As the "experts" continue to tout how safe and effective vaccinations are, something will get leaked. This news story is important as it shows the "experts" do not truly know or understand how vaccinations affect everyone entirely. It's safe for them to state that they are safe because the majority of children tolerate them. However, there are no long terms studies showing what these deadly chemicals and other ingredients are doing to our bodies in the long term.
What these doctors and other so called experts neglect to understand that although vaccinations are served up as a "one size fits all" program, they do not. Babies and children are dying from reactions to the vaccines and when the reason is not obvious, a caregive is being convicted under the guise of shaken baby syndrome or blunt force impact or whatever name the prosecution will utilize to sustain a conviction at all costs.
How about finding the real cause instead of being on a deadly witch hunt to convict someone? How about convicting the doctors or nurses that give these vaccines that cause injury or deaths? Perhaps if the doctors ran every imaginable test possible to rule out an underlying medical condition, a child might live or a person won't be wrongfully convicted. Has it been considered that doctors treating for SBS are the reasons why the child died? You have to treat for the correct diagnosis.
From Health Freedom Alliance:
An eight year study conducted at the Mayo Clinic, published by the American Thoracic Society suggests that there is a correlation between flu shots and risk of complications from influenza. The study evaluated every pediatric patient that was seen at the Mayo Clinic over the course of eight flu seasons to determine how much the flu shot prevented hospitalization from influenza in asthmatic children. ATS 2009, SAN DIEGO— The inactivated flu vaccine does not appear to be effective in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations in children, especially the ones with asthma. In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than their peers who do not get the vaccine, according to new research that will be presented on Tuesday, May 19, at the 105th International Conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego.
Flu vaccine (trivalent inactivated flu vaccine—TIV) has unknown effects on asthmatics.
“The concerns that vaccination maybe associated with asthma exacerbations have been disproved with multiple studies in the past, but the vaccine’s effectiveness has not been well-established,” said Avni Joshi, M.D., of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. “This study was aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the TIV in children overall, as well as the children with asthma, to prevent influenza-related hospitalization.”
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend annual influenza vaccination for all children aged six months to 18 years.
The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (3rd revision) also recommends annual flu vaccination of asthmatic children older than six months. In order to determine whether the vaccine was effective in reducing the number of hospitalizations that all children, and especially the ones with asthma, faced over eight consecutive flu seasons, the researchers conducted a cohort study of 263 children who were evaluated at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota from six months to 18 years of age, each of whom had had laboratory-confirmed influenza between 1996 to 2006. The investigators determined who had and had not received the flu vaccine, their asthma status and who did and did not require hospitalization. Records were reviewed for each subject with influenza-related illness for flu vaccination preceding the illness and hospitalization during that illness.
They found that children who had received the flu vaccine had three times the risk of hospitalization, as compared to children who had not received the vaccine. In asthmatic children, there was a significantly higher risk of hospitalization in subjects who received the TIV, as compared to those who did not (p= 0.006). But no other measured factors—such as insurance plans or severity of asthma—appeared to affect risk of hospitalization.
“While these findings do raise questions about the efficacy of the vaccine, they do not in fact implicate it as a cause of hospitalizations,” said Dr. Joshi. “More studies are needed to assess not only the immunogenicity, but also the efficacy of different influenza vaccines in asthmatic subjects.”
Session # C94: “Viral Infections in Childhood Respiratory Disease”
Abstract # 561: “Flu Vaccination in Asthmatics: Does It Work?”
http://www.call4abstracts.com/ats/society_admin/abs_preview.php?absnum=561
Close Window
ATS 2009 · San Diego
International Conference
Abstract Number: 561
Contact/Presenting Author: Avni Y. Joshi
Department/Institution: Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic
Address: 200, First St. SW
City/State/Zip/Country: Rochester, MN, 55905
Phone: 01-507-284-2511 Fax: 01-507-284-0902 E-mail: joshi.avni@mayo.edu
ATS member: No Student or in training: Yes
Funding Source: None.
Abstract Category: 14.03 - Pediatric Asthma
Presentation format: Either Poster or Oral
Preview Disclosure
Travel Award: Yes
Publication of email address: Yes, joshi.avni@mayo.edu
I confirm that all authors listed on this abstract have knowledge of the abstract submission:
Yes
Title: Flu Vaccination in Asthmatics: Does It Work?
A. Y. Joshi, MD1, V. N. Iyer, MD,MPH1, M. F. Hartz, MD1, G. W. Volcheck, MD,Ph.D1, A. M. Patel,
MD1 and J. T. Li, MD,Ph.D1. 1Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN.
