Imprisoned Mom's Baby Died After Vaccination
<<< Back to Vaccines
BL Fisher Note:
When I was writing the book, DPT: A Shot in the Dark, in the 1980's, I
interviewed many mothers whose babies died within 24 hours of
vaccination.
Some of the babies had either a diagnosed or undiagnosed coinciding viral
or bacterial infection at the time of vaccination. Some were on
antibiotics.
Others were premature, had experienced a difficult birth or had suffered
previous vaccine reactions which were discounted by clueless
pediatricians in denial as unrelated to vaccination.
When the HIB (haemophilus influenzae B) vaccine was introduced in the
later 1980's/early 1990's, the National Vaccine Information Center began to
receive reports of infants suffering bleeding in the brain following
receipt of both DPT and HIB vaccines simultaneously. We reported this fact to
the FDA. Soon, parents began to be charged with shaken baby syndrome when
their babies died following receipt of multiple vaccines and had evidence of
bleeding in the brain.
Denial and refusal to investigate the biological mechanisms for vaccine
injury and death by industry and government health agencies has resulted
an unknown number of infants and children dying and being brain injured by
vaccines. Innocent children and their parents continue to be
victimized by one-size-fits-all vaccine policies which target the vulnerable for
sacrifice and then blame the victim when it occurs.
"Harry's death was all the more puzzling since he must have been
well in his final hours, Professor Meadow said. Medical records showed that he was
inoculated the day he died. "The staff of the clinics do not give
immunisations to a child who is off colour," Professor Meadow said."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1677573,00.html
Times, UK
July 2, 2005
Sally Clark's reputation is put on trial again over cot death
By Dominic Kennedy
Sir Roy Meadow ruled out natural causes in her sons' deaths
SALLY CLARK, the solicitor cleared of murdering her babies after serving
three years of a life sentence, had her reputation put on trial again
yesterday as Professor Sir Roy Meadow said why he had thought that her
babies were unnaturally killed.
The retired paediatrician reminded the General Medical Council of how
many injuries Mrs Clark's sons suffered before they died.
Mrs Clark's is the most prominent case involving mothers jailed for
multiple child murders on Professor Meadow's evidence but then subsequently
cleared. She was released at her second appeal when questions were raised about
the competence of the pathologist who examined her babies.
Professor Meadow, who faces being struck off for misleading the jury in
the Cheshire mother's murder trial, told the GMC disciplinary panel that
nobody would describe her boys as victims of cot deaths. He said that he had
studied reams of evidence about Mrs Clark's sons.
Police had approached him after the death of Harry at two months.
Christopher's previous death at 2� months was initially attributed to
natural causes, but Professor Meadow thought otherwise.
"Although his initial death certificate said he died of lower
respiratory tract infection, I did not think that was appropriate," he said.
"I thought it was more likely, in view of both children, that he had been
smothered."
In his report to the police, Professor Meadow said that injuries like
Harry's, who suffered bleeding to the back of the eyes and the spinal cord,
were similar to those described by medical experts among children who had
been shaken.
"In relation to Harry I thought he had the features of physical
abuse," Professor Meadow said. "I personally do not have great experience of
shaken babies. It is a very difficult area. I did not know what combination of
assault could be responsible for the injuries that were described but I
couldn't think of natural causes.
"It did seem to me that the injuries being described were such that
in themselves could cause death. They seemed severe injuries. I could
imagine a baby dying of such injuries.
"But the injuries reported on Christopher were not in themselves
seeming to me that they would cause a baby to die: however many bruises he had got
on the back of the leg or elbow or in the mouth or frenulum (between gum
and nose) doesn't make someone die."
Harry's death was all the more puzzling since he must have been well in
his final hours, Professor Meadow said. Medical records showed that he was
inoculated the day he died. "The staff of the clinics do not give
immunisations to a child who is off colour," Professor Meadow said.
"Some observer - whether health visitor, nurse, doctor - would have
seen Harry at that time and presumably considered him well earlier that
day."
Professor David Southall narrowly escaped being struck off by the GMC
recently when he accused Mrs Clark's husband, Stephen, of killing his
sons on the basis of watching a television documentary about the case.
The charge against Professor Meadow is that he used incorrect statistics
to make it appear more likely that Mrs Clark had killed her babies, in
particular a figure saying that the chances of two cot deaths for an
affluent, non-smoking, mature mother were 73 million to one. This number
appeared in a draft report based on the world's biggest study into cot
death. Statisticians have queried its accuracy.
The report seemed to suggest that a double cot death in a family like
the Clarks was "very rare . . . tiny and for clinical purposes probably
notmeaningful".
Professor Meadow said that he had published a study of cot death, or
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), on his retirement, pointing to cases in
which smothering was suspected.
"I had been involved in cases of quite severe child abuse," he
said. "I really felt that the term SIDS, which does have some merits and
kindnesses, . . . was nevertheless making us all forget that all SIDS meant was 'I
don't know' as a diagnosis. My paper was a plea for much better investigation
of all infant deaths."
The hearing continues.
