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

There is no reason to defend this


full stop

a reply to: Zaphod58

They used the same crash test dummies with sensors that they use to test cars.

And who's to say those infant dummies were calibrated correctly?
I see that possibility if it's a "jail-baiting" scheme. Tragic. The techs simply remove the battery from the infant dummy - or somehow hotwire it to read abnormally......how hard would that be? Not hard at all, if you're "the dummy guy" at the facility....
being paid off by lobbyists and insurance companies, DAs and judges?

Hmmmm.....now that would be a conspiracy, indeed.

Still - is Admin going to change the OP Title? It's still appalling!! Could you check?

a reply to: realnewsrealfunny

So you're OK with people going to jail for decades that didn't do anything wrong? There have been hundreds of cases reexamined that showed that the symptoms were caused by something other than shaking.

a reply to: SpecialSauce

I've heard of pregnant women riding rollercoasters causing miscarriages.in fact some rollercoasters have warnings that expecting mothers should not ride.

If I remember correctly, that's similar to how the original doctor came up with the hypothesis, after his friend had been in a roller coaster that stopped suddenly, causing whiplash and some bleeding on the brain. The doctor then theorized that a shaken baby could develop the same type of bleeding.

But from what I read vibrations take less g force to kill.

Interesting -- and good to know! All the more reason for me to avoid anything that vibrates.

a reply to: Zaphod58

i don't know I just let grown adults shake toddlers

There is a reason they are considering sending parents to jail if they smack their own kids

This is worse

a reply to: realnewsrealfunny

Hey there, hi.
You might do well to go back and read the whole thread. I reacted the same way you did, and posted right away. But then I went back and read all 3 pages and realized it's the TITLE that is abhorrent.....

and members have unanimously said that no one is promoting shaking babies. The whole thread took a surreal sort of turn (IMO due to the original wording of the OP) due to the introduction....

It's okay - none of us want babies shaken. I appreciate your concern, though - I too would be homicidal if anyone shook my baby, or a critter for that matter!!!

a reply to: realnewsrealfunny

That's the point. These are parents that DIDN'T shake their children but are in jail for it because some expert said the only way the injury could occur was shaking. They didn't look to see if the child fell, or was sick.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok I believe you

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Hello moon moon

I believe you too

It is my opinion that Shaken Baby Syndrome is the equivalent of post-birth abortion.

Of course someone's going to defend it.

a reply to: Snarl

No one is defending it. We're defending people falsely accused because of it.

a reply to: realnewsrealfunny

Hello moon moon

I believe you too

LOL!!!!

Love the avatar.

Kind of an unruly topic going here in AMA-land.....

thank you

So far off topic but there is a lot of negative emotion in here so I call moon moon to come and sort this out



If no one was shaken then it's all good

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It appears no one has took note of your comments here. I pursed this whole thread waiting for a single person to mention this and you are the only one thus far.

Apparently such conversation has become a "no go" zone here because everyone is afraid of being labeled "anti vax" because of it.

If I recall correctly, I have read some information linking SBS to vaccines...also SIDS.
Will be interesting to see if that is partially the angle those participating in the AMA are going for.

I will be watching this AMA and may participate, if my question(s) aren't too redundant.

.................
And....please, let's not have all you "vaccines are 100% safe" people jumping down my throat now. I'm only imparting what I have read and noting that it seems odd to me that only one person even mentioned this angle in multiple pages of discussion thus far.
Self-censorship is definitely alive and growing on this site, of that I am certain. It is most obvious at times.

originally posted by: Jakal26
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It appears no one has took note of your comments here. I pursed this whole thread waiting for a single person to mention this and you are the only one thus far.

You're right... and I should have commented on it as well. Shame on me because I do know better. I let myself get distracted by other discussions.

Apparently such conversation has become a "no go" zone here because everyone is afraid of being labeled "anti vax" because of it.

I'm sure that would make some folks very happy!

If I recall correctly, I have read some information linking SBS to vaccines...also SIDS.

You are. That's actually how I found out about the SBS controversy -- because of my research into vaccine injuries.

Will be interesting to see if that is partially the angle those participating in the AMA are going for.

It definitely should be part of the conversation. If it's not, that's a problem. I'm already getting red flags. Why the initial focus on Satanic Panic instead of biomechanical tests and differential diagnoses? It just strikes me as sensationalist at best.

But we'll see, eh?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Jakal26

I believe the "vaccine causes SBS" is more a myth than anything.

I found this very interesting read of how that myth began.
The quote doesn't do justice as the article is very long, click the link for a little story.
The antivaccine lie that just won’t die: The claim that shaken baby syndrome is really due to “vaccine injury”

