UK: Doubts about shaken baby syndrome

[Guest guest]

And what if vaccines are the real culprits here?

Sue

Exactly - read all the way down through and you will be rewarded with some

good info

" Biomechanic Dr Van Ee said: " Shaken baby syndrome as described as an

adult shaking a child holding him by the torso with the head flopping

resulting in bleeding of the brain and retinal haemorrhage is fundamentally

flawed from a biomechanics perspective. It's not valid. There's nothing to

support it. " "

" Dr Pat Lantz, a pathologist in North Carolina, looked at the eyes of 1500

corpses which came through his morgue for more than two years from 2004 on,

and says he found bleeds in the back of the eye in one in every six cases.

This finding, if correct, suggests that bleeds in the eye are much more

common than previously thought.

If Dr Lantz's research stands up to scrutiny, then bleeds in the eye - one

whole pillar of the shaken baby syndrome triad - comes under question.

Scientists who back the syndrome say that inflicted eye bleed injuries are

more severe than found in the general population.

It is possible that we are looking at two tragedies here, one of loss and

one of false accusation, locked together. Nothing, however, will bring back

baby Maeve. "

more info on my webpages

http://www.wellwithin1.com/shakenbaby.htm

Sheri

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7283998.stm

Doubts about shaken baby syndrome

By Sweeney

BBC Panorama

The medical establishment is firmly convinced about shaken baby syndrome.

But is the science related to it conclusive enough to convict beyond

reasonable doubt when there are no other factors pointing to guilt?

The theory says brain damage and bleeds over the surface of the brain and

in the back of the eyes must have been caused by violent shaking.

Doubts about the science will form the basis for an upcoming appeal against

the conviction of child-minder Keran - and potentially for dozens

more appeals by people convicted over the syndrome in Britain, the United

States and Canada.

Mrs was looking after baby Maeve Sheppard in March 2005 when

something went horribly wrong.

She has since been convicted of violently shaking the 11-month-old toddler

to death.

That day she rang 999 and said: " I've got a baby - I can't get breaths into

her. She's just taking little breaths but not much, she's like

semi-unconscious at the moment...

" Oh God, this is horrible. Come on Maeve, darling, please.. She's

absolutely comatose. "

Two days later Maeve was dead and Keran is serving a three-year sentence

for child killing. But her friends and family say she could never have done

it.

She denies ever harming the child.

The case has brought heartbreak to two families. The Sheppards have lost a

much-loved child.

Mark Sheppard told the BBC's Panorama: " In 18 months time she goes home to

a loving husband and two loving children - I will never have Maeve back. "

Iain , of Iver, Buckinghamshire, who resigned from the police

after his wife was charged, is now bringing up his two sons while their

mother is in prison.

The majority of experts at the trial gave evidence to the effect

that she must have done it.

Home Office pathologist Dr Nat Cary told the jury: " There are features in

this case that would suggest that there has been a great degree of force. "

Professor Elston, an eye specialist, said: " I think it was most likely

caused by shaking. "

I think that the use of science in this way is very questionable

Dr Waney Squier

Neuro-pathologist

Professor Terence son, who did not take part in the trial, is a

paediatrician at the Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham.

He said: " What you're talking about is a group of findings which are

bleeding over the surface of the brain, sometimes with bleeding at the back

of the eye, sometimes with evidence of damage to the brain or brain swelling.

" Sometimes those features are also accompanied by other injuries outside

the head, fractures to the ribs or cigarette burns or scalds, whatever, but

principally it's those three features. "

Professor son explained how he believes anyone can end up doing it:

" In the flick of an instant they lose their temper. They've violently

shaken and throw that infant, and then it's over and they bitterly regret

what they did.

" It wasn't predetermined malicious foul play, they just lost their temper.

I don't think the fact that someone is a flawless character means it can't

have happened. "

But what if the majority of experts are wrong?

A minority of sceptical scientists fear that shaken baby syndrome is wrong,

mistaking symptoms found in innocent death with deliberate killing.

Neuro-pathologist Dr Waney Squier told Panorama: " I think that the use of

science in this way is very questionable and since then there has been no

scientific evidence to support the view that shaking can cause the findings

that are characteristically described in shaken baby syndrome. "

Fresh research in the US may undermine some of the certainty of the

prosecution experts.

Biomechanics in the US at the Wayne State University in Detroit use

crash-test dummies and real corpses - including dead infants - to help make

people survive car crashes. They believe that impact is far more dangerous

than shaking. They will publish their work later this year.

Biomechanic Dr Van Ee said: " Shaken baby syndrome as described as an

adult shaking a child holding him by the torso with the head flopping

resulting in bleeding of the brain and retinal haemorrhage is fundamentally

flawed from a biomechanics perspective. It's not valid. There's nothing to

support it. "

Two tragedies

Dr Pat Lantz, a pathologist in North Carolina, looked at the eyes of 1500

corpses which came through his morgue for more than two years from 2004 on,

and says he found bleeds in the back of the eye in one in every six cases.

This finding, if correct, suggests that bleeds in the eye are much more

common than previously thought.

If Dr Lantz's research stands up to scrutiny, then bleeds in the eye - one

whole pillar of the shaken baby syndrome triad - comes under question.

Scientists who back the syndrome say that inflicted eye bleed injuries are

more severe than found in the general population.

It is possible that we are looking at two tragedies here, one of loss and

one of false accusation, locked together. Nothing, however, will bring back

baby Maeve.

Panorama: Shaken Babies, BBC One, Monday, 10 March 2008

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/7283998.stm

Published: 2008/03/08 23:58:03 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

Vaccines - http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm Vaccine Dangers &

Childhood Disease & Homeopathy Email classes start in March