INTRODUCTION: Influenza is known to be associated with asthma exacerbation but the
effectiveness of the trivalent inactivated flu vaccine (TIV) in asthmatics is unknown.
METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of all pediatric subjects( 6 months to 18 years age)
who were evaluated at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA who had laboratory confirmed influenza
during each flu season from 1999-2006 to evaluate the efficacy of TIV. A case control analysis
was performed with the cases and the controls being the subjects with asthma who did and did not
required hospitalization with the influenza illness respectively.
RESULTS:
There were 236 subjects with laboratory confirmed influenza from 1996-2006.
In assessing the effectiveness of the TIV for preventing hospitalization with influenza in all
subjects, there was an overall trend towards higher rates of hospitalization in subjects who got the
TIV as compared to the ones who did not get the TIV( OR:2.97, CI: 1.3,6.7).Using Cochran-Mantel-
Haenszel (CMH) test for Asthma status stratification, there was a significant association between
hospitalization in asthmatic subjects and TIV (P=0.006).
http://www.call4abstracts.com/ats/society_admin/abs_preview.php?absnum=561 (1 of 2) [5/11/2009 1:43:56 PM]
http://www.call4abstracts.com/ats/society_admin/abs_preview.php?absnum=561
In the asthmatic subset:
There was no association between ER visit and receiving the TIV ,severity of asthma and the risk
of hospitalization or the hospital length of stay and receiving the TIV.
In assessing access to medical care, there was no association between hospitalizations and
health care insurance plans (Odds ratio:0.3, P= 0.13)
CONCLUSION:
1) TIV did not provide any protection against hospitalization in pediatric subjects’ esp. children with
asthma. On the contrary, we found a 3- fold increased risk of hospitalization in subjects who did
get the TIV vaccine.This may be a reflection not only of the vaccine effectiveness but also the
population of children who are more likely to get the vaccine.
2) More studies are needed to assess not only the immunogenicity but also efficacy of differentinfluenza vaccines in asthmatic subjects.
http://www.thoracic.org/sections/publications/press-releases/conference/articles/2009/abstracts-and-press-releases/joshi.pdf
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Bond granted for woman accused of child abuse
Christine Ferretti / The Detroit News
Mount Clemens -- A Harrison Township woman who spent more than four years behind bars on a child abuse conviction was granted bond Wednesday as she awaits a new trial.
Julie Baumer's relatives and supporters hugged and shook hands after Macomb County Circuit Court Judge James M. Biernat outlined the terms of her release from the Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Ypsilanti.
"I feel justice has been done. She's innocent," said Julie's mother, Victoria Rose-Baumer. "We never expected the first conviction. It was unjust."
Biernat granted Baumer, 33, a new trial in November on claims her previous legal representation was inadequate. She was convicted in 2005 of first-degree child abuse for shaking her infant nephew, Philipp Baumer, and leaving him blind and brain-injured. The boy has since been adopted and renamed Ben Zentz.
Biernat set a cash or surety bond of $25,000.
Baumer will be required to wear a GPS tether and reside at the Grace Centers of Hope in Pontiac, a faith-based rehabilitation campus. She's also expected to begin working for her former Mount Clemens employer, Alliance Financial, next week.
Biernat prohibited Baumer from having contact with Ben or his new family, as well as young children. Ben's adoptive parents, Debi and Philip Zentz, who attended the hearing Wednesday, said the bond was reasonable.
"It'll be good for her to go reside at this facility and benefit from the programs they can offer her," said Debi Zentz, who has said the thought of a new trial is troubling. She just wants justice for Ben and for Baumer to serve the time she was given.
The judge's decision to grant a new trial followed a series of evidentiary hearings this fall in which Baumer's new attorneys -- Carl Marlinga and Charles Lugosi -- presented experts who testified that the boy's injuries were consistent with venous sinus thrombosis or a "childhood stroke," rather than shaking.
Biernat said Baumer's previous attorney deprived her of a substantial defense by failing to retain an expert who could back up the theory that a stroke may have caused Ben's condition.
The Macomb County Prosecutor's Office plans to challenge the judge's ruling with the state Court of Appeals. Once they do, Baumer and her attorneys will have to wait to see if the higher court will affirm Biernat's decision. The University of Michigan Innocence Clinic has agreed to represent Baumer on appeal. Baumer is serving a 10- to 15-year sentence.
