Articles

The antivaccine lie that just won’t die: The claim that shaken baby syndrome is really due to “vaccine injury”

As I mentioned recently, as hard as it is to believe, this blog is rapidly approaching the end of its fifth year of existence. Our first post was delivered to the anxiously waiting world on January 1, 2008; so thus upcoming January 1 will represent our fifth anniversary. In the blogging world, that’s almost the equivalent of a fiftieth anniversary, given how fast most blogs turn over. Something that is even more satisfying than mere longevity is that we really have found a niche in the medical blogosphere to the point where we’ve become quite influential. People notice us. Our targets notice it when we discuss them. Sometimes even the press notices us. This is all a very good thing.

Unfortunately, even though we’ve been at this for just shy of five years, there are still topics we haven’t covered, or at least haven’t covered in sufficient depth. The topic of my post today is one of the latter topics. We’ve mentioned it before; we’ve alluded to it before (for instance when discussing the antivaccine website Medical Voices and the Ayn Rand-worshiping Association of American Physicians and Surgeons; but there hasn’t been a post dedicated to this particular topic. I find this particularly odd because it was one a piece of misinformation promoted by elements of the antivaccine movement that truly shocked and disgusted me. Before I learned of this particular myth, I was surprised to learn that there are really people who think that vaccines are dangerous and cause autism, but I viewed it as being of a piece of a lot of other quackery I was discovering at the time.

Way back in the day, when I first encountered antivaccine views in that wretched Usenet swamp of pseudoscience, antiscience, and quackery known as misc.health.alternative (m.h.a.), there was one particular antivaccine lie that disturbed me more than just about any other. As I mentioned, it wasn’t the claim that vaccines cause autism, which is more or less the central dogma of the antivaccine movement. Even ten years ago, before the series of studies that have been released since then that fail to find a hint of a whiff of causation between vaccines and autism, that wasn’t a particularly difficult myth to refute. Indeed, given newer studies, refuting that myth has only gotten easier over the years. Emblematic of how far into the depths that particular myth has been pummeled, I know it’s gotten pretty easy when even the mainstream media start to accept that the claim that vaccines cause autism is a myth and report matter-of-factly on issues such as Andrew Wakefield’s fraud and don’t give nearly as much copious and prominent media time to the likes of Jenny McCarthy. Let’s just put it this way. When the hosts of a “morning zoo”-type radio show in Salt Lake City pummel the latest antivaccine celebrity to make a fool of himself, Rob Schneider, you know that, from an informational standpoint at least, the tide appears to have turned from several years ago, when the media took this myth a lot more seriously. That’s not to say that we don’t still have a problem. After all, “philosophical” exemption rates are going up based on a lot of this sort of misinformation, but at least the media are less insistent on “telling both sides” of a science story that doesn’t really have two sides.

No, what I’ve found to be one of the most disturbing antivaccine claims of all is the assertion that shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is a “misdiagnosis for vaccine injury.” SBS is the name originally given to a triad of findings consisting of subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and encephalopathy. More recently, because the syndrome is more complex than the original description suggested, these days the syndrome is more properly referred to as non-accidental head injury or abusive head trauma. This particularly vile antivaccine lie has popped up again with a story I recently became aware of, that of Amanda Sadwosky, whose father Elwood Sadowsky is currently in prison for killing her and whose mother Tonya Sadowsky is trying to win him a new trial and thereby free him by claiming, in addition to a bunch of contradictory and dubious arguments, that vaccine injury was a major cause of Amanda’s death. She even maintains a web page she calls the Amanda Truth Project, which reminds me very much of the case that first showed me just how low antivaccine activists can go. Let’s go back in time more than a decade and examine the case of Alan Yurko. Then we’ll fast forward and compare it to the case of Amanda Sadowsky. Finally, we’ll wrap things up by discussing why this particular “theory” (more like wild speculation) is so scientifically and intellectually bankrupt.

Free Alan Yurko

I first learned of the vile concept that somehow SBS when I learned of the case of Alan Yurko. Yurko gained “fame” (if you can call it that) when he was sentenced to life in prison without parole in 1999 for the murder of his 10-week-old son, who was shaken to death. Somehow, Yurko became the centerpiece of a campaign (Free Yurko) that featured as the centerpiece of its argument for Yurko’s innocence the claim that shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is in realty “vaccine injury.” Unfortunately, ultimately Yurko was released early, not because the courts agreed with the lie that it was vaccine injury, not SBS, that killed Yurko’s son. Rather, it was because apparently the coroner’s office where the autopsy was done on the dead baby was, as Australian skeptic Peter Bowditch put it, the most shoddily run morgue ever and incompetent coroner ever.

If you ever wanted to know how low antivaccine zealots can sink, let Bowditch describe it:

I want you to think about a dead baby. This baby was ten weeks old when he died. The autopsy revealed bleeding around the brain, in the eyes and in the spinal column. There were bruises on the sides of his head. Another thing that the autopsy showed was four broken ribs. These fractures had started to heal, and therefore indicated a pattern of physical abuse prior to the date of death. The father admitted to holding the baby by his feet and hitting him shortly before he died. I now want to you to form an opinion of the father. If you are the sort of person who opposes vaccination, you would see this man as a hero. You would see him as a martyr to the cause and would try to get him released from prison. In a breathtaking demonstration of what it can mean to believe that the end justifies the means, the anti-vaccination liars have adopted Alan Yurko as a symbol that they can use to frighten parents into refusing vaccination for their children. You can read a loathsome justification for this murderer at http://www.woodmed.com/ShakenBabyAlan.htm.

Alan Yurko’s story is basically as follows. A month before the death of Alan Ream, the baby Yurko was convicted of killing, Alan Yurko was in jail for aggravated burglary. He was paroled and then somehow managed to get away with violating that parole by moving to florida with his girlfriend and her infant son. Not long after the couple arrived in Florida, Alan Ream was rushed to the hospital with massive head injuries, including a subdural hematoma. The baby died from his injuries. Not surprisingly, given his previous convictions and propensity for violence, suspicion rapidly fell on Yurko, the baby’s stepfather, after investigation revealed the baby’s pattern of injuries to be consistent with SBS. Yurko was tried and convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison plus ten years.

It was at this point that somehow the antivaccine movement latched on to the Yurko case, turning him into a martyr for the cause. Why they would do this, I have no idea. If you’re looking for scientific credibility to persuade people to believe your contention that vaccines cause autism, I can’t think of a worse way to achieve that credibility than to defend a baby killer using pure pseudoscience and outright nonsense. But, then, I’m not an antivaccinationist. Apparently to some elements of the antivaccine movement, it seemed like a good idea at the time (and, sadly, still does to some of the same people today). Basically, these people set up the Free Yurko webpage and a Free Yurko mailing list. Prison officials, judges, and doctors were bombarded with letters arguing that Yurko was innocent of killing his child. The group assisted with Yurko’s appeal, basing it on conspiracy theories and antivaccine pseudoscience. An old “friend” that I’ve written about before in the context of the death of HIV/AIDS denialist Christine Maggiore’s daughter Eliza Jane Scovill provided a long report on Alan’s death that was every bit as much a stinking turd as the report he provided to try to “prove” that Eliza Jane didn’t die of AIDS.

Yes, I’m referring to Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, PhD, DABT, DABVT, who runs a company known as Toxi-Health International. Basically, Dr. Al-Bayati is not a physician and therefore not a human pathologist; rather, he has a PhD in comparative pathology and is apparently also a toxicologist. Perusing his website leads me to believe that Dr. Al-Bayati specializes in churning out reports for the defense that basically say whatever the defense wants them to say. One particularly despicable area of subspecialization that he appears to engage in is—you guessed it—blaming cases of SBS on vaccine injury combined with a whole host of other medical conditions that he plucked about his nether regions, much the way he did the same when he tried to claim that a girl with HIV in her brain and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia didn’t die of HIV encephalitis and her pneumonia but rather died of—I kid you not—an allergic reaction to amoxicillin.

In the case of Alan Ream, Dr. Al-Bayati tried to blame the infant’s death on a whole host of factors besides the obvious (trauma), including reactions to vaccines administered two weeks before Alan was rushed to the hospital, where, if you believe Dr. Al-Bayati, Alan was killed by a combination of vaccine injury, massive infection, and overdose of sodium bicarbonate, and an overdose of heparin, as well as from complications due to Francine Ream’s (his mother’s) oligohydramnios, gestational diabetes, anemia, loss of appetite, spastic colon, urinary tract and vaginal bacterial infections, and hemorrhoids, as well as Alan’s five week premature birth. Al-Bayati also tried to tie Alan’s neonatal jaundice to his death four months later and even dismissed a healing rib fracture as having occurred during Alan’s birth and somehow having been missed by the medical staff. Of course, there’s one glaring problem, namely that Alan developed respiratory distress syndrome after birth; I’d be shocked if there weren’t multiple chest X-rays taken during his initial hospitalization after birth. Basically, it’s a veritable Gish Gallop of cherry picked bits of Alan’s clinical history. These bits were then thrown against the wall to see if any of it would stick—very much like Al-Bayati’s report on Eliza Jane Scovill.

It should be noted that Yurko did have grounds for a new trial, but not because there was any credibility to the notion that SBS is a misdiagnosis for vaccine injury. I was rather because of some very shoddy work by the medical examiner who apparently had a history of carelessness. The errors were not directly related to the diagnosis of SBS but were pretty bad nonetheless. For instance, there were typographical errors, such as referring to the child as African American when he was Caucasian and commenting on organs that couldn’t be there because they were donated after the baby was declared brain dead. The judge ruled that these screwups warranted a new trial, after which Yurko’s defense team reached a deal with the prosecution. Yurko pled no contest to manslaughter and was sentenced to time served, six years and 125 days. It didn’t take long for Yurko to wind up back in jail again. He was picked up for a parole violation in his aggravated burglary charge and will be in prison until 2014.

