Pathologists
Experts
Dr Nicholas Hunt
Professor Dominique Lecompte
[2012 Jan] March on Brussels for freedom of vaccination The parents wanted to know, or prove, the real cause of her death, but were denied a post mortem.
[2010 Aug] Pathologist 'trying to stop inquiry into Dr David Kelly's death' In their letter to Mr Clarke they say Dr Hunt's comments appear to be part of an officially sanctioned attempt to silence the clamour for a full inquest.
[2010 Aug] A textbook suicide? The intriguing file on Dr Kelly that tells a different story
[2009 Jan] The pathologist challenging shaken baby syndrome
[2008 Oct] Inquiry blasts pathologist Smith and his overseers
[March 2007 Jean Charles de Menezes] Dr Kenneth Shorrock
Inquest and Autopsy Reports for Hilda Murrell
Quotes
I happened to know a pathologist, so quizzed him as to what an
autopsy involved, and was shocked to find that other than something really
“gross” (such as a tumour), the average autopsy isn’t designed to find out real
answers. Certainly, an autopsy didn’t look for dead or dying motor neurons, or
perform the Morin stain to find a known cause of dying motor neurons. And he
doubted that if asked, the pathologist would agree to doing them, even though
those tests might give the Renata’s an answer. I discussed the situation with
another pathologist as well, ... who also pointed out that even if the tests
showed aluminium, a barrage of ‘excuses” would be proferred showing why the
aluminium couldn’t possible have come from the vaccine, and would have “had” to
have been another ‘underlying’ condition. Anything, to protect a sacred cow.
[2001 Jan] Part Four Autopsy and Jasmine
Renata
"Death was certified to be due to the Shaken Baby Syndrome on the evidence of Pathologists, Paediatricians and Radiologists when all the haematological and biochemical evidence clearly indicated death was due to a coagulopathy following hepatic insufficiency and malnutrition."--Michael D Innis
[2009 Jan]
The pathologist challenging shaken baby syndrome The
problem with the shaken baby controversy is that it's very dogmatic. If I don't
accept religious dogma (and I don't), I'm not going to accept scientific dogma.
If it's there, it can be proven. I do recognise that some adults are capable of
doing nasty things to children, but I'm uneasy about people saying: "Oh, if a
baby has got subdural haemorrhage (SDH), retinal haemorrhage and brain swelling,
it can only be shaken baby syndrome." I'm trying to find out the mechanism of
bleeding in the brain in babies who have not been shaken.
I'm exploring all sorts of
theories. My colleague Marta Cohen from Sheffield Children's Hospital and I have
just published a paper with observations of our autopsy work on fetuses and
babies over the last couple of years. We selected 55 cases - 25 late third
trimester fetuses who died shortly before delivery and 30 newborns - who had
haemorrhage within the membrane that covers and separates the two halves of the
brain, and compared this with the level of brain hypoxia, or oxygen deficiency.
We knew that none of these cases could possibly be inflicted trauma. We found
that all those with severe brain hypoxia and half of those with moderate brain
hypoxia had SDH. This is the same type of SDH that some people describe as
specifically indicative of shaken baby syndrome. A similar pattern of
haemorrhages has been described in the retinas of newborn babies dying of
natural causes. We think that in these cases the haemorrhaging is caused by the
hypoxia.
My concern is that by relying on
this famous triad of symptoms - brain hypoxia, SDH and retinal haemorrhages - to
diagnose shaken baby syndrome, when there's no evidence of inflicted trauma, we
may be sending to jail parents who lost their children through no fault of their
own. As scientists it's our duty to be cautious when we see the triad, and to
take each case on its merits. We owe it to the children and their families.