• Whiplash-shaken infants in vehicle accidents do not present with the brain symptoms associated with SBS ...unless the infant's head has hit something.
• Infant vehicle accident victims suffering from whiplash-skaking get injuries to the neck and spine almost never seen in SBS infants.
• Experimental studies with primates in 1968 proved that shaking could cause Subdural Hematomas, but only after 155 g's of force was applied mechanically, while humans are only able to generate 9-11 g's of force unless they happen to be super athletes, then the most documented was around 30 g's of force, meaning that "shaking alone" doesn't do it.
• Accidental short falls with head impact can generate far more than enough force to cause Subdural Hematomas, Retinal Hemorrhages, and brain swelling (DAI--diffuse axonal injury)
• Most Subdural Hematomas found in diagnosed SBS cases are the thin type associated with hypoxia--lack of oxygen to the brain such as might occur following an apnea incident or similar events, not from blunt force trauma which usually causes thick Subdural Hematomas.
• There has never been a reliably witnessed case of shaking that produced the symptoms of SBS.
• Most "confessions" come from caretakers who gently shook a non-responsive infant to try to "wake it up", from caretakers applying their CPR training to (gently) "Shake and shout" to determine if an infant is unresponsive before applying CPR, or from those unable to prove their innocence and facing up to life in prison if they go to trial and being pushed into taking plea bargains for lower sentences. These so-called confessions are used as "proof" that SBS exists, rather than relying on solid scientific evidence, of which there is none. They "think" shaking causes a shearing of veins in the head that cause bleeding, but can't prove it other than designating all cases where there is no documentation of an accident as "non-accidental" and taking the medical data of these cases as "evidence".
• Many forensic pathologists deny that SBS is a true medical concept, particularly with no impact to the head involved.
• Biomechanical engineers who study motion injuries continue to provide compelling evidence that SBS is a myth.
• A number of diseases including metabolic/nutritional disorders cause all of the symptoms attributed to SBS.
• People, including doctors, assume that diseases like scurvy and rickets have gone the way of bubonic plague, but in fact a poor maternal diet, excessive vomiting, smoking, infections, vaccines that act like infections, and many drugs including antibiotics and antihistamines can cause massive nutritional deficiencies in infants.
• When vitamin C deficiency occurs (usually in formula-fed infants), blood histamine levels rise, creating "capillary fragility" which is a hemorrhagic condition also affecting bone development.
• Vaccines increase blood histamine levels.
• Bacteria in vaccines (including the contaminates in all vaccines), natural bacterial infections and the antibiotics used to treat them can cause endotoxemia from the breakdown of virulent bacterial cell walls and release of endotoxins:
  

Dr. Archie Kalokerinos of Australia, recipient of that country's highest civilian award for his medical work among the aborigines whose infants and children were dying--up to 50% following government mandated vaccinations (Book: EVERY SECOND CHILD)--until he saw signs of malnutrition and scurvy, theorized that vaccines were causing massive vitamin C depletion, who then brought the death rate down to zero with injected nutrients before and after shots, explains the connection between vitamin C deficiency and endotoxemia, and the effects of both which account for symptoms found in babies assumed to have been shaken. He refers to the "pathologies" of SBS:

1972: An explosion of SBS cases rocked the world of medicine and battered families on the jagged reef of a flawed criminal justice system. Cases increased in the 80's, the 90's, and on into the new millennium in spite of massive campaigning against shaking.

What happened? 

Did some cataclysmic event drive select parents, family members, friends, babysitters and daycare providers to suddenly begin maiming and murdering infants in their care?

Did human nature change overnight into something monstrous that overrode the basic instinct to protect the young and preserve the species? --but only in certain countries and not in others.

Did the "inconsolable high-pitched crying" claimed to be the cause of alleged rough shaking mysteriously reach a higher frequency that drove formerly kind individuals insane? --"alleged" because no reliably witnessed incident of shaking has ever produced the symptoms associated with SBS.

Or is something else at work here?

When an infant is brought to an emergency room comatose or dead, usually after reported vomiting, losing consciousness and going into a seizure, and findings of retinal hemorrhages  alone or combined with subdural hematoma, sometimes with the appearance of what may be interpreted as diffuse axonal injury, these are considered to be the "hallmarks" of Shaken Baby Syndrome. Then, SBS is assumed no matter what history is given even though all three conditions and others attributed to "shaking" have many other causes.

The following article is the commonly accepted medical theory of what happens, although the SBS "evidence" is not based on scientific proof, but upon an unproven hypothesis that was embraced without proper peer review and testing to eliminate other causes. It relies on assumptions and social histories of supposed "shaking" incidents, although most shaking is assumed if the caretaker can't prove otherwise, or by questionable and usually tainted "confessions" which include shaking a baby who has become comatose to try to "wake it up", or the CPR procedure of "shake and shout" to determine if an infant is responsive before applying chest compressions and mouth resuscitation efforts. More frequently, plea bargains where the caretaker is threatened with anything from 20-to-life, or even death if they go to trial and plead innocent comprise the main body of "statistics" used as evidence in support of shaking, despite their lack of scientific validity. Emotion wins the day, overwhelming common sense and the need of in-depth medical and forensic investigation.

This continues despite mounting evidence that shaking alone can kill an infant by damage to the neck and spine, which isn't seen in these cases, but does not cause the injuries seen in the head that cause disability or death, unless there is also an impact to the head comparative to a fall from a two-story building or being unrestrained in a vehicle crash and hitting the head on something, which would normally leave signs of external trauma also rarely seen in SBS cases, except in those where the infant has fallen or been dropped. If the infant has been bashed or thrown, the signs of battery are usually obvious.

The medical profession has long denied that "short falls" can cause the constellation of symptoms attributed to SBS. However, it is know known that short falls can injure and kill. Also, a documented case (videotaped) of an accidental short fall with no shaking involved resulted in all of the symptoms considered hallmarks of SBS. However, there is no record of a reliably witnessed case of shaking that produced these same symptoms. That leaves "assumption of guilt" as the evidence used to convict caretakers, break up families, and remove children from their homes, sometimes permanently. The reality of child abuse can and should never be denied. But the rush to convict without evidence of criminal intent or without investigating and eliminating other causes is just as devastating, particularly when there are medical conditions which cause identical symptoms to those attributed to shaking alone.

Healthy breast milk contains enormous amounts of vitamin C. Baby formula has far less and can not address the extra need for this vitamin and others when infants have infections, have been vaccinated, (which acts like an infection), or when antibiotics, antihistamines and many other drugs have been administered which have a proven effect on vitamin C levels.

Blood histamine levels are inversely related to vitamin C. When the vitamin level goes down, blood histamine increases instead of being neutralized by the vitamin and can become dangerous.

Natural (wild) infections and vaccine bacteria, latent infections activated by vaccines, and treatments for bacterial infections can become "endotoxemia", a potentially deadly condition caused by the breakdown of virulent bacterial cell walls, which then release endotoxins.

If the mother's prenatal diet is deficient, if she has health issues of her own or those caused by the pregnancy, the developing fetus may develop a deficiency state such as chronic subclinical scurvy which can quickly develop into accelerated Barlow's disease after birth from the above conditions, especially in mothers who smoke and consume excess sugar and caffeine.

Infantile scurvy is thought to be a disease of the past, but the use of baby formula instead of breast milk and other modern medical and social "developments" can cause vitamin C deficiency in anyone. In fact, new technology developed in the last decade in England and tested on a large cohort of adults identified signs of vitamin C deficiency in nearly all of the participants through a newly developed method of examining eyes.

Barlow's disease variant (accelerated infantile scurvy), increased blood histamine levels and endotoxemia all present with symptoms identical to those attributed to "shaken" babies, since they can all cause "capillary fragility" (a hemorrhagic condition) which affects bone formation also. This can lead to bleeding in the head, eyes, and other parts of the body, abnormal bruising, infections, spontaneous bone fractures, fractures from normal handling, or the false appearance of "healing fractures in different stages" when hemorrhaging occurs on the skin of the bones and becomes calcified, looking actually like healing fractures on x-rays and to the eye. Only microscopic examination of the callus formation can tell the difference. This is rarely done at autopsy and probably never on a living infant. Another affect of untreated Barlow's disease seen at any age is "SUDDEN DEATH".

Recent studies indicate that accidental short falls in these susceptible infants, or even in a healthy baby, long thought to seldom cause serious injury or death have in recent years been identified as far more injurious or deadly than thought.

In spite of claims to the contrary, studies indicate there is no clinical difference between injuries that happen "by accident" or "on purpose".  Why would a whiplash injury sustained in a vehicle accident present differently than a "whiplash-shaken" injury of the same force perpetrated by a caretaker? The laws of biomechanics and physiology remain constant and would have to be redefined to make any sense of this. Many biomechanical engineers consider SBS to be a "myth" because human shaking has limited power, determined to be around 9-11 g's of force, and mechanical shaking research that produced any bleeding in the head in primate studies required a force of around 155 g's of force. Many scientific studies on "shaking" provide compelling evidence that it takes an impact likened to "a fall from a 2-story building" or the equivalent to cause any of the symptoms seen in SBS. Doctors acknowledge this research by accusing caretakers of extreme violence to account for it. Indeed, violent shaking can kill, but it would damage the neck and spine like the injuries seen in vehicle accidents--which are not seen in babies diagnosed with SBS. And doctors ignore the fact that an impact of the force described will usually leave signs of external trauma, also not seen in these cases other than in those which involve short falls or dropping the infant on a hard surface. Whether a fall or other form of impact is accidental or non-accidental can only be determined by means other than the injury itself. But unless an impact is witnessed or otherwise proven to be accidental, these injuries are usually assumed to be abuse simply by the lack of documentation as to the cause. "Assumption" then progresses to conviction.

As there is no clinical difference between accidental and non-accidental injuries unless clear signs of abuse are present, if one factors in metabolic disease with the same symptoms, there is no way to even determine if the conditions seen are injuries rather than manifestations of disease which can happen spontaneously or with normal handling.

Emergency pediatric medical guidelines have very specific procedures to follow when abuse may be involved. Doctors are to take a complete medical and social history involving the infant and family. If the symptoms are more severe than suggested by the history, abuse is to be assumed. To provide evidence to support this assumption, DIFFENTIAL DIAGNOSIS is to be done. This is the testing for other causes with the same or similar symptoms to eliminate disease as a cause, or to diagnose disease and eliminate abuse as a differential.

These tests can separate the innocent from the guilty, but they are not being done. Instead, when doctors find symptoms thought to be caused by shaking, they stop at "assumption of abuse" and the last person with the infant is convicted. Conviction is so certain, based on the symptoms alone without any evidence of abuse, that most people are threatened with "20 to life" if they go to trial, and opt for plea bargains. These plea bargains, coerced false confessions, admissions of gentle shaking to "wake the baby up" when it becomes unresponsive, shaking as part of the infant CPR training (gently shake & shout) to determine if an infant is responsive before applying CPR, or the rare care when rough shaking is admitted by a caretaker driven temporarily mad by "inconsolable crying"--itself a sign that the baby is already suffering from a medical condition ...remain the only "proof" that shaking supposedly causes the symptoms of SBS, since it hasn't been proven by science and there has never been a reliably witnessed case of rough shaking that produced the symptoms.

In any other aspect of medicine, if proper medical procedures were ignored, doctors could expect to be brought up on charges, lose their license, be sued, and even go to prison. SBS cases remain unique. Doctors violate established guidelines without any consequences, based on an unproven hypothesis which advanced to "accepted medical theory" by common usage, while bypassing all of the medical safeguards such as proper peer review of detailed evidence in place to prevent junk science from becoming bad medicine.

Errors, unproven assumptions, false or misleading statements, tainted confessions, medical misdiagnosis due to a lack of Differential Diagnosis, incomplete or inadequate forensic pathology--sometimes by those without proper training, and defective or rushed autopsy exams may complicate many of these cases and subvert both truth and justice, particular when there are tests that can separate the innocent from the guilty. These are detailed in published medical guidelines for emergency pediatrics but are almost never done in suspected abuse cases, making SBS cases "unique".

Child abuse remains a terrible reality and it happens every day. But the rush to accuse and convict in an over-eager effort to identify and remove abusers from society, or for other reasons almost too unconscionable to consider, also leads to devastation to infants, their caretakers and families.

Even worse, children are put at risk of permanent injury and death when they are diagnosed as victims of abuse in cases where they are suffering from treatable diseases. Medical misdiagnosis can kill. Consider if an infant is suffering from one of several hemorrhagic conditions and is given blood thinners, which is often the case. It could die from massive bleeding caused by medical treatment, which is then blamed on the caretaker instead. Or what if the proper treatment was a simple nutritional solution which being overlooked? In these cases, misdiagnosis becomes medical malpractice, giving doctors a strong incentive to hide the facts and deflect the blame.

METABOLIC DISEASE MASQUERADING AS ABUSE?

"During one trial, the prosecution stated that infantile scurvy was no longer seen. I replied with ‘Yes it is. But it is not called ‘scurvy’, it is called the ‘shaken baby syndrome’." --Dr. Archie Kalokerinos, MD

"In many ways this is like the ‘witch hunts’ of old", Dr. Kalokerinos explains.

Dr. Archie Kalokerinos

"Because of knowledge that is now available, prosecutors (including doctors) who provide evidence suggestive of guilt, without considering the factors stated in this lecture, possibly, later, may be charged with criminal negligence. Furthermore, the issues involved are extremely complex. No single doctor can possibly claim to be an ‘authority’ on every aspect of every factor involved in the genesis of the pathologies found in 'shaken babies'. However, sufficient knowledge exists to enable one to at least cast serious doubt on the inflicted trauma hypothesis of the pathologies found in some so-called ‘shaken babies’."

"For those of you who want to investigate the subject of shaken babies in greater detail I suggest that you connect onto Pub Med, and Google. Type in endotoxin, vitamin C, blood-brain barrier, coagulation/bleeding disorders, platelets, Factor X111, axonal injury, shaken babies, collagen, and free radicals. Be prepared to spend a few years doing so, because there is an enormous amount of literature available."

"I have no doubt that this ‘shaken baby’ business will eventually be recorded as one of the worst pages in the history of paediatrics. And the saddest part of it all concerns the fact that, while important doctors are busy collecting ‘evidence’ for the prosecution, vital issues that can save many lives are being not only ignored but destroyed with intense hostility."  -- Dr. Archie Kalokerinos "Shaken Babies"

Dr. C.A.B. Clemetson, MD

Babies do occasionally get shaken and shoved into cribs (shaken/impact) out of extreme frustration, but no reliably witnessed incident of shaking has ever produced the symptoms associated with SBS. Retinal and subdural hemorrhages--considered the hallmark symptoms suggestive of SBS these days, along with diffuse axonal injury, sometimes with broken bones or the appearance of healing fractures in different stages (particularly ribs), abnormal bruising and other symptoms found in infants assumed to have been shaken "do not necessarily indicate trauma or child abuse," said Dr. C.A.B. Clemetson, MD,  internationally-known expert on vitamin C deficiency who wrote a 3-volume book series "Vitamin C" that is still a classic in the field.

In fact, the actual "syndrome" of "shaken baby" is nothing more than an unproven theory (some call it a "myth") in spite of public belief to the contrary. Most people, including doctors, remain unaware that these symptoms can appear individually or as a group from other more likely causes, including certain nutritional deficiency states, infections, disorders and disease conditions, many of which cause brain swelling and pain that provoke the "inconsolable crying" which nearly always precedes the temporary madness that drives a tormented caretaker to treat an infant roughly. This means ...a life-threatening condition may have preceded the shaking. Even though violent shaking and impact can certainly cause injury or kill, the neck and spine would normally suffer structural damage first and these signs are absent in babies assumed to be shaken by their symptoms alone. Instead of eliminating other causes, Shaken Baby Syndrome cases are determined by a type of reasoning referred to academically as Circular Reasoning Fallacy: If an infant has certain symptoms, we assume it has been shaken. How do we know it has been shaken? --because it has certain symptoms.

Early on, many symptoms were associated with cases designated as SBS, although when the theory originated, mainly fractures in the long bones with bleeding in the head or inside the eyes were mentioned.  Now, If the symptoms of retinal hemorrhage and/or subdural hematoma alone are found, abuse is assumed and the last person with the baby at a crisis stage is charged regardless of the history given or any evidence to the contrary unless accidental conditions like a fall from a 2-3 story building or an unrestrained infant in a high-speed crash can be proven. Otherwise, if the caretaker's account of events doesn't match the equivalent force, he/she is assumed to be lying. There is another step that should be taken--provide evidence of abuse by eliminating other causes. This is NOT being done.

There are tests for other causes (differential diagnosis). Clinical guidelines for emergency pediatrics list potential other causes of these conditions and what tests to run for a correct diagnosis or to provide evidence of guilt through elimination of those causes. The tests that could separate the innocent from the guilty are almost never done, in direct violation of published standard operating procedures in emergency medicine.  In circumstances other than those suspected to be Shaken Baby Syndrome, a doctor could be fined, lose his license, do prison time, and/or be sued for likewise ignoring "conventional medical wisdom" in the treatment of a patient.

Instead, most cases of suspected SBS begin and end with "assumption" of guilt. Then, those who are innocent but given no hope by their defense attorneys are pushed into signing "confessions," in the way of plea bargains for reduced sentences after being told that if they demand to go to trial, they'll probably get "20-to-life" or even the death penalty in some cases, and If they don't sign, besides getting almost certain longer sentences that their partners will be prosecuted also, other children removed from the home, or some similar threat.

In many cases, healing fractures or the "appearance" of such (which will be explained) can be seen, so the threatened charge for partners would be, "they knew abuse was going on and neither stopped it nor got the infant medical care at the time." People seem unaware, ignore, or fail to consider the implications--that world-wide, but only in certain areas, people are watching prior abuse take place, doing nothing, and then allowing abusers to maim or kill infants in an explosion of assumed abuse cases that began specifically in the 1970s. This suggests the unlikely scenario of human nature changing in a certain decade, caretakers going insane in larger numbers in the 70s and battering babies in their care or committing infanticide, or that sudden physiological alterations took place that made babies more susceptible to these injuries. Some claim better diagnostic technology, more awareness and reporting are responsible. However, according to online copies of old books and reports, the same symptoms have been diagnosed at autopsy in people of all ages going back at least 150 years and more.  The question should be, "What caused the 'explosion' of cases in infants several decades ago?"

The concept of "Shaken Baby Syndrome" evolved from an article published in 1946 by pediatric radiologist Dr. John Caffey, who described finding bleeding in the head coupled with multiple long bone fractures in 6 dead infants that he attributed to whiplash-type injuries, although he came short of accusing caretakers of intentional abuse. He heard about a mentally ill nurse who claimed to have shaken 3 infants to death, and believed that "whiplash-shaking" might explain what he was seeing in dead infants with no external signs of physical trauma, which also meant there were no signs of impact to the head seen in the radiological studies he did. Unfortunately, several other likely causes (differential diagnosis) were listed, such as scurvy, but not tested for in a scientific

Dr. John Caffey

manner and eliminated.

When research In 1972 & 1974 he published articles promoting his earlier unproven "whiplash-shaken" theory, this time attributing it directly to child abuse, which lacked supporting scientific evidence due to his use of an improper scientific method of analysis. The public ran with the idea, unaware of its insufficient scientific foundation, because it managed to slip by the usual peer-reviewed publishing process without challenge--a format that normally precedes medical concepts approved by "conventional medicine". By way of premature general acceptance, it bypassed the normal system of "checks and balances" of scientific inquiry and solid evidence and became accepted medical theory, which most of the medical, social services and legal communities took at face value without further evaluation.

• Intracranial hemorrhaging: A hemorrhage, or bleeding, within the skull. Intracranial bleeding occurs when a blood vessel in the head is ruptured or leaks. It can result from physical trauma (as occurs in head injury) or non traumatic causes (as occurs in hemorrhagic stroke) such as a ruptured aneurysm. Anticoagulant therapy, as well as disorders with blood clotting can heighten the risk that an intracranial hemorrhage will occur.
• Intraocular hemorrhaging: Bleeding within the eyeball.
• Traction lesions/periosteums/long bones:  Multiple fractures (or the appearance of such from callused subperiosteal hemorrhaging or bone necrosis) of the long bones

The Whiplash Shaken Infant Syndrome: "Has Caffey's Syndrome Changed or Have We Changed His Syndrome?"

(Article)  Yes, the SBS criteria has changed since Caffey's day which originally included abnormal bruising, skull, rib and clavicle fractures in particular and other symptoms as well as catastrophic internal conditions. These days, retinal hemorrhage (p.2 RH) and subdural hematoma are considered the hallmarks of SBS and babies are automatically assumed to be "shaking" victims in spite of the fact that each symptom has other causes. However, that only applies if the infant has left the hospital. If these symptoms are found after birth while the baby is still in the care of a doctor, which does happen, the symptoms are considered accidental--usually as birth injuries, unrelated to any shaking or impact incidents. The inconsistent "logic" of this anomaly seems perfectly clear to some, while not to others. A third major component of "SBS" diagnostic criteria today is diffuse axonal injury.

Diffuse Axonal Injury:
"(DAI) is one of the most common and devastating types of traumatic brain injury,[1] occurring in about half of all cases of severe head trauma and also occurring in moderate and mild brain injury.[2] It is a type of diffuse brain injury, meaning that damage occurs over a more widespread area than in focal brain injury. DAI, which refers to extensive lesions in white matter tracts, is one of the major causes of unconsciousness and persistent vegetative state after head trauma.[3]

Though diffuse axonal injury seldom kills, the outcome is frequently coma, with over 90% of patients with severe DAI never regaining consciousness.[3] Those who do wake up often remain significantly impaired.[4]

Nowadays, other authors state that DAI can occur in every degree of severity from (very) mild or moderate to (very) severe.[5][6] Concussion is thought to be a milder type of diffuse axonal injury.[7]

Mechanism: Unlike brain trauma that occurs due to direct impact and deformation of the brain, DAI is the result of traumatic shearing forces that occur when the head is rapidly accelerated or decelerated, as may occur in auto accidents, falls, and assaults.[8] It usually results from rotational forces or severe deceleration.[9][10] Vehicle accidents are the most frequent cause of DAI; other common causes include falls, assaults, and child abuse[11] such as shaken baby syndrome.[12]

The major cause of damage in DAI is the disruption of axons, the neural processes that allow one neuron to communicate with another. Tracts of axons, which appear white due to myelination, are referred to as white matter. Acceleration causes shearing injury, which refers to damage inflicted as tissue slides over other tissue. When the brain is accelerated, parts of differing densities and distances from the axis of rotation slide over one another, stretching axons that traverse junctions between areas of different density, especially at junctions between white and gray matter.[3] Two thirds of DAI lesions occur in areas where gray and white matter meet.[3]"

Biomechanical studies have provided evidence that in cases of physical trauma, shaking alone can't create enough force to cause the symptoms associated with SBS and that blunt force trauma to the head is needed--equal to dropping an infant from a 2-3 story building or a 35mph crash with an unrestrained infant (not strapped in a baby seat)--to reconcile symptoms with newer scientific studies. Is something else is happening to cause the steadily increasing number of cases assumed to be child abuse without direct evidence of such? An impact of that magnitude would normally produce external signs of severe trauma, but in most assumed SBS abuse cases there are no external signs of blunt force trauma found on the scalp, or just that which might be seen in an accidental falls in cases where a caretaker admits dropping a baby or describes short falls such as from a high chair or out of a crib.

In those cases where minor scalp trauma is seen, the external signs of head injury may fit caretaker explanations while the internal conditions signal otherwise--that something abnormal and life-threatening has happened. In the majority of cases, no scalp trauma is seen whatsoever. Without proof, the usual medical/legal conjecture is, "baby was probably slammed against a soft surface" such as a crib or bassinett mattress without considering that the impact of the rubbery skull of a healthy infant on a soft surface would unlikely generate the force needed to cause severe bleeding in the brain and frequently seen skull fractures. "Healthy" is the operative word here.

If extreme trauma signs exist such as skin or scalp trauma and bleeding, with no accidental short fall or similar mishap involved, along with obvious signs of abuse such as cigarette burns or ligature marks, this is a different matter of obvious child abuse. Abnormal bruising and hemorrhaging beneath the skin need further evaluation--there are several medical causes for these symptoms.

There has never been a reliably witnessed case of shaking or shaking/impact which produced the symptoms attributed to shaken babies then or now, and "confessions" are unreliable for many reasons. Because of this, doctors use conjecture (guessing) to explain their medical evaluations or forensic reports, such as "he/she must have thrown the baby against a wall" or "stomped on the infant's head" or "squeezed the chest" with no corroborating physical evidence such as bruising and swelling at the supposed impact or "crushing" site. In the present legal/medical environment, If the caretaker's explanation of events fails to include force of this degree, he or she is automatically assumed to be lying, the case immediately becomes considered one of child abuse without any further evidence, and conviction is almost automatic. The tests to eliminate this kind of guessing aren't being done. The same consequences of assumed guilt and nearly automatic conviction exist if such force is admitted that can't immediately be proven to be accidental, such as happened in one case where a toddler accidentally tipped a tv set on a stand down on top of his head. Even in that situation, in spite of physical evidence at the scene, the case was at first assumed to be non-accidental injury due to the symptoms alone because they were believed to be pathognomic (a medical characteristic or diagnostic of a specific disease) of child abuse. Finally, forensic and investigative evidence of the accidental nature of the incident became so convincing that the criminal investigation ended.

Caretakers with an infant at the time of crisis when it has stopped breathing, become unconscious, gone into seizures or died, who continue to proclaim their innocence in the face of symptoms associated with SBS while having no plausible explanation about how or why a baby became unresponsive or died suddenly, or who insist an accidental short fall occurred rather than an intentional "impact" are normally threatened with 20 years to life or even the death penalty if they go to trial. Most give up hope of proving their innocence because their attorneys have done no research into alternative causes and bring nothing to the table in their defense. They take plea bargains for shorter terms or to avoid a trial with a pre-determined outcome, unaware that there are tests capable of separating the innocent from the guilty.

According to clinical guidelines in suspected child abuse cases, when a certain specific constellation of injuries seen in x-rays, CT scans and ophthalmologist exams (also referred to as a "cascade of symptoms") can't be explained by reliably witnessed or proven accidental causes such as a motor vehicle crash, the next step is to take a history from the caretaker (s). If there is no history to account for the injuries--if the account doesn't match the severity of the injuries--the caretaker is assumed to be lying and the infant the victim of non-accidental injury ...child abuse. However, to remove any question from the diagnosis, the guidelines instruct that Differential Diagnosis must be done--that is, a search for other causes capable of presenting with the same symptoms. Some but not all are listed as follows:

accidental trauma osteogenesis imperfecta (brittle bone disease, and a temporary brittle bone condition may exist) Caffey's disease: Infantile Cortical Hyperostosis (ICH) scurvy rickets birth trauma congenital Infection idiopathic Thrombocytopenia purpura leukemia hemophilia von Willebrand disease recurrent pyrodermas scalded skin syndrome sudden infant death syndrome accidental poisoning

Unidentified infant from textbook photos: diagnosis--Infantile Cortical Hyperostosis Baby Casey forensic photos B&W: diagnosis--Shaken Baby Syndrome Infantile Cortical Hyperostosis (ICH) is more commonly known as "Caffey's Disease". Many online sources consider this to be a stage or manifestation of scurvy, while other list scurvy as a "differential" (possible other cause). It usually presents with a swollen lower mandible, causing the swollen cheeks, and multiple fractures in the ribs and clavicles. This was not tested for in the case of the second infant who had the same symptoms and was diagnosed with SBS.

"Other Causes" noted for their lack of inclusion: Vaccine injury, serum vitamin C deficiency (although scurvy is listed), blood histamine increase, endotoxin poisoning from vaccinations or "wild" infections, antihistamine, antibiotics. "Vaccine poisoning" is omitted but may underlie several disease conditions.

Are clinical guidelines for differential diagnosis testing that might prove innocence due to disease conditions or abnormalities simply being ignored?

In cases where gentle shaking is admitted, it usually consists of caretakers describing having gently shaken an unconscious infant to "wake it up" or as the procedure of "shake and shout" daycare providers, EMTs in training and other are taught to do to check for any sign of response before applying CPR, even to a newborn. That may be changing now with the rapid increase in babies claimed to be injured by "shaking," but it's been done for decades this way without harming the infant.

