Friday, 29 December 2017

The Law of Unintended Consequences ?



The British State's National Health Service theoretically provides good quality healthcare from the cradle to the grave.  Care in childbirth has been recently in the News and is clearly not always as good as it should be. Robin Burn, whose special interest is Autism, writes here about these problems during birth and the  story of the cover up of routine vaccinations which probably did harm infants


Maternal, Neonatal Deaths, and Brain Injury

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists inquiry Each Baby Counts, examined more than 700 recent neonatal deaths and injuries. It reports that three out of every four babies may have had a different outcome, had they received different care.
A recent press release, voiced concerns, in the same vein, on the enormity of the problem.

This revelation has been a long time coming, and the results are not surprising, as this phenomenon has been long recognised but never commented on by those specialising in neonatal and maternity care.

The report recently released, examined 1136 stillbirths, neonatal deaths and brain injuries during 2015.
In many of the 727 cases that could be reviewed in depth, problems with accurate assessment of foetal well-being during labour, and consistent issues with staff understanding and processing of complex situations, including interpreting baby heart-rate patterns, were cited as significant factors.

In his book, published in 2003,entitled “Children who do not look you in the eye, The Secrets of Autistic behaviour”, Professor Antonio Parisi, a neurophysio-pathologist, working at the University of Naples, discussed in length the prenatal causes of encephalitic disturbance in the Chapter titled Etiopathogenesis of autism. (1)

He particularly concentrated on Hypoxia (lack of oxygen) following rapid, or over lengthy labour, leading to death, or neurological effects such as autism. Hypoxia is undoubtedly the most risky cause of prenatal disturbance, despite the fact that the brains of new-born babies are less vulnerable to a lack of oxygen than those of adults.
Hypoxia is also the cause of brain injury during delivery (associated with the use of forceps or suction devices).

Tonic reflux of the neck of the birth canal eases childbirth, the lack of reflux may lead to dystocic birth, where natural birth is delayed or prevented, but the lack is itself often caused by a disorder of the foetus,,eg. poor position, inappropriate size etc so dystocia may not bet the sole cause of brain injury.

This is a common occurrence in the case of autistic children. Our research team often encounters one cause of brain injury which seems to provoke further vulnerability to a second pathogenic cause of brain injury.

Most cases of brain injury seem to occur at the perinatal stage, ie around birth.

This is an extremely important finding and suggests that not enough is done to prevent brain injury during delivery in hospital maternity units.

(1)  Parisi, Antonio, Children who do not look you in the eye, The secrets of autistic behaviour.
       Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane,2003.
       ISBN 88-8114-0597-3

Dr.Antonio Parisi, assists Dr. David Delacato at the Delacato Clinics in Sorrento and Milan for the rehabilitation of children and adults on the autistic disorder spectrum existing since the 1970’s.



Autism and the MMR Vaccine Debate.

Autism, a word describing a wide variety of conditions, relating in its simplistic form to observed neurological dysfunctional conditions of a wide spectrum of phenotypes, caused by mutations in the genetic codes in the DNA map.

Autism is a word derived from the Greek word “autos” meaning “self,ones own” initially coined in the 19th century.
It is still used today as a coverall description of hundreds of phenotypes given many syndrome titles as an identifier to their discoverers.

In his book ,”Children who do not look you in the eye”, published in 2003 by Professor Antonio Parisi, on page 41 in the chapter entitled Etiopathegenesis of Autism, states that “Our research team often encounters one cause of brain injury which seems to provoke further vulnerability to a second pathogenic cause of brain injury”

The debate as to the cause of the myriad of neurological disfunctions on the Autistic Spectrum Disorder, has been a long, contentious discussion, and debated in my website The Autism Centre.
The most contentious issue has been the debate around the highly politicised discussion of the relationship between vaccination and autism, autism being defined to cover any syndrome relating to a neurological disfunction caused by mutated genes.

 However a great deal of effort has been made by the UK Government and the pharma companies to trash any speculation that brain injury is ever related to vaccinations and that subsequent autism in previously "normal " children could be caused by such reactions.

In the case of my daughter, who was 9 weeks premature, she initially appeared to develop normally. Later,  as an  infant had the administration of the routine DPT (Diphtheria, Pertussis/whooping cough and Tetanus) in 1991, suffering a  reaction to this vaccine resulting in the contraction of a fever resulting in her doctor not giving her the second vaccination. She was later,given the MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella/german measles) vaccine in 1992,which was withdrawn weeks later from general use  on the instructions of the Department of Health.

The DPT administered contained the whole pertussis component which was supposed to have been withdrawn before her date of vaccination, only for her to then be given a suspect Pluserix MMR, before this was withdrawn in1992.

Since the introduction of the triple vaccine MMR Pluserix variety in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s  subsequently being withdrawn from service in 1992, amidst controversy generated in many countries around the world, the debate has raged as to whether or not the withdrawn triple vaccine caused autism, the definition as described above.

The political debate led to the tarnishing of reputations of many eminent clinicians, and the debate continues.

The continued denial of the establishment against the claim that the “MMR caused autism” has been based on the fact that the Conservative Government, who allowed the National Health Service to introduce the MMR Pluserix, gave complete freedom of indemnity against law suits being brought for any subsequent actions against the vaccine maker, and for any subsequent medical condition caused by the vaccine.

