Medical Tyranny and Kidnapping Through Shaken Baby Syndrome False Diagnoses

Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), also known as Abusive Head Trauma (AHT), is defined as a serious brain injury caused by forcefully and violently shaking a baby. This can indeed happen, but there are problems with diagnosing this as the reason for a baby's injury.

_{flickr/Kai 'Oswald' Seidler
, CC BY 2.0}

Child abuse specialists or child-abuse pediatricians, are now established as a medical authority to become judge, jury and executioner in alleged cases of shaken baby syndrome and Munchausen syndrome by proxy. I've covered one case where a mother had her child taken away when she was accused of Munchausen syndrome by proxy after Gardasil was given to her daughter and resulted in health issues.

Doctors have an incredible amount of power to be able to rip families apart and send children away from their loving parents, either into foster care or adopted by a complete stranger. All this for the parents doing nothing wrong at all. Parents or other family members can even get sentenced to prison, some for life sentences, under these allegations.

Is this all justified? What if they are completely wrong about some cases of shaken baby syndrome or medically induced injury that they regularly deny?

The AMA recently published a "consensus report" calledConsensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children, claiming "there is no controversy concerning the medical validity of the existence of AHT". They claim their way (of knowing when a baby has AHT) is the only way. But, there are some doctors who challenge the medical consensus dogma, often with a cost to their careers.

The consensus statement seems like a response from some courts beginning to question the many SBS cases that are being challenged and overthrown, such as the case of a 64 year old grandmother that I covered yesterday who spent 11 years in jail. The medical establishment of "professionals" who testify in support of diagnosing SBS don't seem to like being challenge don their authority.

Looking at the word consensus to see what the "medical consensus" means, a consensus isn't a fact or a truth necessarily. A consensus is a majority of opinion or general agreement. People have agreed the earth was flat before, and they were a majority. Not everyone agreed though, and they were punished for going against the mainstream consensus narrative.

Groups of people have long gotten together to decide "how things are going to be", and those who don't toe the line get put in line, so to speak. It's still the case today, as can be seen with doctors who exempt children from being vaccinated getting suspended and put on probation for years. Doctors who don't agree with SBS diagnoses aren't treated as bad, but they aren't too welcome among the majority opinion group.

Are these outliers and dissenter wrong? If their right, can the doctors acting with such authority to condemn family members being accused of SBS able to recognize they are wrong? In the case of Maria Mendez who went to jail for 11 years, it seems no, as so-called child abuse specialist Dr. Carol Berkowitz refused to back down from her claim despite other medical professionals arguing against her conclusions.

Doctors have been wrong before. Recall what the medical consensus was for cigarettes?

More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette

They claimed cigarettes even had medical benefits.

As such, medical consensus that claims to be scientific may be true, but it should always allow for demonstrable challenges to correct any flaws, not dogma to be adhered to. When the dissenters who challenge the medical narrative with facts are silenced, it's not real science, but tyranny.

In some cases of SBS/AHT claims, they ignore medical disease that can mimic AHT, when they are supposed to validate for such alternative. One case demonstrates this, through the Whitaker family. CPS and medical professionals took 7.5 months old Jaden from his father when he called 911, and wouldn't let him see his son thereafter because he was the last adult to be with the baby, which somehow made him a criminal suspect and invalidated his parental rights to see his boy.

When Jaden was discharged from the hospital, the doctors had made the previous head trauma of unknown etiology into a SBS case. The mother, Charlotte Whitaker told the doctor about two previous falls, but the doctor was convinced those did not account for ht injury, and insisted on SBS/AHT. The police coerced the parents into questioning and then signing paperwork before they would let them have their son back.

They were tricked and their constitutional right denied. The police railroaded them, and with the help of the medical "professionals" and CPS, the eventually lost custody of their 9 year old daughter as well, as the father, Joe Whitaker, was eventually sent to prison. It didn't matter what other medical professionals said, acknowledging the loving parents innocence. Jaden was not abused, yet was adopted by strangers, as the state colluded to medically kidnap another child from their family.

_Source

In the aforementioned "consensus report", they make claims that they engage in "scientific accuracy" when they form "medical consensus", so as to say those who disagree with "integrity and expertise of the medical witness's testimony" in court are likely spurting "non-evidence based or 'courtroom-only' causation theories":

The question in civil and criminal court cases involving allegations of unwitnessed abuse is the quality of the medical evidence and the integrity and expertise of the medical witness’s testimony.

Over the last decade, the courtroom has become a forum for medical opinions on the etiology of infant/child head injuries that runs the gamut … When pivotal medical testimony is contradictory, the message to the courts, the news media and the general public about infant injuries and safe caregiving is often confusing and inaccurate.

