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

a reply to: Jakal26

Dont know which bed you got...most beds these days have a memory foam that prevents any kind of feel of impact around you.

In all honesty...I guess you could produce what you say...but isnt that somewhat going for the most unlikely of scenarios ? this would imply devious intent on the part of the person doing it. Preparation, planning...all the while being angry, mad or whatever.

I guess it's possible...I just think it's unlikely.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Another point of view.

Everyone has to make a living. these people obviously have a passion for this topic. They want to free innocent people from jail.

Can you really expect that that someone will get passionate about a topic, quit their full time job and devote themselves to their passion??? What would they live on?

Is there anything wrong with following your passion and making a living at to.

The people who make a living handing out educational materials about shaken babies are not evil either. They obviously also have a passion as well.

I don't think money has anything to do with this topic. I think our eyes have to be fixed on the point where the problem lies.

Justice systems who fail to properly evaluate all the evidence!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I am not saying that in this scenario one is intending to commit "the perfect murder"....more often than not, it's a fit of rage induced by the baby crying and not being able to get it to stop. A sort of insanity from the persistent crying...it happens.

If there was no bruising and the parent that did it denied it vehemently and just called the ambulance after the baby is dead and just lying there on the bed...how would one know? I would imagine it would be hard to prove that....and thus, we go back to "reasonable doubt"....so, right back where we started.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Another point of view.

Everyone has to make a living. these people obviously have a passion for this topic. They want to free innocent people from jail.

Can you really expect that that someone will get passionate about a topic, quit their full time job and devote themselves to their passion??? What would they live on?

Is there anything wrong with following your passion and making a living at to.

The people who make a living handing out educational materials about shaken babies are not evil either. They obviously also have a passion as well.

I don't think money has anything to do with this topic. I think our eyes have to be fixed on the point where the problem lies.

Justice systems who fail to properly evaluate all the evidence!

Tired of Control Freaks

absolutely great point and conclusion. Money is not the issue here.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I guess you could produce what you say...but isnt that somewhat going for the most unlikely of scenarios ? this would imply devious intent on the part of the person doing it. Preparation, planning...all the while being angry, mad or whatever.

Not necessarily any type of devious intent...just "fed up" and "outburst"......"SHUT UP BABY....arrrrgggg" *doesn't touch baby but places both hands on either side of baby on bed and shakes...the resulting TBI (if it happens) could very well be accidental, no?

And that memory foam (which I have, yes) and the damping of the "back and forth" would actually cause more "back and forth" to be localized to the "point of impact", no? Like I said, I don't believe it would take much....the baby wouldn't have to be bouncing up and down a foot or two off the bed....it only really takes a bit of fast "back and forth" to shift the brain in the skull...especially in an infant.

I would say it isn't the most common thing, but I can see it happening.
Just one scenario.....in others, the bruising, or lack thereof, is still an issue and a question to me.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

We normally say that we would prefer that 9 guilty men go free than to take the risk of convicting an innocent one.

With this kind of hysterical public reaction, we seem to have reversed the justice philosphy. We would rather jail 9 innocent people rather than take the chance of allowing one guilty one to go free.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I agree. But I'll question their "devotion" to the issue when they come along here for an AMA and bounce out as quickly as they did with no follow up. Seems to me if they are that devoted, they would be here answering questions (or would have) for more than a single hour. Surely, between the two of them they could make a bit of time for their "passion" so as to bring in some more light on the topic when given a platform such as this one, no?

Justice systems who fail to properly evaluate all the evidence!

I agree on that as well. We see it time and time again. The broken "just us" system is a failure in so many ways, it's sickening, really....and sad.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

it reminds of Texas and the death penalty issue.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Another thought has occurred to me

maybe its not the justice system after all.

Imagine that you are the judge in a shaken baby case. A medical doctor gets up on the stand and testifies that the injuries could only have happened if the baby was shaken.

Are you going to question his opinion? He is a doctor and you are not!

Perhaps, the problem is really with the forensic community and their ineptitude.

But then would the defence not produce an expert witness of their own to say the exact opposite?

I don't know?

Tired of Control freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Yes, I notice that as well, with some.
Personally, I don't know where I stand. Are we to believe "supposed" abusers....? The "justice system"? The "innocent"?
Idk.

I don't want any innocent people in jail for something they clearly didn't do. But I also don't want a bunch of guilty people roaming the streets getting away with sh*t because they can find "loop holes" and create "reasonable doubt".
I see it as a rather complex situation, no doubt.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Are you going to question his opinion? He is a doctor and you are not!

I would...because I dont trust doctors.

His livelyhood is my doom.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Well, if the defense lawyer is a public defender, don't count on them to do much. I'd imagine some of those wrapped up in such horrible cases didn't have the money or the "pull" to bring in those types to counter the prosecution.
...one hand washes the other.

It would be worth researching the doctors and forensic types that say SBS is "myth" before taking their word for it.
It would also be worth noting the stake that doctors/forensic types have in claiming it's a done deal scientific fact, no doubt.

a reply to: Jakal26

here is an interesting case:

truthinjustice.org...

A baby that had brain damage due to a previously undiagnosed bleeding disorder

Only the most vigorous of defences got the accused off.

