a sizeable portion of the universe of defendants convicted of SBS-based crimes is, in all likelihood, factually innocent,” Tuerkheimer writes, adding that a far greater number of defendants among the group were likely convicted on legally insufficient evidence.
“While we cannot know how many convictions are ‘unsafe’ without systematic case review, a comparison of the problematic category of SBS convictions to DNA and other mass exonerations to date reveals that this injustice is commensurate with any yet seen in the criminal justice arena,” Tuerkheimer writes.
Keith Findley, a clinical professor of law and co-director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, who headed Audrey Edmunds legal team, said, “The system is sending people to prison based on findings of beyond a reasonable doubt when in many of the cases the only evidence is medical evidence on which many medical experts…have a substantial doubt.”
He added, “This is not about being opposed to child abuse prosecutions. No critic of SBS theory wants anyone to get away with child abuse, but when the diagnosis becomes the entire basis for the prosecution, that’s problematic.”
In a 1974 medical journal article, American pediatric radiologist John Caffey described what would become SBS, saying, "Our evidence, both direct and circumstantial, indicates that manual whiplash shaking of infants is a common primary type of trauma in the so-called battered infant syndrome." The first appeal of an SBS-related criminal conviction was reported in 1984, according to Tuerkheimer's research.
During the next five years, there were less than two reported appellate decisions per year. While counting reported appellate decisions is a decided undercount since the majority of convictions do not result in such rulings, Tuerkheimer notes that beginning in 1990, the number of appeals grew rapidly. There were 74 published appellate decisions from 1990 to 1994; 160 from 1995 to 1999; and 315 from 2000 to 2004. And the upward trend is continuing: the first half of the current five year period—from 2005 to June 20, 2008 shows 259 opinions. Approximately 1,500 babies are diagnosed with SBS each year, but no information is collected to analyze how many of these cases result in criminal prosecutions, and of those how many prosecutions are based solely on the SBS triad.
Questions about the SBS diagnosis have emerged over the past two decades, but the critical debunking of the theory began in earnest following the 1997 prosecution of Louise Woodward, a 19-year-old British au pair. Woodward was charged with the murder of eight-month-old Matthew Eappen while he was in her care in his home in Newton, Mass. Dubbed the "Nanny Trial," the case was the subject of intense media scrutiny in the U.S. and the United Kingdom.
The prosecution presented testimony that the boy's injuries were the result of violent shaking and his head hitting a hard surface. Defense experts testified the boy's injuries could have occurred days earlier. Woodward was convicted of second degree murder, but the judge later reduced the charge to involuntary manslaughter, noting the possibility of another cause for the SBS symptoms.
Wisconsin law student Molly Gena, who was part of the Edmunds defense team, wrote an article for the Wisconsin Law Review in 2007, noting that “there is no consensus among medical professionals as to whether the symptoms that have traditionally been attributed to SBS are necessarily indicative of intentional shaking.”
Earlier this year, for example, two British pathologists, in a study published in the Journal of Pediatric Developmental Pathology, found that SBS symptoms can be found in babies before they are taken home from the hospital for the very first time. The Daily Telegraph in London quoted the pathologists as reporting that the symptoms can occur without violent shaking.
Dr. Irene Scheimberg told the newspaper, “When there is no evidence of physical abuse, apart from the hemorrhaging, we may be sending to jail parents who lost their children through no fault of their own.”
Closer to home, Dr. Bruce Gross, a Fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners, writing earlier this year in The Forensic Examiner, noted that studies have called into question the SBS triad as the result of only violent shaking. “The prevailing notion is that the injuries ‘characteristic’ of SBS are equivalent to those seen in a 35 mph automobile accident in which the infant victim was unrestrained, or a fall from a two –story building. Yet, research (including biomechanical analysis) has shown that, although fortunately not the norm, infants and toddlers can and do die from falls as short as 1-4 feet.”
Gross added, “In brief, biomechanical research suggests that basing the diagnosis of SBS only on the presence of the triad of symptoms lacks scientific certainty.”
Tuerkheimer writes that despite the potential for a large number of wrongful convictions, the United States criminal justice system “has yet to respond to new scientific realities.” Investigations of past SBS-based prosecutions have been undertaken in both the United Kingdom and Canada. “When viewed in global perspective, our continued adherence to a prosecution template that rests on discredited science is particularly jarring,” Tuerkheimer writes.
Findley, of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, said that in the wake of the Edmunds case, he has been inundated by requests from scores of defense attorneys for information about the case. “I am hearing anecdotally that defense lawyers are getting acquittals or cases are being dropped once they bring in evidence calling SBS into question,” he said.
Indeed, earlier this year, a jury in Iroquois County, Illinois, acquitted day care operator Connie Rieken of first degree murder in the 2005 death of a six-month-old boy who had been left in her care.
Defense attorneys Kenneth Leshen and Scott Sliwinski presented testimony from experts that suggested the baby’s injuries could have been the result of being dropped by his father days earlier.
One of the prosecution’s chief witnesses, Dr. Jill Glick, of the University of Chicago, testified that the baby was the victim of violent shaking, basing her diagnosis on the classic SBS triad of symptoms.
However, Rieken denied shaking the baby and there was no testimony from anyone that she had abused the baby in any way, according to Sliwinski.
The jury acquitted Rieken after about three hours of deliberation.
In her article, Tuerkheimer calls for a comprehensive inquiry, perhaps by the National Academy of Sciences, which recently issued a broad criticism of forensic science in the courts.
“SBS from inception to current iteration is fully embedded in the domain of the law,” Tuerkheimer writes. “This reality creates a special kind of urgency: around the country, murder convictions are resulting weekly from evidence that is a source of significant scientific controversy…To date our system has failed.”
Maurice Possley is a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and author who left the Chicago Tribune in 2008. He was a visiting lecturer at the University of Michigan Law School in 2009 and in the fall will begin work at the Northern California Innocence Project at Santa Clara University School of Law.
http://www.thecrimereport.org/archive/faulty-science/
Similar threads
