Is Shaken Baby Syndrome Often Misdiagnosed and Caused by Vaccine-Induced Rickets?

Since the conventional medical system ignores vaccine injuries and even denies they exist, very few baby-toddlerphysicians today know how to diagnose injuries and illnesses caused by vaccines. Yet, this ignorance in the medical system does not mean there is not solid scientific evidence showing some of the harmful effects of vaccines. – See more at: Medical Kidnap

Medical Misdiagnosis In Family Proceedings

With the case of Ashya King plastered all over the media and how the NHS behaved, it is now time to put under scrutiny the diagnosis of fractures in babies. Parents accused of non accidental injury because of rib, leg and arm fractures should start to ask questions about the diagnosis of them.
1: Do the NHS use up to date and best available evidence?
2: What is the diagnostic criteria for establishing that fractures in infants are NAI?
3: What is the process used when concluding NAI?
4: Where is the medical evidence to back up that fractures in babies are NAI?

NICE – When To Suspect Child Maltreatment

The question that needs to be asked here is, did the medics and hired experts use the up to date and best available evidence in concluding that a child suffered a non accidental injury. We suspect not. We believe that they are using old data to conclude NAI and they never bother to carry out exhaustive tests to form a differential diagnosis. 

4.1 Fractures

How can abusive fractures be differentiated from those resulting from conditions that lead to bone fragility and those resulting from accidents, particularly in relation to metaphyseal fractures?

Why this is important
The existing evidence base does not fully account for the features that differentiate fractures from different causes in infants and pre-school age children. A prospective comparative study of fractures in physical abuse, those resulting from conditions that lead to bone fragility and those resulting from accidental trauma would help address this question. Any such study should encompass a study of metaphyseal fractures.

Source: NICE – When To Suspect Child Maltreatment


Ultimately, researchers may have little power to prove or disprove by direct evidence whether child abuse is the cause of unexplained infantile fractures in a given case because of ethical and practical constraints. Medical practitioners do, however, have the technology to prove, by direct evidence and with a high degree of accuracy, whether a given infant with fractures has low bone density that may have predisposed the child to fractures during nonabusive handling. Mandating the use of this commonly available and relatively inexpensive technology would close a major evidentiary gap, which, ironically, allows room for both innocent caretakers to be convicted and guilty caretakers to be acquitted. Our
understanding of nonabusive conditions that can mimic child abuse has evolved to the point where it is simply no longer appropriate to presume child abuse based solely on the presence of unexplained fractures—even when those fractures are paired with intracranial
hemorrhaging. Since the technology to measure infant bone density exists and is relatively ubiquitous, its use should be mandated in cases where unexplained fractures will be used as evidence of abuse so that “beyond a reasonable doubt” will mean in practice what it says on paper in cases of alleged infant abuse.