5 ms·

It is, but those claiming psedoscience aren't even claiming that the set of symptoms aren't "real", just that they don't deserve their own label because of the

It is, but those claiming psedoscience aren't even claiming that the set of symptoms aren't "real", just that they don't deserve their own label because of the implication. "We can't explain this trio of internal head/brain/eye trauma with lack of corresponding external trauma, but don't you dare make the reasonable claim that shaking a baby can/does nominally cause the symptoms we see when a baby is, in fact, shaken."

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
That's not how it goes. Shaking was proposed as an explanation for the triad, not observed as the cause. Then the syndrome was named after the proposed explanation and used as a justification to assume shaking whenever the triad was observed. The Guardian article makes this timeline clear. Moreover, the Syndrome was used to justify suspicion of deliberate harm in cases where the triad was not observed at all, as I think in Roberson's case, if you read between the lines - no article about the case mentions the triad, only generic injuries that could, allegedly, only be caused by shaking.
lisper 3y ago
Sorry, I am very confused here. The comment I was responding to said: > to make that bullshit even worse, Texas continued to use hypnosis induced testimony until 2021. That is a sentiment with which I sympathize. But then... > It makes me wonder when the last death penalty sentence for "shaken baby syndrome" was in Texas. This I don't get. Shaken baby syndrome is a real thing, and it seems to me that if someone shakes a baby to death they are guilty of murder (or at least negligent homicide) and should be treated no differently than if their victim had been older. What does it have to do with hypnosis?
- beerandt 3y ago
  It's all about labels. To discredit and manipulate. Because 4th/5th amendment issues aside, if an interrogation or testimony via hypnosis is verifiable, who cares if hypnosis is 'real' or 'junk science'? If a man shakes a baby and that baby dies, who cares if 'SBS' is 'junk science'? It's still murder. The label shouldn't automatically validate (or invalidate/discredit) the underlying information/ action/ admission.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  I think the point is that you don’t get shaken dead babies without visible external trauma. So saying it’s ‘shaken baby syndrome’ just because there are internal injuries is junk science.
  - lisper 3y ago
    > you don’t get shaken dead babies without visible external trauma. According to the Mayo Clinic you can: "While sometimes there's bruising on the face, you may not see signs of physical injury to the child's outer body."
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Mayo Clinic's info is just a popular science article, with very high level information and suggestions. It doesn't get into the nuance, nor is intended as a validation for facile forensic based witch-hunting.
  - beerandt 3y ago
    Actually opposite. Many forms of trauma can cause these injuries (especially 'trio'), but alone and without matching external trauma, shaking becomes the most likely cause. Which isn't to say that shaking couldn't also cause some external trauma.
    - Aeolun 3y ago
      Isn’t the whole premise of the original article that the thing has been proven to be junk? Just the fact it’s on mayoclinic doesn’t mean all that much.
Yoric 3y ago
My understanding is that you got it backwards. As far as I understand, the claim is that internal head/brain/eye trauma can have many causes, so these symptoms do not automatically mean that the baby was necessarily shaken. Sadly, this combination of symptoms have been named "Shaken Baby Syndrome", which means that people naturally assume that the baby has been shaken, which is apparently a crime in Texas. Had this same syndrome been named "Guthkelch Syndrome", or anything else, the man currently on death row might have been deemed innocent. I, for one, find this scary. Just as (in a very different domain) the "movie piracy == slavery" equation I've seen float in Blockbusters many years ago. When people who don't know better start believing in names/PR/..., this can have very real (in this case, deadly) consequences.
- beerandt 3y ago
  >internal head/brain/eye trauma can have many causes But almost all have corresponding external trauma. The cases that don't have matching external trauma narrow it down considerably. Restrained in a car seat in a rollover wreck? Maybe. Rolled out of her bed? Not really plausible. But might seem like a good excuse for someone looking to cover up abuse. Sort of agree with it being scary that a diagnosis implies a crime, but this is a case where the girl died from bad parenting, whether you call it SBS or not. Hell, even his excuses are giving a 2-year old too many opiates and letting her sleep somewhere she could fall from while sick. Plus lying about the pneumonia, which wasn't present on autopsy.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
    >> But might seem like a good excuse for someone looking to cover up abuse. You have absolutely no way to place any certainty on this "might" at all.
  - Yoric 3y ago
    Well, I have neither the medical knowledge nor any kind of deep understanding of this case necessary to pursue this conversation, so I'll bow out. Thanks for the details!

