Rapid Responses to:

LETTERS: Robert A Minns and Anthony Busuttil Patterns of presentation of the shaken baby syndrome: Four types of inflicted brain injury predominate BMJ 2004; 328: 766 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Patterns of presentation of the "shaken baby" syndrome may not be caused by trauma at all

Viera Scheibner   (2 April 2004)

Proposed Name Change of Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Michael D Innis   (17 April 2004)

The root of the problem

Heather Lohr   (25 April 2004)

Patterns of presentation of the "shaken baby" syndrome may not be caused by trauma at all 2 April 2004
Viera Scheibner, Principle Research Scientist (Retired) Blackheath, NSW 2785 Australia Send response to journal: Re: Patterns of presentation of the "shaken baby" syndrome may not be caused by trauma at all	Dear Editor, Minns and Busottil (BMJ: 328, 27 March 2004: 766-767) summarised that patterns of presentation of the shaken baby syndrome can be delineated into four types: hyperacute encephalopathy; cervical-medullary syndrome; acute encephalopathy; subacute non-encephalopathy presentation; and chronic extracerebral presentation. They wrote that a spectrum of clinical features is related to the intensity and type of injury in babies with inflicted brain injury and that infants can he traumatically injured in many ways and while many instances are unwitnessed. They proposed that the generic term “non- accidental head injury” or “inflicted traumatic brain injury” should be used instead of “shaken baby syndrome” which implies a specific mechanism of injury. Why presuppose trauma? Based on the analysis of some 70 “SBS” cases for which I have been asked and prepared expert reports for the defence between 1996 and present, I summarise: 1. The symptoms include: no signs of external injury capable of causing the observed symptoms and pathology, lethargy, hypotonic- hyporesponsive episodes with loss of consciousness, convulsions, inconsolable screaming (due to intense pain), fever, vomiting, diarrhoea or constipation, with or without blood in the stool. 2. The pathological (MRI, X-rays and/or postmortem) findings include: CNS subdural (rarely subarachnoid) and retinal haemorrhages and detachments, together or separately, urethral bleeding, petechial bleeding into the brain, thymus, pericardium, duodenum and other organs, bleeding around the scalp hair follicles, rib separation at the costochondral junctions, bizarre fractures of long bones, scapula, clavicles and skull, typical of acute scurvy, swelling and herniation of the brain, bulging fontanelle, periorbital swelling - 3. Axonal degeneration in the CNS. 4. Necrosis of the heart and other organs. 5. Immunological derangements including lymphocytosis, leukocytosis, vasculitis and central diabetes insipidus 6. Haematotogical derangements including blood clotting derangements such as thrombocytopaenia, thrombocytosis, acquired von Willebrand syndrome (with low or high levels of vW and VIII factors), anaemia and haemolysis, to name just the most common ones. All of the above symptoms and pathological findings have been described in medical literature as caused by non-traumatic infectious and immunological events including those caused by the administration of a variety of vaccines (Devin et al. 1996; Faitch et al. 1983; Bello et al. 1990; Kaur & Talor 1992; Besedovsky et al. 1985; Krause et al. 1996; Collier et al. 1996; Classen 1996; Classen & Classen 1999a and 1999b: Jefferys 2001; Anand 2001: Chen Cua et al. 1992 and many others). Indeed, some vaccines, such as pertussis, have typically been used to induce “experimental allergic encephalomyelitis” in laboratory animals (Steinman et al. 1982). My comments on the papers by Geddes, Hackshaw et al. (2001) and Geddes, Vowles et al. (2001) are these: just because parents and other carers (nannies) were found guilty by law courts, it does not mean that they subjected their babies to non-accidental injury (NAI), and the observed pathology cannot be considered as the result of inflicted trauma. Even the so-called confessions were in the vast majority of cases extracted under duress or promises of leniency. The court system in developed countries is known to be prone to committing injustice and grave errors. If all those who