World Renowned Neuropathologist has Career Destroyed for Disproving Shaken Baby Syndrome

a reply to: Agartha

Thank you, Agartha -- I have a jillion questions now and would love to pick your brain... but I'm going to re-read the articles with your comments in mind, and see where I end up before I start badgering you

Thanks for doing a piece on Dr Waney Squier, well researched and written. I had to reply to add some important info. I am the author of a book entitled "Secret Courts" which is based on my experiences of helping families against social services and medical misdiagnosis.

I would like to correct one thing first, Dr Squier didn't disprove SBS, she merely quoted Biomechanical Studies which prove beyond any doubt that SBS is junk science. I will refer to these studies later. Regardless of whether babies die from shaking, the point is that babies die and scientists like Dr Squier have been trying to get to the bottom of why they die for years. When babies die for unknown reasons, the death certificate will state "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome", which is not an actual disease or condition, but a label they use when they don't know why. The original theory of SBS dates back to 1974 to a paper written by Dr Norman Gutkelch. He merely asked the question "is it possible that SIDS babies are dying from being shaken?", he didn't do any actual research other than reading various studies. One of these studies was a 1974's study where adult Rhesus Monkeys were strapped to seats and rammed with several G's of acceleration. Only one study has ever been conducted of a human infant where the baby actually shook himself in a Fisher Price Jumperoo, for hours at a time. The child was never shaken and suffered no ill effect.

Dr Gutkelch turned 100 years old this year and wishes he had never written the paper. For years he has testified for families and defence teams. His story is a prime example of how a lie can travel around the world before the Truth has a chance to put on it's trousers. There is absolutely no proof anywhere that shaking a baby can cause the Triad of injuries known as SBS, none. Not that people haven't been caught and jailed for abusing babies by vigorously shaking them, there are hundreds of such videos on YouTube, but when examined, none of these shaken babies ever suffered even one of the triad known as SBS, ever. (Triad= Subdural Haematoma, Retinal Haemorrhage and Axonal Injury) Funnily enough, no baby has ever been witnessed been shaken and the baby displaying even one sign or symptom of SBS, in every prosecution, all the prosecutors needed was a doctor to say the Triad was present and for police to prove that the accused was alone with the infant for longer than 10 seconds. It's quite astonishing when you think about it, you can get a murder conviction and a death sentence without a smoking gun, DNA or even a witness. The baby can have 3, 15 or 35 different signs and symptoms, not a scratch, bruise or fracture, but the accused will be charged with murder. Quite often the accused is a grieving parent whose baby just died, many times they admit to "Resuscitative Shaking", which anyone would do if their baby turned blue.

Dr Squier was targeted, as were many defence experts, and their targeting was orchestrated by the London Metropolitan Police (MET). One of the complaints came from a DI Colin Welch, who was an "Interested Party" to the prosecution of Dr Squier by the GMC. DI Welsh made a speech at an SBS conference in the USA in which he indicated he would "go after" defence experts. When the GMC claim that they didn't conduct an Inquisition, you have to bear in mind that most doctors who defend against SBS have been targeted before. This is the second inquisition that I know of against an SBS expert, it is also the second time Dr Squier was before the GMC. In the first case against her, there were false allegations that she stole babies brains and held onto tissue, the allegations were found to be without substance. I also know 2 experts in the USA who were targeted. Even experts who testify for the prosecution have been warned to keep quiet. There is currently an investigation in the UK in which several experts have complained they were targeted. The Royal College of Pathologists has called for an inquiry into the claims, but as the Met are the ones who stand as "accused" and also will lead the inquiry, I don't hold out much hope of justice being done.

