New AMA Tomorrow, April 14th: The Issues Behind Prosecutors Using Shaken Baby Syndrome

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Yes - its difficult to explain how a baby can be shaken hard enough to cause brain damage but the same baby have not neck damage.

Another excellent point.

Too often there is no other indication of physical abuse than this "triad" of symptoms, and not even any anecdotal evidence of previous abuse by the parents/caretakers. And yet, too many have been convicted of murder based on a questionable theory.

a reply to: Zaphod58

There's nobody saying that shaking a baby is safe, they're saying that it needs to stop being the go to diagnosis by doctors, and they need to look closer.

This^^^ is a very good way to put it and deserves repeating!

originally posted by: fenian8
Sorry but after the absolute shambles and non event of Tom Delonges AMA I definately will not be reading or participating in an AMA for quite a while. Also as just pointed out, Shaken Baby Syndrome, if a baby is shook hard enough by someone it will die, no questions, so I don`t really see the point of it.

I don't think ATS had much control over that. # happens.

I think the point of questioning SBS isn't to say shaking a baby violently won't do irreparable damage or kill them, but that many have been accused of something that either never happened, or may not have done the damage stated, due to an autopsy report. I read a case in which the accused said she never shook the baby, but the coroner stated that's what had to have happened. Now we're seeing that some of the accused may well have been telling the truth. I'm not an expert on this, and need to do some more reading, but that's an example off the top of my head. Sorry, can't find a link.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
I'm curious as to how they say it doesn't exist.

I mean sure it may not be a 'syndrome' but if you SHAKE a baby, hard enough, eventually it will die.

Or are children made of elastics these days? I'm going to have to read about this some more.

~Tenth

My thoughts Tenth.

a reply to: Boadicea

here is another link undermining the Shaken Baby Syndrome

smithforensic.blogspot.ca...

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Boadicea

1. It is, by definition, only theory... no one has or ever will shake 100 babies violently to record and measure the results.

There are thousands of cases were people have by accident been careless with the baby's head, this is well documented, so just because you can't test it doesn't mean it's a theory.

2. Biomechanical experts have done tests on dummies which indicate that humans do not have the strength to shake a baby hard enough to create some of the problems attributed to shaken baby syndrome.

Absoluttly Bs. do you have kids, i have two, i was kind shocked at how fragile babies are in your hands.

3. Other conditions can and do cause the same so-called "triad" of symptoms which are now attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome, from viruses and seizures to simple falls.

I know little about that, might learn more tomorrow.

4. Parents and other caretakers are being charged, convicted and incarcerated for a crime that has not and cannot be proven based on medical theory, and therefore subject to reasonable doubt.

Look at # 1

a reply to: Zaphod58

Alright, then, well that makes perfect sense.

~Tenth

a reply to: Mianeye

And there are thousands of people charged with crimes that never happened. Blood vessels in the brain that are fragile end up breaking, and there's minor bleeding on the brain. Doctors immediately cry abuse. Retinal hemorrhaging has been identified as conclusive proof in the absence of a better explanation, but has now been found to happen in many cases.

Does shaking a baby cause injury? Of course it does. Does bleeding on the brain, or any of the dozens of other symptoms associated with SBS mean that someone shook the baby? Of course not. But according to doctors and prosecutors that's the only thing that could have happened to some of these children, and now there are hundreds of people serving jail terms that did nothing wrong because of it.

Well judging by some of the responses, about half of the people in here haven't looked into the surrounding controversy of the topic but are already throwing judgements based on their emotional response.

I am not hopeful.

originally posted by: stosh64
A close friends child has severe traumatic brain injury from being shaken. I can assure you it is real.

She is 6 and will never even be able to hold her head up. Her eyes just roll around un focused. It is the saddest thing I have ever seen.

But satanic ritual abuse isn't real thus shaken baby syndrome isn't real?

Got it, I'm out of this mess.

Your friends child was abused in satanic ritual? seriously? If it isn't too uncomfortable to tell us the story...I am very interested in cases like this.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well the part with thousands charged, i'll have to see some info on that.

It sounds exaggerated.

There are two different things in this, one is accidents which is well documented, and then there is deliberate head shaking.