Yurko was the prototype for a defense against SBS that fused antivaccine conspiracy mongering with copious pseudoscience to try to exonerate parents and caregivers accused of SBS. Indeed, if you peruse Toxi-Health’s website, you’ll see many examples. Al-Bayati appears to do a lot of this sort of work, with several reports trying to prove that babies thought to have died due to SBS were in fact killed by something else. Many of them were published in that antivaccine bastion Medical Veritas, and all of them follow what I like to call the “Gish gallop” method of argument, generally blaming a combination of various medical problems and vitamin deficiencies ± vaccines (usually plus vaccines) as the “real cause” of death. Then, “luminaries” such as Harold Buttram (who is also known for claiming that childhood vaccines can result in genetic hybridization from alien human and alien animal DNA contents and is a regular contributor to the antivaccine blog International Medical Council on Vaccination); Veira Scheibner, F. Edward Yazbak, and Michael Innis took up the cause. Then, an Ayn Rand-loving crank medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). Indeed, a former president of the AAPS, Jane M. Orient, even wrote a sympathetic portrayal of Alan Yurko right in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPANDS), the official journal of the AAPS. To see how many contortions are necessary to blame vaccines, just check out what Dr. Orient writes:

One possible mechanism of a vaccine reaction is vitamin C depletion, which can occur in a variety of conditions including acute illness, strenuous exertion, or catabolic conditions. Ascorbate depletion is accompanied by elevated blood histamine levels and increased capillary fragility.

Her citation to support this statement? An article in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. Not exactly a reliable source.

The death of Amanda Sadowsky

Last week, I came across a story that, although it’s a couple of months old and I somehow missed it, is disturbingly familiar:

Just a few years ago Tonya and Elwood Sadowsky believed that life could not get any better after Tonya gave birth to a beautiful baby girl Amanda. For the first time ever the couple were happier than they ever thought possible. Sadly, their happiness was cut short when aged just four months old Amanda died unexpectedly. Elwood was immediately arrested and charged for his daughter’s murder because he was caring for his daughter at the time she was taken ill.

Amazingly, in June 2007, without ever having a trial, Elwood Sadowsky was jailed for life for Shaken Baby Syndrome. According to wife Tonya, Elwood was forced into taking a guilty plea a few days before the trial was due to have started. He was threatened by the prosecution and emotionally blackmailed by his own lawyers. This was due to the fact that his lawyers did not know how to defend him! Tonya says:

“They literally didn’t know anything about ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ and believed the doctors’ diagnosis which was: homicidal blunt force trauma.”

And:

Amanda died from multiple skull fractures and the triad of injuries associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) which are Retinal haemorrhages (bleeding into the linings of the eyes); subdural haemorrhages (bleeding beneath the dural membrane); Encephalopathy (damage to the brain affecting function).

Anyone familiar with the case of Alan Yurko can see where this is going, and that is indeed exactly where it went. The next part of Tonya’s story consists of a citation of one John D. Lloyd, Ph.D., M.Erg.S., CPE, CBIS, who seems to have some legitimacy in that he has some peer-reviewed publications, eighteen on PubMed. None of them, as far as I can tell, are related to SBS. He does, however, appear on a directory of expert witnesses, which suggests to me that part of his “professional activity” is to testify on behalf of whoever pays him. None of that means he’s a bad guy or not a decent scientist, but when it comes to SBS, I do find it rather odd that he has several publications on other topics related to ergonomics and brain injury but nothing other than abstracts listed as submitted to various conferences on his CV. Let’s put it this way. Although it’s not uncommon for people to list publications they have “in preparation” or “submitted” to journals, I’ve never seen a CV listing abstracts submitted to conferences. Why? Because abstracts are the lowest form of scientific publication. I could easily whip off a list of abstracts submitted to various conferences, having submitted the abstracts. I might even get them accepted, too, because the bar for acceptance for abstracts is much lower than it is for getting a manuscript published in a peer-reviewed journal. Indeed, some conferences basically accept every abstract submitted for at least a poster presentation, barring obvious problems with them. I also find it rather curious that Dr. Lloyd doesn’t actually mention which conference he’s submitted his three abstracts to.

Now, I realize that we don’t know everything there is to know about SBS. Nor do I normally have a problem with research that questions the prevailing hypothesis, if the research is well done. However, when I see someone like Dr. Lloyd argue against the concept of SBS and lend aid and comfort to a defense team that is using the claim that vaccines are the cause of SBS, then I have a problem:

Examining the timeline of this case an extremely important fact emerges. It is obvious to even the untrained eye that this baby suffered adverse reactions after each vaccination. Her first possible reaction was noted within 24 hours of the Hepatitis B vaccine which she received at birth. Tonya said:

“When she got the Hep B, I wasn’t told. She was wheeled into my room SCREAMING her full head off, thrust into my arms with the comment, “She’s upsetting the other (inmates) babies in the nursery”.

“She was jaundiced by the next day.”

In his report Dr Buttram wrote:

“On the next day, Feb. 17th, according to mother’s notes, Amanda was brought in to her from the nursery screaming, as “she was bothering the other babies in the nursery,” suggestive of an encephalalitic reaction to the hepatitis B vaccine, something rarely recognized for its true nature.”

Leading to this speculation:

Did Amanda suffer from this reaction and was this the reason that baby Amanda was so distressed? If so the injuries found just weeks later may have been caused by the Hepatitis B vaccine, however, this possibility this was never investigated.

Perhaps it wasn’t investigated because the contention that the Hepatitis B vaccine caused multiple skull fractures, much less the injury pattern consistent with traumatic injuries of the sort caused by shaking and trauma seen in abusive head trauma is ridiculous on its very face. Does Dr. Lloyd really want to hitch his wagon to a group that tries to argue that vaccines can somehow cause fractures, retinal hemorrhages, and the like? Those must be some magical vaccines! I know, I know, Elwood admits that he dropped Amanda, but in general his story as described in this article doesn’t add up. Dr. Lloyd’s argument seems to be somewhat contradictory as well. He points out that falls from as low as two and a half feet can produce fatal head injuries, but then claims that it’s not possible to shake a baby hard enough to cause the constellation of injuries seen in SBS. He bases his argument on a series of studies that he’s carried out, including a comparison of shaking with activities of daily living (in which he argues that the head angular acceleration of a baby playing in a Jumparoo is similar to what can be achieved by an adult shaking a baby—I kid you not); a study claiming that vigorous shaking can only be maintained for 20 seconds before adults become exhausted; and a bit of a straw man argument that retinal hemorrhages are “no longer generally accepted by medical doctors to be caused by vigorous shaking of an infant” (no one ever said that retinal hemorrhages alone were necessary for the diagnosis of SBS). Unfortunately, he uses a rather simplistic model that has been found to be wanting; indeed, their results tend to be contrary to the pathological evidence. (Dr. Lloyd even concludes this in one of his studies.) More complex models are now state of the art. SBS is a difficult entity to model, because the primary injury tends to be what is known as diffuse axonal injury or shearing. Basically, the axons (the protruberances from neurons that carry the nerve impulses) can, with repeated strong acceleration and deceleration, shear. Such injuries are often much more severe than they appear on imaging studies.

The defense builds on that argument by claiming that Elwood suffered from a condition that caused him to black out and pass out periodically (which, if true, tells me that he should never be carrying a baby alone). Perhaps the most ludicrous is another defense claim that somehow the use of oxytocin to induce Tonya’s labor resulted in brain damage in Amanda of the sort seen in the postmortem. Taken as a whole, the defense case sounds a lot like Alan Yurko’s defense: Throw out all sorts of pseudoscientific and quacky nonsense and see if any of it sticks. He dropped the baby! But he has a disease that causes him to black out. But the baby was “vaccine-injured” and her mom’s labor was induced with oxytocin, which caused brain injury! It’s an “everything but the kitchen sink” defense that sounds very much like Yurko’s Gish gallop and even involves some of the same people, as you will see. This sort of defense takes advantage of the controversies around SBS and how the triad originally described as pathognomonic of SBS can be mimicked by other conditions (one of which, I might add, is not vaccine injury).

Where you will see these other people, besides seeing Harold Buttram in the news article above, Amanda’s mother, Tonya Sadowski, has gone so far as to publish a website, Amanda Truth Project. Before I delve into that website, let me just say: I understand. Mrs. Sadowski lost her baby. She doesn’t think her husband did it, at least not intentionally. She might even have a valid argument; it’s hard to know, although Elwood Sadowski does have a criminal background not unlike that of Alan Yurko. Be that as it may, and no matter how much sympathy I might have for her, Tonya Sadowski is doing great harm by using the Alan Yurko defense (“vaccines and other nasty stuff done it”). You’ll see what I mean if you peruse the reports on her website prepared by Michael Innis and Harold Buttram. They’re recycling the same sorts of arguments used to try to get Alan Yurko off.

Unfortunately, there are things there like this CT scan report from the hospital to which Amanda was first taken (Fairview Hospital), which found:

  1. Bilateral temporoparietal and right occipital skull fractures.
  2. Hemorrhage is seen adjacent to the falx, in the dependent portions of the occipital horns, and in a subtle area of parenchymal hemorrhage in the left parietal lobe.
  3. There is an area of decreased attenuation in the left posterior parietal region compatible with a remote injury and focal encephalomalacia.

