There are actual shaken babies, battered babies, and abused babies, and they need to be protected, but "classical" Shaken Baby Syndrome is something different--a consistent and recognizable group of symptoms that signal illness, not injury.
Shaken Baby Syndrome evolved as a theory based on unsound science decades ago, developed to explain infant deaths with certain internal injuries or symptoms but no external signs of trauma (abuse). These babies had brain swelling, bleeding in the brain--subdural hematomas (big nasty clots), and hemorrhaging between the brain and skull--retinal hemorrhages (bleeding behind the eyes), and often broken bones or the appearance of healing fractures, and bruising, but not at the site of internal injuries as expected.
Researcher Dr. Caffey "assumed" babies had been shaken to death, which would explain the lack of impact or visible traumatic injuries. And there were some reports--a mentally deranged woman who claimed she "shook" some babies and killed them--not exactly empirical science--nor were subsequent "confessions" coerced, tricked or traded out of people by plea bargain agreements. Dr. Caffey who first put forth the theory of "whiplash-shaken babies" even "later admitted that the evidence was 'meager', 'circumstantial' and 'manifestly incomplete'. Despite this, doctors, police and social services embraced the diagnosis and from such flimsy beginnings it 'grew like a snowball'."
This is not to say that no babies are shaken. They are--babies became unconscious or die and the most natural instinct of a caretaker is in trying to "shake it awake". And then there are the wretched, heart-rending wail of babies, "crying inconsolably" that drive some people mad, to an insane state where they "lose it" and shake the baby with violence, sometimes even slamming it back down on the bed...or elsewhere. But there is an observation to make about these cases too, in time here.
As science progressed, they found that shaking alone couldn't produce the primary triad of injuries associated with SBS, so they had to change the definition in many cases (in order to fit the symptoms) to "shaken-impact baby syndrome" saying it required great force to cause the injuries, without yet being able to explain the lack of trauma on the surface where the impact supposedly took place. Even more, it became know that the baby's neck and spine would give way before SBS brain symptoms appeared. Of course if there were external signs of impact at the injury site, "abuse" would be more obvious. Unfortunately for dedicated SBS devotees, the science has continued to indicate the whole of the theory wrong in bits and pieces, particularly since even accidental shaking/impact injuries lacked the consistent signs of SBS babies.
Then they come up with the brilliant idea that you can tell the difference between accidental shaken/impact babies and intentional shaken/impact babies, because the "intentional" cases (those with SBS symptoms ASSUMED to be intentional) all look about the same, but the known/observed/proven "accidental" cases all look different.
Does that analysis strike you as odd in any way? I'm looking at this in the medical literature and thinking, huh? How do the bones and tissues and blood vessels know the difference between shaking/impact that is "by accident" or "on purpose"? So I think I must be very stupid not to get this "thing" that is so obvious to a group of scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Or maybe not.
The answer was out there decades ago but the doctor who found it and tried to share it with the world was met with derision and abuse when he and a colleague toured several countries trying to inform other doctors, even though he was given Australia's top civilian honor for excellence in science for having discovered why the aborigines he was sent to forcibly vaccinate had up to a 50% death rate following the shots. In fact, Dr. Archie Kalokerinos wrote a book about it titled "Every second child". He didn't exactly know the mechanism of action at first, but noted that many of the natives had signs of scurvy from their deficient diets (white man's food, no doubt). So, he started treating babies with vitamin C and other supplements before and after vaccinating them, and cut the death rate, mostly SIDS or slower death from brain hemorrhage, I believe, down to nearly zero, which suggested strongly that for some reason, the vaccinations were causing or aggravating and accelerating infantile scurvy.
Normally, this form of scurvy would take at least 3-6 months to develop from a deficient infant diet. It would particularly affect formula-fed babies since healthy mother's milk contains enormous amounts of vitamin C. But...his medical colleagues were certainly not welcoming a theory which embraced "vaccine-induced, accelerated infantile scurvy." They don't particularly like theories which threaten to put them out of business. Poor delusional Dr. Kalokerinos, who actually set out thinking his medical colleagues around the world would like to stop killing babies for profit.
That's harsh of course. No doctor in his right mind would intentionally vaccinate a baby he knew would die because of it. But most appeared willing to continue playing Russian Roulette with baby lives on the odds of "winning" the big pot of chips called "business".
Help arrived. Dr. C. A. B. Clemetson, one of the foremost authorities in the world on Vitamin C deficiency whose 3-volume work on the subject of Vitamin C remains a classic in the field, did the science to explain the observations and successful field work of Dr. Kalokerinos, and his resulting theory.
