Friday, August 27, 2010

SHAKEN BABY - NOT SOLE CAUSE OF SUBDURAL HEMORRHAGE / Part 292 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Medical professionals have been taught that findings of subdural brain haemorrhage beneath the skull and small hemorrhages in the retinas behind the eyes indicate shaken baby. If any broken bones are found as well, the alarms are sounded for NAI or non-accidental injury. In theory shaken baby syndrome is produced by excessive shaking of a baby or child resulting in severe injury and sometimes death. Accusations of shaken baby syndrome against caregivers have become epidemic throughout the English-speaking world.

New research beginning in 2001 and a resultant body of evidence has put this SBS default diagnosis into question within the medical community. It has led to reappraisal of the standard features for determining SBS and infant deaths. Easily overlooked in this rush to find someone responsible for injury, are the ultrasound examinations of a woman's womb prior to labour that reveal subdural haemorrhage in the infant. Newborn babies also sometimes evidence subdural haemorrhage as a result of the birthing process. Further, Vitamin C deficiency occurs today in the breast milk of nursing mothers as well as in bottle fed babies without Vitamin C supplements. Vitamin C depletion increases blood histamine levels causing capillary fragility. Such a weakness in the walls of the bridging veins between the brain and the skull can cause bleeding on the brain, even with the very gentlest of handling.

An example of the new research is found in this Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004, C. Alan B. Clemetson, M.D., Professor Emeritus, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, La., writes an abstract entitled 'Is it “Shaken Baby,” Or Barlow's Disease Variant?'

In this article Clemetson makes a case that the bleeding of scurvy is due to a weakness or fragility of the capillaries and small veins, resulting from a very high blood histamine level. Histamine intoxication due to infections or vaccinations should therefore be considered as a possible contributor to the “shaken baby syndrome” and infant deaths. A problem arises because routine laboratory examinations of blood plasma ascorbic acid or whole blood histamine are not performed to determine Barlow’s disease or infantile scurvy since very few laboratories are adequately equipped and trained to carry out such analyses. Therefore law enforcement and medical professionals will not be able to determine a correct cause or the underlying condition of the “shaken baby syndrome” and infant deaths until plasma vitamin C and whole blood histamine levels are studied.

Clemetson notes, “Today, apple juice is given to infants as a supplement instead of orange juice; there is only 1 mg of vitamin C in 3-1/4 fluid ounces of apple juice, as compared with 49 mg of vitamin C in the same volume of orange juice. Parents need to purchase apple juice supplemented with vitamin C to compensate for this depletion, also orange juice needs to be supplemented with vitamin C due to the loss during the pasteurization process.”


No one should shake a baby and Clemetson's assertion is that no one should ever be accused, charged or indicted for inflicting “shaken-baby syndrome” or death to a child unless analyses for plasma ascorbic acid and blood histamine have been performed and placed in evidence. That process might prevent many care givers from being falsely accused, prosecuted and even incarcerated.

You should check out MEDICAL MISDIAGNOSIS RESEARCH and bookmark it for future reference.

5 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oops, the last part after the several paragraph returns I think is "junk" and copy paste error. For clarity, delete the extraneous section please.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous wrote at 10:21 AM and again at 3:16 PM at which time I was asked to delete an unnecessary section that was sent mistakenly the first time. Here is the edited version:

    "Anonymous said...

    There is far too much focus and weight placed on medical findings to the exclusion of non-medical information.

    For example, what percentage of a risk assessment report or a parental capacity assessment is dedicated to medical evidence?

    There is a categorization of people who do shaking, caregivers, drug addicts, people under stress, etc. The last category is what MCFD alludes the Baynes fit into, but has yet to produce any information that supports these parents meeting this SBS profile.

    It is most enlightening that MCFD tried to manufacture this information, and hoped the RCMP and Hoffman's report would serve to sew up their SBS case. This why I suggest the lengthy cross examination of Loren Humeny was not a wasted exercise.