Note that Amanda presented to Fairview Hospital in full arrest, was resuscitated, and then was flown to Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital in Cleveland, where from Buttram’s report it is not clear whether the following represent a new head CT or an interpretation of the head CT done at Fairview:

Multiple skull fractures. Bilateral cephalhematoma. intraparenchymal, subdural, subarachnoid, and intraventricular hemorrhage.

Diffuse loss of sulci and cisterns as well as gray-white differentiation consistent with global edema. Downward herniation cannot be excluded.

This is some major trauma. It is not subtle. The most likely explanation for such massive trauma is, well, trauma. What do Buttram and Innis claim? Dr. Innis claims:

I conclude that Amanda suffered from undiagnosed Neonatal Hepatitis as shown by the abnormal Liver function Tests and as a consequence developed Vitamin K Deficiency Disease which caused her death. An Adverse Vaccine Reaction resulting in a fall in the level of Vitamin C cannot be excluded.

Which is a common theme among conspiracy theorists who think that SBS is in reality some combination of vaccine injury and nutritional deficiencies. Buttram, in particular, likes the idea that vitamin C deficiency is a cause of SBS and that vitamin C deficiency is caused by—you guessed it!—vaccines:

Returning to the importance of vitamin C in relation to vaccines, one of the prime roles of vitamin C in the body is its action as an antioxidant in donating electrons to quench free-radical and inflammatory damage from toxins and/or infections, with our consideration here being vaccine toxins. In the process of donating electrons, vitamin C necessarily becomes depleted. Once the level is reduced to the point that it can no longer protect the brain, which is unduly susceptible to toxic and infectious damage, it (the brain) may become subject to free-radical damage.

This is, of course, utter nonsense. It’s also utter nonsense that vaccines commonly cause encephalopathy so severe that it can be mistaken for SBS/abusive head trauma. With this as a way of background, it’s not surprising that Buttram does what he does best in his report for the Sadowskis. He Gish gallops. It’s vitamin K deficiency that caused bleeding! It’s a vaccine reaction! It’s rickets making the baby’s bones brittle! It’s birth trauma! It’s liver dysfunction! It’s nutrient deficiencies caused by Amanda’s mother having been given ampicillin:

The mother did attempt breast-feedings supplemented with formula but ultimately abandoned breast feedings, primarily because of the infant’s difficulty in sucking. Under normal circumstances, breast-feeding establishes a prevalence of highly beneficial and protective Lactobacillus bifidis in the infant’s intestinal flora, but the mother was administered 2 grams of ampicillin intravenously during her labor with Amanda, which would have largely eliminated the L. bifidis. This in turn would have opened the way for yeast infestations, later manifesting as cradle cap, “yeasty” neck folds, and intestinal yeast overgrowth, the true source of the intractable colic and reflux problems. These in turn in all likelihood would have led to unrecognized nutrient mineral and vitamin deficiencies including calcium, magnesium, zinc, and vitamins A, C, and D.

The ridiculousness of this claim speaks for itself. Such are the sorts of arguments used by antivaccinationists who have drunk the Kool Aid that vaccines somehow contribute to a syndrome that is frequently mistaken for SBS/abusive head trauma. I don’t know if Elwood Sadowski really did kill his daughter. Maybe he did fall accidentally while carrying her, resulting in fatal injuries. I suppose it’s possible (although the story given is not convincing). However it happened, Tonya Sadowski’s grief at the death of her daughter does not excuse her abuse of science and embrace of the worst kind of antivaccine pseudoscience in order to exonerate her husband.

One last claim.

Finally, I can’t help but point out one last favored distortion that antivaccinationists use to argue that vaccines cause SBS/abusive head trauma. I learned of this particular canard several months ago, when I came across an article by someone named Catherine Frompovich on the Orwellian-named International Medical Council on Vaccination (formerly Medical Voices) with the even more Orwellian-named subtext “critical thinking for a critical dilemma” entitled Bone Density Test Can Disprove Shaken Baby Syndrome. Frompovich starts out by touting her antivaccine cred by kissing up to—who else?—Harold Buttram:

Before I delve into the topic I want to discuss, perhaps you may want to know that I have co-authored several papers with Dr. Harold E. Buttram, MD, regarding topics such as Brain Inflammation, Basics of the Human Immune System Prior to Vaccines, and Shaken Baby Syndrome, which can be accessed at the International Medical Council on Vaccination website starting with Vaccines and Brain Inflammation at http://lawreview.byu.edu/articles/1325789487_13Seeley.FIN.pdf. In order to access the other papers, you will have to scroll through IMCV’s archives. Dr. Buttram’s name appears first on all articles.

Frompovich’s credulity, which leads her to suck up to Buttram, also leads her to exult over a paper published in a law journal by someone named Matthew B. Seeley entitled Unexplained Fractures in Infants and Child Abuse: The Case for Requiring Bone-Density Testing Before Convicting Caretakers. The basic thrust of the article is that not all cases of unexplained fractures in infants are due to abuse. In other words, it’s rather a massive straw man argument. Here’s why. First, unexplained long bone fractures are not pathognomonic for child abuse. What’s far more suspicious are injuries that are not consistent with the history given. Second, as I mentioned earlier, the term SBS is falling out of favor; the preferred term is now “abusive head trauma,” which doesn’t limit the potential cause of injury to shaking. Third, recent reviews have been very clear in emphasizing that the diagnosis of abusive head trauma is not a trivial matter and can be at times difficult. Indeed, they emphasize other conditions that can cause the usual triad (subdural haemorrhage, retinal haemorrhage and encephalopathy) that characterize the diagnosis. A review from just last year, for example, provides what it characterizes as the “exhaustive” list of conditions that can result in this triad:

  • Chronic subdural haemorrhage
  • Accidental falls
  • Resuscitated SIDS
  • Cortical vein and sinus thrombosis
  • Inflicted injury
  • Vitamin D deficiency
  • Second impact syndrome (a second head injury, often very mild, occurring days or weeks after a first)
  • Aneurysm rupture
  • Rare genetic conditions

Notice that none of the conditions listed above includes “vaccine injury.” There is no evidence that vaccine injury can cause the triad associated with SBS/abusive head trauma. Indeed, this particular review is also notable for its emphasizing a “pragmatic” approach to diagnosing SBS/abusive head trauma. Another review describes the process of diagnosing SBS/abusive head trauma:

SBS is known to be difficult to detect and diagnose. Clinicians should use their own clinical judgment as each individual case is different and needs to be considered carefully on its own evidence…The diagnosis of SBS must be considered in any infant or young child who collapses with no obvious causes. Clinicians must maintain a low threshold of suspicion for considering this diagnosis.16 The diagnosis of SBS is usually made following a careful medical and social history taking. This ought to be supplemented by appropriate investigations.

The authors conclude that the clinical diagnosis is usually based on a patient history that does not explain the clinical features and list the laboratory investigations that should be undertaken.

The paper that Frompovich touts advocates the use of single photon absorptiometers to measure bone density in children. While this might well be a valid tool to estimate bone density in infants, but this argument does not in any way support the idea promoted by antivaccine loons that the SBS/abusive head injury triad can be caused by vaccines. In fact, Frompovich even admits that Seeley would likely “bristle at the thought that vaccines can contribute to SBS.” I have no idea what Seeley would think. For one thing, he’s not a pediatrician, and he published no primary studies on this issue, nor is he a neuroscientist. Rather, he is an exercise scientist wrote a medical-legal review that is basically designed to suggest to other lawyers what sorts of techniques can be used to sow reasonable doubt in a jury considering cases of child abuse of babies who present with the SBS triad, and, quite frankly, I don’t know whether he’s pandering to a law audience or being incredibly simplistic when he argues that there’s a huge degree of doubt because it’s impossible to do a randomized trial to determine whether shaking can cause the SBS triad.

I kid you not. That’s really what he writes, which is one reason why I was underwhelmed. Frompovich, not surprisingly, eats this up, so much so that she starts advocating subjecting children to bone density tests as routinely as Apgar scores and, in a triumph of speculation over evidence, suggests that the birth dose of hepatitis B vacine should not be given before a serum vitamin D test is done. In essence, Frompovich’s invocation of Seeley’s review article is designed to sow fear and doubt about the very existence of SBS and then to imply, not so subtly, that if SBS is difficult to diagnose then it could well be vaccine injury. Never mind that, again, there is no credible evidence that SBS is in any way related to vaccine injury, and never mind further that the intricacies and controversies in diagnosing SBS do not in any way demonstrate that vaccines cause the triad of findings that characterize SBS. By publishing this sort of nonsense, the IMCV has demonstrated that there are no depths to which it would not go in trying to discredit vaccines.

The bottom line is that the claim that SBS is in reality due to “vaccine injury” ignores the wealth of clinical data indicating that SBS (now more frequently and formally referred to as “abusive head trauma”) is a distinct clinical entity that has been well-studied and is probably underdiagnosed. Although there is controversy over the pathophysiology of SBS, how much force is necessary to produce it (hence the additional term to describe it), whether it’s underdiagnosed, what clinical entities can be confused with SBS, and whether it’s sometimes over-prosecuted, there is no controversy that SBS is not “vaccine injury.” When antivaccinationists insist that it is, they abuse science, reason, and morality by by proving themselves willing to use such a myth to exonerate baby killers. They also demonstrate that they are about hatred of vaccines, not clarifying the science and evidence behind abusive head trauma, SBS, or whatever the entity might be called in the future.