Mount Clemens -- A Harrison Township woman who spent more than four years behind bars on a child abuse conviction was granted bond Wednesday as she awaits a new trial.
Julie Baumer's relatives and supporters hugged and shook hands after Macomb County Circuit Court Judge James M. Biernat outlined the terms of her release from the Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Ypsilanti.
"I feel justice has been done. She's innocent," said Julie's mother, Victoria Rose-Baumer. "We never expected the first conviction. It was unjust."
Biernat granted Baumer, 33, a new trial in November on claims her previous legal representation was inadequate. She was convicted in 2005 of first-degree child abuse for shaking her infant nephew, Philipp Baumer, and leaving him blind and brain-injured. The boy has since been adopted and renamed Ben Zentz.
Biernat set a cash or surety bond of $25,000.
Baumer will be required to wear a GPS tether and reside at the Grace Centers of Hope in Pontiac, a faith-based rehabilitation campus. She's also expected to begin working for her former Mount Clemens employer, Alliance Financial, next week.
Biernat prohibited Baumer from having contact with Ben or his new family, as well as young children. Ben's adoptive parents, Debi and Philip Zentz, who attended the hearing Wednesday, said the bond was reasonable.
"It'll be good for her to go reside at this facility and benefit from the programs they can offer her," said Debi Zentz, who has said the thought of a new trial is troubling. She just wants justice for Ben and for Baumer to serve the time she was given.
The judge's decision to grant a new trial followed a series of evidentiary hearings this fall in which Baumer's new attorneys -- Carl Marlinga and Charles Lugosi -- presented experts who testified that the boy's injuries were consistent with venous sinus thrombosis or a "childhood stroke," rather than shaking.
Biernat said Baumer's previous attorney deprived her of a substantial defense by failing to retain an expert who could back up the theory that a stroke may have caused Ben's condition.
The Macomb County Prosecutor's Office plans to challenge the judge's ruling with the state Court of Appeals. Once they do, Baumer and her attorneys will have to wait to see if the higher court will affirm Biernat's decision. The University of Michigan Innocence Clinic has agreed to represent Baumer on appeal. Baumer is serving a 10- to 15-year sentence.
Monday, December 7, 2009
New Findings May Exonerate SBS Accused
A recent article by Maurice Possley brings to light new evidence about shaken baby-related murder convictions. Over the last thirty years, thousands of parents and caretakers have been charged after the death of a child in his or her care was attributed to Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). A diagnosis of SBS is based on a triad of evidence: retinal hemorhage, bleeding in the brain, and brain swelling. Individuals are generally only charged after the diagnosis of SBS is made. However, new scientific findings show that SBS may not always be a result of violent shaking, but that a short fall may also produce the same symptoms.
Audrey Edmunds of Wisconsin, a day care provider, was charged in 1995 with murder, after a 7-month old in her care died, and prosecuters alleged that she had shaken the baby to death. Last year, with the help of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, Edmunds was granted a new trial and released. One of the experts who had testified at her trial came forward to say that he was no longer sure Edmunds had harmed the child, and that the damage could have taken place hours earlier than originally believed. An article in the Washington University Law Review by Deborah Tuerkheimer to be published in September seeks to examine recent research into SBS which could free thousands of people who were imprisoned with the help of faulty science.
The case of Louise Woodward, the 19 year old au pair who was charged with second degree manslaughter after she was accused of shaking to death the child in her care, illustrates the point. Experts for the prosecution alleged that the child was shaken violently and his head was hit against a hard surface. Experts for the defense testified that the boy's injuries could have been sustained days earlier. The most recent scientific findings show that there is no certainty in the medical community that SBS is caused by violent trauma. Indeed, symptoms from the triad of SBS symptoms may be found in children before they are taken home from the hospital for the first time.
In light of the most recent medical research, many of those convicted in SBS cases could receive new trials, and it seems that the burden of proof may be moving in their favor.
Source:
http://newenglandinnocenceproject.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-findings-may-exonerate-many-in.html
http://fightingunjustsocialserviceethics.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-england-innocence-project.html
Audrey Edmunds of Wisconsin, a day care provider, was charged in 1995 with murder, after a 7-month old in her care died, and prosecuters alleged that she had shaken the baby to death. Last year, with the help of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, Edmunds was granted a new trial and released. One of the experts who had testified at her trial came forward to say that he was no longer sure Edmunds had harmed the child, and that the damage could have taken place hours earlier than originally believed. An article in the Washington University Law Review by Deborah Tuerkheimer to be published in September seeks to examine recent research into SBS which could free thousands of people who were imprisoned with the help of faulty science.
