Discussion:
Cot death can strike repeatedly, study confirms
(too old to reply)
Paul Nutteing
2005-01-01 09:40:41 UTC
Permalink
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1381134,00.html
Quote
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Friday December 31, 2004
The Guardian

Two or three cot deaths in a family should not automatically arouse
suspicions of infanticide, say the authors of the largest study ever carried
out of the unexplained deaths of babies in the UK.
The issue has been particularly controversial in recent years. Trupti Patel
and Sally Clark were both cleared of killing their babies after courts
refused to accept the expert testimony of the paediatrician Professor Sir
Roy Meadow that more than one death was likely to be an unnatural event.

In his book ABC of Child Abuse, Prof Meadow wrote that "two is suspicious
and three murder, unless proved otherwise... is a sensible working rule for
anyone encountering these tragedies."

Research in the Lancet medical journal published today reveals that even
three deaths in one family can occur by natural causes; while a small
proportion of second and third deaths do turn out to be murder.

Robert Carpenter and colleagues from the London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine reviewed the deaths of babies under one year old in
families that had already experienced a cot death and that were enrolled on
a support programme that now covers over 90% of the country.

Of 6,373 babies who had been through the Care of Next Infant (Coni)
programme by December 1999, 57 died. Nine of those deaths were inevitable,
they report, and 48 were unexpected. Two families lost two children and 44
lost one. Of the 46 first Coni children, they say, 40 deaths were natural
and the other six were probably homicides: five committed by one or both
parents (two criminally convicted) and one by a babysitter. Of the two
families where a total of three babies died, one family suffered three
natural deaths and the other was a triple homicide, they say.

"Our data suggest that second deaths are not that rare and that the
majority, 80-90%, are natural," says Prof Carpenter. "Families who have
experienced three unexpected deaths also occur."

Prof Carpenter says the study will have included almost all the families in
the country in which there have been two or three sudden, unexpected baby
deaths in recent years. "From the best available data, we believe that the
occurrence of a second or third sudden unexpected death in infancy within a
family, although relatively rare, is in most cases from natural causes."

Two cases of baby deaths were reopened by the authorities after the
researchers investigated, and were reclassified as deliberate killings. One
of them involved one of the two families in which three babies died.
Prof Carpenter says: "For a host of reasons, not the least of which is the
protection of parents from false accusations, it is essential that all
sudden unexpected infant deaths are submitted to a detailed expert
investigation like this study which includes a full family history, clinical
history and paediatric autopsy."
End Quote

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email ***@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
Greegor
2005-01-02 22:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Meadows got caught telling LIES in court about the statistics on this.
The Royal Statistical Society actually
noticed his deception and reported it.
He was a PAID EXPERT WITNESS
who pushed this assertion that 2
cot deaths (crib death,SIDS)
was suspicious and 3 was DEFINATELY murder.

It was a PREJUDICE and bad science.

The revelation that he had LIED in
order to sweeten cases for the
agencies that PAID him, to justify
removal of children from their
families forever, caused quite
an uproar.

Did the Social Services idiots
succeed in preventing the massive
number of removals based on
FALSE testimony from being
reversed?