What the issue is here, is that Science is under attack. SBS is pure nonsense and the science proves this. Let me be clear, violently shaking a baby cannot generate the type and amount of force necessary (80G's of Acceleration) to disrupt the Bridging Veins of the Dura Mater to cause a Subdural Haematoma. Tests on a specially built Biofedelic Mannequin (Crash Test Dummy) have proven, not once but in 2 studies, that shaking by an athletic male (football team) can only generate 1/12 of the force necessary, a human baby can generate the same amount of force by shaking themself in a "Jumperoo". The Crown Prosecution Service in the UK, who have been involved in so many miscarriages of justice, (Google Sally Clark), are giving out very dangerous misinformation as guideance to Crown Prosecutors. They attempt to discredit Biomechanical Studies as a "plastic doll that doesn't represent a human infant", even though this very same doll is used to make safer cars, airbags and child restraints. They are also blatantly misinforming the public that short falls cannot cause the Triad, even though Science proves the opposite is true.

Unfortunately Science has degenerated into a Religion based on Faith and Belief, especially in the realm of Child Protection and Social Services. As it cannot be proven by science that the Triad is caused by shaking, everyone who believes SBS possible by shaking and shaking alone, has an opinion based on blind faith. This is not how science works. Science has always relied on questions and attacking a theory, by attacking a theory, (Peer Review), it either strengthens the theory or dismisses it. A prime example of Religious Science is the "Science" of Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Cooling, it requires a huge leap of faith that CO2 is causing the change. Even though SBS has been disproven, the mainstream dogma is that shaking a baby causes the Triad. It's hard to believe that 322 years after the Salem Witch Trials and 405 years since Galileo appeared before the Inquisition for saying the world was round and revolved around the sun, that such inquisitions are taking place today. Dr Squier once said to me; "The Science must be defended" and unless you and I take action against the Religion of Science, we may face the inquisitors ourselves.

What really bothers me about the whole SBS Industry, is the fact that babies are dying around the world and only a few brave scientists like Dr Squier are willing to know why? What the Science says is that short falls from a couch or a bed can cause the Triad, but shaking cannot. What the Religion of SBS says is that shaking can generate the same amount of force as a fall from a 3 storey building, but short falls from a couch, bed or changing table are not serious. It's hard to believe, that if the doctors were to err on the side of caution, they should be screaming from the rooftops that you should never place a baby on a bed, table, couch or any place where they could fall. "Believers" of SBS are killing babies by dismissing short falls. I have seen many cases where babies were dismissed from hospitals with no MRI or close monitoring after short falls, when those babies died a few days later, the parents were wrongly accused of murder. Continued below in reply....

This is complete idiocy and ignorance, the Medical Associations are complicit in killing babies by denying science. The Crown Prosecution and many US states have rebranded SBS to Non Accidental Head Injury because so many SBS cases were lost on appeal. It still requires the Triad and also the name implies guilt. It's interesting that there is no such thing as Accidental Head Injury but Non-Accidental. Also the implication that the symptoms are consistent with Injury, implies that illness cannot be responsible.

SBS must be resigned to the dustbin of history now, babies are dying and we need to find out why. As most doctors are not keeping current with medical science, and are still reading from a 1974 theory that even the original theorist doesn't stand by, it falls on average people like ourselves to settle the science. It's interesting that Dr Squier was reprimanded for quoting Biomechanical studies, ie; practising outside her area of expertise, when every paediatrician or pathologist accusing a parent of murder, equally has no training in Biomechanics and cannot reasonable diagnose if an accused shook a baby sufficiently hard enough to cause brain damage. Equally, I often meet with doctors accusing parents of child abuse and find that are practising way beyond their training and experience, and yet they are never brought before the Inquisition? A GP or even a Paediatrician cannot diagnose a cut, bruise or fracture as child abuse when they have no training in Forensic Medicine and have not performed a Differential Diagnosis to equally prove that it could not have been caused by other means. Dr Squier and others are clearly the victims of witch hunts if far less qualified doctors can diagnose abuse but yet she cant offer explanations that don't fit the current dogma of the SBS Religion.

In the comment below I will post links to scientific data so you can draw your own conclusions. But in this last paragraph I will leave you with a simple experiment that you can do at home. It may challenge everything you believe you know about Brain Injury. For a start, Safety or Crash Helmets don't protect the brain from injury. Also, if a boxer is knocked out, it's not the punch that injures the brain, but the fall to the mat. Try this. Take an egg and shake it as hard as you like for as long as you like. Gently break it open and you will find the yolk intact every time. The structure of an egg is similar to the skull, cerebrospinal fluid and brain. Now take another egg and drop it 12 inches onto a concrete floor. In every case the yolk will break because there is 12 times more force exerted on the yolk by the "Second Collision" when the yolk hits the shell, which cannot be done by shaking it.

If your baby falls from a couch or a bed, don't let any doctor tell you that short falls cannot be deadly. Insist your baby is admitted and closely monitored by experts. www.youtube.com...


Biomechanics proves scientifically that SBS is nonsence.
www.youtube.com...

This video proves that the Crown Prosecution Service are giving very dangerous advice.
www.youtube.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... ont-think-innocent-people-should-be-in-jail.html

Here is an interesting paper funnily enough by an Oxford Professor named Squier. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

A good resource on SBS is a blog by Sue Luttner with many links.
onsbs.com...

The Duhaime Study gave similar results. www.researchgate.net... rosurg_66_409-415/links/0fcfd50b7aeef5a3ae000000.pdf


www.omicsonline.com...

On the CPS website they offer "guidance" on SBS prosecutions and try to discredit Biomechanics and any expert opposing the dogma, they are also giving out very dangerous information.
www.cps.gov.uk...

a reply to: JoeBurns

A very big welcome to ATS.

I always visit Boadiceas threads, the questions that are raised really cut right to the matter of things and the civility within makes for a good investigation. It was a bit of a treat to read your first hand knowledge, and your experiences, and I hope that you will keep ATS in your bookmarks.

I follow the many cases of SBS convictions here in the US through the work done by "The Innocence Project" californiainnocenceproject.org...

A lot of parents are wrongly convicted of harming their children, and many families simply loose their children to the state with no convictions of wrong doing. Families are big targets for a intellectually, and ethically lazy justice system, and greed driven corporate medicine. Very sad.

a reply to: JoeBurns

Thank you so very much for this information! I appreciate the time and attention you gave to provide this information.

I am definitely learning much here.... but there's pretty much nothing I can add to what you've provided. I'll read the links when I can and ponder the possibilities.

Thank you also for fighting the good fight, Mr. Burns. I cannot imagine the horror of first losing your child to unknown causes, and then to be charged and prosecuted for the "crime." I cannot speak to the intricacies of the British legal system, but I do know that here we cannot convict if reasonable doubt can be raised, and any/all differential diagnoses are exactly that: reasonable doubt. And it seems to me that is exactly what Dr. Squier's is being persecuted for -- those differential diagnoses that raise reasonable doubt (at the very least). But after reading your comments, it seems it may be much more.

Thank you.

a reply to: Agartha

Okay, I read a couple of those articles again -- a couple times -- and I still have a jillion questions, but I don't think you can answer them yet... we have to wait for the report which tells us exactly what she "cherry picked" or "blinkered."

In the article by Buttram, I do understand what you mean that nothing he says is "proven," but he uses plenty of qualifiers to make that clear. And even as he said, some things are woefully under-studied, so we don't have some of the answers.

Regarding Squier specifically, it seems to me that Dr. Squier's would have been called as a rebuttal witness and would therefore be responding to previous medical claims made by the prosecution, in which case the conventional diagnosis and testimony would have already been given, so it wasn't up to Dr. Squier to testify to conventional wisdom. And she would have been required to answer the questions as given. She would not be allowed to simply say whatever. But I'm looking at this from an American perspective, and it may very well be different in Britain.

So, again, it's a matter of waiting for specifics from the GMC...

SBS covers a myriad of causes. Dr Squier neither proved, or disproved SBS, which is incidently referred to as "non accidental head injury" in the UK healthcare.

Dr Squier has been censured for cherry picking the evidence to paint a picture that was potentially misleading. Best wait for the full report to be released rather than to assume she is the victim of a professional knifing.

The discussion here has polarised the issues, which is unhelpful at best and wrong at worst. The fact is that SBS (or non accidental head injury), and contrary to a comment above, is a reality and does happen.

However, in some cases the cause and the effect are massively complex and not immediately obvious. This is the reason why courts need good advice and the reason why Dr Squier has been caught out, because she was not providing good advice as an expert witness. She was misleading, or potentially misleading the court.

a reply to: paraphi

I find it very interesting that Dr Squier is being hung out to dry in full view of the public before the details of an investigation have been released for the public to see.

If SBS has been misdiagnosed, and doctors and researches can indeed show this, perhaps cherry picking will shed greater scientific light on the issue.

I doubt that the good doctor would have been cherry picking in order to suppress evidence, but instead was cherry picking in order to show that the evidence was incomplete.

originally posted by: paraphi
SBS covers a myriad of causes. Dr Squier neither proved, or disproved SBS, which is incidently referred to as "non accidental head injury" in the UK healthcare.

Huh? "Shaken Baby" syndrome refers to one and only one cause... non-accidental head injury is even worse, as it presumes guilt on the part of someone, based on this "triad" of symptoms.

Dr Squier has been censured for cherry picking the evidence to paint a picture that was potentially misleading. Best wait for the full report to be released rather than to assume she is the victim of a professional knifing.

"Cherry picking"... "paint a picture"... "potentially"... "misleading"... sure are a lot of weasel words there.

I don't know how British courts operate, but I know that here, all court cases require the prosecution to present their case... their accusations... first. How could it be otherwise? One cannot defend one's self against unknown charges. So Dr. Squier's would have been rebutting... responding... to the accusations already made, including the medical testimony. Further, Dr. Squier would have been answering direct questions -- not just speaking off the top of her head. In our courts, Dr. Squier would have been confined to directly answering the questions as posed.

The discussion here has polarised the issues, which is unhelpful at best and wrong at worst. The fact is that SBS (or non accidental head injury), and contrary to a comment above, is a reality and does happen.

And you know this how? By all those double blind clinical studies performed in which a number of babies were shaken violently and unmercilessly in order to study and measure the results on the child's brain? Of course not. I'm not saying that doing so will not cause the "triad" of symptoms known as Shaken Baby Syndrome; I am saying that there is no objective means of studying and determining this beyond any reasonable doubt... especially when other symptoms consistent with abuse are non-existent.

Further, discussion is NEVER wrong... but persecuting and imprisoning and, yes, even executing people for an unproven and unproveable theory is very very wrong. As is denying a DISCUSSION regarding contrary views and evidence, and taking a person's livelihood because they did so.

However, in some cases the cause and the effect are massively complex and not immediately obvious.

I would agree that sometimes and/or oftentimes the cause and effect are complex, and not EVER obvious, much less even knowable. All the more reason not to presume that only shaking could have caused the triad of symtpoms.

This is the reason why courts need good advice and the reason why Dr Squier has been caught out, because she was not providing good advice as an expert witness. She was misleading, or potentially misleading the court.

And you have personal knowledge of both the cases in which she was testifying, as well as the expert medical opinion to judge her testimony? Courts need good EVIDENCE -- not advice! I have yet to see or read anything that tells me she gave bad evidence. Just evidence that "they" didn't like or want to believe.

originally posted by: Witness2008
I find it very interesting that Dr Squier is being hung out to dry in full view of the public before the details of an investigation have been released for the public to see.

I don't. There will have been reporters at the Tribunal. She is not being "hung out to dry", but she has been suspended from the Medical Register i.e. "struck off". The GMC have issued a statement which is at...

GMC statement

The Tribunal has also released a statement, in lieu of the actual findings which will be published. If you search the MPTS website you will find all previous hearings.

MPTS Statement

Here's some more...

The Guardian

a reply to: paraphi

Hung out to dry meaning that the "tribunal" has made broad and unsubstantiated statements thus far. Where is the proof of those allegations? None of your links give any methods or detail as to how the decision was made that the Doctor's actions fell short of professional standards. If this case sets a precedence on doctor testimony than I would suggest that many cases that have already been decided based upon expert testimony (cherry picking) on either side would be subject to review.

If evidence is solid it should be impossible to cherry pick. The use of that word by the critics of Dr Squier is very telling.

a reply to: Witness2008

If evidence is solid it should be impossible to cherry pick. The use of that word by the critics of Dr Squier is very telling.

