How the Medical Profession Covered Up Vaccine Injuries and Called it ‘Child Abuse’

[Guest guest]

" These papers were deemed so confidential by the UK government that

they have been hidden away in government files for over twenty four

years. They were marked ‘Not For Publication Commercial in

Confidence’. I doubt if anyone at that time bargained for the Freedom

of Information Act. "

http://vactruth.com/2012/02/14/medical-cover-up-child-abuse/

How the Medical Profession Covered Up Vaccine Injuries and Called it

‘Child Abuse’

By England

A short while ago I exposed a series of thirteen papers which

unequivocally proved that Prof Roy Meadow the UK’s most famous Munchausen

Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP) expert, attended thirteen meetings on adverse

reactions to vaccines just about the time MSBP rates rocketed. [1] Up to

this time most people researching Meadow were only aware of him attending

four meetings with the ARVI (Adverse Reactions to Vaccination and

Immunizations) and a few with the CSM (Committee for the Safety of

Medicine).

As exciting as the discovery of these new papers were, especially for

those parents falsely accused of Munchausen by Proxy (MSBP) or Shaken

Baby Syndrome (SBS) after a vaccine injury had affected their children,

they only proved that Prof Roy Meadow had attended meetings discussing

adverse reactions to vaccines; they did not prove that he actually

participated in them. This is because the papers had all the

professionals names blacked out by Freedom of Information (FOI). This

made it impossible for the public to determine which comments were said

by which professional.

Since I published my last paper however, I have received the cleaned up

versions of four of those papers revealing exactly what was said and by

whom. This is a breakthrough and enables parents of vaccine damaged

children, accused of MSBP or SBS by Meadow, to finally have proof that

Meadow not only attended these meetings but actually participated,

advised and commented on the topics of cot death, seizures,

anaphylaxis, and the yellow card reporting system (UK

reporting system for adverse reactions to vaccines.)

These papers were deemed so confidential by the UK government that they

have been hidden away in government files for over twenty four years.

They were marked ‘Not For Publication Commercial in Confidence’. I

doubt if anyone at that time bargained for the Freedom of Information

Act.

Meadow rose to fame in 1977 when he wrote a controversial paper on

Munchausen by Proxy for the Lancet. The paper entitled ‘The Hinterland of

Child Abuse’ [2] gives two highly suspect case studies as “evidence” of

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy existence. The paper was deemed problematic

by many because the second case study describes a child presenting with

excessive sodium (salt) in the blood. During Meadow’s discussion he

discloses that this child was force-fed 20 g of sodium, with

difficulty, by himself and his colleagues. Sadly the child

died!

Since this time Professor Sir Roy Meadow has become known as one of the

most influential and respected pediatricians of his generation. He

is thought by many to be a lead thinker in the field of child abuse. Many

experts say his work has saved countless children from unnecessary

suffering.

After reading these papers I would beg to differ.

What Was Said At Those Meetings by Professor Roy

MeadowARVI meeting 6th July 1987. [3]

Meadow first comments in section 5.4 however, there was a worrying trend

of deceit arising earlier on in the minutes in the section marked Item 5

– MMR vaccine – 5.4 Postpartum Rubella immunization associated with

development of prolonged arthritis neurological sequelae and chronic

rubella arthritis Tingle et al. J of Inf. Diseases (1985), Vol. 152:

pages 606-612.

The committee was discussing points raised in the previous ARVI

meeting. Dr Cavanagh reminded the committee of a SSPE (SUBACUTE

SCLEROSING PANENCEPHALITIS INCLUSION–BODY ENCEPHALTIS) – like syndrome

reported from rubella virus infection and noted the reported maternal

viraemia and transmission of rubella virus in breast milk discussed in

the correspondence submitted. Several other professionals brought up

points on this matter. Dr had completed a study of SSPE

surveillance and it was thought that none of her cases were associated

with rubella. Dr Wallace thought the report to which Dr Cavanagh had

referred concerned congenital rubella syndrome, not acquired

rubella.

It is interesting that professionals were discussing SSPE in relation to

the MMR vaccine because Dr Carley M.D. firmly believes that SSPE

IS in fact autism. Dr Carley has made her thoughts on the subject very

clear even stating on a radio show with Kirby that autism is

actually a non-fatal case of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis caused

by demyelination following vaccine induced encephalitis, and that the

name of the condition was changed to autism to hide this self evident

fact [4] She says if you read the description that on [5] gives on

SSPE in his book used to teach internal medicine to medical students all

over the world; it is clear that what he is describing is in fact autism.

