U.S. News

You are just repeating the same thing I said: that other things can cause the same injuries, and assuming that the triad of symptoms mean abuse is the part that is junk science. Not the existence of shaken baby syndrome, which is real.

But that's not what the article says, over and over again. I really thought this was unnecessary, but anyway, here we go. Here are the quotes that I find problematic because of their wording:

Robert Roberson was sentenced in 2003 for killing toddler on basis of shaken baby syndrome, now ruled as ‘scientifically unreliable’

The "shaken baby syndrome" itself is not "scientifically unreliable". Using it as proof of abuse is. But the shaken baby syndrome is real and scientifically proven to happen. This wording seems to imply the former, not the later.

[...] having been sent to death row on the basis of “shaken baby syndrome”, a child abuse theory that has been widely debunked as junk science, [...]

The "shaken baby syndrome" has not been "debunked as junk science". It's only been debunked as proof of abuse. But, again, child abuse does indeed cause "shaken baby syndrome", that's not a debunked theory. Once again, the wording seems to imply the former, not the later.

Leading scientists have questioned the reliability of shaken baby syndrome, both as a medical diagnosis and as a forensic tool in criminal prosecutions [...]

It's been questioned as a forensic tool, not as a medical diagnosis. As much as I look for proof that says otherwise, I can't find anything. It's a real, unrefuted medical diagnosis. I've read the links they quote, and again, they focus on using it as forensic evidence of abuse. Nothing about it not being a real medical diagnosis. This wording doesn't just imply, it's straight up saying that it's not a real or valid medical diagnosis. which is not true.

Last month, an appeals court in New Jersey ruled that the theory was “junk science” and “scientifically unreliable”.

Yeah, the quote mentioned by snooggums, again, implies that the whole "shaken baby syndrome" is junk science. But I actually read that document before my other post, and you don't have to read too much to find out that the meaning is exactly the one I mentioned. From page 3, literally the first sentence of the text:

In these appeals, we consider the scientific reliability of expert testimony that shaking alone can cause the injuries associated with shaken baby syndrome [emphasis mine]

So once again, this article is giving the idea that the whole diagnosis is a debunked myth, but that's not what the court document says. It just says that the symptoms are an unreliable proof of abuse, since other causes can create the same symptoms.

I don't know if someone (maybe the author, maybe the editor) didn't really understand what has been debunked exactly, or whether they are bad at writing, but the way it's worded spreads dangerous misinformation about health issues in children. Over and over again, it dismisses the entire "shaken baby syndrome" as junk science, instead of specifying that "its use as evidence of abuse" is what has been debunked.