World Renowned Neuropathologist has Career Destroyed for Disproving Shaken Baby Syndrome

a reply to: paraphi

A retired psychiatrist, a retired cop, and a couple of lay persons stood in judgement of a neuropathologist concerning court testimony, I understand.

Do you know the end result of the 6 SBS court cases that were involved in the GMC investigation?

This sums up the whole case

One of the inexplicable elements of the decision was the tribunal’s finding that Dr. Squier had erred by testifying to biomechanical issues without any expertise in biomechanics—although the prosecution experts who testified in the hearings were, like Dr. Squier, physicians with no apparent specialized training in biomechanics (Dr. Richard Bonshek, ophthalmic pathologist; Prof. Rupert A. Risdon, pediatric forensic pathologist; Dr. Neil Stoodley, neuroradiologist; and Prof. Colin Smith,

onsbs.com...

a reply to: Witness2008

To be honest I would trust the opinion of a formal Tribunal and a GMC Fitness to Practise Panel over an opinionated blog. I will await the actual report to make judgements.

a reply to: paraphi

That opinion blog highlighted the dogmatic language used by the GMC to justify their actions against the doctor. For example...

Forensic pathology professor Bo Erik Ingemar Thiblin of Uppsala University, for example, had explained how circular reasoning in the early shaken baby papers had allowed the theory to become established without scientific proof, the same argument that convinced the Swedish Supreme Court to revisit the legal status of shaken baby theory last year. Dr. Thiblin is an expert in epidemiology, the study of patterns, causes, and effects in health conditions, a complex field that emphasizes assessment and analysis of the known facts. In a triumph for circularity, the tribunal rejected his testimony with this explanation: It was clear that Professor Thiblin did not believe in the concept of shaken baby syndrome, and his view of the literature was coloured by that. He was critical of the methodology of all the research literature in relation to the subject because of its perceived circularity bias. The tribunal considered that his expert opinion on non-accidental head injury lacked credibility; therefore the tribunal attached limited weight to his evidence.

The GMC referred to SBS as a concept.

a reply to: Witness2008

Yes, Dr Squier has sure built up a supporters club because (so called) SBS attracts some very emotional views from all sides. I am also sure Dr Squier has been an exemplary clinician in her speciality and has had huge benefits to her patients, but...

This whole affair - if you read the facts and not cherry pick, as is the want of bloggers - is based on Dr Squier's misleading advice to the courts and covered in two Fitness to Practise Panels, a judicial review and a final Tribunal to finalise the process of removing her license to practise.

You can now read the MPTS report and cherry pick things you dispute!

MPTS Dr Squier

You provided expert opinion evidence outside your field of expertise by...

Why do people insist that she's a good egg? How much money did she make through her appearances in court?

a reply to: paraphi

Yeah, lying to the courts for profit by providing false or misleading expert testimony will not end well for your career.

But hey, every charlatan has their dogmatic defenders.

a reply to: Agartha

You have no idea how hard I've been trying to write up anything that doesn't go off on a dozen tangents!!! And it doesn't help that I keep reading more and more stuff that just convolutes my brain that much more. Ugh! No visions of lime green and hot pink coffee makers yet though

I see the official report has come out and been posted. I suppose I should read that now before I ramble on with questions...

a reply to: paraphi

Thanks for posting the link.

I'll read it soon -- gotta take care of some things first though.

To no one in particular...

Well, I'm about a third of the way through the report, and all I can say is they need to do some real deep soul searching, because they themselves are doing everything they have accused Dr. Squier of doing. And the sad part is that whereas I believe Dr. Squier is fighting the good fight, they are the enemies of the good fight.

"Cherry picking?" "Blinkered?" Several pages deal with objections and efforts to deny her "evidence," often successful.

8. The tribunal took into account the advice of the Legal Assessor and determined that the evidence of Professor F would not assist in terms of the facts which are under consideration. Therefore, the tribunal determined that Professor F’s evidence was not relevant and should not be admitted.

You submitted that the report of Dr H may include relevant and admissible evidence; however a substantial part of her report is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.

The tribunal will determine what weight to attach to it in due course.

If it turns out that some of the evidence is irrelevant the tribunal will ignore it.

Sure sounds like cherry picking to me. But my favorite is their decision to exclude all testimony from the biomechanical engineer (and expert witness)

Dr K, (Principal Engineer: Biomedical and Mechanical Engineering, Design Research Engineering, Novi, Michigan) 39. Dr K was very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about biomechanics, his field of expertise. He gave consistent answers with regard to his interpretation of the biomechanical literature. Having described the extensive education and experience that qualified him as an expert in the field, the tribunal was surprised that he appeared to believe that any competent person who read the biomechanical literature could give expert evidence about it in court. This paradox led the tribunal to doubt the credibility of some of his evidence.

Really? REALLY??? So the expert opinion and credibility of a biomechanical engineer is being doubted by folks who are not experts because why? Because they are not competent enough to understand it? Or because they are competent enough to understand that it completely and totally discredits everything we think we know about SBS?

And, again, it must be noted that they don't give a rat's ass about the truth, who is correct, and those going to prison for crimes they didn't commit based on an unproven theory. They literally just don't want some uppity doctor revealing facts and truth that doesn't fit their agenda.