The case of Louise Woodward, the 19 year old au pair who was charged with second degree manslaughter after she was accused of shaking to death the child in her care, illustrates the point. Experts for the prosecution alleged that the child was shaken violently and his head was hit against a hard surface. Experts for the defense testified that the boy's injuries could have been sustained days earlier. The most recent scientific findings show that there is no certainty in the medical community that SBS is caused by violent trauma. Indeed, symptoms from the triad of SBS symptoms may be found in children before they are taken home from the hospital for the first time.
In light of the most recent medical research, many of those convicted in SBS cases could receive new trials, and it seems that the burden of proof may be moving in their favor.
Source:
http://newenglandinnocenceproject.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-findings-may-exonerate-many-in.html
http://fightingunjustsocialserviceethics.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-england-innocence-project.html
Utah Law Review Society by Genie Lyons
Utah Law Review Society by Genie Lyons
Summary
Shaken baby syndrome in its most extreme form – assuming abuse when a child has two specific brain injuries but no other signs of trauma – quite possibly does not exist. Other countries are not so quick to find abuse where there are no external indicia: Eva Lai Wah Fung, a Hong Kong researcher writing in Pediatric International states, “Retinal hemorrhage and subdural hematoma without external signs of injury in Japan and Hong Kong is usually attributed to accidental, trivial head injury, whereas subdural heamoraghe associated with external signs of trauma to the face or head were commonly found in cases of genuine child abuse. In spite of the many scientific studies that uncritically accept the existence of SBS, an adequate link between shaking a baby and the two SBS markers has never been scientifically verified and the latest evidence points strongly to organic reasons for the babies’ distress, as opposed to shaking.
Courts should admit, under Daubert, that evidence showing that the two classic medical signs used to show that a child had been deliberately shaken to the point of injury or death is insufficient proof that a crime has been committed.
For full article please see source, click HERE.
Summary
Shaken baby syndrome in its most extreme form – assuming abuse when a child has two specific brain injuries but no other signs of trauma – quite possibly does not exist. Other countries are not so quick to find abuse where there are no external indicia: Eva Lai Wah Fung, a Hong Kong researcher writing in Pediatric International states, “Retinal hemorrhage and subdural hematoma without external signs of injury in Japan and Hong Kong is usually attributed to accidental, trivial head injury, whereas subdural heamoraghe associated with external signs of trauma to the face or head were commonly found in cases of genuine child abuse. In spite of the many scientific studies that uncritically accept the existence of SBS, an adequate link between shaking a baby and the two SBS markers has never been scientifically verified and the latest evidence points strongly to organic reasons for the babies’ distress, as opposed to shaking.
Courts should admit, under Daubert, that evidence showing that the two classic medical signs used to show that a child had been deliberately shaken to the point of injury or death is insufficient proof that a crime has been committed.
For full article please see source, click HERE.
How to Prepare If You Are Charged with SBS
If you are charged with Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) or Blunt Forced Trauma or whatever the latest phrase is to charge a person with a theory based crime. Keep in mind that this is based on a theory as ethically, you cannot shake a baby or a child to determine the extent of injuries. No one really knows what injuries could present themselves if shaken and the cases where a person has admitted shaking, you can most likely bet that it was a plea to hopefully get a lesser sentence. Just because a person admits to shaking a child, it may not be so. There have been studies done that you don't hear about dealing with the force necessary to create the types of injuries that are claimed to have been a result of SBS. Biomechanics experts, who are trained to understand height/velocity, have published their findings that it is impossible to shake a child to product the constellation or in most cases, one or two of the "known injuries" to charge a person with SBS.
Regardless if you believe or don't believe in SBS, it's important to treat the child for what is really happening. How many of these children might have an underlying disease state and are being treated inappropriately? How many children if diagnosed correctly, could be saved? How many siblings might be a ticking bomb due to a genetic medical condition? The point to this post is to ensure a child was diagnosed correctly. It serves no purpose to convict someone when the doctors cannot pinpoint the cause of the alleged injuries. It is the doctor's duty to ensure the child has been diagnosed correctly. On a second note, vaccination injuries do occur which is why there is a reporting database and why many lawsuits compensating parents have been resolved. A doctor should not exclude the possibility of a vaccination reaction if the timing is within a certain timepoint of the alleged injury.