In fact if you read the 10th edition that the above page comes from

published in 1983, 4 years before this meeting it says that SSPE can be

caused by the measles vaccine.

I would like to point out that Dr Cavanagh did state ‘a SSPE– like

syndrome reported from rubella virus infection’, indicating that this

was a condition similar to SSPE, which is exactly what Dr Carley is

saying today without the benefit of seeing these papers that had been

tucked away for all these years.

On to Point 5.4 and the first comment by MeadowThis

section shows the ARVI committee discussing how reports of adverse

reactions to vaccines should be followed up after they have been reported

to the ‘Yellow Card Reporting System’.

The committee’s concerns surrounded adverse reactions to the DPT

vaccination.

The committee discussed the fact that in Holland a pediatrician was

employed solely for the follow-up of all of the reports of adverse

reactions to vaccination. He/she would interview the vaccinator, the

parents and the child and carry out a long term follow up.

Various professionals discussed the problems that they felt this would

raise.

The whole issue makes extremely sickening and disturbing reading

especially in view of Sir Badenoch’s comments that Holland’s policy

posed the dilemma of the provision of huge lists of adverse reactions or

of a distillate and commented that it was bad policy to collect useless

information, however, he did feel that changes in incidence of reactions

were important as was the awareness of permanent or long term sequelae

from vaccination.

The minutes stated that Meadow felt that the subject would make an ideal

research project for one four-month cohort, to be studied intensively

with detailed scrutiny and examination of each report to provide a

yardstick for further comparison.

Professor Breckenridge felt that definition of terms was essential and

adverse events should be separated from adverse reactions. The

‘events’ he said could be excluded with consideration on the

adverse reactions!

I would like to know how Professor Breckenridge justified the elimination

of either of these terms. Surely this amounts to deception, as to exclude

one from the other would give false results when assessing adverse

reactions to a vaccine as both terms mean exactly the same

thing.

Meadow asked whether the numbers of vaccines given the study time period

should be ‘estimated’ to provide an indication of risk of

reaction.

Surely if they were to estimate the number of vaccines then this would

not give an accurate indication of risk factor? Estimation after all

would enable the assessor to falsify results. Maybe this was what Meadow

intended.

It appears to me that the committee were very concerned by the numbers of

adverse reactions being reported and were looking for ways to cover this

up.

Professor Meadow next commented in point 6.4 when the committee was

discussing the JCVI’s (Joint Committee for Vaccination and

Immunization’s) revised contra – indications to the pertussis

vaccine.

Point six had been specifically discussing whether there was a link

between the DPT vaccine and serious neurological illness. The committee

felt to ascertain whether there was a significant risk they would need to

re-read all the relevant whooping cough documentation from the JCVI, CSM,

and the ARVI which they wanted to avoid. After careful consideration

however, it was deemed that re-reading was impossible to avoid.

The committee then discussed whether or not the DPT vaccine was causing

children to suffer from seizures. The committee concluded that the

incidence of children suffering a seizure after the vaccine was no

different to those children suffering a seizure who had not had the

vaccine of the same age, however, it was decided that the vaccine did

appear to worsen seizures in children with a seizure condition. This

meant that seizures were a contra­indication of the DPT vaccine.

This section is confusing however, because it does not state whether all

of the children were vaccinated. The committee had concluded that the

incidence of children suffering a seizure after the vaccine was no

different to those children suffering a seizure who had not had the

vaccine of the same age, we do not know however, if these children

had had the vaccine at an earlier age, which lets face it is a

possibility.

(A contra-indication means – could cause harm to a certain group of

children i.e. those with a seizure condition.)

Point 6.4 discussed whether or not in view of what had been disclosed

the manufacturer’s guidelines should be changed to reflect the

committee’s findings.

It was decided that any changes would need to be discussed in full with

the manufacturers of the vaccines.

Sir Badenoch commented that both the JCVI and the JCVI/BPA Working

Party had tried to improve guidelines to give specific contra –

indications; he said that an attempt should be made to reconcile these

with data sheets and product licenses. He said that delay in the new

memorandum might be worthwhile in order to obtain manufacturers agreement

to changes in data sheets and also to allow the BNF (British National

Formulary) opportunity to change its advice. Professor Meadow agreed with

Sir and welcomed the clearer advice from JCVI on pertussis contra –

indications which he endorsed.

