well, it's clear again you could not have even looked at the link I provided prior to posting
just how do you think children were accounted for years before "special ED"? like those who were not in school - do you think society had no idea why they did not attend school and what medical condition prevented them from attending? So suddenly we know something we never knew prior was really happening! wow- just wow!!!
The reason why I asked for you to provide a link was because I wanted to see if you had read something that actually says that he "advocates that shaken baby syndrome is really a vaccine injury." The way you write that indicates that you think that Dr. Buttram believes, all encompassingly, that all cases of SBS are really vaccine injury.
I have read about the Baby Alan case. Unless you were actually there, or watched the trial, the reports that his father admitted to hanging him by his feet and hitting him, IMO were lies. At the time, I couldn't find a single credible source for this information. The only place I read that was on one of the most biassed websites that describe anti vaxers as vile liars and loons. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/07/the-vilest-antivaccine-lie-that-wont-die/
On the issue of the baby's broken ribs: http://www.freeyurko.bizland.com/storyofbabyalan.html I am only going to quote this one sentence because this is taking the thread off topic.
Next, different sizes of callus might just as well have indicated a difference in severity of the injuries rather a difference in time of occurrence.
If these are your reasons for discrediting Dr. Buttram, then I just can't agree. Obviously most cases of SBS are abuse. But in the few instances that it was vaccine injury, thank God for people like Dr. Buttram who speak up and do the right thing, even though people like you will discredit him and make him out to be crazy. Baby Alan's father's conviction was eventually overturned and he was let out of prison. If he actually admitted to abusing his baby, I doubt they would have let him go free. If he admitted it, what would have been the point of a trial in the first place?
Found this and thought it may be relevant to this discussion. While it may not address vaccine injury specifically. It does state that in fact the bolded above is NOT true.
Is that really the opposite end, though? In the US, the vast majority of children are flourishing on peanut butter, too. But there are some with severe allergic reactions, which DO get reported. But the severe vaccine reactions usually don't.
In the undeveloped countries, neither the vaccine reactions nor the severe allergies would get reported, or even recognized, as most people do not have ready access to medical care, or have anyone to whom they can actually report reactions.
Not sure if vaccines still use excipients derived from peanut oil. The companies never admitted it, and were never required by law to disclose all ingredients, as excipients and adjuvants are considered trade secrets, protected by law.