Professional medical societies use consensus statements to communicate general physician acceptance on a particular topic. These statements are vetted by the membership and designed to help physicians, news media and the public distinguish accurate medical information from non-evidence based or “courtroom-only” causation theories.

The formal dissemination of this information via a consensus statement is intended to help courts improve the scientific accuracy of their decisions involving public health issues.

Child abuse specialist doctors are quick to jump to the conclusion that injuries relating to "subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage and encephalopothy [brain swelling]" "have to be" caused by violent shaking or abuse, resulting in the conclusion of SBS/AHT. Other expert testimonies are minimized or ridiculed. Other causes are not considered properly. Family history of bone issues, or other health issues such as vaccine injury, are ignored. Then the courts send parents or grandparents to jail when they did nothing wrong.

But other doctors are fighting against the dogma. Dr. David Ayoub, for example, has talked about infantile rickets being ignored by child abuse pediatricians. Dr. Waney Squier used to believe what she was taught about SBS, until her research as a neuropathologist forced her to revise her position and part from the medical consensus narrative on SBS. As a result of challenging the status quo dogma, she was banned from practicing medicine by the General Medical Council.

She speaks about the medical tyranny in her 2017 TedX Talk:

Experienced, highly qualified doctors are afraid to become expert witnesses and to challenge the hypothesis for fear of suffering the same fate as me. Instead, prosecution experts are emboldened and today cases are routinely decided on the basis of opinions such as “it is generally considered” or “most doctors believe that shaking causes the triad.”

These are articles of faith. They have no scientific foundation.

Science is not a democracy. Scientific fact is determined by experiment, by observation, not by how many people happen to believe in one hypothesis or another.

But today these opinions are unlikely to meet any significant challenge. And this leaves families defenseless against unfounded allegations of abuse.

I believed in Shaken Baby Syndrome until science showed I was wrong | Waney Squier | TEDxWandsworth

In response to her being barred from practicing medicine, over 350 letters have been written by doctors, scientists and lawyers to the BMJ (British Medical Journal), protesting the UK General Medical Council's decision. Dr. Steven C. Gabaeff wrote one, admonishing the institution for it's conduct:

The attacks on those bringing and shining light onto alternative etiologies of the findings misused to misdiagnose abuse, is a response to a threat to establishment thinking and the establishment itself.

The challenges to existing dogma come from many quarters now and from many medical specialists with more knowledge and academic standing than the establishment MDs. The challengers have brought forth alternative thinking about the etiology of the findings misused to diagnose abuse.

This strategy of falsely accusing highly respected, leaders in their field who do not agree with their now doubtful, if not unproven, or false hypothesis, is not new.

To those with limited or essentially no knowledge of the deep nuances of child abuse pediatrics, the beliefs of the establishment would be, to start, assumed to be true.

The alliance of the child abuse establishment’s medical providers, the prosecutors of child abuse, the special units of police assigned to these matters, is both massive and powerful.

The establishment predictably is taken seriously by almost everyone.

In the 45 years since the early pediatrician created hypotheses that lie at the core of the fund of knowledge of child abuse pediatrics, hypotheses which were never true, went unchallenged for years. So long a period, that there was enough time to give both the doctors and the theories unwarranted credulity within the legal paradigm, where results of past cases is given weight.

In retrospect, these hypotheses, representing evolving science, were never subject to any testing that followed a valid scientific methodology. Anecdotal evidence, low grade observations studies, and a definitively unscientific belief structure, have been, and are, offered as validation for their unproven hypotheses to this day.

There is a massive authority bias in play here, and it's keeping medical tyranny in place, shutting up doctors who speak out against their consensus narrative, breaking up families, and putting family members in jail. These doctors should be ashamed of themselves. But they don't seem to care about the harm they are doing. "Do no harm" seems to be overruled when they believe they are the medical authority to dictate abuse diagnoses while other doctors have explanations that don't condone parents and families to a living hell.

---

Thank you for your time and attention. Peace.

---

References:

• American Academy of Pediatrics’ Failing Shaken Baby Syndrome Diagnoses: Use Tyranny When Science Fails
• Mother Falsely Accused of Endangering Baby after Doctor Wrongly Gave Gardasil Vaccine, Now Battling Court for Custody
• Consensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children
• Accusations of Shaken Baby Syndrome in Tennessee Destroys Family – Lands Parents in Jail
• I believed in Shaken Baby Syndrome until science showed I was wrong | Waney Squier | TEDxWandsworth

---

_{If you appreciate and value the content, please consider: Upvoting, Sharing or Reblogging below.
me for more content to come!}

---

_{My goal is to share knowledge, truth and moral understanding in order to help change the world for the better. If you appreciate and value what I do, please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page.}