Posted in: Vaccines

Leave a Comment (112) ↓

112 thoughts on “The antivaccine lie that just won’t die: The claim that shaken baby syndrome is really due to “vaccine injury”

  1. pytra says:

    Vaccines = broken skull.
    this is BULLS****.

  2. weing says:

    I think I’m going to be sick.

  3. DugganSC says:

    Thank you for not only pointing out the idiocy of the suggestion that vaccines could cause the kind of cranial trauma seen in his case, but also acknowledging that abuse cases aren’t always clear-cut. As almost all parents can attest, children manage to injure themselves in a stunning variety of ways and for every “thank you dear God” case where the mother rushes over to their fallen child and is felled by the relief of a miraculous lack of injury. And even in cases where the injury is shown to result from violence, it’s not always the primary caretakers who are at fault. Friends, relatives, pets, and strangers can all be the cause of the injuries, so the tendency in the media to fan the fires of a witch hunt in cases of suspected abuse can cause issues.

    And, as was the case in the “satanic day care center” trials of the 70s and, more recently in the case of Dr. Charles Randal Smith, doctors looking for abuse can often find it by the sheer force of wanting to see it. As has been upheld on this blog, the medical and the legal community should always strive to make their decisions upon proven evidence, not supposition and beliefs.

  4. Linda says:

    Child safety, eh? This level of wrongness makes my stomach turn.

  5. ELloyd says:

    David, you stated:
    “Perhaps it wasn’t investigated because the contention that the Hepatitis B vaccine caused multiple skull fractures, much less the injury pattern consistent with traumatic injuries of the sort caused by shaking and trauma seen in abusive head trauma is ridiculous on its very face.”

    Quick fact check: Did I miss where the article actually suggested that skull fractures were the result of vaccine injury? I think only the most contorted reading of the article could come to that conclusion. Most of your points are valid, so why stoop to that level? There is no reason.

  6. windriven says:

    This story is so disturbing that had I encountered it in a less credible space I would dismiss it as impossible.

    Dr. Gorski, at the risk of exposing myself (yet again) as loathsome language martinet you might wish to revisit this sentence:

    “I first learned of the vile concept that somehow SBS when I learned of the case of Alan Yurko”

  7. David Gorski says:

    Cut ‘n’ paste error. No time to fix now. At work.

    One wonders why you don’t launch grammar flames comments after one of Mark Crislip’s posts. :-)

  8. Chris says:

    ELloyd:

    Quick fact check: Did I miss where the article actually suggested that skull fractures were the result of vaccine injury?

    That requires reading two separate parts. First a description of the baby’s injuries from a link to an article by Christina England:

    Amanda died from multiple skull fractures and the triad of injuries associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) which are Retinal haemorrhages (bleeding into the linings of the eyes); subdural haemorrhages (bleeding beneath the dural membrane); Encephalopathy (damage to the brain affecting function).

    Then the speculation by Dr. Lloyd that is quoted:

    Did Amanda suffer from this reaction and was this the reason that baby Amanda was so distressed? If so the injuries found just weeks later may have been caused by the Hepatitis B vaccine, however, this possibility this was never investigated.

    The injuries included multiple skull fractures, and now it is speculating that the HepB vaccine (which is just a protein grown in baker’s yeast) caused those injuries. Dr. Gorski is merely pointing out that some are speculating the SBS is a vaccine injury, though they may not realize that those injuries included skull fractures.

  9. ELloyd says:

    Chris:
    Are you being serious? I enjoy this blog, but come on. This is a stretch and we all know it. I call BS. Admit it and have a laugh. One more of Gorski’s toadies…?

  10. Chris says:

    I’m sorry? I don’t understand what is bothering you, perhaps you could try using full sentences. It seems that Dr. Lloyd came to the defense using the vaccine canard did not realize the injuries included multiple skull fractures. Dr. Gorski is trying to give him the benefit of doubt.

  11. windriven says:

    @ Dr. Gorski

    “One wonders why you don’t launch grammar flames comments after one of Mark Crislip’s posts. :-)”

    Two reasons:
    I’m usually too busy laughing,
    I’d be exhausted from the effort. :-)

  12. Harriet Hall says:

    @ELloyd,
    “Did I miss where the article actually suggested that skull fractures were the result of vaccine injury? I think only the most contorted reading of the article could come to that conclusion.”

    Apparently you did miss that. No contorting is required to understand the direct quotation “… the injuries found just weeks later may have been caused by the Hepatitis B vaccine…”

    Dr. Gorski did not misrepresent anything, and none of us are his “toadies.” Perhaps you would like to apologize.

  13. Harriet Hall says:

    @ critics of Dr. Gorski’s grammar:

    Have you ever not been able to read past the typos to understand what he meant?

  14. ConspicuousCarl says:

    Lookout, fellow bandits! The great Day Levens has come to knock us off of our high horses!

  15. ELloyd says:

    @Harriet:
    Apologize? You’re arguing a position that’s clearly disprovable if you simply RTFA, not simply what Gorski sated. You’re making an inference that is unjustified, and then claiming that the author said vaccines create skull fractures. If anything, Gorski should acknowledge his overreaching statements.

    @Chris:
    Aww… Sorry, Chris. I will try to use complete sentences just for you, buddy. :-*

    At what point did Dr. Lloyd say anything about vaccines? You just said you quoted him, but that quote doesn’t seem to belong to him. Perhaps you should read the article.

    Like I said, I enjoy this blog, but I’m calling BS on this issue. You seem to be taking Dr. Gorski’s word without reading the article. Read the article. Read it. Read it with your eyes and brain. Both eyes, and both hemispheres, if you have them. At no point does Dr. Lloyd even mention vaccines or Hepatitis. Yes, a lot of the article sounds like BS, but adding BS to BS just ends up with more BS. Ha!

    Sorry, bud. You’re down 2 points now.

  16. Chris says:

    Okay let us try again, this paragraph is written by Dr. Gorski:

    Now, I realize that we don’t know everything there is to know about SBS. Nor do I normally have a problem with research that questions the prevailing hypothesis, if the research is well done. However, when I see someone like Dr. Lloyd argue against the concept of SBS and lend aid and comfort to a defense team that is using the claim that vaccines are the cause of SBS, then I have a problem:

    Then Dr. Gorski posts a blockquote which is also from Christina England:

    If so the injuries found just weeks later may have been caused by the Hepatitis B vaccine, however, this possibility this was never investigated.

    The mother is blaming the vaccine. Dr. Lloyd is now writing papers to exonerate those who shake babies to death. He does not seem to understand what he is getting into. The theory that vaccines cause the injuries to babies was invented to both keep child abusers out of jail, and to demonize vaccines.

    Personally I think Dr. Gorski is being too generous to Dr. Lloyd. I looked at his CV and I see nothing that would make him magically go from ergonomic training of injured war veterans to an expert on infant head trauma. I liken him to an ambulance chaser type of expert witness, much like (former) Dr. Mark Geier and his son (never a doctor) David Geier.

  17. ELloyd says:

    @Chris
    I just had a good long laugh at your expense. You’re playing bait and switch now, bud. I just caught you in a big fat mistake (lie?), and now you’re claiming that you never said that. Buddy, your prior post is still visible! They stay there! Surprise!!!

    Your depiction of Dr. Lloyd’s work is further showing your prejudice. You have no idea what his motivations are. You’ve got one big-ass axe to grind, don’t you?

    My flabbers are still aghast that you’re bothering to argue this. Gorski overreached. Don’t sweat it. He won’t admit it, but I’m calling BS, and for some reason, you’re grasping at straws in an effort to support him. What’s what all about? “Personally, I think Dr. Gorski is being too generous to Dr. Lloyd.” If the toady fits…

    I think you’re down 3 now, but who’s keeping score, eh?

  18. ELloyd says:

    David:
    Your story has more problems. I don’t think Dr. John Lloyd is doing anything for the Sadowskys’ defense. I think he is simply cited in this article. I can quote Einstein and Hitler in the same article, but that doesn’t mean they were collaborating. If I’m wrong, please provide something more concrete.

  19. Narad says:

    Perhaps we should cut to the chase, buddy. England’s final line is this:

    I believe that this was a tragic accident and that Elwood dropped baby Amanda through no fault of his own contributing to her death, however, I also believe this little girl was already dying through drug and vaccine poisoning.

    And let’s make no mistake: Al-Bayati has asserted that skull fractures can be caused by vaccines.

  20. ELloyd says:

    Chris:
    My previous post pretty much pulled the ladder out from under you. It certainly appears that the author simply interviewed Amanda’s Mommy, then later interviewed Dr. John Lloyd. Let’s just admit a little mistake, and move on. Okay there bud?

    You can do it. You’re a big man.

  21. Harriet Hall says:

    @ELoyd,

    I think you have read something into Dr. Gorski’s post that he didn’t write. The statement Dr. Gorski quoted appears to have originated here: http://nojusticeinthejudicialsystem.blogspot.com/2012/10/man-serving-life-for-killing-his-baby.html. Dr. Gorski did not attribute it to Dr. Lloyd. It follows a quotation from Buttram’s report, and when I first read it I misinterpreted it as coming from Buttram. Instead it is a statement by Christina England published on August 20. Dr. Gorski said Dr. Buttram’s report led to the speculation, and that is correct. The speculation may have been entirely Christina England’s; it’s not clear.

    While the Amanda Truth Project website and Buttram’s and Innis’s reports do not directly blame fractures on vaccines, they do suggest that vaccines caused at least part of the features of the shaken baby syndrome, and Dr. Innis’ report links to http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/vaccine_sids.htm featuring Viera Schreibner, alleging that vaccines have been proven to cause SIDS, and suggesting that they are also responsible for shaken baby syndrome.

