It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 03:49 PM
And, this is why AMA on ATS is not that great. Disturbed minds, can't even keep themselves civil.

Move along.

posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 03:58 PM

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: MotherMayEye

On the contrary...

A few million is pittance to an "industrial complex"...

I smell bunk all the way through this guff.

A few million adds up here and there. This wouldn't be their only money-making scheme.

posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 04:43 PM

originally posted by: MerylGoldsmith
a reply to: Sargeras

In our film we feature Dr. Patrick Barnes, who is head of pediatric neuroradiology at Stanford University hospital, and who co-founded the child protection team..he used to diagnose shaken baby syndrome cases and says that because of MRIs and really looking at the science, he no longer believes in it being a real diagnosis and says that they now know dozens of medical conditions can cause the symptoms (subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhage and cerebral edema). As it turns out, bleeding is a generic response to many conditions, diseases, vitamin deficiencies, as well as short falls.

That doesn't exclude the bleeding being triggered by someone violently shaking a baby

+5 more 
posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 07:15 PM

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
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.

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.

Im sure somebody caught it before this but my gosh this is exactly what we just got chewed out over as a whole community by the mods in the Delonge Ask me Anything. ATS in its entirety was warned to stop with the ugly behavior and to stop derailing guest conversations with either off topic posts or totally unwarranted rudeness.

After the many many posts of info she has posted for us (and by golly is she doing the best job ever at a q&a as far as addressing everyone within a timely manner and has yet to leave anyone hanging except for one member who asked about a theory that she personally has not looked into as of now), for you to pervert her words in an attempt to Nancy Grace up the conversation and rally others in anger and sensational disinformation is uncalled for.

Not once does anyone say shaking babies isnt dangerous in fact shebalready clarified that after someone else honestly thought this respected researcher was advocating shaking babies if you want. I dont know if youre honestly mistaken or if youre picking a fight on purpose but ill pretend the former is the case and actually spell out that her whole issue is not related to shaking babies or not shaking babies. Its that a for profit entity is pushing the idea of SBS which has led to extensive incarcerations sought by witch hunt-like prosecutors when many professionals in child medicine and anatomy are standing silenced in the background saying, "excuse me, this syndrome has no standard diagnostic pattern, the injuries sustained are ones that in their expert opinions shouldn't be without coinciding neck trauma, that SBS cases where parents were put in prison didnt usually show this should-be link, and quite a bit more good information. She takes no stance on the actual shaking since A. Thats not what her research is about really and B. She assumes like everyone else here that we shouldn't need to promote something as in your face obvious as "dont be rough with, shake, hold unsupported, or climb the ropes to body slam your infant."

Why do I feel like I just played into someone playing word games to troll...honestly a first grader with a D in reading comprehension could summarize her position and i find it hard to believe an ATS member cant give the little respect to read and be certain what youre beef is if youre going to blast a newcomer who couldn't be more accomodating.
edit on 4/14/2016 by AlexandrosTheGreat because:

posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 10:12 PM
a reply to: SusanGoldsmith

I don't know if you guys are still here but, thank you so much for doing what you're doing. Wow!

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 01:26 AM
This was a surprisingly thoughtful topic; I'm wiser for having followed along.

In the future when I read about SBS cases I'll apply a bit more critical thinking to the material with regards to neck injuries vs. impact injuries and potential causes solely based on brain damage.

Thank you Susan Goldsmith & Meryl Goldsmith. I'll look out for the film as well.
edit on 15-4-2016 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 04:15 AM
The issue with laws is they're always ripe for abuse. As a society we have to decide if we should be governed under law (subject to abuse) or self-governing. If you don't have a centralized government with laws you become a potential victim to someone bigger, meaner.

As a baby everyone is bigger and meaner. SBS laws might not be full proof in understanding as evidenced by this thread but it certainly saves lives and it also works as a deterrent. Each case should be looked at fairly but it's not, which incidentally is the crux of too many laws. It sucks even for wrongly convicted murders, drugs, etc. however, in this instance it's probably best to err on the side of caution.

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 06:55 AM
a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

Word games is exactly right.

Excuse my persistence in balking at this, but I have seen shaken babies - I have worked with kids who were shaken and brain-damaged. I have a cousin who adopted a child with TBI due to shaking...admitted shaking by his own mother.

I was very respectful, but I will not kowtow to a guest or pair of guests who claim "shaken baby syndrome is in the realm of mythology."

As another member pointed out: the "take home" message is that "shaking babies doesn't hurt them." It certainly does.

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 07:39 AM
yeah, so.....have you all looked at any of the many "reviews" of this film via a simple search engine?

Here's one that talks about the "studies" on which the filmmakers built their case:

Those studies are thought to be the SBS-skeptics’ silver bullet.

