Talk:Shaken baby syndrome

Possible Status as a Legal and Medical Fad

Because SBS isn't the sole cause of subdural hematomas or retinal hemorrhages, some people have no doubt been falsely accused of SUBS. Since this is a highly emotionally charged accusation that currently plays well with jurys, groups have been formed to bring what they see as a more balanced view of these injuries to the legal system.

Because false allegations such as Satanic ritual abuse and the Salem witch trials can sometimes enjoy a brief status as a legal fad, and diagnosis can gain the status of a medical fad, caution must be taken in a legal context to insure the rights of both the accused and the victims of SBS.

This is definatly POV. I'm deleting it until someone can attribute/cite this or otherwize NPOV it.

I have added a Not verified tag to this article. As it stands now this article seriously misrepresents how controversial the diagnosis of SBS is. There are a lot of "Oral" references - 8 in total - these are useless as they can not be verified - you can in fact put anything down and put in Oral after it ie the moon is made of green cheese (Oral). Plus what does the reference to BMJ articles in 2005 mean. I am a subscriber to that august journal and can not find any since 2004. If this is not made more specific I suggest deleting it as it gives an impression of factual basis that may not be in fact true. Chris 9/02/2006

• • "Oral" is the name of the person who wrote the paper referenced. Follow the links attached to teh footnotes and you will see that.204.64.42.246 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the discussions going on here, wouldn't it be more fair to at least mark the whole classification of SBS as "contested"? I know this article is under discussion and that this is visible, but perhaps it should be made more obvious already before the discussion is finished? I got personally very interested in this recently so I can see that the current starting text is a bit misleading for the casual reader and it first after the controversies section that the reader realizes that SBS is contested... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.113.59 (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Whale.to

Ombudsman (talk · contribs) is pushing a link to a bizarre site linking SBS to vaccinations. See his talkpage for more information on this. JFW | T@lk 21:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

to|Whale.to is hardly a 'bizarre' site: it is perhaps among the most comprehensive and well chosen archival resources on the net. "Shaken baby syndrome" + autism nets over 41,000 google hits, while + vaccine gets over 39,000, with the whale.to link at the very top - not at all the position generally found for a 'bizarre' site on an important issue. To dismiss the issue out of hand is, unfortunately, a symptom of the politically induced intolerance toward such matters. If the detractors to the inclusion of this material have done their homework, they would know there are many pediatricians and parents engaged in this aspect of the dispute over vaccine injuries. About the author of the study cited: "Viera Scheibner, PhD, is a retired principal research scientist with a doctorate in natural sciences. During her distinguished career she published three books and some 90 scientific papers in refereed scientific journals. Since the mid-1980s when she helped develop the Cotwatch breathing monitor for babies at risk of cot death (sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS), she has done extensive research into vaccines and vaccinations and in 1993 published her book, Vaccination: The Medical Assault on the Immune System."[1] Ombudsman 22:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As a neutral observer, I can fairly state that Whale.to has a distinct appearance of bizarreness, and its notability among the fringe medicine scene does nothing to increase its suitability as reputable source. Tevildoii (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Even reputable scientists are entitled to a lapse of judgment. JFW | T@lk 08:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

80 papers? Web of knowlage thinks that only three papers have Scheibner V as an author. Of those one has never been cited. "CAFFEINE EXPOSURE IN-UTERO INCREASES THE INCIDENCE OF APNEA IN ADULT-RATS" racks a 8 citations and the remaining letter racks up one citation. I'm not impressed.Geni 11:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

'We' all know it has nothing to do with credentials so lets kill that old deception shall we--called 'word game' or ad hominem in propaganda research http://www.whale. to/a/word_game.html]('bizarre site'--Jdwolff. Bizarre being her euphamism for thinking exposing medical faults). Never mind how many medical doctors or scientists like Scheibner link vaccines or vit C deficiency to SBS, Some here http://www.whale. to/a/bayati1.html Bayati] http://www.whale. to/v/buttram68.html Buttram MD] http://www.whale. to/vaccines/kalokerinos.html Kalokerinos MD] http://www.whale. to/v/sbs.html Donhoe MD] http://www.whale. to/vaccines/yazbak.html Yazbak MD] [or how many parents have been falsly accused http://www.whale. to/m/sbs23.html]with vaccines, vit c defiency and brittle bones being ignored. It is just the vaccinators (drug using medical doctors--allopaths) usual way of dealing with vaccine criticism or vitamin C issues--suppress it. Parents and other laypeople are deemed to stupid to do their own thinking--stupidity being the state they want us in so they can carry on regardless. Medical editors like Jdfwolff ought to be exposed as suppressors of truth, and how many children have been killed by actions such as that over the years? They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. 86.128.165.240 12:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with 86.128.165.240 that information about vaccines and their side effects should not be suppressed. However, the whale.to link is not an appropriate source for this information because of the competing extremist information and conspiracy theories as outlined on the RFC on Talk:MMR vaccine. As already reviewed by InvictaHOG, the commentary on http://http://www.whale. to/b/sp/for.html Illuminati mind control], http://www.whale. to/b/protocols1.html Jewish conspiracy], http://whale. to/v/biowarfare.html genocide via vaccination], http://whale. to/b/columbus.html Roman Catholics], http://whale. to/b/janus.html psychic assassins], http://whale. to/b/skull.html Mormons], http://whale. to/b/cronkite.html Walter Cronkite], http://whale. to/b/demons_q.html demons sacrificing girls for growth hormone], or http://whale. to/b/implants.html links to alien implant removers] distracts from the criticisms of vaccines and decreases the value of whale.to link. Andrew73 13:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That is an ad hominem reason, basically, using those 'hard to believe' items to distract from the medical information. That is what a medical person would do, and I see you are one Andrew--interests in hematology and oncology. You even have a Protocols page on Wikipedia [2], and the whale page doesn't mention Jewish conspiracy, only a quote saying the Jesuits wrote it http://www.whale. to/b/protocols1.html], they are Catholic as I recall. You try and prove those things don't exist--you can't--you have to collect them to do the research, and that is basically what whale.to is, a database of material to find the truth. 86.128.205.40 15:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

