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.
Showing posts with label blunt force trauma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blunt force trauma. Show all posts
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Soldier acquitted of causing son’s death 10/21/09
One Innocent out of Thousands Received Justice!
Soldier acquitted of causing son’s death
Oct 21 2009 12:00AM By Melissa Braun Sun Staff Writer
It took three hours of deliberation and a “not guilty” verdict to pull a Fort Rucker soldier from what he described as the “hell” of his life for the past year.
Spc. Dedrick Fisher walked away Thursday night as a free man.
A Fort Rucker court-martial panel Oct. 15 found Fisher not guilty of all charges related to the death of his son Dedrick Jr.
Fisher was found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and the lesser-included charges of negligent homicide and battery of a child under the age of 12.
Fisher had been under watch by Army officials after his infant son, Dedrick Jr., died at Dale Medical Center in Ozark Feb. 2 as a result of injuries he sustained three months earlier.
At that time, Fisher was accused of shaking his infant son, which caused several brain and retinal hemorrhages that resulted in his death.
A court-martial panel convened Oct. 13 to determine Fisher’s future in the United States Army and whether he would be a free man.
For almost two days, government prosecutors called witnesses who presented evidence that Fisher had lost his temper and turned his aggression on his son.
With his head bowed and making little eye contact, he listened as military police and doctors describe the trauma he allegedly inflicted on his son.
He showed little reaction as investigators testified Fisher had even admitted to shaking his son, citing a written statement where Fisher said, “My son is damn near dead because of me.”
After two days of listening to evidence against him, Fisher took the stand and recalled the events in November of last year when his son’s health roller–coasted out of control.
Fisher said he was feeding his son when he began choking.
“I said, ‘You need to slow down,’” he explained, adding that when the child whined a second time he gave him the bottle again.
“He started choking bad,” Fisher said.
He testified that he patted his son on the back and then placed him on the couch.
He left the child to go into the kitchen, not realizing his child’s health was quickly deteriorating.
Moments later, his wife realized Dedrick Jr. was not breathing and his heart had stopped beating.
The next few hours, Fisher said, were “a blur.”
From finding medical help to seeing his wife in handcuffs as they were interviewed about what happened to their son, Fisher said his temper continued to rise.
“My wife was getting emotionally tortured over this, my daughter was at someone’s house I didn’t know, my child was in the hospital sick and I was like (thinking) they (investigators) are not going to let us out of here until they get what they want,” he said, adding that is the reason why he admitted to shaking his child when he didn’t. “I told her (Fisher’s wife) that when we got out of there we were going straight to Birmingham (to Children’s Hospital where the infant had been transferred) and we are going to PCS (request for transfer) out of this post.”
During questioning from the Judge Advocate General government prosecutors Capt. Christopher Coy and Capt. Shawn Tate, Fisher continued explaining what he had given a false confession to the alleged crime.
“He (military police investigator Chief Warrant Officer 3 Raymond Massey) kept on asking me the same questions over and over and I just gave him what he wanted to hear,” he said, adding that the confession changed his life. “I look at all these folks giving their kids a yank like that (how he allegedly picked up his child) and look at me, going through all this and I didn’t even do nothing.”
After three days of testimony from Fisher, law enforcement and medical personnel the verdict ultimately hinged on expert testimonies.
Dr. Ronald H. Uscinski, a world-renowned neurosurgeon from Georgetown and an expert witness for the defense, testified that Fisher did not cause his child’s brain trauma.
“I do not believe that the findings on the diagnostic studies and histories indicate the child was injured on the day in question,” he said.
He said the infant, instead, died from brain trauma, a chronic subdural hematoma, he suffered at the time of his birth.
The injury, he further explained, was caused by overlapping sutures in the child’s brain that occurred as he was pushed through the birth canal and damaged a portion of his brain.
Symptoms of the injury manifested in Nov. 2008 –– the day Fisher went under investigation for abusing his son, Uscinski said.
Uscinski explained that through his work as a neurosurgeon he no longer believes in Shaken Baby Syndrome.
“It is against the laws of physics. Human beings cannot shake a baby hard enough to cause that kind of brain trauma,” he said. “You cannot shake a baby this size hard enough (to cause these internal injuries) without breaking its neck.”
Dedrick Jr. had no injuries to any bones including his neck.
The infant’s retinal hemorrhages, he said, could have been caused by an increase in blood pressure when the hematoma began to bleed once again, but also said they could have been caused by CPR pressure.
