SBS2

[Guest guest]

SBS 2 Dr V Levin Toronto and NY Dr Levin professes to know from his knowledge of ophthalmology if a child has been shaken or not. An expert witness has enormous power as he can look at evidence and say: Yes, this person is an abuser or no, that person is not an abuser. In a real world there will be some suspicions and it is good that an expert can distinguish between those cases where there is guilt and those where there is innocence. A simple example would be a fingerprint. It is not reckoned that people can forge fingerprints and normally if a fingerprint matches that of a person we can be quite happy that this person left his fingerprint. There is little room for argument. However in the case of partial fingerprints even this powerful forensic technique can be doubtful. The field of detecting blood in the eye is very problematic and I would imagine most thinking people would imagine that bleeding is a very blunt tool compared to a fingerprint. Mercury is a known destroyer of brain cells and these are effectively neurons. So even a simple vaccine with mercury could destroy bilaterally, nerve cells and cause blood in the eyes. If a person gets hit in his eye we would not expect to see damage to the other eye. The forensics of SBS and eye bleeding immmediately gets blooded by the fact that most evidence shows bilateral damage and not single harm in many cases. Further problems arise when it is normal to get bleeding in eyes from a traumatic birth. The percentage is high. How do we not know these are old injuries which have not yet cleared up. Further even the admission of Dr Levin is that a not unsignificant number of people have this form of bleeding and are not shaken. Can we convict on a 50 percent, 90 percent or 99 percent chance of guilt or innocence. We are putting people in prison for 3 years, 8 years or even life. For me the evidence of eyes and bleeding while interesting can never be more than a curiosity in SBS and yet it is and has become the corner stone of proof of harm to these Dirty Doctors. Going back to those who have indeed shaken babies we discover more often than not there is no evidence of any bleeding in the eyes. Along with other evidence it appears that eye evidence may not be the gold standard for proving SBS and in fact it may not be any worthwhile standard at all other than a clinical discovery of “unknown” significance. Dr Levin has enormous skill in this area and it is evident from his point of view that no one outside of his speciality can look for or even interpret the same findings of himself. I find it a little worrying that a person can take the view that his skill alone is sufficient to detect eye bleeding of the SBS kind and virtually no one else. I find this even more disturbing when it is clearly evident that SBS may not involve any eye bleeding at all. So we have an abuse, SBS, which may very well have no eye associations but if it does; it has specific eye associations known to only Dr Levin and very few others. The same analogy might be putting the fingerprints into some magic box and then a sole expert in the world deciding which fingerprints for which person, with no comeback for any other to check if this is correct or not. Highly unsatisfactory. If we look at a case of his we can see this cloak and dagger operation in practice. A person charged with SBS and demanding all the documents from the aforesaid Dr Levin. In court the Dr when cross examined suddenly pulled out a thick file of notes on his emails with other specialists. Documents he refused to hand over to the court. A person guilty or innocent has the right to know what charges and what evidence there is against him or her. This person with others was working a “black box” prosecution against the defendant. He had the power as he knew alone this person was really an abuser. In the event the defendant was proved innocent. Dr Levine and his opinions and knowledge were faulty. His expertise was incorrect. His manner and professionalism was not bordering on the illegal, it was illegal. In short he had committed a crime. He was party to a possible miscarriage of justice. When the verdict for Sally (convicted of killing her 8 week infant boy) was overturned, the evidence was of death from massive infection and if the defence were shown to have had this information showing they knew of the illness during the trial then Sally would still be in prison or dead in prison. Before moving forward on the appeal it was necessary to show the defence never had access to this material and it had deliberately or otherwise been kept from them. In the event it was the the pathologist that withheld information of a significant nature which could or just could have allowed Sally to go free. It is sobering to think that death 6 hours after a mercury vaccine never entered the arguments for the defence team such was there ignorance and their trust in the expertise and integrity of the prosecution. These kind of tactics of withholding information are not justice, not science, they are Witch Finding, perversion of justice and attempts to get wrongful convictions. For Sally , evidence was given for lack of oxygen in the lungs of Harry and hence the guilty verdict brought for strangulation at the hands of the mother. Looking in a very ancient physiology text I discovered 48 other reasons for lack of oxygen. In many of today’s text lack of oxygen is taken as proof of murder. It is well documented and not in this text that after vaccinations there are periods for weeks after when breathing becomes a burden. Eye damage has many causes other than SBS. Vaccine harm, anaphylaxis and head swelling come to mind. It is certain that after head swellings there will be associated eye problems. SBS is proven and admitted where there is no eye defect at all. We see the sad plight of a lady (Kim Oakes) recently from a simple antibiotic and the chance of eye problems and even loss of the eyesight and even death. Again another common thing given to infants with problems after vaccines and after infections from lowered immunity. The Danish health database puts this effect after vaccines at around 10 per cent. Ten per cent of USA children come out at 3.5 million or so infants; very close to the number of children thought to have been SBS harmed in USA. Perhaps they are right on numbers but off beam on who is culpable? No. There’s a thought perhaps these people that are working against many innocent parents and claiming they are guilty, but the figures and facts that they come up with look alarmingly like vaccine adverse effects to me as well. The danger with these doctors is not what they find but the interpretation they put on their findings. Ophthalmology alone shows nothing except what it shows. The interpretation of the results can only be shared amongst various prognoses only one of which may not be SBS. And false or arrogant opinion is also criminally liable opinion. SBS 2