Tired of Control freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And I also forgot that some babies are revived from a SIDS episode but they suffer brain damage from hypoxia.

Tired of Control Freaks

I'm glad to see that others are having a problem with the OP also. I've had to think about it and try to separate my own confirmation bias from the process, because I do agree that SBS is probably over-diagnosed and mis-diagnosed too often, persecuting innocent grieving parents and other caretakers... but I didn't like the way this was presented at all.

Buzzy is right though. Babies can and are seriously injured, even killed, by shaking, and it's irresponsible to represent mis-diagnosis of a serious issue as being debunked. That's a H U G E difference. And they know better. They've been at this for a while. (Their film was first introduced in the fall of 2014). They know this. And yet they continue to represent the issue as something it's not, which can have very serious -- even deadly -- consequences. Why???

Nor was I impressed with their pat answers for the vaccination injury association. Right or wrong, it's impossible for anyone to do any indepth investigation into the SBS controversy without coming across the vaccination injury claims. Absolutely impossible. So they know, and they knowingly and deliberately have chosen to ignore it. And that's fair enough. They don't claim to be medical experts, and it's just one of many possible other causes for the symptoms, so there's no need to examine those claims in detail... but they can and should at least acknowledge it as a factor in the controversy without taking a position on it. Why???

Another big problem I have is their focus on people profitting from their work in the field. Everyone deserves a fair wage for their labor. I assume these ladies hope to make a few bucks from their work too. And even if these folks are simply greedy opportunists, what else is new? There will always be opportunists read to exploit any and all situations for a buck. That's not the problem. I think it was Eleanor Roosevelt who said that the inferior mind talks about people, the mediocre mind talks about events, and the superior mind talks about concepts. Don't tell me about those awful people making a living... tell me about what they're doing that's wrong. Tell me about the biomechanical studies, about the clinical medical studies, about the differential diagnoses, about how all of these introduce reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings.

Finally, satanic panic? Really??? Talk about sensationalism!!! And that's the best I can say about that. The worst I can say is that it fits right into my theory about deliberate disinfo... specifically, take a legitimate issue and twist and contort it into such a monster that it is quickly and easily debunked, and the legitimate underlying issues are likewise perceived as debunked -- though they aren't.

If these ladies are sincere in their efforts, then they will use this experience to do better. SO gave them an amazing opportunity to engage some serious thinkers and debaters and to refine their message. It's up to them now.

a reply to: wmd_2008

The studies show that you would see severe neck damage long before you would see brain damage from violent shaking or whiplash. The neck is the weak point on a baby. There have never been damaged necks in any of these cases.

Here's the IMDB review of the film:

The Syndrome (2014 Documentary)
Audrey Edmunds, mother of three, spent 11 years in prison for killing a baby she never harmed. And she is not alone. What happens when widely held beliefs based on junk science lead to the convictions of innocent people? The Syndrome is an explosive documentary following the crusade of a group of doctors, scientists, and legal scholars who have uncovered that "Shaken Baby Syndrome," a child abuse theory responsible for hundreds of prosecutions each year in the US, is not scientifically valid. In fact, they say, it does not even exist. Filmmaker Meryl Goldsmith teams with Award-winning investigative reporter Susan Goldsmith to document the unimaginable nightmare for those accused and shine a light on the men and women dedicating their lives to defending the prosecuted and freeing the convicted. The Syndrome uncovers the origins of the myth of "Shaken Baby Syndrome." It unflinchingly identifies those who have built careers and profited from this theory along with revealing their shocking pasts. Shaken baby proponents are determined to silence their critics while an unthinkable number of lives are ruined.

The review likens the efforts of doctors, scientists and legal scholars to that of a religious crusade and calls it junk science.

Reminds me of an interview I watched where an opponent of evolutionary theory called it "junk science". When the reporter asked her what her theory was, she said, "I don't have one, I'm not a scientist"

Of course there will be those who seek to profit and build careers by taking unfair advantage. I think a good example of that would be global warming, the fact that there are those who seek to take advantage and profit from it doesn't necessarily disprove the theory. That's faulty logic and those arguments should be thrown out as being erroneous. When discussing something of this nature, only the facts of the matter should be relevant.

This quote from the review sums up the problem I have with the film; "The Syndrome uncovers the origins of the myth of "Shaken Baby Syndrome." It unflinchingly identifies those who have built careers and profited from this theory along with revealing their shocking pasts."

Uncovering the origins and identifying those who have built careers from it does not in any way invalidate the theory itself or the science behind it. If someone tells me that shaking a baby violently does not harm the baby, I'm not going to simply believe them without hard scientific proof! There is too much science that says that shaking a baby does cause serious harm and possibly death.

a reply to: Jason88

Thank you so much for the really kind message. We really appreciate it. Please let us know what you think about the film after watching and if inspired, help us spread the word. Thank you for your open mind! As one of the doctors in our film says, this issue needs to be approached from a place of reason and science, not hysteria. Best--Susan

a reply to: Blarneystoner

Please see our film because we delve into the issue of the science and what the proponents of the diagnosis have to say about the syndrome's scientific evidence.