Live data from Hacker News

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

cambridgeblog.org

351–360 of 639 posts

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

#351
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 coffee in the amount of 3/4 of their body weight. We can agree that with this amount, it's reasonable it could cause problems. Very different from one cup of coffee though. Honestly I don't know which study you're talking about, and I'm not trying to question what you'…

SIDS has all manner of interesting and unexpected demographic correlations. I’m not convinced anyone knows what to make of them.

That’s the problem with anything that is defined by the symptoms, rather than the cause. As soon as you find definitive evidence of what causes a subset of SIDS, it’s no longer really SIDS but “improper bed safety” or “undiagnosed genetic condition”.

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

#352

>> how many people are in jail or lost their kids due to something that didn't actually happen. Thousands upon thousands. By some estimates upwards of 10% of incarcerated individuals. The situation is just accepted. The general consensus is always that locking up too many people is better than than too few. It is on defense attorneys to check on the system.

Are you saying that 10% of incarcerated individuals are innocent (which I do not find an unrealistic number), or are you saying that 10% of incarcerated individuals are wrongly in prison for crimes against their children?

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

#353
> What happened is that during my literature review, I disturbingly realized that what I had been told at the hospital ... was an assertion based on very weak scientific foundations. And yet ... has been taught as though it was a proven fact to generations of physicians all over the world.

This exact thing has happened to me so many times, on so many different medical topics, that it is now my going in assumption that if I review the literature, this is what I'll find. The most flabberghasting case was one in which I was able to determine the standard of care the doctors insisted on was in flat contradiction to the established science in the course of an afternoon. As a mathematician by training, I am used to checking the reasoning behind everything I believe for myself. I can understand not having taken months and months to delve into a deeply technical topic, but when the state of affairs can be determined in an afternoon? I cannot fathom spending a career giving people advice and never having looked that far.

My favorite example of obvious, silly unscientific behavior is the basic set of practices and beliefs surrounding blood pressure. Blood pressure varies a lot, second to second, minute to minute, hour to hour, and day to day, with an astonishing range, for a very long list of reasons both benign and concerning. It is an obvious fact, well known and easy to establish by anyone with a measuring device and a little statistical curiosity. The literature, the instruction books shipped with measuring devices, the procedures followed by doctors and nurses, the procedures they say they should be following, bear all the hallmarks of the behavior of the statistically unsophisticated seeking patterns and meaning in randomness. But my very favorite behavior is the sheer cognitive dissonance. I have had nurses take my blood pressure while varying the circumstance - sitting, lying, this arm, that arm - until they got the answer they wanted, reported it to a doctor, who compared it to a chart with great authority and made a claim about my health over a span of months and years. I have had a five minute conversation with a doctor about the statistical variation of the number and the fact that best practices involve taking many measurements and he opined that it wasn't really valid unless you measured it over twenty four hours... and then said, "anyway..." and proceeded in the next sentence to diagnose me and argue strenuously for a prescription based on a single measurement and no context.

One of the things I find cynically, darkly entertaining is how often the standard advice is, not just random, not just useless, but exactly wrong. The diet they insist on to manage gallstones is known to cause gallstones. The treatment traditionally insisted on for diabetes is known to kill you faster the more exactly you comply. The saline typically used in hospitals, compared to an electrolyte balanced solution, is known to kill patients. They institutionally get saline wrong!

The absolute theatrics and bureaucracy required historically to institute handwashing in hospitals indicates a cultural problem, and the current state of affairs suggests to me that it remains. I am not talking about advancing scientific knowledge here - I am talking about accounting for things that are well known and can be checked with little effort so long as one is not intimidated by basic science. The prospect of professional mathematicians behaving this way is laughable. Everyone knows the discredited results and no one would dream of using them. The prospect of cybersecurity professionals taking years to apply a patch after a security flaw is discovered beggars belief. Yet here are the doctors, insisting with great pomp and authority on easily checkable wrong things, and they have apparently been doing so in many domains, for a very long time. I know there is value in medical advice, and in many situations I seek it, but it is enough to make one want to throw in the towel and consult the aromatherapists and their healing crystals - at least they won't insist on something destructive!

The words "scientific medicine" clearly do not mean what I would think they should mean.