86.128.205.40 (all your IP iterations!), I would like to invite you to continue this discussion at the designated RfC (Talk:MMR vaccine) so that your valuable comments may be incorporated into the general discussion and not missed by the general Wikipedia community. I personally believe that the tone and content of non-vaccine sections at whale.to whale.to] in general reflects poorly on the position of those seeking change in the current vaccination schema. The information should be free, not wrapped in a shell of off-putting conspiracy theory about unrelated subjects. I look forward to hearing your thoughts about the discussions underway at the RfC! As for the Protocols at whale.to, you will see that Protocols has a charge against the Jewish people for using vaccination. Whale.to highlights this. InvictaHOG 15:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Whale doesn't seek change in vaccination, it is anti-vaccine. Use of the term 'conspiracy theory' is just ad hominem. The Protocols don't mention Jewish that I can see, but that is basic ad hominem. The information on whale about vaccination is irrefutable and well documented, which is why medical Wiki editors want to suppress links to it. They can't deal with the facts on whale.to about vaccination, as those facts take apart vaccination completely, so they have to use ad hominem 'conspiracy theory', buzzwords (eg protocols, child sacrifice, satanism, psychic assassinations)etc which you hope the average uninformed person will think weird and unbelievable, more likely trigger a FEAR response causing rejection with a RATIONALISATION--- instead of reasoned argument--as they know they don't have an argument--see my reply to their mumps vaccine man [3]. Smallpox vaccination, for example, is completely shredded. And you obviously have no idea about conspiracies, or are covering up the medical one/medical monopoly, which has been well documented by researchers such as Mullins, Lanctot MD, Bealle, Hans Ruesh, Coulter etc http://www.whale. to/a/medical_mafia.html]. Which is the only reason vaccination continues. When you have a monopoly it is by definition Fascism, as Fascism is when Corporations run the country, and anyone with half a brain can see Corporations run the country. It is getting more obvious every day. 86.128.169.252 18:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place on Talk:MMR vaccine, where the suitability of whale.to is discussed in more detail. JFW | T@lk 21:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you'll find even more examples of Name Calling by vaccinators like Jd and Hog trying to suppress links to an anti-vaccine website! john 14:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The anti-vaccinator doing his own share of name-calling. Blah blah blah. JFW | T@lk 22:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't expect you to understand the meaning of 'name calling' but calling you a vaccinator isn't 'name calling', it is 'labelling'. The beginning of wisdom is to call things by the right names. That way I can never waste time expecting you to see the sense of my argument, as it is mostly impossible for vaccinators to become anti-vaccinators, given the nature of medical beliefs and politics, as well documented over the centuries. And I like to point that out to the not so enlightened, hence the labelling. Also, many medical doctors like to live with the delusion that they are unbiased. I have to live with the truth, so you can too. john 20:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I consider myself biased against your incessant agitation. Howzat. JFW | T@lk 22:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not the result of shaking?

The comment in the article, "Despite its name it rarely occurs as a result of actually shaking a baby" was not cited, and was contradicted in every source I have found (although some sources talk about impact in addition to or instead of shaking). So I added a different sentence and made that one invisible, because it would be weird to have the article say two completely opposite things. Can anyone cite the source for the statement? If you make it reappear, you'll have to take out my sentences or somehow reconcile them. --Delldot 06:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that this page is targeted because some people insist that any childhood illness without randomized controlled trials documenting pathophysiology are instead the result of things like vaccination. Most likely there will be a subpar, POV link soon. Thanks for improving the article, it's been on my list! InvictaHOG 14:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

___ if you google Dr. Plunkett, he has said that it is extremely rare (as in since 1978 ) he has not seen any baby that has actually died from just shaking. there HAS to be a pretty hefty "slam" invovled. I'm reading a case people v. leslie martin, where a Bronx man was accused of shaking his 5-month-old daughter. his lawyer was among the first ever in the Bronx to try to disprove sbs. Martin was aquitted of murder in the 2nd and served 2 years. __

You know, that makes sense in that it's in line with what I've heard about Diffuse axonal injury, a really common result of shaking. DAI is also rarely a cause of death, but a frequent cause of vegetative state because the parts of the brain affected are often the ones that regulate concsiousness but not as much the centers that regulate functions necessary for survival. So it's not surprising that you say that impact is more deadly than shaking. On the other hand, in an EMT recertification class I recently took, the instructor stressed that if caretakers claim the baby fell from a bed or something and that's the cause of the symptoms that you should be suspicious, because in a study they found that only a very small percentage of actual falls can produce the symptoms found in SBS, unless the fall is from somewhere really high like a second story window. In that same class, they stressed how hard babies are shaken in this type of abuse: One confessed abuser was quoted as saying something like 'you'd be surprised his head didn't fall off,' he shook him so hard. So the sheer force involved might explain why shaking would produce those types of symptoms, which may otherwise be perplexing. delldot | talk 03:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that several studies have indicated that the "typical" brain injuries associated with SBS could be present in a signficant percentage of newborn (otherwise healthy) babies directly after birth. For instance as shown by Prevalence and Evolution of Intracranial Hemorrhage in Asymptomatic Term Infants (which also refers to other studies with similar findings). Sorry, missed my signature. Algernon71 (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably need some sources that clearly make the above statement - ie/ "typical" brain injuries associated with SBS could be present in a signficant percentage of newborn (otherwise healthy) babies directly after birth which the source above doesn't actually say. Shot info (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of link to relevant information (eg. whale.to)

