Health Impact News Editor Comments
Since the conventional medical system ignores vaccine injuries and even denies they exist, very few physicians 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.
One of the truly tragic situations we are seeing today among infants suffering from vaccine damage is the prevalence of vaccine-induced rickets. The typical symptoms of an infant suffering from vaccine-induced rickets are often misdiagnosed as being caused by parents abusing their babies by shaking them too hard. In these cases, the family suffers twice: first by the damage to their child caused by vaccines, and then by the medical and social welfare systems who blame the parents and take away their children.
Christina England highlights this growing problem in today’s society.
Child Abuse or Vaccine-Induced Rickets – Are Doctors Getting it Wrong?
by Christina England
Health Impact News
Thousands of parents worldwide are being falsely accused of child abuse after doctors discover what they believe to be healing fractures on x-rays. However, far from being abuse, there is growing evidence to support the claim that many of these children are in fact suffering from infantile rickets.
Rickets is a condition caused by a severe lack of vitamin D in the diet, which can lead to a softening and weakening of the bones, making it difficult for the body to absorb calcium.
The Work of Dr. David Ayoub
One doctor who is unafraid to speak out on the subject is Dr. David Ayoub, a practicing radiologist from Springfield, Illinois. He believes that it is not only a poor diet and the lack of sunshine that is responsible for the growing number of children suffering from rickets, but also the growing number of vaccinations containing the adjuvant aluminium.
Dr. Ayoub, an expert on the subject, has been involved in hundreds of cases of misdiagnosed rickets worldwide and has testified on the behalf of many innocent parents.
During an interview with Dr. Mercola in February 2014, Dr. Ayoub spoke about his vast experience and described how he has noticed a dramatic increase in the number of parents being falsely accused.
He told Dr. Mercola that:
“For at least 25 years, we have seen rickets on x-rays of infants with fractures, and from the very beginning, and this is the research out of the Boston Children’s Hospital, there has been a misdiagnosis or a diagnostic substitution.
The changes of healing rickets in infants – they looked at dead children’s skeletal surveys and looked under the microscope to correlate what they saw in x-rays, under the slide, under the microscope – and they diagnosed unique fractures, they didn’t diagnose healing rickets, and from that time on the stamp, on these changes on x-rays had been labelled as child abuse, specific changes in child abuse. It’s a horrific thing to think about.” (taken from video)
“The cases that we are seeing are 100 percent healing phase rickets. Rickets in infancy is much, much different from the rickets in the classical age group, which is between one and two years of age. If this is real child abuse, well, then I have never seen a case over one year of age. They are typically about five weeks when they start fracturing from a diaper change, changing a shirt or putting an arm in a car seat or a sibling playing with a kid, being a little rough, that sort of thing, when you find healing fractures and so forth.”
Watch the video:
In the article that accompanied the interview, Dr. Mercola wrote:
“Dr. Ayoub has compiled a robust body of evidence to support his position, some of which was recently published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Roentgenology. The paper was co-authored by Dr. Chuck Hyman, a child abuse pediatrician, and Marvin Miller, a pediatric bone specialist and geneticist at Dayton Children’s Hospital.
Based on this work, they’re also submitting a second paper that addresses the risk factors in pregnancy that set up the baby with rickets, such as low vitamin D, poor calcium status, heavy antacid use, excess body weight, and other factors which I’ll list further below.”
He continued by quoting Dr. Ayoub:
“”The last interview I did for you was really the link to my current work in infantile rickets,” he says. “I was looking closely at aluminum adjuvants in vaccines and their association with diseases in early infancy. One of the classic diseases that aluminum is linked to is rickets.
It’s also plausible that aluminum is anticoagulant. In other words, it can induce bleeding conditions.”
Is Dr. Ayoub correct? Are the aluminum adjuvants being used in vaccinations in any way responsible for the increased number of infants suffering from infantile rickets and other injuries believed by doctors to be shaken baby syndrome?
