Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Hi, all....my research in the Shaken Baby Syndrome has pretty much resulted in my " loss " of the 15 mo old I've been babysitting full time in my home. After much talk with some of my " anti-vax " friends and some one who's been through what many parents and caregivers have been through, I decided I better do something before risking it myself. So, Tuesday night I gave Ashlin's parents 's vaccine slide presentation. They didn't have one question I couldn't answer. I gave them copies of package inserts (highlighted the death of 12 children in the prevnar study-which is on the package insert), gave them CDC's expedia and media list...etc This morning they told me they were going to go ahead with the vaxes (which I had assured them Tuesday was there choice for their daughter and not mine). They wanted to know what the next course of action was they should take. I told them to have some one lined up by the day of Ashlin's apointment (next Tuesday), if not before. Said I didn't want to risk getting fasley charged with something I'd never do to their child. It was all even key. No raised voices. So, today, I'm in a valley somewhat. Not because I've lost my extra $240/mo. But mainly because I shared everything I could and have saved in my noggin....but they don't see any risk whatsoever with having their 15 mo old innoculated with 11 vaccines at one time. I really need a pick me and up and talking about it with all my closest friends hasn't done it. So, I'm getting ready to read my Bible and thank the Lord for His goodness in other areas of my life. He's the only one that can give me the pick-me-up I need right now anyway. However, I share with all of you because...well, you know where I'm coming from on the subject and it's good to have that in any social group! Kimberley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Well I applaud you for presenting your case and staying even keyed. It's hard when people don't share your view points especially when we all feel so strongly that we are helping our children by not vaxing. Are your plans to only babysit non-vaxed kids or older vaxed kids who won't be mistaken as " shaken " ? That might be hard but it's a stand I guess. I know that it's been difficult at times for me to place my non-vaxed kids in daycares with pro-vax mentality. I'm sure people would be shocked to hear of the reverse happening! L. Proud mom to Autumn (1-13-97) and Zoe (8-8-00) Join my attachment parenting email list at: Subscribe: milwaukeeAPmoms-subscribe ----- After much talk with some of my " anti-vax " friends and some one who's been through what many parents and caregivers have been through, I decided I better do something before risking it myself. I told them to have some one lined up by the day of Ashlin's apointment (next Tuesday), if not before. Said I! > didn't want to risk getting fasley charged with something I'd never do to their child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 already posted all of this days ago At 02:41 PM 03/30/2004 -0700, you wrote: >Nature > >BIG BMJ ARTICLE CIRCULATING NATIONWIDE BY TOP NEWSPAPERS. > >Please click on links, download....and share in all your groups. If you can, please also send to your local newspaper. > >1) Evidence for shaken baby syndrome is uncertain > >(Perimacular retinal folds from childhood head trauma) >http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7442/754 > >(Editorials: The evidence base for the shaken baby syndrome) >http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7442/719 > >( Letters: Patterns of presentation of shaken baby syndrome) >http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7442/766 > >The concept that certain eye injuries are diagnostic of shaken baby syndrome is scientifically questionable and needs to be re-examined, argue researchers in this week's BMJ. > >Shaken baby syndrome is a term used to describe the consequences of the forceful shaking of infants. It is usually recognised by a triad of injuries - bleeding into the eye and around the brain (subdural and retinal haemorrhages) and brain damage. > > Lantz and colleagues report the case of a healthy 14 month old child who was brought to hospital with a severe head injury after a television fell on him at home. > >Despite the father's repeated, detailed, and consistent account of the incident, Child Protective Services removed the child's 3 year old brother from the home because the injuries, particularly those in the retina of the eye (known as perimacular retinal folds), were considered diagnostic of abusive head trauma from shaking. > >The authors searched the medical literature on the eye injury observed in this case that has been considered specific for child abuse. They found that the ocular criteria used by some doctors to diagnose shaken baby syndrome " are not supported by objective scientific evidence " when taken out of context. > >Their findings are remarkably similar to another recently published review of the literature from 1966 to 1998, which identified " serious data gaps " in the scientific evidence to support a diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome. > >In an accompanying editorial, experts stress the need to reconsider the diagnostic criteria, if not the existence, of shaken baby syndrome. A second editorial argues that no one detail can be diagnostic, as the diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome should rest on a careful evaluation of all the features of the injury. > >There are clearly many uncertainties relating to shaken baby syndrome, and the scientific evidence to support a diagnosis may be less reliable than generally thought. These issues are argued in the two editorials. > >Contacts: > > Lantz, Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, USA > >Email: plantz@... > >Editorial: Plunkett, Forensic Pathologist, Regina Medical Center, Hastings, USA > >Email: Plunkettj@... > >Editorial: Ridson, Consultant Paediatric Pathologist, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, London, UK. > > > >-------Kimberley Medlin--------- >VACCINES: Keeping our children from harm >....or playing Russian Roulette? >http://www.vaccinationsandSIDS.com/ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 >BIG BMJ ARTICLE CIRCULATING NATIONWIDE BY TOP NEWSPAPERS. already posted all of this days ago Oh, woops....okay! :-) -------Kimberley Medlin--------- VACCINES: Keeping our children from harm .....or playing Russian Roulette? http://www.vaccinationsandSIDS.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.