At this point Prof commented that there was no need for the JCVI

advice to change but there should be awareness of the implications of

change.

There were discussions regarding the new guidelines that needed to be put

into place and how these guidelines should be put forward to the

manufacturers.

There was some concern that the new guidelines would be produced at a

time of continuing pertussis litigation? Members then discussed the fact

that there was likely to be a change in the pertussis vaccine in the near

future. Sir Badenoch agreed that the new pertussis guidance should

be sent to the CSM but felt that the new guidance was a rationalization

of the old contra-indications some of which he felt had no significance

scientifically.

It was at this point that Meadow offered his firm support of the new

changes, which he felt were not weakening the old recommendations but

making the existence guidance clearer.

I find it of particular interest that Meadow was involved in meetings

discussing seizures after vaccination, especially as he had

discussed the subject of seizures in various papers describing cases

where parents had said their children were suffering from seizures which

he felt were caused by the parents. An example of this can be seen in a

paper entitled ‘Fictitious Epilepsy’ [6] written in 1984 where

the abstract reads:

32 children and 4 adults had extensive investigation and treatment for

epilepsy because of false seizures invented or induced by a relative,

usually the mother. They also suffered needless hospital admissions and

restriction of education and activities. Follow-up of the children

suggests a danger of abnormal illness behaviour continuing into adult

life. For a few young children seizures are really anoxic episodes caused

by the parent. In some cases these lead to brain damage and death, and an

important association with sudden unexplained death of infancy (cot

death) is emerging.

As this is only the abstract we cannot be sure if Meadow went on to

explain how he came to the bizarre conclusion that a seizure is really an

anoxic episode caused by the parent, although somehow I doubt

it.

This paper was written before the meetings took place so I guess that

Meadow could have been forgiven if he had seen the light and realized the

error of his ways and at least considered vaccines as a possibility but

it is obvious that nothing much had changed because in 1991 whilst he is

still seen attending these meetings [1] he proves that he is still

accusing mothers of MSBP after a child is reported to be suffering from

seizures. [7]

Minutes from 2nd October 1987 CSM/JCVI/ARVI [8]The

ARVI meeting October 1987 is the next meeting showing comments by

Meadow.

Meadow is mentioned early on in the minutes, in point 5 during a

discussion on the subject of Anaphylaxis. The committee was discussing

the completion of the ‘recommendations for the memorandum’. The minutes

state that Dr McGuinness had already provided valuable material for this

purpose and Dr Salisbury offered to send Professor Meadow examples of

this material by post.

The first time that Meadow is seen to make a comment during this meeting,

is regarding the Yellow Card System in Point 7 where he questions the

delays in reporting and coding.

Meadow next commented interestingly and crucially on the subject of Cot

Death in Point 8. The section is entitled ‘Vaccination and Cot Death

in Perspective.’

The committee discussed various reports made available on the topic;

Meadow identified the need for the present information, that there did

not appear to be a casual link between the pertussis vaccination and

SIDS, to be dissemination (spread widely) and felt that the Foundation

for the Study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome was the best organization

to promote the present knowledge. However, Dr Fine noted that there was a

problem with saying that the pertussis vaccine was protective against

SIDS as those risk factors for SIDS may overlap with the

contra-indications for the vaccine and this issue had not been dealt with

the submitted paper. Dr Fine felt that these should be discussed. Meadow

immediately questioned this. Dr Fine went on to mention other factors

that could be relevant such as ill health, social economic issues which

he said inhibited the pertussis vaccine.

Quite right to, at least one of them had a conscience, however,

interestingly it is at this point the conversation on this subject ceases

and the committee move on to the flu vaccine.

I found this extremely interesting because Meadow has since been involved

in many cases where vaccines have played a crucial part in the case. Not

only did Meadow appear to misdirect the ARVI on the subject of cot death

in the above meeting but it has been reported that Meadow also advised

juries as an expert witness that vaccines cannot cause a baby to die in

cases where vaccines have been mentioned as a possible cause of

death.

Sally spent three and a half years in jail wrongly convicted of

murdering two of her babies. This was after Prof Meadow and another

expert witness assured the jury that there was no other explanation for

the sudden deaths of her children other than that she had deliberately

smothered them. This was despite the fact that Harry died five hours

after a DPT vaccine and that Prof Meadow had attended 13 meetings

discussing adverse reactions to the DPT which included cot

death.

