What is the evidence base for shaken baby syndrome or as it's preferred term is now called blunt force impact? Is the current diagnostic criteria accurate? For many years, the standard for determining whether or not a child was harmed intentionally centered around a theory. No other diagnosis, accusation or conviction is based on a theory so why does this continue?
Those gold standard symptoms ranged from subdural and retinal bleeding and or broken bones. A child could present himself with one or more of the hallmark symptoms and if the care giver's story was suspect by their training, it had to be abuse. Controversy swirled on whether or not a child could die from a small fall. The same controversy presents itself on the 'ah ha' moment when later it is learned a child had an underlying condition that the doctors either did not seek or discover or perhaps, a child suffered from an adverse reaction to a vaccination.
It recent past, many researchers and doctors have reported fallacies among the evidence base for shaken baby syndrome and the criteria physicians, lawyers and the judicial system utilize for proof of abuse. These criteria are presented as absolutes when in fact, there is proof showing otherwise. The past "evidence" of one criteria, retinal hemorrhages, was discussed and disputed by Patrick Lantz et al which it was concluded that it “cannot be supported by objective scientific evidence.” Just as another study where Mark Donahue reviewed the literature on shaken baby syndrome from 1966 to 1998 and found the scientific evidence to support a diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome to be much less reliable than generally thought.
This is just one example on how the evidence base is not there for one criteria associated with shaken baby syndrome.
To read the entire article from the BMJ with supplement and comments, click here.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Letter to the Editor: MN Medicine In Defense of Dr. John Plunkett Who Disagrees With Shaken Baby Syndrome
Thank God others are standing up against theories proven to be wrong but continued to be the cause of many innocent people getting locked away.
March 2010
Letters to the Editor
In our August 2009 issue, we published the article “Challenging an Assumption” (p. 29), which was a profile of Dr. John Plunkett, a Minnesota pathologist who questions the validity of the shaken baby syndrome diagnosis. In January, we received and published a letter critical of our article and of Dr. Plunkett’s views (p. 5). That letter was signed by members of the international advisory board of the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome. Since then, we have received numerous letters taking issue with their letter and the views of its signers. Clearly, we have touched a nerve in writing about this issue. Our intent for the story about Dr. Plunkett was neither to validate nor to denigrate his work. We merely wanted to highlight the fact that a Minnesota physician is taking part in a highly controversial debate that has ramifications for medicine and the legal system. Below are some of the letters we have received recently on this topic. Others can be viewed online at www.minneotamedicine.com.
—the editors
Growing Body of Contrary Evidence
In your January 2010 issue, nine doctors, a prosecutor, and a police detective—all of whom are associated with the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome, an advocacy group devoted to the promotion of “shaken baby” theory—attacked Dr. John Plunkett, who was featured in the August 2009 issue of Minnesota Medicine. Dr. Plunkett has spent his recent career applying basic biomechanical and medical principles to shaken baby syndrome (SBS) and testifying, if needed, when accused parents or caretakers are confronted with unproven or demonstrably incorrect medical claims. Because of his work and research by others, the literature on SBS has changed substantially since 2000, forcing major changes in the SBS position papers of the major medical organizations. In their 2010 letter, the representatives of the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome claim that Dr. Plunkett’s findings are based on “belief” rather than “evidence.” In fact, doctors have been diagnosing SBS for nearly 40 years without an adequate scientific basis—and in the face of a growing body of contrary evidence.
In the 1970s, “shaking” was advanced as a theory to explain a triad of findings (subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and/or brain swelling) that is sometimes seen in infants or children who have no signs of trauma. The theory was that shaking caused these findings by rupturing bridging veins and tearing the axons within the brain. In 1987, Dr. Ann-Christine Duhaime, a neurosurgeon working with biomechanical engineers at the University of Pennsylvania, attempted to prove that shaking could cause these injuries. However, her study
showed the opposite: The forces of shaking fell well below established injury thresholds and were 1/50th the force of impact, including impact on soft surfaces.1
Despite these findings, many doctors continued to testify that shaking was the primary or sole cause for the triad of symptoms and that it would take a fall from a multistory building to cause these findings. In 2001, Dr. Plunkett disproved this premise in an article that included a videotaped fall of a toddler from a 28-inch plastic indoor play structure that resulted in subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and death.2 This videotape proved definitively that short falls can cause the triad and are sometimes fatal. Although SBS proponents initially suggested that the videotape had been altered, Dr. Case (one of the signatories to the attack on Dr. Plunkett) has acknowledged the validity of the videotape, which has been shown in courtrooms and at teaching seminars in the United States and England.3 Numerous biomechanical studies have further confirmed that the force from short falls meets the injury thresholds, while shaking does not.4-6
Short falls are not the only cause of medical findings previously attributed to shaking. Studies by Dr. Jennian Geddes published in Brain, England’s leading neurology journal, from 2001 and 2003 found that the brain injuries of allegedly shaken children were generally hypoxic rather than traumatic in origin, and that subdural hemorrhages are also found in natural deaths.7,8 In 2002, Drs. Hymel, Jenny, and Block (two of whom signed the attack on Dr. Plunkett) listed the alternative causes for findings previously attributed to shaking or inflicted head trauma as accidental trauma; medical or surgical interventions; prenatal, perinatal, and pregnancy-related conditions; birth trauma; metabolic, genetic, oncologic, or infectious diseases; congenital malformations; autoimmune disorders; clotting disorders; the effects of drugs, poisons, or toxins; and other miscellaneous conditions.9 A 2006 text on abusive head trauma in infants and children (co-edited by Dr. Alexander, another signatory to the attack on Dr. Plunkett) and a 2007 review article by Patrick Barnes, professor of radiology at Stanford University and chief of pediatric neuroradiology at Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, are in accord.10 Despite this consensus, hundreds to thousands of parents and caretakers have been imprisoned based on testimony by doctors that subdural hemorrhages, retinal hemorrhages, and/or brain swelling are diagnostic of abuse, with little or no regard to the alternatives, including short falls and natural causes.
At the same time, many doctors and academics have recognized that the real problem lies in the lack of an evidence base for shaken baby theory. In 2003, a review article by Dr. Mark Donohoe found that “[T]he evidence for SBS appears analogous to an inverted pyramid, with a small data base (most of it poor-quality original research, retrospective in nature, and without appropriate control groups) spreading to a broad body of somewhat divergent opinions.” 12 In 2006, the National Association of Medical Examiners withdrew its position paper on shaking, and its annual conference included presentations with titles such as “‘Where’s the Shaking?’: Dragons, Elves, the Shaking Baby Syndrome, and Other Mythical Entities” and “Use of the Triad of Scant Subdural Hemorrhage, Brain Swelling, and Retinal Hemorrhages to Diagnose Non-Accidental Injury is Not Scientifically Valid.” In subsequent publications, Dr. Waney Squier of Oxford University, one of England’s leading neuropathologists, and Dr. Jan Leestma, author of the textbook Forensic Neuropathology, similarly concluded that the evidence base for shaken baby syndrome is lacking.13,14 None of this material is addressed or cited in the attack on Dr. Plunkett.
