Health Impact News Editor Brian Shilhavy Comments:
One of the true travesties of justice in modern society is the medical profession’s refusal to acknowledge vaccine injuries. While U.S. law forces the government to pay out damages to vaccine injuries and deaths in a special federal vaccine court  that was setup to protect the manufacturers of vaccines from any legal liabilities, medical professionals continue to deny the existence of vaccine injuries, and therefore research to learn how to help vaccine damaged children is never funded nor conducted.
The fact that the child autism rate has skyrocketed from a rate of 1 out of every 10,000 children to 1 out of every 50 in the past few years, and is still climbing, is a national tragedy as the science linking vaccines to autism is covered up or ignored.
But how much more of a travesty of justice is it when a child is harmed by vaccines resulting in brittle bones, and then the parents are put in prison for a false diagnosis of “Shaken Baby Syndrome,” while the real criminals go free and continue harming other children with their faulty medical products? These medical criminals can never be sued for damages in a court of law in the U.S., and therefore have no motivation at all to produce safe products. The U.S. government is the largest purchaser of childhood vaccines buying $4 billion worth of vaccines, giving the pharmaceutical companies a guaranteed market for their products.
And now, today in 2015, lawmakers in states like California are pushing to make these liability-free vaccines mandatory by removing parental exemptions. But if a child is found with broken bones due to a vaccine-induced brittle bone condition, the parent is the one who risks going to jail, not the manufacturer of the vaccine, nor the medical professional who administered it.
Watch Out, You Could be Jailed for Vaccinating Your Child
by Christina England
Health Impact News
As more and more men and women face lengthy prison sentences after being accused of inducing shaken baby syndrome (SBS), questions are being asked as to whether or not this syndrome actually exists. While some professionals appear to be in no doubt that the syndrome does exist, others are beginning to question the syndrome’s authenticity.
What is Shaken Baby Syndrome?
When a medical professional suspects that a baby has been violently shaken, they will examine them for the “triad” of injuries associated with SBS. These are subdural haematomas (bleeds inside the brain), retinal haemorrhages (bleeds behind the eyes) and cerebral edema (swelling or inflammation inside the brain).
Whilst a large percentage of the medical establishment continues to embrace the SBS diagnosis, others have become critical and maintain that the violent shaking of a young child is not the only cause of the triad of injuries.
Mounting evidence suggests that 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 , and on the website Parents and Carers Against Medical Injustice. 
How Did This Tragedy Begin?
Dr. Norman 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,  he discussed 23 cases of strongly suspected parental assault on children under the age of three and 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.
One year later, in 1972, pediatric radiologist John Caffey wrote a second paper titled On the Theory and Practice of Shaking Infants , in which he stated:
During the last 25 years substantial evidence, both manifest and circumstantial, has gradually accumulated which suggests that the whiplash-shaking and jerking of abused infants are common causes of the skeletal as well as the cerebrovascular lesions; the latter is the most serious acute complication and by far the most common cause of early death.
Today we invite your attention to the evidence which supports our concept that the whiplash-shaking and jerking of infants are frequently pathogenic and often result in grave permanent damage to infantile brains and eyes. We shall also point out that potentially pathogenic whip-lash-shaking is practiced commonly in a wide variety of ways, under a wide variety of circumstances, by a wide variety of persons, for a wide variety of reasons.
By merely suggesting that these injuries could be the result of child abuse, the Shaken Baby Syndrome was born and Caffey is now believed to be the first person to identify the syndrome. However, not all medical professionals agree with his theories and many have since stated that it is physically impossible to cause the triad of injuries by merely shaking a child.
Over the years, biomechanics experts worldwide have questioned the validity of the SBS theory. They believe that the mere shaking of a baby cannot cause such injuries. In an attempt to demonstrate this, biomechanic specialist and expert witness Dr. John Lloyd attempted to evaluate various infant shaking techniques in a bid to prove that shaking an infant alone cannot cause the triad of injuries associated with SBS. Obviously, he was unable to use a real baby to test out his theories; however, he was able to use his son, Kieran, to demonstrate one aspect of his experiment.
Dr. Lloyd wrote:
Shaking events were investigated using both the NCSBS doll and CRABI mannequin. These tasks included: Resuscitative shaking in the flexion-extension plane, Resuscitative shaking in about yaw axis, Harmful shaking, and (iv) Gravity assisted shaking.
Pediatric Activities of Daily Living (PADL) were explored primarily using the CRABI biofidelic mannequin. These activities included: pushing infant in various strollers over smooth and uneven surfaces; walking and running on treadmill while holding the infant in a baby carrier; swinging infant in powered cradle; burping – both back slap and up/down shaking techniques; rough play – throw up in the air and catch; bouncing infant on knee; hitching infant up on the hip; consoling behavior; and swinging back and forth. Additionally, the author’s son, Kieran Lloyd, shared his enthusiasm for bouncing in his Fisher Price jumparoo.
