The Syndrome filmmakers Meryl Goldsmith and Susan Goldsmith Debunking Shaken Baby Syndrome: AMA!

Hi Ladies! I love yous!

I get the impression these cases can be likened to the Salem witch trials. What's the deal with the satanism stuff? Is there a real conspiracy behind that and is there a real connection between SBS and Satanism/Ritual Child Abuse (does your film get into this)?

Ps: Thank you for being here and sharing with us.

a reply to: YachiruKusajishi

Please see our film because it answers many of your questions. The man whose research the syndrome is based on (you can see him in our film--Dr. Abou Ommaya) said that you cannot produce these injuries in the head without causing catastrophic neck damage first. There has never been any severe neck damage in one of these cases ever. Dr. Ommaya, who defended Louise Woodward in her famous 1997 Boston trial, said "shaken baby syndrome is in the realm of mythology."

I believe there are cases where accused of SBS is admitting to their wrong doing, thereby proving SBS to be a real thing, these cases also happens as unfortunate accidents.

Is there any studies on such cases, and is it taken in to consideration in your research.

Thank you for being here. I have a very direct request:

Please make it clear:

Are you saying that SHAKING BABIES DOES NOT HARM THEM and that it does not happen? I can assure you it exists, and it harms babies. PLEASE tell us you are not trying to deny that shaking babies is bad.

For some reason, I'm having trouble making sense of the posts in this and the introductory thread. Are you suggesting something hideous is going on like that film company did when it twisted truth and accused Planned Parenthood of "selling baby parts" for profit?

Is that the sort of 'conspiracy' you're peddling? Shaking babies is bad. It is never okay. It is always dangerous and often harmful. Do not ever say that it's acceptable to shake a baby.

I mean this with all due respect, but am frowning on this topic, and need reassurance.

EDITED TO ADD:
I am a credentialed neo-natal case manager and caregiver and parent educator.

a reply to: Mianeye

We get into this issue in depth in our film. These confessions are highly unsound for a number of reasons that you will understand if you see our film. The plea deals in these cases offered to people who "confess" are the most lenient found anywhere in the criminal justice system, according to Northwestern Law Professor Deborah Tuerkheimer, who has written a book on the subject and appears in our film. Prof. Tuerkheimer is a former child abuse prosecutor from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

originally posted by: SusanGoldsmith
a reply to: Mianeye

This was not an issue at all in my research. Vaccines have nothing to do with our film and did not come up in my reporting.

Could you clarify or expand on that just a little please?

I ask because many are making a case that adverse reactions to vaccines can cause some/all of the symptoms attributed to SBS. It was while researching vaccine injuries that I first learned about the challenges to the SBS diagnosis. I believe that Dr. Squier of Britain, who just recently was "struck off" for her expert witness testimony in such cases, is also one who claims vaccine injury can cause the same/similar "triad" of symptoms.

Have you not heard of the vaccine link at all? Or are you simply focused on any/all differential diagnoses, thus introducing reasonable doubt? Maybe I'm not asking the right questions... I'm not sure what/how to ask.

a reply to: geezlouise

Hi great to hear from you and great question! We get into this issue in depth in the film and there's a great LA Weekly piece about the satanic panic connection I undercover in the film that their former film critic Amy Nicholson did that was excellent. That piece is linked on our film's website press links (www.thesydromefilm.com) I identify and am the first journalist to put this together that the promoters of the shaken baby syndrome were very involved in promoting satanic panic. When satanic panic was exposed as fraudulent, they picked up shaken baby syndrome and began heavily promoting it, hosting conferences and building a nonprofit in Utah to sell materials and promote the concept to prosecutors, doctors and social workers. We drill very deep into all of this in the film and can't wait for you to see it!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Susan is a national child abuse award winning reporter. Her reporting has gotten laws passed in Oregon to better protection children getting abused in foster care. Shaking a baby violently could severely damage their neck; the neck is the weak point. There have never been any damaged necks in these cases. The neurosurgeon whose work they based the shaken baby syndrome theory on, said they got it all wrong because it's the neck that was (in his study with monkeys) and would be damaged. We obviously would never say it's OK to shake a baby. It's also not ok to put innocent people in prison and take children away from loving families to put them in foster care.

a reply to: Boadicea

I am a huge fan of Dr. Squier however this issue did not come up in my reporting and is not dealt with at all in our documentary.

a reply to: MerylGoldsmith

We obviously would never say it's OK to shake a baby. It's also not ok to put innocent people in prison and take children away from loving families to put them in foster care.