The problem, in short, is not that Dr. Plunkett was wrong; the problem is that he was right. Over the past decades, hundreds to thousands of caretakers—many of whom are innocent—have been convicted based on theories that lack a scientific basis. These convictions must now be revisited. Of course children are abused. But there are many ways to abuse children, one of which is ripping them from their families and imprisoning their parents and caretakers based on misdiagnoses of abuse. We therefore urge the medical profession to join us in developing a calm, rational and evidence-based approach to pediatric head injury and child death.
Heather Kirkwood, J.D.
Seattle, Washington
Barry S. Scheck, J.D.
Co-director, Innocence Project
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
New York City
Keith Findley, J.D.
President, Innocence Network
Co-director, Wisconsin Innocence Project
University of Wisconsin Law School
Madison, Wisconsin
Bridget McCormack, J.D.
Co-director, Michigan Innocence Clinic
University of Michigan Law School
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Julie Jonas, J.D.
University of Minnesota Innocence Clinic
Managing Attorney, Innocence Project of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Jacqueline McMurtrie, J.D.
Director, Innocence Project Northwest Clinic
University of Washington School of Law Seattle, Washington
References
1. Duhaime AC, Gennarelli TA, Thibault LE, Bruce DA, Margulies SS, Wiser R. The shaken baby syndrome. A clinical,
pathological, and biomechanical study. J Neurosurg 1987;66(3):409-15.
2. Plunkett J. Fatal pediatric head injuries caused by short-distance falls. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2001;22(1):1-12.
3. Seventh North American Conference on Shaken Baby Syndrome (Abusive Head Trauma), Vancouver, B.C. October
2008.
4. Ommaya AK, Goldsmith W, Thibault L. Biomechanics and neuropathology of adult and paediatric head injury. Br J
Neurosurg 2002;16(3):220-42.
5. Prange MT, Coats B, Duhaime AC, Margulies SS. Anthropomorphic simulations of falls, shakes, and inflicted impacts
in infants. J Neurosurg 2003;99(1):143-50.
6. Goldsmith W, Plunkett J. A biomechanical analysis of the causes of traumatic brain injury in infants and children. Am
J Forensic Med Pathology 2004;25(2):89-100.
7. Geddes JF, Hackshaw AK, Vowles GH, Nickols CD, Whitwell HL. Neuropathology of inflicted head injury in children,
I and II. Brain. 2001;124(part 7):1290-8.
8. Geddes J, Tasker RC, Hackshaw AK, et al. Dural haemorrhage in non-traumatic infant deaths: does it explain the
bleeding in ‘shaken baby syndrome’? Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 2003;29:114-22.
9. Hymel KP, Jenny C, Block RW. Intracranial hemorrhage and rebleeding in suspected victims of abusive head trauma:
addressing the forensic controversies. Child Maltreat 2002:7(4):329-48.
10. Frasier L, Rauth-Farley K, Alexander R, Parrish R. Abusive Head Trauma in Infants and Children: A Medical,
Legal, and Forensic Reference. G.W. Medical Publishing, Inc.; St. Louis, MO: 2006.
11. Barnes PD, Krasnokutsky M. Imaging of the central nervous system in suspected or alleged nonaccidental injury,
including the mimics. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2007;18:53-74.
12. Donohoe M. Evidence-based medicine and shaken baby syndrome part I: literature review, 1966-1998. Am J Forensic
Med Pathol 2003;24(3):239-42.
13. Squier W. Shaken baby syndrome: the quest for evidence. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008;50(1):10-4.
14. Leestma J. Forensic Neuropathology, Second ed. CRC Press; Chicago: 2009.
Circular Reasoning
We read with interest Kate Ledger’s article “Challenging an Assumption: A pathologist questions shaken baby syndrome” (Minnesota Medicine, August 2009) and the response of Drs. Alexander, Barr, Block, et al. (January 2010).
Dr. Block and his cosigners complain that Ms. Ledger ignored the enormous body of international peer-reviewed medical literature about shaken baby syndrome. Much of this literature exhibits circular reasoning, selection bias, or misrepresents the data. Of the 14 references they cite, six are unsystematic reviews or consensus statements that mingle opinion with fact and add no original supporting evidence. Two are based on data described by the authors as “explorative.” Those authors suggest that “further surveillance ... and modelling will be required.” Two are invalidated by insufficiently robust criteria to reliably diagnose abuse and one by failure to address the fundamental methods on which the study was based.
Dr. Block and his cosigners suggest that this literature “consistently and repeatedly supports the concept of shaken baby syndrome.” We do not disagree with this but would point out, as Ms. Ledger clearly did, that supporting a concept is far from demonstrating the scientific basis for it.
Just as disturbing as the literature Block and his cosigners cite is the indignation they expressed that someone should challenge their opinions as medical “experts” in a court of law—as if theyare somehow exempt from the human tendency for cognitive errors in medical decision making. What scientist is afraid of debate that is crucial to our understanding of evolving ideas?
Fortunately, medicine has never been static. There is much to learn about the pathophysiology of infant brain trauma. We cannot make up for this lack of knowledge by reiterating opinion and poor data: Ignoring new evidence and failing to question and engage in debate is a dereliction of our duties to our patients and their families.
Waney Squier, FRCP FRCPath
Consultant neuropathologist
John Radcliffe Hospital
Oxford, United Kingdom
Julie Mack, M.D.
Assistant professor of radiology
Penn State Hershey Medical Center
Hershey, Pennsylvania
Patrick E. Lantz, M.D.
Professor of pathology
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Patrick D. Barnes, M.D.
Chief of pediatric neuroradiology
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, California
Irene Scheimberg, M.D.
Paediatric and perinatal pathologist
The Royal London Hospital
London, England
James T. Eastman, M.D.
Clinical professor of pathology and laboratory medicine
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
Marta Cohen, M.D.
Sheffield Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Sheffield, United Kingdom
Peter J. Stephens, M.D., FCAP
Forensic pathologist
Burnsville, North Carolina
Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan, M.D., Ph.D.
Medical Examiner for Knox and Anderson Counties
Regional Forensic Center
University of Tennessee Medical Center Knoxville, Tennessee
Persuasive Evidence and a Theory
I serve on occasion as an expert witness for the defense in shaken baby syndrome (SBS) cases. That is a matter I disclose as a potential conflict of interest. I wish the writers of the letter in your January 2010 issue had done the same.
When I cast doubt on the validity of SBS, I cite the original literature. In my judgment, SBS is so lacking in evidence, it is hard to understand how the hypothesis ever gained traction.1,2
I cite a review of seminal SBS literature up to 1998. It concluded the evidence was inadequate.3 I cite Ommaya, et al., who did the original work on whiplash biomechanics that debunks the SBShypothesis.4 I cite experimental work that indicates forces generated by manual shaking are an order of magnitude less than forces of impact, and less than the threshold for injury.5 I cite an article that states the neck should be destroyed if manual shaking were capable of producing brain damage.6 I have seen no case in which neck injury was observed.
Finally, I cite my own hypothesis. It is untested, just as the SBS hypothesis is untested. If the forces of shaking are sufficient to cause brain damage, the thumbs of the shaker and the places where the thumbs are applied on the victim should be conspicuously injured. They are not.
Edward N. Willey, M.D.
St. Petersburg, Florida
References
1. Guthkelch AN. Infantile subdural haematoma and its relationship to whiplash injuries. Br Med J 1971;2(5759):430-1.
2. Caffey J. On the theory and practice of shaking infants. Its potential residual effects of permanent brain damage and
mental retardation. Am J Dis Child 1972;124(2):161-9.