Geni, maybe you could clarify your reason for removing links on vaccine topic pages (at least this, Chickenpox and Vaccine) and engaging in edit wars on that? Jkpjkp 17:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The link was inserted again[4]. The (un)acceptability of whale.to as an external link has been discussed on Talk:MMR vaccine, and I think nothing more needs to be said over here. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff (and many others) is just continuing the 200 year history of medical industry suppression of vaccine damage, and vaccine criticism. 86.128.165.240 12:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place on Talk:MMR vaccine, where the suitability of whale.to is discussed in more detail. JFW | T@lk 21:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

All links to whale.to articles are being suppressed by JFW and InvictaHog, two allopath editors, as they don't want any anti-vaccine or vaccine critic point of view. Which just points out the bias of Wiki on medical matters. To see what they are afraid of read this http://www.whale. to/b/hoax1.html whale article].86.128.205.102 08:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Baloney. It's not the criticsm we're suppressing, it's whale.to. JFW | T@lk 11:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Creating page to Dr Archie Kalokerinos MD

I am interested to hear there is a yardstick we can put on people to see if they should be linked on Wiki. I would like to know what is acceptable so I can see if he fits it, and I also would like to run the rule over some of the other linked articles and people. Is it peer reviewed articles published, years in clinical practice, personal recommendation from well established scientists? You see, I would rather you put it in writing as I think it is unfair if you are the only one with the rulebook, as people who own the rulebooks can be tempted to move the goalposts, especially if no one else can see what is in the book. Secondly, I don't accept that you are qualified to be the judge for the reason you are an allopathic physician and Dr Kalokerinos is an orthomolecular physician, so you are biased from the position of medical politics, quite apart from your ignorance of the subject, which you are demonstrating now by trying to keep him off Wiki. Thirdly since you have orthomolecular scientists eg Irwin Stone [5] and Linus Pauling [6] on Wikipedia I find it extraordinary that you don't want the physicians on also, as what use is the science if no one puts it into clinical practice? Fourthly, and most significant, you already have two on, Dr Klenner [7], and Abram Hoffer [8], so not only should a link to put to his articles or my page devoted to him, but a page should be put up to him on Wiki. He duplicated most of Fred Klenner's clinical work, and did much more besides, so he is deserves a page more than them. Not forgetting his research into shaken baby syndrome (he has acted as an expert witness), so a link to his page on whale.to would be also sensible. john 13:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I dealt with this character on Talk:Sudden infant death syndrome. JFW | T@lk 14:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is a foreword to his book by Linus Pauling [9]. So that is a recommendation by a Nobel prizewinner (the only person in history to individually receive two Nobel Prizes), I think I'll take that over your opinion. john 20:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal and Technical Concerns

Tulane Med School, J Am Physicians & Surgeons, criminal trial court admonitions are not fringe sources. Please try to respond on a technical level. Nor is this just an "orthomolecular" or "vitamin C" issue, it is about a basic, airtight, science based approach to "mainstream" SBS protocols (clarified) founded on the cumulative body of 20th century science and medicine. I think you should recognize that I have tried hard to neutrally downplay certain sensitivities. --69.178.31.177 06:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The citations you've given are from only one person (who is now emeritus at Tulane) and the journal you cite is far from a mainstream medical journal. In fact, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not even indexed on PubMed! Given these factors, the vitamin C deficiency hypothesis has to be viewed with considerable skepticism. Andrew73 13:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Emeritus is CABC's advantage here, he has seen stuff you won't see. I think mom, pop and society would like as complete, measured answers as possible on $1+ million multiple life altering decisions, not just the word of 'ex-spurts'. --69.178.31.177 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, references to only one person's opinion have been provided. If this was an "airtight" observation, I would have expected other people to have published similar opinions. Andrew73 14:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(Later clarification: airtight in * "mainstream" SBS procedures* --69.178.31.177 03:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

As I said, 'sensitivities' here. On 1/2 doz refs, Tulane is "mainstream" and CABC is reasonably concise and focused for an average reader. --69.178.31.177 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a "sensitivity" issue. We're talking about only one person's opinion. Just because he works at an academic institution does not automatically mean his views are mainstream. Mainstream means more than one person's view. Andrew73 15:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing what people with academic credentials get away with these days. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We most definitely are not talking about just one person's opinion, just an appropriate ref. Tulane is mainstream, the author highly credentialed, and tends to imply some previous anchor point. I am simply steering a wide berth around authors that mention vaccine injury/involvement beyond a secondary or peripheral degree, in part because of the ongoing outbursts exchanged, as above and MMR - I am not interested to participate. It is important to note that some of the questioned SBS diagnosis problems are instances of "single point observations" i.e. allowing just retinal hemorrhages rather than the "triad". This nutriture position is also partly delineated in the external link at the bottom of the SBS article. Further, here is one 'satisfied' family[10]: almost destroyed on the single issue of retinal hemorrhages; her suggested lengthy test schedule greatly exceeds this nutriture position. After Sardi: "adults who are vitamin C deficient may exhibit retinal hemorrhages" Postgraduate Medical Journal 66: 687, 1990; "vitamin C and bioflavonoids resolve cases of retinal hemorrhage" J Medicine Lyon 53: 1681-86, 1972.

A highly credentialed professor he may be, but what he argues about shaken baby syndrome is not mainstream (who knows, maybe time will prove me wrong). Take for example, Peter Duesberg, who is obviously quite accomplished...do you also believe his controversial views on HIV just because he is a tenured professor? Finally, I can see the link between scurvy and retinal hemorrhages (at least the isolated case report in the journal you cite is more "mainstream"), but again this association and shaken baby syndrome is tenuous at best. Andrew73 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought the whole section is pretty obviously outside "mainstream", even if it primarily questions a perceived gap in high stakes procedures and mentions their constructive responses - technically conservative in the sense of covering the bases. Take jfdw's roll of the eyes, I am simply trying to make sure that CABC and his refs are not casually dismissed as is so popular here. Tenuous? For doctors under 70, it almost seems as though the bulk of vitamer/nutrient research never even took place, as if lost in a proprietary wilderness for over 40 yrs. I am truly curious what US med school really thinks that it still covers this research. It seems like we "merely" forgot the Apollo (moon) program, and are now all "denialists" because we can't go there now. --69.178.31.177 03:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add another scientist as a source who is questioning the whole concept of SBS, namely Dr Waney Squire for instance from the following articles: Shaken baby syndrome: the quest for evidence. and here Beyond resonable doubt. I also recall hearing her recently testify (in court) about that there are studies showing that the typical brain bleedins described for SBS might even be quite common in otherwise healthy new-born babies! This could mean that the main reason that SBS even became a hypothesis is beccause you rarely do MRI scans on healthy babies and hence have a bad point of reference. I will see if I can get hold of her to comment on this and maybe provide the source of this information/study. Algernon71 (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotation from Archie Kalokerinos

I trimmed out the quotation from Kalokerinos. A couple lines about the vitamin C hypothesis should be sufficient, not a whole monograph (should every point in the article be supplemented with lines and lines of quotations?). Andrew73 21:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Organization of article is goofy

This article is quite disorganized. Obviously some contributors have a strong POV to discredit the concept of SBS. Skepticism regarding parts of SBS is not unreasonable, inasmuch it is difficult to duplicate the condition in lower animals, and institutional boards have understandably not been forthcoming on intentional shaking of nonsedated higher primates. Nonetheless, skepticism should properly be voiced in its own section within the article, not distributed throughout the portions attempting to the describe the syndrome itself.

The idea that SBS is a "theory" does not in any way invalidate the condition. Evolution by natural selection is "only" a theory, E=mc² is only a theory, elevated LDL/low HDL contribution to coronary artery disease is only a theory, even cigarette smoking contribution to lung carcinoma is only a theory. Some theories have more or better data to support them. It takes time to gather supporting and contradicting data. That's how science works.

The majority of medical professionals accept the reality of SBS as the "best" explanation for the clinical situation presented by infants with the appropriate signs and symptoms. This does not invalidate the naysayers among the lay, legal, and medical populations. Still, before presenting contrary views / links, the Wiki article should at least present the medical description first! SBS is first a medical diagnosis, and only secondarily a social phenomenon and legal issue. Mixing contrary opinions with the primary description makes the article unreadable at best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bticho (talk • contribs) .

Well, in theory I agree, but the fact is that SBS HAS in several verifiable cases been used as a diagnosis that is more or less proven 100% and then afterwards turned out to be wrong (like the woman in the BBC documentary that was acquited as innocent after several years in prison). Isn't fair to say that people viewing this article for the first time should be made aware of the problems with SBS?

Let's face it, SBS IS problematic from a justice security point-of-view. And since many people use the wikipedia as a first point of information for learning about a subject it seems somewhat important to me to make sure that the first section at least encourages the reader to get informed. While most of us who contribute knows that you need to read more than the first section to know about a subject, there are many people that might stop there and be more or less uninformed about the fact that there IS relevant critizism to consider!?!Algernon71 (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate references

I added a few references to demonstrate that there are plenty of actual scientific studies supporting the SBS concept. I could obviously go on, adding many, many more, but the point is: including articles on "scurvy" in a Wiki article about shaken baby syndrome is silly. If you've got any decent science (even half-decent science) documenting scurvy in SBS-type patients, please post that. And material from the scurvy literature of 100 years ago before SBS was even recognized would not make good references.

The reference section should be purged to the normal Wiki length of a few, truly representative articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bticho (talk • contribs) .

Anatomy and pathophysiology

I have re-added information that was lost in User:70.171.229.32's zeal. The section had lost all information relating to the actual anatomy and physiology of the condition. Also remember to use edit summaries. ... discospinster _talk 03:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

9/10 Oct'06 revision of refs

The article had a bizzar system of inline url links and a manually organised list of references that duplicated the url external links - yet neither linked to the other (and there is one extra inline link not included in the references, so the numbers were out of sync). Generally eithe rHarvard styling (Author, Year) is used with a reference section in alphabetical order, or a footbnote system such as the older {{ref|}} {{note|}}, or the newer system of cite.php (see WP:FOOTNOTES.

I've moved the refs in accordance with cite.php ref system. This also then allows duplicate citing of the same source via duplicate links.

I tend to highlight the references when viewed in edit mode by use of html hidden tags (oterh editors structure over several lines, indentiting in teh process) - but thats just my preference.

Finally the citation markup is non-standard (yes I know there is no absolute guideline on this), but the citation templates lend themselves to linking on an article's title. This is assumed as a default to be to an html webpage unless otherwise specified in a format parameter. Finally accessdate used to check the validity of an external url address can be shown.

Finally try to use PubMed to search for papers, and the PubMed abstract number can be inserted into Diberri's tool] to autogenerate cite journal template markup. David Ruben ^Talk 23:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone please fix this article!

