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

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Boadicea

here is another link undermining the Shaken Baby Syndrome

smithforensic.blogspot.ca...

Tired of Control Freaks

Thank you for the link!

And it really seems to people that this is a good subject for a AMA on Abovetopsecret.com?

Really?

I think I may have finally found where my limit lies with conspiracy theories. No offence to this site or the Goldsmiths but an AMA here hardly seems the best way of highlighting or discussing this issue.

originally posted by: saintdopeium

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.

My friends case had nothing to do with satanism, just like the topic of this OP has nothing to do with satanism.

Yet that's what the video in the OP is about.

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.

After reading the thread I guess I never realized how many people are incarcerated under this diagnosis.

I know it is a real thing, SBS, as I referenced in my first post. I guess I could see where it could be misdiagnosed.

As to whether or not the diagnosis is abused as much as the person in the OP claims, lets just say I am skeptical.

Still don't get why you put the satanism reference in your OP....

originally posted by: ScepticScot
And it really seems to people that this is a good subject for a AMA on Abovetopsecret.com?

Really?

I think I may have finally found where my limit lies with conspiracy theories. No offence to this site or the Goldsmiths but an AMA here hardly seems the best way of highlighting or discussing this issue.

I don't understand why you say that... not that I need to understand... but would you expand on that?

Obviously, ATSers can only discuss -- we cannot decide or resolve the issue. Why would it not be appropriate for discussion? Why would it be any different than any other topic we discuss?

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: ScepticScot
And it really seems to people that this is a good subject for a AMA on Abovetopsecret.com?

Really?

I think I may have finally found where my limit lies with conspiracy theories. No offence to this site or the Goldsmiths but an AMA here hardly seems the best way of highlighting or discussing this issue.

I don't understand why you say that... not that I need to understand... but would you expand on that?

Obviously, ATSers can only discuss -- we cannot decide or resolve the issue. Why would it not be appropriate for discussion? Why would it be any different than any other topic we discuss?

because there is a legitimate discussion surrounding shaken baby syndrome some of which has been kicked off at least in part by the Goldsmiths Documentary. By doing and AMA on abovetopsecret they are by association linking it with Alien abductions, chem trails, and other fringe theories which this site legitimately and often entertainingly discusses.

If there documentary has merit they have just sold it out and removed any legitimacy by appearing on this site, If it doesn't then we are basically supporting people supporting baby killers. Neither of these sits well with me.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Gotcha -- thank you for explaining.

I hadn't thought of it like that, and I do see your point, and I guess I both agree and disagree. Yes, some folks will point to ATS and say, "Ha! Now I know it's just conspiracy crap..." But at the same time, anyone paying attention will also know that ATS covers anything and everything so yeah, it would end up here sooner or later. And, of course, anyone paying attention would know that it was an issue long before it showed up here.

There will always be people who misunderstand and/or misrepresent pretty much anything. Hence the importance of full disclosure and transparency to give us all the best opportunity for an informed opinion. And your concerns are definitely worth keeping in mind in how we address the subject.

ETA: I also understand (and appreciate) your concern for babies. Child abusers are the lowest of the low. But we also have to make sure innocent people aren't going to jail -- or death row! -- for a wrong diagnosis. Quite the balancing act.

a reply to: Boadicea

Thanks for your reply.
Just to be clear I don't have an issue with pretty much any topic bring discussed. I have a particular issue with this topic being done as a AMA like this.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Just to be clear I don't have an issue with pretty much any topic bring discussed. I have a particular issue with this topic being done as a AMA like this.

Thank you for clarifying. The more I think about it, the more I see potential problems. It's too important with too many long-term implications and consequences. I'll be thinking about that as I read the AMA thread tomorrow and watching how it goes.

p.s. I edited and added to my previous comment in case you didn't see that -- you replied PDQ!

a reply to: Mianeye

It is well known that sudden movement and lack of support to a baby's head can cause brain damage or even death, shaking would be violent and could definitely cause damage to the baby.

Not exactly sure why this is questioned.

I know. I just now saw this new AMA topic, and my mouth fell open.
*****EDIT: Because the title was shocking!************

It is a FACT that babies' brains being shaken about causes brain damage. It is a real thing. One of my cousins adopted her sister's baby who was a victim of Shaking, and is now severely impaired socially and mentally.


****Poorly worded title is poor***** - NO BABY SHOULD BE SHAKEN. EVER. **** Apparently the Title of the OP is misleading ******

Previoius Edit:

Now I've read the whole thread. I'm very glad to see that no one (except Boudicea?) is denying that SBS is a thing, that it happens, and that it causes brain damage and/or death.

If it's being used as a prosecution tool, then there must be extenuating evidence to have led the DA to feel they had a case. Anyway, the title of this AMA Announcement should be changed to reflect the fact that we are not the National Enquirer's audience. It's far too easily misunderstood.

a reply to: Boadicea
I would agree entirely with your edit .

originally posted by: Edumakated
[quote of entire opening post removed]

Almost sounds like climate change...

Tell that to the glaciers and ice caps melting.

Back on topic. ..I don't know if shaken baby syndrome exists or not but the thought of being falsely accused of killing your baby is horrific.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

And nobody is, if you go beyond the emotional and look at what is REALLY being said.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I edited my post. Regardless of what the 'intention' of the article is, the title needs to be changed. It's offensively worded and not a good representation of what ATS stands for.

Emotions aside, I mean. *eyeroll* If ATS is interested in attracting intelligent readers, this is a dreadful Title to have printed on the front page for passersby to see on the cover.

I'm no expert but why don't vibrating heart shaped beds in hotel honeymoon suites kill people?

In the trailer I watched a couple men imply that it's not possible to shake a baby enough to cause brain damage without hurting it's neck or spine. It's physically literally impossible, one says. And yet, in these cases... the babies necks were not damaged.

So something mysterious seems to be going on there.

And with the video in the OP in conjunction with the trailer that I just watched, I get the impression that the mysterious deaths of these children were seen as an opportunity to sell a book or two on satanism and ritualistic abuse and more (it's reminiscent of falsely accusing someone as a witch and watching them burn). Some groups milked that teat for as long as possible for obvious reasons (money) and maybe not so obvious ones, too. Because as long as the public eye is focused on an invisible satan that we can never ever catch and throw into prison... then we're not gonna be focusing on what's happening right in front of us, we're not going to be looking for the real culprits who we can catch.

But maybe I just got too deep into it- but still, the ignorance is really showing in this thread. And here I tried to give you a hand.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yoohoo, maybe some snippets of the side effects of childhood vaccinations will see the light of day. Convenient scapegoat theory SBS

a reply to: Mianeye

Not exactly sure why this is questioned.

Because other agents like chemical assault - convulsions from vaccinations have had a free pass. Not exactly sure why you would want the conversation shut down.

a reply to: geezlouise

When they did biomechanical testing they found it, on average, took 80Gs to cause brain injury. Using athletic men shaking as vigorously as they could, they were only able to get into the 40G range.

That doesn't make it impossible, just far less likely. And as pointed out, people have been convicted on nothing more than a doctor citing the trifecta and police showing someone was alone with the child for 10 seconds.

a reply to: Zaphod58

OH MY GOD. I could cry right now.