Child abuse or infantile scurvy/vaccine injury?

The late Dr. C.A.B. Clemetson, a distinguished physician known on two continents wrote a 3-volumne work titled Vitamin C, which is considered a classic in the field, just as he was known as an expert on the subject. In the course of his work, he came across something that the remainder of his life was dedicated to, and that was proving that "classical" Shaken Baby Syndrome was actually infection or vaccination-induced Barlow's disease variant: a form of accelerated infantile scurvy. Barlow's was well-known, particularly for the greater part of the 20th century. It was a nutritional disease, caused by vitamin C deficiency obviously. But when it developed after birth from a bad diet--baby formula with no vit C supplementation (use raw orange juice, not apple juice if baby isn't nursing) it normally took 3 to 6 months to show up, and wasn't seen in infants. However, something started showing up several decades ago that he recognized as a variant of the old Barlow's disease, and that was the condition in infants, developing at an unaccelerated rate following infection or vaccination. What he found was that in some susceptible infants, more often vaccination than infection, would shock the system and deplete the baby of vitamin C stores rapidly instead of slowly by dietary deficiency, so that it was a "variation" of baby scurvy. Even more, that it hadn't been recognized for what it really was and had been designated as "Shaken Baby Syndrome". In fact, even the doctor who first described this "syndrome" admitted he might be looking at infantile scurvy and listed that as a "differential diagnosis" (another cause). But his findings were based on 6 dead babies thought to be murdered by their caretakers. This was never witnessed--it was assumed because the babies died with the cause unknown.

To put it plainly, SBS in it's original form was Barlow's disease variant...not child abuse. There were a few known cases of actual abuse/shaking (very few actually proven) but they did not fit the original critera, so Caffey had to keep changing it. What happened was that SBS cases were disease, and the abuse cases were something else, just lumped in an ill-fitting category. What it boiled down to was that SBS was based on junk science and assumption, and has remained so. Now, if the hallmark signs of SBS are seen, guilt is assumed. The symptoms legally prove the guilt without any other evidence.

However...these cases are now starting to fall apart because the science was fraudulent. Newer studies are disproving the "syndrome". Signs that were claimed to be exclusive to abuse are turning out to have other causes--retinal hemorrhage in particular.

In fact, in the rare cases where actual violent shaking is proven by unimpeachable witness, videocam, or untainted confession (where there is nothing to gain from the confession such as a plea bargain with reduced charges/sentence), the symptoms don't fit. The criteria aren't met.

Every single individual aspect of SBS has several other causes, but there is only one situation where all of the symptoms come together. Not in Barlow's disease variant.

In fact, the symptoms of SBS were so inconsistent, and are now failing to meet the standards of newer research that they had to rename it "Shaken Impact Syndrome" or Shaken Impact Baby Syndrome because modern science proved it was impossible to cause the kind of damage seen in infants diagnosed with SBS just by shaking. The force required would have caused severe damage to the neck and spine first before the head injuries manifested.

But, one characteristic of SBS was "no sign of external trauma" and if this tremendous impact was required, which would also cause neck and spinal mechanical injuries, it would also leave external signs of impact at the injury site where skull fractures, subdural hematoma, brain shearing and hemorrhaging into the brain were seen.

Unfortunately in the SBS cases, neither were being seen--no bruising and swelling at the injury site, although the soft spot (fontanel) was often swollen, and no mechanical injuries where they were expected at baby's fragile neck and spine junctions and the area.

That has thrown the thousands of convictions all over the world into chaos.

The most famous case right now was the "Baby Alan Yurko" case, where a father was accused of killing his infant son because the baby died with the SBS symptoms, and who got life without parole in prison because he refused to do a plea bargain, claiming his absolute innocence.

6 years later it was proven in court that the forensic pathologist who did the autopsy had completely screwed it up, to the point where he was basically fired. He had the age and race of the baby wrong, findings for autopsies organs that had been donated and weren't even there, on down the line to create a legal mess.

It also came out that the infant was desperately ill at birth due to the mother's illness, had "failure to thrive" symptoms and was already dying when given multiple vaccinations, after which he went into a coma very quickly. But, in spite of this assault to his immune system the fact that all of the cornerstone symptoms of SBS were present, the father was automatically accused, convicted and imprisoned since he was the one holding the baby when it lost consciousness--I think the mother was in the shower.

In all SBS convictions, which are almost automatic, there has never been a case on record where differential diagnostic testing was even done. They have NEVER investigated any other cause for the symptoms.

