Dr. John Plunkett died this week. He spent nearly 20 years arguing in court against bad forensic science, for which he was maliciously prosecuted and received false ethics complaints. Through his efforts, 300 innocent people were exonerated. (This sentence from fark.com)
Like a lot of other doctors, child welfare advocates and forensic specialists, John Plunkett at first bought into the theory of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). It's a convenient diagnosis for prosecutors, in that it provides a cause of death (violent shaking), a culprit (whoever was last with the child before death) and even intent (prosecutors often argue that the violent, extended shaking establishes mens rea.) But in the late 1990s, Plunkett — a forensic pathologist in Minnesota — began to have doubts about the diagnosis. The same year his study was published, Plunkett testified in the trial of Lisa Stickney, a licensed day care worker in Oregon. Thanks in large part to Plunkett's testimony, Stickney was acquitted. District Attorney Michael Dugan responded with something unprecedented — it criminally charged an expert witness over testimony he had given in court. Today, the scientific consensus on SBS has since shifted significantly in Plunkett's direction.
[...] According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 16 SBS convictions have been overturned. Plunkett's obituary puts the figure at 300, and claims that he participated in 50 of those cases. I'm not sure of the source for that figure, and it's the first I've seen of it. But whatever the number, Plunkett deserves credit for being among the first to sound the alarm about wrongful SBS convictions. His study was the first step toward those exonerations.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Captival on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:22PM (3 children)
So he got a bunch of baby murderers off the hook. Wonderful work, when's the statue go up?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:28PM
Shaken to death by a baby! What a way to go! Got to feel sorry for him.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:37PM (1 child)
Ho-hum. If a baby dies, someone must go to prison, right?
Which part of "pseudoscience" did you fail to comprehend? Never submit to a lie detector. Never submit to a roadside sobriety test. Never permit a bite mark "expert" testify at trial. Pseudoscience will convict you when science cannot.
Tomorrow's lesson on pseudoscience will go slightly off course, and explore the concept of exorcism, and why you don't want superstitious fools determining who lives in your body.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 12 2018, @05:00PM
That term is in desperate need of some scare quotes!
Forensic "science."
DNA testing is pretty much the only one supported by actual science and even that has some caveats.
Some additional reading:
The troubling flaws in forensic science [bbc.com]
Forensic Tools: What’s Reliable and What’s Not-So-Scientific [pbs.org]
Forensic evidence largely not supported by sound science – now what? [phys.org]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:22PM (2 children)
Anonymous Coward, known more fondly as "Mr. VIM", died this week. He spent nearly 20 years arguing in cyberspace against violent imposition, especially when in the form of a violently imposed monopoly, for which he was maliciously downmodded and received false "Troll" and "Spam" complaints. Through his efforts, the authoritarians were put to shame, and perhaps trillions of our progeny will one day enjoy a world where voluntary interaction is the core principle around which society and Civilization itself are built.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:32PM
You win.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 12 2018, @06:10PM
Well I did sign a voluntary contract to not down-mod Mr. VIM but I always down-mod him anyway and there's nothing he can do about it! Muah hah hah!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:42PM (4 children)
Bullet Lead analysis
Hair strand comparison
bite-mark analysis
Bootprint analysis
Dog scent "hits"
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:44AM (3 children)
Oh yes - the dogs. My son was stopped, the cop wanted to search his vehicle. Son says "No, I don't want you in my car!" "Well, we'll bring a dog, then we'll have probable cause." Notice the phrasing - it was a foregone conclusion that when the dog was brought out, the cops would have their probable cause. Dog arrives, the handler walks him around the car three times, and the dog displayed zero interest in the vehicle. Finally, handler walks up to the driver's side door, takes a ball, and bounces it a couple times. The dog perks up - he thinks there is a game to be played. The game turned out to be, handler bounces ball, says "fetch", then bounces ball off of the driver's side door. Dog lunges for the ball, and we have probable cause.
Those idiot cops knew that there were no drugs in the car. They just wanted to establish their dominance. "We'll search any damned vehicle we want to search!"
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:52PM (2 children)
Had drugs been found, and if he could prove through the cops' dashcam video or otherwise that things happened the way he said they did, he would have had a good case at an evidence suppression hearing.
