Archive

Archive for the ‘Munchausen by Proxy Part I’ Category

Professionals are demanding vast sums of money to write reports on clients that they have never met

Author: Christina England

 

Reports are being written all over the UK and probably worldwide on patients and clients that the authors of the reports have never met. Professionals are diagnosing mental disorders, ADHD, disability and are even making false accusations of child abuse in written documents being presented to courts, hearings, benefit agencies and even child protection conferences, without ever even meeting the patient or client. These fraudulent documents have the power to ruin careers, determine whether patients are entitled to disability benefits and remove children from their families.

 

One mother told me that she was falsely accused of Munchausen by Proxy by a child psychiatrist who had never met her or her children. Another mother told me that her son had been prescribed the ADHD drug Ritalin by someone she had never met. So how bad is this problem? Well, if my research is correct, this is one of the largest acts of fraud and deception operating in our systems today.

 

Recently I published an article proving that leading psychologist and expert in Autism Lisa Blakemore-Brown had her career deliberately sabotaged by the British Psychological Society, when they chose to take the word of a psychiatrist who had never met Ms Blakemore-Brown. (1)

Dr Friedman had written a detailed report labeling Blakemore-Brown ‘paranoid‘ based on the opinion of others and paperwork which Ms Blakemore-Brown had been tricked to send in as part of her evidence.

In any other scenario the word of others would be classed as merely ‘hearsay’ however when the word of others is used by a psychologist/psychiatrist to formulate an ‘opinion’ in cases involving the General Medical Council, British Psychological Society and the Health Professionals Council, their word is taken at face value. In the case of Ms Blakemore-Brown the evidence on which Dr Friedman had based his views was dodgy to say the least.

Five years on and this practice still exists, innocent lives are being ruined after medical professionals continue to write reports based on the material they read and the word of others. These professionals demand high sums of money to write reports on clients that they have never met which are subsequently presented in courts and case conferences around the UK and I suspect around the world to determine the fate of others.

The HPC or the ‘Health Professions Council’ is a professional organization found to be using these dirty tricks, when they are asked to examine cases where psychologists registered by them have presented reports to courts and child protection conferences without ever seeing their client/patient.

This happened when one of the largest cases to ever go before the judiciary system was examined by the HPC. The case involved a young woman with Downs syndrome Miss Hollie Grieg. Miss Grieg had told her mother Anne that she had been sexually abused from the age of six by her father and her brother. This abuse was alleged to have taken place in Scotland where the family had been living at the time. Shocked and appalled Hollie´s mother Anne Greig reported the matter to the police.

Hollie soon began to disclose information on others that she said had also sexually abused her. Hollie Greig´s allegations included the name of a serving police officer with the Grampian force and an Aberdeen sheriff. See ref (2) for details

Interestingly, Hollie Greig´s complaints of abuse were NEVER taken seriously and NEVER investigated. In a report written by the police they admitted that at no time were the accused interviewed. This meant their homes were not searched, their computers were not analyzed and DNA was not taken. Shockingly, this was admitted in the Police Complaints Report and also the CICA (Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority). This report can be seen on a video shown on this website at the bottom of the page. Hollie Demands Justice The only exception to this was Hollie´s father and brother who were interviewed. According to Robert Green an investigator investigating the case it took as long as two years of complaints from Hollie and her mother Anne, before the police finally decided to interview Hollie´s brother and her father.

So why were Hollie Greig´s reports of abuse ignored? Surely it is usual for complaints of this nature to be taken very seriously, especially where the welfare of vulnerable children may be at risk?

Amazingly, psychologist Ms Carolyn McQueen employed to write a report on Hollie for Shropshire County Council stated that Hollie´s claims of sexual abuse were unsubstantiated. This was very strange because if no interviews were carried out, then how could Ms McQueen be absolutely sure that Hollie Greig´s claims were unsubstantiated?

According to a website set up in order to support Hollie Greig, a medical examination revealed that it was clear that she had been sexually abused. The site states:

“Medical and other evidence supported Miss G´s account and Grampian Police accepted the truth of Miss G´s statement. Nonetheless, no action was taken by Grampian Police against the perpetrators and despite AG´s persistence, the Procurator Fiscal, now Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini prevented any police action taking place.” (2).

McQueen wrote the following in her report:

Last year HG named further individuals involved in the abuse in Scotland. Again no evidence was found on investigation.”

It was later discovered that Ms McQueen had been asked by Tanya Mills, team locality manager for people with learning disabilities in Shropshire social services (where Hollie and her mother now lived) to review the case and make an assessment of the psychological impact of the current situation on Hollie Greig. This was because she was a vulnerable adult.

Mr Green stated on his website that McQueen was not the only professional to be asked to write a report on Anne and Hollie Greig, Helen Ogilvy, an independent social worker originally employed to help Anne get direct payments as a full-time carer for Hollie was also asked to write a report.(3)

Now to most of us, common sense would tell us that the only way that any professional could assess the mental health and capabilities of a patient, especially a vulnerable adult, would be to get to know them and assess them through many hours of study and observations. Hollie Grieg was after all a young disabled adult who had been abused continually throughout much of her young life by members of what was now appearing to be an organized pedophile ring. However, according to Robert Green neither woman had interviewed Hollie. Ms McQueen certainly made it abundantly clear that she had not assessed them either because she wrote:

“There are obvious constraints on undertaking a psychological assessment on an individual without being able to assess them directly. For example all data is historical and hence an opinion on their immediate presentation is not possible. However, drawing together information from case files and professionals who have knowledge of HG can be given of the possible effects on HG of her present situation, which can be investigated further if deemed necessary.”