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago

That's not how it goes. Shaking was proposed as an explanation for the triad, not observed as the cause. Then the syndrome was named after the proposed explanation and used as a justification to assume shaking whenever the triad was observed. The Guardian article makes this timeline clear. Moreover, the Syndrome was used to justify suspicion of deliberate harm in cases where the triad was not observed at all, as I think in Roberson's case, if you read between the lines - no article about the case mentions the triad, only generic injuries that could, allegedly, only be caused by shaking.

lisper 3y ago

Sorry, I am very confused here. The comment I was responding to said: > to make that bullshit even worse, Texas continued to use hypnosis induced testimony until 2021. That is a sentiment with which I sympathize. But then... > It makes me wonder when the last death penalty sentence for "shaken baby syndrome" was in Texas. This I don't get. Shaken baby syndrome is a real thing, and it seems to me that if someone shakes a baby to death they are guilty of murder (or at least negligent homicide) and should be treated no differently than if their victim had been older. What does it have to do with hypnosis?

beerandt 3y ago
It's all about labels. To discredit and manipulate. Because 4th/5th amendment issues aside, if an interrogation or testimony via hypnosis is verifiable, who cares if hypnosis is 'real' or 'junk science'? If a man shakes a baby and that baby dies, who cares if 'SBS' is 'junk science'? It's still murder. The label shouldn't automatically validate (or invalidate/discredit) the underlying information/ action/ admission.
Aeolun 3y ago
I think the point is that you don’t get shaken dead babies without visible external trauma. So saying it’s ‘shaken baby syndrome’ just because there are internal injuries is junk science.
- lisper 3y ago
  > you don’t get shaken dead babies without visible external trauma. According to the Mayo Clinic you can: "While sometimes there's bruising on the face, you may not see signs of physical injury to the child's outer body."
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Mayo Clinic's info is just a popular science article, with very high level information and suggestions. It doesn't get into the nuance, nor is intended as a validation for facile forensic based witch-hunting.
- beerandt 3y ago
  Actually opposite. Many forms of trauma can cause these injuries (especially 'trio'), but alone and without matching external trauma, shaking becomes the most likely cause. Which isn't to say that shaking couldn't also cause some external trauma.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    Isn’t the whole premise of the original article that the thing has been proven to be junk? Just the fact it’s on mayoclinic doesn’t mean all that much.

Yoric 3y ago

My understanding is that you got it backwards. As far as I understand, the claim is that internal head/brain/eye trauma can have many causes, so these symptoms do not automatically mean that the baby was necessarily shaken. Sadly, this combination of symptoms have been named "Shaken Baby Syndrome", which means that people naturally assume that the baby has been shaken, which is apparently a crime in Texas. Had this same syndrome been named "Guthkelch Syndrome", or anything else, the man currently on death row might have been deemed innocent. I, for one, find this scary. Just as (in a very different domain) the "movie piracy == slavery" equation I've seen float in Blockbusters many years ago. When people who don't know better start believing in names/PR/..., this can have very real (in this case, deadly) consequences.

beerandt 3y ago
>internal head/brain/eye trauma can have many causes But almost all have corresponding external trauma. The cases that don't have matching external trauma narrow it down considerably. Restrained in a car seat in a rollover wreck? Maybe. Rolled out of her bed? Not really plausible. But might seem like a good excuse for someone looking to cover up abuse. Sort of agree with it being scary that a diagnosis implies a crime, but this is a case where the girl died from bad parenting, whether you call it SBS or not. Hell, even his excuses are giving a 2-year old too many opiates and letting her sleep somewhere she could fall from while sick. Plus lying about the pneumonia, which wasn't present on autopsy.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  >> But might seem like a good excuse for someone looking to cover up abuse. You have absolutely no way to place any certainty on this "might" at all.
- Yoric 3y ago
  Well, I have neither the medical knowledge nor any kind of deep understanding of this case necessary to pursue this conversation, so I'll bow out. Thanks for the details!