The bottom line is that the claim that SBS is in reality due to “vaccine injury” ignores the wealth of clinical data indicating that SBS (now more frequently and formally referred to as “abusive head trauma”) is a distinct clinical entity that has been well-studied and is probably underdiagnosed. Although there is controversy over the pathophysiology of SBS, how much force is necessary to produce it (hence the additional term to describe it), whether it’s underdiagnosed, what clinical entities can be confused with SBS, and whether it’s sometimes over-prosecuted, there is no controversy that SBS is not “vaccine injury.” When antivaccinationists insist that it is, they abuse science, reason, and morality by by proving themselves willing to use such a myth to exonerate baby killers. They also demonstrate that they are about hatred of vaccines, not clarifying the science and evidence behind abusive head trauma, SBS, or whatever the entity might be called in the future. by Taboola Sponsored Links You May Like Aged 35 he speaks 11 languages - his 11 tricks to learn any language Babbel See how this Danish blogger decorates her carrot cake to perfection! Copenhagen Cakes for Mig og min mad If You Hate Forgetting Things, This Article Brings Good News neuronation.com Tags: abusive head trauma, Alan Reams, Alan Yurko, Amanda Sadowski, Catherine Frompovich, Elwood Sadowski, Francine Reams, Harold Buttram, International Medical Council on Vaccination, John D. Lloyd, Michael Innis, nonaccidental head injury, shaken baby syndrome, Tonya Sadowski, vaccines, Veira Scheibner Posted in: Vaccines111 Comments Archives Support science-based medicine PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online! Join The Society for SBM Buy an e-book: SBM e-Books for Kindle SBM e-Books for iBooks SBM e-Books for Nook Dr. Hall’s video SBM course RSS Twitter Facebook Categories Acupuncture Announcements Basic Science Book & movie reviews Cancer Chiropractic Clinical Trials Computers & Internet Critical Thinking Dentistry Energy Medicine Epidemiology Evolution Faith Healing & Spirituality Health Fraud Herbs & Supplements History Homeopathy Humor Legal Medical Academia Medical Ethics Naturopathy Neuroscience/Mental Health Nutrition Obstetrics & gynecology Ophthalmology Pharmaceuticals Politics and Regulation Public Health Religion Science and Medicine Science and the Media Surgical Procedures Traditional Chinese Medicine Vaccines

a reply to: Boadicea

Shame on me because I do know better. I let myself get distracted by other discussions.

No worries. It's sometimes hard to cover all the angles here when people decide to put words in your mouth or misrepresent what you are saying. All our time, in those cases, seems to be devoted to playing catch up and trying to reiterate what is is we are actually saying.
I've seen you discuss vaccines more than enough to know that you're one of the ones that refuses to self-censor, thus catering to the "all hail holy vaccines" crowd. (Watch them....just the notion that I even THINK about saying that there can be some nasty side effects gets them wound up and they don't even know where I stand on the issue. They'll come here and say that because I write something like that I must be anti-vax and am anti-science. I know how this gig works. Been in this rodeo for a long time)

You are. That's actually how I found out about the SBS controversy -- because of my research into vaccine injuries.

I honestly don't know a whole lot about the connection and am reading more as we speak. A simple google search has me now traveling the rabbit hole as the first few pages are filled with muddied waters that I have to sort (sources and such, primarily) before I can even begin to have an opinion.
I happen to have some friends over at fb who discuss this stuff quite a bit and I remembered seeing the issue of SBS (and SIDS) being connected. Some of those "friends" are a bit quacky, to say the least, but others are very astute and do their homework so I tend to take note of their findings and listen to their opinions, even if that is just reading and not discussing it with them.

It's something I haven't put a great deal of research into as I never really had much of a dog in the fight, so to speak. I have no children, so....but I now have two nephews, so in the last few years I've took more notice. Especially since all this "mandatory vaccination" stuff is now being shoved down our throats. Can't imagine that at some point that won't be extended to adults as well, so, here comes my dog.

It definitely should be part of the conversation. If it's not, that's a problem. I'm already getting red flags. Why the initial focus on Satanic Panic instead of biomechanical tests and differential diagnoses? It just strikes me as sensationalist at best.

Yeah, I imagine it will be. But didn't NLBS do one of those videos about vaccines and attempt to "debunk" anything and everything about vaccine injury? I seem to recall a few being rather pissed about that. I don't watch those videos or follow that stuff, so I might be wrong.

.....Maybe SO could come along and elaborate what the deal with that video in the OP is about. I think that would be for the best and if he is being misinterpreted there, it might stop that so we can move on and the focus won't be there. ....or maybe he's lost it. Money problems, stress....hey, it can happen to anyone. (just kidding....well, sort of, SO)

a reply to: Mianeye

Hilarious that you used that source. When I searched google for SBS and vaccine injury, that was the very first thing that came up. I read it just a few minutes ago and while reading it I was thinking.....wow, what a freakin' hit piece.

Yeah, that one's not biased at ALL (obvious sarcasm should in fact be obvious)

I won't put too much stock in that source, so you're barking up the wrong tree with me. It smells of bs from a mile away.



ETA: I especially liked this part, near the first of that piece...

I was surprised to learn that there are really people who think that vaccines are dangerous and cause autism, but I viewed it as being of a piece of a lot of other quackery I was discovering at the time.

Because we all know that vaccine makers just love wasting ink and publishing autism in the list of potential side effects. They just add that in to scare the weak away from their products. Population control, solved!

a reply to: Jakal26

I think you are mistaken me for someone else, i don't normally participate in vaccine thread.

I didn't say it was proof, i said it was interesting, you know, food for thought.

You have no idea where my stance are concerning vaccines, as i have never shown it on ATS.

a reply to: Mianeye

I didn't say it was proof, i said it was interesting.

It's not interesting. It's a hit piece, designed to make up the minds' of the weak who refuse to peer beyond the veil. It would be interesting if facts were provided, without bias. Calling anything and everything questioning vaccines and their links to injury and/or death "quackery" and "anti-science" and "myth" etc etc etc is a hit piece, nothing more. I'm sorry you can't see that.

You have no idea where my stance are concerning vaccines, as i have never shown it on ATS.

Umkay then. Off to have a look through your posts here, because I am near certain I am not mistaken. If I am and don't find what I am looking for, I will be back to apologize.

ETA....ANNNDDD, I am back apologizing. Sorry about that, I did indeed confuse you with others or another or....hell, I don't know how I got that one so wrong. My mistake.