The first is a 1987 study published in the Journal of Neurosurgery, in which the researchers tested exactly how strong a person would have to shake a baby to induce the injuries associated with Traumatic Head Injury.

They built infant dummies with different types of neck structures, explaining, “the mechanical properties [of an infant’s head and neck] have not been studied, [so] three models were built.

Three different models were built. Back in 1987. These were not modern "crash-test" dummies, folks.

This alone might raise eyebrows, since the models were based largely on guesswork.

Then various volunteers shook the models, activating a motion and impact sensor that determined whether a person could shake hard enough to injury a baby’s brain (and still not break her neck). They concluded, “Based on these observations, we believe that shaking alone does not produce the shaken baby syndrome.”

In 2011, new infant autopsies showed that in fact, this is partly true: neck injuries probably play a lot larger of a role in deaths from shaking, but that doesn’t lessen the reality of the diagnosis, because some neck injuries in babies are hard to spot, including severing the delicate nerves to the head.

The second study often cited by SBS skeptics is a 2005 study showing that shaking would break the child’s neck before it would damage her brain.

The study was roundly discredited when the calculations were shown to be significantly flawed.

Does a New Documentary Prove SBS Does Not Exist?

While my challenge might have offended some readers and even the OP, I stand by my point. Do some outside research on reviews of this film....I'm certainly not the only one who finds it troubling.

edit on 4/15/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: just to shore up my argument. I believe in Climate Change, too.

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 07:45 AM
Looks like this AMA died before it really started.


posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 07:46 AM
Unless I am mistaken, the main thrust of this is that these people have a movie they would like us to watch. Old fuddy duddies who do not wish to be disabused of their precious horrible thoughts, are welcome to deny whatever they want, I'm sure.

Furthermore, a journalist who has an interest (passing/accidental or otherwise) in criminal justice reform probably has nothing in common with the people who made the planned parenthood tapes like someone suggested. This journalist is probably what some would consider to be "liberal"; liberals did not make or circulate the planned parenthood videos.

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 07:50 AM

For the most part,

medical professionals agree that Shaken Baby Syndrome, now commonly referred to as “abusive head trauma,” exists. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all agree that the syndrome exists and is a wide societal problem. As the AAP puts it:

The existence of AHT in infants and young children is a settled scientific fact.

The scientific support for the diagnosis of AHT comes from over 40 years of research in a broad array of clinical and basic science disciplines, including pediatrics, neurosciences, ophthalmology, orthopaedics, radiology, pathology, epidemiology, and biomechanics.

And that's "Old fuddy-duddies who have decades of experience working with infants and have been recognized nationally for their work in child development and brain-training, both pre- and post-natal," thank you very much.

Also - Climate Change is real, and Evolution is a fact as well. Some things are just not conspiracies.

Welcome to ATS

edit on 4/15/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 07:57 AM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


in the children that you have interacted with that have brain damage, what evidence do you personally have that the injury was caused by shaking? I assume that we are talking here about children who have no neck injuries along with the brain damage?

A high fever can cause brain damage in children. A fall from a crib, headfirst, onto a hard floor can cause brain damage, bacterial infections can cause brain damage.

How do you know, without a shadow of a doubt, that the brain injuries you saw were not caused by something else? (other than being told that it was shaken baby syndrome).

in a criminal case, you must be convicted on the basis of evidence that is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Since there are other causes of brain damage in children, I think that there might be reasonable doubt.

I have been personally touched by the type of panic and hysteria that we are talking about here. I was 14 years old and babysitting my 3 month old nephew. He was cranky all night and seemed to be having belly issues because I soon as I stood and walked with his head on my shoulder and his belly curved into my breast, he fell asleep. Minutes after I stopped walking, he would wake up crying and inconsolable. I am proud to say that I walked with my nephew for at least 4 hours that night until about 4 am. Anyone who has done the same would know how difficult it is.

Regardless of my care, when I woke at 7 am, he was dead. His corpse was already discoloured. It remains the most psycologically traumatic event of my entire life. One I still dream about. He was diagnosed with SIDS. He was sleeping in his own bassinette on his back.

I was investigated by the police (talk about trauma on top of trauma). I was only 14 and completely unaware of how many people had already gone to jail for murder for exactly the same thing. However, the involvement of the police was sufficient that I felt shame for about 30 years and could never speak of my nephews death to anyone. I might as well have been in jail. I wanted to be punished although I do not know what I could have done (or not done) to cause his death.

I cannot even begin to imagine what a falsely accused parent would be feeling.

