New AMA Tomorrow, April 14th: The Issues Behind Prosecutors Using Shaken Baby Syndrome

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Now I've read the whole thread. I'm very glad to see that no one (except Boudicea?) is denying that SBS is a thing, that it happens, and that it causes brain damage and/or death.

I'm not sure why you got that impression, because I have specifically said otherwise, but let me reiterate: I am not in any way denying or arguing that shaking babies is badbadbad. Period. 'Nuff said.

What I am saying is that the "triad" of injuries known as Shaken Baby Syndrome can be caused by things other than SBS and that it is scientifically unproven and unproveable, and yet we are prosecuting and incarcerating grieving parents with no other evidence of abuse based on a theory that even the original author now disputes.

I believe Zaphod said it best here:

It's become the go to diagnosis, and resulted in ruining lives, but when looked at later, a lot of cases fall apart.

There's nobody saying that shaking a baby is safe, they're saying that it needs to stop being the go to diagnosis by doctors, and they need to look closer.

And I quoted his comment here.

a reply to: SpecialSauce

The only reason I'm responding to this is because some member gave you a star for it.

An adult in a vibrating bed experiences roughly the same thing as someone on a motorcycle would.

A shaken baby is grasped by the torso and whipped frantically back and forth, repeatedly, like if you were to have your head bounced like a punching bag....

Babies' bones are fragile, their infrastructure, gears, wiring, coordination, strength, and motor control are not "fully developed" when they're born. Think of it like a zip file....all the info is there, but it has to be unpacked, little by little, and assembled. Babies must be handled with care.

I hope you were being facetious with your 'question', but just in case you weren't, there's your answer. Doesn't take an "expert" to realize an infant is helpless.

a reply to: Mianeye

Same here, it makes sense to not shake a baby. I was always told(90's TV commercials) that the biggest danger aside from death is blindness and brain damage.

Hook line and sinker for me, but jeez it makes sense!

originally posted by: SpecialSauce
I'm no expert but why don't vibrating heart shaped beds in hotel honeymoon suites kill people?

Haha! Maybe it has... but I would think it would be put down as a heart attack

Anything that vibrates makes me nauseous, but I would imagine the G-force wouldn't be strong enough. Mechanical bulls come to mind though...

a reply to: Boadicea

Okay, fair enough. I used to be a professional parent educator, helping first-time parents navigate how to be the best parent they could be. That included doctor visits, checkups, developmental milestones, how to stay alert for problems, etc.

The chances of a baby having brain damage of the same type without having been shaken are very slim. I see some of you are saying it's the ones with "no neck injuries" that are being questioned, because parents have been accused and indicted when there was no evidence of physical abuse. Fine.

I don't know what other things could cause it....Degenerative Developmental disease, hemophilia, other genetic disorders, poisoning, drug dependence, cerebral palsy?? ??...

Sorry if I misunderstood your point, Boadicea - and thanks for clarifying. I really wasn't sure what to make of it. Of course no grieving parent who is wrongly accused has deserved what they got.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sorry if I misunderstood your point, Boadicea - and thanks for clarifying. I really wasn't sure what to make of it.

No worries. It's an important point to clear up for the sake of the argument as a whole. And if I didn't make myself clear enough the first go round, then shame on me and it's up to me to do better!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Impact falls. There have been dozens of cases where people have hit their head, and walked and talked just fine for hours or even days, then suddenly slipped into a coma or died.

One case cited showed evidence of small blood clots. Those could have been caused by an underlying illness or genetic issue.

a reply to: Zaphod58

All due respect, and I haven't yet looked at the source for this information, but I find it HIGHLY SUSPECT that an athletic man was unable to shake a baby-dummy hard enough to cause brain damage. Sheesh, if you just drop it on the floor, it could get brain damage!!

