Andrea Dunlop

So I wanted to ask you about the us versus them and the science that questions shaken baby syndrome because shaken baby syndrome is different than Munchausen by proxy, which we've spent so much time on in that we have a lot of data and an extremely broad medical consensus on the science behind abusive head trauma.

So can you just talk us through some of that?

Joseph Scheller is one who comes to mind who just believes that shaking is not a way to cause that brain injury.

Right.

These defense experts are an important piece to dive into because, in fact, these are the second opinions that are actually being advocated for when Neary points to second opinion laws that she posits could be a solution to the professed problem of crusading child abuse pediatricians.

In this context, second opinion does not mean bringing in a fellow child abuse pediatrician who has equal knowledge and expertise, someone like Randy, who provided innumerable second opinions in his role as statewide medical director.

It also doesn't mean bringing in someone like Dr. Jensen, who was the second opinion in Amanda Surinofsky's case.

More likely, it means bringing in someone like Dr. John Galasnik, the expert witness whose findings are excerpted in Amanda's lawsuit.

Dr. Galasnik found Amanda's report that her baby fell, or was tossed, or was pulled, depending on the version, from the bassinet to be completely consistent with medical findings.

The lawsuit claims that Dr. Galasnik concluded that, quote, With the caveat that I obviously don't have the baby's medical records,

I shared the near-death report, which summarizes the injuries, with both Randy and Dr. Sally Smith and asked them if Dr. Golasnik's opinion made any sense with what we know about the story Amanda is presenting and the injuries the child sustained.

The short answer is no.

It's possible for babies to sustain a head injury from a fall, yes, but not the type or severity of the injuries recounted in the near-death report matching Amanda's case.

And Dr. Golosnyk is a well-known defense expert.

In fact, he exclusively testifies for the defense.

Though Dr. Golosnyk appears to be a board-certified pediatrician, he has treated college students in the Student Health Clinic for the past 30 years and has not actually treated an infant or young child since 1980, despite the fact that he nearly always testifies in cases involving physical abuse of children under the age of two.

Importantly, not only has Dr. Golosnyk never evaluated a case of suspected abusive head trauma as a physician, he's never evaluated a child with a head injury.

Period.

Dr. Golasnik's CV includes just two peer-reviewed studies.

The first is a case report based on the observation of a single subject, and the second is a lab experiment featuring infant mannequins and a live infant wearing motion sensors.