I know that you have seen brain damaged children and you have been told that they were shaken and that has greatly influenced your opinion. But do you really have any evidence whatsoever that shaking CAUSED the damage you witnessed. Is it possible that they were hit in the head with a hard object? Is it possible that they were sick?

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 08:02 AM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I like them settled sciences.

But in any case...I think you went overboard with your attitude. They may have been wrong...I can imagine that baby could be hurt the way it's described in the sindrome. From my uneducated point of view...the trauma should have some external signs. For order to shake the baby without dropping would need to hold it tightly...whether by the head or the body. I would guess that such a hold should leave some mark on the body...but what do I know. I'm not around babies that often.

I guess maybe they wanted to argue that there could potentially be other reasons for the diagnosis, and this could in the long run set many innocent people to jail and ruin their entire families.

As long as the science is settled...potential innocent ones dont have a chance.

It wouldnt be the first time in history us people sent innocents to the gallows.

edit on 15-4-2016 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 08:06 AM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Wow I'm so sorry that happened to you.

But I'm glad that you're sharing it. I'm so touched.

In regards to BuzzyWigs, it just seems like she's a bit of a promoter (perhaps directly involved in pushing and promoting this syndrome thing- all she keeps doing is screaming about how shaking babies is wrong) or a follower. We shouldn't be surprised that we have people on all sides of every topic here, and I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this particular one. She's a believer in the syndrome! And I gotta say, I'm not.

Thank you TiredofControlFreaks again for sharing your story here, I think you're very brave.

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 08:13 AM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

No, I am talking about children whose parents ADMITTED they shook the baby so hard that it changed the baby profoundly.
Developmentally, mentally, emotionally, etc.

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 08:16 AM
a reply to: geezlouise

(perhaps directly involved in pushing and promoting this syndrome thing- all she keeps doing is screaming about how shaking babies is wrong)

Louise, I am a 57 year old professional, and I assure you and everyone else that Traumatic Brain Injury does occur from shaking babies. I am not screaming. I am retired now. I care about children, and have the knowledge to speak to this issue.

But, since you all aren't interested in hearing the other side, I shall desist. Carry on with your skepticism. Just don't shake babies, ever.

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 08:17 AM
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

It didn't die. It ended after it's intended purpose.
It's a form of advertising.

...however, the discussion is interesting, so I won't decry it too much.

I, like you and some others, would imagine that if one shook a baby hard enough to cause SBS there would be external bruising on the body somewhere. I just don't see how there wouldn't be. To shake anything hard enough to cause something like SBS one would have to be holding it very tightly, that's obvious fact.

How many of these cases where people were convicted were these signs of bruising present? Something to research a bit, for sure.

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 08:20 AM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs what about those that firmly claim their innocence?
They don't matter? They're all liars?

....and I'm pretty sure everyone here realizes shaking babies is not good. If not, they would probably shake a baby anyways. Your constant "don't shake babies", "shaking babies is bad", "the OPs are saying shaking babies isn't bad" is really going nowhere. We get it. Only those that would shake babies don't, and I doubt those types are really listening and not going to shake babies.

Your persistence is, however, respectable.
Standing ground....or gatekeeping. I won't be the judge. I'm just here for the variety of opinions on an issue I'm only starting to become familiar with.

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 08:22 AM
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

A high fever can cause brain damage in children. A fall from a crib, headfirst, onto a hard floor can cause brain damage, bacterial infections can cause brain damage.

How do you know, without a shadow of a doubt, that the brain injuries you saw were not caused by something else? (other than being told that it was shaken baby syndrome).

in a criminal case, you must be convicted on the basis of evidence that is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Since there are other causes of brain damage in children, I think that there might be reasonable doubt.

I am not arguing that fever, virus, genetics, etc might not cause brain damage.

I, too, have been investigated by CPS when my baby son turned up with a spiral fracture of his leg (25 years ago - which was just a few years after this 'experiment' cited in the movie). The CPS people thought someone had twisted his leg, and said that was the "only way this injury could have happened." It was not the case - my baby had caught his leg in the slats of his crib and then tried to flip himself over. I had seen him do it before. The medical staff agreed with me. My baby liked to lift and then slam down his legs for some reason.

Fortunately, I and my husband and the caregiver were not charged, but the case was closed as "abuse by unknown assailant" - so I know how that feels.

I do have empathy for parents accused of injuring their child when they had nothing to do with it. That is a shame, indeed. But "shaken baby syndrome" is not a myth.

Again, you all carry on. This is not my thread - and I don't have to defend myself to you all. I was not rude, but I am adamant that the phrasing of such sensitive topics needs to be very clear. Too many idiots out there (not here) would see that sentence and jump to the conclusion that shaking a baby might be a fine way to get it to stop crying after all.

Have a great day, everyone.

edit on 4/15/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in