Re: Another baby dies having been shaken to death, you moron (was: Re: Another baby dies from vaccines- another parent suffers)

Most of these ignorami here cannot read and understand anything. Their prime
directive is to dispute any and everything. Just watch.

"Carol T" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Kathy Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>  The idea that you would tout this as
> > a vaccine side effect death rather than the shaken-to-death horror that
> > it is is more revolting than even the low opinion I'd already had of
> > you.  Shame on you.<<<<<<<<
>
> Hang on a minute, I have just read some of the data in the link John
> has posted. Apparently at the autopsy this baby was found to have
> "diabetes mellitus; metabolic acidosis, liver damage, urinary tract
> bacterial infection, pneumonia, vitamin K deficiency, anaemia, and
> brain edema." He also had a marker for vit K deficiency.
>
> He should not have been given a vaccine of any kind, regardless of
> what had caused his death. At the hospital he was treated with sodium
> bicarbonate (according to the writer of the report, in excessive
> amount) and epinephrine, both of which could have contributed to the
> apparent brain injury (he didn't have any skull fracture and CT scans
> didn't show evidence of a trauma).
>
>
> Added to this the mother had, had, 2 different infections herself and
> had been treated with antibiotics whilst breast feeding him, both
> antibiotics inhibit Vit K. This alone should have made any nurse or
> doctor very cautious about giving him a vaccination. Given that his
> mother had hypothyroidism too the baby was probably already
> metabolically disadvantaged, in that her thyroxin may have effected
> him metabolically even before birth.
>
> The baby had evidence of an old rib injury, which could have quite
> easily been a labour injury. Anyone has only got to look at the way
> American newborns are handled straight after delivery (different ones
> every day on Discovery TV)to see that such injuries are likely to be
> common place.
>
> I am not saying that you shouldn't say that John was wrong, but
> something's not quite right with this case. An unwell baby should not
> have been given a vaccine.  The baby of an unwell mother who is
> breastfeeding and on medications should not have been given a vaccine
> either.
>
>  Maybe the only horror is that any doctor drew the conclusion he was a
> shaken baby without giving a court other possible diagnosis's based on
> the evidence to consider too. It's possible that the baby actually had
> a problem of bleeding caused by the medicines used by his mother
> during breast feeding, further aggravated by giving him particular
> treatments in the hospital which were meant to 'help' him.
>
> Do you support putting a possibly innocent man to death simply because
> you don't agree with what John says? Even putting the vaccine issue
> aside, if you read the report you will see the discrepancies of this
> case.
>
>
> Carol T