Lucid intervals is another point that needs to be considered. There is literature showing that a child can have a lucid interval on a previous head injury. There are also brain injuries involved in the birthing process. There are many factors that need to be considered in treating and diagnosing these children that present themselves with no obvious reason or witness.
If you are convicted, there are important steps your attorney needs to take to ensure you are being represented appropriately.
Regardless if you believe or don't believe in SBS, it's important to treat the child for what is really happening. How many of these children might have an underlying disease state and are being treated inappropriately? How many children if diagnosed correctly, could be saved? How many siblings might be a ticking bomb due to a genetic medical condition? The point to this post is to ensure a child was diagnosed correctly. It serves no purpose to convict someone when the doctors cannot pinpoint the cause of the alleged injuries. It is the doctor's duty to ensure the child has been diagnosed correctly. On a second note, vaccination injuries do occur which is why there is a reporting database and why many lawsuits compensating parents have been resolved. A doctor should not exclude the possibility of a vaccination reaction if the timing is within a certain timepoint of the alleged injury.
Lucid intervals is another point that needs to be considered. There is literature showing that a child can have a lucid interval on a previous head injury. There are also brain injuries involved in the birthing process. There are many factors that need to be considered in treating and diagnosing these children that present themselves with no obvious reason or witness.
If you are convicted, there are important steps your attorney needs to take to ensure you are being represented appropriately.
- All hospital records have to be retrieved. This includes all medical records, reports, lab reports, notes, images, CT-Scans, radiology, prenatal records, well baby records, vaccination records, pre-existing conditions, autopsy rough and formal notes, reports and findings. All experts findings/notes that were involved with the child's care or via the autopsy needs to be obtained. Most likely, your attorney will need to issue a subpoena.
- All slides from the autopsy need to be obtained. You want to ensure tissue samples and retinopathy findings are included.
- All this data needs to be reviewed carefully and put into a timeline format. It will take skilled people to read and review this data to look for inconsistencies, errors or omissions.
- Review all interviews that the police conducted for additional clues into past injuries, pre-existing conditions, medications and so forth. Also, have your own interviews by a private investigator. Key information can be obtained such as the child was seen by various doctors in various towns or the child fell down the stairs a week prior. All events and knowledge are critical to piecing together the puzzle. The goal should not be to convict anyone if a child is presented with an unexplained injury. The goal is to determine what happened to treat the child first and foremost.
- Interview all medical experts for the prosecution and tape record the conversation. There is critical information that can be obtained from talking to these experts. The attorney needs to understand what the expert is utilizing to form their opinions. Perhaps they are referring to old journals and have not seen any of the new literature questioning SBS. Leave no stone unturned. Look to see if there are any complaints on this expert. Look at their history on other cases to see if there are any trends. There is an influx of pathologists being scrutinized for their past performance on these types of cases. Look at Dr. Charles Smith out of Canada.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Pensylvania Innocence Project: New Research Into Shaken Baby Syndrome Casts Serious Doubt On Validity Of Science
On right side of linked blog are many others SBS related posts.
Pensylvania Innocence Project: New Research Into Shaken Baby Syndrome Casts Serious Doubt On Validity Of Science
November 28, 2009
http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/category/shaken-baby-syndrome/pensylvania-innocence-project-shaken-baby-syndrome/
A recent editorial in Reason Online discusses Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). Over the past twenty-plus years, the SBS diagnosis has supported homicide verdicts in cases involving otherwise unexplained infant deaths. In many of these cases, the only evidence to establish a defendant’s guilt has been the testimony of a physician who opined that the baby’s death was caused by shaking so violent it was the equivalent of dropping the child from a 2-story window, or being hit by a car going 35 miles per hour. In such cases, even with no direct evidence the defendant had ever harmed the child (much less violently shaken it), juries have convicted loving caretakers of murder. The testimony was based upon a finding of 3 separate physical symptoms–bleeding at the back of the eye, bleeding in the protective area of the brain, and brain swelling—which doctors and other child protective believed could only have been caused by violent shaking. But now, science is slowly realizing the terrible truth that, in fact, that conclusion is simply not true. Modern research (using lifelike dolls) has shown that vigorous human shaking produces bleeding similar to that of only a 2-foot to 3-foot fall. Furthermore, researchers were unable to reproduce symptoms with the severity of those typically seen in SBS death by shaking the dolls. In other words, what had been accepted as medical doctrine simply does not hold up.