Presenting the Case for Vaccine-induced Infantile Rickets in Court
In a written transcript of his interview, Dr. Ayoub made his views perfectly clear and left parents in little doubt that he believed the aluminum in the vaccinations was to blame for the sudden increase in infantile rickets and bleeding conditions seen in children today. He stated:
“The last interview I did for you was really the link to my current work in infantile rickets. I was looking closely at aluminum adjuvants in vaccines and their association with diseases in early infancy. One of the classic diseases that aluminum is linked to is rickets. It’s also plausible that aluminum is anticoagulant. In other words, it can induce bleeding conditions. What comes to mind is fractures and bleeding (what do you think of) in infants – shaken baby syndrome (SBS).”
Working alongside his close friend Dr. Edward Yazbak, Dr. Ayoub began to look at evidence from a whole new perspective and explained in his interview how he and Dr. Yazbak had won their first case when they had presented their evidence in court. He said:
“The first case I saw was a preterm baby, a Florida case that Dr. Yazbak was working on. It was a case of terrible bones. They misdiagnosed it. We wrote a report. The case was dismissed. I’m like, “Wow, this is easy.” The second case I got was a case of rickets and scurvy. It was a case in Southern States and a criminal case. We testified against a very seasoned elderly forensic radiologist, and we lost the case. It was a devastating loss because this kid has [inaudible 06:18] metabolic bone disease.
After that case, I really wanted to stop looking. I realized that there was a lot of politics. It’s difficult to convince the judge and the jury that a general radiologist in Illinois is smarter than their backyard experts at their university hospitals.”
However, far from being deterred by their loss, the pair carried on their research. He told Dr. Mercola that this was the wakeup call that he needed. He stated:
“This was my wakeup call. Case number two: this case was so clear-cut. This child had plummeted off the growth curve. He had cataracts, for God’s sake – cataracts, you know. Unbelievable. Severe weight loss. He had classical changes of rickets and scurvy in the growth plates. I showed comparisons from the literature side by side, and of course, you’re showing these to laymen. But even laymen … I mean, this is just showing a picture of a figure. You’re looking at comparisons from established textbooks. All it took for their expert to do – bow-tied, white-haired senior radiologist – is to shake his head, look at the jury, and say, “Scurvy is rare. Rickets is rare. This is not the disease,” and that’s it.”
Seemingly puzzled by why his evidence was not accepted, Dr. Mercola asked:
“But why wasn’t he convinced? I mean, he had the education and the experience to understand the evidence.”
Dr. Ayoub replied:
“That is a great question. I have reviewed over 400 cases. I’ve been in the legal process over a hundred times, whether it’s report writing or testifying. I have extensive experience. I’ve testified in other countries. I’ve testified in over half of the states in the United States. I’ve gone up against mostly university hospitals – big centers: Children’s Hospital in Boston, Philadelphia Children’s Hospital, Seattle Children’s Hospital, and so forth. I’ve really gone up against many of the top physicians.
I would say that I’m not going up against the radiologists that often. Most of the time, it’s the child abuse pediatrician who testifies in proxy for the radiologist for court. Many of the radiologists, oddly enough, don’t come to court.
That’s a political question, and one that goes in my head over and over again. But I will tell you this: what we’re seeing – this is probably one of the biggest explanations – is a rather big pill to swallow. For at least 25 years, we have seen rickets on x-rays in infants with fractures. From the very beginning (this is the research out of Boston’s Children’s Hospital), there has been a misdiagnosis or, let’s say, a diagnostic substitution that changes of healing rickets in infants were originally recognized in an autopsy study by Paul Kleinman, who’s a radiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital.” (Source.)
Are Dr. Ayoub and Dr. Yazbak correct? Is the return of infantile rickets due to the rising number of vaccinations containing aluminum as an adjuvant? Or is there more to this tragedy than just the vaccines?
Aluminum in Baby Formula Also Known to Cause Bones to Fracture
I believe that there is more to this tragedy, especially after reading a paper published in 1996, titled Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children.
The paper, written by the American Academy of Pediatrics, described how the aluminum levels found in the tissue of patients with normal renal function were at a lower level than the aluminum levels found in patients suffering from renal failure.
The authors stated that:
“Bone and liver are the tissue most frequently affected by increased absorption and/or decreased clearance of aluminum.”
