It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
(perhaps directly involved in pushing and promoting this syndrome thing- all she keeps doing is screaming about how shaking babies is wrong)
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.