Shaken Baby Syndrome
                                       
    The Vaccination Link
                                                              By: Viera Scheibner, Ph.D.  
                                                                              August 1998

                                                          
   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?  

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-giver’s diaries and medical records, I quickly established that these
babies were given one or more of the series of so-called routine shots-
hepatitis B, DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus), polio and HIB (Haemophilus
influenzae type B--shortly before they developed symptoms of illness
resulting in serious brain damage or death.  

The usual scenario is that a baby is born and does well initially.  At the usual
age of about two months it is administered the first series of vaccines as
above.  

(Sometimes a hepatitis B injection is given shortly after birth while the mother
and child are still in the hospital.  However, a great number of babies now die
within days or within two to four weeks of birth after hepatitis B vaccination,
as documented by the records of the VAERS
Vaccine Adverse Event
Reporting System
in the USA.)  

So, the baby stops progressing, starts deteriorating, and usually develops
signs of respiratory tract infection.  

Then comes the second and third injections, and tragedy strikes: the child
may cry intensely and inconsolably, may stop feeding properly, vomit, have
difficulty swallowing, become irritable, stop sleeping, and may develop
convulsions with accelerating progressive deterioration of its condition and
mainly its brain function.  

This deterioration may be fast, or may slowly inch in until the parents notice
that something is very wrong with their child and then rush it to the doctor or
hospital.  

Interestingly, they are invariably asked when the baby was immunized.  On
learning that the baby was indeed
"immunized" the parents may be reassured
that its symptoms will all clear up.  

They are sent home with the advice,
"Give your baby Panadol".  If they persist
in considering the baby's reaction serious, they may be labeled as anxious
parents or trouble-makers.  

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

Until recently, the vaccine death would have just been labeled
"sudden infant
death"
, particularly if the symptoms and pathological findings were minimal.  

However, nowadays, with an alarmingly increasing frequency, the parents (or
at least one of them, usually the father) may be accused of shaking the baby
to death.  

The accused may even
"confess" to shaking the baby, giving the reason, for
example, that having found the baby lying still and not breathing an/or with a
glazed look in its eyes, they shook it gently-as is only natural-in their attempt
to revive it.  

Sometimes, ironically, they save the baby's life, only to be accused of causing
the internal injuries that made the baby stop breathing in the first place, and
which in fact were already present when they shook the baby to revive it.  

No matter what the parents say or do, everything is construed against them.  
If they are crying and emotional, they will be accused of showing signs of
guilt.  

If they manage to remain composed and unemotional, they will be called
calculating and controlling-and guilty because of that.  

In another scenario the distraught parents try to describe the symptoms to an
attending doctor in hospital or a surgery but are totally at a loss to
understand what has happened to their baby.  

To their shock and dismay, they later discover that while they were describing
the observed symptoms, the doctor or another staff member was writing
three ominous words in the medical record: shaken baby syndrome.  

Many of these parents end up indicted and even sentenced to prison for a
crime that somebody else committed.  

Some of these cases have been resolved by acquittal on appeal or have been
won based on expert reports demonstrating vaccines as the cause of the
observed injuries or death.  

However, only God and a good lawyer can help those parents or care-givers
who happen to be uneducated, or have a criminal record, particularly for
violence, or have a previous history of a similar
"unexplained" death of a baby
in their care, or, worse still, a vaccine-injured baby with a broken arm or
fractured skull.  

More and more often, the unfortunate parents are given the option of a
"deal"
if they confess and/or plead guilty, they will get only a couple of years in
prison; but if they don't, they may end up getting 20 years.  

I was told by a social worker in the United States that many foster parents are
rotting in US prisons.  First, they are forced to vaccinate their charges, and
then, when side effects or death occur, they are accused of causing them.  

Inevitably the possibility exists that infanticide or child abuse is involved in
some of the cases.  However, there is no determinable reason why so many
parents or other caregivers would suddenly begin to behave like this.  

It is incredibly insensitive and callous to immediately suspect and accuse the
distraught, innocent parents of harming their own baby.  

                            
                      MEDICAL STUDIES
Let's now have a look at medical literature dealing with shaken baby
syndrome and child abuse.  

Caffey (1972, l974) described the
"whiplash shaken infant syndrome" as a
result of manual shaking by the extremities with whiplash-induced
intracranial and intraocular bleedings, linked with permanent brain damage
and mental retardation.  

He referred to his own paper, published almost 30 years prior to the above-
quoted papers, which described what he called
"the original six battered
babies in 1945".  

The essential elements in this description were subdural haematomas,
intraocular bleedings and multiple traction changes in the long bones.  

These findings became a benchmark of the
"evidence" that a child had been
shaken before developing these signs.  