Due to vandalism by User:70.171.229.32, several responsible attempts to make this a standard Wiki article have been undermined. As written by the above user, there is hardly any accurate, non-biased or useful information about shaken baby syndrome as understood by the general medical community (as opposed to SBS deniers).--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bticho (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 October 2006

Partisan deprecation of an editor's efforts should be avoided. These edits look legit, if obviously reflecting a current controversy and a new editor. Seems other parties with legal and scientific clue-sticks have not yet achieved serious medical industry attention to the concept of researching, evaluating, documenting, and excluding alternate hypotheses with a biological basis. Please show us some data (references) that strongly address these specific points to support such an assertion. Constructive contributions are welcome.--TheNautilus 09:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I don't deny that there is such a thing as SBS. It concerns me greatly that simple, even cheap data are not collected that would provide retrospective information. Also I would classify each mistakenly prosecuted case as a multimillion dollar error that may leave a wife and siblings without support, missing a parent, and an innocent person in prison. An unjustly convicted innocent is something the founders strove strenuously to avoid. Further, if such data were collected, it might help resolve some other medical related controversies. So who's afraid of science and a few facts?--TheNautilus 09:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize to User:70.171.229.32, but do not agree that her edits are legitimate. A standard article about a disease should describe the standard understanding of the disease, as understood by the medical community first. User:70.171.229.32 thwarted attempts to organize the article with objections / controversies placed separately within the article. This is partisanship.

I am not sure which cheap data you're hoping to see on SBS. I agree that a nationwide study of SBS is needed, but this would not be cheap. A retrospective study is not likely to be enough, as you probably would not have adequate control of SBS inclusion criteria to satisfy critics. The idea that scurvy or osteogenesis imperfecta are legitimate alternative explanations is pretty lame. I agree that it will be pretty easy to demonstrate this, though to spend NIH money to show that scruvy is not prevalent in modern society is a little sad.

Although I sympathize with innocent persons falsely accused of child abuse, they are still alive, and they have means of legal defense. 1 and 2 year old abuse and murder victims need advocates too. The Wikipedia article should not attempt to solve this problem, but present the current understanding in a logical fashion: first the medical description, than the objections and controversies. Just don't mix them together. Bticho 11:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is *not* just a medical article, especially if they *are* all abuse cases. "Medicine" glommed on to a social issue in the 70s *and* has been successfully challenged on its thin science cover in the legal arena (I can remember roommates from college first remarking on this new reporting expectation with concern during residency, it sounded like an alien invasion then and it sounds like the chickens are coming home to roost now). Cheap data would be checking "clear" body fluids at presentation and autopsy for vitamin C presence. The apparent presence of vitamin C wouldn't really conclusively confirm the abuse hypothesis but its absence would be definitely notable, deserving of followup. The vitamin C problem described is not considered classical, persistent scurvy and so does not appear on the medical radar. If one wants to help effectively address legitimate abuse cases (e.g. convince a knowledgable jury), the lack of data *is* a scientific gap problem. Medicine doing its homework, especially at autopsy, to exclude several defenses would scientifically tighten real abuse cases considerably. User:70.171.229.32's edits are notable both for the actual legal results with a rising internet concern, *and* that they have multiple scientific support from long standing medical observations that appear unchallenged by relevant scientific data in the conventional medical wisedom. They are encyclopedic with several major populations in play (medicine v science v social welfare v population v legal).

The measurement issue is most credible in the Clemetson references. In case some don't recognize who C Alan Clemetson is, he was one of conventional medicine's big guns on vitamin C (e.g. 3 huge volumes at CRC Press) in the 70s and 80s (he seems to be actively retired as prof emeritus). Current medical protocols *have* been seriously questioned as legally and scientifically deficient protocols and represent only one, albeit major, facet of this touchy article. May I suggest that you explore how to work cooperatively with User:70.171.229.32 to find a balanced, rational presentation of a multifaceted issue? IMHO, the Intro should make passing reference(s) to the potentially confounded/overlapped diagnosis problem, revisited in the article, and the block quote, 3rd paragraph - Caffey originally hypothesized... is not Intro material. Again you are dealing with a new editor, AGF. That may require patience and education.--TheNautilus 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article is ludicrous and currently next to useless. The syndrome with its current medical and legal usage needs to be clearly described as any other medical condition. There should be a "criticism" section describing the minority of people who for various reasons attack the concept. A reader should be able to discern the difference between the usages and viewpoints, and the major flaw here is that widely accepted and fringe or unsupported concepts which are inextricably mixed. Much of the article now has a "how to defend yourself when you "accidentally" beat up your baby" flavor. alteripse 15:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The contention that there is unanimity among the medical community is wrong, and presenting the topic as if there were would be incorrect. There is not a medical consensus, and the "momentum" of the topic is actually to discredit the previously accepted concepts about SBS -- to the point that more recent textbooks in forensic pathology discuss it in terms of "The Shaken Baby Controversy" (for instance, see Forensic Pathology: Principles and Practice, David Dolinak et al. Elsevier Press, 2005) rather than in terms of an accepted pathophysiologic process. That different specialties view it with differing scepticism is not surprising; the same thing happened with respect to near-SIDS/suffocation a few years ago. The bottom line is that this topic is up in the air. Any article that portrays it as an established diagnosis is wrong. Any article that portrays it as completely debunked is wrong. User:Billollib 22:04, 19 October 2006

And yet the current mixture doesn't represent that idea at all. Why don't you give us a synopsis of the perspective and controversy as described in recent forensic medicine texts. It would be far better than this. alteripse 01:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the "Focus" reference which is not an "independent review" as previously described, but rather a single doctor's editorial. This editorial clearly states that it does not represent the views of the Royal Society. IMHO, such an article does not deserve the amount of space devoted to it in the Wiki article, as there are more pluralistic consensus reviews by pediatric ophthalmology groups. Contrary to Dr. Newman's editorial, the vast majority of pediatric ophthalmologists are comfortable with the generally accepted pathophysiology of SBS. The fact that there is no good animal model is largely due to researcher reluctance to purposefully shake higher primates, for ethical reasons.

