 |
| Harold Buttram |
Harold Buttram is physically bent over, shoulders stooped as
he moves ably to the podium, is alert, engaging, and absolutely unflinching in
his opinion that Shaken Baby Syndrome is a theory undocumented and flawed and
that many cases of suspicion and even conviction of SBS are misdiagnoses. He
was one of the many speakers at the recent Evidence Based Medicine and Social Investigation Conference in Surrey. He was worthy of
hearing.
It is clear in listening to Buttram and the other speakers
at the Evidence Based Medicine and Social Investigation Conference this past
weekend, that some medical communities when dealing with an infant case of
subdural hematoma have had a tendency to discount the history provided by
families of the injured children. Some medical professionals have asserted with
certainty that subdural hematoma in an infant is caused by shaking when in fact
there is a host of other potential causes. Further there has been an assumption
in some quarters that retinal hemorrhages are definitely caused by non-accidental
head trauma when in fact, these conditions can be attributed to an array of
other causes. Buttram is most concerned to speak to the dangers inherent in
vaccines and he provides scientific linkages between vaccines and numerous adverse
medical, neurological and behavioural conditions, including the hematomas of
suspected SBS cases.
Read one of his papers here.
 |
| Christina England |
At this Conference on Thursday morning, keynote speaker
Christina England also spoke to the dangers of vaccines and in fact she writes copiously
about this subject in numerous journals and articles. She too connects mistaken
shaken baby allegations and prosecutions and even imprisonments to the real
causes of a child’s medical issues, namely vaccine provoked medical conditions.
You can read a sample of her work here.
The term Shaken Baby Syndrome has been applied to the type
of injury that it is claimed occurs when a baby is shaken so violently that the
baby’s brain bounces back and forth against the skull. This causes the brain to
bleed (subdural hemorrhages) as well as possibly bleeding behind the
eyes (retinal hemorrhages). Approximately 1,300 U.S.children experience a severe or fatal head trauma from child abuse every year.
Unfortunately, the SBS hypothesis in recent years has
produced an almost automatic ‘blame the parent’ premise to infant and child
injury. That premise is applied to too many other child protection cases
including that of an autistic child, namely nine-year-old Ayn Van Dyk, who wandered from
her dad’s backyard for four hours several weeks ago, and thereafter was removed by the
Ministry of Children, because while it was not so stated, her daddy was too be
blamed for allowing her out of his sight for the few minutes it took Ayn to
climb from a backyard playhouse to scale a fence and to toddle off to a neighbour’s
yard. The Ministry suggested to Derek Hoare (Ayn's dad) that it was relieving him of responsibility for her
because he was obviously overwhelmed with caring for her. Nonsense, Rubbish, appalling
investigative technique.
(Ayn's surname is her mother's maiden name. A choice that both mother and father agreed upon).
(Ayn's surname is her mother's maiden name. A choice that both mother and father agreed upon).
This is the beginning of the end for the junk science known as Shaken Baby Syndrome.
ReplyDeleteDeliberately omitting information, any information that detracts of that which supports the allegation is standard procedure for not only MCFD, but for law enforcement and medical establishments also.
ReplyDeleteThe onus is on the parent to supply this missing information, the so-called 'differential diagnosis,' long before matters get to trial so the Ministray cannot say they were not aware of the information.
In my experience, the MCFD process is for them to determin if the information collected could be used to craft a story sufficient to justify remvoing the children and make the justifications appear believable enough that it will pass a presentation hearing.
Take a look at a follow-up story in Derek's case that brings up information that predates the removal:
http://www.examiner.com/special-education-in-long-beach/parents-beware-ayn-s-story-it-can-happen-to-you-part-2
You will see encounters by MCFD with Derek that have resulted in what they would see is a series of negative encounters. Derek on several occassions wanted to record MCFD investigators, and they promptly left and labelled him uncooperative. Silence from MCFD is not an indication there is no concern, it means they are busy concocting a removal strategy and accumulating evidence without the knowledge of parents.
By reading through this story on Derek, it can be seen MCFD has amassed several intake reports and has been building a profile of Derek as an overwhelmed father that has resulted in the neglect of his child. (But apparently the other two children left in his care was not neglected.)
The information will NOT reflect the steady gains he made with the management of his children's autism. His attempts to help the school better manage his children was rebuffed and he would then likely be labelled a busy-body trying to tell school officials how to do their job with respect to caring for Ayn.
(Note that there is no information for the other autistic child who has a more severe symptoms.)
The Baynes case is identical in this respect of MCFD ignoring positive history. They cherry-picked only negative incidents that would support a removal of the Baynes children. As Ray Ferris has said many times, the Baynes social profile doesn't not begin to match the accusation of SBS. MCFD deliberately ignored letters of support. Instead, they focused on negative reports from the Hoffmans, and a scathing risk assessment. The parental capacity assessment by Dr. Bowden in July 2011 said otherwise. A big-time opposite conclusion to MCFD social worker assessments.
However, we know from experience with other parents who have had negative PCA's that this information is used against them at a protection hearing. A PCA done before the trial could very well have painted the Baynes very differently.
By not identifying family strengths, MCFD undermines their own mandate to strength families, as opposed to what they really do, separate children and parents for months and years in order to use up their multi-million (billion) dollar budget.