The reason for MMR Pluserix's hurried withdrawal in 1992 under highly suspicious circumstances was never satisfactorily explained by the Department of Health. Numerous Parliamentary Questions were brushed aside on the basis of confidential information, as reported in Hansard at the time.

Terms of scaremongering were numerous being used by the authorities to attempt to recover the need for herd immunity in the face of diminishing vaccination levels.

The Pluserix MMR was administered to my daughter in 1992 ,six weeks before its withdrawal from  use at the when she was 1.After the vaccination she lost her speech and developed cerebral palsy.
At the age of 4 she was officially diagnosed as autistic after 2 years of clinical investigation.

For the purposes of a Vaccine Damage Tribunal hearing ,extensive research was carried out on the relationship of vaccines and neurological damage and I became aware of a document entitled
 ABPI DATA SHEET COMPENDIUM, 1991-1992, With the code of Practise for the Pharmaceutical Industry.

This document was by Gillian Walker for Datapharm Publications Limited.

On page 1465 in the Section relating to Smith Kline & French Laboratories, in the advice for Pluserix MMR, the ,advice is very specific that this vaccine should not be given to those known to be hypersensitive to Neomycin, an antibiotic.

In other words, the vaccine was administered by clinics and other medical establishments, without any previous investigations as to any recipient of the vaccine was at risk on the basis of Neomycin allergy.

The administration of the vaccine without the Neomycin allergy test being carried out could be deemed unlawful. Further study showed that other routine vaccines were contaminated with Neomycin.

A child could therefore be sensitised without the parents even knowing that this allergy was possible.

The relationship between the MMR Vaccine and Neomycin Allergy was discussed in an article published in February 1993 by Pamela L Kwitten et al in Am J Dis Child 1993;147(2) :128-129.doi10.1001/archpedi.1993.01260260018005 entitled MMR Vaccine and Neomycin Allergy.

“Abstract

Sir.- The resurgence of childhood measles in the United States has prompted secondary immunisation with the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Immediate allergic reactions to the MMR vaccine, including dyspnea and hypertension have been documented in egg-allergic individuals. Recently, five patients without a history of egg allergy experienced similar reactions, requiring emergency treatment with antihistamines and epinephrene hydrochloride. The MMR vaccine contains hydrolysed gelatine; sorbitol and neomycin sulphate (25 micrograms) Neomycin is an antibiotic that is known to cause both local and systemic allergic reactions. Our experience with the following patient suggests that hypersensitivity to these additives found in the MMR vaccine, especially neomycin, may be a factor in documented reactions in individuals without egg allergy.”

In 1996, the Department of Health, jointly with the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office Department of Health, and DHSS (Northern Ireland) published the directory Immunisation against Infectious Disease, (the Green Book), edited jointly Drs David M Salisbury and Norman T. Begg.

The section relevant to the Measles, Mumps and Rubella, is section 22, and 22.2 specifiically refers to the MMR vaccine, that being MMRII from Merck, incorporating Enders’ Edmonston strain measles, RA 27/3 rubella, Jeryl Lynn mumps.

In subsection 22.6 contraindications, no reference is made to Neomycin, refer to pages 135-140.

However in a Merck& Co,Inc. Document dated 2009, in the paragraph titled Description, the presence of neomycin at 25mcg (equal to that contained in the Pluserix MMR, and on page 4 under contraindications ,reference is made to reactions to neomycin)

Likewise in the section titled Warnings, the AAP (American Association of Pediatrics) warn against the use of measles vaccine, where known reactions to neomycin are experienced.   

On the 15th of July 2015, I attended a hearing before Upper Tribunal Judge Mitchell, at which I presented to Judge Mitchell a copy of a 1991/92 ABPI Data Sheet Compendium as evidence of allergic reaction to the presence of Neomycin in the Pluserix MMR vaccine.

My argument before Judge Mitchell, set out in his rejection of my appeal hearing, was that in view of the statement in the ABPI DataSheet Compendium for 1991/1992 that there should be no  administration of the vaccine containing neomycin, to recipients with a known reaction to neomycin , when the fact was clear that my daughter had never been tested for allergy response, and should have been tested, before the administration of the Pluserix MMR vaccine.In fact it seems that many children could have been sensitised to Neomycin without their knowledge through other routine vaccines.

I informed the Judge Mitchell,that Carina had not been tested that there was no test for hyper-sensitivity, to which the Judge thought that this struck him as odd as he commented that if it cannot be tested , how can anyone comply with the ABPI guidance ?

In paragraph 14 , the judge  offered the following;-

“I know, from having spoken to Mr Burn at the hearing, how disappointed he will be with my decision. But the fact that my decision is a negative one is no reflection on him. He should know I admire his obvious dedication to his daughter and the passion with which he seeks to secure her best intersts. I wish him well but I cannot grant his application.

For the record  the date of signature on original was was 9th July 2015, the  decision was conveyed to me on the 15th of July.

Robin Burn I Eng. FIMMM

UPDATE 3/1/18
I have found 2 further links to the subject

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Vaccinations/Pages/vaccine-ingredients.aspx

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html

At least one of these was dated 2016, my tribunal was in 2015

RB

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment which will be display once it has been moderated.