It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 7
42
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This is an important debate. In the shaken baby syndrome arena, this is a medical diagnosis of abuse or homicide solely based on doctors' opinions for a theory whose scientific underpinnings have been undermined, as many courts around the country have ruled. Legal scholar Deborah Tuerkheimer, a Northwestern law professor who is in our film, describes this in her book "Flawed Convictions: Shaken Baby Syndrome and the Inertia of Justice" as exposing a criminal justice system that is ill-equipped to deal with changing science especially in this arena where hysteria, not reason, often rules.




posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: SusanGoldsmith
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This is an important debate.


Agree very much that it's important. There's nothing wrong and everything right with advocating for a 'gold standard' of diagnostic medical evidence for use in criminal cases.

The test is reasonable doubt. There should be a standard that can satisfy that test. Everyone would benefit from it. I hope that's a goal you guys will help reach and look forward to watching this film.



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Very well articulated post. I'm in total agreement with you here.

Something just doesn't feel "right" about this post. I don't know what it is, I can't put my finger on it...but it is something indeed. Or maybe it's just, like you and a few others have stated, the presentation. Not sure.




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.


It really is a shame that they came back into this thread and had nothing to say about your post here. It also speaks volumes to me, tbh.

...but, "you'll have to watch the film" as they keep claiming in nearly every response.

*off to see if I'm way off track here. And I'll shut up until I find out.


ETA: Yeah, I'm back after taking a look at "the syndrome" site. Exactly what I thought..."on demand" and in theaters everywhere, wouldn't you know it....today.

Just as I expected.
edit on 15-4-2016 by Jakal26 because: there are reasons I'm cynical...this being merely one of them.



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: MerylGoldsmith

And Buzzywings countered that with sources of her own. Many are claiming those models were flawed. What is your opinion about that rebuttal?

This is the link in case you missed it.


(post by Acidx removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes to you and I it is a lot. To major agencies it is nothing, especially after all the campaigning and advertising costs, they would have very little left over.

No need to feel offended I assure you....



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jakal26
a reply to: Boadicea

Very well articulated post. I'm in total agreement with you here.


Thank you! Glad I'm not the only one.


Something just doesn't feel "right" about this post. I don't know what it is, I can't put my finger on it...but it is something indeed. Or maybe it's just, like you and a few others have stated, the presentation. Not sure.


The presentation was definitely bad. But I'm trying to keep in mind that we're all coming at this from different angles and perspectives; at the same time, ATSers are an eclectic bunch (for want of a better word) with very specific ways and expectations... maybe they just weren't prepared for this.


It really is a shame that they came back into this thread and had nothing to say about your post here. It also speaks volumes to me, tbh.


It didn't surprise me. The way they responded to the vaccine injury questions made it clear they weren't going to go outside their self-defined comfort zone. And of course they don't have to. But they obviously weren't interested in hearing -- or responding -- to anything I had to say!


...but, "you'll have to watch the film" as they keep claiming in nearly every response.

*off to see if I'm way off track here. And I'll shut up until I find out.

ETA: Yeah, I'm back after taking a look at "the syndrome" site. Exactly what I thought..."on demand" and in theaters everywhere, wouldn't you know it....today.

Just as I expected.


They're definitely trying to sell something



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
In my opinion this was a successful AMA. The filmmakers only needed to plant a seed of thought or critical thinking in our minds to make a difference. What does that mean? I bet the next time anyone of us in this thread reads about an SBS case we'll think a little bit harder about what we learned here - whether we agree with it or not.

And seriously guys who can argue with applying more medical science to legal cases such as these.

ETA: For the questions ignored such as the vaccines and the potentially debunked models from yesteryear, again these researchers only need to plant the initial seed that something is wrong for others to pick up the mantle and continue the science to answer the questions that were presented here and elsewhere. This is the beginning of a conversation, a brave one at that, but you're not going to find all the answers until others invest in it scientifically.

And I'm just going to say it because this thread lacks implicit member understandings... DON'T SHAKE BABIES.
edit on 15-4-2016 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
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.


Good for you... but did you do scientific or medical studies to confirm without a doubt that the shaking, and ONLY THE SHAKING, was the cause for the brain damage? Did you perform medical examinations on shaken babies, and find a proven method to determine via examination that a baby was shaken? If so, please show us your research, and scientific findings.

Otherwise, perhaps these babies that you have seen and or know about were subject to a lot more than just shaking, maybe blunt head trauma, or some other more direct abuse. Until you know without a doubt that shaking is the only way these kids ended up the way they did as a fact, all you have is the sensationalist viewpoint that is getting honest parents in a lot of trouble.


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


That is only a "take home" message for people like you with limited reading comprehension skills.

My "take home" message from this topic is that it is impossible to examine a child's brain and determine with absolute certainty that the baby was severely shaken by their parents based on the findings from the examination. Also, it is absolutely possible (and research has found quite common) that misdiagnosis occurs, and it puts honest people in jail. The "myth" is not the idea that shaking babies doesn't harm them, the "myth" is that medical diagnosis can determine with absolutely certainty (admissible evidence in court) that a baby was shaken.

edit on 16-4-2016 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: MerylGoldsmith

So, what do you call it when certain people get upset, and try to shut their baby's crying up, and when they can't they shake it to enforce the point, and the baby ends up dying in their hands? Are you saying that this doesn't happen? I mean the internet is full of people prosecuted for this, and many which even admit it?
edit on 17-4-2016 by IlluminatiTechnician because: Grammar



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
The movie was supposed to be on demand everywhere, including FIOS on the 15th. It isn;t on there yet. I keep looking.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: SusanGoldsmith
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."


You say that there has never been any cases of severe neck injury in one of these cases (SBS). How do you account for this study which claims that shaken infants (displaying symptoms of SBS) actually die from neck trauma and not brain trauma?

Shaken Infants Die of Neck Trauma, Not of Brain Trauma


I am bumping this post because I would like to see the OP address this study. I am no expert, but this study seems to document MANY cases where neck injury was present in SBS cases.
edit on 17-4-2016 by craig732 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: craig732

That is exactly the point of this thread. Parents are being convicted of SBS in the absence of neck injury. As can be seen by your study, children who have been shaken have neck injuries!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So basically SBS is not debunked as the filmmaker and OP claims. Yes, thee are cases of improper prosecution where neck injury is not present. But to say SBS is a myth is clearly not true.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MerylGoldsmith

Can an earthquake cause shaken baby syndrome in babies or adults?




top topics



 
42
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join