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

a reply to: Jakal26

Be my guest, you might learn a little about me

a reply to: Mianeye

Ok...I was indeed wrong. I am sorry about that and will edit my post accordingly and will redact that accusation.
I remember what it was now that you took the "hard stance" on and I confused it for this issue with vaccines and such. Again, sorry about that. I have the flu for the first time in many years and am not on top of my game, so to speak. Mind is clearly a bit more than foggy at this time.

a reply to: Jakal26

Np.

Sorry about the flu, you should get a flu shot

a reply to: Mianeye

Sorry about the flu, you should get a flu shot

LOL....got me there.

The last flu I had back in 09 seemed to give me some kind of immunity for the last 7 or so years, though I nearly died from that one. "Swine flu" they were calling it. Contracted that crap when out in Chicago. Strangely, after that 3 month near death experience, I've been around many sick people and not once been even remotely ill, which is unusual because as a child I pretty much caught everything coming and going. "Super immunity" or something, I think some were calling it.

Point being, I'll ride it out and let my immune system do it's thing. I won't necessarily knock those that took a flu shot, but I will say that I know for a fact that the person I got it from got a flu shot a few months ago while in the hospital for a heart issue. He's the only sick person I've been around as I live in the country and don't go out very much.
Guess I should have listened when he said he was getting congested and such before that smoke the other day. Damn me.......the price we pay...hehe.

Anyways, WAY off topic here, so I'll shut up now. Again, sorry about that.

...........................

For the sake of keeping on track, what do you think about the links between vaccines and SBS...or SIDS, for that matter. Think there is anything at all to it?

(Just so I'll have something to go on here, since that hit piece doesn't seem to be your answer and this is a discussion about such and what not. Plus, it'll give me ammo the next time around when I accuse you of something you didn't say or do....lol, I jest about that last part)

I have no idea about this particular source but am reading this now and have gleaned a few interesting notes from it thus far, so I figured I'd share it here for others to vet out or debunk or whatever they choose to do with it.

The link

ETA...one from US National Library of Medicine
Of course, you have to buy the damned thing to read it, but figured I post it for those that may choose to do that.

originally posted by: Jakal26
a reply to: Boadicea

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.

Yes! It's so very frustrating. I don't mind being challenged and offered different perspectives and additional information to consider... in fact, that's exactly what I want! But sometimes it just feels like an exercise in futility.

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.

Yeah, I tend to think sunshine is the best disinfectant. I don't pretend to understand all the medical studies and issues and such, but if it's sound it can stand up to scrutiny. When there's nothing to hide, nothing needs to be hidden.

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'm happy to hear that. More research is always good! The more we understand about the issues, the better questions we can ask... and the better we can judge the answers.

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

Funny you should mention your quacky friends... I have a theory about that -- not your friends, but the quackiness of some of the conspiracy theories put forth and that it is deliberate disinfo, easily "debunked" and by association debunking all controversies/questions surrounding an issue. So, for example, those who might want to hide the vaccine connection might put out some crazy story that the entire SBS science is bogus, and might even throw in some Satanic Panic for full emotional effect... I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but I'm not saying it's not either!

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.

I don't have a dog in the fight either... except as someone who wouldn't want to be convicted of murdering my child on such flawed "evidence." And the only way to defend and protect my rights is to defend and protect the rights of others. Well, plus, it's not justice if good people are being convicted for crimes they didn't commit, and I refuse to have it done in my name.

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.

Yes, indeed they did. But I'm not the one to talk to about NLBS. Let's just call it the 11th commandment ATS style.

.....Maybe SO could come along and elaborate what the deal with that video in the OP is about.

Maybe... but SO might be wondering now too. Quite a few issues have been raised just with the introduction! I can see him facepalming now and wondering what he got himself into!!! We probably just have to wait and hear it from the source.

a reply to: Jakal26

Honestly, no i don't think there is anything to it, i always keep and open mind though. So this has peeked my interest, and i'm still googling for more info, vaccines is accused of many things, but it's hard to find actual facts.

I will look forward to tomorrow, and will follow the AMA closely, not sure if i wanna participate, depends on my mood.

a reply to: Boadicea

I agree with you, very much so, with this post. I tend to get wordy, and am feeling rough right now, so for the time being I'll just leave it at that. However, I felt obligated to at least let you know I saw this post and agree, even if I don't feel like going beyond that right now.

a reply to: Mianeye

vaccines is accused of many things, but it's hard to find actual facts.

Well, that's something we definitely at least partially agree on. The waters are about as muddy as they come on this issue, from all sides involved.
They are also claimed to have cured many things and that evidence is often well disputed as well, so like you I try to keep an open mind. I'm not necessarily anti-vax, but I am indeed pro choice on the matter. Mandatory vaccination shouldn't be, but of course as the slaves we are, we have no real rights to our bodies (American here...can't speak for the rest of the world...making sure to note that)

If the links between eradicated disease and vaccination was as sound as some make it out to be I don't see the waters being as muddy as they are on that side. But they are and that leads me to believe that the smoke discussed by those questioning vaccines is indeed smoke from some sort of fire.

a reply to: Jakal26

Thank you for that -- it's good to know I'm not the only one!