The Spectator [9] reporting on the case states:

Not many people know these facts, because at Sally’s trial the defense

did not mention immunization as a possible cause of death. Two

prosecution witnesses, including the paediatrician Professor Sir Roy

Meadow, assured the jury it could be discounted. Their statements went

unchallenged, and the issue did not form any part of the appeal hearings.

Professor Meadow, a former member of a Department of Health sub-committee

on adverse reactions to vaccines, told the jury that he could not think

of any natural explanation for Harry’s or ’s

deaths.

Surely, this is perjury? Not only did Meadow appear to lie under oath but

as far as I am aware he did not declare any conflicts of interest to the

court. If there had not been any mention of children dying after

vaccination at those meetings, the committee would have not have been

discussing this point in the first place, therefore, Meadow would have

some knowledge that children can die after the DPT.

March 8th 1988 CSM/JCVI/ARVI meeting [10]Prof

Meadow is next found participating in the above meeting, where he is seen

taking a very active role. In Point 5 ‘The Treatment of Anaphylaxis’

it states that:

The Anaphylaxis section of the forthcoming Memorandum on ‘Immunization

against Infectious Disease’ had been written to incorporate the

recommendations of Professor Meadow, Professor Hull and Dr

McGuiness.

So now we have Meadow not only commenting and participating in

meetings but being involved in writing guidelines for vaccines against

infectious diseases!! Totally unbelievable!

The final proof that Meadow took an active part in meetings involving

adverse reactions to vaccines that I have at this time is again in the

above meeting.

In Point 6 Report on Yellow Card dataThe committee

discussed in detail the information supplied on adverse reactions to

vaccines during 1987.

After several vaccines were discussed Professor Meadow and Professor

Banatvala asked the committee if information could be made available in

the future on reactions to plasma derived or recombinant hepatitis B

vaccine.

Plasma derived Hep B vaccines were the first Heb B vaccines and were

made using blood products. These were later banned from use in

1991.

(Since 1986, the only Hep B vaccine used in the US has been the

recombinant vaccine. The way recombinant vaccines work is that they

make a piece of the viral genetic material that codes for a protein on

the surface of the virus; it is that protein which your immune system

thinks is the virus and which causes antibodies to be

produced.)

No further comments from Meadow have been found although that is not to

say that he has not commented and made recommendations in other meetings

past and present.

The fourth set of minutes that I have is the ARVI meeting 6th

October 1989. Comments were made by several professional mainly

covering the MMR vaccine Pluserix but sadly although there are comments

in full, some parts of the minutes were redacted so we do not know if

Meadow commented at this meeting or not. [11]

Discussion on FindingsThese meetings were held around the

time that the rates of autism and neurological disorders were beginning

to soar. Professor Meadow was becoming recognized for discovering a new

syndrome which he referred to as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. It seems

only right that both MSBP and these problems should be married together,

after all something was causing the children’s problems and if it were

the vaccines, the government would need to cover this up as quickly as

possible. After reading the paperwork in depth it appears likely that the

government was trying to cover up the fact that vaccines were not only

capable of causing the death of babies but causing seizures, anaphylaxis

and neurological problems. It is my opinion that Meadow was brought in to

these meetings as a tool by the government to misdirect various

committees into believing that scores of parents were abusing their

children in a bid to cover up vaccine adverse reactions.

It seems highly suspicious to me that Professor Meadow is found to be

attending meetings at this time. Why was he participating, commenting and

helping to write vaccine guidelines?

I have been told by the person who gave me these papers that it is usual

for professionals to be announced and welcomed when joining these

particular committee’s but there appears to be no such announcement for

Meadow. This is not of course to say that he was not announced and

welcomed; just that my informant could not find any record of this. It is

also strange that he seemed to disappear from these meetings around 1991

as there appears to be no further meetings where is name is

mentioned.

Blakemore-Brown was the first person to ever begin to connect the

dots that make the very ugly picture we have today. In fact it was

Blakemore-Brown herself who passed me the first papers identifying Meadow

as a member of the ARVI.

Blakemore-Brown first began speaking out about her fears and concerns not

long after Meadow attended these meetings in 1995.