Thank you.

From one professional to another - we need to make it perfectly clear that shaking babies is bad and never okay.

Now, I can take a deep breath and look at your information further.
Again, thank you for clarifying.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Please see our film and go to our website (www.thesyndromefilm.com) The research is very clear that if a baby were shaken hard enough to generate those injuries in a baby's head the neck would break first. Period. That is a biomechanical fact. It is horrible to shake children. You could break their necks. There has never been a broken neck in one of these cases. As Dr. Ommaya said--the man whose work the syndrome is based on--"Shaken baby syndrome is in the realm of mythology." The other doctor whose work put it into the medical literature, Dr. Guthkelch, has also retracted and is now helping to get people out of prison in these cases.

a reply to: SusanGoldsmith

Okay then!

Thank you for responding.

Hello and thank you for your time. My question:

Is there a "representative" example of what a person who has gone through this (the death of their baby and subsequent accusations/conviction) has experienced? In other words, do you have a story that can give us a feel for what a person has had to deal with and how they've dealt with it?


Edited because my 2nd question was answered just above my post.

a reply to: geezlouise

This is a fantastic LA Weekly piece about the satanic panic connection to the promoters of shaken baby syndrome.

www.laweekly.com...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Of course! It's never ok to be violent or aggressive with babies or children. Thanks for being open-minded on behalf of the families who are caught in this nightmare who did not harm their baby/or the baby they were watching. There are an estimated 1,000 innocent people in prison where the baby had no outside signs of abuse...only the internal brain and/or retinal bleeding.

a reply to: SusanGoldsmith

research is very clear that if a baby were shaken hard enough to generate those injuries in a baby's head the neck would break first. Period. That is a biomechanical fact. It is horrible to shake children. You could break their necks.

Ma'am,
This is the very reason I've been bucking at this whole notion since the first announcement. There are many of us who know people whose babies were shaken, and what damage it can cause. "You could break its neck"? That's your issue?

Take a raw egg, shake it as hard as you can, and feel the yoke bouncing around inside the shell.

Your colleague had me more amenable to listening, but now you ARE saying that shaking a baby won't cause BRAIN DAMAGE.
And that, I say, madam, is bunk.

I will excuse myself now - thank you for your time.

a reply to: SusanGoldsmith

Not surprising that it leads back to money!

It is just fascinating how much programming has been done on this topic. I'm sure you will even encounter the silly gatekeeping questions in this thread.

There seems to be an enormous effort here, and such things really only happen with the approval of governmental bodies. Its a bit difficult to set up something like a National Center, if the local or federal authorities do not want it to happen.

In that, it really seems there are some motivations beyond financial gain. Can you think of anything that might apply here?

Someone brought up vaccines, but even if they were killing infants across the board, the public would defend it to the end. I don't see a need for such a massive investment of resources when that angle is already very well handled.

I don't know, I'm new to the topic in the past couple days.. but there seems to be something here that isn't adding up, you know? Some piece of the puzzle that is missing..

I'm glad that you are doing this work! I found the endless stream of commercials exceedingly strange, and now, it does seem that there is a heckuva lot more to the story than the blatantly obvious "don't violently abuse your child!"

a reply to: MerylGoldsmith

I also just watched the trailer and will be watching this documentary, as well.

I want to first say how brave it is to advocate for justice on a subject that evokes so much emotion. It clearly needs some objective attention.

As far as developing a 'gold standard' of medical evidence for use in medical expert testimony, how can that be accomplished?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The brain is not an egg. Violent whiplash would cause neck damage long before brain damage. That is what the science shows from the chief of brain injury prevention at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. He also called shaken baby syndrome "mythology". The science shows that impact like falls and hits to the hit are extremely detrimental. This is not shaking; this is impact.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

That is an excellent question. I firmly believe that something without a gold diagnostic standard should not be allowed in to our courts as the sole evidence in criminal cases. These are medically based diagnoses of assault and murder and abuse rooted in a theory whose scientific underpinnings have been seriously undermined. This is a critical issue and the messy, tragic intersection of our courts and this problematic science must be addressed "if we are a civilized nation," to quote Dr. John Plunkett, one of the key doctors in our film.