The above paragraph from Ms McQueen´s report makes it quite clear that Ms McQueen had not examined or assessed Hollie or Anne at any time and yet she was able to make huge assumptions on the mental health of both these women.

As no action was clearly being taken by the authorities or the police to protect Hollie Greig, a vulnerable and disabled adult, from these people, Robert Green, decided that if those in authority would not do anything to protect Hollie then he would help Hollie to get the justice that she deserved by publicizing her case. She traveled with Mr Green to a conference of around 400 people in Bristol to listen to Robert  about her  abuse and also the ‘so called’ enquiries that had followed. All details of this meeting and all information surrounding this case has been widely publicized on an internet site set up to support and get justice for this family. (2)

Much of McQueen´s report clearly focuses on the fact that Anne and Hollie Greig had given evidence regarding the abuse of Hollie in public. At no time did she mention the fact that this action only took place after it became clear that no legal action was going to take place to put the perpetrators behind bars. Mr Green told me that the only reason that he decided to take this drastic step was to bring Hollie´s abusers to justice and to stop these dreadful practices continuing against others, including adults with learning difficulties.

Green said:

“Anne and Hollie knew that they did not stand a chance and therefore in order to get justice and expose the criminals as well as those who were protecting them they decided to speak about their actions publicly. He said that Hollie was very angry and wanted people to know her story.”

 

With Robert´s help this was achieved. However as a result the authorities came after Hollie and Anne to silence them even though they were the victims.”

Without ever meeting the family, McQueen was able to refer to Anne as ‘vulnerable’ and suffering from mental health problems, even labeling her as ‘paranoid’ in support of an application by Shropshire Council for the Court to consider Hollie Greig´s residence. McQueen indicated that Hollie had become reliant on her mother and that she needed to become an independent person. In other words McQueen appeared to be labeling a woman that she had never met ‘mentally ill’ in order to aid the removal of Hollie from her care.

McQueen wrote:

“Ideally the way forward is to work with AG and H.G to help resolve the trauma they have experienced and decrease the separation anxiety and allow them both to build more to begin to build more independent lives in the community.”

The content of McQueen´s report was so strong in fact that it was used as part of the evidence provided to aid bringing a court case against Anne Grieg, Robert Green and others in a bid to prevent Hollie from attending campaign meetings etc, whereby her medical records (sexual abuse) were to be spoken about in public. This was despite Hollie Greig (an adult in the eyes of the law) making her feelings very clear that she wanted to attend these meetings and speak out against her abusers.

Green told me that he was certain that the report was written in a bid to separate Anne from her daughter and to silence them both. He said that Anne believed that this was to protect the abusers.

In fact Mr Green felt so strongly about McQueen writing such a damning report about Anne and Hollie, without ever meeting either of them, that he wrote to the HPC reporting her as being unfit to practice. However, like thousands of other cases being reported to governing bodies against professionals using this method as evidence in court cases, hearings and child protection, her complaint fell on deaf ears. The HPC wrote this in a letter Robert Green as the final result:

Decision

The decision of the Committee is that there is no case to answer. Accordingly, no further action will be taken by the HPC in respect of the allegation(s).

This was exactly the same decision made in the case of Lisa Blakemore-Brown when she complained about the psychiatrist in her case.

The same outcome has also been reported involving doctors employed by ATOS, an organization that employ medical assessors to make decisions on disability allowances and payouts to victims of adverse reactions to vaccines.

Jonathan R Shaw (Minister of State (Disabled People), Regional Affairs; Chatham and Aylesford, Labour) says:

“The approved health care professionals’ (HCPs) role is to carry out an assessment of the functional effects of the customer’s disabling condition, and to utilize the information gathered to provide the decision maker with an impartial and independent assessment.

Atos doctors must be fully registered with the General Medical Council without current or previous restrictions, conditions or warnings and hold a license to practice from the date the GMC issues licenses. In addition they must have at least three years post full registration (GMC or EFA European Economic Area equivalent) experience as a minimum. Alternatively for non EU graduates three years post full registration experience in the doctors native country is required. In individual cases, solely at the discretion of the CMA, the requirements that no conditions or warnings be attached to registration and that the doctor must have a minimum of three years post registration experience, may be waived.” (4)

Despite the above however, in the first 6 months of this year 39 cases were brought to the attention of ATOS and 26 GMC registered docs were reported to the GMC in connection with their employment. None of these cases progressed to a Fitness to Practice Hearing.
The above information was gained after submitting a letter to the Freedom of Information request. The FOI request states:

“Please note that these 39 enquiries include some in which the word ´ATOS´ is mentioned but where the actions of ATOS or that of doctors employed by ATOS is incidental to the primary complaint. By interrogating our case management further in respect of these complaints, I have therefore determined that of the 39 enquiries identified above 26 specifically relate to complaints made against GMC registered doctors as a direct result of their employment with ATOS. None of these enquiries have proceeded to Fitness to Practice Panel hearing.”

