Does the Healthcare Industry use Shaken baby syndrome to cover up vaccine-caused death?
SOTN Editor’s Note
Just like SIDS or Sudden infant death syndrome, the evidence is piling up which indicates that Shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is also being used systematically to cover up infant mortality caused by vaccines.
Many a parent has been brought up on charges of having inflicted Shaken baby syndrome when in fact no such behavior ever occurred. In their sheer desperation to cover for lethal vaccination procedures being implemented on newborns and older babies alike the healthcare industry has aggressively advanced a theory that the parents must be killing their children, not the deadly toxic and/or allergic reactions produced by “too many toxic vaccines too fast”.
This outrageous predicament has now evolved to a point whereby perfectly innocent parents are being used as scapegoats for baby deaths caused by vaccines. Because the precedent was set at some point in the not-to-distant-past, the medical profession now conveniently seizes the opportunity on behalf of the unscrupulous pharmaceutical corporations which mass produce the inherently dangerous one-vaccine-fits-all formulations.
Regardless of the disturbing fact that highly sensitive and delicate newborn babies have never been tested for allergic reactions to the vaccine ingredients, they are still routinely administered an overwhelming regimen of vaccinations. In fact rising childhood mortality rates have likewise seen an alarming pattern correlating with the ever-increasing number of jabs received by children up to the age of 6.
That parents continue to comply with such physician-recommended vaccination schedules is quite puzzling. That they then become the target of criminal prosecutions based on false accusations from the medical staff is both astounding and unacceptable.
In the near future the anti-vax movement will most assuredly set the record straight regarding the horrific fraud that Shaken baby syndrome really is. That’s not to say that someone’s baby wasn’t really shaken to death at some time in the past, which was then used as a precedent-setting case for all future instances of alleged and falsely diagnosed SBS.
Shaken baby syndrome used to imprison parents to cover up vaccine damage
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer
Natural News
(NaturalNews) Every year, hundreds of U.S. parents are tried and convicted in criminal court for supposedly killing their babies by shaking them. But the nebulous condition known as “shaken baby syndrome,” or SBS, appears to be a grand misnomer contrived for the sole purpose of covering up the real causes of SBS death, which include vaccine damage.
The presupposition is that if a deceased child exhibits things like bleeding at the back of the eye, bleeding from the protective area around the brain or brain swelling, then he must have been vigorously shaken by someone prior to his death. But this may or may not actually be the case, especially with new research suggesting thatmost humans aren’t capable of shaking an infant hard enough to produce the symptoms commonly associated with SBS.
The Washington Post (WP) recently indicted this faulty diagnosis, pointing out that up to two-thirds of the SBS cases prosecuted each year show no outward signs of physical injury. This means that something else besides physical abuse is responsible for most cases of SBS falsely attributed to external maltreatment by a parent or guardian.
“[T]his is the reason SBS is such a convenient diagnosis,” wrote Radley Balko for the WP. “It allows prosecutors to charge a suspected abuser despite no outward signs of abuse.”
Many SBS cases likely caused by vaccine damage, which courts typically ignore
In the same breath, Balko admits that “other causes” have been shown to produce SBS symptoms, which is something that vaccine skeptics have been saying for years. In many alleged SBS cases, a lack of physical injury is accompanied by the fact that SBS victims had been recently vaccinated, something the courts have mostly ignored or denied.
Dr. F. Edward Yazbak, M.D., F.A.A.P., conducted an investigation into this several years back after observing odd similarities between four SBS cases. Three vaccines in particular — a five-in-one combination vaccine, an HIB conjugate vaccine, and a heptavalent pediatric pneumococcal vaccine — were linked to the condition due to their antigen combinations.
The critically acclaimed new film The Syndrome also tackles this major elephant in the room, covering how many a parent is now wrongfully serving a harsh prison sentence for “killing” his or her child, when in fact vaccines likely produced the hemorrhaging and bleeding in the brain that led to the child’s death.
“What happens when widely held beliefs based on junk science lead to the convictions of innocent people?” asks a description the film.
“The Syndrome is an explosive documentary following the crusade of a group of doctors, scientists, and legal scholars who have uncovered that ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome,’ a child abuse theory responsible for hundreds of prosecutions each year in the US, is not scientifically valid. In fact, they say, it does not even exist.”
Legal precedent needs to change so more innocent parents aren’t jailed when their children die from vaccines
With its emphasis currently on finality rather than reasonable doubt, the criminal justice system will continue to convict innocent parents of murder even when evidence to support this charge is inconclusive. Thus, the criminal justice system needs to revamp the way it looks at SBS cases to recognize the flawed science that presently backs the myth that SBS is almost always caused by physical abuse, which is most definitely not the case.
“[A] person wrongly convicted in a case where new science later shows that the evidence used against them was flawed or overstated is no less innocent than someone wrongly convicted in a case where DNA shows a different guy did it,” wrote Balko for the WP.
“[N]ow that we know that the criminal justice system is prone to error, perhaps it’s time to revisit the post-conviction emphasis on finality, particularly in cases decided on evidence that science later calls into doubt.”
Sources: