Dr. Waney Squier. Copyright Photo by Les Wilson. Photo courtesy of Daily Mail.
Health Impact News Editor Comments
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. The reasons are quite obvious. 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.
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.
World Renowned Neuropathologist has Career Destroyed for Disproving Shaken Baby Syndrome
by Christina England
Health Impact News
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.”
In a nutshell, she was found guilty of disagreeing with the medical establishment over the “science” behind diagnosing shaken baby syndrome, and speaking out on behalf of innocent parents.
Considered to be the country’s leading scientist in the field of pediatric neuropathology, Dr. Squier has worked as a consultant at the John Radcliffe Hospital for 32 years. Until 15 years ago, she vehemently supported and adhered to the mainstream belief that when a medical professional suspects that an infant has been violently shaken, they must examine the baby for the “triad” of injuries believed to be associated with shaken baby syndrome (SBS).
However, after studying and examining the scientific underpinnings of what is only, after all, a theory, Dr. Squier began to develop doubts which led her to express her ever-increasing scientific skepticism.
Other Professionals Agree with Dr. Squier – Consider SBS Theory “Junk Science”
Over the years, a growing number of professionals have turned their back on the original SBS theories in favor of science. Experts now believe that there are a range of other conditions and circumstances that can cause the triad of injuries to occur.
Explaining why the original SBS hypothesis is out of date and currently viewed as junk science by a growing number of professionals, Dr. Uscinski, a neurosurgeon based out of Maryland, tells Health Impact News:
The proffered ‘science’ by the advocates of the hypothesis of shaking is anything but simple, and actually defies the very principles of Newtonian physics also articulated by Newton in his ‘Principia,’ the cardinal one being the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration, or simply put ‘f = ma.’
This has been demonstrated experimentally on more than one occasion, and one does not require any more than a high school education in basic physics to understand this concept, and it is also known that one year of such basic physics (including the principles of Newtonian physics) is a prerequisite for entry into medical school, so it is not beyond Prof. Squiers realm of expertise.
Moreover, the observation of one simple act performed with infants of every culture around the globe, this being the method of picking up a tiny infant weeks or months old from the supine position, is significant here. This is simply that the individual doing the lifting carefully places a hand behind the infant’s head and neck. Again, this is done universally, and is a human instinct.
Why do we do this? We do this for the simple reason that the human infant neck musculature, ligamentous, and bone structure is insufficient to support the infant head for about the first four months of life.
If one were to shake such an infant vigorously it is clear that the damage would be to the neck, not the head.
Bearing this in mind, we have to ask ourselves why it is that the majority of SBS cases that are being examined in court today show no evidence of any neck or back trauma to the child.
Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights lawyer states:
Shaken baby syndrome is not a medical diagnosis to be treated but, almost uniquely, it a doctor’s opinion that a crime has been committed. I have represented a number of people who have been sentenced to death based on this ‘theory’ although increasingly the evidence suggests that it is unscientific nonsense. Justice demands that a doctor who honestly holds views supported by scientific evidence be permitted to give testimony that challenges the hypotheses of others. After all, Galileo Galilei was forbidden from saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun 400 years ago. Unfortunately it took until 1982 before Pope John Paul II conceded the Catholic church had been wrong.
Setting aside the devastating personal impact on Dr. Squier, Smith continues:
I am most troubled by the effect of this process on the delivery of justice in this country and around the world. Hundreds if not thousands of parents or carers have been condemned, or lost custody of their children, when the medical profession has diagnosed a crime. Today, unqualified though they may be, the panel announced that the GMC will brook no scientific dissent.
This is absolutely true and if the decision of the GMC is to strike Dr. Squier’s name off the medical register, thus making her unable to practice medicine. The world will have lost a wonderful scientist and advocate for parents. Sadly, this will leave many parents without a defense expert and potentially facing years in prison for a crime they did not commit.
Are the General Medical Council Members Qualified to Rule on SBS, or Was This Simply a “Witch Hunt”?
As letters of support flood into the GMC from professionals around the world, the consensus is that Dr. Squier’s case is little more than a witch hunt designed to destroy an excellent professional’s credibility whilst continuing to promote the out-of-date theories and junk science that currently exists.
One professional, Dr. Steven C. Gabaeff, a UCLA graduate with 40 years of history as an emergency room physician, commented on the fact that the adjudicating panel consisted of a retired RAF officer, a retired policeman and a retired community psychiatrist. He tells Health Impact News:
The use of the 3 non-medical people in this case to adjudicate this case would be not much better than 3 monkeys listening to a lecture about the neuropathophysiology of the human brain, with and without injury, and hitting a button to convict when the talking stops, AS directed by their handlers. The GMC and MPTS should be ashamed of themselves for creating this biased and ignorant panel, with no understanding of the issues; most likely a fraudulent set-up to destroy one of Britain’s, and the world’s, greatest assets in the fight against false accusations, and world leader in her field, by any standard applied.
This is the most base act in this arena that is possible (the destruction of brilliance), perpetrated by people (the medical accusers) trapped in their own misbeliefs and past misdiagnoses, not much better than witch hunters, whose professional lives, if the truth were to emerge, would be covered with the tears and pain of destroyed families they have destroyed with their false accusations, arrogance, narcissism, delusions of grandeur, and sociopathic impacts on the falsely accused families of this small world we live in.