Reece (1993) analyzed fatal child abuse and sudden infant death syndrome
(SIDS) and considered the critical diagnostic decisions.  He emphasized that
distinguishing between an unexpected infant death due to SIDS and one due
to child abuse challenges pediatricians, family physicians, pathologists and
child protection agencies.  

On the one hand, they must report instances of suspected child abuse and
protect other children in the family; and on the other, all agree that the
knowledge in this area is incomplete and ambiguity exists in many cases.  

Duhaime et al. (l992) wrote that:
"patients with intradural haemorrhage and no
history of trauma must also have clinical and radiographic findings of blunt
impact to the head, unexplained long-bone fractures or other soft tissue
inflicted injury, in order to completely eliminate the possibility of spontaneous
intracranial haemorrhage such as might rarely occur from a vascular
malformation or a bleeding disorder."  

While it is not disputed that some parents and caregivers may cause the
above injuries by mistreating infants, one must take great care in interpreting
similar pathological findings of injuries caused by other insults, which have
nothing to do with mechanical injuries and mistreatments of infants.  

I shall never forget the father of a l-month-old infant, who, after being
acquitted on appeal of causing shaken baby syndrome, said words to the
effect,
"We still don't know what killed our baby".  

It did not occur to them and nobody told them that it was the Vaccine that
killed their baby.  

So what else can cause brain swelling, intracranial bleeding, ocular retinal
hemorrhages, and broken skull and other bones?  

Ever since the mass vaccination of infants began, reports of serious brain,
cardiovascular, metabolic and other injuries started filling pages of medical
journals.  

Indeed, vaccines like the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine are actually
used to induce encephalomyelitis (experimental allergic encephalomyelitis) in
laboratory animals (Levine and Sowinski, 1973).  

This is characterized by brain swelling and hemorrhaging of an extent similar
to that caused by mechanical injuries.  

Munoz et al. (1981) studied biological activities of crystalline pertussigen-a
toxin produced by Bordetella pertussis, the causative agent in Pertussis and
an active ingredient in all types of pertussis vaccines whether whole-cell or
acellular-in a number of laboratory experiments with mice.  

They established that minute amounts of pertussigen induced
hypersensitivity to histamine (still detected 84 days after administration),
leucocytosis, production of insulin, increased production of IgE and Gi
antibodies to hen egg albumin, susceptibility to anaphylactic shock and
vascular permeability of striated muscle.  

A dose of 546 nanograms per mouse killed 50 per cent of mice.  Typically, the
deaths were delayed.  When a dose of five micrograms of pertussigen was
administered, most mice did not gain weight and died by day five; the last
mouse died on day eight.  

A one-microgram dose of one preparation killed four out of five mice.  They
first gained weight from days two to five, but then remained at nearly constant
weight until they died.  

Even the one that survived for 16 days (it was then killed) experienced crises
(stopped putting on weight) on the days when the others died.  Had that one
lived longer, it might have died on day 24.  

This is another of the critical days identified by Cotwatch research into
babies' breathing in which babies have flare-ups of stress-induced breathing,
or die, after vaccination.  

Interestingly, when laboratory animals develop symptoms of vaccine damage
and then die, it is never considered coincidental; but when children develop
the same symptoms and/or die after the administration of the same vaccines,
it is considered coincidental or caused by their parents or other caregivers.  

When all this fails, then it is considered
"mysterious".  Delayed reactions are
the norm rather than the exception.  This has been explained as a
consequence of an immunological intravascular complexing of particulate
antigen (whole-cell or acellular pertussis organisms) (Wilkins, 1988')  

However, vaccinators have great difficulty with this, and as a rule draw largely
irrelevant timelines for accepting the causal link between administration of
vaccines and onset of reactions-usually 24 hours or up to seven days.  

However, most reactions to vaccines are delayed, and most cases are then
considered unrelated to vaccination.  

One only has to peruse a product insert of hepatitis B vaccine to see that
besides local reactions, a number of neurological signs may occur, such as
paraesthesia and paralysis (including Guillain-Barre syndrome, optic neuritis
and multiple sclerosis).  

Devin et al. (1996) described retinal hemorrhages, which are emphatically
being considered the sure sign of child abuse, even though these can be and
are caused by vaccines.  

Goetting and Sowa (1990) described retinal hemorrhage, which occurred after
cardiopulmonary resuscitation in children.  

Bulging fontanelle due to brain swelling was described by Jacob and
Mannino (1979) as a direct reaction to the DPT vaccine.  

They described a case of a seven-month-old baby who, nine hours after the
third DPI' vaccination, developed a bulging anterior fontanelle and became
febrile and irritable.  