I saw how they were suddenly strongly
against child removal because of the
damage it does, ignoring the fact that
CORRUPT removal had already done
that same sort of harm and delaying
would only EXTEND the harm.
Who was it that said
"Justice delayed is not justice served"?
Kim Harbour
2005-01-19 09:23:46 UTC
Permalink
As a Social Worker currently employed in the Child Welfare field, it is fair
and reasonable to argue that more than one SIDS (sudden infant death
syndrome) or cot death in a family would naturally raise suspicion (family
history can assist in assessing future risk). To make a statement pertaining
to "murder" however, is a very strong and labelling statement. My personal
experience in working with under-priviledged families and children is that
they are under-educated and unaware of the risks associated with SIDS. Thus,
part of my role in employment is to educate and inform individuals,
professionals, families and communities of the risk factors associated with
SIDS. Consequently, we need to ask ourselves as human beings and as
communities.....who is to blame here? I could argue that it is the parents
that are not taking the precautions, it is the communities that are not
educating their fellow neighbours.....or I could remind you that the term
SIDS means......SUDDEN infant death syndrome.....cause quite often unknown
and death sudden with no warning signs. So, regardless of who we want to
blame, SIDS is risk factor to all infants and as responsible human beings we
all need to protect our prescious children and start being aware, educated,
and supporting others!
Post by Paul Nutteing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1381134,00.html
Quote
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Friday December 31, 2004
The Guardian
Two or three cot deaths in a family should not automatically arouse
suspicions of infanticide, say the authors of the largest study ever carried
out of the unexplained deaths of babies in the UK.
The issue has been particularly controversial in recent years. Trupti Patel
and Sally Clark were both cleared of killing their babies after courts
refused to accept the expert testimony of the paediatrician Professor Sir
Roy Meadow that more than one death was likely to be an unnatural event.
In his book ABC of Child Abuse, Prof Meadow wrote that "two is suspicious
and three murder, unless proved otherwise... is a sensible working rule for
anyone encountering these tragedies."
Research in the Lancet medical journal published today reveals that even
three deaths in one family can occur by natural causes; while a small
proportion of second and third deaths do turn out to be murder.
Robert Carpenter and colleagues from the London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine reviewed the deaths of babies under one year old in
families that had already experienced a cot death and that were enrolled on
a support programme that now covers over 90% of the country.
Of 6,373 babies who had been through the Care of Next Infant (Coni)
programme by December 1999, 57 died. Nine of those deaths were inevitable,
they report, and 48 were unexpected. Two families lost two children and 44
lost one. Of the 46 first Coni children, they say, 40 deaths were natural
and the other six were probably homicides: five committed by one or both
parents (two criminally convicted) and one by a babysitter. Of the two
families where a total of three babies died, one family suffered three
natural deaths and the other was a triple homicide, they say.
"Our data suggest that second deaths are not that rare and that the
majority, 80-90%, are natural," says Prof Carpenter. "Families who have
experienced three unexpected deaths also occur."
Prof Carpenter says the study will have included almost all the families in
the country in which there have been two or three sudden, unexpected baby
deaths in recent years. "From the best available data, we believe that the
occurrence of a second or third sudden unexpected death in infancy within a
family, although relatively rare, is in most cases from natural causes."
Two cases of baby deaths were reopened by the authorities after the
researchers investigated, and were reclassified as deliberate killings. One
of them involved one of the two families in which three babies died.
Prof Carpenter says: "For a host of reasons, not the least of which is the
protection of parents from false accusations, it is essential that all
sudden unexpected infant deaths are submitted to a detailed expert
investigation like this study which includes a full family history, clinical
history and paediatric autopsy."
End Quote
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
Greegor
2005-01-20 02:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Kim, Are you aware of the scandal surrounding the
testimony by Doctor Professor Sir Roy Meadows
that two are likely to be because of abuse, and three
MUST be because of abuse?

SIDS has been linked to genetic misfires that
actually can recur over and over again.

Gradually the "unknown" aspect of SIDS is
becoming less and less of an unknown.

Given this new information that is out there,
the statistical likelyhood of a SIDS death
being from ABUSE is extremeley low.
(less than 5% chance!)
Something like 95% of SIDS deaths are
from NATURAL CAUSES.

Thus the mere fact of two SIDS deaths is
no longer properly termed PROBABLE CAUSE.

Child Protection agencies nonetheless
investigate EVERY SIDS death in Iowa,
absent any other reason to suspect abuse.

I notice that you made absolutely NO mention
of the recent discoveries of Meadows QUACKERY
or the THOUSANDS of children removed from
their families forever on his word alone.

Being in your position, could you please also
describe how his research (now discredited)
has been used by ""expert witnesses"" across
the USA?

Either his SIDS absurdity or his grand
fabrication of the whole idea of MUNCHAUSENS?
(He shredded his "groundbreaking" research??)

How long do you suppose that it will take
before his FAMOUSLY DISPROVEN
anti-family garbage will be yanked
from the various Social Work textbooks?

How many new Social Workers and caseworkers
will get warped and incorrect ideas from his
discredited assertions which are enshrined
in virtually EVERY text book on Social Work and
child abuse?

How many of YOUR CO WORKERS still buy
the Munchausens and SIDS brainwash that
Doktor Meadows foisted for so MANY years?