    When there is such clear evidence of MCFD attempting to construct cooberating information, it is counter productive to continue to place this much distractive focus on "alternative" explanations for SBS.

    Pro-SBS websites includes common avenues that accused baby shakers will attempt to explain injuries with alternative suggestions for the source of injuries. There is no benefit for not doing otherwise because the consequences are so enormous.

    If there clear evidence educational information can achieve 50% reduction in SBS, why would government treat those who are accused of SBS by terminating their parental rights and removing their children and deem these individuals unredeemable?

    There was one youtube video showed a video of a parent shaking a stroller vigorously, the implication being the parent was simply not aware that damage could result. No one would agree that this parent should lose his parental rights and be put in jail.

    What has to stand out in this case is the EXTRAORDINARY effort of the government is putting forward to discount and discredit the Bayne's explanation."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fascinating and useful information; thank you, Ron.

    I have to wonder how many parents are rotting in prison, perhaps even on death row, because they were wrongfully accused of shaking their baby, or something else. We know that this has happened in Canada (e.g., the former Dr. Charles Smith cases, where parents were wrongfully convicted largely because of Smith's "expert" evidence).

    If only parents who were victims of child protective services had something similiar to the Innocence Project.

    http://www.innocenceproject.org/

    As noted on this website, the harm done by lawyers is substantial:

    "A new Innocence Project report finds that prosecutorial misconduct is a leading cause of wrongful conviction, and uncovers troubling data showing that appeals courts do not effectively identify and overturn these injustices."

    And imagine how much more harm is done to parents who are victims of child protective services, and who do not have all the benefits that even a person charged of multiple murder does, when it comes to their rights as a parent.

    I hope that it is only a matter of time before fighting for parental rights becomes as fashionable as other causes. These parents have very few people on their side, and the media hardly ever gives them a break. Paradoxically, the more child protective services violates parents rights, the sooner child protective services will, with any luck, be exposed for the tyrannical and unjust system it is. The more children they steal, that is, the louder the outcry is. It seems they can't stop themselves, however. They just keep getting more and more outrageous as time goes by.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bill C-422 - Shared Parenting as a default

    This is off topic from today's blog subect, but is a following the theme of what is in the best interests of the children with reference to blog 285 "There is a better way".

    Bill C-422 would affect the Family Relations Act (FRA) in how it deals with children and separating parents with a focus on what is in the best interests of children.

    This bill seeks to have shared parenting as a default, which is the child spends equal time with each parent.

    The focus is child-centric and an attempt to address the current adversarial system. The CFCSA governing MCFD and parents and their children is an adversarial system.

    I wrote MP Maurice Vellacott, who has put forth this private member bill and asked how he would best be supported. His response was as follows:

    "Thanks for writing. The best way to support is to ensure your federal politician is onside and will vote in support of C-422 when it comes to a vote in the House of Commons. And if you can also talk to neighbouring MPs and get friends and family to do the same, that would be worthwhile as well. Most Conservatives, if not all, are expected to support the bill, but support is very mixed among Liberals and NDP. People telling their real life stories about their victimization by the family court system should be one of the most effective means of convincing MPs who opposed equal parenting, or who don’t care about the issue to rethink their position.

    Best regards,"

    Tim Bloedow VellaM0@parl.gc.ca
    Legislative Assistant,
    Maurice Vellacott, MP VellaM1@parl.gc.ca

    As a footnote, the Canadian Bar Association published their statement opposing the bill.

    ---

    Getting to the point of mentioning bill C-422, this is an example of a private member bill can make a change to law.

    The trick is, to pick out exactly what would be the most deficient component in the child protection law (as opposed to simply chucking it or reverting to a previous version, or trying to update several sections).

    Picking out the most important component is what was done for the C-422 bill to update the FRA.

    Reference:

    Private Member's Bill
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_member%27s_bill

    ReplyDelete

I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise