Kane
August 25th 03, 05:55 PM
On 25 Aug 2003 05:55:16 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:
>Dan, It looks like another area CPS operates under a myth.
>----------------------------------------------------------
>"You can't shake a baby hard enough to injure its brain unless you
>break the neck first," pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Ronald Uscinski
>said. "And none of these babies have broken necks."
There is a way, but said doc is of course not going to make a buck
mentioning it.
>Uscinski is a clinical professor of surgery at Georgetown University
>Medical Center and a clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at
>Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C. He testified for
>the defense in the SBS trial in Henderson County and has testified
>against SBS about 30 times in the past six years.
>
>Uscinski said he applied physical laws in his studies of injured
>babies. He said researchers in the early 1970s misunderstood a
>research paper and referenced it as a biomechanical justification for
>shaking.
No they didn't.
>
>"These individuals who identified or thought they identified SBS used
>this one person's work," Uscinski said. "Having read his paper, it's
>pretty clear they misunderstood him. But people got excited and
>started publishing the reports."
Isn't it odd he doesn't actually provide a citation?
>He claims a 1987 study proved shaking couldn't injure a baby's brain.
Of course he would say that, now wouldn't he? He makes a dime or two
every time he testifies.
>"If the baby was slammed into something or dropped, he could suffer
>brain injuries," Uscinski said. "But (some cases) have no evidence of
>impact. So they got caught in a little conundrum."
Stay tuned folks, he might just get around to the truth.
>He urges caution in the courtroom.
>
>"No one would deny that they want to protect children, but when
>prosecutors are prosecuting someone for shaken baby syndrome, they
>need to be sure science supports it," Uscinski said. "If they don't,
>they could falsely convict someone."
Yah, righto. The baby has all the symptoms sans broken neck so of
course no one "shook" the baby.
But then just how did the other symptoms occur?
Answer: Couch slammers (no pun intended, Greegor). The child is
slammed into a softer flat surface that will support the neck but is
still firm enough to jar the brain against the brain pan. Beds and
couches serve "The Slammer" very well.
Throwing a child down is a commonly reported event by child abusers.
It usually happens when the child is crying and or whiny. Instead of
meeting the child's need The Slammer, as is so often the case in many
kinds of violent abuse, assumes the child is doing it to bug them, and
Wham!, usually followed by three or four more in rapid succession.
It works so well. The baby quiets, it's brain mushed on one side or
the other, or both.
That what happened to you as a child, Greegor? Maybe we could forgive
your antics with the little girl if it was. In the meantime you appear
as just another parental abuse apologist.
Kane
wrote:
>Dan, It looks like another area CPS operates under a myth.
>----------------------------------------------------------
>"You can't shake a baby hard enough to injure its brain unless you
>break the neck first," pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Ronald Uscinski
>said. "And none of these babies have broken necks."
There is a way, but said doc is of course not going to make a buck
mentioning it.
>Uscinski is a clinical professor of surgery at Georgetown University
>Medical Center and a clinical assistant professor of neurosurgery at
>Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C. He testified for
>the defense in the SBS trial in Henderson County and has testified
>against SBS about 30 times in the past six years.
>
>Uscinski said he applied physical laws in his studies of injured
>babies. He said researchers in the early 1970s misunderstood a
>research paper and referenced it as a biomechanical justification for
>shaking.
No they didn't.
>
>"These individuals who identified or thought they identified SBS used
>this one person's work," Uscinski said. "Having read his paper, it's
>pretty clear they misunderstood him. But people got excited and
>started publishing the reports."
Isn't it odd he doesn't actually provide a citation?
>He claims a 1987 study proved shaking couldn't injure a baby's brain.
Of course he would say that, now wouldn't he? He makes a dime or two
every time he testifies.
>"If the baby was slammed into something or dropped, he could suffer
>brain injuries," Uscinski said. "But (some cases) have no evidence of
>impact. So they got caught in a little conundrum."
Stay tuned folks, he might just get around to the truth.
>He urges caution in the courtroom.
>
>"No one would deny that they want to protect children, but when
>prosecutors are prosecuting someone for shaken baby syndrome, they
>need to be sure science supports it," Uscinski said. "If they don't,
>they could falsely convict someone."
Yah, righto. The baby has all the symptoms sans broken neck so of
course no one "shook" the baby.
But then just how did the other symptoms occur?
Answer: Couch slammers (no pun intended, Greegor). The child is
slammed into a softer flat surface that will support the neck but is
still firm enough to jar the brain against the brain pan. Beds and
couches serve "The Slammer" very well.
Throwing a child down is a commonly reported event by child abusers.
It usually happens when the child is crying and or whiny. Instead of
meeting the child's need The Slammer, as is so often the case in many
kinds of violent abuse, assumes the child is doing it to bug them, and
Wham!, usually followed by three or four more in rapid succession.
It works so well. The baby quiets, it's brain mushed on one side or
the other, or both.
That what happened to you as a child, Greegor? Maybe we could forgive
your antics with the little girl if it was. In the meantime you appear
as just another parental abuse apologist.
Kane