It is interesting that even though there only about 15 cases of SBS per year in B.C. the Children's Hospital I believe, was given one million dollars by MCFD announced by then-minister Tom Christensen to develop a program to combat this scourge on our children. Purple Crying I believe it is called.
ReplyDeleteA free book was included in the conference registration package, authored by Harold Buttram M.D. and Christina England called Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine-Induced Encephalitis: Are Parents Being Falsely Accused?
The bio for Ms. England indicats the two boys she adopted, she was accused of Munchausen by Proxy for her failed attempts to get services for them. She was cleared by psychologists who diagnosed the boys with Autism and ADHD. The assessment psycholgists later learned by reading through foster care records that while in care, the oldest boy reacted strongly to an MMR (measels mumps rubella) vaccine.
There is also a credit to Zabeth Bayne for helping to make the book possible, and this was before the ruling came down that cleared the Baynes of SBS.
I missed Dr. Buttram's session, but did see him take copious notes while other speakers were talking.
Hello Ron; So we are back at it again are we.
ReplyDeleteI want to start the week on a positive note. Let me state how wonderful it was to be at the conference on Friday and Saturday and to be in the same room with all those talented and committed people who were giving tirelessly of themselves in the pursuit of justice. I was so glad to be there with most of the people who made the fine team which supported the Baynes and I felt privileged and proud to be a member of that team. No one person could have done it alone and each player was as important as the next. There was the magnificent Doug Christie, whom I put in touch with the Baynes and who could have gone broke on the case. He paid a great emotional price in taking on this heart wrenching case. There was Ron Unruh who has run this blog and it must have been wearing in many ways. You kept everybody connected and helped the funds to roll in. There was Charte Lau and K-John Cheung and the alliance of justice who raised all that money for costs. There were many other suupporters who lobbied, demonstrated and gave time and money and references. You all let the Baynes know that they were trusted and believed and that they were not alone. You really helped this brave mother and father to keep on going.
It was really wonderful to see the whole Bayne family together in the room without the shackles of supervision. After my talk they all came up and gave me hugs. I have put in many stressful hours on this case and on Saturday I felt fully rewarded.
Let me say that I am very proud of my family who have followed the case and put up with my rantings about the injustice. My son put on a concert with Zabeth and raised some good funds and other family members made contributions. I was happy that my two daughters were there and were able to see the children and to see me getting my hugs. All for now. I will write some more later today.
Okay folks. I have written the feel good stuff and now for the sterner stuff.
ReplyDeleteFirst I have been having discussions with Ron about how long he wants to keep this blog going. As I understand it, he feels that he has given a lot of his life to it and it is time to get on with other things. He wants to keep it going until the children are returned. He has resourced many people besides the Baynes on this site. However, there are other child welfare advocacy blogs I believe.
I want to mention that the Bayne children will all be home on Aug 25, but this is not an unconditional return. They are still under a section 60 supervision order which leaves a lot of power remaining in the hands of the director. He can jump in and snatch back the kids for any action that he interprets as unco-operative, of any time he gets peeved. Oh yes, we have seen it all before haven't we? Judging by his past vindictive behaviour, I would not consider the kids to be safe until the supervisory order has expired.
Now I am not saying you should keep the blog open until the supervisory order has expired, because that is your personal choice. However, I hope that you would be open to running it again, should the director turn nasty again.
We heard at the conference from some very good lawyers. Some of it was an eye opener for me, I must admit. Mr. Bravo outlined his research which shows that judges almost invariably go with the establishment and the strength of the evidence means very little. It becomes a self-sustaining industry funded by the public. It provides a living for lawyers and a high conviction rate means more staff and perks for the judge. This is true for criminal cases and all kinds of civil cases, such as custody,protection and maintenance.
We see the proof of this in the Bayne case where the judge obliged the establishment by making a protection finding in spite of rejecting the main cause claimed by the director. When he ruled in mid-trial that the cause of injury could not be inferred from symptoms alone, he scotched the ministry case right there. This was reinforced throughout the medical testimony. He rejected shaken baby, but he was still able to scrape up a precedent for making an order in spite of the lack of evidence. Doug Christie bet me a hundred bucks that the decision would be political. I lost. Now I know the stats, I know better. Justice? I did not think that I was naive at 82 years of age. I was wrong again.
While I was talking at the conference about the coercive interviewing of young children against all forensic guidelines, I mentioned the case of a 12 year old blind, microcephalic girl, who was snatched from a loving foster home after ten years. As the ministry's own resource worker wrote. "When we snatched this child from the only home she had ever known we inflicted more cruelty on her than she could ever have known in the foster home." ( By the way, same director.)
The former foster mother tells me that a film company has heard about the case and wants to make a film about the story. She asked my permission to put them in touch with me. What do you think I should do?
Ron; I forgot to mention that the CBC were recording some of the conference for the Fifth Estate programme. They are very interested in the SBS matters and related issues. They were horrified at what happened to the Baynes and seemed to have a real problem in getting their heads around it. They interviewed several people including Doug Christie and me. They will be airing on Sept 27th. Keep an eye on it. I did agree to make some comments off camera. My daughter told me that I was still wired for sound and they can dub it in as easy as wink. She warned me that it is the "off the record" stuff that is most likely to be used. Count me among the innocents.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't be a wonderful world if parents were actually able to hug a social worker in gratitude and appreciation for the fine work done to help their family.
ReplyDelete