zlacker

>>rossan+(OP)
Amazing that bit about child welfare organisations fighting against the science, when clearly taking children away based on false accusations is clearly far worse for the child’s welfare, not to mention the parents’!

It’s just incredible the injustice that can be done in the name of protecting children. I really do wonder if it’s cultural or some kind of innate psychological irrarionality that seems stronger in some than others. I love kids and care deeply about their welfare, but people sometimes try to make me feel bad or that I’m the weird one for being able to think (I believe) fairly rationally about the risks and dangers that they face, instead of massively over-exaggerating!

Or of course the opposite, keeping an appropriate eye on relations and acquaintances when people assume they’re totally safe but it’s actually somebody with that level of relation who’s likely to be a danger than a stranger.

>>stephe+705
This concept of "the science" we've converged on a culture really doesn't make a ton of sense. What does it mean to say "the science" is against a position that many relevant experts hold? To the extent that there is such a thing as "the science", the book the author is advertising (https://shakenbaby.science/) is pretty frank that its goal is to argue against it: there's a traditional medical consensus in favor of SBS/AHT, but it's become more controversial, and if you read this book you too will be convinced that it's wrong.