During his time as a neurosurgeon, Uscinski said he is also unaware of any situation in which the shaking of an infant was witnessed and also resulted in a subdural leak, which he says caused the death Dedrick Jr.
Prosecution witness Dr. Melissa Peters, of Children’s Hospital in Birmingham, testified that Dedrick Jr., did suffer isolated injuries in November that caused traumatic brain injury sever enough for him to live the last two months of his life connected to breathing and feeding tubes.
Peters said she first saw Dedrick Jr. while he was in the Intensive Care Unit.
Peters said the infant had bruises on his arm, suffered hemorrhages in two locations above the brain but inside the skull, and that he also had more than 50 multi-layered retinal hemorrhages consistent with shaking injuries.
As a pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital, Peters said she is very familiar with injuries a child suffers as a result of being shaken.
“This child had evidence of severe head injury,” she said.
She also explained that the infant’s birth records signified a normal birth and that overlapping sutures are somewhat common.
In her examination of Dedrick Jr., Peters said her findings were “consistent with acute head trauma which could have involved shaking.”
His injuries were not consistent, she further explained, with normal child care or play.
Retinal hemorrhaging, she said, would not be expected from a subdural leak, despite Uscinski’s testimony otherwise.
Uscinski did not personally exam the child, but relied on tests results, including two CT scans.
Fisher’s attorney, Victor Kelley, asked the panel to weigh the experts’ testimonies and remember Uscinski specializes in neurology unlike Peter, who he called a “child advocate.”
“It is just not right to be here to begin with,” Kelley said. “If they (investigators) had gotten the right information (medical diagnosis) to begin with we wouldn’t be.”
He asked the panel to also remember that if there was any reasonable doubt in their heads about Fisher’s guilt, they must acquit.
Only a majority consensus of the six-member panel was needed for a verdict.
Soldier acquitted of causing son’s death
Oct 21 2009 12:00AM By Melissa Braun Sun Staff Writer
It took three hours of deliberation and a “not guilty” verdict to pull a Fort Rucker soldier from what he described as the “hell” of his life for the past year.
Spc. Dedrick Fisher walked away Thursday night as a free man.
A Fort Rucker court-martial panel Oct. 15 found Fisher not guilty of all charges related to the death of his son Dedrick Jr.
Fisher was found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter and the lesser-included charges of negligent homicide and battery of a child under the age of 12.
Fisher had been under watch by Army officials after his infant son, Dedrick Jr., died at Dale Medical Center in Ozark Feb. 2 as a result of injuries he sustained three months earlier.
At that time, Fisher was accused of shaking his infant son, which caused several brain and retinal hemorrhages that resulted in his death.
A court-martial panel convened Oct. 13 to determine Fisher’s future in the United States Army and whether he would be a free man.
For almost two days, government prosecutors called witnesses who presented evidence that Fisher had lost his temper and turned his aggression on his son.
With his head bowed and making little eye contact, he listened as military police and doctors describe the trauma he allegedly inflicted on his son.
He showed little reaction as investigators testified Fisher had even admitted to shaking his son, citing a written statement where Fisher said, “My son is damn near dead because of me.”
After two days of listening to evidence against him, Fisher took the stand and recalled the events in November of last year when his son’s health roller–coasted out of control.
Fisher said he was feeding his son when he began choking.
“I said, ‘You need to slow down,’” he explained, adding that when the child whined a second time he gave him the bottle again.
“He started choking bad,” Fisher said.
He testified that he patted his son on the back and then placed him on the couch.
He left the child to go into the kitchen, not realizing his child’s health was quickly deteriorating.
Moments later, his wife realized Dedrick Jr. was not breathing and his heart had stopped beating.
The next few hours, Fisher said, were “a blur.”
From finding medical help to seeing his wife in handcuffs as they were interviewed about what happened to their son, Fisher said his temper continued to rise.
“My wife was getting emotionally tortured over this, my daughter was at someone’s house I didn’t know, my child was in the hospital sick and I was like (thinking) they (investigators) are not going to let us out of here until they get what they want,” he said, adding that is the reason why he admitted to shaking his child when he didn’t. “I told her (Fisher’s wife) that when we got out of there we were going straight to Birmingham (to Children’s Hospital where the infant had been transferred) and we are going to PCS (request for transfer) out of this post.”
During questioning from the Judge Advocate General government prosecutors Capt. Christopher Coy and Capt. Shawn Tate, Fisher continued explaining what he had given a false confession to the alleged crime.