If anyone would question that there is a strong consensus on what SBS is in the medical community, ask a pediatrician. We see them come in bleeding from injuries and dying as their brain swells, stay up with them all night tightly managing their ventilators and infusions, and if they don't die, send them vegetative to long stints in rehab with tracheostomies. For the whole admission we spend more time listening to parents' alternative theories of the injury instead of discussing the patient's care meaningfully. Honestly, we wouldn't suspect abuse if not for the sheer number of these cases we see with these sequelae that involve some individual fessing up as the perpetrator. At least among doctors that actually spend time with these kids, I have never heard the diagnosis questioned as a clinical entity.Hmmhmmhmm (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Occular manifestations

I reverted back the deleted sections on occular manifestations (blanked as ref tag error threw the whole article into disorder), correcting the opening & closing ref tags so that it displayed correctly.

Shaken baby syndrome though needs some reorganisation - it is getting quite long and the additional information is both perhaps a little too detailed too quickly (articles should slowly increase in complexity of knowledge) and sits awkwardly in the current article structure.

• It is disporportionately long compared to other features of SBS mentioned - perhaps this is appropriate to some extent if occular signs are the most impirtant (I don't know as not my area of expertese). Reducing down the occular discussion is one option (but would be a shame), increasing discussion of other features (but I'm not sure length discussion on brain stem or cerebral hispopathology features are appropriate for a general encyclopaedia) or separating this out as a separate article with just a short paragraph summarising main points here (with a {{main|XXX}} tag used to point the reader to a more detailed article on the specific sub-topic, eg Shaken baby syndrome occular manefestations).
• Finally articles on disease should generally follow the standard article layout (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles)): Symptoms and signs, Cause/Etiology, Diagnosis, Pathophysiology, Treatment/Management, Prognosis, Prevention/Screening, Epidemiology, History, Social Impact, Notable cases. The occular additions forms a very neat coherent whole, so I'm not sure how one would split it to have Symptoms & signs (for occular and other features), pathophysioology (for occular and other features), diagnosis (for occular and other features), treatment (for occular and other features) etc.
  • In its current form, we have Signs and symptoms (intro and only discussion of non-occular features), a subsection of Occular manefestations (which is listing the signs & symptoms) with sub-subsection on Mechaism (the pathophysiology) and likewise its treament, then jump back up for other features non-occular features to 'Anatomy & pathophysiology', 'Prognois' etc:

1 Signs and symptoms	intro and only discussion of signs of non-occular features
...1.1 Ocular manifestations	which is listing the signs & symptoms
......1.1.1 Mechanism of ocular injuries	the pathophysiology
......1.1.2 Treatment of ocular injuries
2 Anatomy and pathophysiology	which is only about neck & brain injuries (no memntion of occular)
3 Prognosis	which is only about prognosis from the direct brain injuries.
4 Prevention

The two options here are to use a separate page, eg Shaken baby syndrome occular manefestations, or to divide up the occular manifestations and its sub sections across the top-level sections: Signs & Symptoms, Anatomy & Pathophysiology, Prognosis. David Ruben ^Talk 14:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a sentence[11] to address what I think are Stroll's immediate concerns about "ocular balance".--TheNautilus 02:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the inserted section on “Ocular” to be shorter, more informative (easily comprehended), accurate, and objective by providing information from and a link to the American Academy of Ophthalmology’s web site [12] for “Shaken Baby Syndrome Resources.” This web page has sections on - Child Abuse - Shaking Injury - Ocular Involvement – Prognosis - Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) – Reporting - Additional Resources and Figures; in addition to references. Also added information from an independent review of prominent Ophthalmology studies and their findings concerning "Inflicted Childhood Neurotrauma" (SBS) that was published in the Spring 2005 issue of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists' "Focus."[13] Added four references documenting other causes of retinal hemorrhages.

The Stroll 01:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yurko, the hero of anti-vaxers and the ICA

(copyvio from http://truthinjustice.org/yurko.htm deleted here) LeadSongDog come howl 02:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