If he happens to have video through his own dashcam (yes, it is possible to get your own dashcam), it might be a good idea to forward that video on to the ACLU. I'm sure they'd put it to good use.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 12 2018, @02:05PM (1 child)
Unfortunately, the boy didn't have a camera turned on. He thought of it, at some point, but at that time, the phone was in the car, out of reach.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @03:21AM
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:43PM (5 children)
Other offspring, also carrying similar DNA, will have better chances if excessively troublesome offspring are eliminated. When a baby just screams constantly, and no cause can be found, that baby is a detriment to the family and the propagation of their DNA.
Trouble is, modern society makes no allowance for getting rid of failed offspring.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Sulla on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:58PM (3 children)
So I had twin boys a couple of years ago, one of them with colic and one of them without colic. Colic is pretty annoying to deal with, and I decided to look up any studies tying longterm life success/issues and colic as an infant.
https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20000313/colicky-babies-may-be-more-emotional-later#1 [webmd.com]
Anecdotally I can say that this appears to be true, at least comparing my twin boys. I wonder how much the child getting more attention paid to it during the colic phase and the immediate response of parents trying to make it quiet down has to do with the kid thinking it can get away with more later in life. Colic may train kids that outbursts get them the attention they want.
https://www.babble.com/parenting/the-unspoken-long-term-effect-of-colic-post-colic-stress-syndrome/ [babble.com]
Woman complaining about PTSD from having a kid with colic and how it kept her from having more kids. So a weak mother and a colicy kid might reduce number of potential offspring and be bad for the species.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161475409002036 [sciencedirect.com]
Kind of unrelated but the report claims that kids with colic that are treated by a chiropractor suffer less longterm temperament issues. Sounds like a scam to get you into the bone doctor to me.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:17AM (1 child)
Sure all the kid need is a subluxation adjustment.
If you had a point in this post, you blew it all to hell quoting the chrio-quacks self-serving studies.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday April 12 2018, @03:59AM
I found it funny as hell and wanted to include it
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:31AM
Interestingly enough, my mother told me I was colicky when I was a baby and simply took her doctors advice, leave him in his crib, alone and let him cry his head off until he falls asleep. And you know what, I turned out just fine as a person. I'm not happy, that's depression, ADD and whatever else is lurking, but I'm a good person who's never done any one undeserved harm and only looks to help others. I'm not spoiled, impatient, or a dick and I never take my bullshit out on others or stomp around like a child when I'm upset. I keep my chin up and get my shit done as best I can.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:26AM
You could just ship them off to SoylentNews! Failed offspring comes home to find the family moved, no forwarding address. But a note with a URL says, "Check out this cool website!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:48PM (2 children)
More evidence that not only abortion but post-birth abortion need to be legalized. Mothers all stirred up by their emotions and dealing with postpartum depression cannot be left to felt like they murdered their child just because they shook their baby a few times in an effort to make them stop screaming. If we legalized post-birth abortion up to say the age of one (when SIDS risk dies off) then women who have their kids die on them won't have to feel responsible.
It is an unfair burden to place on women the thought that just a little shaking might kill their kid, also that if their kid dies to
some other cause entirely their faultnon-genetic SIDS that they should feel guilty about it.Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @06:10AM
More evidence that not only abortion but post-birth abortion need to be legalized.
Yes, all the way up to the 75th trimester
(Score: 5, Interesting) by tfried on Thursday April 12 2018, @08:32AM
To be honest, after reading the summary, I was highly sceptical of this guys contribution, thinking it was something along the lines of "violently shaking your newborn is not a problem, really."
But that is not it. This is not about the question whether confessed / proven shaking was the cause of death. This is about the question of whether certain pathological findings can prove the baby was indeed shaken, violently, against the suspects' testimony. And in many cases (short-distance falls) the suspects' alternative account, is in fact fully in line with the pathological evidence. (Note that this could still be "good" enough for criminal neglect charges, depending on the circumstances, but clearly it does change the case.)
Without a doubt this new knowledge does allow many real murderers to get of the hook, and so there's no reason to be cheerful. But it's also entirely beyond doubt that ignoring this knowledge does lead to very real very wrong convictions, which will hardly qualify as a good solution, either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:50PM (5 children)
And you wonder why the peasants and plebs doubt science.
Remember, anything named x-science is not a real science.
(Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:29AM (2 children)
Like alt-science, or alt-right science, or alt-sci-right racial science?
Seems like there was an aristarchus submission on this not too long ago . . . .
Ah, here it is! https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=25710 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:32AM
The lizard-man never gives up, does he?
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Friday April 13 2018, @12:16PM
That's a really nice submission. You should put it in your journal. It raises many important points about free speech and the importance of being able to challenge opinions freely in public. Which reminds me of something. I have made a few contributions to Hope Not Hate [hopenothate.org.uk] in recent months (since the alt-wrong travesty that is Brexit) particularly in their fight against false claims made by Nigel Farage [hopenothate.org.uk] who was saying nasty things about Brendan Cox [independent.co.uk], widower of murdered MP Jo Cox [soylentnews.org].
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:10PM (1 child)
Computer science and the life sciences aren't up to your rigorous standards, AC?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @05:33AM
Computer science is applied math. "Life science" has a proper name, biology.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:04AM (10 children)
The following is off topic and really isn't worth reading, but I've typed it now so fuck it.
At a guess:
From their perspective he says a bunch of stuff which ends with "Therefore this baby murderer should walk free."
They already know they disagree with the conclusion so why listen? Surely only someone who wants the murderer to walk free would hear out his argument. Think about it: you don't listen and he fails at freeing a murderer; you do listen and maybe he succeeds in freeing a murderer. Clearly only an evil person would even hear the argument out, let alone consider it in good faith.
fault: overconfidence in current belief
His excuses are irrelevant anyway, of course he can make a good sophistic case for the person going free, he is smart after all, but at the end of the day this person murdered their baby and he's trying to prevent their punishment for some reason (which will far too often not be realized to be the espoused reasons).
fault: poor modeling of the opponent as too similar to oneself in belief/what is seen as obvious?
It doesn't just happen here though, the amount of times people just discard one's argument on realizing they disagree with one's conclusion is staggering. Is it really standard practice to assume everyone who disagrees with you secretly sees the same truth which is obvious to you but has secret reasons for pretending to not see it?
This isn't the worst though, the worst is jokes and gotcha's dressed up as arguments. The amount of shit that frontpages reddit which people treat as some grand argument for their position but which is actually a fucking pun/strawman/gotcha/other stupid shit is depressing. I assumed they were just sharing jokes and had real reasons for holding their positions, but this shit tops top/all time in many subs.
At the top of some trans humour subreddit is something like ``they wonder why a group whose right to live is constantly debated has mental health issues'', nigger do you actually think people are debating whether you should be rounded up and gassed? What the fuck is that doing topping all time? Is this really the fucking best your 'community' has to fucking offer? A fucking strawman? (>inb4 they are defining "live" to mean "act as they feel comfortable", this is clearly disingenuous bullshit too)
Examples of this specious shit is the LGBT "love wins" propaganda which argues it's morally OK because they are in love. Fuck's sake, if that was your actual argument you have to then accept pedophilic/abusive/&c relations which involve mutual love. Yet the same people who think the argument works in one case don't think it works in another via special pleading bullshit.
I'm drunk, tired, confused, and vaguely angry that people don't talk to those they fucking disagree with. How the fuck do you expect to know if your position is correct without seeking out counterarguments? What the fuck is going on? What should I read to get a good grounding in the common positions people hold, the counter-positions, and the (good, not vacuous emotional bullshit HERE'S A DEAD/RAPED/WHATEVER CHILD AGREE WITH ME) arguments for both sides?
Am I too tired/drunk/autistic? Probably. What the fuck are people doing and why they doing it‽
Sorry for wasting your time, hopefully the following is informative:
https://www.innocenceproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PCAST-2017-update.pdf [innocenceproject.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Thursday April 12 2018, @02:20AM (6 children)
Nigga, you outta yo fuckin mind (that's how you use slang properly). Are you honestly looking at the phrase that literally? It's pretty much implied that when we talk about marriage, were talking about marriage between consenting adults. This isn't about child brides, or whatever fringe case or fucked up state law people dig up to use as flimsy evidence against gay marriage.
And I'm high as fuck and can still see how fucked your perception is. Seriously, consider smoking weed instead. It's actually uplifting and good for us aspie/add/depressed/ocd/whatever types. We tend to self medicate so might as well switch to something less mentally harmful. Helped me a bunch over the past year though I had a severe bought of depression where I had to confront some demons in my life and realize they are all my fault for letting my mental illness get the better of me and nearly drive me to suicide. I sleep better too which was a big issue. I started to feel a lot better, and gained the determination to lose weight. So over the last eight months I cut out sugar and went from a 36 waist to a not-since-high-school size 32. I also wear medium shirts too which is slimming and feels great.
Once your head is strait then you can start thinking more clearly. Otherwise, as it stands, you appear to be incoherent and no one wants to talk to people like that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @09:00AM
You were not paying attention. He or she is not protesting the issue, but the argumentation.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @03:31PM (4 children)
You have failed to explain, in a way so simple only a fool could disagree if they grant your assumptions and inference rules (aka a good argument), why consenting adults being in love makes it morally acceptable for them to be in a relationship. You might think that this is obvious, but enough people disagree that it clearly isn't obvious and that's just wishful thinking.
The point of making clear and complete arguments is to be confident in a lack of edge cases. The goal isn't to enumerate all possible edge cases (you can't), but to find the underlying rule you're using to determine the outcome of those edge cases (which must exist, even in the worst case scenario where the rule is to emulate your whole brain and ask that) and then argue for that instead of a complex and long list of 'obvious' exceptions.
Stop currying your morality by circumstance and belief (at least without explicitly stating those circumstances and beliefs) and just argue for it in the most general form you can.
That way your argument should handle edge cases you have failed to consider, which is valuable because the goal isn't to describe your position on situations, but to argue for a given rule to determine how one ought judge a situation. We don't know what Locke thinks of ISIS because we asked him and ensured there isn't something implicit and obvious to him which he assumed wasn't the case, but because he laid out the underlying rules he used to determine all cases.
You might claim that almost all humans are similar enough that they wouldn't disagree with things you claim are obvious and so there's no point explicating morality, but consider the brainwashed*. What exactly is ok and what isn't? Manipulating their utility function by being nice to them, bringing joy into their life, and making them happy would probably be considered an acceptable way to manipulate someone's utility function into wanting to be around you more. Beating and threats wouldn't be. But what about the slew of accidentally-manipulative people who were raised that way and don't realize it's abusive? They certainly would disagree with you about what is OK and what isn't, and your argument is most important to them, not those who are similar to you.
For example, some paedo's legit do seem to buy into those arguments. They share fucking memes, which are almost identical but with age added to the skin-colour/sex/gender list of shit that doesn't impact the ability to feel love. And they are convinced that paedophilia is acceptable because all of society is telling them that this is a valid argument. If the assumptions were stated, this couldn't have happened.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/9Fajg4lg9Ho [youtube.com]
Real arguments don't normally fit into a tweet/meme/soundbite. They're often long and tedious and dull (this comment isn't an example, it's just long and tedious and dull because I'm a shit writer who can't organize his points into a coherent structure, hopefully some of what I'm trying to say comes across). That's no excuse to revert to circlejerking and othering those you disagree with in lieu of carefully deciding WHY you think consenting adults being in love makes it OK for them to marry. (inb4 if it isn't obvious fuck off, that's exactly the response I'm arguing against, do the work and figure out why you think that. (not for a response, I already agree its fine, but for convincing those who you'd normally alienate and drive further into their foolishness))
* ...or abused or whatever word you prefer to use to describe manipulating someone's utility function in a certain easy-to-intuit-but-hard-to-describe way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @04:00PM (3 children)
Sorry for the rambling mess again, it's a bad habbit.
My main points are that:
The general aggressive tone wasn't intended, but using 'one' instead of 'you', while solving a good chunk the problem, sounds pretentious. It's more directed at the world, than at your comment.
If I'm unclear, it's probably because I don't really know what I think about this yet, and am just starting to properly consider it after years of eyerolling and ignoring daft not-arguments.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday April 12 2018, @08:50PM (2 children)
How about this argument: why do you care about gay marriage? Why do you feel the need to argue about how others should live their lives? Do you have so much time of your hands that you have nothing better to think about than gay people marrying?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @03:23PM (1 child)
I'm pissed about people making shitty arguments for it which only hiders its acceptance by spreading the notion that those are among the best arguments there are. Literally nothing I've posted should have given you the impression I oppose gay marriage.
It so happens I oppose all marriage-as-a-legal-thing on the grounds the state can fuck off regulating relationships, but so long as marriage-as-a-legal-thing exists it ought permit any combination of mutually consenting partners in any number.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday April 13 2018, @06:51PM
Your incoherent, rant like post didn't help at all. So the fucking idiot is you. Stop drinking, get your head strait, and try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @02:43PM
I'm reasonablly happy with the first half of the post (re TFA), but the second is… disorganized.
I guess I should have picked one ridiculous argument from the left and one from the right to avoid people thinking a post about poor arguments was a post about conclusions I disagree with. I'm far more irritated by poor arguments for positions I agree with though, because those who disagree will come away thinking that's among the best arguments we have to offer, and correctly conclude that their position is the best supported by the arguments they're aware of. A kind of "If you want to harm your opponent, spread specious propaganda in their name and then debunk it for easy converts." sentiment, but without implying such sophistry is acceptable.
A good argument in favor of many LGBT issues* is "It violates nobodies rights." And that suffices for a liberal† who doesn't have an unusual idea of what rights people have. As for arguing with a non-liberal, the emphasis should probably be on liberalism vs whatever-they-are rather than the flavor-of-the-week political issue because even if you win, you have to do it over again pro cetera. It might seem careless to argue what seems impossible to change at the expense of a real issue that impacts people, but permitting a large non-liberal faction to form will fuck you far harder long term.
What I meant to draw attention to with the reddit aside is the primacy of conclusions over arguments in certain groups. People don't define themselves by the arguments they'll accept‡ but the positions they hold on issues§. The answer to my drunken self's confusion is obvious: those aren't their arguments, they're just circlejerking and reveling in people agreeing with them because it feels good‖. The illusory truth effect probably is what leads them to think that statements-of-positions/gotchas-that-are-really-just-a-slightly-convoluted-statements-of-position-pretending-to-argumentation are arguments, because after they read them they become more convinced and hey, arguments are what convince one of a position right? And these sure (superficially) look like arguments.
As for the end of the post, I suppose I'm looking for political philosophy. Any recommendations for an unread beginner, ideally overviews of the main positions held today rather than the classics which first made those arguments or overviews of historically important positions?
* Notably excluding compelled service/hiring, which can fuck right off.
† Not in the USAian sense.
‡ e.g.: ones showing a lack of rights violations; ones showing an increase to utility; ones showing the situation will make me and mine happier; &c.
§ These are only the same under logical omniscience, not reality.
‖ I've certainly been guilty of this, so I know at least one person has done so with that motivation, even if not realized at the time, and I doubt I'm unique in this.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 12 2018, @06:25PM (1 child)
From their perspective he says a bunch of stuff which ends with "Therefore this baby murderer should walk free."
The basis for our system of jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence.
Unless that person has been proven to be a murder, and convicted of such by a jury of his peers, he is not a murderer and should walk free.
You seem to be operating from the presumption of guilt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @03:11PM
Did you also miss the subject wondering why people ignored his arguments?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:26AM (7 children)
These guys should rank among our heros. They use science to challenge and overturn conventional wisdom. It reminds me of Marc Edwards, the troublemaker scientist who exposed the Flint lead crisis.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Troll) by frojack on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:00AM (6 children)
Well you have to wonder why SBS is still a thing, if this guy was so demonstrably right.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/shaken-baby-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20366619 [mayoclinic.org]
https://www.medicinenet.com/shaken_baby_syndrome_abusive_head_trauma/article.htm [medicinenet.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abusive_head_trauma [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abusive_head_trauma [wikipedia.org]
http://www.aans.org/Patients/Neurosurgical-Conditions-and-Treatments/Shaken-Baby-Syndrome [aans.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 12 2018, @01:54AM (4 children)
Possibly - money? People have latched onto SBS, just as people fell in love with the idea of a lie detector. There is funding for SBS.
Besides which, Dr. Plunkett didn't establish that SBS can't be caused by shaking a baby. He ONLY established that a baby can suffer all of the symptoms of SBS due to trauma unrelated to being shaken. That is, the baby displaying those symptoms may or may not have been violently shaken.
