A U.S. Federal Court has ruled that enough evidence exists that proves vaccinations can lead to a child dying from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).
Amid a total media blackout, the July 10th decision by the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims will set the precedent for all future vaccine-related court cases, and could open the door to victims receiving significant compensation.
Greenmedinfo.com reports: In order to better understand this decision by the vaccine court, it helps to consider some additional points first. Vaccines are indeed not safe. Not only do the manufacturers’ vaccine inserts include a laundry list of severe adverse reactions but, since its inception in 1986, the vaccine court has also begrudgingly paid out nearly $4 billion in compensation for injuries and deaths deemed to be a direct result of vaccines.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 established a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) to compensate vaccine-related injuries and deaths. Congress initially designed the NVICP to supplement the state law civil tort system as a simple, fair, and efficient means for compensating vaccine-injured people. The program was meant to award compensation quickly and easily. Unfortunately, independent investigation and countless horror stories from individuals who have experienced the vaccine court process have demonstrated clearly that the program is deeply flawed and highly adversarial towards petitioners. There is no jury trial within the vaccine court as it consists of administrative processes, sometimes resting solely upon the bias of the appointed special master overseeing the case.
Within the vaccine court, petitioners seeking compensation for their children’s SIDS cases are often denied, dismissed, or settled through an informal resolution before an official decision is made. What makes the recent case of BOATMAN & CUPID v. SECRETARY OR HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES different is that not only did the court decide in favor of the petitioners, but the report of the medical expert neuropathologist [Dr. Douglas Miller] was thorough and persuading while also proving to the special master the role pro-inflammatory cytokines played in the vaccine injury and death.
According to the court documents, J.B., the subject of the petition, was born four weeks prematurely at 36 weeks gestation. Almost five months after J.B.’s birth, he had his 4-month well-baby visit. He was nearly five months post-delivery, although his gestational age was about four months given his early delivery. J.B.’s father attested that during the well-baby visit, J.B. was “smiling and cooing like normal.” According to the court documents, he was described as “healthy appearing and cooperative…well-nourished and well developed” with medical documentation taken by the pediatrician to prove those points. In addition, J.B. was shown as having met numerous 4-month developmental milestones. During the 4-month well-baby visit, J.B. received DTaP, IPV, PCV, rotavirus, and Hep B vaccinations. Testimony from his parents show later that day J.B. “was not laughing or cooing like he normally did, he was not moving as much and he seemed quiet and withdrawn.” That night, J.B. had a fever and he did not sleep well. Less than 24 hours later J.B. passed.
The question of whether the cascade of pro-inflammatory cytokines, sometimes nick-named the ‘cytokine storm,’ stimulated by the innate immune response to the vaccines could have been the trigger that led to J.B.’s death was central to the testimony and much of the medical literature submitted by the parties. One important point in the case was the well documented, clear medical evaluation on the day of the vaccination, showing a clean bill of health before vaccination and afterward a fever, preceding the ultimate SIDS event. The various studies on SIDS done by Harvard neuropathologist Hannah C. Kinney, M.D. and her colleagues were submitted in J.B.’s vaccine court case along with many other studies and articles. The role of pro-inflammatory cytokines in tipping the molecular balance in the underdeveloped brainstem is thought by multiple experts to be a potentially critical factor in the pathology of SIDS.
Dr. Russell Blaylock expertly described the cascading neurological events, which can take place after vaccinating an infant, in one of his previous public talks:
“They [pediatricians] hardly ever want to debate. But if you could tie one to a chair and debate them, all they would talk about is one vaccine. [They would say] Well, the adjuvant in one vaccine is really not that strong, it’s weaker than it used to be and all this nonsense. And then you say, Mr. Pediatrician, what if I multiply that times six? Now that child is getting six times as high a dose of just the adjuvant. Some of these vaccines have three different antigens in them. So now we’re talking about dozens of immune stimulations…all in one sitting…in a tiny baby. That’s already had its microglia primed. You get an enormous secretion of inflammatory cytokines and glutamate powerfully. The child can die [of]…SIDS because remember the brainstem has the highest microglial concentration. That’s where your breathing apparatus and cardiovascular system is controlled.”
The vaccine court award [payout] has not been handed down to the petitioners in the BOATMAN & CUPID case at the time of this writing, only a decision has been rendered. From a legal point of view, it is known that vaccination can cause SIDS in some cases. A quick search shows over 80 SIDS cases have been heard by the vaccine court. Currently, there are no medical studies that show how and why SIDS via vaccination occurs in some infants and not in others. In addition, most vaccine court cases involving SIDS ended in settlements without decisions handed down as seen in the BOATMAN & CUPID case.
The official conclusion of special master Gowen was as follows:
“In this case, I have concluded that petitioners have presented sufficient evidence and testimony to entitle them to compensation in the Vaccine Program. I have not concluded that vaccines present a substantial risk of SIDS….In this case, I have concluded, after review of the evidence, that it is more likely than not that the vaccines played a substantial causal role in the death of J.B. without the effect of which he would not have died. The role of inflammatory cytokines as neuro-modulators in the infant medulla has been well described and is likely the reason for a significant number of SIDS deaths occurring in conjunction with mild infection. I have concluded that it is more likely than not that the vaccine-stimulated cytokines had the same effect in this vulnerable infant during sleep.”
Since the BOATMAN & CUPID case took place within the vaccine court, and not the Supreme Court or a Federal Circuit Court, the decision rendered is not precedent-setting in the conventional legal sense. Yet it could be considered a wider moral victory for justice and greater understanding. The decision of the vaccine court to place weight and standing upon the role of pro-inflammatory cytokines as neuro-modulators in vaccine injury gives hope that a deeper view and consciousness is finally pervading this notoriously inept and adversarial vaccine court apparatus. Since the role of pro-inflammatory cytokines has been shown to be an underlying mechanism in vaccine-related injuries other than SIDS, perhaps the tone and findings set by the BOATMAN & CUPID case will resonate out further into future vaccine court decisions.
Written by Sean Adl-Tabatabai and published by the News Punch ~ August 31, 2017.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml“