We recently showed how the term “Sudden Infant Death Syndrome” (SIDS) is used to disguise the Holocaust of vaccine-caused infant deaths.
However, since vaccines have always killed on a large scale — and there has always been doctors who lie about the cause of deaths — what term or terms in vaccine history were used to disguise the mass of vaccine-caused infant deaths prior to “SIDS”?
It seems in many — or probably countless — cases, it was “suffocation” or “overlaying.” Overlaying (when a parent smothers a child to death by accidentally sleeping on top of him) was a convenient cause of death of vaccinated children prior to the use of cribs. (Since the use of cribs, SIDS, it seems, was needed to cover the barrage of infant vaccine deaths that didn’t occur in the parents’ bed.)
This is not to say that children have never died by suffocation or overlaying; but since it is abundantly clear that vaccines kill (and not rarely), and that medical authorities have always lied to protect vaccines from reproach, the labels of death by suffocation and overlaying of vaccinated children are surely by and large false.
Moreover, common sense tells us that it is much more likely that a child will die from the effects of a poisoned needle than from parents accidentally suffocating a child in their sleep. Parents care about their children — they take care to avoid this.
Overlaying is also a means of transferring blame: instead of the doctor being blamed for the infant’s death, the parents are. (Just as today, parents of infants murdered by vaccination might be accused of “Shaken Baby Syndrome.” Transferring blame serves to deflect from the need to bring the vaccinators to justice.)
Considering the great lengths doctors went to rule out vaccination as cause of death, one cannot blame the sarcasm in an 1878 report of The National Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Reporter about a child, obviously slain by vaccination, said by a doctor to have died by “suffocation.”
Yesterday afternoon (Nov. 30th) Mr. Coroner Browne held an inquest at the Lord Holland, in Pollock-street, on the body of a child six months old, named Henry Holmes, son of Samuel Holmes, a labourer, living in Pierrepont-street. The Coroner explained that the case had given some trouble, inasmuch as there was a supposition that the child had died from the effects of vaccination. He (the coroner) was perfectly satisfied that vaccination had nothing to do with death. He had seen Dr. Haynes, who had vaccinated the child, and had inspected his books, which showed that several other children now doing well, had been vaccinated from the same lymph as that employed in the case of the deceased. From the evidence of the mother it seemed that the child was vaccinated on the 18th of October, and afterwards noticing a swelling under the arm which extended to the child’s finger ends, the mother, sent twice to Dr. Haynes, who told her how to treat the child. On Tuesday morning the child’s appearances whilst in bed were such that the mother, becoming alarmed, fetched in a neighbour and Dr. Cooper was sent for, but the child was dead before he arrived. The Coroner stated that Dr. Haynes was quite positive that no injury had arisen to the child from vaccination, and Dr. Cooper had expressed his opinion that death had resulted from suffocation. — Verdict, “Found dead in bed.”–Nottingham Journal, Dec. 1st.
[We all know that too much wine over-night never causes the head-ache next morning! It was the salmon! What a very valuable opinion Dr. Cooper’s must be !—for pro-vaccinators!-ED.]
“Cases of Injury,” The National Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Reporter, Vol. II, No. 5, February 1, 1878.
An 1884 issue of The Vaccination Inquirer and Health Review covers a situation in London where doctors colluded to blame a mother of overlaying her child who was obviously murdered by vaccination – but the jury thankfully saw thru this, and ruled the death as resulting “from convulsions following vaccination”:
THE Homerton Inquest illustrates afresh what advantage we acquire from these public revelations, and how diligently we should endeavour to multiply them. There is, alas! no lack of cases: the difficulty lies in compelling inquiry. Irreproachable burial certificates for children slain by vaccination are granted with alacrity, and it is only under peculiar circumstances that their issue can be checked. The special characteristic of the Homerton Inquest was the bold and unscrupulous medical evidence adduced. An infant, in good health, was vaccinated in four places by Dr. Aveling on Oct. 7. A few days after, severe inflammation of the vaccinated arm set in. The child began to cry day and night when not asleep, waving its poor little arm in burning agony. The inflammation extended over the shoulder and chest. The skin of the neck got rubbed off, leaving a raw. On Oct. 28, after nearly three weeks of ceaseless pain, the babe, exhausted with suffering, became quiet, fell asleep, and was found dead by its mother’s side in the morning. Dr. Aveling was sent for. He told the mother she had overlaid the child, but not to fret, for she was not to blame. An inquest was held, and, as matter of course, the jury were recommended to return the verdict, “Death by suffocation from overlaying.” The jury happily recognised their duty, and declined to be imposed upon. They saw no evidence of suffocation, but they saw four cruel vaccination wounds, an inflamed arm, and a raw neck. “Oh,” said Dr. Aveling, “these signify nothing; the child was suffocated, not a doubt of it.” The jury, were, however, not to be persuaded out of their senses, and a post-mortem was ordered. At the resumed inquest, Dr. Aveling appeared, armed with the testimony of three doctors to the effect that there was no evidence of blood-poisoning, that the child’s death was not caused by vaccination, either directly or indirectly, nor by convulsions, but that it was caused by suffocation, probably by overlaying. The thing was magnificent in its impudence. Medical evidence, as we well know, can be “laid on” ad libitum in defence of vaccination, but Dr. Aveling and his backers surpassed expectation. Dr. Henry Stevens was present, the well-known familiar of the Local Government Board, who is despatched to rescue vaccination wherever it seems in deadliest peril; but Dr. Stevens found himself superfluous. These doctors beat him at his own game. Fortunately, the jury were a sturdy set, and were not to be come over. The imposture was too gross, and they returned the verdict, “That Elizabeth Martha Sharpe died from convulsions following vaccination”–a verdict fully warranted by the autopsy performed by Dr. Collins, as well as by their own common sense.
“Notes of the Month,” The Vaccination Inquirer and Health Review, Vol. VI, No. 69 (December 1884).
Apparently, a common tactic in early vaccine history was that “investigators” claimed there is no evidence for vaccines being the cause of infant death — and yet, quite hypocritically and inconsistently, rule – with no evidence — the deaths as being from suffocation or overlaying (thus demonstrating their pro-vaccine agenda).
A “Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination” (England) discusses a child who died in 1892 after vaccination. A one Dr. Theodore Dyke Acland states,
No evidence was brought forward at the inquest to show that death was due to the cause surmised by Mr. S. (viz., overlaying), although from the history of the case and from the position in which the child was found dead it would seem to be a reasonable supposition.
Case 195, Reported to the Commission by the Coroner. Appendix IX. to the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination. Papers Relating to Cases in Which Death or Non-fatal Injury was Alleged or Suggested to have been Caused by, or Otherwise Connected with, Vaccination. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1897). Reports from Commissioners, Inspectors, and Others: Thirty-seven Volumes. Vaccination–continued. Session 19 January 1897 – 6 August 1897. Vol. XLVII (1897), 383.
So “overlaying” is considered a “reasonable supposition” regarding the child’s death (contra vaccination), despite the fact that, per the report, there was “no evidence”; and despite the fact that “The child died within three days of vaccination.” (Ibid., 382) And despite the fact that vaccinations regularly killed children.
And despite the mother’s testimony of the child’s state after vaccination: “She never had vomiting before vaccination, not even a little. She never had convulsions before vaccination.” (Ibid., 383)
Now, look at this, as discussed in the British House of Commons on May 1, 1888:
As regards the case of the child born in the Greenwich Infirmary, the verdict of the jury at the Coroner’s inquest was not that the child died from being vaccinated when six days old, as stated in the Question, but from being accidentally suffocated while at the mother’s breast. The child was vaccinated in five places, and there was no statement at the inquest that the mother objected to this vaccination. The child left the infirmary 13 days after the vaccination ; and, according to the statement of the medical officer of the Guardians, was perfectly healthy at the time of the vaccination and at the time of leaving the infirmary. A post mortem examination, of which evidence was given at the inquest, showed, however, that the child had one lung in a state of collapse, probably from the time of birth, and had other congenital malformations ; and the jury, having this evidence before them, added to their verdict a rider to the effect that the child was, in their opinion, in an exceptionally delicate state of health, and that its vaccination was much to be regretted. As I have already stated, however, the cause of death was accidental suffocation.