It seems clear that the unqualified members of the MPTS panel could not have written the decision, so who did? The real purpose of this injustice it seems, is an attempt to maintain the status quo, by the handlers, for reasons that are primarily self preservation for the accuser’s past sins.. so many sins… so many families and innocent children damaged by this extraordinarily unscientific process.
Furthermore in a letter written to the GMC in support of Dr. Squier, Dr. Steven C. Gabaeff, wrote:
The attacks on those bringing and shining light onto alternative etiologies of the findings misused to misdiagnose abuse, is a response to a threat to establishment thinking and the establishment itself. The challenges to existing dogma come from many quarters now and from many medical specialists with more knowledge and academic standing than the establishment MDs. The challengers have brought forth alternative thinking about the etiology of the findings misused to diagnose abuse. This strategy of falsely accusing highly respected, leaders in their field who do not agree with their now doubtful, if not unproven, or false hypothesis, is not new.
To those with limited or essentially no knowledge of the deep nuances of child abuse pediatrics, the beliefs of the establishment would be, to start, assumed to be true. The alliance of the child abuse establishment’s medical providers, the prosecutors of child abuse, the special units of police assigned to these matters, is both massive and powerful. The establishment predictably is taken seriously by almost everyone. In the 45 years since the early pediatrician created hypotheses that lie at the core of the fund of knowledge of child abuse pediatrics, hypotheses which were never true, went unchallenged for years. So long a period, that there was enough time to give both the doctors and the theories unwarranted credulity within the legal paradigm, where results of past cases is given weight. In retrospect, these hypotheses, representing evolving science, were never subject to any testing that followed a valid scientific methodology. Anecdotal evidence, low grade observations studies, and a definitively unscientific belief structure, have been, and are, offered as validation for their unproven hypotheses to this day.
Dr. Michael Powers, QC, a foremost expert in medico-legal issues writes:
Without intending any disrespect, the GMC tribunal – made up of a retired RAF officer, a retired policeman and a retired community psychiatrist – is not qualified to understand the complex pathology of the developing brain. It is therefore sad, but not surprising, that they have reached the wrong conclusion. The proper forum for debating these issues is the international neuroscience community.
Supreme Irony: Dr. Squire to Receive “Champion of Justice Award” from 69 Organizations Around the World
Dr. John Plunkett, who has pioneered vital work on the validity of shaken baby syndrome in the United States states:
It is a supreme irony that the Innocence Network will give Dr. Squier the 2016 ‘Champion of Justice Award’ at the meeting in San Antonio on April 8. This is a group of 69 organizations from around the world including the UK. There have been at least 300 exonerations of those wrongly convicted of serious crimes, including some people for whom Dr. Squier has been an important expert. How is it that the Innocence Network can give this award to Dr. Squier if the GMC has correctly characterized her behavior as dishonest and worthy of sanction? (Source.)
Parents Exonerated from Crimes they did not Commit Speak Out
Through the tireless efforts of Dr. Squier, scores of innocent parents have been able to keep their children and avoid lengthy prison sentences. Last night, one shocked mother of a prisoner awaiting appeal told Health Impact News that:
My son’s solicitors were going to use her if he gets an appeal. It looks like that will go out the window now.
And another devastated mother, Dr. Bergina Isbell who had used Dr. Squier in her case, wrote:
If it were not for Dr. Squier’s intelligent research and unwavering commitment to truth, my family and I would have been left at the mercy of ignorant medical staff that did not conduct a thorough investigation of my son’s case. I am forever grateful for her and my heart aches at the injustice she is enduring.
Being found guilty of a crime that you did not commit can lead to extremely tragic consequences, as more and more parents are left desperate, frightened and alone with no one to turn to. Only recently, we saw two parents take their own lives after being falsely accused of killing their children and facing life sentences as child murderers for a crime they did not commit. Listen to this broadcast for details.
For more information on SBS read Dr. Gabaeff’s paper titled:
Dr. Phil Exposes Medical Kidnapping and Shaken Baby Syndrome False Diagnosis with North Carolina Family
South Carolina Family has Children Medically Kidnapped Based on Wrong Diagnosis from Child Abuse Specialist
Will Massachusetts Doctor Send Another Innocent Parent to Prison Over Shaken Baby Syndrome Accusation?
Medical Kidnapping in Maine: Child with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome & Sister Seized – Grandfather Commits Suicide
Maryland Father Accused of Abuse over Broken Bones – Both Children Removed from Home of Loving Parents
Mainstream Media Finally Exposing Shaken Baby Syndrome as False Diagnosis – How Many Innocent Parents Have Suffered?
Support the cause of Medical Kidnapping by purchasing our new book!
If you know people who are skeptical and cannot believe that medical kidnapping happens in the U.S. today, this is the book for them! Backed with solid references and real life examples, they will not be able to deny the plain evidence before them, and will become better educated on this topic that is destroying the American family.
* The backup image section of this tag has been generated for use on a
* non-SSL page. If this tag is to be placed on an SSL page, change the
* This noscript section of this tag only shows image banners. There
* is no width or height in these banners, so if you want these tags to
* allocate space for the ad before it shows, you will need to add this
* information to the tag.
* If you do not want to deal with the intricities of the noscript
* section, delete the tag (from … to ). On
* average, the noscript tag is called from less than 1% of internet