The last meeting I have seen Meadow’s name on the list of attendee’s was

in 1991. [1]

Blakemore-Brown first became concerned in 1995 after she was an expert

witness in a case involving twins. She states [12]

In my first false case the twins 1 assessed had been born at just over

26 weeks in the mid eighties. They were tiny babies with horrendous

complications. The evidence that such premature infants go on to have

developmental problems including attention deficits, motor and social

impairments is now indisputable, but it was tossed to one side in this

MSBP case. One of the early troubling issues for me was that the MSBP

accusers initially totally denied that these children had such birth

complications! They said this was ‘what the mother said’ and that I had

been ‘beguiled’ by ‘listening to the mother.’

Well, er, actually, I’d read the notes…………………….

I feel that it was around 1997 that Blakemore-Brown was first

seen to be troublesome by the government and particularly to Meadow

because it had become clear that Blakemore-Brown had seen exactly what

was going on and had seen straight through their plot to use MSBP as a

cover for vaccine damage.

In 1997 Blakemore-Brown had been asked to write an article for ‘The

Therapist’, this was a year after Sir Roy Meadow had himself written an

article for The Therapist. [13]

On reading Blakemore-Brown’s letter in the ‘Psychologist’ the Editor

of ‘The Therapist’ contacted Blakemore-Brown to ask if she would

write an article showing the opposite view to start debate.

Little did anyone know at that time just what this intuitive professional

was going to write or how Blakemore-Brown without even realizing it had

connected the dots and had seen exactly what had been going on.

In her article which she entitled False illness in children –

or simply false accusations, she described a tragic case that she had

been involved with involving a child that had developed a dangerously

high fever, immediately after routine vaccinations. Shortly thereafter,

he began to bang his head, soil and lost all his language. After many

investigations, the child was diagnosed as having Asperger’s Syndrome.

The mother began to suspect that the vaccinations were the root of the

child’s problems and decided not to have her other children vaccinated.

As time went on, she became desperate for help and turned to the social

services, begging them for respite care because she was finding her elder

son difficult to manage. Instead of the help this mother so badly needed,

she was accused of MSBP and her children were taken away from

her.

In foster care, the youngest child, a little girl, was vaccinated against

the wishes of her mother. Instantaneously and tragically, her behaviour

deteriorated the same way as her brother’s had, only this time the foster

carer had video tapes of before and after vaccinations to prove this.

Despite this evidence, both of the younger children were

adopted.

It seemed as if Blakemore-Brown had hit the nail on the head and it was

clear from that one article that she was not afraid to say what she had

seen or what she thought.

Once she had began there was no stopping her and she began to speak of

her concerns at every opportunity. In 2001 she wrote and presented a

paper at a conference held at Durham University. [12] She wrote:

‘Since working as an Expert Witness in a MSBP case in 1995, I am of

the opinion that gross errors of judgement are being made

(Blakemore-Brown 1997) at the very beginning of the process of

‘identification’ when the easy and increasingly widespread use of the

term interweaves with shock tactics and processes of

suggestibility.

Once that first gossamer breath of a rumour has been triggered – it can

be impossible to turn back. (Blakemore-Brown 1998)’

By this time Blakemore-Brown had already fully grasped that the

vaccines were linked to the devastation that she was witnessing. Not

great timing for Meadow as he had just been knighted by the government

for his ‘amazing work’.

The more that Blakemore-Brown learned the more she began to realize that

Meadow was connected. In an article on Prof Meadow on One Click news [14]

she wrote:

In my very first experience as an Expert in Court case on so called

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, with Sir Roy’s colleague Southall, I

was utterly shocked by the lack of logic, the lack of careful detailed

examination and the lack of good detective work. In fact I saw the

opposite and a profoundly cruel miscarriage of justice followed.

I wrote a letter to the British Psychological Society to express my deep

concerns that there was no robust scientific basis to MSBP and I feared

if it was not investigated thoroughly, many more miscarriages of justice

would follow.

Colleagues of Professor Meadow immediately wrote a letter to the BPS with

the aim of discrediting me and what I had to say and the BPS did not

allow me a Right of Reply.

It was around this time that a Penny Mellor arrived on the scene and

the rest is history as they say. [15] Sadly for Ms Mellor and the many

others who tried to destroy Blakemore-Brown’s career, she is still around

and it is my belief that she will come back stronger than ever to haunt

them all.

It is interesting to see some seventeen years after Blakemore-Brown’s

first concerns that MSBP was a cover being used to hide cases of vaccine

injury; the proof that lay hidden for all those years is at last being

discovered.