I will hang around tomorrow, to see what this is about.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Well... Having read interesting posts from both sides of the argument, the fence is starting to hurt my ass. Guess I'll be looking into this tomorrow then. I think more than anything else this should raise great doubt about the legal system and how it is orientated towards precedence being set in high level cases. I can see how something like SIDS can be exploited as a defense when a baby was smothered with a pillow or something equality sinister that obstructs breathing... And shaking a baby is never a good idea, but I can see how pathogens and other environmental factors could present like SBS.

My initial $0.02,
looking forward to tomorrow.

originally posted by: VegHead
It is reckless to say that Shaken Baby Syndrome doesn't exist.

It's my understanding that the filmmakers are not necessarily saying that, but that it's been improperly used and abused by so-called experts and law enforcement.

a reply to: Mianeye

There are thousands of cases were people have by accident been careless with the baby's head, this is well documented, so just because you can't test it doesn't mean it's a theory.

Actually, yes, it does. If one cannot test the theory and replicate the results in each and every instance, then it is a theory. Maybe a well-founded theory, but a theory nonetheless.

More to the point, there is seldom a means to pinpoint the cause of the injuries attributed to SBS. Babies can and have been shaken without dying or developing these symptoms... other babies can and have developed these symptoms without being shaken.

Absoluttly Bs. do you have kids, i have two, i was kind shocked at how fragile babies are in your hands.

Yes, I do -- they're both adults now. And I was actually shocked at how resiliant kids are. Perhaps we both had unrealistic expectations.

I know little about that, might learn more tomorrow.

Good idea. Especially before putting grieving parents on death row for a murder they didn't commit.

Look at # 1

Look at my answer above. I am not saying that shaking a baby cannot hurt them. But I am saying that plenty of experts have said that the "triad" of symptoms now called SBS are not always caused by shaking a baby.

If someone shakes a baby and kills that baby and it can be proven -- lock em up and throw away the key!!! But to persecute people and ruin their lives for an unproven and unprovable theory is unconscionable and unacceptable.

a reply to: Mianeye

In 2013, there were 3,000 criminal cases revolving around SBS in the US alone.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

HOLY MOLY! I just watched the trailer and I am blown away.
I want to see that film and I'll be reading the AMA very closely.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And close to thousand convicted i think, it's sad to say that some parents suck, and will easily lose temper when babies cry for long periods.

Though i agree these numbers are a tad high, if correct.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well the part with thousands charged, i'll have to see some info on that.

It sounds exaggerated.

I did a related thread recently... World Renowned Neuropathologist has Career Destroyed for Disproving Shaken Baby Syndrome... and someone -- Joe Burns -- involved in the legal side of the issue signed up to add more info:

Thanks for doing a piece on Dr Waney Squier, well researched and written. I had to reply to add some important info. I am the author of a book entitled "Secret Courts" which is based on my experiences of helping families against social services and medical misdiagnosis.

He ended up leaving three comments, and provides much interesting information and several links for even more information.

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3 -- with add'l links

I will hang around tomorrow, to see what this is about.

I appreciate that.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: VegHead
It is reckless to say that Shaken Baby Syndrome doesn't exist.

It's my understanding that the filmmakers are not necessarily saying that, but that it's been improperly used and abused by so-called experts and law enforcement.

From reading the article and reviewing their website, I completely agree.

But I'm very concerned with how people will misconstrue and run with this documentary. I am worried the cliff notes/take home message will wrongly be "Shaken Baby Syndrome Not Real" As you say, that isn't their point.

I'm looking forward to seeing the documentary. I'm glad someone is shining a light on this, but praying the message won't get garbled into a potentially dangerous sound bite.

I have a two year old. He fell and hit his mouth walking up some steps to a slide at the play ground. The next morning, he looked like he got punched by Floyd Mayweather. It was just a busted lip and some bruising. Went away after a few days. Nevertheless, I was almost afraid some nanny gestapo would accuse me of child abuse.

No one has argued that shaking a child cannot cause any harm. The issue is that the symptoms could also be attributed to other things which have nothing to do with abuse. In too many instances, people have been falsely accused of shaking their child when they may not. There seemed to be an effort to squash any challenge to the theory of SBS.

I pointed out is sounded like climate change because you see the same situation happening. The majority just accepting it as "accepted science". No one wants to question the underlying assumptions. Those that do ask legitimate questions and challenge the theory are accused of being anti-science, etc.