Here’s an indignant quote to lead me in, talking of:
“….doctors accusing parents of “causing” the autism, using a discredited, junk theory titled Fabricated and Induced Illness in Children, previously known as Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy, MSBP.”
on ignoring, and even dismissal of, the high and increasing levels of autism everywhere.
MSBP was earlier used by a number of “Expert” medical witnesses to lead to the imprisonment of parents, including some notorious cases where the parents eventually were released. [Wikipedia has a reasonable descriptor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchausen_syndrome_by_proxy%5D.
The late Sally Clarke being one such case. On this appalling tale, Wikipedia says:
“This trend was to reach its apogee in 1999 when solicitor Sally Clark was tried for allegedly murdering her two babies. Her elder son Christopher had died at the age of 11 weeks, and her younger son Harry at 8 weeks. Medical opinion was divided on the cause of death, and several leading paediatricians testified that the deaths were probably natural. Experts acting for the prosecution initially diagnosed that the babies had been shaken to death, but three days before the trial began several of them changed their collective opinion to smothering.”
[So all took the position that their mother had caused the infants’ deaths, presumably having adopted the Meadow doctrine of her “seeking attention by hurting [her] own child, thereby assuming the sick role by proxy”.]
“By the time he gave evidence at Sally Clark’s trial, Roy Meadow claimed to have found 81 cot deaths which were in fact murder, but he had destroyed the data. [As you do!] Meadow’s evidence included a soundbite which was to provoke much argument: he testified that the odds against two cot deaths occurring in the same family was 73,000,000:1, a figure which he obtained by squaring the observed ratio of live-births to cot deaths in affluent non-smoking families (approximately 8,500:1). The jury returned a 10/2 majority verdict of guilty”.
Journalist Neville Hodgkinson told Sally’s tale compassionately in the Spectator magazine some time later: http://www.spectator.co.uk/comic/what-killed-sally-clarks-child/
Suffice here to say that she was exonerated of any culpability for her children’s deaths. It took a second appeal and the emergence of other equally controversial, similar cases before the conviction was finally overturned in January 2003, after her suffering nearly four years in prison for a crime she did not commit. She tragically died on 16 March 2007 from alcohol poisoning, having never recovered from the trauma of both losing her children and being convicted of their murder.
Roy Meadow, in contrast, suffered only mild inconvenience as:
“Clark’s father, Frank Lockyer, who is a retired senior police officer, complained to the GMC, alleging serious professional misconduct on the part of Meadow. The GMC concluded in July 2005 that Meadow was indeed guilty of said serious professional misconduct and ordered that his name be struck from the medical register.”
“Meadow appealed to the High Court, which ruled in his favour in February 2006. The GMC appealed to the Court of Appeal and in October 2006 by a majority decision, with the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, dissenting, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court in part ruling that Meadow’s misconduct was not sufficiently serious to merit the punishment which he had received.”
So he was reinstated despite the fact his actions had labelled victims as cause and led to almost inestimable institutionalised victimisation and a Stasi like attitude adopted by social services and police investigating incidences of cot death or even infant illness. The best that could be offered in his support is
“He did what he did in good faith”
which he may have done initially but clearly from a position of extreme cognitive dissonance. Like Admiral Nelson viewing the horizon through his blind eye he could not see that vaccines lead to childhood physiological trauma, damage and death.
Could not see or simply would not see?
Clearly the latter. Now, to further disguise and cover up the cruel mendacity of the evidence and the explanations developed by Meadow, the title Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy has been dropped and replaced by Fabricated and Induced Illness in Children so they can continue to harass and victimise innocent and unfortunate parents as they have been trained to, whilst MSBP rules prevailed. No re-education here, just “Steady as she goes”
And here’s an irony. I checked out “mendacity” as it just popped into my head as the appropriate descriptor of Meadow’s ideas and work. An online definition for mendacity uses as its exemplar:
“Baron Münchhausen – A teller of tall tales; one who embellishes and exaggerates to the point of falsehood; a creator of whoppers; a liar. Baron von Münchhausen (1720-97), a German who served in the Russian army, gained renown as a teller of adventurous war stories. These were collected by Rudolph Erich Raspe and published in 1785 as Baron Münchhausen ‘s Narrative of His Marvelous Travels and Campaigns in Russia. His name has since become synonymous with tall tales and untruths, whether their intent be to entertain or to deceive.”
See: “….to deceive.” Meadow himself is the Munchhausen. And, regrettably, the deceit continues.