Dr. Clemetson knew that viral or bacterial infections, including vaccines which have the same effect, cause a rise in blood histamine levels. It was also known that natural infection, and thus injected ones, used up enormous stores of vitamin C to neutralize toxins, particularly bacterial endotoxins or other types associated with bacteria or the breakdown of their bodies (bacteria are plant-like, not "bugs"). What was and is still little-known is the inverse relationship between Vitamin C and blood histamine, that when C gets used up and the level goes down, blood histamine levels rise.
Most people understand that Vitamin C deficiency causes scurvy over a period of time, which is why sailors on long voyages suffered a slow agonizing death and then "dropped like flies" before they discovered that citrus fruits cured the deadly malady. People think of "limeys" but orange juice is best, before lemons or limes. But who knows the effects of raising blood histamine levels which have a different effect on the body than histamine in the tissues which triggers allergic reactions that people medicate with "antihistamines" of course.
Blood histamines instead have the effect of causing "capillary fragility". In short, too much pressure and they blow! Essentially, this causes a hemorrhagic condition. It affects the entire body and its function.
And what about scurvy? People know about bleeding gums, bowed legs and broken bones but what is it really? --A hemorrhagic condition. It affects the entire body and its function. That includes abnormal bone growth that can cause bones to break spontaneously, or with minor trauma not normally associated with injury...birth, handling, falling, shaking. Also, the body hemorrhages all over. The vascular system can "blow" in the brain, on the skin of the bones where little hemorrhages cause blood clots the body then covers with soft callus formation which afterwards calcifies and looks just like healing fractures in different stages on x-rays. And, abnormal bruising and hemorrhages on the skin are all signs of the disease.
Without the disorder being identified, guess what? --child abuse charges.
So, you have potential vitamin C deficiency in susceptible infants whose mothers may not have eaten right or had other problems, who are being bottle-fed with no Vitamin C supplementation, and they either get sick or are injected with the equivalent of a major infection complete with metals, putrefied proteins, foreign DNA and RNA, a chemical soup, and the accidental or intentional addition of bacteria and bacterial byproducts. They can't boil or otherwise sterilize vaccines. They would be "ruined" as far as stimulating that all-important (or is it?) antibody response. So there it is--an antigenic challenge and endotoxic onslaught.
But, you ask, what about endotoxins in themselves, since they are "toxins"? You probably didn't ask, but the answer needs to be given anyway. Endotoxin can cause coagulation/bleeding disorders by itself.
And, besides sucking up Vitamin C stores, it can target baby's brain by selectively damaging the endothelial (the smooth, inner skin) linings of cerebral blood vessels, busting through the blood-brain barrier, seeping into brain tissue, causing "anoxia" (loss of oxygen) by directly affecting the respiratory center, bringing on a surge of biochemical disturbances which include free radical reactions, and leading to the rapid onset of brain swelling with all of the potential related consequences, along with causing coagulation/bleeding disturbances. In plain English, endotoxemia is bad business.
What do you see in these cases? Brain swelling, bleeding in the brain and retinal hemorrhages. Also broken or callused bones in different states of healing and abnormal bruising, just to name the most recognizable symptoms. In short, Shaken Baby Syndrome.
Oh yes, any one of these three conditions--infantile scurvy, endotoxemia, or high blood histamine levels can all cause SUDDEN DEATH.
And call to mind that insanely maddened, child abusing caretaker who shakes and/or slams the baby down or into something. The most common cause admitted to is "inconsolable crying". And what is that a symptom of? --very likely brain swelling, bleeding in the brain and retinal hemorrhages, for starters.
An "inconsolable, high-pitched cry" has been listed as a warning sign of vaccine adverse reaction for decades, or at least until vaccine manufacturers refused to accept liability for "injuries" and forced the government to cover costs. Before, the warning was "get baby to the hospital, stat". Now the advice is, "don't worry about it, just give baby some infant Tylenol and go to bed".
There was no particular brilliance involved in getting the science. It was already there in bits and pieces. The cleverness was in piecing all of the puzzle parts together to make a clear picture. "Clever" as in Nobel Prize thought processes. In fact, this kind of simplicity is what marks many men of genius.
The question arose out in the field, with little dying black babies. The answer arrived out in the field with little surviving black babies. The explanation followed...with rejection nipping at its heels by the dogs of war unleashed in the battle for PROFIT, power, and prestige. Any Syndrome which begins with the words "vaccine-induced" surely comes to the hill driven by whips, hobbled with chains, and bearing a cross.
This is John's case. They force-vaccinated his sickly baby at birth against his wishes, she stopped breathing and almost died within 48 hours but revived, and then she progressed in known increments towards full-blown infantile scurvy/endotoxemia and was diagnosed as a "Shaken Baby" for which there is no legal defense. He might as well have walked himself to prison and saved everybody a lot of time, money and effort to violate "due process" and drag him there. That was before the science. Now we'll see what happens after the science.