The tribunal is fully aware that it is not empanelled to determine either the relevance of the triad to AHT or who was right in the cases before it. However, it has taken into account the background and context evidence it has heard, within the strict constraints of the Allegation that you face, in examining your expertise and the way in which you wrote your reports and gave evidence in court.

I have not yet read the specifics about "misleading" evidence, nor "misquoting" research, which may give me pause... if actually true. But given what I've already read, let's just say that this paradox has led me to doubt the credibility of some of this report... and those responsible for it.

a reply to: Agartha

Okay, the report did not relieve any of my concerns -- only increased them -- as I commented above.

But may I ask you something about long bones? I wasn't surprised to see long bones mentioned in Buttram's article, because I had seen the issue mentioned many times. I tried to do a little more research, but wasn't coming up with any answers. It does concern me though, because broken bones -- especially the harder and denser long bones -- are not usually easily broken, and might indicate trauma from an external force. Including child abuse by the parents/caretaker.

But there seems to be a school of thought that muscle contractions, such as during a seizure, could break a bone. I'm assuming (because I couldn't pin it down) that would happen because a muscle attached at each end of a bone and running along that bone could snap the bone if it contracted enough? Even checking out epilepsy websites, I found anecdotal stories of bones breaking from seizures, not attributed to a fall of bumping into something, but nothing to explain how it could happen. So I don't know if I'm misunderstanding or not. I'm just trying to figure out how bones can break in a seizure.

Is this possible? I did find a paper about long bones breaking on PubMed from 1898 -- and that was really cool!!! -- but it didn't really answer the question for me.

I'm trying to keep my confirmation bias out of my thought process, but you know how personal experience likes to insert itself into issues... and I keep remembering that when I was about 16 or 17, I cracked a rib and I have absolutely no idea how it happened. It started hurting while I was at the movies, and it just kept hurting and hurting, and by the next morning I couldn't take a deep breath. If the x-ray hadn't told me otherwise, I wouldn't have believed it, because absolutely nothing happened (that I can remember/know of) to break a rib. But I did.

I think the broken bones are important because it can be a sign of abuse by a parent; and can given added weight to abuse as the cause of the triad. Unless there are other possible causes...

So let's start here -- if you don't mind. And I understand you may very well have better things to do than listen to my questions and try to skool me!

a reply to: Boadicea

Hiya! Don't worry about asking questions, I love discussing but I should also remind you that I am not an Orthopaedic nurse specialist, but I'll try my best with what I know.

I have only heard of epileptic seizures casing fractures and even they happen rarely (LINK). They happen because bone density have decreased due to long term anti-epilectic medication. A strong seizure causes intense and rapid muscle contraction which causes a compression fracture (on a weak bone). Not only they happen rarely, they also only happen in the spine (LINK).

What does Buttram say about long bones? I can't find any literature about seizures fracturing long bones and I don't think that's possible anyway.

But Buttram is still wrong: his article is about vaccines which have nothing to do with bone fractures.

a reply to: Agartha

I didn't want to derail the HPV thread, so I thought I'd come back and derail my own (kinda sorta) to ask you a couple more questions... Right now I'm stuck on studies in general, in part because (as Buttram also indicated), many studies that need to be done to give us the answers we want have not been done.

Who decides what to study? And why?

So in the case of the HPV vaccine and the increased risk/incidence of other strains, I can understand that the manufacturer would have an interest in studying this further... but what if they don't? Is there any agency or institution that could or would commission a study to find out what's up?

Likewise for Thompson and the CDC autism study... I have wondered mightily about the data that linked autism and Black boys. Assuming Thompson isn't lying about it (and I am), that data needs further scrutiny. But who would do it if they don't?

My thoughts right now are along the lines of combinations of factors creating the perfect storm so to speak. For example, the CDC study was conducted in Atlanta. I know that much of the public housing and inner city housing in Atlanta has problems with lead, and thus, lead poisoning. So maybe it's not the MMR vaccine itself causing the autism, but maybe it's the combination of the pre-existing lead serum levels with the vaccine, or something else....

But if the manufacturer doesn't want to study it, and the housing authorities don't want to study it, and so on, who would study it? And how would we know? If it was studied, and the manufacturer didn't like the results... would we ever know the results?

a reply to: Boadicea

In the UK vaccines are constantly monitored once they are introduced and scientist constantly monitor reports to decide what needs to be checked. In the UK we have something called 'The Yellow Card Scheme' where parents/guardians can report any adverse side effect. The MHRA (Medicine Healthcare Regulatory Agency) checks those reports to pick up on any problem or side effect and will make a report which usually pushes new trials and studies. The Yellow Card scheme can be accessed online or via your doctor or pharmacist and I know parents are encouraged to report any adverse event.

I wasn't sure about the US so I had to look it up but it seems you have a very similar system, all explained HERE.

Regarding autism and black boys, that's simply not true (even without talking about Thompson and Hooker, but we can if you want to):

White children were more likely to be identified with ASD than black or Hispanic children. About 1 in 63 white children, 1 in 81 black children, and 1 in 93 Hispanic children were identified with ASD.
FROM HERE

a reply to: Agartha

Thank you for the links!

I'm doing my daughter's taxes for her today, but I'll try to get to them as soon as I can... maybe it will help me figure out a few things for myself!