It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World Renowned Neuropathologist has Career Destroyed for Disproving Shaken Baby Syndrome

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I will be the first to point out that the rather inflammatory title reveals the subjective opinion -- perhaps even bias -- of the author/site, as well as the gist of the article itself. I would replace "disproving" Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) with "questioning" or "casting doubt" or "testifying against" or even "denying" -- but it is what it is. There is no dispute, however, that she has lost her medical license because of her position/activities challenging the medical and legal status quo regarding SBS:

World Renowned Neuropathologist has Career Destroyed for Disproving Shaken Baby Syndrome


The medical theory of “shaken baby syndrome” (SBS) is quickly losing credibility, with many doctors, scientists, and attorneys now speaking out against SBS and the fact that innocent parents have been falsely accused of child abuse. Courts are now re-trying some cases based on testimonies from these doctors and professionals, and some cases have recently been over-turned.

The medical profession is fighting back... [snip]... So the apparent strategy of the medical profession is to attack those doctors now testifying against SBS on behalf of innocent parents, destroying their credibility and license to practice. Without their expert testimony, it will be much more difficult to fight false SBS convictions.

The latest effort along that front is the action the British General Medical Council has taken against world renowned pediatric neuropathologist Dr. Waney Squier, who has now had her career effectively destroyed for testifying to the truth.


Of course, those who took her license away explain the whys and wherefores much differently:


On Friday, March 11, 2016, the General Medical Council (GMC) found UK pediatric neuropathologist and expert defense witness, Dr. Waney Squier, guilty of “misleading her peers, being irresponsible, dishonest and bringing the reputation of the medical profession into disrepute.”


I cannot find an actual report or judgment from the GMC, but I did find an explanation from a/the "Chief Executive" of the GMC, Niall Dickson, in The Guardian:


First, the GMC is not and has no intention of being the arbiter of scientific opinion – the allegations we brought against Dr Squier did not rest on the validity of her scientific theory but upon her competence and conduct in presenting her evidence to the courts.


The tribunal in this case found proved [sic] more than 130 allegations about Dr Squier’s conduct, determining that she misled courts and acted dishonestly and irresponsibly by cherrypicking research and evidence.


Far from wishing to suppress different views, we recognise that scientific advance is achieved by challenging as well as developing existing theories, and importantly in this context we are absolutely clear that neither the GMC nor the courts are the place where such scientific disputes can be resolved. To be clear, it is possible that a doctor who ultimately was proved to have the correct theory could present their evidence in such a way as to mislead, just as it is possible for a doctor advocating a theory ultimately proved to be flawed to present their case in context and with integrity.


I guess what they're basically saying is that they have no idea if she's right or not, and they are not judging whether she's right or not, so they're not judging what she's saying but just how she's saying it. In the end, they're just weasel words to me. Basically their problem is that conventional medical wisdom says that a specific "triad" of symptoms is ONLY caused by SBS, and this doctor is testifying to other causes/factors that cause the same symptoms -- thus introducing reasonable doubt as to both the accuracy of the diagnosis, and the criminal guilt of those charged as abusing (even killing) their own children. The GMC isn't protecting any children... they're not saving any lives... they're just protecting a bureaucratic system that pronounces absolute criminal guilt based on a faulty premise.

I think it's significant that those given this power and authority over a doctors license and livelihood are NOT pediatric professionals themselves and do not have the medical expertise to judge the medical validity of the doctor's expertise/testimony:


Ironically, the panel of three so-called experts that the GMC used to ultimately seal Dr. Squier’s fate amounted to nothing more than a retired Royal Air Force officer, a retired police officer and a retired community psychiatrist who were inadequately equipped to understand the complexities of an infant’s brain.


So... why? What motive could anyone have for maintaining a questionable, if not outright disproven diagnosis? Especially one that could very well sending innocent parents and caretakers to death row? Qui bono??? The offers this explanation:


To admit that the theory behind SBS is false, would open the door to major litigation, as the theory has been used to convict thousands of parents of child abuse, and to perhaps remove tens of thousands of children from their homes and families. There is also massive federal funding available to seize these children, making them an asset to the state.


The above reasons may be true, but there may be more to it.... many, including Dr. Squier, will tell you that vaccinations may be the cause for many of those symptoms. So it's safe to assume that those same Big Pharma folks trying to force infinite vaccines on the people don't want anyone proving -- or even suggesting -- that those same vaccines may be the real cause of these babies' and children's injuries. And no, they don't care if folks go to prison or are executed for a false diagnosis... they'll just laugh all the way to the bank.