They go on to state:
“In 1976, it was reported that the brain tissue of patients dying of a neurologic syndrome called dialysis encephalopathy had high concentrations of aluminum in the gray matter. Two years later, a severe form of osteomalacic osteodystrophy (fracturing dialysis osteodystrophy) and dialysis encephalopathy was described, which occurred in patients undergoing dialysis with a dialysate prepared from tap water that contained large amounts of aluminum. The epidemic-like occurrence of these diseases was largely eliminated by removing the aluminum from the water used to prepare dialysate.”
(Note: osteomalacia is a condition characterized by softening of the bones with resultant pain, weakness, and bone fragility, caused by inadequate deposition of calcium or vitamin D.)
Are these Bone Diseases Linked to Rickets?
The Committee of Nutrition within the American Academy of Pediatrics went on to discuss the aluminum content in infant formula, stating that the formulas for premature infants appeared to contain higher levels of aluminum than the standard formulas given to full-term infants and recommended that the FDA consider lowering these amounts.
They concluded that:
“Some infant formulas may contain relatively high concentrations of aluminum. The reported concentrations of aluminum in soy formulas and premature infant formulas are higher than those in other infant formulas. The potential impact of these formulas on the aluminum intake of premature infants and infants with impaired renal function should be recognized, although it is not clear that toxic effects result from the use of the formulas in these situations.”
Bearing this in mind, are the bone diseases seen by the American Academy of Pediatrics in any way linked to the cases of rickets that we are seeing today?
It appears that the work of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the work of Dr. Ayoub bear many similarities, which I found extremely worrying, especially since more and more pregnant women are being vaccinated with vaccines containing the adjuvant aluminum.
These vaccines include:
Tdap or DTaP – diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough)
Hep B – hepatitis B
If babies born to a vaccinated mother then receive an infant formula laden with aluminum, we need to consider what cumulative effect this could have on the child.
This is especially important, since many of the products used on our babies skin, also contain aluminum as an ingredient. These include diaper rash creams , baby lotion , (pdf available from site) and baby powder .
For more information about aluminum and a wide range of toxins, poisons and chemicals hidden in baby products used today, read Toxic World, Toxic People: The Essential Guide to Health, Happiness, Parenting and Conscious Living written by Anna Victoria Rogers.
Examining the Evidence: Link Between Aluminum and Vaccine-Induced Rickets is Very Strong
Pregnant mothers are being advised to receive vaccinations containing aluminum during pregnancy.
Baby formulas are known to contain high quantities of aluminum, especially those being fed to premature babies.
Many babies are vaccinated at birth with the hepatitis B vaccine, which contains aluminum, and they continue to receive additional multiple vaccinations containing aluminum, whether they are premature or not, from the age of eight weeks.
Is Dr. Ayoub correct? He has been studying aluminum adjuvants in vaccines and their association with diseases in early infancy for many years.
Given the evidence, is it any wonder that the health of our vulnerable babies is suffering from conditions believed to be a thing of the past, such as rickets and scurvy, which are being diagnosed today?
To find out more about the dangers of aluminum in vaccinations, please go to the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute website, where you will find a wide range of research papers and articles written on the subject by leading experts.
David Ayoub – Early infantile rickets A new look at an old disease and mimic of child abuse
Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History
by Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk
* The backup image section of this tag has been generated for use on a
* non-SSL page. If this tag is to be placed on an SSL page, change the
* This noscript section of this tag only shows image banners. There
* is no width or height in these banners, so if you want these tags to
* allocate space for the ad before it shows, you will need to add this
* information to the tag.
* If you do not want to deal with the intricities of the noscript
* section, delete the tag (from … to ). On
* average, the noscript tag is called from less than 1% of internet
var m3_u = (location.protocol=='https:'?'https://network.sophiamedia.com/openx/www/delivery/ajs.php':'http://network.sophiamedia.com/openx/www/delivery/ajs.php');
var m3_r = Math.floor(Math.random()*99999999999);
if (!document.MAX_used) document.MAX_used = ',';
LivingForLonger.com brings you all the latest news and information on health, longevity, liberty and quality of life. Support the site by sharing what you find! In the meantime, if you care about your health, check out Cancer Uncensored - The Book - Your step-by-step guide to cancer prevention, early detection and cancer survival.