Some context: - A blog post I wrote last year: https://cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-shaken-baby-syndrome-abusive-head-trauma-controversy/ https

Some context: - A blog post I wrote last year: https://cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-shaken-baby-syndrome-abusive-head-trauma-controversy/ https://cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-shaken-... - HN discussion on this blog post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 - A scientific introduction to SBS: https://cyrille.rossant.net/introduction-shaken-baby-syndrome-controversy/ https://cyrille.rossant.net/introduction-shaken-baby-syndrom... To be clear, what has been discredited is not the fact that babies are shaken (studies have consistently shown a high incidence of this type of abuse) nor that shaking is safe (it is not—never shake a baby). What has been discredited by scientific evidence over the past 25 years is the reliance on isolated subdural and retinal hemorrhages in infants to determine with near certainty that a child has been violently shaken, in the absence of a history or evidence of major trauma. Abuse must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering other signs of trauma (fractures, bruises, neck injury) and ruling out a long list of alternative medical explanations. Most importantly, abuse is not a medical determination; it is a legal one.