“He (military police investigator Chief Warrant Officer 3 Raymond Massey) kept on asking me the same questions over and over and I just gave him what he wanted to hear,” he said, adding that the confession changed his life. “I look at all these folks giving their kids a yank like that (how he allegedly picked up his child) and look at me, going through all this and I didn’t even do nothing.”
After three days of testimony from Fisher, law enforcement and medical personnel the verdict ultimately hinged on expert testimonies.
Dr. Ronald H. Uscinski, a world-renowned neurosurgeon from Georgetown and an expert witness for the defense, testified that Fisher did not cause his child’s brain trauma.
“I do not believe that the findings on the diagnostic studies and histories indicate the child was injured on the day in question,” he said.
He said the infant, instead, died from brain trauma, a chronic subdural hematoma, he suffered at the time of his birth.
The injury, he further explained, was caused by overlapping sutures in the child’s brain that occurred as he was pushed through the birth canal and damaged a portion of his brain.
Symptoms of the injury manifested in Nov. 2008 –– the day Fisher went under investigation for abusing his son, Uscinski said.
Uscinski explained that through his work as a neurosurgeon he no longer believes in Shaken Baby Syndrome.
“It is against the laws of physics. Human beings cannot shake a baby hard enough to cause that kind of brain trauma,” he said. “You cannot shake a baby this size hard enough (to cause these internal injuries) without breaking its neck.”
Dedrick Jr. had no injuries to any bones including his neck.
The infant’s retinal hemorrhages, he said, could have been caused by an increase in blood pressure when the hematoma began to bleed once again, but also said they could have been caused by CPR pressure.
During his time as a neurosurgeon, Uscinski said he is also unaware of any situation in which the shaking of an infant was witnessed and also resulted in a subdural leak, which he says caused the death Dedrick Jr.
Prosecution witness Dr. Melissa Peters, of Children’s Hospital in Birmingham, testified that Dedrick Jr., did suffer isolated injuries in November that caused traumatic brain injury sever enough for him to live the last two months of his life connected to breathing and feeding tubes.
Peters said she first saw Dedrick Jr. while he was in the Intensive Care Unit.
Peters said the infant had bruises on his arm, suffered hemorrhages in two locations above the brain but inside the skull, and that he also had more than 50 multi-layered retinal hemorrhages consistent with shaking injuries.
As a pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital, Peters said she is very familiar with injuries a child suffers as a result of being shaken.
“This child had evidence of severe head injury,” she said.
She also explained that the infant’s birth records signified a normal birth and that overlapping sutures are somewhat common.
In her examination of Dedrick Jr., Peters said her findings were “consistent with acute head trauma which could have involved shaking.”
His injuries were not consistent, she further explained, with normal child care or play.
Retinal hemorrhaging, she said, would not be expected from a subdural leak, despite Uscinski’s testimony otherwise.
Uscinski did not personally exam the child, but relied on tests results, including two CT scans.
Fisher’s attorney, Victor Kelley, asked the panel to weigh the experts’ testimonies and remember Uscinski specializes in neurology unlike Peter, who he called a “child advocate.”
“It is just not right to be here to begin with,” Kelley said. “If they (investigators) had gotten the right information (medical diagnosis) to begin with we wouldn’t be.”
He asked the panel to also remember that if there was any reasonable doubt in their heads about Fisher’s guilt, they must acquit.
Only a majority consensus of the six-member panel was needed for a verdict.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Vaccination Link Study in 1994
I was alerted of a blog entry by a pre-med student in Russia and was more interested when I saw one of the postings by a doctor who rudely responded to a mother who claimed her child was injured by vaccinations. It's interesting to see such intolerance by the medical community and such denial of something that seems so obvious.
Just because the vast majority of children do not react to vaccinations immediately, it does not mean that some children are predisposed to suffer a serious adverse reaction post vaccination. There needs to be more guidance on how to vaccinate and when to vaccinate. Doctors really have no understanding of the long term implications of vaccinations either. We are now vaccinating children to prevent non-threatening diseases. The irony of it all is the vaccinations appear to wear off and as adults, we become vulnerable to the disease and in some cases, are in more jeopardy of the effects had we not even been vaccinated.