Excellent point -- thank you!

originally posted by: Boadicea
Okay, I read a couple of those articles again -- a couple times -- and I still have a jillion questions, but I don't think you can answer them yet

You can ask as much as you want and what I don't know we can research and discuss together. I will refrain from discussing Dr Squier until I read the links Paraphi has provided.

In the article by Buttram, I do understand what you mean that nothing he says is "proven," but he uses plenty of qualifiers to make that clear. And even as he said, some things are woefully under-studied, so we don't have some of the answers.

It's not just about limited research on certain issues, he is deliberately misleading those who don't understand medical issues. My friend, let me explain:

His article is specifically about vaccine induced encephalitis and yet one of the issues of diagnoses he discusses is 'Ribs and other skeletal fractures'. He starts by saying: "Although skeletal fractures in themselves are not attributable to vaccine reactions, when they are present they are often used as evidence of abuse by prosecutors in SBS trials." Buttram himself is saying that vaccines have nothing to do with these types of fracture, then why add this confusing paragraph? His article is about encephalities and vaccines,why is he talking about ribs and fracures? This is why his article is not peer reviewed and not accepted by real medical journals, because he is including topics that have nothing to do with the point he is trying to prove. That paragraph is only there to make the gullible scared of vaccines.

Another point that shows what a fraud he was, is this:

Thimerosal (Mercury) Content: Some vaccines given at ages 2, 4, and 6 months of age contain thimerosal, including diphtheria/tetanus/acellular pertussis (DTaP) (25 micrograms of mercury in most preparations), hepatitis B (12.5 micrograms in some preparations), and Hib (25 micrograms in some preparations).(92) It is possible that some infants receive more than l00 times the amount of mercury that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says is the maximum allowable daily exposure. Current EPA standards limit the daily safe dose of mercury to 0.1 µg/kg, or less than 1.0 µg for the average two-month-old infant.(93) For centuries, mercury has been known as a potent neurotoxin and one of the most toxic of the heavy metals. Recently it has also been shown to be sensitizing,(84) so that along with pertussis and the Hib vaccines, we have three potentially sensitizing agents in the vaccines given to this age group.

We have talked about this a million times on this forum: first, thimerosal is not methylmercury which is the mercury the environmental agency (he mentioned) worries about. Second, all routinely recommended vaccines for children do not contain thimerosal. Buttram was a vile man who lied constantly.

Hope you can understand why I dismiss his article (I can discuss other points too, but this reply was already too long, lol)

originally posted by: Witness2008
Hung out to dry meaning that the "tribunal" has made broad and unsubstantiated statements thus far.

No need for inverted commas. It was a tribunal. It was a real tribunal.

Thing is, we don't know the detail because it has not been published, but it will be. However, the Tribunal is the end long process which - in this case - has involved Fitness to Practise process and judicial review. The Tribunal is the formality of removing (or not) the doctor from the Medical Register.

The entire judicial review is probably available somewhere, but the below snapshot of the first couple of pages outlines the judgement, which is quite complex, against detail of the Fitness to Practise.

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

High Court sample

a reply to: paraphi

Still a lot of vagueness. From your source, some of those vague points......

3. You failed to present your report and the research material you relied upon in a way which was as complete and accurate as possible. 4. You failed to discharge your duties as an expert in that you: i) Failed to work within the limits of your competence; ii) Failed to be objective and unbiased; iii) Failed to pay due regard to the views of other experts; 5. Your actions and omissions as described above in paragraphs 2 and 3: i) Were misleading; ii) Were irresponsible; iii) Were deliberately misleading; iv) Were dishonest; v) Were likely to bring the reputation of the medical profession into disrepute.''

The only qualified judge to point 3 would be one that shares the same expertise as that of Dr Squier. Do you know if one of her peers stood in judgement of her testimony?

Point three makes zero sense as Dr. Squire was testifying within her expertise in neurosciences. I wonder if the prosecution was objective and unbiased? I wonder if the requirement of Dr. Squier to pay due regard to other experts is just another way of implying that she should acquiesce.?