In the few cases where vigorous shaking is admitted, it nearly always has to do with desperation and extreme frustration caused by persistent "inconsolable crying" without considering that type of crying, particularly "inconsolable high-pitched crying" possibly mistaken for "colic" is very specific to several infection, septic or disease conditions--particularly within a 21 day period after a vaccination--which produce the same symptoms seen in assumed shaken or shaken/impact abuse cases, and that the conditions may have preceded the shaking.

The reasoning behind Caffey's theory and its modern day manifestations appears to be the kind of circular non-science as follows: The presence of symptoms such as retinal hemorrhages and subdural hematoma prove that a baby was shaken. How do we know it was shaken? --because it has retinal hemorrhages and subdural hematoma. (Circular Reasoning Fallacy)

Are these symptoms "pathognomic" (occurring only in these circumstances) of Shaken/Impact Baby Syndrome? No. (check symptoms in the side menu). In short, retinal hemorrhages, subdural hematoma and the other symptoms associated with SBS have other causes singly and as a group.

Are the "differential diagnosis" (other causes) usually listed in most cited, peer-reviewed medical literature on other topics ever tested for in suspected abuse cases? Almost never. The following conditions can cause a hemorrhagic condition due to "capillary fragility" resulting in abnormal bruising and hemorrhaging and bone abnormalities including spontaneous fractures, fractures caused by normal handling or minor trauma, and the appearance of healing fractures at different stages due to callus formation over subperiosteal (the skin covering on bones) hemorrhages which are indistinguishable from healing fractures on x-rays or even at autopsy unless special tests are done.

• Vitamin C deficiency accelerated by deficient prenatal diets, smoking, natural infection, vaccination, blood histamine increases, formula feeding and/or antibiotics (requires testing in a specialized laboratory)
• Increased blood histamine levels alone which inversely causes vitamin C deficiency or being caused by it (specialized lab testing)
• Endotoxin poisoning from bacterial breakdown (endotoxemia) from natural infection, vaccinations, and antibiotics

An exception: a foreign medical journal account of a suspected abuse case in which differential diagnosis was properly tested for before the parents were arrested and the child was found to have scurvy/rickets rather than having been injured through abuse. A broken leg resulted from a short fall that shouldn't have caused any injury whatsoever. This case will be added here soon. (As soon as I figure out which file I saved it in.)

Do accidental cases of shaken/impact injuries of equal force produce the same symptoms? No, according to "experts" who claim non-accidental causes do so exclusively ...without regard for the known laws of physics, making SBS cases unique--an apparent scientific oddity.

Caffey's unproven theory first put forth in the 1946 was built on the shaky and unscientific basis of assumption. In later years when he more directly claimed infants were being shaken violently, he attempted to understand, define, and imply (without direct accusation of inflicted injury) that caretakers had suddenly started seriously injuring or killing infants by violent shaking out of frustration and rage because there seemed no other reasonable explanation to him for injuries without signs of battering, although he did properly list "differential diagnosis" as other causes but failed to do the needed tests to eliminate these possibilities. However, "infantile whiplash shaking syndrome" was accepted almost without question in earlier days by rumor and innuendo, without a peer-reviewed challenge, by a public left unaware that it lacked an underlying foundation of science to support it.

Perhaps people could secretly identify with the idea of a person pushed over the edge, "losing it", and violently shaking and slamming an inconsolably crying infant down in a crib in a moment of temporary insanity and were quick to condemn someone who appears to have acted on these irrational impulses. At the same time, this kind of "kneejerk" condemnation is made without considering that while such irrational urges may pass through our minds momentarily, there are powerful forces of nature that prevent infanticide in most people, and no immediate explanation as to why they would start losing control a few decades ago and then only in certain areas in the industrialized world.

In 1968, Dr. Ayab Mammoya conducted studies on primates to determine scientifically if whiplash could produce brain injury? He proved that tramatic injury to the brain--subdural hematomas or diffuse axonal injury--did occur and the point at which it happened which was at approximately 155 "g's" of acceleration force. John Caffey, obviously feeling vindicated after his own doubts, called Mammoya up in person to thank him for his article and afterwards published articles in 1972 and 1974, further promoting his theories on the subject. However, "Today, Mammoya is adamant that he told Caffey that acceleration-deceleration involved in the monkey experiment were much greater than he believed could be generated by a human."  (Military Law Review, Vol 188, P. 8)

Why Caffey ignored or dismissed Mammoya's reported warning is unknown. In a published article in 1946, "Caffey J. Multiple fractures in the long bones of infants suffering from chronic subdural hematoma. 1946;56:163-173. Am J Roentgen Rad Ther" he came short of suggesting "intentional injury". But when he published on the topic again 1972 and then in 1974, he claimed that babies get shaken and what the effect was, in his opinion, but he took his "shaking alone" theory a step further:

PEDIATRICS Vol. 54 No. 4 October 1974, pp. 396-403
The Whiplash Shaken Infant Syndrome: Manual Shaking by the Extremities With Whiplash-Induced Intracranial and Intraocular Bleedings, Linked With Residual Permanent Brain Damage and Mental Retardation ...

Mammoya's stated warning to Caffey gained credence in 1987 when Dr. Ann-Christine Duhaime demonstrated experimentally that humans could only produce around 9.3 "g's" of force, when around 155 g's were previously found to be required to produce even 1 of 2 symptoms (subdural hematomas or diffuse axonal injury), which meant that caretakers could not produce these injuries by shaking alone. Even though subdural hemorrhage and/or retinal hemorrhage alone are being used to accuse caretakers, the symptoms in assumed SBS cases usually include hypoxia (lowered oxygen--a cause of brain swelling resulting in hemorrhaging in itself), skull and bone fractures--particularly in the ribs and clavicles, the appearance of healing fractures in different stages, abnormal bruising and other signs, still without direct evidence of intentional physical abuse since the bruising seen in some cases bore no proximity to internal injury sites. Babies might present with ecchymoses on the face or body, but not in the area of broken bones, or with skull fractures, but with no bruising or swelling on supposed impact sites. As previously stated, no reliably witnessed act of shaking has ever produced the symptoms associated with SBS with proof that shaking caused them, nor has there been any evidence against these symptoms pre-existing in the form of medical conditions which cause the same symptoms--infantile scurvy, endotoxemia, blood histamine toxicity, and other infections or diseases.