Here is further information from those who suspect a link between vaccine injuries and Shaken Baby Syndrome:

Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine-Induced Encephalitis?

Shaken Baby Syndrome: The Vaccination Link

Elevated blood histamine caused by vaccinations and Vitamin C deficiency may mimic the shaken baby syndrome.

Here is more information from those who deny a link:

The antivaccine lie that just won’t die: The claim that shaken baby syndrome is really due to “vaccine injury”

Here we go again: The vile tactic of blaming shaken baby syndrome on vaccines

There's so much that could be said about all this, but I'll leave it at this for now, and see where the conversation goes...




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Sounds like she didn't do anything all expert witnesses do at trial.....
Cherry pick the evidence for her particulat side....that's what they get the big bucks for....



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
I cannot find an actual report or judgment from the GMC,


Here you go...

GMC Statement


This case was not about the science - it was about Dr Squier’s conduct as a doctor acting as an expert witness. It was brought following criticism of her evidence by no fewer than four senior judges presiding over some of the most serious matters the courts have to deal with.

A doctor giving evidence in court is bound by the same standards as a doctor in clinical practice and by additional rules set down by the courts. They have a duty to act with honesty and integrity at all times, their work should be rigorous and their opinion presented objectively and fairly.


The cold, hard detail has not been updated on the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) website, but watch this space and you can read the report and make an objective judgement.

MPTS - decisions
edit on 27/3/2016 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Thank you for providing the link!

Gave me a "doh!" moment... as soon as I saw "GMC" I realized I had been searching for General Medical "Tribunal" -- not "Center." Hanging my head in shame now!!!



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: bandersnatch
Sounds like she didn't do anything all expert witnesses do at trial.....
Cherry pick the evidence for her particulat side....that's what they get the big bucks for....


Pretty much, right?

I'm not even sure cherry picking is the right term for it though. I realize I'm approaching this from an American perspective, but given the standard of reasonable doubt required for conviction, is it really "cherry picking" or is it simply pointing alternative causes/reasons? If she -- or anyone -- can offer an equally possible alternative cause/explanation, then she has raised reasonable doubt.

It seems to me that by definition it's those who would ignore alternative explanations are the ones cherry picking. Maybe that's just me...



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
I'm not even sure cherry picking is the right term for it though.


If you cherry pick, then you can distort. In the UK a medical expert witness has a duty to be objective. The case and argument against Dr Squier was that she was not objective.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Boadicea
I'm not even sure cherry picking is the right term for it though.


If you cherry pick, then you can distort. In the UK a medical expert witness has a duty to be objective. The case and argument against Dr Squier was that she was not objective.


I understand the need to objectively consider ALL evidence as a whole, definitely.

I guess my problem with this is that I believe the doctor was doing exactly that... She included ALL evidence/information, including evidence/information which indicated that SBS was not or may not be the cause of the conditions... which contradicted the conventional medical wisdom which insists that ALL such conditions are caused by SBS only, which excludes any evidence/information that SBS may not be the cause of the condition. From what I understand, the doctor never testified that another cause was definitely and definitively proven as the cause... she simply stated that other causes were equally possible. Reasonable doubt.

If anyone is cherry picking, it's those who refuse to acknowledge and consider other possible causes.

No one should be held criminally liable -- especially when that criminal liability carries the death penalty -- because someone wants to believe one scenario over another, with no personal knowledge of the truth. And that's exactly what is happening.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Then there is always the possibility the CMC or whatever....is cherrypicking the details to discredit an honest practitioner.....
This kind of murder is done all the time by "professional Committees" and its all part of the power paradigm...



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
I guess my problem with this is that I believe the doctor was doing exactly that... She included ALL evidence/information, including evidence/information which indicated that SBS was not or may not be the cause of the conditions...


Thing is... You don't know that until the Tribunal's findings are published. You can believe all you like, but the facts have yet to be published that enable you to make an objective view.

The Tribunal clearly felt that on previous occasions in court Dr Squier did not include ALL the evidence. She cherry picked. In so doing, she did not provide a full picture to the court. Regardless, the Tribunal was not ruling on medical competence, but on misleading advice in an area the doctor was not able to properly advise.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Sadly there is so much corruption involved with social workers and the work of the professionals who work with thema reply to: Boadicea




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi


Thing is... You don't know that until the Tribunal's findings are published. You can believe all you like, but the facts have yet to be published that enable you to make an objective view.


