acterize classical scurvy; and that the most common site of bleeding in scurvy is subperiosteal (under the fibrous covering of bone). In ribs, as clots from such bleeding develop and calcify, they are indistinguishable on X-ray from healing fractures.  Also common in scurvy, slippages of the ribs in locations near the spine may also appear on X-rays as healing fractures. Based upon the medical literature, this is detailed in the Kalokerinos report.

More recently, Alan received a report from an Australian hematologist, Michael D. Innis, MBBS, DTM&H, FRCPath, FRCPA, Honorary Consultant Haematologist, Princess Alexandria Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. He cites a highly likely contributory cause of death as intracranial hemorrhage resulting from failure of the liver to synthesize clotting factors in adequate amounts (although the causative connection between insufficient clotting factors and hemorrhage might not be immediately apparent, Dr. Innis has expertise in this area resulting from extensive research). He also
emphasizes that bone underlying subperiosteal hemorrhage would become necrotic from loss of it's blood supply, and that a healing necrosis looks identical to a healing fracture at autopsy. Because appropriate post-mortem tests were not done, precise determination of all morbidity factors and their interactions is impossible. But the Innis report alone should be sufficient for Alan's vindication.

Finally, the DTaP vaccine in question is known to have come from a from a batch which ranks number one in deaths, number one in non-recoveries, and fourth in total events reported. Such batches are called "Hot Lots." One might wonder why, if batches can be so identified, SBS suspects aren't given some benefit of the doubt. One challenge is that such identification is based upon clinical observation, which courts will not accept. This seems odd, since the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) plainly indicates, as does the 1986 Congressional Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, that vaccine injuries are a fact of life. When people try for compensation under this Act, the court disallows VAERS information, asking for objective
evidence, such as laboratory tests. Another challenge is, of course, that the requisite tests are nonexistent (see Addendum).

Alan Yurko could have plea bargained and received a lesser sentence. His refusal spoke to me of a man secure in his innocence. Also remarkable was the immediate and continuing loyalty, under soul-testing circumstances, of his wife, Francine. Following the trial, her diligent efforts secured complete medical records. Based on these records, there are, at this writing, 28 medical professionals willing to testify to Alan's innocence (and the number will grow). The disciplines represented at this writing
include board-certified specialists in the fields of pathology, bone pathology, toxicology, hematology, ophthalmology, pediatrics, Ob/Gyn, and forensics, with some practitioners having dual specialties including pathology. As noted, an appeal has been filed.

Extreme Importance of This Case
Due to Alan's tireless effort at hand writing literally thousands of letters, the case has gained significant attention and status internationally. Its critical implications for parents and caretakers falsely accused and imprisoned, and the life-and-death questions it raises concerning medically advised and mandatory vaccine programs, rank it high
among the most important legal/health issues. To illustrate further, in my experience it is common in hospital emergency rooms that, once suspicion of shaken baby syndrome arises, all thought of further diagnostic investigation ceases. I know of no other situation in medicine where the usual diagnostic thoroughness one finds in such centers is abandoned.

Finally, public confidence in America's health care system and in the medical profession in particular is already eroding. Sooner or later, it will become publicly obvious that many SBS defendants have been falsely accused and convicted through deplorable misdiagnosis pertaining to pathologies that could one day become regarded as the result of malpractice--the indiscriminate administration of childhood vaccines.
Further adverse backlash is sure to ensue in the US and abroad unless this case, as a prime example, is brought to light now with plentiful and reliable support for the defense. Having also witnessed outright viciousness behind the scenes in legal proceedings (such as that, described earlier, used against Francine Yurko), I now feel that the SBS debacle is a potentially fatal malignancy in the integrity of medicine.

The Yurko case is eminently winnable. Its particulars make the likelihood of  another equally propitious opportunity remote. Based upon what we can only imagine the post vaccinal suffering of that small, fragile life to exemplify, not to mention the misery visited upon his loving family, we--professionals and lay persons alike--must not relent in our insistence upon measures to prevent such tragedy. To this end, the Yurko case must be won. No other outcome is thinkable.

ADDENDUM:
To this author and many other professionals, the role of medical is diagnosis in a significant portion, possibly a majority, of SBS accusations and convictions seems to be the result of inadequate investigation in at least three areas, listed below. To avert more tragedy, the following minimal screening is recommended as mandatory before
considering charges of child abuse/shaken baby syndrome:
(1) serum ascorbate and histamine to rule out subclinical scurvy;
(2) prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, fibrinogen level,
platelet count, and D dimer test to rule out bleeding diatheses;
(3) when there is callus or fracture, bone densitometry to rule out the
recently described temporary brittle bone disease, as well as tests to rule
out classical brittle bone disease and all conditions, such as rickets, that
predispose to spontaneous fracture. (See Minimal Recommended Screening Where
Shaken Baby Syndrome Is Suspected for more complete information and
references.)

Caveat:
The suggested panel is not intended to be comprehensive, but only a starting
point for screening purposes where child abuse is suspected. Changes and/or
additions are likely as we learn more about these areas. Such information
will be added to the website.


Obviously, the panel does not include tests for vaccine reactions. As noted
earlier, no suitable post-licensing diagnostic protocol for vaccine
reactions has ever been officially established. There is no basic science in
this area worthy of the name, and this seems to be no accident, based upon
my experiences at court hearings. There are two important avenues:
1) systematic before-and-after testing for vaccinal effects on the
immunological and neurological systems, not to mention their potential
effects on genetics;
2) meaningful, long-term epidemiological surveillance of a significant
number of vaccine recipients and controls (this implies, of course, that
people be informed, and not bullied into vaccinating babies and children, so
that there will be controls).
These tests would hold up in court, which is why an iron curtain of official
resistance surrounds them. In my opinion also, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, vaccines and vaccine reactions very frequently trigger
subclinical scurvy and its complications, as well as bleeding complications
from deficiencies of clotting factors.