Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy

cambridgeblog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 639 posts

Re: A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy

#121

Post by thaumasiotes »

routerl wrote: post #96
Waterluvian wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing shook my faith in the medical system more than having kids. Holy cow is modern medicine still as smugly wrong as it’s always been. Every generation laughs at all the stupid stuff the previous generations believed, and then acts so confident that they’ve got it right this time. And as a result you get unworthy nurses making moms feel intense shame for not “trying hard enough” to somehow magically produce milk.

> Every generation laughs at all the stupid stuff the previous generations believed, and then acts so confident that they’ve got it right this time. Voltaire (1694-1778) wrote a satirical account of a medieval university's oral examination on medicine: the examiner asks why morphine puts people to sleep, and the student confidently replies that morphine has a "dormative essence". This is a bit like saying that things…

> Voltaire (1694-1778) wrote a satirical account of a medieval university's oral examination on medicine: the examiner asks why morphine puts people to sleep, and the student confidently replies that morphine has a "dormative essence".

It was Molière (opium to laymen), but no examinations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imaginary_Invalid

Re: A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy

#122

Post by barrysteve »

sneak wrote: post #70
huytersd wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The welfare of someone else’s child doesn’t register very highly on a majority of people’s radars beyond basic humanitarian considerations. How about government provided daycare and forcing the mother to work.

Possession is nine tenths of the law. It's not someone else's child if it's in your house and you need a genetic test to deny responsibility. This idea that bloodlines are relevant is anachronistic superstition. Several of my friends are not genetically related to their children. It's simply not relevant.

Step-fathers and step-children are well known vectors of abuse. The Cinderella Effect was verified to produce more abuse from step-relationships up to and including lethal beatings from step-fathers.

Legally it might not be relevant for whatever structural reason, but the reality is that it matters a lot.

Re: A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy

#123

Post by anon291 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #24

trully unbelievable, i lose faith in thr justice system day by day

The justice system is doing what the doctors tell them. Broadly speaking If a medical professional testifies that this is the only way, what qualifications does a DA have to question him? Medicine is a profession; thus the professional body ought to be addressing this and, if the guidance changes, be advocating and lobbying to Congress that people start being released.

Re: A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy

#124

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #56
Waterluvian wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing shook my faith in the medical system more than having kids. Holy cow is modern medicine still as smugly wrong as it’s always been. Every generation laughs at all the stupid stuff the previous generations believed, and then acts so confident that they’ve got it right this time. And as a result you get unworthy nurses making moms feel intense shame for not “trying hard enough” to somehow magically produce milk.

My sister wouldn't sleep. The doctor constantly gave the "sigh, you're an idiot, you just do X and Y and they sleep" talk to my mother because nothing came up on their screening, even though my mother almost wanted to scream that something was clearly wrong and abnormal. Turns out, different doctor, serious vitamin deficiency. And medical incompetence by staff, not doctors, is also awful. My brother hated reading. He…

It’s especially a problem with women and minorities. Doctors just don’t believe them. I’m neither of those and I had to convince my doctor that I had Lyme disease. I had the bullseye right where the tick had bit me. It was clearly Lyme disease. He assumed it couldn’t be because it took 8 weeks for the bullseye to show up (it’s usually a matter of days in America). He did not know that European Lyme disease takes much longer for the bullseye to appear. He at least had the tact to call me later and apologize after he did more research

Re: A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy

#125

Post by anon291 »

cycomanic wrote: post #120
froggertoaster wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After 5 kids in 10 years, you come to realize that the standards aren't agreed upon, and best practices/recommendations change YEAR TO YEAR without fail. Breastfeeding is one of the worst things hoisted upon mothers who are told "you must try no matter what" - seemingly ignoring the mental and physical health of the mother and the father all the while.

My partner is a GP who has been doing early childhood screening. One thing she learnt after doing a special training is that advice on proper breastfeeding is very difficult to find. She found that with many mothers that had problems, some small adjustments could often make a huge difference (often causing a kind of hallelujah moment for the mothers). The issue is much of the advice given at the hospital is wrong or…

Completely agree. Half the lactation consultants have never breastfed themselves. The advice my wife got from the nurses versus what she got from her own mother and my grandmother were completely at odds. Both of those women told her to just keep doing it and to ignore the nurses while the professionals were single mindedly focused on a few days of weight loss. The milk came in (as all the older women expected) and my daughter breastfed for many years after.