Shaken Baby Syndrome evolved as a theory based on unsound science decades ago, developed to explain infant deaths with certain internal injuries or symptoms but no external signs of trauma (abuse). These babies had brain swelling, bleeding in the brain--subdural hematomas (big nasty clots), and hemorrhaging between the brain and skull--retinal hemorrhages (bleeding behind the eyes), and often broken bones or the appearance of healing fractures, and bruising, but not at the site of internal injuries as expected.
Researcher Dr. Caffey "assumed" babies had been shaken to death, which would explain the lack of impact or visible traumatic injuries. And there were some reports--a mentally deranged woman who claimed she "shook" some babies and killed them--not exactly empirical science--nor were subsequent "confessions" coerced, tricked or traded out of people by plea bargain agreements. Dr. Caffey who first put forth the theory of "whiplash-shaken babies" even "later admitted that the evidence was 'meager', 'circumstantial' and 'manifestly incomplete'. Despite this, doctors, police and social services embraced the diagnosis and from such flimsy beginnings it 'grew like a snowball'."
This is not to say that no babies are shaken. They are--babies became unconscious or die and the most natural instinct of a caretaker is in trying to "shake it awake". And then there are the wretched, heart-rending wail of babies, "crying inconsolably" that drive some people mad, to an insane state where they "lose it" and shake the baby with violence, sometimes even slamming it back down on the bed...or elsewhere. But there is an observation to make about these cases too, in time here.
As science progressed, they found that shaking alone couldn't produce the primary triad of injuries associated with SBS, so they had to change the definition in many cases (in order to fit the symptoms) to "shaken-impact baby syndrome" saying it required great force to cause the injuries, without yet being able to explain the lack of trauma on the surface where the impact supposedly took place. Even more, it became know that the baby's neck and spine would give way before SBS brain symptoms appeared. Of course if there were external signs of impact at the injury site, "abuse" would be more obvious. Unfortunately for dedicated SBS devotees, the science has continued to indicate the whole of the theory wrong in bits and pieces, particularly since even accidental shaking/impact injuries lacked the consistent signs of SBS babies.
Then they come up with the brilliant idea that you can tell the difference between accidental shaken/impact babies and intentional shaken/impact babies, because the "intentional" cases (those with SBS symptoms ASSUMED to be intentional) all look about the same, but the known/observed/proven "accidental" cases all look different.
Does that analysis strike you as odd in any way? I'm looking at this in the medical literature and thinking, huh? How do the bones and tissues and blood vessels know the difference between shaking/impact that is "by accident" or "on purpose"? So I think I must be very stupid not to get this "thing" that is so obvious to a group of scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Or maybe not.
The answer was out there decades ago but the doctor who found it and tried to share it with the world was met with derision and abuse when he and a colleague toured several countries trying to inform other doctors, even though he was given Australia's top civilian honor for excellence in science for having discovered why the aborigines he was sent to forcibly vaccinate had up to a 50% death rate following the shots. In fact, Dr. Archie Kalokerinos wrote a book about it titled "Every second child". He didn't exactly know the mechanism of action at first, but noted that many of the natives had signs of scurvy from their deficient diets (white man's food, no doubt). So, he started treating babies with vitamin C and other supplements before and after vaccinating them, and cut the death rate, mostly SIDS or slower death from brain hemorrhage, I believe, down to nearly zero, which suggested strongly that for some reason, the vaccinations were causing or aggravating and accelerating infantile scurvy.
Normally, this form of scurvy would take at least 3-6 months to develop from a deficient infant diet. It would particularly affect formula-fed babies since healthy mother's milk contains enormous amounts of vitamin C. But...his medical colleagues were certainly not welcoming a theory which embraced "vaccine-induced, accelerated infantile scurvy." They don't particularly like theories which threaten to put them out of business. Poor delusional Dr. Kalokerinos, who actually set out thinking his medical colleagues around the world would like to stop killing babies for profit.
That's harsh of course. No doctor in his right mind would intentionally vaccinate a baby he knew would die because of it. But most appeared willing to continue playing Russian Roulette with baby lives on the odds of "winning" the big pot of chips called "business".
Help arrived. Dr. C. A. B. Clemetson, one of the foremost authorities in the world on Vitamin C deficiency whose 3-volume work on the subject of Vitamin C remains a classic in the field, did the science to explain the observations and successful field work of Dr. Kalokerinos, and his resulting theory.