I have been told by one mother that she knows of many parents complaining about doctors employed by ATOS who have written reports on their children without ever meeting them.

This is borne out by a posting on a Mental Health Forum. (5)

Contributor said:

Quote contributors own spelling

“hi
i am struggling under pressure hugely at the moment. i have been suffering from severe depression and anxiety for over 6 years and am under the cmht with a care co ordinator and support worker. i also suffer from alcoholism and am currently 3 months clean. i went to the esa assessment and failed. i scored 0 points despite suffering from severe anxiety stuttering and being alcohol dependent. i am not able to leave the house unless i go out with someone i attend support groups through two different mental health depts, one a day hospital and one a support centre. i drive there but i know there is going to be a support worker at the other end when i arrive. Despite all this they scored me 0. i then appealed, i sent in letters of support from my psychiatrist my key worker from the day hospital and a letter from my care coordinator. Despite all this a person who had never met me decided they agreed with the first decision and said i was fit for work.”

For those who are unsure of what an ESA assessment is, mentioned in the above comment, the ESA or Employment Support Allowance is a new benefit replacing the former Incapacity Benefit.

On another blog (6) a poster wrote:

“There´s thousands upon thousands of adverse opinions regarding ATOS on dozens of blogs and forums, Thousands of vitriolic comments denouncing ATOS as corrupt, accusing them of fabricating medical reports on behalf of the DWP.

Another poster says:

“A desensitized version of my disturbing and damning research report appears on my website and you´ll see how bad it gets once you´ve accessed 9 months of research following a home visit by an AH doctor who produced a bogus report, claiming to have examined me when no examination had taken place. I think the penny has finally dropped with Atos that this is against the law and a breach of medical ethics, and the young man concerned is being investigated now by the GMC. All medicals by Atos have NO public accountability according to both the GMC & Healthcare”

Finally, I am going to mention one more organization using professionals paid to write very detailed reports on clients that they never meet. This organization is called the VDPU or Vaccine Damage Payments Unit. The VDPU was set up to assess individuals claiming that they have been adversely affected by a vaccine recommended by the UK government.

The VDPU use assessors to assess the claims of any individual who believes that they have been vaccine damaged. Wendy Stephen is the mother of Katie Stephen. Katie became seriously ill and was left profoundly deaf in one ear after being given the Pluserix vaccine, an MMR vaccine now banned in the UK. Mrs. Stephen said:

“Katie has applied and been refused by the VDPU for compensation in total 4 times. She has been advised that her claim has been assessed/re-examined a total of 5 times by /healthcare practitioners/medical advisers. We have had no communication at all with these individuals, have never been provided with a copy of the actual reports compiled by the medical advisers for the VDPU and at no time has Katie been interviewed or examined in person. We have no details at all re the individuals who have carried out the assessments. We don’t know if it’s been the same individual throughout or if a different individual has been involved at each referral. We are aware of the one time when the VDPU specifically advised us that they were intending to have her claim reassessed with by a “different” healthcare provider, other than that we have no information whatsoever.”

Today we learned yet another appeal failed to get the financial entitlement that this young woman is owed. Once again the decision was decided on a fraudulent report submitted by a VDPU assessor that has never met, examined or interviewed this young lady.

It is about time that professionals who write bogus reports on people that they have never met were held accountable. According to evidence I have found many of these professionals are paid as much as £2000 plus for their reports. This is taking money by deception and is therefore fraudulent. These reports are being presented to courts as genuine and affect the lives of real people. The victims of these fraudulent reports often lose their careers, children and money owed to them as a consequence. The actions of these professionals is despicable and the sooner this practice is stamped out the better. These reports have the power to diagnose mental illness and degree of disability. They have the power to decide those entitled to benefits and whether children should be taken away from their families and put in care or placed for adoption. It is vital that this practice is ended and it be made illegal for professionals to write a report on someone they have not met or assessed. False statements can lead to false imprisonment and those who entitled to benefits to go hungry.

References

1. The truth of what lay behind the attempted assassination of Lisa Blakemore-Brown´s career

2. Hollie Demands Justice website

3. Robert Green´s blog

4. Jonathon A Shaw

5. Mental Health Forum

6. Margaret McCartney´s blog a forum for healthcare policy

The truth of what lay behind the attempted assassination of Lisa Blakemore-Brown’s career.


by

Christina England

I recently wrote an article explaining in depth events leading up to the attempted professional assassination of the talented and dedicated psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown. (1) What lay behind these deliberate acts of sabotage until now has remained a mystery. I believe that I now have enough evidence to expose the truth.

In my opinion the British Psychological Society (BPS) acted in a way that was corrupt, criminal and deliberate. I believe that their aim was to deliberately sabotage the career of Ms Blakemore-Brown in a way that would discredit anything that she had ever said.

I was a witness for Lisa Blakemore-Brown at her final BPS hearing and I more than anyone have true insight to what went on behind the closed doors in 2006.

The hearing was based on a complaint that had been sent in to the BPS concerning Ms Blakemore-Brown’s professionalism from a parent heavily involved with ADDIS, a support group for children suffering from ADHD. It later emerged that ADDIS was being heavily funded by Eli Lilly who first put the preservative thimerosal into vaccines.

A second complaint was then submitted by activist Penny Mellor who claimed that she believed that Ms Blakemore-Brown was suffering from paranoia. This complaint was submitted sometime after the original complaint.

Ms Blakemore-Brown found herself facing a string of complaints after she began speaking out about parents being falsely accused of Munchausen by Proxy and Shaken Baby Syndrome. She felt that many parents were being falsely accused after their child had suffered an adverse reaction to a vaccine

The case against Blakemore-Brown hinged on the fact that she had submitted what the BPS claimed to be irrelevant information and data as part of her evidence. The data related to vaccines, Dr David Southall, Prof Roy Meadow, the third world, Munchausen by proxy allegations and cot deaths.  It was inferred that the information had little to do with her case and that it was irrational for Blakemore-Brown to include this in her evidence. It later emerged however, that this information was asked for during a telephone conversation between Ms Blakemore-Brown and the BPS. According to Ms Blakemore-Brown the BPS had requested this information after showing a distinct interest in her research and studies.

The phone call was eventually acknowledged by the BPS but true to form the BPS had conveniently forgotten to log the call thus making the material sent in by Ms Blakemore-Brown appear irrelevant and irrational.

As the case continued other inconsistencies emerged. These included evidence from a previous case that had somehow been put into her file by ‘mistake’ and emails that had never been sent and were clearly forgeries.

During the evidence provided another interesting fact emerged, this was that no one had bothered to tell Ms Blakemore-Brown that she was not going to be looked at for professional misconduct as originally stated but that the case had been changed during the course of the investigation to ‘Fitness to Practice’. Due to this ‘oversight’, it became clear that Ms Blakemore-Brown had actually been led by the BPS to send in irrelevant material demonstrating her work on Autism and her in depth research on vaccines, evidence on Dr D Southall and Prof Roy Meadow to prove her case as a competent psychologist.

On reading the transcripts (2) relating to the case that suddenly appeared on the internet without the knowledge or permission of Ms Blakemore-Brown it is easy for interested parties to see the tone of the hearing in general.

The transcripts largely surround the so called ‘disjointed’ evidence sent in by Ms Blakemore-Brown which Dr Trevor Friedman a psychiatrist for the BPS saw as evidence of her paranoia. This psychiatrist not only worked for the BPS but also the GMC and his research was funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr Freidman stated that he had not examined Ms Blakemore-Brown because she had refused to be examined however, it soon emerged that her ‘so called’ refusal came only after legal advice.

I believe that the BPS colluded with Dr Friedman in order to prove that Ms Blakemore-Brown was suffering from ‘paranoia’ based on evidence and documentation that Ms Blakemore-Brown had been tricked into submitting as part of her evidence.

I believe that Ms Blakemore-Brown was asked to send this information in by the BPS originally because it was relevant to her capabilities as a psychologist. It was only after reading the material that the BPS began to realize that what Ms Blakemore-Brown had discovered could prove very dangerous to the UK vaccination programme. I believe that it was at the point that Ms Mellor was brought in to make a complaint of paranoia to disprove her theory and discredit what she had been saying. It has always seemed odd to me that Ms Mellor’s complaint began with the words “Dear Claire – As promised complaint in writing” I know this to be the case as I was a witness for Ms Blakemore-Brown surrounding the evidence of Ms Mellor who has since been named as a serial complainer..

 

 I will now endeavor to explain why I believe this to be the case.

I can now prove just how relevant the paperwork that Ms Blakemore-Brown had sent to the BPS really was and how it was the paperwork that led them to not only change her case to fitness to practice but to take the course they did.

Lisa Blakemore-Brown was and still is an independent applied psychologist specialising in ADHD, Asperger Syndrome and related disorders. Her research focuses on early intensive system intervention and the increasing professional recognition of the interweaving of ADHD, Asperger Syndrome and related disorders which she calls ‘Tapestry Disorders’ because of the way the disorders interweave to build a unique picture of each individual child.

Blakemore-Brown has always believed that parents come under attack and are blamed, if they dare to question doctors, particularly if they believe that their child has become ill after a vaccination. She has spoken worldwide on the subject since 1996 and was the first ever professional to link autism, MSBP and adverse reactions to vaccines.

Blakemore-Brown first became involved with parents she believed to be falsely accused of MSBP back in 1996. This was after she was introduced to and asked to assess twin girls whose mother had been accused of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. The paediatrician and expert leading the case was the since discredited Professor David Southall.

After spending many hours researching the twin’s background and studying the vast quantity of medical records ascertaining to the case, Ms Blakemore-Brown soon discovered that they had been born prematurely, at just 26 weeks and were severely disabled.  Against all odds, the twins had managed to survive, even after they both suffered multiple complications which included brain haemorrhages.

Ms Blakemore-Brown diagnosed the twins with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and ADHD saying that they were, in fact, very disabled little girls,

Professor Southall and social services disagreed, stating that the twins were normal. Professor Southall later admitted on television in a TV3 20/20 New Zealand documentary called “Lies lies and Diagnoses’, a film that never saw the light of day in the UK surrounding the case, that he had no expertise in psychology or indeed the condition ADHD.

This being the case then why did he go against Ms Blakemore-Brown’s expert opinion when in fact he knew nothing whatsoever about psychology or the condition ADHD?

The case went to court and despite the evidence supplied by Ms Blakemore-Brown the twin’s mother lost all four of her children to the care of social services.

This case and others urged Blakemore-Brown to speak out about her concerns, especially after she had noticed a steady increase of accusations of MSBP involving parents with autistic children who were claiming that their children’s symptoms began after routine childhood vaccinations.

Over the years Ms Blakemore-Brown had become increasingly worried that Dr David Southall was heavily linked to not only cot death studies but also the testing of vaccines on vulnerable children. Blakemore-Brown also believed that Prof Roy Meadow was using MSBP and SBS to falsely accuse parents of child abuse particularly after a vaccine injury had occurred.

I believe the key reason behind the attempts to destroy Ms Blakemore-Brown is that she believed both Dr Southall and Prof Meadow were using false accusations of Munchausen by Proxy or MSBP to cover up children being damaged by vaccination and was not afraid to say so.

I now aim to prove that she has been right all along.

1. In 1987 Dr David Southall wrote a paper with V Stebbens and E. A  Shinebourne, entitled ‘Sudden and unexpected death between 1 and 5 years’. Prof Southall recorded 5 cases of sudden infant death that gave the children’s full vaccine status. (3)

Two of these children died very shortly after routine childhood vaccines. All 5 children were being monitored in a large, population based, nonintervention study into the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). It was noted that 3 of the 5 children suffered a cyanotic episode. These attacks are sometimes described as breath holding, apnea or breathing difficulties.

In this particular paper Southall described the full case history of each child who died and in each case he mentioned their vaccine status before their fatal attack.

2. In another paper entitled ‘Blue breath holding is benign.’ by J B P Stephenson, (4) Stephenson describes a paper written by Southall entitled ‘Recurrent cyan otic episodes with severe arterial hypox aemia and intrapulmonary shunting: a mechanism for sudden death.’ Arch Dis Child 1990;65:953-61.

Stephenson says that he spoke to Southall at a SIDS meeting about his work.

He wrote:

“During a recent scientific meeting (Scottish Cot Death Trust SIDS Research meeting, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, 28 November 1990) Dr David Southall agreed that the patients he was talking about had identical cyanotic episodes to those which I had recorded on videotape.

This videotape was of two typical breath holding spells in a 15 month old girl as illustrated in the figure. To make this meaningful to the clinical reader, the history is briefly summarized:

Breath holding spells began aged 7 months, five days after diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus immunization.”

Stephenson then went on to describe the child’s attack to Southall.

Of course Southall may have been simply agreeing to the type of symptoms seen in Stephenson’s patient but was he also agreeing to the fact that this child began symptoms after the vaccines?

This proves that Southall knew the dangers that vaccines posed to some children.

Another interesting and relevant point is this-

3. Southall’s paper ‘Sudden and unexpected death between 1 and 5 years’ written by Prof Southall, Stebbens and Shinebourne was written the same year as Prof Roy Meadow also an expert witness in MSBP attended meetings with the Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation at the Department of Health. (5)

These meetings were discussing adverse reactions and cot death after the DTP and at the introduction of the MMR.

This proves that both of these men were studying adverse reactions at the same time.

They are now key figures in the false accusations of many parents with vaccine damaged infants.

Both men were involved in the Sally Clark case where the child died shortly after a vaccine and where two prosecution witnesses, including the pediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow assured the jury that vaccines could be discounted. Their statements went unchallenged, and the issue did not form any part of the appeal hearings. (6)

4, Lisa Blakemore-Brown recently wrote:

 

When a parent has suffered a cot death, cases are referred to the FSID (Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths) and the next baby is placed on what is called the CONI scheme – Care of the Next Infant. The scheme funds research and many other initiatives. Apnea monitors are given to parents, and health visitors monitor weight and other progress. Dr David Southall has always had a close involvement with the FSID and those within it.”

 

She asked – Were vaccine trials woven into the research funded by FSID, especially if the first cot death followed a vaccine?

Lisa Blakemore-Brown - A Very Disingenuous Doctor and a Very Large Elephant (7)

I believe I have the answer to many of the questions that Ms Blakemore-Brown has asked in her article regarding PACA, the third world and vaccines.

It is clear that Dr Southall did not accept vaccines as the possible cause of death in Sally Clark’s children; however, he knew only to well that vaccines could lead to breathing difficulties and death as did Prof Meadows.

5. Prof David Southall was struck off the medical register by the GMC in 2007.

6.Despite being struck off for second time however, Dr Southall won his appeal in 2010.