This study was published in 1994. If you scroll down, the online version is readable:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=2138#toc
I can agree that some vaccinations are good but I'm offended that the mainstream medical community continues to deny the effects vaccinations can have on children. I am furious that these same doctors deny that these reactions are not investigated further instead of just merely relying on shaken baby syndrome as the catch all for anything they can't explain based on surface diagnosis.
I guess it will take a high profile celebrity like Jenny McCarthy to bring justice to the SBS world of convict anyone and everyone as long as it's the last person with the child and seek out no more ...
Just because the vast majority of children do not react to vaccinations immediately, it does not mean that some children are predisposed to suffer a serious adverse reaction post vaccination. There needs to be more guidance on how to vaccinate and when to vaccinate. Doctors really have no understanding of the long term implications of vaccinations either. We are now vaccinating children to prevent non-threatening diseases. The irony of it all is the vaccinations appear to wear off and as adults, we become vulnerable to the disease and in some cases, are in more jeopardy of the effects had we not even been vaccinated.
This study was published in 1994. If you scroll down, the online version is readable:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=2138#toc
I can agree that some vaccinations are good but I'm offended that the mainstream medical community continues to deny the effects vaccinations can have on children. I am furious that these same doctors deny that these reactions are not investigated further instead of just merely relying on shaken baby syndrome as the catch all for anything they can't explain based on surface diagnosis.
I guess it will take a high profile celebrity like Jenny McCarthy to bring justice to the SBS world of convict anyone and everyone as long as it's the last person with the child and seek out no more ...
Friday, May 16, 2008
Shaken Baby Syndrome Scandel
There are more and more doctors claiming that shaken baby syndrom (SBS) is not proven to be a true diagnosis. If researched, SBS is based on a theory! People will say there are people who have admitted to shaking so therefore, it's true. What the average law abiding person does not understand is police interrogations can be brutal and harsh. People are usually devasted when put in a situation such as being accused of SBS or blunt force trauma or anything else connected to a constellation of injuries associated with SBS. People will eventually conform to what they are being told they did and often times, interviewers will distort facts to manipulate the person thinking they have something on them and if they confess, they will get a lesser punishment. That is the true crime.
If doctors and police would properly investigator and not close the door on underlying medical conditions to include vaccination injuries, the truth might come out and innocent people may not be sent to jail. Doctors, police and social workers have been brain washed to believe if a child presents with a brain injury of any kind and/or retinal hemorrhages, it has to be abuse. They close their minds on looking for more information and maybe some day, people might start investigating the standard of care given to these poor babies and children and realize had the doctors properly diagnosed, the child might be alive today. How many people really understand how the standard of care most likely caused the child to die? These doctors due to poor decisions ordered procedures, medicines or not ordered the proper procedures and medicine may have been the real reason that children are dying. These same doctors testify at court against the accused proclaiming to get no money for their time while berating the one or two experts who challenge the SBS theory. It's not justice .. it's not innocent until proven guilty in these cases.
Please research SBS and the controversy surrounding it. Just because a few doctors are coming forward to counter the majority, it does not make them quacks. It makes them smart for realizing the flaws in current thinking and it makes them brave for taking a stand. After all, doctors are not perfect and doctors DO make mistakes. Look at the poor babies in Indianapolis that died due to the Heparin mistake at Methodist Hospital. One of the same hospitals that are high on the list of the SBS bandwagon. Wonder why Indiana is top of the list for SBS deaths ... go ask the "forensic pediatrician" as she can tell you more.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/falselyaccusedofsbs/
If doctors and police would properly investigator and not close the door on underlying medical conditions to include vaccination injuries, the truth might come out and innocent people may not be sent to jail. Doctors, police and social workers have been brain washed to believe if a child presents with a brain injury of any kind and/or retinal hemorrhages, it has to be abuse. They close their minds on looking for more information and maybe some day, people might start investigating the standard of care given to these poor babies and children and realize had the doctors properly diagnosed, the child might be alive today. How many people really understand how the standard of care most likely caused the child to die? These doctors due to poor decisions ordered procedures, medicines or not ordered the proper procedures and medicine may have been the real reason that children are dying. These same doctors testify at court against the accused proclaiming to get no money for their time while berating the one or two experts who challenge the SBS theory. It's not justice .. it's not innocent until proven guilty in these cases.