  22. Chris says:

    Yes, I did make an error in the quoting. And I never try to prove my masculinity. You on the other hand might want to pull back the argument through blatant insults.

    As a mother of a child who had seizures from a now disease preventable disease, very severe convulsions. There were no broken bones, so I have very bad opinion of those who claim vaccines cause broken bones.

    I also am not fond of the shenanigans of “expert witnesses”, and that includes Dr. Lloyd.

  23. ELloyd says:

    Nadar:
    Was that intended for me, buddy? Have we met? I never said anything other than most of that piece was a lot of BS. But I don’t see Dr. Bayati quoted anywhere in the article, so what are you trying to pull there? Why this hostility toward me? Are any of the mistakes that I just pointed out non-existent?

    Jeepers. I point out what I thought was a minor mistake, and suddenly everyone goes to bat for Gorski. No wonder he has a God complex. Granted, he’s funny as hell, but let’s not take his rantings quite so seriously. You’re scaring me, like one of those crazy Rush Limbaugh supporters or something.

  24. Chris says:

    Also, Dr. Hall the defense of Alan Yurko seemed to think the broken ribs were from the DTP.

  25. ELloyd says:

    Chris:
    I thought you were male. Oops. I’m not male either, if that helps. Perhaps I should give you a point for that.

  26. Narad says:

    Why this hostility toward me?

    You are acting like an asshole, buddy, so there’s that.

  27. Chris says:

    I was not aware it was a competition. I have been following the issues before the time when Buttram and Yazbak found Yurko. It about the time I was taking my son to speech therapy and deep in the depths of special education IEPs. I don’t care much for those who abuse children and try to blame something that could not have caused the injuries.

    Next time try explaining that the wording on the quotation was unclear. That could be done using full sentences and without insults. The real wonky player in the above article is Ms. Christina England who is connecting invisible dots.

  28. ELloyd says:

    Chris:
    Maybe they aren’t child abusers, honey. Would you help those who support the innocent? Dr. Gorski left that option open. Right or wrong, perhaps that’s what Dr. Lloyd believes too.

    This is a game to you, too, honey. Maybe you don’t accept it. It is definitely a game to Gorski. So don’t go getting all bent out of shake, dear. I was not being far less insulting than Gorski.

  29. I had pretty much ignored this story in the past, because I just assumed it was some dumb anti-vaxxer crap that wasn’t worthy of much effort on my part. But I kept seeing references to it in Facebook memes and comments in anti-vaxxer posts. Overcoming my laziness, I read this article. Now I’m ill. Setting aside the the huge defects in our criminal justice system, that even the vaccine denialists can’t see how horrible Alan Yurko is makes me ill. I guess making a hero out of murderer is not beneath them.

    Please David Gorski, write an article about the Triple Crown, just so I can cleanse my brain. PLEASE. Just a short one.

  30. ELloyd says:

    Ha! I meant that “I was being far less insulting than Gorski.”

  31. elburto says:

    ELloyd – for someone with no investment in the. issue at hand you seem awfully defensive.

    You are aware, no doubt, that several of the disgusting creatures defending child murderers like Yurko and Sadowsky, are claiming that childhood vaccinations caused vitamin C and D deficiencies which, they allege, account for the skull and rib fractures?

    The “expert witness” Lloyd is as credible as he is medically trained in paediatric trauma. So, not at all.

    There are cases where non-accidental trauma and accidental trauma have been mistaken for one another. Getting a precise aetiology for injuries when the patient cannot talk is always a Sisyphean task. However, sometimes, as anyone who has worked in triage will tell you, there is no doubt whatsoever that the injuries you’re seeing are the result of abuse.

    Hijacking the memory of murdered infants, cruelly abused by those supposed to care for them, in order to advance some deranged new theory about the evils of vaccination, could only be the work of someone completely amoral and self-serving.

    That’s what Dr Gorski is trying to point out here. That there are individuals so blinded by their own delusions of grandeur, that they will stoop to any level to promote their sick agenda.

    So, instead of nit-picking and sniping, why don’t you nail your colours to the mast?

  32. elburto says:

    Oh, now you’ve moved from passive-aggressive “buddy”s to sickly-sweet, patronising “Honey”s and “Dear”s.

    Pathetic. So your colours are now evident. You are pissing on the graves of babies who were beaten to death, because you’re so invested in your “Vaccines are ebil!” delusion.

    Sick.

  33. Narad says:

    Maybe they aren’t child abusers, honey.

    If they’re playing the vaccine card, there’s little other conclusion, bitsy.

  34. Harriet Hall says:

    @ELloyd,

    You contradict yourself. Which is it? Did you think Dr. Gorski’s post was over-reaching BS, or did you think there just a minor mistake?

  35. ELloyd says:

    elburto:
    Lord Almighty! There is a lot of pent-up hostility here. I talk like I talk, buddy. If you are female, I would probably call you “honey”. I pointed out a tiny mistake, dear, and I thought David would get a kick out of it. Then I found a bigger problem. Not sure what he might think of that. I think I’m the only one here that isn’t being defensive. Ha!

    I haven’t even read much on this case, but apparently the rest of you are experts, just because you read about someone else’s case? These comments are overrun with sycophants who wish nothing less than to exalt and worship at the alter of Gorski. Please point out one single point that I made that was not true? Or does “truth” not matter to you people? Are you blinded with hate? David left the door open that Sandowsky may be innocent, but the rest of you apparently know something that he doesn’t.

    Did I ever say that I believed the BS about the vaccinations? I just hopped-in to have a little fun with David, and suddenly everyone started taking it very personally. You’re seriously starting to scare me, buddy.

    I’m “pissing on the graves of babies”? What the hell? I’m pissing on David, but he is used to that, and doesn’t take it personally. In fact, I think he enjoys it. Some of you really need to cool off.

    Apology accepted in advance.

  36. ELloyd says:

    Harriet:
    The first mistake was minor, but later I realized that he made a larger mistake by closely associating Dr. John Lloyd with the anti-vaccine crowd. Keep up, honey!

    I’m still trying to figure out what trials Dr. Lloyd has provided an expert witness. David implied that he’s making a lot of money doing it, but all I can find is a link to some case in Arizona, and I think it was pro bono, since it was associated with the Innocence Project. http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/06/05/arizona-justice-project-achieves-shaken-baby-exoneration/

    But I’m still looking…

  37. ELloyd says:

    Nadar:
    WOW! You’re insightful! :-*

  38. The Dave says:

    E Lloyd and Dr. David Lloyd, PhD, BS, etc. share a namesake. I wonder if there’s a connection and if maybe that is why she is responding the way she is? :-)

  39. ELloyd says:

    ELO + Pink Floyd = ELloyd. :-)

  40. The Dave says:

    Sure… likely story :)

    I love ELO and Floyd, but I, like most others, disagree with your analysis of this post

  41. Narad says:

    Nadar:
    WOW! You’re insightful! :-*

    Can that be taken as an admission that you think “no, all these existing traumatic injuries that ended in death are definitely the fault of vaccines even though first I said I tripped and then, no, I think I had a seizure” is a promising defense, ELyldo?

  42. Harriet Hall says:

    @ELloyd,

    LLoyd is listed as an expert witness and it says he has testified against shaken baby syndrome. I can’t find evidence that he testified in either of the cases described here. Your guess that his testimony in another shaken baby case was pro bono is no more credible than Dr. Gorski’s implication that he profits from testifying, as expert witnesses almost always do. And it is really irrelevant whether he gets paid or not. The point is, he has allowed his name to become associated with disparagement of the shaken baby diagnosis.

    By the way, I really object to being called honey. I am hereby politely requesting you not do it again. Thank you in advance.

  43. ELloyd says:

    Nadar:
    What’s your question? You’re not quoting me, there, bud.

    If you’re asking me (again) if I believe the vaccine nonsense, I have already answered that. No, I don’t. Please… You old fellas really need to keep up.

    If you’re referencing part of the Sadowsky case, I’ll have to read up on it more. I don’t know more than what Gorski and England have provided. Changing stories is not a good sign for any defense, although I suppose if he had some mild seizure disorder, he could have had a seizure and tripped at the same time. Ha! Did they mention epilepsy or something? I can’t think of why else someone would talk about seizures. Sounds a bit odd, doesn’t it?

  44. ELloyd says:

    Harriet:
    Okay. Sorry. That’s just my upbringing.

    I said pro bono because his legal team was pro bono, and I know that other experts mentioned are generally known to testify free of charge in wrongful conviction cases. I actually met Dr. Waney Squier once, very briefly. I think it was about 10-11 years ago. I do know that she is very involved in these types of cases now, but she was not at all back then. She was very pleasant. I wonder why she is doing this now, after such a distinguished career.

  45. ELloyd says:

    Ha! Okay, I guess I missed it before. I had to do a little bit of reading about Moyamoya disease. The real question is whether or not this man had surgery for the disease. If so, he should not have been experiencing blackouts. Also, who diagnosed it? Buttram? Was it a “diagnosed” after his baby died? Was the daughter ever tested?

    I’m not arguing right now, I’m curious if there is any credibility to that argument.

  46. ELloyd says:

    I need to take back some of what I just said. Some people continue to have blackouts and/or seizures after surgery. Sorry! I should have done more reading before I posted. My guess is that that most of you are way ahead of me on this issue.

  47. Narad says:

    LLoyd is listed as an expert witness and it says he has testified against shaken baby syndrome. I can’t find evidence that he testified in either of the cases described here.