7. Dr David Southall is also heavily linked to UNICEF. Details of the links between the organizations can be found in a manual for health workers called ‘Child Friendly Healthcare’. (8)

The manual says:

The Initiative his been funded by the Community Fund (National Lotteries Board, UK) and is implemented by Child Advocacy International with the technical support of the Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development of the World Health Organisation (WHO), the support of the Royal College of Nursing (UK) and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (UK), and in collaboration with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

 

The manual also states:-

“Dr. David Southall OBE MBBS MD FRCPCH

David Southall is honorary medical director of Childhealth Advocacy International. He is the chair of the working party for CFHI (Child Friendly Healthcare Initiative). His main interests are the safe and effective management of emergencies in pregnancy, infancy and childhood. He has published many papers concerning the protection of children from abuse and is active in developing child protection systems for poorly resourced countries. He is particularly worried about the concept of suffering and how little attention is drawn to this in current international programs for mothers and children. He is also active in developing palliative care systems for disadvantaged countries. He has directed the development”

8. Between 1993 and 1995 Southall was consultant health advisor to UNICEF in the former Yugoslavia. In 1995 he was involved in the setting up of a charity, ‘Child Advocacy International’, which is involved in international child health issues. (9)

Does this mean that Dr Southall was actually employed by UNICEF? If so, then as an employee this would mean that he would be on their payroll.

Interestingly this was just two years after the DPT was changed to the DTaP due to the vast numbers of adverse reactions which included seizures and cot death.

9. In 1992 the MMR vaccine Pluserix was discontinued in the UK due to adverse reactions. (10)

According to Dr Andrew Wakefield in an interview he recently gave after they banned the MMR in the UK they then shipped supplies of this vaccine to the third world. (11)

This was a vaccine that had been banned in Canada, Australia and Japan and yet it was still sent to the third world.

Was it also possible that the old DPT vaccines were also sent to the third world?

It is clear from the document Parliamentary Debates (12) at the time that Professor Southall was working for UNICEF in Yugoslavia that money was given to UNICEF specifically for vaccination programme because the document states:

 

In April 1993 £100,000 was given to UNICEF health, nutrition and water project as part of Operation LIFELINE Sudan (OLS). In December 1993 a further £95,000 was disbursed to UNICEF for a primary health care and vaccination programme for refugee children in the former Yugoslavia (13)

In fact I found many papers referring to vaccines, cooling equipment and vaccination programmes in Yugoslavia around this time. I even found one referring to the training of physicians.

UNICEF unite for children

The Ten Difficult Years says

“What was done for children in Croatia?

a) Health
Projects for the protection of children’s health ranged from vaccination (where UNICEF, through the Institute of Public Health, secured sufficient quantities of vaccines for children and the necessary cooling equipment for the storage and distribution of vaccines) to training of physicians, medical staff and parents (e.g. on respiratory diseases in children, the consequences of not enough iodine in the diet, oral rehydration, the advantages of breastfeeding, etc.), health education materials for children and young people, and aid in equipping hospital wards and out-patient clinics and setting up a system for monitoring children’s health.” (14)

I am sure as the consultant health advisor at this time these programmes would have been implemented by Dr Southall.

UNICEF has always been at the forefront of vaccination programmes in the third world. This is borne out by the latest UNICEF initiative which is giving newborn babies in third world countries a tetanus vaccine.

Some of these babies are weak and sickly through poor sanitation, malnutrition and filth. Flies buzz round as they lay sick and dying.

Many of them are suffering from severe diarrhea. Are vaccines really the first line of help these babies need? Wouldn’t better sanitation, good nutrition, vitamins and clean drinking water be better a better use of resources, as these babies first line of defense against disease? Perhaps, but UNICEF choose instead vaccines to combat their diseases.

10. UNICEF is openly seen conning the innocent public into buying Pampers nappies. UNICEF is giving vaccinations known to cause devastating side-effects to sick vulnerable babies in the third world. (15)

Even worse still UNICEF have linked up with Pampers (16) nappies/diapers in a campaign called UNICEF and Pampers Gift for Life Campaign 1 pack = 1 vaccine For every pack of Pampers bought 1 tetanus vaccine will be sent to the third world. UNICEF is advertising through heart wrenching adverts showing western mothers happily nursing happy healthy babies in a range of languages around the world shown on television.

We have constant adverts on the TV showing newborn babies being put into the arms of mothers from around the world. The song Happy Birthday rings in our ears whilst the message ‘Together we can eliminate newborn tetanus, One pack = I vaccine.’ (16)

All this proves to me that Lisa Blakemore-Brown career has been deliberately sabotaged in a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth. Blakemore-Brown has been made a scapegoat of and her career sabotaged as a warning to others. Justice needs to be done.

This has been written to expose the real truth surrounding Lisa Blakemore-Brown’s case in the hope that it will help her and in turn help the parents that she believes in and supports.

Thank you especially to Dr Viera Scheibner for leading me to the Cot Death studies where Dr Southall had spoken about children’s vaccination status.