Dr. Clemetson knew that viral or bacterial infections, including vaccines which have the same effect, cause a rise in blood histamine levels. It was also known that natural infection, and thus injected ones, used up enormous stores of vitamin C to neutralize toxins, particularly bacterial endotoxins or other types associated with bacteria or the breakdown of their bodies (bacteria are plant-like, not "bugs"). What was and is still little-known is the inverse relationship between Vitamin C and blood histamine, that when C gets used up and the level goes down, blood histamine levels rise.
Most people understand that Vitamin C deficiency causes scurvy over a period of time, which is why sailors on long voyages suffered a slow agonizing death and then "dropped like flies" before they discovered that citrus fruits cured the deadly malady. People think of "limeys" but orange juice is best, before lemons or limes. But who knows the effects of raising blood histamine levels which have a different effect on the body than histamine in the tissues which triggers allergic reactions that people medicate with "antihistamines" of course.
Blood histamines instead have the effect of causing "capillary fragility". In short, too much pressure and they blow! Essentially, this causes a hemorrhagic condition. It affects the entire body and its function.
And what about scurvy? People know about bleeding gums, bowed legs and broken bones but what is it really? --A hemorrhagic condition. It affects the entire body and its function. That includes abnormal bone growth that can cause bones to break spontaneously, or with minor trauma not normally associated with injury...birth, handling, falling, shaking. Also, the body hemorrhages all over. The vascular system can "blow" in the brain, on the skin of the bones where little hemorrhages cause blood clots the body then covers with soft callus formation which afterwards calcifies and looks just like healing fractures in different stages on x-rays. And, abnormal bruising and hemorrhages on the skin are all signs of the disease.
Without the disorder being identified, guess what? --child abuse charges.
So, you have potential vitamin C deficiency in susceptible infants whose mothers may not have eaten right or had other problems, who are being bottle-fed with no Vitamin C supplementation, and they either get sick or are injected with the equivalent of a major infection complete with metals, putrefied proteins, foreign DNA and RNA, a chemical soup, and the accidental or intentional addition of bacteria and bacterial byproducts. They can't boil or otherwise sterilize vaccines. They would be "ruined" as far as stimulating that all-important (or is it?) antibody response. So there it is--an antigenic challenge and endotoxic onslaught.
But, you ask, what about endotoxins in themselves, since they are "toxins"? You probably didn't ask, but the answer needs to be given anyway. Endotoxin can cause coagulation/bleeding disorders by itself.
And, besides sucking up Vitamin C stores, it can target baby's brain by selectively damaging the endothelial (the smooth, inner skin) linings of cerebral blood vessels, busting through the blood-brain barrier, seeping into brain tissue, causing "anoxia" (loss of oxygen) by directly affecting the respiratory center, bringing on a surge of biochemical disturbances which include free radical reactions, and leading to the rapid onset of brain swelling with all of the potential related consequences, along with causing coagulation/bleeding disturbances. In plain English, endotoxemia is bad business.
What do you see in these cases? Brain swelling, bleeding in the brain and retinal hemorrhages. Also broken or callused bones in different states of healing and abnormal bruising, just to name the most recognizable symptoms. In short, Shaken Baby Syndrome.
Oh yes, any one of these three conditions--infantile scurvy, endotoxemia, or high blood histamine levels can all cause SUDDEN DEATH.
And call to mind that insanely maddened, child abusing caretaker who shakes and/or slams the baby down or into something. The most common cause admitted to is "inconsolable crying". And what is that a symptom of? --very likely brain swelling, bleeding in the brain and retinal hemorrhages, for starters.
An "inconsolable, high-pitched cry" has been listed as a warning sign of vaccine adverse reaction for decades, or at least until vaccine manufacturers refused to accept liability for "injuries" and forced the government to cover costs. Before, the warning was "get baby to the hospital, stat". Now the advice is, "don't worry about it, just give baby some infant Tylenol and go to bed".
There was no particular brilliance involved in getting the science. It was already there in bits and pieces. The cleverness was in piecing all of the puzzle parts together to make a clear picture. "Clever" as in Nobel Prize thought processes. In fact, this kind of simplicity is what marks many men of genius.
The question arose out in the field, with little dying black babies. The answer arrived out in the field with little surviving black babies. The explanation followed...with rejection nipping at its heels by the dogs of war unleashed in the battle for PROFIT, power, and prestige. Any Syndrome which begins with the words "vaccine-induced" surely comes to the hill driven by whips, hobbled with chains, and bearing a cross.
This is John's case. They force-vaccinated his sickly baby at birth against his wishes, she stopped breathing and almost died within 48 hours but revived, and then she progressed in known increments towards full-blown infantile scurvy/endotoxemia and was diagnosed as a "Shaken Baby" for which there is no legal defense. He might as well have walked himself to prison and saved everybody a lot of time, money and effort to violate "due process" and drag him there. That was before the science. Now we'll see what happens after the science.