You never mentioned the DAMAGE that is
done to families in the name of SUSPICION.
Paul Nutteing
2005-01-20 08:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greegor
Kim, Are you aware of the scandal surrounding the
testimony by Doctor Professor Sir Roy Meadows
that two are likely to be because of abuse, and three
MUST be because of abuse?
SIDS has been linked to genetic misfires that
actually can recur over and over again.
Gradually the "unknown" aspect of SIDS is
becoming less and less of an unknown.
Given this new information that is out there,
the statistical likelyhood of a SIDS death
being from ABUSE is extremeley low.
(less than 5% chance!)
Something like 95% of SIDS deaths are
from NATURAL CAUSES.
Thus the mere fact of two SIDS deaths is
no longer properly termed PROBABLE CAUSE.
Child Protection agencies nonetheless
investigate EVERY SIDS death in Iowa,
absent any other reason to suspect abuse.
I notice that you made absolutely NO mention
of the recent discoveries of Meadows QUACKERY
or the THOUSANDS of children removed from
their families forever on his word alone.
Being in your position, could you please also
describe how his research (now discredited)
has been used by ""expert witnesses"" across
the USA?
Either his SIDS absurdity or his grand
fabrication of the whole idea of MUNCHAUSENS?
(He shredded his "groundbreaking" research??)
How long do you suppose that it will take
before his FAMOUSLY DISPROVEN
anti-family garbage will be yanked
from the various Social Work textbooks?
How many new Social Workers and caseworkers
will get warped and incorrect ideas from his
discredited assertions which are enshrined
in virtually EVERY text book on Social Work and
child abuse?
How many of YOUR CO WORKERS still buy
the Munchausens and SIDS brainwash that
Doktor Meadows foisted for so MANY years?
You never mentioned the DAMAGE that is
done to families in the name of SUSPICION.
Not just Roy Meadow - there is a great pile
of them supporting this sort of behaviour

Peter Barbor
Tricia Brennan
Paul Carter
Moyna Clark
Margaret Crawford
Dominic Croft
David Cundall
Loretta Davies-Reynolds
Geoff Debelle
Elizabeth Dryburgh
David Elliman
Anne Grant
Christine Hall
Michael Harran
John Heckmatt
Chris Hobbs
Peter Jaffe
Munera Khan
Loretta Light
Ben Lloyd
Lindsay Logie
Joan McCelland
Julie Miller
Jacqueline Moq
Umesh Prabhu
Jean Price
Rosalyn Proops
Robert Pugh
Mary Rees
Lesley Ross
Alison Share
Charles Shepherd
John Sills
Amanda Thomas
Jane Tressider
David Vickers
Jane Wynne

from letter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1192003,00.html

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email ***@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.
Greegor
2005-01-25 23:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Isn't it interesting that these people
did not include their titles and positions?
Could you help me with that?

How many on this list are doctors themselves,
with a self interest in avoiding LIABILITY?
They cry in their letter about this liability
in regard to Child Protection. particularly.
If CHILDREN are so VERY important to them,
then why do they lobby for legal immunity
when they DO WRONG? After all, that ALSO
is for the protection of the children.
(Individually and at large!)
False testimony and false diagnosis harms kids!

Perhaps it would not be unfair to add the
name of the New Zealand sex abuse expert
who was found to be a PAEDOPHILE himself!

I grabbed his mug shot collection off the net.
Particularly interesting because he had changed
his appearance so MUCH and so many times.

Would it really be unfair to put these people
in company with him, in abusing kids and
working for the interests of DOCTORS against
their patients?

Paul wrote
Not just Roy Meadow - there is a great pile
of them supporting this sort of behaviour

Peter Barbor
Tricia Brennan
Paul Carter
Moyna Clark
Margaret Crawford
Dominic Croft
David Cundall
Loretta Davies-Reynolds
Geoff Debelle
Elizabeth Dryburgh
David Elliman
Anne Grant
Christine Hall
Michael Harran
John Heckmatt
Chris Hobbs
Peter Jaffe
Munera Khan
Loretta Light
Ben Lloyd
Lindsay Logie
Joan McCelland
Julie Miller
Jacqueline Moq
Umesh Prabhu
Jean Price
Rosalyn Proops
Robert Pugh
Mary Rees
Lesley Ross
Alison Share
Charles Shepherd
John Sills
Amanda Thomas
Jane Tressider
David Vickers
Jane Wynne

KH
2005-01-20 08:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Hi Greegor,
No I am not aware of the scandal surrounding the testimony by Doctor
Professor Sir Roy Meadows. Perhaps I should locate and read this
information. But as I was stating.....I agree that SIDS is the result of
genetics or otherwise and dont believe that it is murder....murder is a
harsh label! What I am saying is that we need to educate parents (many I
work with are unaware of the contributing risk factors), and teach them
preventative measures so they can minimise the harm and levels of risk from
SIDS. Thus enabling Protective Services to maintain a minimalist
intervention model and parents not be labelled as murderers. In Australia,
we do not investigate every SIDS case unless there has been a history of
Protective intervention in the past and suspicion surrounds the incident.
Our legislation states that we can only intervene if based on reasonable
grounds we believe that a child is at harm or risk of harm (physical and
sexual (emotional and psychological not mandatory)) and parent has not taken
action to protect the child, abandoned the child, or parent is
incapacitated.