Really the advice given is simply ridiculous. I honestly think most men who's children have nursed can give better advice than the lactation consultants. One that always makes me roll my eyes is the idea that a breastfed child should eat for a few minutes and then be full for an hour or two. That is simply... Not how it works. Babies like eating and being with mom. Breastfeeding mothers should expect to be with their newborn all the time. We are lucky to know many breastfeeding mothers and I don't know any family where the baby is satiated after ten minutes. And yet... The professionals are convinced this is how it works

Re: A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy

#126

Post by analog31 »

hackernewds wrote: post #113
maximus-decimus wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do find it bizarre they don't verify you can see with your actual glasses.

How would one have tested it instead?

They can verify the prescription. Also in principle they could use the same machine that finds the prescription, to verify that your net correction is zero with your glasses on.

I once proved that my wife got the wrong prescription by just holding her old and new glasses up at arms length and seeing that things looked way different through them. The glasses place agreed.

Re: A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy

#127

Post by stephen_g »

Amazing that bit about child welfare organisations fighting against the science, when clearly taking children away based on false accusations is clearly far worse for the child’s welfare, not to mention the parents’!

It’s just incredible the injustice that can be done in the name of protecting children. I really do wonder if it’s cultural or some kind of innate psychological irrarionality that seems stronger in some than others. I love kids and care deeply about their welfare, but people sometimes try to make me feel bad or that I’m the weird one for being able to think (I believe) fairly rationally about the risks and dangers that they face, instead of massively over-exaggerating!

Or of course the opposite, keeping an appropriate eye on relations and acquaintances when people assume they’re totally safe but it’s actually somebody with that level of relation who’s likely to be a danger than a stranger.

Re: A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy

#128

Post by doublespanner »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #93
Waterluvian wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing shook my faith in the medical system more than having kids. Holy cow is modern medicine still as smugly wrong as it’s always been. Every generation laughs at all the stupid stuff the previous generations believed, and then acts so confident that they’ve got it right this time. And as a result you get unworthy nurses making moms feel intense shame for not “trying hard enough” to somehow magically produce milk.

Older nurses are the best. They've seen it all.

The worst encounters I have had with nurses have been with older ones filtering information and using out of date practices because they think they have seen it all and now know best.

Re: A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy

#129

Post by ifyoubuildit »

faeriechangling wrote: post #118
linuxftw wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know now that the CDC and the manufacturers (and the media) lied about efficacy regarding preventing transmission/infection. In fact, the trials didn't even attempt to measure transmission or infection, and were not ever authorized for such. The only thing they were authorized for was reducing the severity. Do not perpetuate the myth that the vaccines slowed the spread.

No, I think I will stand by my position that the vaccines did in fact slow the spread, especially early on. I think there is LOTS of evidence about the vaccines effects on transmission which points to them being effective. Also think back to before we had good evidence on transmissibility/infection. Myocarditis hit the young, who were the last to be vaccinated, and consequently among the last to be researched. So the…

> I think there is LOTS of evidence about the vaccines effects on transmission which points to them being effective.

Can you point to some canonical sources on this? Preferably things that were published in the last year or so.

My understanding is that effects on infection and transmission were overstated and very short lived anyway. Didn't everybody get covid eventually, multiple times even?

Re: A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy

#130

Post by duxup »

stephen_g wrote: post #127

Amazing that bit about child welfare organisations fighting against the science, when clearly taking children away based on false accusations is clearly far worse for the child’s welfare, not to mention the parents’! It’s just incredible the injustice that can be done in the name of protecting children. I really do wonder if it’s cultural or some kind of innate psychological irrarionality that seems stronger in some…

My theory is that emotionally charged issues seem like a haven for people not thinking clearly and cover for hand waving or opposing any thoughtful analysis.

I think there are people drawn to the absolutes. I can maybe see how it can be comforting to have a black and white issue to try to solve / help. A good side to be a part of in a world that to some seems very bad or confusing.

Some old friends of mine are very much into these kinds of children’s issues. But when they talk to you about it it’s all emotion, it’s not even clear to me that they know much at all other than a sense that the bad guys are out there, maybe some strange legislation they support and so on. They’re not interested in justice, just this absolute sorta cause.

Post reply on HN