This tide of events is having an impact in cases of innocence. Last January, a Wisconsin appeals court granted a new trial to Audrey Edmunds, who was convicted of murdering her infant following expert testimony that the baby died as a result of SBS. All charges were withdrawn by the government six months later, citing the “interests of justice for the victims” and the toll of a potential retrial on the family. Ms. Edmunds had served 11 years in prison.
This month’s Washington University Law Review features an article in which Professor Teurkheimer, of DePaul University Law, argues that due to the lack of sound medical research the courts should perform a review of SBS cases.
Discover Magazine featured an article last year, ‘Does Shaken Baby Syndrome Really Exist?’ in which both sides of scientific debate are discussed. Ronald Uscinski, a clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at Georgetown Hospital and George Washington University, said in this article, “this is not to say that child abuse does not exist. I have witnessed such cases and have been deeply and painfully moved by the plight of innocents who have been injured or even killed….And yet I am no less moved by the plight of the wrongfully accused (and even convicted), their families and their loved ones. This is particularly so when such accusations are based on impure science, a flawed legal foundation, and completely inadequate or inappropriate public policy.”
The concern is that there are likely many innocent people currently in prison based on convictions that relied upon a faulty diagnosis. Scientific testing/research has cast increasingly significant doubt on the SBS diagnosis. The time has come for our legal system to revisit the appropriateness of its application, and the convictions that have resulted from it.
Source:
http://innocenceprojectpa.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/new-research-into-shaken-baby-syndrome-casts-serious-doubt-on-validity-of-science/
Main Website For Pensylvania Innocence Project:
http://innocenceprojectpa.org/
Pensylvania Innocence Project: New Research Into Shaken Baby Syndrome Casts Serious Doubt On Validity Of Science
November 28, 2009
http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/category/shaken-baby-syndrome/pensylvania-innocence-project-shaken-baby-syndrome/
A recent editorial in Reason Online discusses Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). Over the past twenty-plus years, the SBS diagnosis has supported homicide verdicts in cases involving otherwise unexplained infant deaths. In many of these cases, the only evidence to establish a defendant’s guilt has been the testimony of a physician who opined that the baby’s death was caused by shaking so violent it was the equivalent of dropping the child from a 2-story window, or being hit by a car going 35 miles per hour. In such cases, even with no direct evidence the defendant had ever harmed the child (much less violently shaken it), juries have convicted loving caretakers of murder. The testimony was based upon a finding of 3 separate physical symptoms–bleeding at the back of the eye, bleeding in the protective area of the brain, and brain swelling—which doctors and other child protective believed could only have been caused by violent shaking. But now, science is slowly realizing the terrible truth that, in fact, that conclusion is simply not true. Modern research (using lifelike dolls) has shown that vigorous human shaking produces bleeding similar to that of only a 2-foot to 3-foot fall. Furthermore, researchers were unable to reproduce symptoms with the severity of those typically seen in SBS death by shaking the dolls. In other words, what had been accepted as medical doctrine simply does not hold up.
This tide of events is having an impact in cases of innocence. Last January, a Wisconsin appeals court granted a new trial to Audrey Edmunds, who was convicted of murdering her infant following expert testimony that the baby died as a result of SBS. All charges were withdrawn by the government six months later, citing the “interests of justice for the victims” and the toll of a potential retrial on the family. Ms. Edmunds had served 11 years in prison.
This month’s Washington University Law Review features an article in which Professor Teurkheimer, of DePaul University Law, argues that due to the lack of sound medical research the courts should perform a review of SBS cases.
Discover Magazine featured an article last year, ‘Does Shaken Baby Syndrome Really Exist?’ in which both sides of scientific debate are discussed. Ronald Uscinski, a clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at Georgetown Hospital and George Washington University, said in this article, “this is not to say that child abuse does not exist. I have witnessed such cases and have been deeply and painfully moved by the plight of innocents who have been injured or even killed….And yet I am no less moved by the plight of the wrongfully accused (and even convicted), their families and their loved ones. This is particularly so when such accusations are based on impure science, a flawed legal foundation, and completely inadequate or inappropriate public policy.”
The concern is that there are likely many innocent people currently in prison based on convictions that relied upon a faulty diagnosis. Scientific testing/research has cast increasingly significant doubt on the SBS diagnosis. The time has come for our legal system to revisit the appropriateness of its application, and the convictions that have resulted from it.
Source:
http://innocenceprojectpa.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/new-research-into-shaken-baby-syndrome-casts-serious-doubt-on-validity-of-science/
Main Website For Pensylvania Innocence Project:
http://innocenceprojectpa.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)