    He attempted to testify in the Tiffani Calise case, in the form of bringing a bathtub into the courtroom. Apparently, his only prior experience as an expert witness in this field was in Georgia, but I can’t nail that one down, and given that the entire excursion is entirely tangential to the point, I’m little inclined to.

  48. windriven says:

    @Dr. Hall

    “Have you ever not been able to read past the typos to understand what he meant?”

    Precise thinking deserves precise expression. I simply pointed out a sentence that was obviously not what Dr. Gorski had intended so that he might consider editing it to express his actual thought. I did not suggest this to be an intellectual failing, just an unfortunate pebble in an otherwise smooth and silky road. Had this sentence appeared in a private e-mail exchange it would have passed without comment. But these posts are archived, one presumes in the expectation that they will be read and referred to many times and for many years.

  49. windriven says:

    @ELloyd

    “Was that intended for me, buddy? Have we met?”

    That is rich coming from someone who feels free to address Dr. Hall as ‘honey’ and both she and Dr. Gorski by their given names.

  50. Harriet Hall says:

    @windriven,
    “Precise thinking deserves precise expression.”

    I agree and I personally try very hard to write error-free posts. I even have two people proof-read every article I write. But I happen to have the time, the interest, and the helpers to do that. I find it easy to forgive the typos of others that are due to haste or dyslexia. David Gorski is to be commended for the volume of his writing in the course of an incredibly busy and productive life. His thinking is always clear.

  51. David Gorski says:

    @windriven

    I fixed the sentence already. Geez! :-)

  52. David Gorski says:

    The point is, he has allowed his name to become associated with disparagement of the shaken baby diagnosis.

    Indeed, and in the case of Amanda Sadwosky he’s done it while publicly stating that he has “no opinion to offer regarding vaccinations,” because he’s not an expert in that field. I’m sorry, but if you’re going to insert yourself into this field on the side of those who deny that SBS exists as a clinical entity it’s about as irresponsible as you can get to brush off concerns about antivaccinationists claiming that SBS is vaccine injury or that vaccine injury predisposes to more severe injury from head trauma.

  53. ELloyd says:

    Nadar, good job on the find. I just read about that Tiffany Calisie case. Wow. Poor girl. I can definitely see why these SBS cases are tough to prosecute. So, she shook the girl to death and blamed it on a fall in the tub? Or the child fell in the tub and they blamed it on shaking? She must have done it in front of her own daughter, right after the two of them got done playing. Then watching that video after she was sentenced to life in prison. She is in tears, claiming her innocence.

    My husband is a detective, and he just watched that video with me. He has done a lot of interrogations, but in his opinion, this woman is not lying. “That’s not a performance.” He’s actually pretty shaken up right now, which is really unusual for him. Like I said, he does a lot of these. The glove don’t fit. Ha!

    Nothing about vaccinations, there folks.

  54. ELloyd says:

    Nadar, good job on the find. I just read about that Tiffany Calisie case. Wow. Poor girl. I can definitely see why these SBS cases are tough to prosecute. So, she shook the girl to death and blamed it on a fall in the tub? Or the child fell in the tub and they blamed it on shaking? She must have done it in front of her own daughter, right after the two of them got done playing. Then watching that video after she was sentenced to life in prison. She is in tears, claiming her innocence.

    My husband is a detective, and he just watched that video with me. He has done a lot of interrogations, but in his opinion, this woman is not lying. “That’s not a performance.” He’s actually pretty shaken up right now, which is really unusual for him. Like I said, he does a lot of these. The glove don’t fit. Ha!

    Nothing about vaccinations, there folks.

  55. Chris says:

    Ms. Lloyd, will you be a big girl and admit that you keep typing Narad incorrectly?

  56. ELloyd says:

    David, most of those active in SBS exonerations and defense do not adhere to the concept that these are vaccination injuries, and other than this one single article written by Christina England, I have not seen you produce anything showing Dr. Lloyd to have any close association with anti-vaccination, or even the Sadowsky case. Actually, you are already back-tracking, aren’t you? Maybe you caught my posts, but I don’t register on your radar, so you’re casually ignoring me, but changing your position nevertheless. That’s so sweet. :-*

    I can’t find a lot on the Amanda Truth Project that even discusses vaccines, let alone uses it as a legal defense. I think Christina England’s article painted a picture that perhaps even the Sandowksky’s would not agree with.

    But I’m sure you’ll still have plenty of toadies here to kiss your feet, and other parts, and tell you what good your doing. Perhaps if you were placed on equal footing with those you attempt to destroy, not so many would be here to kiss your dirty feet.

  57. ELloyd says:

    Chris and “Narad”:
    I thought it was a play on the word “Radar” and I kept reading it incorrectly.

  58. windriven says:

    “His thinking is always clear.”

    I agree. My comment was not a flame, not a jab, not a sneer. It was nothing more than a note suggesting that Dr. Gorski might revisit the sentence in the interest of clarity for future readers. For what it is worth, I think he took it in the spirit in which it was intended as evidenced by the good-natured repartee that followed.

  59. Chris says:

    Ms. Lloyd:

    I can’t find a lot on the Amanda Truth Project that even discusses vaccines,

    http://www.theamandatruthproject.com/apps/forums/show/4217734-seizures

    And Ms. Sadowsky made a comment here (I miss the that you cannot link to the comment!):

    Actually, a known reaction to the Hepatitis B vaccine is jaundice, too. I would be leery to suggest 50% of all newborns experience jaundice regardless of whatever study you managed to find. That being said, however, I’d encourage some of the readers who visit my site to actually READ something when they get there. Otherwise you’re no better than what you’re accusing me and anyone who supports me to be. Have a nice day.

    By the way, I did say the most wonky person of this bit is Ms. England. She is big on speculation.

    Buttram is an interesting character, as high priest of the Church of the Illumination. Which is what Arthur Allen mentioned when he profiled him in his book Vaccine. Buttram is often an “expert witness” for shaken baby syndrome, always blaming vaccines. His online papers are a testament to how not to cite a reference.

    And I am still leery how someone who works with rehabilitating wounded veterans can become an expert on infant brain trauma. As an Army brat I saw lots of young people in uniform, and they were all much bigger than any infant.

  60. elburto says:

    ELloyd – you’re either a troll, or huffing paint. Which one is it?

    It’s just that you keep spewing nonsense about the innocence of these people. You’re even going so far as to invoke your “husband” who is a “detective to show how totally innocent they are. And then, you toss out little sticky caecotropes like:

    Nothing about vaccinations, there folks.

    Read the title of the post. Read the body of the post:

    No, what I’ve found to be one of the most disturbing antivaccine claims of all is the assertion that shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is a “misdiagnosis for vaccine injury.” SBS is the name originally given to a triad of findings consisting of subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and encephalopathy. More recently, because the syndrome is more complex than the original description suggested, these days the syndrome is more properly referred to as non-accidental head injury or abusive head trauma. This particularly vile antivaccine lie has popped up again with a story I recently became aware of
    , that of Amanda Sadwosky, whose father Elwood Sadowsky is currently in prison for killing her and whose mother Tonya Sadowsky is trying to win him a new trial and thereby free him by claiming [...] that vaccine injury was a major cause of Amanda’s death.

    Righto then. The entire point of this post is to illustrate how low the selfish, immoral, anti-vax scumbags will sink, in order to push their demented agenda. They will side with men who punched. and shook their babies to death, breaking their bones, causing internal bleeding, and catastrophic brain damage. They scream from the rooftops “He’s innocent! Vaccines did it!”. They pay “experts” who have no experience in infant healthcare or trauma, who falsely claim that no parent could shake a baby hard enough to damage them, that dislocated vertebrae and shearing of the brain tissue could not result from being thrust rapidly back and forth. That the broken ribs that correspond with a man viciously squeezing his baby as he kills her, are actually due to rapid-onset scurvy and osteoporosis caused by vaccination.

    So maybe you can see why, in a post that has the title it does, and has content about blaming violent infant murders on vaccination, that your little “Hyuck hyuck, I don’t see nuthin’ ’bout no vaccines here, no sir!” act, and your immediate disparagement of. Doctors Gorski and Hall, and your condescension to every other commenter, can only mean two things. Either you’re an anti-vax troll, or you’re suffering from anoxia and impaired cognition due to huffing paint, glue, or lighter fuel.

    Why else would you pop up. here, out of the blue, and act the. way you are? Why would you barge in, slinging insults and patronising jabs at both the doctors and the established posters, without any prior provocation? Why pick a name used by the “expert witness” as your screenname here? Why repeatedly defend convicted babykillers. and deny deny.deny any mention of vaccinations?

    Why would you do that, sweetcheeks honeypie shmooglygong, unless you have an agenda? A morphing troll, or a hopeless headcase McCarthyite, or someone personally involved. They’re the only people, apart from someone high on solvents, who’d pop up out of nowhere and be immediately antagonistic to anyone and everyone in sight.

    And no, I won’t be apologising to you (but bless your little wizened heart for thinking I might!), but I think you owe our hosts an apology for your disrespectful behaviour.

  61. windriven says:

    @Chris

    In re: ELloyd – Think Th1Th2. Is there an emoticon for rolling eyes? If so, how do I do it?

    I have no idea whether or not s/he drew blood because the tenor of the comments were so abrasive that I couldn’t be bothered to check. If I gave 1/4 of a sh!t at this point I’d have the transcript tracked down. But I’ve measured carefully and find that I give less than 1/48th of a sh!t about anything ELloyd has said. Perhaps s/he could take a deep breath or three and reformulate the argument without all the drama and snark. Then we’d have a useful starting point.