In regards to you wanting me to answer the question about "expert
witnesses", I cant answer that as I am not in the USA and am unsure as to
who these alleged "experts" are, or claim to be. I have never come across
Meadows in my years at Uni or during my years practising either. I really
cannot understand how many children have been removed from parental care on
the word of this Meadows fellow! We use a risk framework that states that
there has to be a combination of factors that need to be substantiated
before intervention can continue.....sounds like Iowa are being over
protective to the point where they are damaging rather than protecting! To
label a persona murder is harmful and I understand your comment in regards
to "the DAMAGE that is done to families in the name of SUSPICION." I often
find that as a Protective Practitioner we are often damned if we do and
damned if we dont. It is an extremely contraversial field to work within.
However, we must always keep in mind what is in the best interest of the
child...and I know you agree with that!

The issues that are occurring in Iowa seem extremely harsh. It somewhat
reminds me of the incidents involving our native aboriginals where they were
removed from thier families just because they were dark-skinned. There was
no consideration into the level and ability of care that the parents
provided to the child....just the fact that they were not 'white' seemed
enough to remove teh children and integrate them into a 'white' mainstream
society. So...what century are we in now? Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Kim

\
Post by Greegor
Kim, Are you aware of the scandal surrounding the
testimony by Doctor Professor Sir Roy Meadows
that two are likely to be because of abuse, and three
MUST be because of abuse?
SIDS has been linked to genetic misfires that
actually can recur over and over again.
Gradually the "unknown" aspect of SIDS is
becoming less and less of an unknown.
Given this new information that is out there,
the statistical likelyhood of a SIDS death
being from ABUSE is extremeley low.
(less than 5% chance!)
Something like 95% of SIDS deaths are
from NATURAL CAUSES.
Thus the mere fact of two SIDS deaths is
no longer properly termed PROBABLE CAUSE.
Child Protection agencies nonetheless
investigate EVERY SIDS death in Iowa,
absent any other reason to suspect abuse.
I notice that you made absolutely NO mention
of the recent discoveries of Meadows QUACKERY
or the THOUSANDS of children removed from
their families forever on his word alone.
Being in your position, could you please also
describe how his research (now discredited)
has been used by ""expert witnesses"" across
the USA?
Either his SIDS absurdity or his grand
fabrication of the whole idea of MUNCHAUSENS?
(He shredded his "groundbreaking" research??)
How long do you suppose that it will take
before his FAMOUSLY DISPROVEN
anti-family garbage will be yanked
from the various Social Work textbooks?
How many new Social Workers and caseworkers
will get warped and incorrect ideas from his
discredited assertions which are enshrined
in virtually EVERY text book on Social Work and
child abuse?
How many of YOUR CO WORKERS still buy
the Munchausens and SIDS brainwash that
Doktor Meadows foisted for so MANY years?
You never mentioned the DAMAGE that is
done to families in the name of SUSPICION.
Greegor
2005-01-20 21:55:29 UTC
Permalink
Kim,
I don't know what country you are in, but the effect of Meadows
was and continues to be international.
It is a virtual impossibility for his research to not have
been a part of a college education in the field of Social Work
or Child Protection. If you have EVER even heard
of Munchausens By Proxy, you have been programmed
by Doctor Professor Sir Roy Meadows, from afar.
Meadows created a COTTAGE INDUSTRY for himself,
as a PAID expert in court, about the disorder which he
apparently FABRICATED. He didn't SHRED the
ground breaking historical research notes for no reason.
The ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY caught him
telling lies about statistics, IN COURT. That is
what began his downfall.

This man harmed THOUSANDS of families with
his garbage opinions and statistical LIES.

He was given a "Sir" (knighthood) for rescuing
so MANY kids on his "crusade" but will his
knighthood be TAKEN AWAY? His medical license
was about to be removed, when last I heard.

