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

271–280 of 639 posts

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

#271

Post by rossant »

gwd wrote: post #243
tivert wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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’! This is just speculation, but I bet those groups (or their members) aren't always calmly and coolly trying to find the best policies protect the welfare of children. Instead they feel themselves on a k…

There's another factor in this, which makes it hard to change: For the people in child welfare organizations, for social workers, for doctors, for police, for judges to change their mind about current and future decisions requires them to change their mind about past decisions. The necessary implication is that many of the people they have persecuted in the past were, in fact, innocent. It requires them to admit that…

This is spot on. This psychological barrier is probably the number one obstacle to a wider recognition of the existence and extent of this problem.

People like me who challenge the science behind the diagnoses of SBS face an absolutely unprecedented and unreasonable pushback, like I've never seen in any other area. Basically everyone who has worked on this side has faced threats, insults, personal attacks, cancellations, boycotts, and so on. The "cognitive bias" you mention (does it have a name? perhaps cognitive dissonance?) is a likely reason for this amount of antagonism.

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

#272

Post by sam_goody »

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…

> It’s just incredible the injustice that can be done in the name of protecting children

Whatever it is:

- If it's in the name of protecting the children, odds are it is not justice.

- If it is not justice, at some point the excuse will be to protect the children

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

#273

Post by frotaur »

eru wrote: post #259
rapatel0 wrote: post #181

This doesn’t surprise me. We have massive systemic issues in medical science and care delivery. - Medical science handles variation by simply assuming that large enough samples will average out variation. This loses a ton of information as the “average person” is a construct that almost certainly doesn’t exist. - news media on medical science glosses over all uncertainties in the name of clickbaity sensationalism. -…

> - Medical science handles variation by simply assuming that large enough samples will average out variation. This loses a ton of information as the “average person” is a construct that almost certainly doesn’t exist. Well, this wouldn't even be that bad, if sample size were actually large enough.

No I think the point that was being made is that the "average person" idea is not that great if you have huge variance. If I have a uniform distribution from 0 to 1, average is '0.5', but its just as likely to get 0. or 1.

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

#274

Post by guynamedloren »

Content aside (which is both thought provoking and incredibly alarming) I’m fascinated by the author’s commitment to deeply understanding a system and the factors at play within that system. There’s something inspiring about relentless truth seeking, to the point of obsession, with some extraordinary level of meticulousness. Particularly when it challenges conventional wisdom. This is a slippery slope as it can quickly nosedive into junk science and contrarianism, despite best intentions, but when it’s done well, it’s really something.

Probably a faux pas here these days, but reminds me of Elon Musk’s First Principles.

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

#275

Post by robbie-c »

Muromec wrote: post #224
mlindner wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that, but this doesn't seem like presumption of innocence. A country with a presumption of innocence doesn't take your child away from you without trial.

Pre-trial detention is a thing pretty much everywhere despite literally locking innocent people up before a trial.

Tough to see how else you would do it - a hypothetical murderer in broad daylight with a ton of reliable witnesses and video evidence would still have to wait for a trial, I don't think anyone would seriously say that this hypothetical person should be free until the trial happens.

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

#276

Post by concordDance »

jacquesm wrote: post #265
concordDance wrote: post #253

[flagged]

You've got to be kidding. This takes victim blaming to a whole new level.

Uh, why would I be kidding and how on earth is that victim blaming?

There's a range of reasons people don't tend to make the full case for the opposite of the thing they're passionate about. Those who can actually do so are vanishingly rare.

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

#277

Post by conductr »

stephen_g wrote: post #248
rossant wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually happened to me, not with the police though, but with social workers. I explained the situation in a very calm, concise, and perhaps emotionally detached manner because this is just my personality. They wrote in their report that they found it strange that "I almost did not cry during the interview", which they said was the main reason they would recommend to put David in foster care. The guilt of knowin…

It's especially bizarre because even apart from things like autism, even for more neurotypical people disassociation (which as I understand in mild forms can appear as emotional detachment which could come off as being calm) is a well known symptom of acute stress responses (i.e. psychological shock). As unreproducible as a lot of psychology is, putting any merit in 'they didn't respond how I think they "should" have…

I’m rather neurotypical but I worked in high trauma environments during my college years; ER, OR, ICU, various life and death situations on daily basis in a healthcare environment. I pretty much saw it all.

That was 20+ years ago, my career was not there so I left clinical work but the ability to function during high stress and deal with the present mentally stuck with me. I also could mostly leave it at the door and it didn’t weigh on me outside work (I think most healthcare workers can do this, it all just becomes normal.

Since then, I’m the one that springs into action instead of paralyzed by shock/surprise. Saved someone choking in a restaurant, pulled a pregnant woman from a burning car after an accident, just a few weeks ago someone had a stroke at a park and I had to figure out best way to help - all these had many other bystanders just watching it happen and they all just were frozen until I came over and took charge barking order about call an ambulance or telling them exactly how to help. I’ve also learned that when something really bad happens in my life, like bad diagnoses/death of loved ones, my immediate response is to help and support what ever immediate actions are needed, talk about what needs to be done, help others experiencing immediate and usually uncontrollable grief. My grief usually starts a day or two later once all the immediate concerns are addressed.

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

#278

Post by rossant »

eru wrote: post #263
Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't the article state that is actually unlikely it leads to AHT?

I think the article says that shaking a baby will give you lots of different symptoms, including bruises etc. And you can't really get AHT from shaking without also getting bruises etc. That means if you see 'AHT' without bruises (etc) it was probably not actual shaking.

Yeah, it's hard to say for sure what kind of injuries you'll get from violent shaking, as we obviously can't reproduce it on actual babies, and there are so few well-described cases. Studies have been made on animal models, showing a constellation of traumatic injuries, but no clear, obvious, and reproducible pattern so far. Strikingly, the isolated "triad" of subdural and retinal hemorrhage with brain edema hasn't really been reproduced in any animal model so far [1].

Anyway, we don't need this level of scientific detail and knowledge to say that no one should ever shake a baby. All brutal gestures are obviously harmful and dangerous.

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00381-022-05577-6

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

#279

Post by gardenmud »

CMCDragonkai wrote: post #182
katzenversteher wrote: post #176

This always scared me because I don't even know what counts as shaking. Can you accidentally shake a baby? Can my 2 year old daughter get shaken baby syndrome when older children on an inflatable castle with her jump and bounce too wild around her (she can't jump yet but loves the bouncing)? I've also often seen parents throw their children a bit in the air and then catch them. The children like it and laugh. I'm not…

To protect against all possible harm against your child, perhaps consider wrapping them in a giant balloon so they are isolated from all possible outside influences. We either accept the randomness of fate or we live in self-made prisons.

I don't think this person is asking to protect against all possible harm. I find it strange that you seem to think it is unreasonable to not want your baby shaken so hard they die, and to want to clearly know how much force that is.

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

#280

Post by cjrp »

Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote: post #250

When I was getting ready to turn dad for the first time, I read a few books on pregnancy, children and parenting. My trust on medicine dropped substantially when I discovered that doctors have poor notion of statistics, so they take for granted improper studies results. I remember one classic one is the "no coffee when pregnant", the study says this causes problems, the test was performed on rats and by feeding them…

Has SIDS been linked to co-sleeping? I thought the risks of co-sleeping were more around accidentally rolling on or suffocating the baby.
Post reply on HN