In recent years a physician who was alerted by the field work of internationally-known Australian physician Dr. Archie Kalokerinos, who wrote a book, published articles and gave lectures on the dangers of vaccination and the resulting vitamin C deficiency problems, wrote more precisely about the causes of these problems, presenting the science to support the theories and field work successes in resolving it. He devoted the rest of his life to addressing the condition that was far more probable and likely than "shaking" to cause the conditions associated with SBS. He also re-examined Caffey's cases and conclusions and made sense out of nonsense and "junk science". Dr. C.A.B. Clemetson, MD, an internationally-known expert on Vitamin C deficiency who had books and many published articles to his credit, submitted his findings to the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 11 Number 1 Spring 2006  "Caffey Revisited: A Commentary on the Origin of “Shaken Baby Syndrome”  This noted physician spent the end of his career and life attempting to educate the medical profession and scientific community about little-known causes and the extreme dangers of vitamin C deficiency which created symptoms identical to those attributed to "shaking."

He addressed what be believed to be the medical misdiagnosis of SBS cases as abuse rather than disease and how to stop many of the very real but easily explained SIDS cases since one of the known signs of vitamin C deficiency is "SUDDEN DEATH." Dr. Clemetson continued to present his shattering scientific evidence to a seemingly disinterested audience of his peers at the risk of his own personal reputation and  professional standing, just as Dr. Kalokerinos had before him. Instead, his medical colleagues appear to embrace the theoretic, unproven "Shaken Baby Syndrome" as though it had a solid scientific foundation.

If does not. Until doctors in each case of suspected abuse use differential diagnostic testing to eliminate other causes, lives will be destroyed on the basis of symptoms which have many other causes. Even worse, what may be a highly preventable cause of SIDS and "SBS" symptoms goes on.

Why would doctors and scientists ignore or refuse to test for differential diagnosis to eliminate other causes when published guidelines instruct them to do so? Why would any competent professional apparently chose to ignore or reject any notion of medical misdiagnosis? Consider the impact on their credibility and livelihoods and the inferred legal and professional liability if a medical cause was proven in most present cases. That could potentially indicate that generations of victims world-wide have been falsely accused and wrongfully imprisoned. That might be reason enough.

A similar situation is ongoing in the present autism-vaccination link controversy, made more explosive with the recent revelation of a published study using primates to test the reaction to the same vaccine schedule that human infants are put on, with the documented findings of various levels of autism-like and other neurological symptoms developing in the vaccinated monkeys.

Wouldn't it be interesting if this same kind of primate study was expanded to include feeding the gestating females a deficient diet of "white man's food", given sugar, coffee, and nicotine to emulate smoking mothers, treated with antibiotics and antihistamines for any kind of infection preceding, following or triggered by vaccinations, and fed on baby formula?

That Caffey may have guessed wrong mattered little. People liked the "whiplash-shaken" theory, grabbed it, and ran with it without challenging the lack of scientific analysis behind it. The irony of a theory implying that caretakers suddenly, without explanation, started to injure or murder infants against all natural instincts, and that they did it selectively, in certain countries and not in others or at different ages in different countries (India reports almost no SBS cases and Japan, after changing the age of vaccination saw a corresponding change in the median age of SBS and SIDS cases)--seems lost on professionals in the field, along with logic, common sense, and mens rea: evidence of malice aforethought or sudden and spontaneous criminal intent. In fact, there has never been a single witnessed incident of shaking/impact that resulted in SBS symptoms and confessions are unreliable for many reasons. People may gently shake an infant to try to rouse it, or "confess" by way of a plea bargain to save a spouse from being threatened with prison or the inevitable threat of a much longer sentence, guilty or not, or for a number of other reasons short of the truth.

In fact, even in cases where excess shaking is admitted to and happened, the usual cause is "inconsolable crying" which is often a symptom of vaccine-induced encephalitis, suggesting the SBS symptoms may have preceded the shaking, and had nothing to do with the actual shaking incident, although shaking could obviously have made a medical condition worse in a case of brain swelling and/or "capillary fragility" or caused injury that wouldn't be seen in a less medically damaged infant.

Tragically, Caffey's "assumptions" arose from unproven science and unwitnessed but assumed abuse ...if there were no clear signs of battering, therefore the dead infant "must have been shaken to death." It was guessing. Dr. Caffey did list "differential diagnosis" (other causes) including infantile scurvy in each of the cases he wrote about, but all of the classical signs of scurvy were not present as a group in each case, although individual signs of scurvy were. However, infantile scurvy--"Barlow's disease"--normally showed up in babies over 7 months old, resulting from vitamin deficiency due to feeding on baby formula or an otherwise inadequate diet, so it wasn't expected to be seen in infants. Caffey admitted his theory was based on the flimsiest of science, but that it caught on anyway. In short, the unproven theory of "Shaken Baby Syndrome" took on a life of its own outside the realms of medicine and science. It provided someone specific to blame--the last caretaker with the baby when the crisis came. It certainly takes the heat off of doctors. And many babies are slightly shaken because when an infant stops breathing or becomes otherwise unresponsive or begins having seizures, the most normal reaction in the world is to shake it a little to "wake it up", or in the case of infant CPR training, to (gently) "shake and shout" to determine if there is any response at all, which is required before breathing into the lungs and pumping the heart. This was standard CPR training. 

