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
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