Live data from Hacker News

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

cambridgeblog.org

611–620 of 639 posts

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

#611

> 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…

I can't help but think that incidents like this might make parents less likely to take their baby to the ER out of fear.

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

#612

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. -…

Basically, you want to replace statistics ("large enough samples will average out variation") with AI. I'm afraid that's cargo cult instead of science. AI can lie. It means a "truely personalized medicine" would sometimes poison its patients. See for instance Donald Knuth experiment with Chat GPT, starting with "Answer #3 is fouled up beautifully!" with some totally wrong AI answers https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.ed…

Current AI is deeply rooted in probability and statistics, so it would actually increase the use of statistics.

I'm not saying a false positive or a false negative cannot happen. I am saying that we would have better estimates of both, according to probability theory.

Also: false positives and false negatives are basically impossible to prevent, for a sufficient small margin of error. And that's science.

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

#613

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 hunch would be:

1. Premise: Organizations always try to stay alive. 2. To stay alive you have to be active and doing things which is rewarded by future money. 3. If your organizational role is "protect children" but who's functional mechanism is to take them away will look for ways to do that.

Similar things happen when policing seems to go awry, if they confuse "protect the public" (goal) with "arrest people for stuff" (doing something)

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

#614
post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You obviously have more experience than I do; but two phrases I'd be tempted to try out in these discussions are, "If you were wrong, would you want to know?" And at some point later "How would you know if you were wrong?"

That could only happen if such discussions could actually take place. So far, the controversy has been so polarized that there has been almost no communication between the two "sides". Norman Guthkelch himself (the first to hypothesize a causal link between shaking and subdural/retinal hemorrhage) wrote in 2012 [1]: "While controversy is a normal and necessary part of scientific discourse, there has arisen a level of…

Right, so if I had to guess how such a person might change their mind, I would say they would have to go through four stages:

1. These anti-SBS people are evil sophists trying to help child abusers

2. These views of these anti-SBS people irrational; but they're not evil, just misguided and/or misled.

3. The views of these anti-SBS people are wrong, but they are actually reasonable views for someone to hold, given the evidence they have available to hem.

4. The views of these anti-SBS people are correct.

You're never going to jump from 1->4 directly; you need to start with going 1->2.

So if you're serious about it, then I guess I would start with actually trying to get face-time with some people. Look at the various people in this community, and find someone who seems either more reasonable, or more friendly / sociable: someone who is unlikely to turn down an invitation to coffee / lunch, and unlikely to hate a decent person right in front of them. If there's someone who's has a lot of influence, or is in the "core", that's best; but anyone within one or two steps of the "core" could be a good start.

My goals going into the meeting would be:

* Establish a human connection; see them as a person, help them see you as a person

* Make sure they feel heard and understood. Try to understand how they got into the work they're doing now; and not only the evidence they've seen, but also the personal experiences they've had. Try to mostly listen; and if possible repeat back to them what you've heard them say.

* Share your story, and some of the key stories you've seen or heard. If you can, stick to your observations and opinions; i.e., don't say "my nanny was innocent", but rather, "it didn't really seem possible that the nanny did it; it would have been really out of character" (and explain more about the nanny's character).

I'd call it by ear whether to ask "would you want to know if you were wrong" and "how would you know if you were wrong".

Remember the goal for the first meeting is to get them from 1 to 2: That maybe you're way off base and misguided, but that you're not evil. Getting to 3 would be a bonus if it goes well, but don't count on it; and there's no way 4 will happen over the course of lunch.

That's a lot of work, but you seem pretty motivated. Whatever you end up doing, good luck!

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

#615

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?

Ask you to read letters again... with your actual new glasses on so you can verify how good you can see.

When you get a car engine rebuilt, do they just diagnose, replace parts and then never start the engine themselves to verify it actually works?

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

#616

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. 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!

Everyone cares about kids, so THINK OF THE CHILDREN is an easy way to both create false urgency to cover totalitarianism and also an excellent shame-generator to suppress protest. C.f. "Drag shows"; "digital privacy"

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

#617
post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered suing the third party that made a false accusation? It seems that they’ve caused suffering and irreparable long term harm. This sounds like something that may have a standing. Perhaps you can sue them and either get some material compensation (if they are well to do) put them through a few rounds of trials in another state or something (if they are poor, this will be a good punishment in itself).…

Why not? But on the same note, I would also consider suing child services for failing to act according to their own principles and mainly for ignoring evidence.

Yes, it seems that there’s nothing that opposes child services to protect parents and children from a zealous and righteous institution.

But we do have an example of another righteous institution misbehaving - churches are now paying back for years of children abuse (Catholic priests abusing children). I don’t see why cases like the one above that forcefully separating children can’t go the same way.

It doesn’t really matter that “most reports are good faith”. Most priests are also good faith…

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

#618
post #243
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…

Thanks for this insight, I'd never thought about it this way.

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

#619

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…

This concept of "the science" we've converged on a culture really doesn't make a ton of sense. What does it mean to say "the science" is against a position that many relevant experts hold? To the extent that there is such a thing as "the science", the book the author is advertising (https://shakenbaby.science/) is pretty frank that its goal is to argue against it: there's a traditional medical consensus in favor of SBS/AHT, but it's become more controversial, and if you read this book you too will be convinced that it's wrong.

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

#620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since having a kid and reading a lot I've been bothered by how clearly a lot of what is labeled as "SIDS" is pretty clearly accidental suffocation. The conclusion is impossible to escape when you begin reading about measures that have "reduced SIDS." Yet I also wonder if continuing to observe this social fiction is just a way of keeping overzealous prosecutors and other crusaders from locking up and treating as depra…

Not an expert but it seems to me you'd be making the same kind of error that the article denounces: attaching equal value to direct evidence on the one hand and inference to the best explanation on the other. If a physician does not observe tell-tale signs of suffocation in an infant, then it is not their role to say "Well, statistically speaking, or logically speaking, pretty good chance it's accidental suffocation…

Some measures that reportedly reduce “SIDS” include assembling the crib properly and not putting soft objects that could smother the baby in the crib. Risk factors include lower parental educational attainment. You tell me if I’m being unreasonable attributing a death from the crib collapsing to suffocation and not a mysterious, poorly understood disease. When a baby dies in the crib it is rare for much investigation to be done that would conclusively suggest suffocation and it is usually just labeled SIDS.
Post reply on HN