Well, maybe... maybe not. My opinion is based on what has already been stated by the member(s) of the Tribunal. Maybe there is more to it; but we have no reason to think so at this point.


Regardless, the Tribunal was not ruling on medical competence, but on misleading advice in an area the doctor was not able to properly advise.


I guess I'm wondering if they're doing the same thing... giving misleading advice (and playing judge, jury and executioner) in an area they are not able to advise properly.

But as you said, I can't objectively judge unless and until they release the particulars.
edit on 27-3-2016 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: northwestuk
Sadly there is so much corruption involved with social workers and the work of the professionals who work with them
a reply to: Boadicea



Excellent point -- thank you!

The confidentiality laws don't help -- at least not in terms of recognizing and stopping the corruption. It makes for a perfect legal cover. And allows for easy collusion between associated agency, and further corruption, and on and on...

(And welcome to ATS!!!)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
It all looks pretty cut and dry. She allowed her personal bias to get in the way of presenting an objectiv argument, using cherry picked data to support it. Thus she was reprimanded accordingly..


This case was not about the science - it was about Dr Squier’s conduct as a doctor acting as an expert witness. It was brought following criticism of her evidence by no fewer than four senior judges presiding over some of the most serious matters the courts have to deal with. 

A doctor giving evidence in court is bound by the same standards as a doctor in clinical practice and by additional rules set down by the courts. They have a duty to act with honesty and integrity at all times, their work should be rigorous and their opinion presented objectively and fairly.


I cannot see any reason to suspect otherwise.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   
You know those shakers at the hardware store that shake up the gallons of paint? Put your head in there for a while and see what happens to you. Babies are tiny. The laws of physics are in effect. Concussions don't only happen because of impact, they happen because of jarring the brain inside the skull from one side to another. If that is repeated, as when shaken, more damage will occur. Yes, I believe shaken baby syndrome is real.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: MHarris


It all looks pretty cut and dry. She allowed her personal bias to get in the way of presenting an objectiv argument, using cherry picked data to support it.


So they said. That they said it is cut and dried. But until details are released, the rest is not cut and dried.

One could just as easily say that you have allowed your personal bias to get in the way of presenting an objective argument against the doctor and are using cherry picked data from one source to support it...



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: shellyshelly
Thanks for the resources of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). However, I have my own question while doing research in Creative Biolabs.


Thank you for the link -- but this is all way over my head! If you care to expand, I'm listening...

(and by the way, there was a "w" missing from the address in the link -- I fixed it above for anyone else interested).



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaxnmarko
You know those shakers at the hardware store that shake up the gallons of paint? Put your head in there for a while and see what happens to you. Babies are tiny. The laws of physics are in effect. Concussions don't only happen because of impact, they happen because of jarring the brain inside the skull from one side to another. If that is repeated, as when shaken, more damage will occur. Yes, I believe shaken baby syndrome is real.


I know there are doctors who question SBS entirely; others simply challenge it's application to ALL such conditions of the SBS "triad." In other words, such conditions may be caused by SBS, but SBS is not the only possible cause.

Keep in mind, this SBS theory has not and cannot be clinically tested.... i.e., no one is going to shake 100 babies and then see what happens. (And rightfully so!)

Folks are being convicted of murder based on an unproven theory, often with no other known or suspected abuse to the child, and with no other evidence of trauma or abuse to the child.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

Here is further information from those who suspect a link between vaccine injuries and Shaken Baby Syndrome:

Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine-Induced Encephalitis?


Buttram gives a few issues that may be caused by vaccines but he doesn't prove any, he just speculates without any proof. Those who don't understant will believe he knows what he is talking about, but he is actually not proving any of the issues he mentions (we can go through them one by one if you like). Also, most of his 'evidence' is from the 60s and 70s, outdated when we talk about medicine.



Shaken Baby Syndrome: The Vaccination Link


Again, 30 year old links. And once again she doesn't prove anything but we can discuss any point in her article if you wish.


Elevated blood histamine caused by vaccinations and Vitamin C deficiency may mimic the shaken baby syndrome.


I can't analyze this article as only a very small abstract is available for free. If you have the full article please link it so I can read it. Thank you. Having said that, a child with ascorbic acid depletion (scurvy) will already have elevated levels of blood histamine which is why it is not recommended to vaccinate until they are well (as injecting foreign proteins will elevate the histamine levels in their blood). This is not something new and one of the reasons why doctors advise postponing vaccination when infants are premature or unwell.


I don't want to comment on the doctor until the tribunal findings are published.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join