After extensive testing, Dr. Lloyd proved without doubt that shaking a baby repetitively cannot cause SBS. He concluded:
In summary, this biomechanical study presents several important results.
Firstly, that infant shaking produces head motions that are far below the levels required to cause injury in children.
Secondly, head motion during vigorous shaking is very similar to head motion while a 7-month-old infant plays in his jumparoo and there are no recorded cases of head injury attributed to such playful activity.
Thirdly, playing in the jumparoo causes repetitive head motion of a frequency similar to that experienced during shaking. Thus repetitive head motion does not increase risk of brain injury.
Finally, that the NCSBS demonstration doll is an unsuitable infant representative.
For further research, I urge parents to watch a recording of a lecture given by Dr. John Lloyd  in 2013.
A Flood of Papers Linking SBS to Vaccine Injuries
Whilst the BMJ covered many possible causes of the injuries associated with SBS, they failed to mention vaccinations, which have also been linked to the diagnosis. Over the years, there have been several papers linking vaccinations to both the inflammation and the swelling of the brain.
Dr. Viera Scheibner mentioned 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 was concerned that parents were being falsely accused after their children had suffered a vaccine injury. She wrote:
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 caregivers’ 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.
Dr. Scheibner’s paper is full of facts and references and she gives many examples of actual cases. Whilst she acknowledged the fact that child abuse does take place, she added that “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.”
Towards the end of her paper, she wrote:
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.
Many believe that Dr. Scheibner is absolutely correct and have since questioned whether or not it is this blanket refusal to believe that vaccinations can cause severe adverse reactions, which has caused the “SBS crisis” that we have today.
Yet More Evidence Linking Shaken Baby Syndrome to Vaccinations
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. 
Dr. Buttram opened 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.
Once again, Buttram’s paper suggests that vaccine reactions are being overlooked and misdiagnosed by health care professionals.
Dr. Michael D Innis is yet another professional linking adverse reactions to vaccination and false accusations of SBS for many years. In a paper titled The Shaken Baby Syndrome Myth  he wrote:
The “new scientific truth” that doctors must get familiar with is that the so-called “Shaken Baby Syndrome” is a flagrant untruth fabricated and advocated by doctors unable to comprehend the fact that an autoimmune reaction destroys the β cells of the Pancreas causing Insulin deficiency and hence failure of Vitamin C to enter cells i.e. Tissue Scurvy, as without intracellular Vitamin C cellular function is impeded and tissues break down. Hyperglycemia, proving Insulin deficiency, is a constant biochemical feature of Tissue Scurvy misdiagnosed as Shaken Baby Syndrome.
Outlining a number of his cases in which vaccines had preceded the child’s illness, he concluded:
All the evidence points to the fact that children alleged to have suffered from the condition called Shaken Baby Syndrome have evidence of Liver dysfunction initiated by an autoimmune response to vaccines causing a deficiency of Insulin manifested as Hyperglycaemia. The deficiency of Insulin also results in failure of the transfer of Vitamin C from the Plasma into the cells thereby causing Tissue Scurvy. Intracellular Vitamin C is necessary for efficient cellular function and without it a breakdown of tissues and haemorrhage are inevitable as in Tissue Scurvy.
It is taking a long time for doctors in the English speaking world to understand this simple fact and they continue to send innocent carers to prison.
As more and more parents are sent to jail after such injuries have occurred, parents should ask themselves, why?
Rickets, Vaccinations and SBS
Thousands of parents worldwide are being falsely accused of child abuse after doctors discover what they believe to be healing fractures on x-rays. However, far from being abuse, there is growing evidence to support the claim that many of these children are in fact suffering from infantile rickets.
Rickets  is a condition caused by a severe lack of vitamin D in the diet, which can lead to a softening and weakening of the bones, making it difficult for the body to absorb calcium.
One doctor who is unafraid to speak out on the subject is Dr. David Ayoub, a practicing radiologist from Springfield, Illinois. He believes that it is not only a poor diet and the lack of sunshine that is responsible for the growing number of children suffering from rickets, but also the growing number of vaccinations containing the adjuvant aluminium.
Dr. Ayoub, an expert on the subject, has been involved in hundreds of cases of misdiagnosed rickets worldwide and has testified on the behalf of many innocent parents.
During an interview with Dr. Mercola  in February 2014, Dr. Ayoub spoke about his vast experience and described how he has noticed a dramatic increase in the number of parents being falsely accused.