3. Donohoe M. Evidence-based medicine and shaken baby syndrome: part I: literature review, 1966-1998. Am J Forensic
Med Pathol 2003;24(3):239-42.
4. Ommaya AK, Goldsmith W, Thibault L. Biomechanics and neuropathology of adult and paediatric head injury. Br J
Neurosurg 2002;16(3): 220-42.
5. Duhaime, AC, Gennarelli TA, Thibault LE, et al. The shaken baby syndrome. A clinical, pathological, and
biomechanical study. J Neurosurg 1987;66(3): 409-15.
6. Bandak FA. Shaken baby syndrome: a biomechanics analysis of injury mechanisms. Forensic Sci Int 2005;151(1):71-9.
March 2010
Letters to the Editor
In our August 2009 issue, we published the article “Challenging an Assumption” (p. 29), which was a profile of Dr. John Plunkett, a Minnesota pathologist who questions the validity of the shaken baby syndrome diagnosis. In January, we received and published a letter critical of our article and of Dr. Plunkett’s views (p. 5). That letter was signed by members of the international advisory board of the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome. Since then, we have received numerous letters taking issue with their letter and the views of its signers. Clearly, we have touched a nerve in writing about this issue. Our intent for the story about Dr. Plunkett was neither to validate nor to denigrate his work. We merely wanted to highlight the fact that a Minnesota physician is taking part in a highly controversial debate that has ramifications for medicine and the legal system. Below are some of the letters we have received recently on this topic. Others can be viewed online at www.minneotamedicine.com.
—the editors
Growing Body of Contrary Evidence
In your January 2010 issue, nine doctors, a prosecutor, and a police detective—all of whom are associated with the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome, an advocacy group devoted to the promotion of “shaken baby” theory—attacked Dr. John Plunkett, who was featured in the August 2009 issue of Minnesota Medicine. Dr. Plunkett has spent his recent career applying basic biomechanical and medical principles to shaken baby syndrome (SBS) and testifying, if needed, when accused parents or caretakers are confronted with unproven or demonstrably incorrect medical claims. Because of his work and research by others, the literature on SBS has changed substantially since 2000, forcing major changes in the SBS position papers of the major medical organizations. In their 2010 letter, the representatives of the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome claim that Dr. Plunkett’s findings are based on “belief” rather than “evidence.” In fact, doctors have been diagnosing SBS for nearly 40 years without an adequate scientific basis—and in the face of a growing body of contrary evidence.
In the 1970s, “shaking” was advanced as a theory to explain a triad of findings (subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and/or brain swelling) that is sometimes seen in infants or children who have no signs of trauma. The theory was that shaking caused these findings by rupturing bridging veins and tearing the axons within the brain. In 1987, Dr. Ann-Christine Duhaime, a neurosurgeon working with biomechanical engineers at the University of Pennsylvania, attempted to prove that shaking could cause these injuries. However, her study
showed the opposite: The forces of shaking fell well below established injury thresholds and were 1/50th the force of impact, including impact on soft surfaces.1
Despite these findings, many doctors continued to testify that shaking was the primary or sole cause for the triad of symptoms and that it would take a fall from a multistory building to cause these findings. In 2001, Dr. Plunkett disproved this premise in an article that included a videotaped fall of a toddler from a 28-inch plastic indoor play structure that resulted in subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and death.2 This videotape proved definitively that short falls can cause the triad and are sometimes fatal. Although SBS proponents initially suggested that the videotape had been altered, Dr. Case (one of the signatories to the attack on Dr. Plunkett) has acknowledged the validity of the videotape, which has been shown in courtrooms and at teaching seminars in the United States and England.3 Numerous biomechanical studies have further confirmed that the force from short falls meets the injury thresholds, while shaking does not.4-6
Short falls are not the only cause of medical findings previously attributed to shaking. Studies by Dr. Jennian Geddes published in Brain, England’s leading neurology journal, from 2001 and 2003 found that the brain injuries of allegedly shaken children were generally hypoxic rather than traumatic in origin, and that subdural hemorrhages are also found in natural deaths.7,8 In 2002, Drs. Hymel, Jenny, and Block (two of whom signed the attack on Dr. Plunkett) listed the alternative causes for findings previously attributed to shaking or inflicted head trauma as accidental trauma; medical or surgical interventions; prenatal, perinatal, and pregnancy-related conditions; birth trauma; metabolic, genetic, oncologic, or infectious diseases; congenital malformations; autoimmune disorders; clotting disorders; the effects of drugs, poisons, or toxins; and other miscellaneous conditions.9 A 2006 text on abusive head trauma in infants and children (co-edited by Dr. Alexander, another signatory to the attack on Dr. Plunkett) and a 2007 review article by Patrick Barnes, professor of radiology at Stanford University and chief of pediatric neuroradiology at Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, are in accord.10 Despite this consensus, hundreds to thousands of parents and caretakers have been imprisoned based on testimony by doctors that subdural hemorrhages, retinal hemorrhages, and/or brain swelling are diagnostic of abuse, with little or no regard to the alternatives, including short falls and natural causes.
At the same time, many doctors and academics have recognized that the real problem lies in the lack of an evidence base for shaken baby theory. In 2003, a review article by Dr. Mark Donohoe found that “[T]he evidence for SBS appears analogous to an inverted pyramid, with a small data base (most of it poor-quality original research, retrospective in nature, and without appropriate control groups) spreading to a broad body of somewhat divergent opinions.” 12 In 2006, the National Association of Medical Examiners withdrew its position paper on shaking, and its annual conference included presentations with titles such as “‘Where’s the Shaking?’: Dragons, Elves, the Shaking Baby Syndrome, and Other Mythical Entities” and “Use of the Triad of Scant Subdural Hemorrhage, Brain Swelling, and Retinal Hemorrhages to Diagnose Non-Accidental Injury is Not Scientifically Valid.” In subsequent publications, Dr. Waney Squier of Oxford University, one of England’s leading neuropathologists, and Dr. Jan Leestma, author of the textbook Forensic Neuropathology, similarly concluded that the evidence base for shaken baby syndrome is lacking.13,14 None of this material is addressed or cited in the attack on Dr. Plunkett.
The problem, in short, is not that Dr. Plunkett was wrong; the problem is that he was right. Over the past decades, hundreds to thousands of caretakers—many of whom are innocent—have been convicted based on theories that lack a scientific basis. These convictions must now be revisited. Of course children are abused. But there are many ways to abuse children, one of which is ripping them from their families and imprisoning their parents and caretakers based on misdiagnoses of abuse. We therefore urge the medical profession to join us in developing a calm, rational and evidence-based approach to pediatric head injury and child death.
Heather Kirkwood, J.D.
Seattle, Washington
Barry S. Scheck, J.D.
Co-director, Innocence Project
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
New York City
Keith Findley, J.D.
President, Innocence Network
Co-director, Wisconsin Innocence Project
University of Wisconsin Law School
Madison, Wisconsin
Bridget McCormack, J.D.
Co-director, Michigan Innocence Clinic
University of Michigan Law School
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Julie Jonas, J.D.
University of Minnesota Innocence Clinic
Managing Attorney, Innocence Project of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Jacqueline McMurtrie, J.D.