Bruising and easy bleeding is one of the characteristic signs of the blood
clotting disorder, thrombocytopenia-a recognized side effect of many
vaccines.  

Its first signs are easy bruising and bleeding and petechial (spotlike) rash.  
Thrombocytopenia may result in brain and other hemorrhages (Woerner et al.
L, 1981).  

The convulsions which follow one in 1,750 doses of the DPT vaccines (Cody
et al., 1981) can result in unexplained falls in bigger children who can sit up or
stand, which may cause linear cracks of the skull and other fractures.  

When one considers that babies are supposed to get a minimum of three
doses of DPT and OPV (oral polio vaccine), then the risk of developing a
convulsion is one in 580, and with five doses the risk rises to one in 350.  

This means that a great number of babies develop convulsions after
vaccination between the ages of two to six months, at about 18 months, and
at five to six years.  

The convulsions often occur when the parent or another caregiver is not
looking, and the child, while standing or sitting on the floor, simply falls
backwards or onto its arm.  

All these signs can be misdiagnosed as a result of mechanical injuries,
particularly so because vaccinators simply refuse to admit that vaccines
cause serious injuries, or they only pay lip service to the damage caused by
the pernicious routine of up to 18 vaccines with which babies are supposed
to be injected within six months of birth.  

The court system should therefore be more open to the documented viable
and alternative explanations of the observed injuries, and be more wary of the
obviously biased statements of the pro-vaccination
"experts" that nothing
else but vigorous shaking can cause retinal hemorrhages even though such
statements only reflect their ignorance.

Such
"experts" then go home and continue advising parents to vaccinate,
and thus, with impunity, they cause more and more cases of vaccine-injured
babies and children.  

                          THE UK MEASLES EPIDEMIC THAT NEVER WAS
The term "Munchausen syndrome per proxy" has been used to identify
individuals who kill or otherwise harm a child in order to attract attention to
themselves.  

The term was used in many instances in the 1980s when earlier attempts were
fashioned to explain some of the cases of sudden infant death.  

According to Meadow (1995),
"Munchausen syndrome per proxy"  is
flamboyant terminology originally used for journalistic reasons.  It was a term
commonly applied to adults who presented themselves with false illness
stories, just like the fictional Baron von Munchausen who traveled on cannon
balls.  

The term is now used to apply to parents of children who present with false
illness stories fabricated by a parent or someone else in that position.  

While the term may have some validity in describing this special form of child
abuse in the documented cases of parents slowly poisoning their child or
exposing it to unnecessary and often dangerous and invasive medical
treatments, more recently it became a way for some doctors to camouflage
the real observed side-effects of especially measles (M), measles-mumps-
rubella (MMR) and measles-rubella (MR) vaccinations in the UK.  

Many thousands of British children (up to 15,000 in my considered opinion)
developed signs of autism usually associated with bowel symptoms after
being given the above vaccines in 1994.  

The Bulletin of Medical Ethics published two articles, in 1994 and 1995,
dealing with this problem.  The October 1994 article
"Is your measles jab
really necessary?"
stated that during November 1994 the UK Government
would be running a mass campaign of measles vaccination with the intention
of reaching every child between the ages of five and sixteen.  

It claimed that the purpose of this campaign was to prevent an epidemic that
would otherwise occur in 1995, with up to 200,000 cases and up to 50 deaths.  

The article also showed that since 1990 there have been only 8,000 to 10,000
cases of measles each year in England and Wales, and that coincidentally
there was an epidemic of only about 5,000 cases in Scotland in the winter of
1993-94.  

Between May and August 1994 the notification rate in England and Wales
dropped sharply, so there was nothing that clearly suggested an imminent
epidemic.  

The nine-page article in the August 1995 issue of BME stated among other
things that on 14 September 1992 the Department of Health (DOH) hastily
withdrew two brands of MMR vaccines following a leak to the national press
about the risk of children developing mumps meningitis after administration
of these vaccines.  

Both brands contained the Urabe mumps vaccine strain, which had been
shown to cause mumps meningitis in one in 1,044 vaccinees (Yawata, 1994).  

Based on the epidemiology of measles, there was never going to be a
measles epidemic in 1995 and there was certainly no justification for
concomitant rubella vaccination.  

The mass campaign was planned as an experimental alternative to a two-
dose schedule of measles-mumps-rubella vaccination.  The UK Government
knowingly misled parents about the need for the campaign and about the
relative risks of measles and measles vaccination.  

The DOH broke the European Union's law about contracts and tendering to
ensure that specific pharmaceutical companies were awarded the contracts
to provide the campaign vaccines.  