He told Dr. Mercola that:
For at least 25 years, we have seen rickets on x-rays of infants with fractures, and from the very beginning, and this is the research out of the Boston Children’s Hospital, there has been a misdiagnosis or a diagnostic substitution.
The changes of healing rickets in infants – they looked at dead children’s skeletal surveys and looked under the microscope to correlate what they saw in x-rays, under the slide, under the microscope – and they diagnosed unique fractures, they didn’t diagnose healing rickets, and from that time on the stamp, on these changes on x-rays had been labelled as child abuse, specific changes in child abuse. It’s a horrific thing to think about.
The cases that we are seeing are 100 percent healing phase rickets. Rickets in infancy is much, much different from the rickets in the classical age group, which is between one and two years of age. If this is real child abuse, well, then I have never seen a case over one year of age. They are typically about five weeks when they start fracturing from a diaper change, changing a shirt or putting an arm in a car seat or a sibling playing with a kid, being a little rough, that sort of thing, when you find healing fractures and so forth.
In the article that accompanied Dr. Ayob’s interview , Dr. Mercola wrote:
The last interview I did for you was really the link to my current work in infantile rickets,” he says. “I was looking closely at aluminum adjuvants in vaccines and their association with diseases in early infancy. One of the classic diseases that aluminum is linked to is rickets. It’s also plausible that aluminum is anticoagulant. In other words, it can induce bleeding conditions.
If this is true, and there is no reason to doubt the work of Dr. Ayoub, then why does the medical profession rarely examine the possibility of vaccine-induced rickets in SBS trials?
For further information on this subject, see:
Epidemic of Infantile Rickets May Have Put Thousands of Innocent Parents in Jail for Child Abuse 
The Science Does Not Support the Findings of Shaken Baby Syndrome
In 2004, Dr. Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati wrote a paper titled Shaken Baby or Medical Malpractice?  outlining a number of cases in which he had been involved. He made his feelings abundantly clear: the science did not support the findings. He believed that in each case, it was either the vaccines or the medication that were responsible for the child’s illness, and not the parents or caregivers, as was suggested. He opened his paper by stating:
Babies Alan, Robert, Lucas, and toddler Alexa were born at different places and times in the United States of America by different parents. However, they have many things in common: vaccines and medications caused their deaths; without conducting thorough medical and legal investigations, their treating physicians, medical examiners, police, and states accused their parents or caretakers of killing them; based upon an erroneous theory, their innocent parents or caretakers were imprisoned for killing them by violent shaking and blunt trauma.
The falsely accused and their families requested that I evaluate the medical evidence in order to find the factual causes that led to the fatal injuries. I investigated these cases by reviewing prenatal and postnatal medical records; autopsy reports; vaccines and medications given to the children; trial documents and testimonies of expert witnesses; and the medical literature pertinent to these cases. In each case, I used differential diagnosis to evaluate the contributions of agents relevant to the case and the possible synergistic actions among agents in causing injuries and death.
My findings clearly show that the shaken baby “syndrome” (SBS) theory is not supported by science. The SBS theory has been applied since the early 1970’s in cases of babies and toddlers who suffer from subdural and/or retinal bleeding when they do not exhibit signs of external injuries. My investigation of the four alleged SBS cases noted above revealed that the treating physicians and medical examiners were negligent, as they did not carry out proper medical investigations in order to find the factual causes of the bleeding in tissues. The stories of the four children described below provide the medical evidence that supports my conclusions.
Dr. Al-Bayati’s powerful introduction preceded an equally powerful paper in which he outlined each of the cases in full.
He concluded that:
After evaluating the medical evidence presented in these cases, one can conclude that the theory behind shaken baby “syndrome” is false. The federal government has the responsibility to take immediate action by launching an investigation in to the SBS diagnosis and theory, and I am hereby requesting that they do so. The validity of this erroneous theory must urgently be questioned and re-evaluated in order to prevent other wrongful convictions.
His paper makes extremely convincing reading. However, despite his recommendations, very little has been done to re-examine the validity of the SBS theory, resulting in more and more parents being falsely accused.
Conclusion: Parents go to Jail for the Medical Profession’s Crimes
Despite all of this evidence, parents continue to be blamed for shaking their babies. Isn’t it about time that the medical profession, the judicial system and child protective services began to explore all possible avenues of enquiry before accusing the parents of such atrocious crimes?
Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com 
Mainstream Media Finally Exposing Shaken Baby Syndrome as False Diagnosis – How Many Innocent Parents Have Suffered? 
A Few of the Many Families who have had their children medically kidnapped due to SBS or broken bones:
by Attorney Jonathan Emord
Free Shipping Available! 
Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?
One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”
However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.
The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.
Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.
In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.