Director, Innocence Project Northwest Clinic
University of Washington School of Law Seattle, Washington
References
1. Duhaime AC, Gennarelli TA, Thibault LE, Bruce DA, Margulies SS, Wiser R. The shaken baby syndrome. A clinical,
pathological, and biomechanical study. J Neurosurg 1987;66(3):409-15.
2. Plunkett J. Fatal pediatric head injuries caused by short-distance falls. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2001;22(1):1-12.
3. Seventh North American Conference on Shaken Baby Syndrome (Abusive Head Trauma), Vancouver, B.C. October
2008.
4. Ommaya AK, Goldsmith W, Thibault L. Biomechanics and neuropathology of adult and paediatric head injury. Br J
Neurosurg 2002;16(3):220-42.
5. Prange MT, Coats B, Duhaime AC, Margulies SS. Anthropomorphic simulations of falls, shakes, and inflicted impacts
in infants. J Neurosurg 2003;99(1):143-50.
6. Goldsmith W, Plunkett J. A biomechanical analysis of the causes of traumatic brain injury in infants and children. Am
J Forensic Med Pathology 2004;25(2):89-100.
7. Geddes JF, Hackshaw AK, Vowles GH, Nickols CD, Whitwell HL. Neuropathology of inflicted head injury in children,
I and II. Brain. 2001;124(part 7):1290-8.
8. Geddes J, Tasker RC, Hackshaw AK, et al. Dural haemorrhage in non-traumatic infant deaths: does it explain the
bleeding in ‘shaken baby syndrome’? Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 2003;29:114-22.
9. Hymel KP, Jenny C, Block RW. Intracranial hemorrhage and rebleeding in suspected victims of abusive head trauma:
addressing the forensic controversies. Child Maltreat 2002:7(4):329-48.
10. Frasier L, Rauth-Farley K, Alexander R, Parrish R. Abusive Head Trauma in Infants and Children: A Medical,
Legal, and Forensic Reference. G.W. Medical Publishing, Inc.; St. Louis, MO: 2006.
11. Barnes PD, Krasnokutsky M. Imaging of the central nervous system in suspected or alleged nonaccidental injury,
including the mimics. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2007;18:53-74.
12. Donohoe M. Evidence-based medicine and shaken baby syndrome part I: literature review, 1966-1998. Am J Forensic
Med Pathol 2003;24(3):239-42.
13. Squier W. Shaken baby syndrome: the quest for evidence. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008;50(1):10-4.
14. Leestma J. Forensic Neuropathology, Second ed. CRC Press; Chicago: 2009.
Circular Reasoning
We read with interest Kate Ledger’s article “Challenging an Assumption: A pathologist questions shaken baby syndrome” (Minnesota Medicine, August 2009) and the response of Drs. Alexander, Barr, Block, et al. (January 2010).
Dr. Block and his cosigners complain that Ms. Ledger ignored the enormous body of international peer-reviewed medical literature about shaken baby syndrome. Much of this literature exhibits circular reasoning, selection bias, or misrepresents the data. Of the 14 references they cite, six are unsystematic reviews or consensus statements that mingle opinion with fact and add no original supporting evidence. Two are based on data described by the authors as “explorative.” Those authors suggest that “further surveillance ... and modelling will be required.” Two are invalidated by insufficiently robust criteria to reliably diagnose abuse and one by failure to address the fundamental methods on which the study was based.
Dr. Block and his cosigners suggest that this literature “consistently and repeatedly supports the concept of shaken baby syndrome.” We do not disagree with this but would point out, as Ms. Ledger clearly did, that supporting a concept is far from demonstrating the scientific basis for it.
Just as disturbing as the literature Block and his cosigners cite is the indignation they expressed that someone should challenge their opinions as medical “experts” in a court of law—as if theyare somehow exempt from the human tendency for cognitive errors in medical decision making. What scientist is afraid of debate that is crucial to our understanding of evolving ideas?
Fortunately, medicine has never been static. There is much to learn about the pathophysiology of infant brain trauma. We cannot make up for this lack of knowledge by reiterating opinion and poor data: Ignoring new evidence and failing to question and engage in debate is a dereliction of our duties to our patients and their families.
Waney Squier, FRCP FRCPath
Consultant neuropathologist
John Radcliffe Hospital
Oxford, United Kingdom
Julie Mack, M.D.
Assistant professor of radiology
Penn State Hershey Medical Center
Hershey, Pennsylvania
Patrick E. Lantz, M.D.
Professor of pathology
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Patrick D. Barnes, M.D.
Chief of pediatric neuroradiology
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, California
Irene Scheimberg, M.D.
Paediatric and perinatal pathologist
The Royal London Hospital
London, England
James T. Eastman, M.D.
Clinical professor of pathology and laboratory medicine
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
Marta Cohen, M.D.
Sheffield Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Sheffield, United Kingdom
Peter J. Stephens, M.D., FCAP
Forensic pathologist
Burnsville, North Carolina
Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan, M.D., Ph.D.
Medical Examiner for Knox and Anderson Counties
Regional Forensic Center
University of Tennessee Medical Center Knoxville, Tennessee
Persuasive Evidence and a Theory
I serve on occasion as an expert witness for the defense in shaken baby syndrome (SBS) cases. That is a matter I disclose as a potential conflict of interest. I wish the writers of the letter in your January 2010 issue had done the same.
When I cast doubt on the validity of SBS, I cite the original literature. In my judgment, SBS is so lacking in evidence, it is hard to understand how the hypothesis ever gained traction.1,2
I cite a review of seminal SBS literature up to 1998. It concluded the evidence was inadequate.3 I cite Ommaya, et al., who did the original work on whiplash biomechanics that debunks the SBShypothesis.4 I cite experimental work that indicates forces generated by manual shaking are an order of magnitude less than forces of impact, and less than the threshold for injury.5 I cite an article that states the neck should be destroyed if manual shaking were capable of producing brain damage.6 I have seen no case in which neck injury was observed.
Finally, I cite my own hypothesis. It is untested, just as the SBS hypothesis is untested. If the forces of shaking are sufficient to cause brain damage, the thumbs of the shaker and the places where the thumbs are applied on the victim should be conspicuously injured. They are not.
Edward N. Willey, M.D.
St. Petersburg, Florida
References
1. Guthkelch AN. Infantile subdural haematoma and its relationship to whiplash injuries. Br Med J 1971;2(5759):430-1.
2. Caffey J. On the theory and practice of shaking infants. Its potential residual effects of permanent brain damage and
mental retardation. Am J Dis Child 1972;124(2):161-9.
3. Donohoe M. Evidence-based medicine and shaken baby syndrome: part I: literature review, 1966-1998. Am J Forensic
Med Pathol 2003;24(3):239-42.
4. Ommaya AK, Goldsmith W, Thibault L. Biomechanics and neuropathology of adult and paediatric head injury. Br J
Neurosurg 2002;16(3): 220-42.
5. Duhaime, AC, Gennarelli TA, Thibault LE, et al. The shaken baby syndrome. A clinical, pathological, and
biomechanical study. J Neurosurg 1987;66(3): 409-15.
