From the heart, from the brain: A top-notch TEDx talk on shaken baby

Pediatric neuropathologist Dr. Waney Squier has hit one out of the park in her TEDx talk, “I believed in Shaken Baby Syndrome until science showed I was wrong,” published Friday on Progress Video TV.

While telling her own story with calm, compelling intensity, she also describes the pain inflicted on innocent families by misguided accusations of abuse and documents the refusal of the legal and medical communities to accept the unwelcome truth about their flawed theory.

“By ignoring the science and adopting an unproven hypothesis, doctors have done great harm,” she concludes, “and have led the courts astray.”

The talk opens with the story of Linda, a mother convicted of shaking her third child to death based on the presence of the triad: bleeding in the retinas, bleeding beneath the lining of the brain, and brain swelling. “At her trial, Linda was described as a woman of good character, a caring and careful mother,” Dr. Squier recounts, “But doctors—medical experts—said that those three findings meant that [the boy] must have been violently shaken” when alone with his mother.

Three years later, Linda’s conviction was overturned on appeal. “Her name was cleared, but her life was ruined,” Squier says. Her parents had died and her husband had left her. Her fourth child, a little girl born in prison, had been taken from her at birth and placed for adoption, and even after her exoneration, Linda was prohibited from attempting contact.

When Linda was first accused, the police had called in Dr. Squier, an expert on infant brain pathology. After examining the brain, she had endorsed the opinion of the other doctors, that it was a case of shaken baby syndrome. “They believed in it, and I believed in it,” she grimaces, “and so my report was part of the evidence that cost Linda so much.”

Dr. Squier says her own doubts about shaking theory started when another neuropathologist, Dr. Jennian Geddes, published research suggesting that the damage in presumed shaking cases resulted from lack of oxygen, not from direct violence. Dr. Squier recalls:

“Back in 2001, the Geddes research stopped me in my tracks. It wasn’t what I had expected. So I read everything I could about shaken baby syndrome, and as a scientist, I’m embarrassed to admit to you I hadn’t done so before. I’d been making this diagnosis on the basis of my uncritical acceptance of what was in the textbooks and what I’d been taught. I was startled to learn that there was no scientific foundation for the hypothesis.”

No one has ever witnessed a shaking assault that resulted in the triad, she reports. Laboratory research and biomechanical calculations have only cast doubt on the theory, and past experience with front-facing car seats tells us that whiplash forces cause fractures and dislocations in the neck, not intracranial bleeding and swelling.

After her realization that the theory was not only unproven but likely wrong, Dr. Squier started conducting her own research, and she started testifying for the defense. But her willingness to speak out against the common knowledge resulted in criticism from colleagues, scoldings from judges, and complaints to the authorities. In the spring of 2016, after hearings triggered by a police complaint to the General Medical Council, she temporarily lost the right to practice medicine, until a higher court reinstated her, declaring most of the first findings “unsustainable.” She is still prohibited from testifying in British courts for another year and a half.

The actions against her have successfully stifled the voices of dissent, Dr. Squier argues, leaving innocent families “defenseless” against their accusers. “Back in 2005, Linda had seven medical experts to support her. Today she would be likely to have none.”

Some other key points from Dr. Squier’s talk:

“So today, as I stand here, I am sure that shaking can harm babies, and we certainly shouldn’t shake babies. But nearly 50 years of research has failed to provide us with the justification to make the assumption that a baby who has the triad or any of its components must have been shaken.”

“If we do nothing, then ordinary people, people who have already suffered the tragedy of the death of a baby, will continue to have their families torn apart by incorrect and unscientific opinions…

“If we do nothing, this travesty will continue… this willful refusal of the courts and the doctors advising them to recognize the science that shows they are wrong.”

But you might have other favorite quotes. I suggest you watch the entire talk.

Copyright 2018, Sue Luttner

If you are not familiar with the debate about shaken baby theory, please see the home page of this blog.


Filed under parents accused, SBS, shaken baby

10 responses to “From the heart, from the brain: A top-notch TEDx talk on shaken baby

  1. Kendra S

    I am currently involved in a case like this and would love her assistance with it. She is an unbiased Medical Professional that I believe would be able to help my family.

    • Thank you for reading, Kendra. Please accept my condolences on your family’s situation.

      Unfortunately, Dr. Squier is still enjoined from testifying in these cases, after the General Medical Council allowed inaccurate accusations against her to trigger a hearing and sanctions. Most of the initial findings were later reversed by a higher court. See “Guilty of Intellectual Honesty” and “Dr. Waney Squier Reinstated.”

      Have you seen the Resources page of this blog? I will send you a private email.

  2. Helen Czajkowski

    Thanks for your enduring work on this, Sue.

  3. JoEllen Burns


    Another great post. Dr. Squier’s TED Talk is compelling, as you state. Thank you.



  4. Edward N. Willey

    To revise an opinion offered in court, as Dr Squier did, is unusual. It is a test of character and objectivity. Barriers to doing so are self-acceptance of personal error and backlash from those who still believe in the error.

    Proclaiming a change in opinion is the hallmark of scientific integrity—too bad it is so rare. It should be common.

    Unfortunately, although SBS has no scientific underpinning, it has a plethora of supporting literature, based upon faith. Articles of faith are invulnerable to factual challenge. Those apostate are vilified by believers, as was Dr. Squier.

  5. Magda Taylor

    Hi Sue

    Thank you very much for this email and the link to the talk. I just watched it. Very very good! I had really hoped Waney Squier might even mention vaccination as a possible cause but she probably did not want to stick her neck out that far. However it was excellent and I will post it on my website. Sad to learn that there are no experts for the defence – as with vaccines – doctors are very scared of the repercussions if they become critics!

    Best wishes Magda

    Magda Taylor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.