Shaken Baby Syndrome. The lengths to which the conventional medical establishment will go in order to protect vaccines!

Shaken Baby Syndrome, or SBS, is an illness proposed by the conventional medical establishment to explain some deaths of babies and infants. The term dates back to the early 1970's. Wikipedia describes the condition as follows:

          "Shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is a constellation of medical findings.... subdural hematoma, retinal bleeding, and brain swelling from which physicians, consistent with current medical understanding, infer child abuse caused by violent shaking".

It is variously known as 'Non-Accidental Head Injury', 'Abusive Head Trauma', and 'Inflicted Traumatic Brain Injury'.

Based on this medical diagnosis, several parents have been accused of abusing and damaging their children, and have been given lengthy prison sentences as a result. Some conventional medical 'experts' have testified that there is no other explanation for this condition, and convictions were based largely, if not solely, on this testimony. It is perhaps fair to say that the conventional medical establishment is not entirely in agreement with this partial testimony, particularly after a number of parents appealed against their sentences, which were subsequently quashed.

So what are the alternative explanations? The Wikipedia article suggests vitamin C deficiency, and Gestational problems. There is, however, another explanation. That the 'syndrome' is caused by conventional childhood vaccines, and should really be called "Vaccine-Induced Encephalitis".

          "Many infants who suffer the so-called 'shaken baby syndrome' may be victims of undiagnosed vaccine damage. Ever since mass vaccination of infants began, reports of serious brain, cardiovascular, metabolic and other injuries started filling pages of medical journals." In fact, pertussis vaccine has been used to induce encephalomyelitis, which is characterized by brain swelling and hemorrhaging".

This assessment is taken from the website, 'Shirley's Wellness Cafe: holistic health for people and animals', and it provide a clear and concise explanation of SBS and its links with childhood vaccinations. It includes the statements made by many leading physicians who clearly believe, and evidence, that SBS is, and has been caused by vaccinations. It goes on to describe a number of actual cases of SBS that outline the role played by the conventional medical establishment in blaming parents rather than the vaccines, and other medications, that the child concerned was subjected to.

Anyone who is unfortunate enough to be involved in an 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' case or allegation should read this article.

What is important to emphasise here is this.

     1. The conventional medical establishment is adept at inventing new 'syndromes' to explain injury, illness and disease.

     2. Further, it is willing to exclude any evidence, or counter information, that implicates any of their treatments.

     3. Rather than draw attention to the damage their treatments can cause, they are willing to see innocent parents go to prison, on the basis of their incomplete and partial testimony.

The conventional medical establishment is well versed in denying, or at least downplaying, the culpability of their treatments in causing serious illness and disease. But here we have a situation where they are actually prepared to go one stage further, to pass the blame on elsewhere, presumably to ensure that the blame does not attach to their treatments.

This articles was first published on the "DIEs" website.

Child Protection and Medical 'Experts'

BBC Panorama broadcast a programme called “I want my baby back” on 13th January 2014 (see the programme by clicking here).

In essence it concerned parents who have lost, or are in danger of losing their children, arising from ‘expert’ medical evidence provided to local authority social services (the lead agency in child protection work) and the family courts. The infants and young children featured had one thing in common - all were found to have multiple broken bones which could not be explained by their parents.

Cause for concern, on the face of it, and no-one (least of all myself, as I have worked in child protection for many years) will take exception to safeguarding children from serious physical harm.

The medical authorities referred the cases to the social services, and child protection procedures were initiated. The parents did not know how the injuries occurred, and did not admit liability. Care proceeding were taken, and largely on the basis of medical evidence, many parents are losing their children, and living under the threat of any newborn child being removed in a similar fashion.

The ‘expert’ medical evidence stated in these cases that the injuries had no medical cause, and therefore, could only have been done through the abuse and mistreatment by the parents. Unfortunately, this ‘expert’ medical advice was not correct. The programme outlined that most of these children had extremely low levels of Vitamin D, and that this could, and should have been put on the agenda when considering whether the children had been abused. So who was at fault here.

• The social services who acted mainly on the information given to them by medical ‘experts’? 
• The family courts who acted mainly on the information given to them by medical ‘experts’?
• The medical ‘experts’?

Even the BBC, loyal supporters of the Conventional Medical Establishment, almost brought themselves to admit that the medical evidence was wrong, and that they should have been aware of the consequences of serious Vitamin D deficiency - one of which is rickets (a disease now apparently in the process to returning to this country).

There is certainly a similar reluctance to challenge the Conventional Medical Establishment within local authority social services departments, and within the family court. Indeed, there is a reluctance throughout society to challenge conventional medical expertise!

There is, however, no such diffidence within the Conventional Medical Establishment to claiming not only expertise, but an expertise bordering on infallibility! So if a child is found to have multiple broken bones, and the ‘expert’ medics can provide no explanation for them, the parents are blamed. There can be no other explanation as doctors know, and can explain everything, about health matters.

The word of conventional doctors seems to have become the unquestioned, unchallenged ‘law’ of the land.

Has this happened before? Do you remember ‘shaken baby syndrome’, for which several mothers were imprisoned on the almost sole basis of the evidence of conventional medical ‘experts’. And that these mothers were eventually released when the medical evidence was found to be deeply flawed.

And do you recall the issues raised by many unexplained cot deaths (otherwise known as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDs)? 

The only difference with ‘shaken baby syndrome’ and SIDs is that there are medical explanations, but the explanations were not given by the conventional medical ‘experts’ involved presumably because it did not suit them to do so. In other words, SIDs has been found to be caused by the very medicine they prescribe for us!

Sudden Infant Death is known to be caused by the DPT vaccine, given routinely to all very young children.

And doctors, court experts or not, are aware (or should be aware) that the DPT vaccine does cause Sudden Infant Death.

So should these conventional medical ‘experts’ have known about the link between broken bones and Vitamin D deficiency? Should these parents have lost their babies? As the BBC Panorama programme indicated, the link between Vitamin D deficiency and Rickets has been known for over 100 years. So what this knowledge does, yet again, is to raise a vital question. 

To what extent can we trust the Conventional Medical Establishment to tell us the truth? How honest are our doctors about the dangers their drugs and vaccines cause us? And just how far will conventional medical ‘experts’ go to prevent us from knowing about the harm their medical system is doing to our health.

This is just another reason for all of us, but particularly the mainstream media, the social services, and the courts, to begin to question seriously the safety, effectiveness, and indeed the honesty of the Conventional Medical Establishment.