6. Bandak FA. Shaken baby syndrome: a biomechanics analysis of injury mechanisms. Forensic Sci Int 2005;151(1):71-9.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Are mothers natural protectors or baby killers? SBS Falsely Accused
http://www.weeklyblitz.net/461/are-mothers-natural-protectors-or-baby-killers
For many years around the world, doctors, scientists and professors of medicine have been debating as to whether 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' or SBS as it is known, actually exists. For a diagnoses of SBS a baby will need to display a serious acquired brain injury, which is said to be caused when a frustrated or angry adult holds an infant or toddler by the trunk or arms and shakes back and forth in a jerking, whiplash motion. Most cases occur in children under one year of age, although there are documented cases of SBS in older children.
Shaken Baby Syndrome" (SBS) is the term used to describe the collection of signs and symptoms resulting from a child being shaken violently. However, Shaken Baby Syndrome is sometimes difficult to recognize and even more difficult to prove. Which is why many parents claim they have been falsely accused. The doctors say the reason for this is, that many babies who are shaken show no outward signs of abuse, their injuries only become evident when a CT scan or MRI of the head detects subdural haematomas. Another test used in SBS to detect injuries is a simple eye exam, which can detect the presence of retinal haemorrhages. Which doctors claim is another symptom of a shaken baby.
However, common sense tells us, that if a baby was shaken this hard there were be at least some bruising. Sadly it seems that this does not convince doctors as more and more parents are being accused of SBS, which is worrying some doctors, especially as many of these cases are occurring shortly after vaccines and seem to occur particularly in the two to four month age range.
Dr Viera Scheibner in Shaken Baby Syndrome Diagnoses on Shaky Ground said:-
"An epidemic of accusations against parents and baby sitters of Shaken Baby Syndrome is sweeping the developed world. The United States and the United Kingdom are in the forefront of such questionable practise. Brain (mainly subdural, less often subarachnoid) and retinal haemorrhages, retinal detachments and rib and other bone 'fractures' are considered pathognomic. However, the reality of these is very different and well documented: the vast majority occur after the administration of childhood vaccines and a minority of cases are due to the documented birth injuries and pre-eclamptic and eclamptic staes of the mothers."
So why are more parents than ever being falsely accused of shaking their babies? Is it one big cover up, to hide that many of these injuries are being caused by the vaccines?
Dr Buttram believes that all parents accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome are 100% innocent as he believes the syndrome is physiologically impossible.
In an email to me he said:-
"As far as I am concerned, parents accused of shaken baby syndrome are 100 percent innocent, as the syndrome is physiologically impossible, having been totally discredited by the scientific (Ph.D.) speciality known as bio-engineers, which has found that if such violent shaking were actually taking place, it would be fatal in virtually all cases, not from head injury but from a broken neck. The same is true for multiple fractures in infants, the vast majority of which are from metabolic bone disease,.the biggest risk factors being congenital rickets (vitamin D deficiency) and prematurity."
Harold Buttram, MD
In a paper written by him on SBS called Shaken Baby Syndrome and Non-Accidental Injury: Are Parents and Caretakers Being Falsely Accused Dr Buttram proves his theories by using examples of experiments that have been used to dispel the theory. He shows how an experiment on monkeys used to show how babies can have bleeding inside the brain with no sign of any other injury, which has since been used to prove SBS cases, actually falls down because there is no comparison between the head and neck of an adult monkey and the head and neck of a small infant child who is barely able to hold their head up.
Quoted from his paper he says:-
"As pointed out in the Uscinski report,(1) the brain and head of an infant is nearly seven times larger and heavier than that of a monkey. In addition, adult monkeys are known to be incredibly strong, approximately four times stronger than humans. There would be no comparison, therefore, between the neck muscle strength of an adult monkey and that of an infant, barely able to hold up his or her head by age six months, so that if violent shaking were actually taking place, the incidence of neck injuries in the SBS should be exponentially greater than in monkeys. With these facts in mind consider the following:
Most SBS cases in the USA take place during the first six months of life, when there are negligible infant neck muscles. As will be shown further on, the major impact of violent shaking would fall at the junction between the base of the skull and brainstem area and upper cervical spinal cord. In most if not all nstances this would result in instant death or paraplegia from brain stem or cervical spinal cord injuries.
11 of the 19 monkeys (over 50 percent) in the Ommaya experiments had significant neck as well as brain injuries.
Although human brain injuries may occur in rear-end vehicle collisions, whiplash injuries to the neck comprise an overwhelming majority of adult injuries, in which ligaments and muscles are torn, resulting in estabilization of the cervical (neck)vertebral column. Since infants have only rudimentary neck muscles and connective tissues as cushions, the full impact of shaking would fall on the highly vulnerable cervical spinal cord at the base of the brain, which almost certainly would cause death or paraplegia.
In view of these considerations, one would expect a far greater incidence of severe cervical skeletal and spinal cord injuries in infants than took place in the monkeys, and yet this type of injury has not been documented in any SBS case to date. In view of these
facts, the Shaken Baby Syndrome theory defies both reason and common observation. As a simple statement, it is physiologically impossible.
As a final observation concerning "Non accidental Injury," in which it is assumed that there is a head impact in the process of shaking, there must be substantiating evidence in the forms of head/scalp bruising and/or subgaleal (scalp) hematoma in order to justify such an assumption."
Dr Buttrams papers and his evidence has been used in many cases.
Over the years it has been proven that vaccines have been the cause of the death of babies and have caused symptoms seen in cases of SBS. The most famous of those being that of Alan Yurko. The Yurko Project: Triumph Over Tragedy tells the tragic story of baby Alan. Alan died aged 2 months of suspected SBS, his father was accused of his murder and given a life sentence plus 10years. Alan had always been a sickly baby. One should always question whether a baby this sick should be given multiple vaccinations all at one time.
This is from one website and is written by his mother:
"Alan and Francine Yurko's baby boy, Alan, was born on September 16, 1997. Francine's pregnancy was severely compromised with refractory and recurrent E. coli infection, gestational diabetes, group b Streptococcal infection, and an overall weight gain of only two pounds. Labor was induced at 35 weeks because of life-threatening oligohydramnios (loss of amniotic fluid). Baby Alan was born grayish blue with respiratory distress and hypoglycemia. He spent the first week of his life in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and Special Nurseries, where his parents spent their days with him until his release. A breathing monitor was sought because Baby Alan was rasping and grunting; however, insurance would not cover it, and the doctors assured that it wasn't necessary.
Over the next six weeks, the family went to weekly pediatrician visits. Baby Alan was seriously jaundiced during his entire neonatal period, and was still rasping and grunting with short periods of apnea. In addition, on November 2, 1997, Alan and Francine rushed the baby to the hospital late in the night because they noticed blood on a burp rag. He was examined by several doctors and nurses, and it was decided that he must have scratched the inside of his nose with his fingernails. Francine pointed out that his fingernails were very trimmed and that, as a preemie, her baby didn't have such muscle control to have scratched himself. However, the doctors disregarded the concerns, and remarks were made about being "overprotective parents."
On November 11, 1997, at his weekly pediatrician visit, baby Alan was still not well: He was congested, rasping and grunting, and he had abnormal bowel movements. Despite this and other concerns, such as prematurity, he was injected with six vaccines. Within 24 hours he became lethargic, feverish, fussy. His feeding and sleeping patterns were markedly reduced and changed. The doctor warned that he could be this way for a week or so, but not to worry because it´s "normal" for some babies after their vaccinations. This desensitized the parents to those reactions.