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

#354
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally throwing kids around (within reason) is absolutely safe, specially at +2yrs. Rough play is very much part of development for all mammals including us. Perhaps something to help you cope with this is that our brain although fragile has a lot of redundancy around it. On a fall or bounce our neck will decelerate our fall/bounce, there is no need to be an athlete, our muscles have a contraction reflex if they a…

My kids love it when they come running toward me and I pick them up and in one swoop throw them on to my (big) bed. I'm always holding back because I see their head snap back to land on the mattress, it's that "violent" head-moving-back thing that gives me the fear, so I stopped.

a core part of my son and i's relationship is me yeeting him on soft pieces of furniture (he's 3)! He is very physical and likes to roughhouse - he injuries himself a lot! Little kids really are made of rubber

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

#355

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…

I think it's both funny and sad that you're doing the exact same thing as the "bad" doctors in TFA and then are on here commenting about it. A quick search on Google Scholar for "caffeine pregnancy" reveals a number of studies that show a non-trivial link in humans to increased miscarriage chances, at levels of consumption that realistically occur with heavy coffee drinkers. I.e. your conclusion is not so clear-cut and is based on one (admittedly bad science) thing you read. Example [1][2]

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00029...

[2] https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/54/7/203/1...

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

#356
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly would be a form of cognitive dissonance, but that's much more general; I experienced cognitive dissonance hearing the word "nicht" pronounced by a native German speaker yesterday evening, because it wasn't at all like what I expected it to sound like. "Confirmation bias", where you tend to see what you expect to see, is narrower; but still I think doesn't capture what we're talking about. We're specifica…

> We're specifically talking about resistance to accepting the idea because accepting it would mean reclassifying actions you yourself had taken from "very good" to "very bad". That's exactly it. I'd love to discover scientific literature about this phenomenon, and I'd also be surprised if it doesn't already have a name and an extensive literature. But if that's the case: I think there are research carriers in psycho…

You could call it "moral self-image maintenance bias": A bias towards maintaining your self-image as an upright, moral person.

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

#357

> As a precautionary measure, the hospital followed mandatory reporting statutes and my wife and I temporarily lost custody of David. Thanks to our incredibly effective defense lawyer, we were cleared of all charges within two months, during which we stayed at the hospital 24/7 with David until we sorted out the legal procedures. Holy shit. Parents bring baby to ER ... results reveal that baby was shaken (article lat…

What's the outcome for the kid? Can the system even do much to help with the child's medical condition? If not, it's irrational for people to take their children in for examination; there's no benefit and you risk being accused.

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

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their source could be your source, which you seem to be very seriously misreading. > As the global population grew 21 per cent, between 2000 and 2019, the number of prisoners worldwide jumped by more than 25 per cent, according to the UNODC data. So, worldwide trend is upward. > While Northern America, Sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe have experienced a long-term decrease in imprisonment rates of up to 27 per ce…

> So apparently your definition of “western countries” includes sub-Saharan Africa but excludes most of Europe and all of Australia and New Zealand? To be honest the text you are quoting doesn't talk about Western Europe at all, and I think if you exclude Western Europe, then "Northern America + Eastern Europe" is most of what remains of "western countries". Australia and New Zealand, while part of western countries,…

If you exclude Western Europe and simply ignore Australia and New Zealand you’ve abandoned any reasonable conception of “the West” altogether.

Regardless, cherry-picking even such an incredibly gerrymandered “West” ignores the entire point of the source: the human population in prison has risen faster than the human population itself… pointing to minor improvements in the world’s largest prison state and what remains of the ex-Soviet gulag system states while ignoring considerably larger regressions in, for example, a nation colonized specifically to be a prison does nothing to contradict that fact.

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

#359
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be, but communication issues could also be at play, plus overeager doctors/social workers. In Romania they go at great lengths not to pull children out of family environments, in Denmark and other more developed countries it could be the opposite.

Implying ripping children out of their families willy-nilly is "more developed."

In a lot of sci-fi, the most “developed” civilisations have their children raised by robots in crèches.

I don’t think it was supposed to be aspirational.

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

#360
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be, but communication issues could also be at play, plus overeager doctors/social workers. In Romania they go at great lengths not to pull children out of family environments, in Denmark and other more developed countries it could be the opposite.

Implying ripping children out of their families willy-nilly is "more developed."

Not ripping children from actually abusive families is more developed. There are many cases of abuses families who need to lose their children, and in some those families still have children. There are other cases where good families lose their children.

Note that I carefully did not say anything about what abuse is. Unfortunately there is no agreement and I don't want to get into that debate (it is well worth having, but it would change the direction I'm trying to go here).

Post reply on HN