wrote about “shaken baby” syndrome endeavoured to study the complete vaccination history of the affected babies, they would establish that they started deteriorating after their vaccinations. We all must ask ourselves how come, that in the developed countries, parents from all walks of life, all cultural and educational backgrounds, know exactly how to shake babies to get exactly the same injuries, and always after and never before vaccination. This of course, puts the whole issue into a completely different perspective and indeed makes one understand better the so-called unexplained injuries and the ubiquitous discrepancies between the explanations of the incident by the accused parents and other carers and the observed injuries, and, the universal genuine bewilderment of the accused carers who are at a loss to understand what happened to the babies in their care. When those who accuse carers of SBS finally start listening to and believing the carers’ “eye-witness” account of events, they and the judicial system will get much closer to the real issues at hand. The wellbeing and lives of babies and their carers are at stake. The complete lack of empathy for the plight of the innocent victims of injustice and medical abuse (Kirschner and Stein 1985) is to be deplored. Vaccinators are victimising the very parents who unquestioningly trusted their doctors and allowed their babies to be given these vaccines without first checking their safety and effectiveness. In the US, they have started calling for the death penalty for SBS! Are we back in the dark ages? Yes, we are. References. Steinman L, Sriram S, Adelman NE, Zamwil S, McDevitt HO and Urich H. 1982. Murine model for pertussis vaccine encephalopathy: linkage to H-s. Nature; 299: 738-740. Devin F, Rogues C, Disdier P, Rodor F, et al, 1996. Occlusion of the central retinal vein after hepatitis B vaccination. Lancet; 347: 1626. Faitch CA, Fishbein HA, and Ellis SE, 1983. The epidemiology of diabetic acidosis: a population based study. Am J Epidemiology; 117(5): 551-558. Bello PA, and Sotos JHF. 1990. Cerebral oedema in diabetic acidosis in children. Lancet; (July 7): 64. Kaur B, and Taylor D, 1992. Fundus hemorrhages in infancy. Survey Ophthalmol; 37(1): 1-17. Besedovsky HO, del Rey AE and Sorkin E. 1985. Immune-neuroendocrine interactions, J Immunology; 135(2): 750s-754s. Krause I, Lazarov A, Rachmel A, Grunwald MM et al. 1996. Acute haemorrhagic oedema of infancy, a benign variant of leucocytoclastic vasculitis, Acta Paediatr; 85: 114-117. Collier A, Tymkiewicz. P. Armstrong G, Young RJ et al. 1996. Increased platelet thromboxane receptor sensitivity in diabetes patients with proliferative retinopathy. Diabetologia; 39: 471-474. Classen JB, 1996. Vaccines modulate IDDM. Diabetologia; 39: 500-502. Classen JB, and Classen DC. 1999a. Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine. Br med J; 318:193. Classen JB, and Classen DC. 1999b. Public should be told that vaccination may have long term adverse effects, Br med J; 318: 193. Jefferys R. 2001. T cells and vaccination. Lancet; 357: 1451. Anand JK. 2001. Multiple vaccination. Lancet; 357: 505. Chan Cua S. Jones KL, Lynch FF, and Freidenberg GB. 1992. Necrosis of the illeum in a diabetic adolescent. J ped Surgery; 27(9): 1236-1238. Geddes JF. Hackshaw AK. Vowles GH, Nickols CD and Whitwell HL. 2001. Neuropathology of inflicted head injury in children. I. Pattern of brain damage. Brain: 124: 1290-1298. Geddes JF, Vowles GH, Hackshaw AK, Nichols CG, Scoot IS and Whitwell HL. 2001. Neuropathology of inflicted head injury in children. II. Microscopic brain injury in infants. Brain: 124: 1299-1306, Kirschner RH, and Stein RJ. 1985. The mistaken diagnosis of child abuse. A form of medical abuse? Am J Dis Child; 139: 873-875. Competing interests: None declared
Proposed Name Change of Shaken Baby Syndrome. 17 April 2004