Over the next ten days, baby Alan's condition did not improve, and he then developed a high-pitched cry. Francine and Alan became concerned, but the doctor said this was normal, and they'd already been chastised for being "overprotective." On November 23, 1997, they decided that if baby Alan did not improve, they would take him to the pediatrician the next day after Francine returned from work. They never got the chance."
Alan his father spent over six years in prison for his murder but eventually was freed on appeal when it was found that a combination of adverse reactions to vaccines and the drug Heparin caused his death and it was not SBS.
Dr Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati PhD, DABT, DABVT had this to say:-
My review of the medical evidence in baby Alan's case clearly shows that he died as result of adverse reactions to vaccines and medications. The tissue bleedings were caused by his treatment of heparin following his respiratory/cardiac arrest. The medical examiner and other physicians who evaluated failed to consider heparin's ability to cause bleeding in tissue. They also overlooked the role of the adverse reactions to vaccines in the baby's health problems. Detailed descriptions of the clinical data and other medical literature explaining the pathogenesis of the baby's illness and supporting my conclusions are presented in this report. Analysis of Causes That Led to the Bleedings in the Subdural Spaces and Other Tissues in Baby Alan Ream Yurko´s Case
In March 2010 another case very similar to the case of baby Alan Yurko goes to court. This is the case of baby T who became ill less than 48 hours after he received a selections of vaccines. His mother Emily says:-
"This story begins August 13th, the day he received his shots. He received his DTaP-IPV-HIB, second dose of Hep B, and oral rotavirus vaccines. Less than 48 hours later, on August 15th, T***** began projectile vomiting. He would not keep much of anything down. I took him in to the local ER, where they rehydrated him and sent him home. He kept vomiting. I took T***** in again on August 18th to the ER. The doctors checked him for pyloric stenosis, which was found to not be ailing him. The doctors suggested switching his formula, that perhaps he was becoming intolerant of the formula he was on. No other explanation was offered as to why he kept vomiting. I followed up with his pediatrician August 21st, and again he could not offer any explanation for his vomiting. I had been feeding him often, and with smaller amounts. He would keep the feeding down for a while, and then sometimes vomit at the next feeding. It was almost always projectile. He was progressively sleeping more and when he was awake, he seemed fussier, almost in pain.
Early morning August 24th, 2009, T***** was at home with his father, Patrick. I work 3rd shift and was at work. T******s older brother and sister were also home sleeping. Patrick called me at work, saying T*******had awoken him with a high-pitched screaming and was acting funny. He said he was pale and crying in a whining fashion. He wasn't sure what was going on with him. He was later holding him when he stiffened up and arched his back, rolled his eyes and then became limp. 911 was called.
When T****** was admitted into the local ER, he was unresponsive. He was not breathing well on his own and was intubated. Once stabilized, he was transferred across the street to the PICU. T****** heart was not functioning properly and an echocardiogram was performed. It showed diminished heart function. A CT scan was also performed, which showed subdural bleeding in his head. T***** was transferred by helicopter to the University of ***** Hospital.
Once at the University Hospitals, T*****'s father and I were questioned by the Department of Human Services and the ********* Police as to the events which led up to his hospitalization. We hadn't even been allowed to see him yet and had no idea what was going on with him, yet we were being questioned as to whether we had shaken him. Patrick was at home with the children at the time of his collapse, so he has been the main target of their investigations.
T****** was in very grave condition. The doctors did not expect him to live. They said there was bleeding in his subdural spaces, both acute and sub-acute, or chronic. The doctors stated that his projectile vomiting was a sign that pressure was building in his head, though during the three trips we had made to the doctor that was never discovered. T***** had also had a stroke.They said he was intentionally hurt. Non-accidental Head Trauma, or Shaken Baby Syndrome."
Like Alan Yurko, baby T was also given Heparin and also became ill within 48 hours of vaccination. Baby T had no bruising, no fractures and no bleeding anywhere else on his body. Baby T survived his injuries and is now in foster care, the older two children were also removed and live with their father.
Emily said in an email:-
"From the first hospital and CT scan he had, they thought SBS, or non-accidental trauma. They never stepped outside of that box. Sure, they tested for bleeding disorders, but that was it. None of the 3 times I took him to the doctor after he began vomiting did they ever think vaccine reaction. I even asked. I had no idea what was going on, only that my other two children had never thrown up like this after their shots. They told me that his vaccines wouldn't cause that. That since he hadn't vomited within the first 24 hours, it wasn't a reaction. I know now how ridiculous that idea is."
Of course she is right this is ridiculous ,as vaccines were found to be the cause of Alan Yurkos death and he had his reaction the day after his vaccinations. The doctor at the hospital in his case had said "The doctor warned that he could be this way for a week or so, but not to worry because it´s "normal" for some babies after their vaccinations"
I am not medically trained but common sense would tell me that vaccines followed by a combination of the huge number of medications listed for me by his mother, is more like feeding him from a witches cauldron than hospital treatments, especially considering this child was only two months old.
This young mother entrusted her beloved son to the care of hospitals who she believed would help her son. Instead they fed him a massive cocktail of drugs that combined with the lethal ingredients in the vaccines, may have contributed to yet further problems. Then when things became so bad that this small baby was fighting for his life ,they ban her from being with him and accuse her and her partner of shaking him so violently that they caused bleeding to the brain.
It really is time for parents to be believed and the medical profession to take on board that vaccines in some cases can and do cause brain damage.
For more information on SBS, Vaccinations and false accusations and papers by Dr Harold Buttram and Dr Michael Innis on Shaken Baby Syndrome go to Profitable Harm SBS.
For many years around the world, doctors, scientists and professors of medicine have been debating as to whether 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' or SBS as it is known, actually exists. For a diagnoses of SBS a baby will need to display a serious acquired brain injury, which is said to be caused when a frustrated or angry adult holds an infant or toddler by the trunk or arms and shakes back and forth in a jerking, whiplash motion. Most cases occur in children under one year of age, although there are documented cases of SBS in older children.
Shaken Baby Syndrome" (SBS) is the term used to describe the collection of signs and symptoms resulting from a child being shaken violently. However, Shaken Baby Syndrome is sometimes difficult to recognize and even more difficult to prove. Which is why many parents claim they have been falsely accused. The doctors say the reason for this is, that many babies who are shaken show no outward signs of abuse, their injuries only become evident when a CT scan or MRI of the head detects subdural haematomas. Another test used in SBS to detect injuries is a simple eye exam, which can detect the presence of retinal haemorrhages. Which doctors claim is another symptom of a shaken baby.
However, common sense tells us, that if a baby was shaken this hard there were be at least some bruising. Sadly it seems that this does not convince doctors as more and more parents are being accused of SBS, which is worrying some doctors, especially as many of these cases are occurring shortly after vaccines and seem to occur particularly in the two to four month age range.
Dr Viera Scheibner in Shaken Baby Syndrome Diagnoses on Shaky Ground said:-
"An epidemic of accusations against parents and baby sitters of Shaken Baby Syndrome is sweeping the developed world. The United States and the United Kingdom are in the forefront of such questionable practise. Brain (mainly subdural, less often subarachnoid) and retinal haemorrhages, retinal detachments and rib and other bone 'fractures' are considered pathognomic. However, the reality of these is very different and well documented: the vast majority occur after the administration of childhood vaccines and a minority of cases are due to the documented birth injuries and pre-eclamptic and eclamptic staes of the mothers."