Please research SBS and the controversy surrounding it. Just because a few doctors are coming forward to counter the majority, it does not make them quacks. It makes them smart for realizing the flaws in current thinking and it makes them brave for taking a stand. After all, doctors are not perfect and doctors DO make mistakes. Look at the poor babies in Indianapolis that died due to the Heparin mistake at Methodist Hospital. One of the same hospitals that are high on the list of the SBS bandwagon. Wonder why Indiana is top of the list for SBS deaths ... go ask the "forensic pediatrician" as she can tell you more.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/falselyaccusedofsbs/
Monday, May 5, 2008
Advice to the Falsely Accused
I was going to go one direction with this blog and switched over to a topic near and dear to me, shaken baby syndrome (SBS).
I found a story from a reporter that I feel is very courageous. This reporter showed another side of SBS that contradicts the majority of the medical profession. Fortunately for thousands, doctors are coming forward to debunk the myth behind SBS. SBS is only a theory .. yes, a theory! For all obvious reasons, they cannot test to prove it. They have conducted tests on animals and dolls specifically created to detect shaking injuries and no force could be exerted that would show the same constellation of injuries that the standards are based on. If any doctor debunks the age old myth started by Dr. Caffey, they are considered crazy or out of their minds. What they don't want you to know is Dr. Caffey backtracked on some of his original "findings" which led doubt to the theory.
Most blogs or comments noted on news sites are very intolerant and hateful towards anyone suspected, charged or found guilty. People don't understand that new scientific evidence does in fact cast doubt on SBS. The only way a majority of the people will understand if one of their loved one's become the unfortunate one to be the last one left with the child. Doctors in ERs and pathologists do not investigate all potential underlying causes that a child may present with. They usually do not look at the entire medical history of a child nor do they consider vaccinations as a culprit. Yes, vaccinations for the large part do not cause life threatening or disabling events but for the children that have something underlying in their tiny little bodies, these adult mega doses of combination vaccines (sometimes live) can create the perfect storm to unleash something horrible. There is a reason there is a vaccinate alert database that captures reported injuries. However, studies have shown that most injuries/events are not reported which waters down the real number or effect of the injuries/events associated with vaccines.
David Crowe wrote a news article which can be found here: http://atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3700/81/
He also adds:
Financial problems with these cases are common, as 200 to 300 hours of medical research are required for each case, or even more. Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati has set up a non-profit organization, the “International Center for Better Medicine”, so that other people can assist with the payment of his fees. Checks can be sent to this organization at 150 Bloom Drive, Dixon, CA, 95620. While Al-Bayati has acted pro-bono in several cases, he cannot always afford to do so. Every $100 donated ensures that accused parents get one hour of the best medical-legal expertise.
I found a story from a reporter that I feel is very courageous. This reporter showed another side of SBS that contradicts the majority of the medical profession. Fortunately for thousands, doctors are coming forward to debunk the myth behind SBS. SBS is only a theory .. yes, a theory! For all obvious reasons, they cannot test to prove it. They have conducted tests on animals and dolls specifically created to detect shaking injuries and no force could be exerted that would show the same constellation of injuries that the standards are based on. If any doctor debunks the age old myth started by Dr. Caffey, they are considered crazy or out of their minds. What they don't want you to know is Dr. Caffey backtracked on some of his original "findings" which led doubt to the theory.
Most blogs or comments noted on news sites are very intolerant and hateful towards anyone suspected, charged or found guilty. People don't understand that new scientific evidence does in fact cast doubt on SBS. The only way a majority of the people will understand if one of their loved one's become the unfortunate one to be the last one left with the child. Doctors in ERs and pathologists do not investigate all potential underlying causes that a child may present with. They usually do not look at the entire medical history of a child nor do they consider vaccinations as a culprit. Yes, vaccinations for the large part do not cause life threatening or disabling events but for the children that have something underlying in their tiny little bodies, these adult mega doses of combination vaccines (sometimes live) can create the perfect storm to unleash something horrible. There is a reason there is a vaccinate alert database that captures reported injuries. However, studies have shown that most injuries/events are not reported which waters down the real number or effect of the injuries/events associated with vaccines.
David Crowe wrote a news article which can be found here: http://atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3700/81/
He also adds:
Financial problems with these cases are common, as 200 to 300 hours of medical research are required for each case, or even more. Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati has set up a non-profit organization, the “International Center for Better Medicine”, so that other people can assist with the payment of his fees. Checks can be sent to this organization at 150 Bloom Drive, Dixon, CA, 95620. While Al-Bayati has acted pro-bono in several cases, he cannot always afford to do so. Every $100 donated ensures that accused parents get one hour of the best medical-legal expertise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)