Tragically, many of these babies DO get shaken, but not violently. They stop breathing, become unconscious, and even die, and it is the most natural instinct for most caretakers to try to "shake" the baby awake, to try to save it's life. And then when the traumatized care taker admits to having shook the baby to try to save it, he/she is blamed as causing the condition that was responsible for the shaking in the first place. It has been all very convenient for prosecutors and judges, even juries. And also for the medical profession and the international drug cartels who make vaccines, although they had previously refused to continue making them unless the government paid any and all damages from vaccine injury claims...that means the taxpayers.

What happens in SBS/Barlow's disease variant is that as vitamin C stores are suddenly depleted following a vaccinaton, particularly the triple antigen vaccines like MMR an DTaP, there is a corresponding rise in blood histamine levels. In the tissues, we get allergic reactions. In the blood, a far more dangerous process takes place when vit C isn't there to neutralize this blood factor. It causes capillary fragility--a hemorrhagic disease progresses which affect almost all body functions.

What one sees in an infant with this condition is bone fragility resulting in spontaneous fractures or breaks caused by normal handling or minor trauma not usually associated with injury...or the appearance of fractures on x-rays where mini-hemorrhages under the skin of the bone take place and are covered with "callus" which in time calcifies, in exactly the same process as a broken bone would heal when looking at the x-ray. They can't tell the difference, although there are other signs of scurvy in the bones if they had bothered to look for them. The hemorrhagic condition causes bleeding into the skull and one sees subdural hemotoma, brain swelling and shearing. Signs of active hemorraging--just as if the infant had been in a terrific car accident without being buckled in. That will also often include retinal hemorrhage, but some researchers now believe that is caused when the infant stops breathing and the brain swells, although other things can cause this condition. Shaking doesn't.

There is usually abnormal bruising with infantile scurvy, so external trauma signs may be there...but not at the sites of internal injury. In fact, almost never. If a skull fracture did happen to have bruising and swelling on the outside of the skull right there, then you might actually have a case of non-accidental trauma. But if so, rarely will the other signs show up with it. What they find is all of this massive head injury, and NO signs of external trauma at the areas where one would expect impact to occur. Kind of hard to explain, but then that's why the pieces started falling apart. "Shaken/Impact Baby Syndrome" without any bruising or swelling at the designated point of impact becomes an evil fairy tale concocted by doctors and prosecutors. And people buy it. Juries buy it. Other doctors buy it, and the general public has bought into it hook, line and sinker without questioning the logic behind such an assumption. If fact, many defend the supposed reality of SBS with emotional violence and unreasoning hostility, as though those of us demanding sound science, truth, and justice were instead petitioning to free baby killers.

It is relatively simple (but not easy) to separate the "chaff" from the "wheat". Differential diagnostic testing must be DEMANDED of any case even remotely resembling SBS by its symptoms, even if some shaking is admitted to, since there are circumstances where this might take place that do not involve criminal intent.

Dr. Clemetson and others have provided suggested guidelines which include eliminating any case where the onset of symptoms occurred within 21 days of a vaccination, and that vitamin C levels are tested (it takes special lab work to do this, usually not available in most hospitals) and that most importantly blood histamine levels are determined. There is more, but these are the main points. If there has been no recent vaccination, and blood histamine and vit C levels are normal, then Barlow's disease variant can be eliminated as the cause and other differentials examined, including abuse.

Basically this means don't "think dirty" and point fingers at devastated, traumatized caretakers up front. Eliminate other causes first. There is always time to blame a caretaker afterwards. Get the guilty. Free the innocent.

The case I'm working on is probably more pronounced and better defined because in all probability the infant had chronic sub-clinical scurvy in the womb due to the mother's obsessive fear of gaining weight during her pregnancy and diet of small amounts of junk food with 8-10 cups of coffee per day sweetened with an estimated 2 cups of sugar, topped off by the fact that she continued smoking. That's quadruple whammy for the unborn fetus. She had signs of scurvy herself--iritis and hemorrhaging for two days after giving birth. Her atrocious dietary habits were lifelong. There were probably other signs--abnormal bruising, joint pains, infected or tender gums--many little things in cases where the disease wasn't life-threatening in an adult, but murderous in a fragile infant.

Then, this tiny fragile baby was forcibly vaccinated a day after birth--actually pulled from the father's arms and told "it's the law" in a state which allows personal exemptions.

