Talk:Shaken Baby Syndrome
"Theory of Prosecution"
It's isn't a theory of prosecution, it's a medical diagnosis. Moreover the line about caregivers shaking babies in an attempt to awaken an unconscious infant doesn't make sense. Can you provide some reference for this? I've only ever seen SBS discussed in terms of child abuse. Not one of these anecdotes describes an attempt to revive an unconscious child, and there are a few instances of mothers being the abuser SSchultz 22:46, 10 January 2008 (EST)
- Not true. SBS developed and remains a theory of prosecution. I cite a leading reference on the SBS fictions.--Aschlafly 22:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)
- How would you propose that I present an alternate explanation when I can be banned for suggesting that the sources being used to support the idea that shaking a baby to death is merely a fiction concocted by overeager prosecutors are unreliable? And isn't it a conflict of interest that a person who is general counsel for a group that has a specific agenda with regards to this topic (as well as others, such as vaccination) maintains essentially an iron grip on the topic with no opportunity for dissent? SSchultz 22:20, 18 January 2008 (EST)
- SSchultz, don't mislead others. You were blocked for namecalling, after a warning. Hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of people are in jail for "shaken baby syndrome" charges that universally accepted experts say is nonsensical, and the entry reflects the facts.--Aschlafly 23:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)
- I was blocked because I called into question the repute of your client. Noone gets blocked for name calling when throwing about the terms liberal or atheist as a pejorative. Indeed, I used the term "quack" for which there is an entry on this site which contains a link to the website I used to question JPANDS reliability. Even if I grant that JPANDS is a reliable source then it's still false to claim that "universally accepted experts say (it) is nonsensical" as The National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome, the American Academy of Opthamology, The New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Centers for Disease Control all refer to it as a valid diagnosis, the leading cause of traumatic death in infancy, and a form of child abuse.
- Let's be clear here, Mr. Schlafly; you are currently defending people who pick up an infant and shake the child so violently that it causes damage to the spinal cord and causes the brain to carom off the inside of the skull rupturing blood vessels and destroying tissue. I repeat, this is not simply a fiction concocted by an overeager prosecutor in order to punish some poor unsuspecting guardian. SSchultz 12:19, 19 January 2008 (EST)
I'd fix this, but as it was reverted by Andy, I daren't touch it, for fear of banhammer. But now the page is a grammatical mess... and if sources can be found for the removed things, heavily skewed. Barikada 00:11, 31 January 2008 (EST)
- Nobody objects to grammatical fixes, obviously. But inserting ideological fictions? That's obviously not worth allowing.--Aschlafly 00:25, 31 January 2008 (EST)
- So in other words the papers written in JPANDS are going to be favored over the CDC, NIH, JAMA, NEJM, and other medical groups which all claim that SBS is a form of child abuse and the leading cause of traumatic death in infants? What is the standard of evidence you're wanting met in order to present SBS for what it is (that being the brutalization of helpless infants)? SSchultz 22:03, 31 January 2008 (EST)
- Of course. Everybody knows that JPANDS and other credible, neutral sources like American Thinker and Newsbusters are far more credible and reliable than liberal medical journals. After all, all conservative ideologies are fact, while liberal ones are fiction. JKaplanek 13:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
With all due respect Schultz
The other side of the debate has medical experts on its side that show that the entire theory is pure hogwash.
Personal note in text
The last paragraph of this article in a personal note of appreciation to CP. While it's nice, I'm not sure if that belongs in an encyclopedia article. Should this be split off, pushed down into a "responses" section, deleted, or something else, or it is alright if that stays there? --David B (TALK) 09:53, 22 August 2016 (EDT)