Babies get brain damage from being shaken violently. Period. They do. They can't even hold their own heads up, for crying out loud! It is entirely possible for even a tired woman to shake a baby hard enough to hurt it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Impact falls. There have been dozens of cases where people have hit their head, and walked and talked just fine for hours or even days, then suddenly slipped into a coma or died.

Right, now I see you mention falls.

So, please clarify for me how an athletic man is unable to shake a baby hard enough to cause brain damage???? That is a preposterous notion, falls, genetics, poisoning, and failure to thrive aside.....

I already said if it falls it could get brain damage. So - we agree....how do you believe a grown athlete is not capable of shaking hard enough to hurt a baby?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

They were looking at the bleeding on the brain that has been claimed to be from shaking, and caused by the brain impacting the skull. They didn't say that a baby couldn't get brain damage, they said that a baby was extremely unlikely to suffer the type of damage that is always cited as being caused by SBS.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That's not what they or I said. They were testing if shaking a baby could cause the type of brain injury that doctors always say is caused by shaking. Not if a baby could or couldn't suffer brain damage from it. To cause the type of bleeding and damage that they claim required 80Gs of force. Not even an extremely athletic man can shake a baby that hard.

In my limited reading on the subject, it seems to me that the truth, as it often does, lies somewhere in between. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that shaking a baby isn't harmful and can't cause injury and death.

What seems to have been occurring is that prosecutors and certain "experts," particularly those who have made careers out of testifying in such cases, have been misrepresenting the so-called "triad" of symptoms as 100% diagnostic of SBS. This misrepresentation has been used to obtain convictions in cases where there is no other evidence that a crime has even occurred.

originally posted by: Mianeye
It is well known that sudden movement and lack of support to a baby's head can cause brain damage or even death, shaking would be violent and could definitely cause damage to the baby.

Not exactly sure why this is questioned.

Not just that

If someone shook my child I kill them (wouldn't shake even a old animal for that matter)

seriously (anger management)

a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay, thank you for explaining it to me.
Sorry for being lazy - I need to look at the article and other info before I say anything else regarding this topic.

Nevertheless - please be aware of how the OP title came across to many of us -
and also how your and others' posts are worded and might be read into.

Sorry for being reactionary. Just saying - there's a reason so many members responded with alarm...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I do get it and understand exactly why people reacted like they have. I just happened to have come across a few articles and boadicea's thread and have spent some time looking into it since then.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That's not what they or I said. They were testing if shaking a baby could cause the type of brain injury that doctors always say is caused by shaking. Not if a baby could or couldn't suffer brain damage from it. To cause the type of bleeding and damage that they claim required 80Gs of force. Not even an extremely athletic man can shake a baby that hard.

I wonder who volunteered their kids


Jesus

a reply to: Boadicea

I've heard of pregnant women riding rollercoasters causing miscarriages.in fact some rollercoasters have warnings that expecting mothers should not ride. But from what I read vibrations take less g force to kill. My half brothers dad slipped on ice and died from blood on the brain.

I don't see a savant doctor that memorized every bone in the body lying about this. He could be sued, they got all that money at risk. And alot of people confess to having shaken the baby so I think they have a good idea of what the symptoms are. That's the test.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay, Cheers

See you 'round tomorrow (or maybe later today).

a reply to: realnewsrealfunny

Biomechanical. They used the same crash test dummies with sensors that they use to test cars.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Zaphod58

I already said if it falls it could get brain damage. So - we agree....how do you believe a grown athlete is not capable of shaking hard enough to hurt a baby?

I was trying to find an article I read previously about the biomechanical studies performed that was written in easily understood layman's terms... I couldn't find that one, but here's another which discusses the various studies:

Shaken Baby Syndrome Fraud

Note that it's not my title and not my claim... but it explains the various arguments for and against fairly well. It's not an easy read though, so my apologies.

(In fact, I don't like the title at all, because it does misrepresent the issue for exactly the reasons we've already debated. It undermines and obscures the legitimate concerns and creates unnecessary and inappropriate concerns.)