So why are more parents than ever being falsely accused of shaking their babies? Is it one big cover up, to hide that many of these injuries are being caused by the vaccines?
Dr Buttram believes that all parents accused of Shaken Baby Syndrome are 100% innocent as he believes the syndrome is physiologically impossible.
In an email to me he said:-
"As far as I am concerned, parents accused of shaken baby syndrome are 100 percent innocent, as the syndrome is physiologically impossible, having been totally discredited by the scientific (Ph.D.) speciality known as bio-engineers, which has found that if such violent shaking were actually taking place, it would be fatal in virtually all cases, not from head injury but from a broken neck. The same is true for multiple fractures in infants, the vast majority of which are from metabolic bone disease,.the biggest risk factors being congenital rickets (vitamin D deficiency) and prematurity."
Harold Buttram, MD
In a paper written by him on SBS called Shaken Baby Syndrome and Non-Accidental Injury: Are Parents and Caretakers Being Falsely Accused Dr Buttram proves his theories by using examples of experiments that have been used to dispel the theory. He shows how an experiment on monkeys used to show how babies can have bleeding inside the brain with no sign of any other injury, which has since been used to prove SBS cases, actually falls down because there is no comparison between the head and neck of an adult monkey and the head and neck of a small infant child who is barely able to hold their head up.
Quoted from his paper he says:-
"As pointed out in the Uscinski report,(1) the brain and head of an infant is nearly seven times larger and heavier than that of a monkey. In addition, adult monkeys are known to be incredibly strong, approximately four times stronger than humans. There would be no comparison, therefore, between the neck muscle strength of an adult monkey and that of an infant, barely able to hold up his or her head by age six months, so that if violent shaking were actually taking place, the incidence of neck injuries in the SBS should be exponentially greater than in monkeys. With these facts in mind consider the following:
Most SBS cases in the USA take place during the first six months of life, when there are negligible infant neck muscles. As will be shown further on, the major impact of violent shaking would fall at the junction between the base of the skull and brainstem area and upper cervical spinal cord. In most if not all nstances this would result in instant death or paraplegia from brain stem or cervical spinal cord injuries.
11 of the 19 monkeys (over 50 percent) in the Ommaya experiments had significant neck as well as brain injuries.
Although human brain injuries may occur in rear-end vehicle collisions, whiplash injuries to the neck comprise an overwhelming majority of adult injuries, in which ligaments and muscles are torn, resulting in estabilization of the cervical (neck)vertebral column. Since infants have only rudimentary neck muscles and connective tissues as cushions, the full impact of shaking would fall on the highly vulnerable cervical spinal cord at the base of the brain, which almost certainly would cause death or paraplegia.
In view of these considerations, one would expect a far greater incidence of severe cervical skeletal and spinal cord injuries in infants than took place in the monkeys, and yet this type of injury has not been documented in any SBS case to date. In view of these
facts, the Shaken Baby Syndrome theory defies both reason and common observation. As a simple statement, it is physiologically impossible.
As a final observation concerning "Non accidental Injury," in which it is assumed that there is a head impact in the process of shaking, there must be substantiating evidence in the forms of head/scalp bruising and/or subgaleal (scalp) hematoma in order to justify such an assumption."
Dr Buttrams papers and his evidence has been used in many cases.
Over the years it has been proven that vaccines have been the cause of the death of babies and have caused symptoms seen in cases of SBS. The most famous of those being that of Alan Yurko. The Yurko Project: Triumph Over Tragedy tells the tragic story of baby Alan. Alan died aged 2 months of suspected SBS, his father was accused of his murder and given a life sentence plus 10years. Alan had always been a sickly baby. One should always question whether a baby this sick should be given multiple vaccinations all at one time.
This is from one website and is written by his mother:
"Alan and Francine Yurko's baby boy, Alan, was born on September 16, 1997. Francine's pregnancy was severely compromised with refractory and recurrent E. coli infection, gestational diabetes, group b Streptococcal infection, and an overall weight gain of only two pounds. Labor was induced at 35 weeks because of life-threatening oligohydramnios (loss of amniotic fluid). Baby Alan was born grayish blue with respiratory distress and hypoglycemia. He spent the first week of his life in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and Special Nurseries, where his parents spent their days with him until his release. A breathing monitor was sought because Baby Alan was rasping and grunting; however, insurance would not cover it, and the doctors assured that it wasn't necessary.
Over the next six weeks, the family went to weekly pediatrician visits. Baby Alan was seriously jaundiced during his entire neonatal period, and was still rasping and grunting with short periods of apnea. In addition, on November 2, 1997, Alan and Francine rushed the baby to the hospital late in the night because they noticed blood on a burp rag. He was examined by several doctors and nurses, and it was decided that he must have scratched the inside of his nose with his fingernails. Francine pointed out that his fingernails were very trimmed and that, as a preemie, her baby didn't have such muscle control to have scratched himself. However, the doctors disregarded the concerns, and remarks were made about being "overprotective parents."
On November 11, 1997, at his weekly pediatrician visit, baby Alan was still not well: He was congested, rasping and grunting, and he had abnormal bowel movements. Despite this and other concerns, such as prematurity, he was injected with six vaccines. Within 24 hours he became lethargic, feverish, fussy. His feeding and sleeping patterns were markedly reduced and changed. The doctor warned that he could be this way for a week or so, but not to worry because it´s "normal" for some babies after their vaccinations. This desensitized the parents to those reactions.
Over the next ten days, baby Alan's condition did not improve, and he then developed a high-pitched cry. Francine and Alan became concerned, but the doctor said this was normal, and they'd already been chastised for being "overprotective." On November 23, 1997, they decided that if baby Alan did not improve, they would take him to the pediatrician the next day after Francine returned from work. They never got the chance."
Alan his father spent over six years in prison for his murder but eventually was freed on appeal when it was found that a combination of adverse reactions to vaccines and the drug Heparin caused his death and it was not SBS.
Dr Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati PhD, DABT, DABVT had this to say:-
My review of the medical evidence in baby Alan's case clearly shows that he died as result of adverse reactions to vaccines and medications. The tissue bleedings were caused by his treatment of heparin following his respiratory/cardiac arrest. The medical examiner and other physicians who evaluated failed to consider heparin's ability to cause bleeding in tissue. They also overlooked the role of the adverse reactions to vaccines in the baby's health problems. Detailed descriptions of the clinical data and other medical literature explaining the pathogenesis of the baby's illness and supporting my conclusions are presented in this report. Analysis of Causes That Led to the Bleedings in the Subdural Spaces and Other Tissues in Baby Alan Ream Yurko´s Case
In March 2010 another case very similar to the case of baby Alan Yurko goes to court. This is the case of baby T who became ill less than 48 hours after he received a selections of vaccines. His mother Emily says:-
"This story begins August 13th, the day he received his shots. He received his DTaP-IPV-HIB, second dose of Hep B, and oral rotavirus vaccines. Less than 48 hours later, on August 15th, T***** began projectile vomiting. He would not keep much of anything down. I took him in to the local ER, where they rehydrated him and sent him home. He kept vomiting. I took T***** in again on August 18th to the ER. The doctors checked him for pyloric stenosis, which was found to not be ailing him. The doctors suggested switching his formula, that perhaps he was becoming intolerant of the formula he was on. No other explanation was offered as to why he kept vomiting. I followed up with his pediatrician August 21st, and again he could not offer any explanation for his vomiting. I had been feeding him often, and with smaller amounts. He would keep the feeding down for a while, and then sometimes vomit at the next feeding. It was almost always projectile. He was progressively sleeping more and when he was awake, he seemed fussier, almost in pain.