There are some of us who never doubted for one moment that she was

correct and something very sinister was going on, however, proving it was

another thing. I doubt if Blakemore-Brown will be surprised to see the

level of corruption and utter deceit hidden in these documents. It is

about time the governments and pharmaceutical companies were exposed for

their lies and hypocrisy and Blakemore-Brown along with the many others

who have been fighting for the families falsely accused of MSBP and SBS

were vindicated and apologized to.

The fact that Meadow not only tried to misdirect committees discussing

vaccine dangers and cot death but contributed in a memorandum outlining

guidelines for the treatment of anaphylaxis called ‘Immunization Against

Infectious Diseases’ is totally beyond belief, especially when it has

been reported that he stood up in court and assured a jury in a murder

case that vaccines could not have been responsible for the death of her

child. I have been told by mothers falsely accused that he denied

vaccines were responsible for the deaths of other babies in their trials

as well. Let us hope that at last these parents will get the justice they

deserve and their children can be laid to rest in peace at long

last.

It is my opinion that for the crimes that this man has committed he

should be striped of his knighthood.

References

FOI Request Reveals Major Vaccine Conspicacy

http://vactruth.com/2012/01/03/foi-request-reveals-major-vaccine-conspiracy/

‘The Hinterland of Child Abuse’

http://www.msbp.com/hinterlands.htm ARVI Meeting July 1987

http://www.profitableharm.com/sir_roy_medows_meetings_1.html RECENT FED CT DECISION IN AUTISM CASE PROVES DR. CARLEY RIGHT

http://www.drcarley.com/dr_carley_critique_fed_autism_decision.htm on

http://www.reversingvaccineinduceddiseases.com/files/3638448/uploaded/SSPE_from_ons%20optimized.pdf

Fictitious Epilepsy Prof R Meadow 1984

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6145941 Munchhausen by Proxy and Pseudo-Epilepsy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1627905/pdf/archdisch00753-0089c.pdf

CSM/JCVI/ARVI October 1987

http://www.profitableharm.com/sir_roy_medows_meetings_1.html The Spectator

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/30630/part_2/what-killed-sally-clarks-child.thtml

CSM/JCVI/ARVI Meeting March 1988

http://www.profitableharm.com/sir_roy_medows_meetings_1.html ARVI October 1989

http://www.profitableharm.com/sir_roy_medows_meetings_1.html Durham paper

http://www.profitableharm.com/an_autism_odyssey_text.html The Therapist

http://www.profitableharm.com/images/therapist%201.jpg Meadow Blakemore-Brown

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?id=4111#newspost The Professional Assassination of Autism Expert Blakemore-Brown

http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/the-professional-assassination-of-autism-expert-lisa-blakemore-brown/

Extra Reading

Hepatitis B vaccine

http://www.hepb.org/hepb/vaccine_information.htm Hepatitis B vaccines

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/butler1.html Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE) & Vaccines

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/sspe1.html

Photo Credit: Juarez

England

was born and educated in London, U.K. She left school to work

in a children’s library, specializing in story telling and book buying.

In 1978 changed her career path to dedicate her time to caring

for the elderly and was awarded the title of Care Giver of the Year for

her work with the elderly in 1980.

After dedicating much of her spare time helping disabled children in a

special school, she then worked in a respite unit in a leading teaching

hospital.

In 1990 adopted the first of two disabled boys, both with

challenging behavior, complex disabilities, and medical needs. In 1999

she was accused of Munchausen by Proxy after many failed attempts to get

the boys’ complex needs met. Finally, she was cleared of all accusations

after an independent psychologist Blakemore-Brown gave both boys the

diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD as part of a complex

tapestry of disorders. During the assessments Ms Blakemore-Brown

discovered through the foster care diaries that the eldest boy had

reacted adversely to the MMR vaccine.

After taking A Level in Psychology and a BTEC in Learning Disabilities

Ms. England then spent many years researching vaccines and adverse

reactions. She went on to gain an HND in journalism and media and is

currently writing for the American Chronicle, the Weekly Blitz, VacTruth

and Namaste UK on immunization safety and efficacy.

England’s main areas of expertise are researching false allegations of

child abuse and adverse reactions to vaccines. Her work is now read

internationally and has been translated into many languages. England has

been a guest on Holy Hormones Honey – The Greatest Story Never Told! on

KRFC FM 88.9 in, Colorado. She has spoken at seminars worldwide and

including Canada in 2011 and recently co authored the book ‘Shaken Baby

Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis – Are Parents Being Falsely

Accused?’ with Dr Harold Buttram.

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

Vaccines -

http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start March 1 & 8