Or, to state the case differently, Dr. Plunkett established that a conviction for SBS abuse requires supporting evidence. If ten people actually see you shaking the baby like a rag doll, and the baby subsequently dies of SBS symptoms, there can be little doubt that you caused the baby's death. In the absence of supporting evidence, the state should not presume that you are guilty.
Of course, we already have a constitution, which is supposed to prevent the state from presuming guilt.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday April 12 2018, @02:51AM
Money is the root of all evil, eh? But it isn't, quite. In this case, it's the desire for the quick and easy answer, and refusal to admit that total control and safety is impossible. This is "think of the children!!" versus the fact that no amount of protecting can ever achieve 100% safety.
When a child dies, parents everywhere are screaming for blood. There's a lot of pressure to pin blame on some human agency, and string them up. We don't like that there are still many things beyond our control. If a meteor struck and killed a child (an exceedingly low probability), some would still want to blame it on a person. Like, if the child was playing outside and died of a meteor strike, then it's the caregiver's fault for not keeping the child safe indoors.
Long time ago I read of a case in which a young boy rather suddenly started suffering severe health problems. They rushed him to emergency, the doctors operated, but the boy died anyway. The parents sued the doctors for malpractice, of course. Wanted those faking, lying, incompetent, malicious doctors' heads. But, it turned out the lad was infected with one of those nasty intestinal parasites that he picked up when some country cousins visited, and most unfortunately for him, the parasite took a wrong turn and ended up in his brain where it caused lots of problems that were ultimately fatal. It's very rare. The doctors were young and inexperienced, and totally missed the parasitic causes of the problems, but even experienced doctors were likely to have missed it, and then, even if they had figured it out, it was by then too late and they probably could not have saved the boy anyway. It was the work of another investigator who uncovered the presence of the parasite, and helped the doctors win the lawsuit, thereby saving them from having their careers unjustly ruined.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 12 2018, @04:00AM (2 children)
I actually went out of my way not to cite money grubbing sites like don'tshake.
I was pretty sure all of those I cited were reasonably reputable. Yet the first comment assumes a profit motive among the medical community is the reason SBS still exists. Unbefuckinglievable!
Like doctors have no better way to make money.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Thursday April 12 2018, @10:05AM
Yes, the first comment to your post was a bit uninspired in ascribing to "money", what can better be explained by vindictiveness (on several levels). But other than that it was spot on. So you're trying to top this by holding on to your misapprehension that SBS was "disproven", somehow?
And still you wanted to believe it so much...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 12 2018, @02:00PM
I didn't necessarily ascribe the money motive to doctors. Mayo Clinic is a great place, and the doctors there are also great. But, doctors don't exactly run Mayo, either. There are managers, accountants, as well as hoards of other staff. Doctors mostly do doctor stuff, and those hoards to hoard stuff. Among the hoard stuff is hoarding money. If some charitable organizations, individual donors, and/or gubbermint are making funds available for SBS research, then SBS will be done. You know the facts of life, man.
I have been to places where the doctors decide what happens, when, and how, and establish their own rates. These places are generally called "clinics", and they are generally small businesses, run as a partnership, or some such arrangement. The doctors call all the shots, and no one else gets a vote.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Thursday April 12 2018, @09:06AM
Because he is not arguing against the existence, the danger, or the criminal relevance of SBS at all.
He's arguing against taking certain pathological findings as proof that the baby was in fact shaken violently, against the defendant's testimony.
Emphatically: Shaking your baby violently is still a very, very bad idea, and may in fact still kill your baby. Don't do that.
(Score: 5, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday April 12 2018, @05:17AM (4 children)
If I die, I want my tomb to say that in big gold letters:
DONALD J. TRUMP
The Most Amazing Businessman,
The Greatest President,
The Sexiest Husband,
The Best Father,
Very Rich.
He Told the Truth.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @06:16AM
If I die...
You're the man!
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Thursday April 12 2018, @10:10AM (2 children)
Well, I hate to say it, but I think he got the math right:
I believe at this point the majority of humans that have ever existed have not died, yet.
So statistically, and depending upon the rate of medical progress, it is an open question.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @11:02AM (1 child)
94% of all humans (homo sapiens sapiens) who have ever lived are now dead.
(Score: 1) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:46PM
Science is amazing. So nice to be one of the 6 percent!!!