Research used

1. http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/the-professional-assassination-of-autism-expert-lisa-blakemore-brown/

2. Transcripts http://www.furiousseasons.com/documents/blakemore.pdf

3. David Southall, V Stebbens and E. A  Shinebourne, ‘Sudden and unexpected death between 1 and 5 years’

http://adc.highwire.org/content/62/7/700.abstract

 

4. Blue Breath Holding Is Benign by J. B. Stephenson http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1792842/pdf/archdisch00653-0093.pdf

5. Meadow Meetings http://www.profitableharm.com/sir_roy_medows_meetings_1.html

6. Article on Sally Clark http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/30630/what-killed-sally-clarks-child.thtml

7. Lisa Blakemore-Brown - A Very Disingenuous Doctor and a Very Large Elephant http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/A%20Very%20Disingenuous%20Doctor%20and%20a%20Very%20Large%20Elephant.pdf

8. Child Friendly Healthcare Manual

http://www.cfhiuk.org/publications/cfhi_manual/cfhi_manual.pdf

9. Between 1993 and 1995 Southall was consultant health advisor to UNICEF in the former Yugoslavia http://www.chre.org.uk/_img/pics/library/050414_Southall_Judgment.pdf

10. Pluserix information http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr15.html

11. See Part 6 Wakefield film http://www.whale.to/a/dr_andrew_wakefield.html

12. MMR timeline http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr_timeline.html

13. Historical debates

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0443/D.0443.199406010031.html

14. UNICEF for children http://www.unicef.hr/show.jsp?page=178726

15. UNICEF and Pampers http://www.pampers.co.uk/en_GB/Unicef

16. Pampers ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdpK0EPplIA

20/20 Documentary

David Southall speaking on the 20/20 documentary http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b17_1184619566

Lisa Blakemore-Brown speaking on the 20/20 documentary  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6e1_1189099834

The Professional Assassination Of Autism Expert Lisa Blakemore-Brown

Author:

Christina England

Dec. 29, 2010

The story of what happened to the UK professional Lisa Blakemore-Brown when she voiced her concerns about vaccines, has all the intrigue and drama associated with an Agatha Christie crime novel. The sad reality is that this has not been written as a work of fiction but to expose the horrific facts surrounding her case and the efforts made to cover up vaccine damage in children.

Her case began when a number of unsubstantiated complaints arrived at the offices of the British Psychological Society attacking the professionalism of the leading educational psychologist and expert in autism Ms. Lisa Blakemore-Brown. Instead of backing their psychologist as one would expect, the BPS backed the complainants and accused Ms Blakemore-Brown of being paranoid. On each occasion she won her case, one complaint turning out to be based on a forged document and the final complaint being lodged by a support group heavily funded by a drugs company.  Despite her spectacular wins however, she not only lost her home but she has had her career totally sabotaged.

I have always been shocked and frankly appalled that Ms Blakemore-Brown’s case has not been written about in full. There was no media coverage of her case and no articles of support before it. There were no protests outside the gates of the BPS for her as she struggled to cope with the pressure and no evidence of support from the families that she had so gallantly fought for.

Paranoia of course, as we know, is an ugly word along as with an accusation of paranoia comes stigma, prejudice and discrimination. In fact, this wonderfully talented and gifted professional was being treated in exactly the same way as the many families she had helped over the years who had been falsely accused of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (a diagnosis given to a mother or care giver to describe aspects of their behaviour. This behaviour usually includes subjecting what appears to be a previously healthy child to unnecessary and often painful tests or medical interventions i.e.: scans, x-rays and even surgical procedures to gain attention from the medical profession) This leads us to question whether this was why the BPS turned what should have been a simple ‘conduct case’ into a ‘fitness to practise’ hearing, carried out behind closed doors with accusations of paranoia and an enforced psychiatric assessment. Common sense tells us that any professional that is deemed paranoid by their governing body automatically has their past work professionally discredited. I personally believe that this was what was aimed for in this case.

Two professionals did write in support of Ms Blakemore-Brown to the BPS. These were Earl Frederick Howe – House of Lords and Dr Michael Innis, who both viewed Ms Blakemore-Brown as a professional of integrity and gave very high accounts of her excellent work.

I am honoured that I have been given the opportunity to write about the case of Lisa Blakemore-Brown, which is one that shows monumental injustice. Her case was instigated, in my opinion, by financially motivated pharmaceutical companies, corrupt governments and a failing system. I hope in writing this I can begin to expose the real truth of what can happen to a professional who speaks out against vaccines and their dangers.

Lisa Blakemore-Brown is an independent applied psychologist specialising in ADHD, Asperger Syndrome and related disorders. Her research focuses on early intensive system intervention and the increasing professional recognition of the interweaving of ADHD, Asperger Syndrome and related disorders. For this interweaving of disorders she uses her own metaphor ‘Tapestry Disorders’.

In 1996, Ms Blakemore-Brown was introduced to and asked to assess twin girls whose mother had been accused of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP).The paediatrician and expert leading the case at the time was the since discredited Professor David Southall.

After spending many hours researching the twin’s background and studying the vast quantity of medical records ascertaining to the case, Ms Blakemore-Brown discovered that these two little girls had been born prematurely, at just 26 weeks and were severely disabled.  Against all odds, the twins managed to survive, even after they both suffered multiple complications which included brain haemorrhages. Ms Blakemore-Brown diagnosed the twins with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and ADHD saying that they were, in fact, very disabled little girls, Professor Southall and social services disagreed, stating that these little girls were normal. Professor Southall later admitted on a television documentary surrounding the case, that he had no expertise in psychology or indeed the condition ADHD. Why did he go against Ms Blakemore-Brown’s expert opinion when in fact he knew nothing whatsoever about psychology or the condition  ADHD?