next topic, prevention

Any objection to pruning the prevention section? Prevention is basically "don't abuse your child" and belongs in the child abuse article, rather than in an article on a specific type of abuse. It contributes nothing to the reader's understanding of SBS. Again, my goal is to prune the junk so we can begin to deal with the real topic. We don't need expansive discussion of other causes of crying in this article. Sepsis?-- I could give you 90 more diseases that cause babies to cry. alteripse 13:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points. In an article on murder, we don't list among the preventive measures: don't insult people, don't jump in front of their guns or knives, don't hang around with known criminals, don't default on loan payments from Mafia loan sharks, etc.. Removing the responsibility for the commission of a crime is abominable. To excuse crime is to justify it, in which case it is no longer a crime. It can often be explained, but that is not the same as excusing it. We can also forgive wrong actions, but forgiveness doesn't make them right or remove the responsibility for their commission. On the contrary, it makes it clear that the action was wrong, and an ethically mature person will accept the responsibility for their actions and will also pay the price without attempts to evade it. -- Fyslee 10:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, having done it and read about it for the last six years, since our son was shaken, I can assure you that effective prevention is not simply telling a parent or caregiver "don't shake your baby." A very effective prevention was developed at Children's Hospital of Buffalo in 1998: since it was introduced, the incidence of shaking and inflicted head trauma has decreased by approximately 50%. Dias et al. Pediatrics, April 2005. It uses a video (Portrait of Promise, Mid-West Children's Resource Center) and a few minutes of a nurse's time to teach new parents about the vulnerability of young children to shaking injuries. Since 2001, we've been working with maternity hospitals in the lower Hudson Valley to establish education programs for new parents. Ten states, including New York, now require maternity hospitals to offer new parents the opportunity to see a video and learn what they can do to protect their child from injury. having seen that particular video 30 or forth times, I think there is one very important key to its effectiveness: it shows children who survived shaking, with the resulting disabilities. In doing so, it makes the consequences clear and unequivocal. When we surveyed new parents, they tell us the education is useful and that all new parents should have the opportunity to see the video. By demonstrating that it does happen to all kinds of kids, and all kinds of families, it also removes the protection we all feel when we can distinguish "those kind of people" from us. The only protection is to talk with other caregivers, make them aware of the vulnerability of young children to shaking and other injuries and make sure they have a coping strategy. The cause of SBS (and other injuries inflicted by caregivers) is NOT crying. In many cases, it's the response of an adult caregiver to the loss of control. Crying, sleeplessness, tantrums, feeding and toilet training are all issues cited as the trigger. Education is not absolute protection. I've seen a handful of cases where the parent - always a male, usually a father - had seen the video and still shook his child. Of course, most of us have seen plenty of videos that illustrate the consequences of smoking by the time we graduate high school, but we haven't seen a 50% reduction in smoking. Before anyone spends money on studies to determine the role of Vitamin C in SBS, I hope they first fund a comprehensive look at the interplay between a parent's understanding of early childhood development, expectations of infant behavior, need for control and inflicted injuries. I also hope the biomechanicists who say that shaking can't inflict observed injuries take a look at some of the current work in brain trauma modeling and consider how shearing forces propagate through the cell and fluid structures of the brain. One key we have learned is to reframe the discussion with parents from the classic context of child abuse - "you should never, ever shake a baby" - to injury prevention - "you need to know how to help others keep your child safe." It really, really helps parents turn their ears on to the message. It also helps educators deliver that message. In sum, prevention has a place in this discussion of SBS. When you talk about illnesses, you talk about vaccination, don't you? See Smallpox. 24.161.118.13 04:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)gwl1950

Clean-up

I found this article fairly disorganized and difficult to understand. I think some of the medical jargon should be simplified, or at least explained.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.28.113 (talk • contribs)

This article is absolutely terrible! Filled with references to irrelevant articles (Orbital hemorrhage in scurvy -- this is not SBS!) and dubious publications (Orthomolecular Medicine? Redbook?). Having done some research on SBS for a school project, I was hoping to get better information from Wikipedia. Whoever wrote the diatribe on scurvy causing SBS should be ashamed. IMHO ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.230.3 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, this page needs a lot of work. I think we should be mindful of WP:UNDUE in this case. I can work on it, and would appreciate help. delldot talk 00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I think the article goes into too much detail with specific journal articles. I'd like to propose that we remove a lot of the extensive quoting and rather briefly paraphrase the most important. Also, I think we should move some of the stuff under #symptoms to under the controversy section. Everything other than the description of the symptoms. Any objections? delldot talk 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no objections. The article as it stands is in no way encyclopedic and poorly written and laid out. The emphasis on copying blockquotes is indiosyncratic and does not lend itself to an article but rather appears to be pushing a POV. Shot info 02:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently no objections, so I'm going to remove a lot of the quoting and what appears to be synthesis from primary sources. Let me know if there's any problem. delldot talk 16:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking good so far. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started removing extensive quoting and what looks like POV pushing, let me know if I've gone too far. delldot talk 03:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

I moved the material on alternative explanations into its own section. The section on "Signs & Symptoms" now actually details just that, not alternative explanations for these signs & symptoms. The material I moved is certainly controversial; it does not constitute a description of the disease, which is what is implied by the words "signs" and "symptoms". Although the moved material is also much longer than probably appropriate for a Wikipedia article (particularly compared to the material describing the actual entity Shaken Baby Syndrome, rather than non-shaken baby syndrome conditions), I did not shorten it, though this would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.230.3 (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good going! Keep going, I'll keep working on it too. delldot talk 11:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bone disorders

I'm removing the bone disorders paragraph as irrelevant. Some of the sources cited for "mimic SBS, even before birth" obviously do not support that statement; some are from before SBS existed. I can't access them all, but none of them are about SBS, so I'm not sure they're supporting this either. If someone feels that this material should be kept, specific quotes from the sources (e.g. using the quote= paramater in the citation templates) would be helpful.

It looks like there may be a problem throughout this article with the references not supporting claims of the article. delldot talk 11:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I can detail the last 14 years of the first 18 years of my life and relate many of the instances where my parents, classical degreed musicians, and "educators," and the "reasons" they used, to justify shaking me. I am 64 years old, have a B.A. in four majors, reached rank of Major in the Army: Combat Infantry Badge, Expert Infantry Badge, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, and numerous other military awards and recommendations and diplomas; operated an Engineering R&D laboratory for the last 12 years of my career; and was put onto total disability at 55 years after the fourth major spinal column surgery alarmed my corporation's Division Executive. My Neurosurgeon actually cried as he described the condition of my cervical vertibrae after the last surgery; he also commented that "he had met my mother, and understood." My Orthopaedic Surgeon concurred. I am available for witness. May my pain prevent any future child's repetition; so help me God! wolnertj@hotmail.com

Hi Wolnert - unfortunately personal witness is not a reliable source per our Wikipedian policies - click on this WP:RS to have a look at what we are after to add the info into the article. Thanks for your input though and feel free to have a go at editing the article. Shot info (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