  62. windriven says:

    @elburto

    I’ll put a crisp clean twenty on huffing paint. (Thanks, you made me laugh out loud)

  63. elburto says:

    Windriven – it’s more like Lurker/Marsha/grandma than Thingy.

    Thingy would never miss a chance to talk about vaccines, and “toxins injected into the bloodstream”.

  64. elburto says:

    Windriven – Meth and crack are just so “Meh”. It’s time something old skool made a comeback. Something quaint and retro!

  65. David Gorski says:

    I have not seen you produce anything showing Dr. Lloyd to have any close association with anti-vaccination, or even the Sadowsky case.

    Correct, because I never claimed that he was. I criticized Lloyd for giving aid and comfort to people who do make that claim and seemingly not caring.

    I can’t find a lot on the Amanda Truth Project that even discusses vaccines,

    Do you even know who Harold Buttram and Michael D. Innis are? Seriously? Do you know? Buttram is one of the people who invented the whole notion that vaccine injury either causes or predisposes to the constellation of findings characteristic of SBS. He’s been writing about it for well over a decade. Innis is also well-known for promoting the same sorts of pseudoscience. And guess what? Tonya Sadowski got both of them to do what they do best and wrote up a report blaming a veritable Gish gallop’s worth of causes other than trauma, prominently featuring vaccines, for Amanda’s death. You don’t get these guys to write reports for you if you don’t plan on using as part of your claim that vaccines were part of what killed Amanda. You just don’t. It’s what they’re primarily known for. And both reports, particularly that of Michael Innis, do try to argue that vaccines contributed to Amanda’s death.

    But seriously. You clearly are ignorant of the long background and history of the claim that vaccines cause or contribute to the findings of SBS.

  66. ELloyd says:

    Gorski:
    Are you aware of Dr. Jennian Geddes’ study? You mention axonal shearing, that’s why I ask. That hypothesis has not been widely accepted for several years now. It’s widely accepted that the axonal damage is the result of global hypoxia. But that study is only about 11 years old. No rush. You have blogs to write and people to to disparage!

    http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/124/7/1299.full

  67. Narad says:

    it’s more like Lurker/Marsha/grandma than Thingy.

    There’s a strong odor of OQF in there.

  68. Chris says:

    In my “not an expert” opinion the Geddes paper reiterates there is a difference between adults and infants. Which adds to my question why someone who works with wounded warriors is now an “expert witness” on infant brain trauma.

    I looked at Dr. Lloyd’s CV, and he became a specialist in brain injury a couple of years ago. But I don’t see any real relevant education that explains how that happened. Can you clarify?

  69. windriven says:

    @ElRod

    Really? This is your big gun? A pissing match over relative minutiae? Does a shaken infant die as a direct result of DAI or is it epidural cervical hemorrhage and focal (rather than diffuse) axonal damage? Does the infant care? Does it impact the thrust of Dr. Gorski’s broader argument? Or having mis-shot your wad are you down to picking nits?

  70. David Gorski says:

    @ELloyd

    Your comments seemed very familiar to me, but I couldn’t quite figure it out. I was sure I’ve seen you before elsewhere—and recently. It didn’t take much for me to confirm that my deduction was correct.

    In fact, now that I’ve made the connection, I’ve found you showing up all over the place whenever this particular issue comes up, always making the same sort of dubious arguments. It’s almost as though you have a Google Alert set up for cases of shaken baby syndrome and head on over whenever it alerts you. Of course, this makes it all the more likely that your apparent ignorance of the claims of antivaccinationists linking vaccines to SBS is feigned and that you’re trolling. Certainly, you’ve mastered the Gish gallop.

  71. David Gorski says:

    There’s a strong odor of OQF in there.

    We’ve seen ELloyd before (although not in any other guise on SBM as far as I can tell—if ELloyd were generating sockpuppets, I’d shut it down in a flash; we don’t mind pseudonyms here, but sockpuppeting is a bannable offense), but it’s not Thingy. Think old British SF show.

  72. ELloyd says:

    Gentlemen, have you read the entire site? Did you realize that even this woman’s pastor supports her AND her husband? I guess that he likes killing babies too, if I am to believe some of the comments here. That must make it satanic ritual abuse, right?

    David, you demonstrate a paucity of knowledge regarding the current science of SBS. It is an immense gaping hole in your entire argument. Instead of attacking me and others, take some time to educate yourself. Apparently that’s not something that you have done in awhile. Clearly, any model based on the concept of axonal shearing is going to be prone to failure before it even begins.

    Is Dr. Lloyd’s model prone to failure? Certainly, and it is noted within the article. The torn bridging vein theory has all but disappeared, and that is where we have the minimum force threshold (contusions requiring even stronger forces). The bleeds in these infants begin in the dura, not torn bridging veins. How much force does that require? We have no idea. Could it bleed due to shaking? Maybe. Could it bleed due to choking? Maybe. Could it be due to David Gorski’s immense intellect? Maybe. With our current understanding, all biomechanical models are ultimately worthless. Further, there may be several orders of magnitude difference depending on the child. The research is not there. It has been proposed that these small bleeds may trigger a trigeminal response ultimately leading to encephalopathy, retinal hemorrhaging and death.

    elburto, please… Dispense with the conspiracy theories. I have no idea who you are, either, and I’m sure you prefer it that way. I have treated no one here any worse than they would treat anyone else who dares to disagree.

  73. ELloyd says:

    “Of course, this makes it all the more likely that your apparent ignorance of the claims of antivaccinationists linking vaccines to SBS is feigned and that you’re trolling.”

    I do not support anti-vaccinationists. I am well aware of them. I agree with you on many points. We are not that distant. However, I strongly disapprove of your methods.

    David, you are a troll. You are proud to be a troll, but that does not make you less of a troll. You and I both know that you have trolled elsewhere as well. And yes, we have frequented the same forums in the past, although not on this topic.

  74. Chris says:

    Ms. Lloyd, how does the managing editor of a blog become a “troll” on his own article?

    Now please explain clearly how someone who works with injured adults become an expert on infants with no discernible training on their CV? The link you gave explicitly said the two were completely different, so how did Dr. Lloyd become an expert in infant brain trauma? Give us the documented details, because they are missing from his online CV.

  75. weing says:

    @ELloyd,

    “Did you realize that even this woman’s pastor supports her AND her husband?”
    And we know they are infallible. Not.

    “Could it be due to David Gorski’s immense intellect? Maybe.”
    Bullshit.

    And how does your bullshit theory explain skull fractures? Just curious how a warped mind thinks.

  76. David Gorski says:

    Ms. Lloyd, how does the managing editor of a blog become a “troll” on his own article?

    When someone who appears to be perseverating decides that “I know you are, but what am I?” is a valid response to criticism, I suppose.

  77. David Gorski says:

    I do not support anti-vaccinationists. I am well aware of them. I agree with you on many points. We are not that distant. However, I strongly disapprove of your methods.

    You’ll forgive me if I find your protestation about being aware of antivaccinationists…unconvincing. You’ll also forgive me if I don’t care whether you personally approve or disapprove of me.

    In any case, I think it’s still obvious that you didn’t know who Harold Buttram or Michael Innis were and that the core of what they do is to try to blame vaccines for SBS. (Harold Buttram, in particular, is notorious for claiming that the hemorrhages seen in SBS are due to vitamin C deficiency caused by vaccines. See his report, where he speculates that “intractable reflux problems along with routine vaccines administered on June 19th, known to cause oxidative stresses on the body,(17) might well have brought about terminal clinical scurvy as a contributory source of the bruising noted on the autopsy report.” Innis speculates on vitamin C and K deficiencies, and cites “classic” articles used by SBS equals vaccine injury cranks for years now.

    Of course, another possibility is that your ignorance was feigned, and you just didn’t care how ridiculous the vaccine/SBS pseudoscience was, just as long as doubt—or the illusion of doubt—could be placed on SBS by any means.

  78. I’m sorry for this…. But “Innis & Buttram” wow what a horrible pair of names!

  79. ELloyd says:

    Chris:
    I am not “Ms. Lloyd.” You may address me as “Ms. ELloyd” if you would like, but I will simply assume that was a typo and move on. The name came when I decided to combine ELO and Pink Floyd. For pronunciation purposes, I would pronounce it like E- L – Loid. May we now put such speculation to rest?

    Weing and Gorski:
    David is a troll. He is a well-known troll. Ask him to deny it. I, on the other hand, seldom troll. But when visiting with a group of trolls, well, “when in Rome…” Further, the notion that Dr. Gorski’s intellect would cause an infant’s brain to bleed was an attempt at humor. Good catch. While the 1980′s horror flick “Scanners” comes to mind, I nevertheless assure you that it was meant in jest.

    David:
    I am well aware of Drs. Innis, Buttram, Al-Bayati, Ayoub, Scheiber and others. In Dr. Ayoub’s case, it may be unfortunate, since the man appears to be quite a gifted radiologist, in my opinion, and it only weakens his credibility. But his beliefs, from what I gather, appear to be sincere, as are yours.

    I have spoken with parents, friends, and families involved in SBS cases. I frequently hear of a sick child, and I’m told that the child’s condition dramatically declined post-vaccination (often DTaP or DTP). These parents were obviously not anti-vaccinationists, but were simply alarmed that the pediatrician would give the shots to a child who was already ill. I would not encourage them is not to pursue that defense; it is unlikely to be beneficial. I have no other opinion on the issue. If someone asked me if their child should be vaccinated, I would probably tell them “only if they are well” and to watch for an adverse reaction.

