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

a reply to: MerylGoldsmith

Wow. Seems pretty clear to me it would cause both.

so yeah - this is a "Planned Parenthood Sells Baby Parts for Profit!" spinoff.


Again, I am out of here. I won't be 'seeing your movie'. I regret if this is seen as disrespectful, but so be it. I find the subject matter disrespectful to the people who are raising kids whose brains were injured due to extreme shaking by a known individual.

a reply to: MerylGoldsmith
So I understand that when this came out it is like everything else and turned into the Salem Witch Trails....BUT...

are you trying to say that NO baby has ever died from shaken baby syndrome? * I am just trying to fully understand*

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: MerylGoldsmith
Wow. Seems pretty clear to me it would cause both.

If it would cause both neck and brain damage, and these babies have no neck damage, surely something else is happening worth discussing?

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.

the symptoms you mentioned can have many etiologies, Thats true. One of them is shaking the baby so hard that falx cerebelli cuts deep into the poor baby's brain and causes frontal lobes to bleed or swell. In lots of cases the blunt trauma also damages the brain stem causing global HIE.

Well that shortened the list of possible causes didn't it?

As i Said it's true that some other conditions can mimic this pattern like severe thrombocytopenia for any reason or severe forms of a coagulative factor deficiency but you can always rule them out with a simple blood test.

If you have such etiologies as the causation of brain bleed, most probable places in which bleeding and edema occurs is the 4 brain ventricles that produce the csf. So if you perform an LP there is blood present. Bleeding in the form of subdural and sub arachnoid hemorrhage? Well i donno about the mentioned doctor at stanford but I'd rule out trauma first.

a reply to: Martin75

That is not what we are saying. But that is what the experts who are criticizing this are saying and, of course, those critics include two key doctors whose work put this on the medical map.

a reply to: MerylGoldsmith

The egg comparison raises an interesting point -- flawed as it may be because an eggs doesn't have necks and bodies -- but the comparison suggests that baby would have to been shaken while being held by its head to explain a lack of injury to the neck.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the trailer I believe I saw several prosecutors hold up a baby-sized dummy by its body and shake it to demonstrate, for a jury, the method of injury. Is that correct?

a reply to: SusanGoldsmith
Thank you! With that in mind. I think this is a great discussion to have. I think we have a habit of going crazy with stuff like this. Then years later we have to try to clean up the overzealous mess that was made. Sadly I think this is with everything and not JUST SBS. Thank you again for clarification. I look forward to watching.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: MerylGoldsmith

The egg comparison raises an interesting point -- flawed as it may be because an eggs doesn't have necks and bodies -- but the comparison suggests that baby would have to been shaken while being held by its head to explain a lack of injury to the neck.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the trailer I believe I saw several prosecutors hold up a baby-sized dummy by its body and shake it to demonstrate, for a jury, the method of injury. Is that correct?

Forgive me, but are you suggesting you think the damage to the neck would have been lessened if the baby was shook by the head? As though the weight of the body would put less pressure on the neck than the weight of the head?

a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

Not at all. I am not sure any medical experts have done research into that method of holding and shaking a baby. I think it's very possible that it, too, would guarantee a neck injury.

My point was really this: If a jury deliberated on a brain injury caused by holding a baby by its body and shaking it (as I saw prosecutors demonstrate in the trailer), I believe there is reasonable doubt based on lack of a neck injury.

I would think the demonstration, alone, could be grounds for reconsidering a conviction.

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

a reply to: Blarneystoner

The filmmakers can correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is the whole point of the film. Babies who have really suffered from SBS have neck injuries. Those that don't may not have been injured from SBS.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Blarneystoner

The filmmakers can correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is the whole point of the film. Babies who have really suffered from SBS have neck injuries. Those that don't may not have been injured from SBS.

Thanks for the response but I would like for the film makers to justify the statement quoted: "shaken baby syndrome is in the realm of mythology."

I think it's irresponsible to make such a blanket statement.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

I just wanted to share my take away. Didn't mean to sound like I was trying to answer for them. Sorry.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No worries... I just think it's important to understand that the film really doesn't debunk SBS at all. It's my understanding that most of the data used to debunk SBS was obtained from test models made in the '80s and '90s. Dr. John Plunkett, who's research and expertise is cited in the film, is a forensic pathologist not a physician.

It may be accurate for the film makers to say that SBS cases which do not involve neck trauma may not be caused by infant shaking but that does not mean that SBS is mythology. The fact is that SBS was initially called "Whiplash Shaken Infant Syndrome" by Dr. John Caffey, one of the early researchers

originally posted by: SusanGoldsmith
a reply to: Boadicea

I am a huge fan of Dr. Squier however this issue did not come up in my reporting and is not dealt with at all in our documentary.

This is not surprising...wouldn't want to get smeared into oblivion

I vaguely remember watching a documentary that implicated a vaccine shot as the cause of a babies death..The father was convicted of shaking his baby to death, and sent away for life.

Would've been nice to see vaccines included in the research.

Regardless, sounds like you're doing positive things.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

I would like for the film makers to justify the statement quoted: "shaken baby syndrome is in the realm of mythology."

I think it's irresponsible to make such a blanket statement.

Me too. I even gave them a direct question asking what they meant by that....

Shining a light on legal injustice is important work, however I fear there are reckless blanket statements and sound bites surrounding this project that could endanger children. The take home message for the average person isn't likely to be the complex reasons and abuses of claiming SBS in the courts - the take home message will be "Shaken Baby Syndrome is a Myth".

I get the desire for shock and the desire to get your name out there... but if just one person disregards advice to not shake their infant in anger because they heard that shaken baby syndrome is just a myth, I don't know how you would sleep at night.

Measured and thoughtful headlines and taglines are in order, even if they are less sensational.

Hey, Goldsmith's, it you're still around my question is:

What's the conspiracy? I'm certainly open to the fact that many cases of SBS are null and void, but in your opinion, why is a few million dollars worth it to these "higher ups" or whatever you'd like to designate them as?

A couple extra million a year is not enough for it to be worth the trouble to most (nearly all) agencies. A few million is bath tissue to the majority that would profit from this. So why all the effort?

Also, thanks for taking the time to chat with us. Best of luck to you all with the release!

a reply to: seaswine

WTH? A few million is a lot of money. It's not "bath tissue" where I live -- in the U.S. of A.

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.