Michael D Innis, Director Medisets International Home 4575 Send response to journal: Re: Proposed Name Change of Shaken Baby Syndrome.	Editor, Drs Minns and Busuttil[1] seek to perpetuate the flawed concept of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) by changing the name to ‘non-accidental head injury’ or ‘inflicted traumatic brain injury’, but as Dr Viera Scheibner points out “Why presuppose trauma.”[2] Why indeed when there is evidence that in a susceptible child, vaccines administered within 21 days prior to the onset of symptoms or defects of haemostasis, liver function or nutrition, would account for all the signs and symptoms Drs Minns and Busuttil attribute to trauma? [3] To explore and prove this concept I introduce the notion of The Law of Causation Causes always precede their effects. To prove that a given condition always precedes a phenomenon it is necessary to show, not only that the condition is present when the phenomenon appears, but that when the given condition is removed the phenomenon will no longer appear [4]. One can symbolize this statement as follows: If ‘p’ then ‘q’ ( If the conditions ‘p’ always precede or accompany a phenomenon ‘q’) And If ‘not p’ then ‘not q’ (when the conditions ‘p’ are removed, the phenomenon ‘q’ will no longer be present) Then ‘p’ if and only if ‘q’ (‘p’ is inextricably linked to ‘q’ ). Any true premises substituted for ‘p’ and ‘q’, and ‘not p’ and ‘not q’, means ‘p’ and ‘q’ are associated as ‘causes and effect’ This concept of causation is equivalent to Aristotle’s idea of “material cause” (p) with which the “efficient cause”(q) interacts to result in what he termed the “final cause” [5] and which we term the “effect” as in the following example. By substituting ‘alleged SBS’ symptoms [1] for ‘p’ and vaccines, defective haemostasis, liver dysfunction and specific nutritional deficiencies [2] for ‘q’ a causal association between them is shown to logically exist. This does not mean that other factors, as yet undiscovered, are excluded from being part of the causes of the alleged SBS symptoms. It means as of now ‘p’ is limited to the evidence I have presented [3] i.e vaccines administered within 21 days prior to the onset of symptoms or defects of haemostasis, liver function or nutrition. This demonstration of the effects of immunization, in some children, will not please the principal players in the Shaken Baby Syndrome disaster, but it is time for the Medical and Judicial Professions and the Governments of the United Kingdom, the USA and Australia to right the wrongs they have unwittingly committed over the last 30 or more years. Alternatively, they can try to prove this deduction invalid by demonstrating one of the premises, ‘p’ or ‘q’, is untrue, and so demolish the case for an iatrogenic immunization catastrophe. The GMC should also take note before proceeding with ill-conceived and unjustified proceedings against Dr Colin Paterson and Dr Andrew Wakefield. I agree the name 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' is a misnomer. It should be "Kalokerinos Syndrome" after the Australian doctor who first recognized it [6]. Michael D Innis MBBS; DTM&H; FRCPA; FRCPath. References: 1.Minns RA, Busuttil A. Patterns of presentation of the Shaken Baby Syndrome. BMJ 2004;328:766 2.Scheibner V. Patterns of presentation of the “shaken baby” syndrome may not be caused by trauma at all. bmj.com 2nd Apr 2004 3.Innis MD. Retinal haemorrhages and SBS. Fact or Fantasy? http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/328/7442/719#56438, 12 Apr 2004 4.Bernard C. An Introduction to the study of Experimental Medicine Dover Edition 1957.Translated by Henry Copley Green . page 55 Dover Publications, Inc New York 5.Kneale W. Probability and Induction (1963) p 47-48. Oxford Clarendon Press. 6.Kalokerinos A. Every Second Child. Thomas Nelson (Australia) Ltd 1974 Competing interests: I have given evidence in Court and been paid for it,
The root of the problem 25 April 2004
Heather Lohr, parent Huntingdon, PA 16652 USA Send response to journal: Re: The root of the problem	I only need point out one word in this letter that shows what the root of the problem is. That word is "suspected." If not witnessed then speculation is the basis of this report. Even confession is unreliable. How many "confessions" involved a parent who "shook" their baby a few times to try to get them to react when found unresponsive? This "shaking" after the fact would not be responsible for the unresponsiveness. It is time for some responsible reporting in this area. This report is nothing more than the same old, same old, that has been relied upon for over 30 years. It is speculation and nothing more. Competing interests: None declared