    May we put that speculation to rest now? I have no ties to any of those doctors.

    I can’t speak for the evidence regarding vitamin C deficiency, but vitamin K deficiency is well-known to mimic SBS, at least to the untrained eye. Dr. Lucy Rorke-Adams, a strong SBS proponent, was pivotal in overriding the diagnosis in such an instance. Her conclusion was that the infant was deficient in vitamin K, likely due to a liver dysfunction, when the baby died. She based this on the observation of the pattern of bleeding, and a blood test would confirm her suspicion. Other conditions are frequently misdiagnosed as SBS, sometimes ending in the preventable death of a child. As the proof begins to surface, may we term them “baby killers” as well, sir?

    Does Dr. John Lloyd know the consequences of his decision to enter into the realm of SBS? I imagine he is quite aware. It is a risk that he is willing to take, because he strongly believes in preventing miscarriages of justice. It is a noble endeavor. Noted bio-mechanical engineer Chris Van Ee has also been somewhat active. While their experiments may ultimately be proven obsolete, they do counter the out-dated theories extolled by the prosecution’s doctors in the courts.

    You don’t care about my opinion of you, but I’m going to share it nonetheless. My “beef” with you, doctor, begins with the Hippocratic oath. Words cause harm. While your words in particular are often chosen carefully, likely to avoid lawsuits, the words of your sycophants are not. Indeed, you appear to enjoy inciting others and viewing the damage they inflict behind their cowardly pseudonyms. Now you have a perfect outlet and you enjoy the full protection of the second amendment by your employers. Perhaps your own God-complex blinds you from the truth of how hurtful and destructive this can be. You hurt people. It does not matter if 1,000 other doctors have hurt 1,000,000 other people. Your behavior is nevertheless inexcusable.

    Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name.

  80. Chris says:

    How exactly did Dr. Lloyd become an “expert” in infant brain trauma when he has no work experience, nor any specific education in that field? He works in a veteran’s hospital where the patients are adults.

  81. weing says:

    @ELloyd,

    The fractures?

  82. Narad says:

    You may address me as “Ms. ELloyd” if you would like, but I will simply assume that was a typo and move on. The name came when I decided to combine ELO and Pink Floyd. For pronunciation purposes, I would pronounce it like E- L – Loid.

    And you may address me as “Colonel Narad.” For pronunciation purposes, I would emulate Robert Clary.

  83. Dingo199 says:

    “I’m sorry for this…. But “Innis & Buttram” wow what a horrible pair of names!”

    Aren’t they featured in a cartoon somewhere?

  84. Dingo199 says:

    I see that Dr Lloyd is actually a “Professor of Medicine”.

    Professor of Medicine, Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, University of South Florida College of Medicine.

    Who would have thought that?
    http://evidencebasedmedicineandsocialinvestigation.org/the-speakers/

  85. JJ from Cowtown says:

    ELloyd: “I, on the other hand, seldom troll.”

    Let me meme that for you:

    “I don’t always troll but when I do, I troll SBS stories.”

    Dingo199:

    Found this on the same site:

    “Each registered attendee will receive a copy of Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Enduced Encephalitis – Are Parents Being Falsely Accused? Written by Dr. Harold Buttram, M.D. and Christina England, Research Journalist.”

    Lovely!

  86. Chris says:

    Dingo199:

    I see that Dr Lloyd is actually a “Professor of Medicine”.

    And engineering. The problem is that I could not find his name when I searched the University of South Florida online directory. Perhaps he is one of those folks that comes in to teach a workshop every so often and is using that to fluff up his CV.

  87. lilady says:

    I see all of you have done an admirable job of demolishing ELloyd’s posts one-by-one.

    About ELloyd’s possible sockpuppetry…my guess, based on the familiarity “David” and “Harriet”, the deliberate misspelling of Narad’s name and the general use of condescending terms, is that we may be dealing with a sock puppet of Sarah 007.

    BTW Dr. Gorski, Thingy has appeared on the Shot of Prevention blog, posting from a different IP address and/or a different e-mail account.

  88. David Gorski says:

    About ELloyd’s possible sockpuppetry…my guess, based on the familiarity “David” and “Harriet”, the deliberate misspelling of Narad’s name and the general use of condescending terms, is that we may be dealing with a sock puppet of Sarah 007

    Nice guess, but no. As far as I can tell, ELloyd has not posted on SBM under any other ‘nym. I think, however, that ELloyd has been quite active recently on the same subject at my “friend’s” blog under what appears to be his real name. Certainly, the similarities in style, arguments, and behavior between ELloyd and this other commenter are striking.

  89. lilady says:

    @ Dr. Gorski: I think you are referring to Jeremy Praay, who posted on Orac’s blog, here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/10/05/using-the-lie-that-sbs-is-a-misdiagnosis-for-vaccine-injury/

    Mr. Praay is a software developer, who *claimed* to not have an interest in the Amanda Sadowsky case, until I and other posters on the RI blog “outed him”.

    Has Mr. Praay morphed into ELloyd?

    @ ELloyd: “Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name.” Pleased to meet you, as well. You’ve been “outed troll” on the RI blog and on this blog…bye-bye.

  90. Harriet Hall says:

    It appears Dr. Gorski has identified ELloyd as a man or at least a person who uses a man’s name elsewhere. I’m wondering why he would choose to pretend to be a woman here.
    He or she announced on another thread that he or she will not be posting here any more. Good riddance.

  91. David Gorski says:

    Actually, Jeremy Praay is a real person. ELloyd, I’m not so sure about. :-)

    At least, Praay appears to be real. He has a Facebook page and his comments pop up a lot if you search his name plus “shaken baby syndrome.” In fact, so active is he commenting on this particular topic that methinks he has a Google Alert set up.

  92. lilady says:

    Jeremy Praay is a real person…he’s a software developer with a B.S.-Computer Science…according to his LinkedIn page:

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeremy-praay/53/515/8a

    My daughter has her MSc-Computer Science. She knows diddly-squat about medical science and nothing about Shaken Baby Syndrome.

  93. Narad says:

    My “beef” with you, doctor, begins with the Hippocratic oath. Words cause harm.

    Oh, boo freaking hoo. Your wordies give me ouchy-ouch-ouch! Speech codes now! Tell you what, move to the UK. You’ll only have two problems.

    Now you have a perfect outlet and you enjoy the full protection of the second amendment by your employers.

    What on earth are you babbling about?

  94. HH:

    “I’m wondering why he would choose to pretend to be a woman here.”

    My guess is it was to avoid being called out as a misogynist/chauvinist when he started addressing women as “honey”.

    When he was addressing a person he believed to be a man as buddy, I was reminded of this scene from South Park: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQK6t2Esng&feature=youtube_gdata_player :)

  95. Harriet Hall says:

    @Karl Withakay,

    “My guess is it was to avoid being called out as a misogynist/chauvinist when he started addressing women as “honey”.”

    I think it is unlikely that he did it as a plan with that in mind, since he didn’t start using those words until late in the game. I’m wondering if maybe he thought others would treat a woman less harshly. Of course that’s not true: I get just as much abuse as the men.

  96. Jacob V says:

    I’ve been investigating child abuse and neglect cases for twenty five years including many SBS cases along the way. These cases can often involve parents who do not have many of the risk factors one would associate with child maltreatment such as drug use, mental health problems or a even a history of violent behavior. So it’s no wonder the parents friends and some associated medical folk are willing to believe in the parents despite the overwhelming evidence that SBS injuries are nearly always inflicted and not accidental. The problem is belief, emotions and relationships shape the perspectives of even medical professionals not just lay-folk. A dispassionate review of the facts usually sorts out these cases pretty quickly and the only questions that arise usually have to do with identifying alleged perpetrators, sorting out time frames and looking who had the opportunity to inflict the injury. The notion that these types of injuries could be caused by vaccines is so outrageous, and potentially dangerous, that any MD offering up such an opinion should have his license suspended in my opinion.

  97. Jacob V says:

    One more point… .
    Many exceedingly important and pivotal decisions regarding the safety of children are made by state social worker’s and the courts based on the opinions and conclusions of medical doctors in cases of child abuse. Shaken Baby Syndrome cases more often than not do not result in fatal or even grievous injuries. Social worker’s like myself and the courts frequently make decisions about whether an injured child should be allowed to return home from the hospital or if other children should be removed from a family home if it is determined that a serious injury to a young child has been inflicted or was accidental. If a MD has an opinion that is not informed by the facts and the best available research concerning a type of or pattern of injuries many other children, including the injured one, can be put in harm’s way. This type of discussion is not just academic or philosophical; lives are at stake and those playing fast and loose with the facts for their own agendas’ need to understand the potential consequences’ of their foolishness.

  98. elburto says:

    I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that our troll’s “husband”, the experienced “detective” who could discern innocence via a short video clip, was a figment of “her” imagination.

    Dr Gorski – both you, and your friend at the other blog, are incredibly tolerant and accommodating of our friends from under the bridge.

    I raise my glass to you both. I could not muster up such forbearance in the face of those selfish, disgraceful beings who would defend child murderers rather than confront the idiocy of their delusions.

  99. Harriet Hall says:

    Don’t forget, men can have husbands too. At least in some states.

  100. elburto says:

    Jacob -

    This type of discussion is not just academic or philosophical; lives are at stake and those playing fast and loose with the facts for their own agendas’ need to understand the potential consequences’ of their foolishness.

    Thank you. These denialists, peddlers of disgraceful lies, seem to treat the lives of children as if they were simply acceptable collateral damage. It’s as if the suffering of babies and their families is not as important as proving some ridiculous point.

Comments are closed.