I understand about not wanting to go further. I'd like to see where this goes before speculating too much.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

There are definitive signs and symptoms that point to non-accidental trauma (NAT). And there are signs and symptoms that do not point to it. It is up to the professionals to decide and they don't take this sort of thing lightly. Well, in my experience they do not. There is usually something in the suspected abuser's background that will set off alarm bells. It doesn't have to be a history of child abuse and neglect, either.

With that being said, it takes a TEAM of professionals to assess the situation before they ever diagnose NAT. Once that assessment and diagnosis is made then another set of professionals assess the situation again...At this point the authorities are usually involved, too.

It takes a real POS to shake a baby. Just walk away and leave it alone. It'll survive a crying jag, but it is a miracle when a baby survives being shaken. An even bigger miracle if they can recover unscathed.

Will definitely try and tune into this one!

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.

The bleeding from non-accidental trauma is pretty unique. A spinal tap that returns bloody cerebral spinal fluid is usually their first diagnostic finding that leads to this diagnosis. Of course, multiple other tests are done to rule out other causes as well...

a reply to: lovebeck

A spinal tap that returns bloody cerebral spinal fluid is usually their first diagnostic finding that leads to this diagnosis. Of course, multiple other tests are done to rule out other causes as well...

That's interesting, but that's not how I understand the diagnostic process, which is based in large part on this NPR article:

Doctors Devise A Better Way To Diagnose Shaken Baby Syndrome

To tell whether a baby has been injured or killed by being shaken, the courts use three hallmark symptoms: bleeding and swelling in the brain and retinal bleeding in the eyes. Along with other evidence, those standards are used to convict caregivers of abusive head trauma, both intentional and unintentional, that can result in blindness, seizures, severe brain damage or death. But in recent years a small cadre of experts testifying for the defense in cases across the country has called into question whether those symptoms actually indicate abuse.

So researchers have developed and validated a tool doctors can use to distinguish between head injuries resulting from abuse and those from accidents or medical conditions. The method, described in the journal Pediatrics on Monday, asks doctors to check for six other injuries, each of which increases the likelihood that a head injury resulted from severe shaking, blunt force or both.

The tool itself is simple: listing rib fracture, seizures, long-bone fractures, bruises on the head or neck, periods of not breathing called apnea and bleeding in the retina of the eyes. The more of those a child suffers, the more likely the case resulted from abuse.

"Part of the challenge is that there is no gold standard for making a diagnosis of child abuse — you can't do a blood test," said Cindy Christian, chair of both Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. "It's always going to be a clinical diagnosis with social investigation. A bruise is a bruise. A broken bone is a broken bone. A subdural hemorrhage is a subdural hemorrhage. There are certain injuries that are much more highly correlated with abuse, and there aren't very many things that cause these together."

The article is from July 2015 -- so not quite a year ago. Lots of weasel words in there -- like "more likely" and "increased likelihood" -- but nothing definitive... no "gold standard" of proof. If it cannot be proven that the injuries resulted from physical abuse, there is reasonable doubt. No one should be convicted on someone's best guess... even if that someone is a doctor.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

He not only has reversed his opinion he also is helping overturn wrongful shaken baby syndrome convictions. He says that they didn't know what else to call it, now with MRIs and advancing science they can see dozens of conditions can cause the generic reaction of bleeding on the brain/back of eyes and brain swelling.

a reply to: Mianeye

This is Susan Goldsmith from The Syndrome. We understand your skepticism. Please check out Dr. Norman Guthkelch--the pediatric neurosurgeon who put the shaken baby syndrome theory into the medical literature in the 1970s. Dr. Guthkelch, who came out of retirement, is now working to help get people out of prison in these cases and says his work was not understood at all. The man he helped get out of prison was Drayton Witt in Arizona. Also, see the review of our film today in the Village Voice and LA Weekly that tell the story of Dr. Abou Ommaya. He was the neurosurgeon whose work the theory is based on. He, too, said his work was gravely misunderstood and that "shaken baby syndrome is in the realm of mythology." That is the man who did the original research that the syndrome was based on. Dr. Ommaya (now dead) appears in our film and defended Louise Woodward in the famous Nanny Louise case in Boston in 1997.

This is Susan Goldsmith from The Syndrome and want to say this is not a conspiracy. There is a shaken baby syndrome industrial complex, as one doctor in our film points out, that involves millions of dollars a year in grant and private funding.

a reply to: SusanGoldsmith

Welcome to ATS! And thank you for coming to share and inform us all.

I'm looking forward to the AMA... I've done some research on the subject, and it's troubling to say the least, but I need to understand more and better.

Let's get this started!

a reply to: SusanGoldsmith

Thank you for your reply, i will check up on it.

Why i'm a skeptic is, there are many proven cases of SBS where the accused are admitting to have shaken their baby, and thereby causing trauma or death.

I do see though there is a high unusual number of cases of SBS in the US, and i'm all in for a closer look in case that other convicted are innocent, and to avoid future wrong accusation.

It is definitely not nice to go to prison for something you haven't done.

The AMA is now live here: The Syndrome filmmakers Meryl Goldsmith and Susan Goldsmith Debunking Shaken Baby Syndrome: AMA!