All this must have been extremely fortunate for the drug companies in
question, since the supplies of measles and rubella vaccines-which they'd
been left with in 1992 and for which there was virtually no demand-were soon
to go out of date.  

The vaccination campaign achieved very little.  
Indeed, in 1995 there were twice as many cases of serologically confirmed
rubella in England and Wales as in the same period of 1994: 412 cases
against 217.  

Six cases of rubella in pregnant women were reported.  The data indicate that
more measles cases were notified in the first quarter of 1995 (n=11) than in the
first quarter of 1994 (n=9).  

Despite this, there were several claims from government doctors that measles
transmission had stopped among school children.  Higson (1995) wrote that
two DOH officials tried to justify the success of the measles and rubella
vaccination campaign by using data that cannot be used to give year-on-year
comparison for measles infections.  

Indeed, he wrote that the data collected by the public health departments on
the measles notifications show no indication of benefit from the highly
expensive campaign.  The British government spent some £20 million
purchasing the near-expired-date measles and rubella vaccines.  

Some 1,500 parents are now participating in a class action over the damages
(most often the bowel problems and autism) suffered by their children.  

Wakefield et al. (1998) published a paper in the Lancet in which they reported
on a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive
developmental disorder, which occurred 1 to 14 days (median, 6.3 days) after
M, MMR and MR vaccinations.  

They also quoted the
"opioid excess" theory of autism, that autistic disorders
result from the incomplete breakdown and excessive absorption of gut-
derived peptides from foods, including barley, rye, oats and milk and dairy
product casein, caused by vaccine injury to the bowel.  

These peptides may exert central-opioid effects, directly or through the
formation of ligands with peptidase enzymes required for the breakdown of
endogenous central-nervous-system opioids, leading to disruption of normal
neuroregulation and brain development by endogenous encephalins and
endorphins.  

A number of British parents approached me last year and complained that
their children had developed behavioral and bowel problems after
vaccination (as above), and that instead of getting help from their doctors
they were told that they just imagined the symptoms or caused them in order
to attract attention to themselves.  

The term
"Munchausen syndrome per proxy" was used.  It caused a lot of
hardship and marital problems and did nothing for the victims of vaccination.  
Their stories were horrifying.  

     
                            EDUCATION ON VACCINE DANGERS
In summary, the trail of vaccine disasters is growing.  Not only do
vaccinations do nothing to improve the health of children and other
recipients, they cause serious health problems and hardship for their families
by victimizing the victims of vaccines.  

Parents of small children of vaccination age should use their own judgment
and should educate themselves about the real dangers of this unscientific,
useless, harmful and invasive medical procedure.  

No matter how much vaccines are pushed, vaccination is not compulsory in
Australia (though the Liberal Federal Minister for Health has announced his
plan to make it so in the near future-which, to me, sounded more like a threat
at the time), and parents do not have to vaccinate their children.  

Those parents who think they are safe when they follow the official
propaganda may be in for a rude awakening: they may be accused of causing
the harm, which resulted from vaccination.  

I also urge medical practitioners to use their own judgment and observations
and study the trail of disaster created by vaccination.  

They should listen when their patients and especially the parents of small
children report side effects of vaccinations.  

The inability to listen and observe the truth has created a breed of medical
practitioners who inflict illness rather than healing, who become accusers
rather than helpers, and who are ultimately just covering up---whether
consciously or unknowingly, but with frighteningly increasing frequency-for
the disasters created by their useless and deadly concoctions and
sanctimonious ministrations.  

Maybe the term
"Munchausen boomerang" should be introduced to describe
those members of the medical profession who victimize the victims of their
own harmful interventions (vaccines in particular).  

In my closing remark, I urge parents to ask themselves a few questions.  Have
you noticed how much the vaccines are pushed by threats, coercion,
victimization and monetary punitive measures, with parents then being
accused of causing what are clearly side effects of the vaccines?  

Would you succumb to the same type of pressure if any other product were
pushed with the same vengeance?  

Wouldn't you be suspicious and ask what's wrong with the product if it has to
be forced upon consumers?  Why do so many informed parents, as well as
many informed medical doctors, now refuse vaccination?  

Shouldn't you be suspicious of a medical system which forces itself upon
you, which won't accept responsibility for vaccine injuries and lawfully tries
to take away your constitutional, democratic and legal right to have control
over your own and your children's health without being hassled and
victimized?  

By: Viera Scheibner, Ph.D.

Article: Shaken Baby Syndrome The Vaccination Link
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/sbs.html

About the Author:
Dr. Viera Scheibner is a retired principal research scientist with a doctorate in
natural sciences.  
 www.vierascheibner.com