New Study

http://thecrimereport.org/2009/06/22/faulty-science/

I think this article is going to be due for a major re-write, as the science continues to contradict the entire scare of SBS. Jfiling (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not a terrible source, but a better one would be a medical journal since the question we're dealing with is "what is mainstream medical opinion?" (See WP:RS and WP:MEDMOS). Since we're trying to find out what the medical consensus is, we should look for reviews from the most respected journals: JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, etc. first. Of course other journals and textbooks work well also. Popular press is not as good for medical articles because they don't always represent the science well, and they may have a bias toward the spectacular over the commonplace. But yeah, it would be really good to find some statements in review articles about what the majority of medical experts think about this. I don't know myself, how much of this controversy involves respected medical professionals and how much is fringe groups or individuals? A pubmed search would be a good start, I'll try to do one soon. delldot ∇. 21:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The actual law review article seems to be concerned with the use of a diagnostic triad (retinal hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, and cerebral edema) as the sole criteria for calling a case "shaken baby syndrome". All 3 of those entities can occur with non-inflicted traumatic injuries, though generally they are less common. The more current research here has focused on other predictors that can help differentiate an inflicted from a non-inflicted head injury; see PMID 15342832, PMID 15519438, PMID 12612243, PMID 15231923. I don't know how useful it is to call SBS a "scare tactic"; for every outraged voice arguing that SBS doesn't exist or is overdiagnosed, there's a compensatory outrage over children who are left in abusive situations despite clear warning signs (e.g. PMID 19050665). It may also be useful to draw a distinction between areas of medical controversy and areas of legal controversy; reliable sources exist in both areas, but probably should not be applied across domains. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

I believe this journal is actually the publication of a fringe activist group rather than a reliable, neutral medical journal. I think we should remove material that uses only this journal as a source. I'm going to go ahead and do that now since I've seen this debate before (e.g. at illegal immigration), but it can be replaced if it's decided that it is a reliable source or if there's other sources for the info. I linked here from WT:MED to get more input. delldot ∇. 23:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This has come up repeatedly; the consensus has been, repeatedly, that this journal is generally not an appropriate encyclopedic source for claims of medical fact. I will look up the discussions if needed; they can probably be found easily by searching the reliable sources noticeboard archives. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for the offer, I don't think we'll need to find the old discussions unless anyone objects to the removals, but if they do I'd be much obliged. delldot ∇. 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

copying copywrited copy.

I've found parts of this article contain text from this copywrited website. http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/television/panorama.htm I'm a little unclear if wikipedia is copying from them, or the other way around. I'm leaning towards the idea that wikipedia is copying from them. The website does not appear to be cited, and probably wouldn't make a good reference. --Lightenoughtotravel (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 19

Mike from Brooklyn (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Mike from BrooklynMike from Brooklyn (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone tell me more about the case cited in Footnote 19. State (of Wisconsin) v. Edmonds. I am not able to find this case. The only State v. Edmonds Lexis/Nexus lists for Wisconsin is an armed robbery case. Is this unpublished? Incorrectly cited? If such a ruling actually exists, I would be interested in reading it.

Thank-you

Mike from Brooklyn (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Mike from BrooklynMike from Brooklyn (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A detailed analysis of this case can be found at: Tuerkheimer, Deborah, The Next Innocence Project: Shaken Baby Syndrome and the Criminal Courts (August 6, 2009). Washington University Law Review, Vol. 87, No. 1, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1354659 Daffydavid (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean up, POV, Failed, expired citations.

This article needs extensive clean up. I found so many citations linking to outdated and expired or missing material I didn't even bother removing them. When I have time I will try to do it. This article needs revision to include the competing views of the medical community. The signs and symptoms section should be a neutral POV, rather than the one sided view as it now is. Daffydavid (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference 14 - Oral R (August 2003)is outdated and not up to Wikipedia standards for reference. If you can find an alternative reference please substitute it. All of Reference 2 citations are currently invalid as the author of the material has withdrawn backing for the article and has issued a modified article superseding it. Some material may be in this new article supporting the old article, but from a cursory read it will require rewriting of this wikipedia article. If it is not improved and referenced, all material relating to the original reference should be removed.Daffydavid (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I tagged this article as POV and another user removed this tag without discussion against Wikipedia rules. I was really hoping someone would step up to the plate and improve this article, but it appears I will have to tackle it when I get time. Quality of references is atrocious. Please speak up about changes as this is a big job for just one person. Daffydavid (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Diagnosis section.

This section contradicts itself. Please rewrite this section if you can reconcile the contradictions.Daffydavid (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

PedEye1 Revisions

PedEye1, Please provide references for the material you added or it will have to be removed. Also a rewrite of your material to remove weasel language would be desirable. Daffydavid (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RE Dr. Smith, an article posted March 25,2011 verifying wrongful convictions because of Dr. Smith, http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Medical+panel+condemns+disgraced+pathologist+abominable+failures/4503500/story.html Daffydavid (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed ref by PedEye1 so it actually was a ref, but still needs revision for clarity. Will get to it when I can, but if someone else has time please fix it. Daffydavid (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mraz ref.

Deleted information and ref because it is a hatchet job. Will investigate if publisher is considered a good source as per Wikipedia policy. Information deleted contained the actual figures but had nothing to do with what they were presented as in this article. Tracing info back to original source revealed other instances of misquoting and outright cherry picking of information. I noticed after deletion of ref that it removed the whole thing. Will add it back if I can verify information as correct and it passes wikipedia standards. As it stands now, I suspect most of the information is going to have to be re-written with new references. Daffydavid (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Replaced Mraz with Miehl which was cited by Mraz. Article by Miehl appears to be accurate unlike Mraz article. Journal of Foresic Nursing published both, but given that it lists no impact factor it may still turn out to be unreliable. So far 1 apparently good article and 1 terrible article. Needs further review but 50% is not very reliable.Daffydavid (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please discuss changes to the main article on this page. Simply adding information repetitively without discussion is bad form (at the very least frustrating). Give your reasons for your edit since not all of us are mind readers. If you have questions ask them. Thank you and happy editing.Daffydavid (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)