This can lead to a tragic and possibly intentional misinterpretation when terrified and traumatised caretakers add to the mythology by admitting to "shaking the baby" without realizing an attempt to save a precious life will almost always evolve into a criminal charge of "shaken baby" where the caretaker is accused of causing rather than responding to the very condition that created the crisis in the first place. At that point logic, reason and any search for other causes or actual evidence of criminal actions seem to fly out the window.

That means disregarding the recent scientific evidence suggesting the impossibility of manually shaking an infant hard enough to do serious or lethal damage without injuring the neck and spine first, or without an impact to the head comparable to a 2-3 story fall that would leave bruising, swelling, and contusions as external signs of battering. One excuse made is that slamming a baby on a soft surface wouldn't cause external trauma signs, but would a mattress cause a hard enough impact to cause massive bleeding? Newer studies suggest not.

The standard explanation for injuries caused by "shaking" involves the smaller size of an infant brain in a larger skull and the idea that the brain can bounce around inside the head when shaken, in spite of a cushion of water around it, which is why it's called "Shaken Baby Syndrome". A new development could throw this theory into chaos, and that is the finding of supposed "Shaken Child Syndrome":

*This means that abuse was neither witnessed nor admitted to, and was assumed due the given history not matching the severity of the symptoms without differential diagnosis to eliminate other causes.

John Caffey listed Barlow's disease (infantile scurvy) as a differential diagnosis in the cases he examined and wrote about, however in modern cases where shaking/impact is suspected--any other investigation medically and legally usually comes to a grinding halt.

According to Dr. Clemetson, "Retinal petechiae, subdural hemorrhages, and even broken bones do not always indicate trauma or child abuse. Infantile scurvy or a variant form still occurs today and can be mistakenly diagnosed as nonaccidental injury (NAI). Histamine levels, which are characteristically increased in vitamin C depletion, may reach a toxic level owing to infection or the

injection of foreign proteins. Histamine intoxication can cause a variant of Barlow?s disease, with weakness of the retinal vessels and the bridging veins and venules between the brain and the dura mater in infants."

"...an infant can die with extensive retinal hemorrhages, a blood clot under the capsule of the brain, extensive bruises, broken bones and sores that will not heal, due to Barlow's disease without having been subjected to anything but the tenderest of loving care."
--Dr. C. A. B. Clemetson, MD

Another pioneer, Dr. Archie Kalokerinos, who received Australia's highest civilian honor for his work among aborigines suffering up to a 50% death rate following vaccinations (book: "Every Second Child")--"There is no doubt that it is possible to shake a baby to death. But in more than forty cases that I have investigated there has been real evidence to suggest strongly that the babies were not shaken but the hemorrhages that were found at the autopsies which could be in the retinas, in the brain or the membranes surrounding the brain are caused by disturbances in coagulation-bleeding factors. And the so-called fractures that are found in these babies are not true fractures. That is they are not inflicted injuries, they are due to an increased utilization of vitamin C caused mainly by the presence of bacterial toxins." 

http://tinyurl.com/5b475g 
Handbook of Nutrition and Ophthalmology By Richard D. Semba, M.D. 
Chap. 9  Vitamin C and eye health   P.377

The following photo shows an extreme case of "exophthalmos" where hemorrhaging behind the eyeball makes it bulge out. Infantile scurvy is a hemorrhagic condition. There are far more causes of vitamin deficiency than poor diet and many more symptoms and side effects than those listed here, including ...SUDDEN DEATH.

Child abuse exists. We all know it happens and the failure to recognize it in time to save a child from misery, injury or even death is unthinkable. But to falsely accuse a caregiver of abusing a child and to set in motion all of the consequences that follow such a grievous error--the horror, devastation and loss it brings to a family--is equally tragic. A mistaken diagnosis of inflicted trauma (NAI-"non-accidental injury" or NAT-"non-accidental trauma"), especially to the head, is "one of the gravest injustices of modern times", according to F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP. He went on to say that "many have recently questioned the existence of the so-called 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' and the concept that the last caretaker must have been guilty. Careful reviews often uncover relevant findings that were missed or ignored. Recent pediatric vaccinations have been suspected as precipitating factors."

Read Dr. Yazbak's article at the National Vaccine Info Center. His article focuses on multiple vaccines. This story begins with just one: the Hepatitis B vaccination...for fragile newborns, a group with such high numbers of vaccine injuries that people in France staged demonstrations against Hep B.

Another voice: "Apparent Life-Threatening Events (ALTEs), as defined by the National Institutes of Health, encompass all the findings hitherto attributed to "Shaken Baby Syndrome" (SBS), and may follow routine vaccination. Vaccines may also induce vitamin C deficiency (Barlow's disease), especially in formula-fed infants or infants whose mothers smoke. This could account for some of the changes seen in these infants, including hemorrhages, bruises, and fractures. Vitamin C deficiency should be excluded in patients suspected to have SBS." --Dr. Michael D. Innis, MBBS, DTM&H, FRCPA, FRCPath, honorary consultant hematologist, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

In fact, there are many people investigating and reporting on the potential devastating effects of vaccination, infection, antibiotic use and accidental short falls that produce symptoms identical to those attributed to child abuse. The small but increasing group of courageous physicians and scientists now speaking out have much to say. And for the particular symptoms associated with vaccination and related adverse effects, even a new name: Clemetson-Kalokerinos Syndrome (Barlow's disease variant: accelerated infantile scurvy-endotoxemia) after the towering pioneers in the field of medicine sounding the alarm and ringing the bells in a call to arms--not guns or missiles--but in a vigorous battle cry for better science and differential diagnostic testing to separate the innocent from the guilty.

Next: THE JOHN LAVERTY-BABY CASEY STORY