I know nothing of the British system of justice, but I am very experienced with that of the US justice system, and I must say that from what I am learning thus far, it seems to me that an example is being made of a very well respected researcher and doctor. This whole affair started in 2014 and still there is little to no legal justification (much less ethical) for her public treatment.

I wish we could get rid of the shyster doctors over here as easily as the UK can seem to get rid of their own top scientists. How is it that the feelings of a bunch of butt hurt bureaucrats can be more important than the patients that have been helped by Dr. Squier?

I would love to read the court transcripts of the 6 cases that are being used in her persecution.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Witness2008

If evidence is solid it should be impossible to cherry pick. The use of that word by the critics of Dr Squier is very telling.

Excellent point -- thank you!

How is that a excellent point? Anything and everything can be ripped out of context and be made to look like something it is not. It is extremely easy to do by means of cherry picking a couple of quotes of someone about something dismanteling them of their original context which created room for creative interpretations.

This is how honest evidence is being mis-used and misrepresented constantly.

Simply saying "If we CAN cherry pick your report then your report must not be solid enough" is just ...of ridiculously low intellect.

a reply to: everyone

How is that a excellent point?

Because true science is proven, absolute, and indisputable: The same conditions will produce the same results each and every time. No exceptions. If the science were proven, there would be nothing to cherry pick.

Anything and everything can be ripped out of context and be made to look like something it is not.

Then it's not proven... it's theory.

It is extremely easy to do by means of cherry picking a couple of quotes of someone about something dismanteling them of their original context which created room for creative interpretations.

If that is in fact the situation, then that would be hearsay, and would not be admissible in court -- at least not in the USA. As the "expert" witness, she must first qualify on her personal knowledge, training and experience, and testify based on her knowledge. Most likely, she would be referencing medical studies, possibly expert reviews of studies, and testifying to the methodology/results/conclusions of the studies themselves.

This is how honest evidence is being mis-used and misrepresented constantly.

Indeed. But evidence is not proof... theory is not absolute... and if the evidence is subject to interpretation, then reasonable doubt is raised. Guilt is not determined by consensus.

Simply saying "If we CAN cherry pick your report then your report must not be solid enough" is just ...of ridiculously low intellect.

Wow. Really? That was necessary? Some might say that the only ones of ridiculously low intellect are those who do not understand the difference between theory and proven science... nor the difference between proof and reasonable doubt.

I went to bed about an hour ago and began to kick myself for not making mention of this little gem in my last post..

4. The FTPP proceedings concern evidence given by the Claimant in six cases as an expert witness between 2006 and 2010. Her evidence was subject to severe judicial criticism, though it was not the judges but the National Police Improvement Agency which made the complaint in 2010 leading to these proceedings.

high-court-justice.vlex.co.uk...


Could it be that the GMC are just tools for law enforcement now?

I live in a country where corruption is everywhere, but damn, at least the corruption over here has enough intellectual prowess to hide their corruptness. This looks like slap stick stupidity. Please folks read the link.

I can only imagine the patience it would take for someone of such stature and world renowned accomplishment as Squiers in having to submit and answer to the three stooges.

originally posted by: Witness2008
Could it be that the GMC are just tools for law enforcement now?

No, you completely misunderstand the role of the General Medical Council as the regulator for doctors in the UK. Their role is dictated by statute. Without regulation, any old quack could be a doctor.

You also misunderstand what a judicial review is.

In a nutshell. Dr Squier has represented herself as an expert witness in several court cases. Her evidence has been found to be misleading. Complaints were made against her, which the GMC investigated through Fitness to Practise. It was found that her evidence to court was misleading and she was suspended from the Medical Register. She asked for a judicial review of the outcome of the Fitness to Practise and was found that the outcome was appropriate. A tribunal was convened to assess her whether she should continue to be a doctor. The tribunal decided that she should not. She was "struck off" the Medical Register. Dr Squier has appealed the decision, which may be why the actual MPTS Hearing notes have not been released.

This is about professional conduct.

GMC legal framework

Judicial review