Actually, Kim, it's much worse than Iowa being overprotective.

Unfortunately (for you, and for many families) the
Child Protection Agencies and their monumental
abuses of families is a very international problem.

Apparently the curriculum and training is
disseminated internationally, perhaps by
the ""HUMANE ASSOCIATION"".
The American H.A. has a quasi governmental
status and serves as a lobbying group for
the true AGENCY goal which is GRANT MONEY
and FINANCIAL INCENTIVES (bonuses).

I recently defaced an AHA poster in my local
Social Services office. It was a large poster
of a child's face with a band aid on her forehead.
The caption was:
"Current child abuse laws are about this effective."
Clearly the crusaders wish to go beyond the law.
I defaced it by penning the fact that something
like 90% of all child removals are NOT for
abuse, but for the vague and subjective category
of NEGLECT, as reported by the agency's OWN
reported (biased) statistics.

This is quite telling about the mindset of the
crusaders who work in many Child Protection
agencies in the USA. It might have something
to do with the motivation of one caseworker
who swore in writing, to the court, that I had
a sex abuse history. I did not, and within
months did the IMPOSSIBLE by finding old
documents which proved that what he had
SWORE TO was in fact, false. The man's
false assertions about agency intelligence
were disproven not by just any records but
by old records from THE VERY SAME AGENCY.

He LIED in order to make a case!

By casting me as having this past history,
almost ANY normal involvement in my
family was cast as PERVERSION.

The agency can no longer claim that it
was simply a mistake because the
proof and complaint has been on record
for several years and they have illegally
chosen to maintain records they KNOW
to be false, over a span of YEARS.

Ergo it was deliberate.

In the US, our much touted, vaunted
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS basically
do not exist for parents, cancelled out by
the states interest in second guessing and
overruling parents, even over trivia.

I agree that there is real child abuse, but
somebody here long ago saw it as an
INDUSTRY, a "profit center".
The current Iowa director of DHS had been
the director in charge in Maine when the
Logan Marr atrocity took place. Announcing
the hiring of this man, The main point of the
Iowa governor's Press Release was that
the man would bring Iowa more of those
Federal grant dollars.

Child Protection in the US has gone from
being a public service to being an INDUSTRY!
(A profit center, even in the eyes of the governor!)

The "evil empire" seems to be falling apart though,
In Florida they put a guy named Jerry Regier
in charge a few years back to clean up a
really CORRUPT and dysfunctional agency,
but just last month he resigned or was fired
along with a bunch of henchmen when it was
discovered he had not CLEANED UP the
corruption but simply JOINED in the corruption.

They have paid MILLIONS of US dollars to
have agency record keeping software written,
basically they have already paid for the
custom software TWICE, and still don't have
anything useful. Improper socializing took
place in regard to contract awards!

Florida's CPS agency functions are being put
under local sherriff's departments.

There has already been one development that
I really like, a Child Protection Investigator
"hired over" is going to jail for telling LIES.
One aspect of the corruption is that the
agency caseworkers currently go into court
and KNOWINGLY tell outright lies and are
given qualified legal immunity for this.
Apparently actual Law Enforcement officers
are not granted legal immunity for telling LIES.

The agency culture of corruption has been so
entrenched and infectious (indoctrination!) that
experts INSIDE OF Child Protection have reluctantly
conceded that destroying the agencies
may be the only way to repair them.
The agency mindset or culture of corruption
has proven to be extremely resistant to
true REFORM from within.

In this newsgroup it is the agency "loyalists"
people who benefit from them etc.
versus the growing hoards of detractors.

The state agencies have been trying for
YEARS to get away from the facts of their
dysfunction and corruption, they have played
various Public Relations games and even
tried changing the acronym letters for the
agency as if people won't recognize them
as the same corrupt agency with a face lift.

They are just re-arranging deck chairs on
the Titanic, as far as I am concerned.

What country are you in?

I've heard reports from England, Sweden,
Denmark, Norway, Australia, New Zealand,
most of the "western world" and they
seem to vary only by degree.

Eerily, they all seem to do the SAME
sorts of tricks to abuse families.

Britain has long been big on "state secrets" but
the USA is gradually becoming more like them,
since 9/11 and our ""Patriot Act"" measures
done in the NAME of stopping terrorism but
in PRACTICE are simply more power for
the government to dictate to the people rather
than vice versa.
Loading...