House of Commons, May 1, 1888, Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Third Series: Commencing with the Accession of William IV. Vol. CCCXXV. 51 Victoriæ, 1888. Comprising the Period from the Twentieth of April, 1888, to The Tenth Day of May, 1888. Fourth Volume of the Session (London: Cornelius Buck & Son, 1888), 1037, 1038.
So, the mother was to blame for accidentally suffocating the child at her breast, even though the child was only six days old when vaccinated; was vaccinated in five places; the “vaccination was much to be regretted”; and the child was in an “exceptionally delicate state of health,” which, if the child had prior to vaccination, would have increased his chances of being harmed by vaccination; or, if he had after vaccination, was evidence of vaccine damage. Either way, it points to vaccine complicity.
Now, some important details missing in the above British House of Commons report are the following from The Lancet of April 14, 1888 (which seems to be discussing the same child who “suffocated”). Despite The Lancet’s gaslighting about suffocation being “obvious,” it speaks to how dangerous it was to vaccinate such a young child:
An infant, aged four weeks, who died from suffocation, was the subject of a coroner’s inquest at East Greenwich last week. That the death was due to suffocation only was perfectly obvious; but the baby had been vaccinated when six days old, and the jury added to their verdict that this was too young an age to vaccinate a child, and desired the coroner to make a representation to the authorities “with a view to the prevention of similar cases in the future.” Whether the jury hope to prevent the suffocation of children by this means is not quite clear, but we are led to assume this is their object; they appear, however, to have been informed by the practitioner who made the post-mortem examination that it was certainly not safe to vaccinate a child at so early an age …
The Lancet of April 14, 1888, cited in The Medical News, Vol. LII, May 26, 1888, No. 21. In The Medical News: A Weekly Medical Journal, Volume LII, January – July, 1888. (Philadelphia, PA: Lea Brothers & Co., 1888), 575.
To show how “credible” those behind the British House of Commons report are, the same person who explains away the vaccine death as “suffocation” goes on to discuss another infant death after vaccination. But, the death was not from vaccination, but from “injury to the vaccination sores”!
That is like saying one didn’t die from a hammer blow, but from complications from the blow. (And he goes on to appeal to government, as if this has anything to do with the case at hand, or that it morally justifies vaccination.):
As regards the case of the child born at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, it was vaccinated when five days old, as is the practice in that Hospital, unless the parent objects. In this case the mother was aware of the rule, and did not object. The child, when discharged from the Hospital, was certified by the physician to be in good health. The child died when just over a month old . The Coroner states that death was not due to the vaccination, but to injury to the vaccination sores, followed by inflammation, which was probably of an erysipelatous oha racter. It is to be borne in mind that if children born in a workhouse are not vaccinated before their discharge, they commonly escape vaccination altogether ; and the Local Government Board are advised that there is no medical reason against such early vaccination in the case of healthy children. The Vaccination Act of 1867 requires vaccination within three months after birth.
House of Commons, May 1, 1888, Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Third Series: Commencing with the Accession of William IV. Vol. CCCXXV. 51 Victoriæ, 1888. Comprising the Period from the Twentieth of April, 1888, to The Tenth Day of May, 1888. Fourth Volume of the Session (London: Cornelius Buck & Son, 1888), 1038.
Fallen human nature is the same today as it was yesterday. Those writing the vaccination script employ the same tactics again and again to mislead from the fact that vaccination is murder. They will always come up with ways to disguise vaccine deaths.
It is by sharing the truth about vaccines that the disguises are exposed.
If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.