Early morning August 24th, 2009, T***** was at home with his father, Patrick. I work 3rd shift and was at work. T******s older brother and sister were also home sleeping. Patrick called me at work, saying T*******had awoken him with a high-pitched screaming and was acting funny. He said he was pale and crying in a whining fashion. He wasn't sure what was going on with him. He was later holding him when he stiffened up and arched his back, rolled his eyes and then became limp. 911 was called.
When T****** was admitted into the local ER, he was unresponsive. He was not breathing well on his own and was intubated. Once stabilized, he was transferred across the street to the PICU. T****** heart was not functioning properly and an echocardiogram was performed. It showed diminished heart function. A CT scan was also performed, which showed subdural bleeding in his head. T***** was transferred by helicopter to the University of ***** Hospital.
Once at the University Hospitals, T*****'s father and I were questioned by the Department of Human Services and the ********* Police as to the events which led up to his hospitalization. We hadn't even been allowed to see him yet and had no idea what was going on with him, yet we were being questioned as to whether we had shaken him. Patrick was at home with the children at the time of his collapse, so he has been the main target of their investigations.
T****** was in very grave condition. The doctors did not expect him to live. They said there was bleeding in his subdural spaces, both acute and sub-acute, or chronic. The doctors stated that his projectile vomiting was a sign that pressure was building in his head, though during the three trips we had made to the doctor that was never discovered. T***** had also had a stroke.They said he was intentionally hurt. Non-accidental Head Trauma, or Shaken Baby Syndrome."
Like Alan Yurko, baby T was also given Heparin and also became ill within 48 hours of vaccination. Baby T had no bruising, no fractures and no bleeding anywhere else on his body. Baby T survived his injuries and is now in foster care, the older two children were also removed and live with their father.
Emily said in an email:-
"From the first hospital and CT scan he had, they thought SBS, or non-accidental trauma. They never stepped outside of that box. Sure, they tested for bleeding disorders, but that was it. None of the 3 times I took him to the doctor after he began vomiting did they ever think vaccine reaction. I even asked. I had no idea what was going on, only that my other two children had never thrown up like this after their shots. They told me that his vaccines wouldn't cause that. That since he hadn't vomited within the first 24 hours, it wasn't a reaction. I know now how ridiculous that idea is."
Of course she is right this is ridiculous ,as vaccines were found to be the cause of Alan Yurkos death and he had his reaction the day after his vaccinations. The doctor at the hospital in his case had said "The doctor warned that he could be this way for a week or so, but not to worry because it´s "normal" for some babies after their vaccinations"
I am not medically trained but common sense would tell me that vaccines followed by a combination of the huge number of medications listed for me by his mother, is more like feeding him from a witches cauldron than hospital treatments, especially considering this child was only two months old.
This young mother entrusted her beloved son to the care of hospitals who she believed would help her son. Instead they fed him a massive cocktail of drugs that combined with the lethal ingredients in the vaccines, may have contributed to yet further problems. Then when things became so bad that this small baby was fighting for his life ,they ban her from being with him and accuse her and her partner of shaking him so violently that they caused bleeding to the brain.
It really is time for parents to be believed and the medical profession to take on board that vaccines in some cases can and do cause brain damage.
For more information on SBS, Vaccinations and false accusations and papers by Dr Harold Buttram and Dr Michael Innis on Shaken Baby Syndrome go to Profitable Harm SBS.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Cornejo v. Bell, 08-3069-cv (2d Cir. January 4, 2010): Falsely Accused of SBS
http://www.secondcircuitopinions.org/2010/01/04/cornejo-v-bell-08-3069-cv-2d-cir-january-4-2010/
Cornejo v. Bell, 08-3069-cv (2d Cir. January 4, 2010)
January 4, 2010
in 1983 Action, Due Process
Panel: Miner, Cabranes, and Rakoff (SDNY)
Opinion by: Rakoff, USDJ
Appeal from: EDNY (Cogan, USDJ)
Result below: Granted Summary Judgment based upon absolute immunity
Result: Affirmed, but caseworkers entitled only to qualified immunity under Federal law
Qualified Immunity for Child Removal Caseworkers
An unfortunate (but objectively reasonable) misdiagnosis leads to a lawsuit by aggrieved parents for malicious prosecution against lawyers and caseworkers involved in child custody proceedings. Plaintiffs five-month old son appeared to be the victim of the Shaken Baby Syndrome. Defendants thus petitioned to have the son and an older brother removed from the plainiffs’ custody. A subsequent autopsy showed that the boy died of a rare heart defect, and what initially appeared to be a broken rib turned out to be a congenital abnormality.
The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, lawyers and caseworkers involved in the removal petition, on the ground that they were absolutely immune. The Second Circuit affirms the grant of summary judgment, but notes that caseworkers are entitled only to qualified immunity.
The level of immunity accorded an executive employee depends on the function of the employee. Judicial employees (like prosecutors) are entitled to absolute immunity. Investigative employees (like police making arrests) are entitled to qualified immunity. Here, the lawyers are essentially judicial employees entitled to absolute immunity, and the caseworkers are essentially investigative employees entitled to qualified immunity. Because the objective evidence pointed to child abuse, summary judgment was appropriate even under the qualified immunity standard.
As to the NY state law claims, the Court of Appeals has accorded caseworkers absolute immunity for claims of malicious prosecution.
Cornejo v. Bell, 08-3069-cv (2d Cir. January 4, 2010)
January 4, 2010
in 1983 Action, Due Process
Panel: Miner, Cabranes, and Rakoff (SDNY)
Opinion by: Rakoff, USDJ
Appeal from: EDNY (Cogan, USDJ)
Result below: Granted Summary Judgment based upon absolute immunity
Result: Affirmed, but caseworkers entitled only to qualified immunity under Federal law
Qualified Immunity for Child Removal Caseworkers
An unfortunate (but objectively reasonable) misdiagnosis leads to a lawsuit by aggrieved parents for malicious prosecution against lawyers and caseworkers involved in child custody proceedings. Plaintiffs five-month old son appeared to be the victim of the Shaken Baby Syndrome. Defendants thus petitioned to have the son and an older brother removed from the plainiffs’ custody. A subsequent autopsy showed that the boy died of a rare heart defect, and what initially appeared to be a broken rib turned out to be a congenital abnormality.
The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, lawyers and caseworkers involved in the removal petition, on the ground that they were absolutely immune. The Second Circuit affirms the grant of summary judgment, but notes that caseworkers are entitled only to qualified immunity.
The level of immunity accorded an executive employee depends on the function of the employee. Judicial employees (like prosecutors) are entitled to absolute immunity. Investigative employees (like police making arrests) are entitled to qualified immunity. Here, the lawyers are essentially judicial employees entitled to absolute immunity, and the caseworkers are essentially investigative employees entitled to qualified immunity. Because the objective evidence pointed to child abuse, summary judgment was appropriate even under the qualified immunity standard.
As to the NY state law claims, the Court of Appeals has accorded caseworkers absolute immunity for claims of malicious prosecution.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Long Term Study Shows Flu Shot Increases Hospitalization Risk In Children
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)