The symptoms in this case, which were probably more numerous and profound than in most, were these: the baby very likely had bone fractures at birth due to the brittle bones of scurvy, including skull fractures. She stopped breathing 48 hours after being vaccination, possibly with both a triple vac and Hep B. Her father saw this happen and rushed her to the hospital, but they claimed to have no idea why this happened. (Vaccine injury is almost always denied.) She was found to have high bilirubin levels and jaundice, and then was diagnosed with "a rare blood disease" but then they decided it was a mis-diagnosis from a contaminated blood sample. She became lethargic and sleepy, yet irritable and fussy at the same time. Her appetite diminished considerably. She developed an odd frogleg posture and made little grunting sounds at some point. Then she became so deeply congested that they had to pat her back all night to help her cough up mucus and suction it from her throat. Then when fussy, her eyes would redden abnormally and her eyelids became hemorrhaged-looking. At the same time, blisters erupted under her lower lip and they didn't know it at the time, but a lesion developed on the roof of her mouth. At that time, she also started with this distinctive high-pitched cry, described as "cat's cry". The parents kept calling the hospital hotline and were told she had fever blisters, a bad cold, and was just fussy. The parents wondered if she had colic. Mainly they were just convinced that she was suffering from a hard cold and was sick.

At 28 days, she was scheduled for a "well-baby" appointment. About 2-3 days before this, the diarrhea started.

On the Friday night before the Monday appointment, the father was playing with the baby and accidentally dropped her. Luckily, her fall was broken by a filled laundry basket before she hit the carpeted floor. She quit crying as soon as he picked her up, but he called the hospital hotline and a nurse ran him through a checklist to determine if she was injured, and decided she wasn't and didn't need to be brought in. Then, the night before the appointment while John was still at work, the mother claimed she had been walking with the baby and bumped into a wall or door frame. She didn't think the baby was hurt, but later assumed this must have caused head injuries even though there was no sign of trauma. John said the baby seemed fine when he came home and only had a little red mark on her check that supposedly came from the grandmother holding the baby against her chest on top of a broach she was wearing. The grandparents didn't see any signs either, other than a baby with a chest congestion in what was thought to be a hard cold.

An assistant to the pediatrician became concerned over the "frequency of high-pitched crying" while the baby was being undressed and measurements and weight were taken, and the doctor ordered an ambulance to take the baby to the hospital, "for further testing". The woman wrote up a report on this visit, which included that other than the blisters on the chin, a red mark on the cheek, and reddened eyes and lids from crying, that there were "no other marks." No bruises whatsoever. However, by the time all of the workup and photos were taken, the baby had bruises all over her face from being "handled" by professional health care workers, which the parents were blamed for since the doctor's assistant's report was withheld from the court documents.

X-rays showed bone abnormalities--"little balls" on the bones that doctors said were indications of "healing fractures" that occurred at different times on 10 ribs and 2 collarbones. X-rays 10 days later showed 10 or so more bones with these "signs". bruising or swelling over the ribs. The parents were interrogated all night, but could come up with no reason for her ribs to be broken other than patting her back to help her spit up mucus that caused breathing difficulties. Doctors flat out denied this was possible and told the detectives this, but the police did not tell the parents, and left them thinking that the baby had been injured when they were trying to help her breathe.

At some point a CT scan was done, but it wasn't mentioned to the parents during the 24 hours they were at the hospital. This showed a depressed skull fracture with the edge of the involved bone plate overlapping the next one and a simple linear fracture on the back of the head--but again no external signs of trauma at the injury sites. There was a subdural hemotoma, and various smaller sites of hemorrhaging into the brain, swelling, and hemorrhaging into the eyes and eyelids...but no sign of the all-important "retinal hemorrhages" that are the keystone of a SBS diagnosis, which was probably the only reason why this case wasn't designated as clearcut SBS.

There is a reason for the missing symptom, according to recent findings. The baby was hospitalized before she quit breathing or lost consciousness, and retinal hemorrhage is now thought by some to be caused by hypoxic events--lowered oxygen levels causing the brain to swell and retinas to hemorrhage in the process.

If this symptom was seen AFTER the baby was hospitalized, it would have been reason to withhold this information from the criminal justice system. Strangely, the doctors insisted the skull fractures and bleeding "were only hours old" long after the baby had been taken from the parents. The bleeding was probably fresh because the hemorrhagic condition had just evolved to that stage, but fracture dating is an inexact science, and it's far more likely the skull fractures occurred at birth. Even if someone in the ambulance or at the hospital had caused some unreported event, there still would have been bruising and swelling at the injury sites.

The parents never had a chance. No differential diagnostic testing was done whatsoever. The parents went to prison for 24 years between the two of them, the baby survived but was adopted out and lost to the family.