Ms Blakemore-Brown spoke about the case more recently at the Convention of Modern Liberty and said:

Back in 1996 I was an Expert Witness in a Court case involving autistic spectrum hyperactive identical twin girls who had been born at 26 weeks gestation in 1984. The behaviour of the twins, one in particular, was so difficult for the mother to manage especially with two other younger children, that she threatened to sue the authorities if they had missed the nature of the twins’ problem. This triggered an allegation of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP) – that she was fabricating or inducing the children’s behaviours/illnesses. What became clear to me was that Social workers, the Court and other professionals were being groomed by perverted logic to see real disorders and symptoms of real illness as child abuse.”

In 1996, the case went to court and despite Ms Blakemore-Brown’s evidence, the twin’s mother lost all four of her children to the care of social services.

It was around this time that Ms Blakemore-Brown began to have serious concerns about other cases involving autistic children she was assessing. Many of these were where the parents had also been accused of MSBP particularly she noticed after the parents had claimed that their children’s problems only began after a vaccine had been administered. In 1997, she wrote about her concerns in a letter that was published by the BPS in the magazine the Psychologist http://www.profitableharm.com/psychologist_letter.html .

In June 1998 an article appeared in  also written The Therapist by Ms Blakemore-Brown; this was a year after Sir Roy Meadow (a British paediatrician who had risen to initial fame for his 1977 academic paper on MSBP and his crusade against parents who wilfully harm or kill their children and also famous for endorsing “one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, until proved otherwise“ now known as Meadow’s Law) had himself written an article for The Therapist. Ms Blakemore-Brown says that the Editor of The Therapist had contacted her after reading her letter in the Psychologist, asking her if she would write an article showing the opposite view, to start a debate.

In her article which she entitled False illness in children – or simply false accusations , she described a tragic case that she had been involved with involving a child that had developed a dangerously high fever, immediately after routine vaccinations. Shortly thereafter, he began to bang his head, soil and lost all his language. After many investigations, the child was diagnosed as having Asperger’s Syndrome. The mother began to suspect that the vaccinations were the root of the child’s problems and decided not to have her other children vaccinated. As time went on, she became desperate for help and turned to the social services, begging them for respite care because she was finding her elder son difficult to manage. Instead of the help this mother so badly needed, she was accused of MSBP and her children were taken away from her.

In foster care, the youngest child, a little girl, was vaccinated against the wishes of her mother. Instantaneously and tragically, her behaviour deteriorated the same way as her brother’s had, only this time the foster carer had video tapes of before and after vaccinations to prove this. Despite this evidence, both of the younger children were adopted. Ms Blakemore-Brown wrote:-

I have now seen details of many cases where children were wrongly taken from their families”.

In 1999, Ms Blakemore-Brown gave evidence in the Griffiths Inquiry. This inquiry was looking into the alleged malpractice of Professor David Southall.

When the Griffiths Report came out, Ms. Blakemore-Brown was named as a professional who had given evidence in relation to the mistaken thinking and logging of evidence of cases involving MSBP. The Griffiths Report included a paragraph on the concerpt of Munchausen’s Syundrome by Poxy (‘MSBP’) and its potential for errors of judgement. This led Ms. Blakemore-Brown to be conversant with the evolution of the MSBP guidelines.

Shortly after and with Ms. Blakemore-Brown fighting breast cancer, she went to New Zealand to give evidence in a case involving the mother of the twins, who had by this time fled to NZ to start a new life. Whilst away, Ms. Blakemore-Brown had her home burgled by a mother accused of MSBP, who had told Ms. Blakemore-Brown that she was suffering terminal cancer. Consequently, Ms. Blakemore-Brown had allowed her to stay in her home with her children to give them a holiday as her home was by the sea. Ms. Blakemore-Brown said that she could help care for her elderly dog and answer her phone. Ms. Blakemore-Brown soon discovered that this was in fact an elaborate hoax, as when she came home she found that her papers on the Griffiths Inquiry had been stolen and her home had in fact been ransacked. She then had a call from a professional she knew in the North, who was claiming that this woman had arrived in their offices and spent the whole day in what can onloy be described as sabotaging Ms. Blakemore-Brown’s reputation. This was the very day she had said to Ms. Blakemore-Brown that she was supposed to be having possible life saving surgery.

Despite this, Ms Blakemore-Brown continued to speak out about her fears of vaccine damage and in particular, the use of Thimerosal in vaccines and the overuse of the label MSBP to blame parents for their children’s disabilities. Ms Blakemore-Brown attributed this overuse to the work of Professor David Southall and Professor Roy Meadow.

During this time, she complained to both the General Medical Council and the Department of Health, asking for a public health inquiry. She was ignored. In fact Ms Blakemore-Brown wrote several times to the Government, even sending a letter to Jackie Smith, the then Health Secretary, demanding that action be taken. Jackie Smith returned this with a curt reply, saying that her fears had been documented.

In 2000, Ms Blakemore-Brown launched her book Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry in which she featured the case of a child she called Lorelei (name was changed to protect identity). This was a child who had reacted to the pertussis vaccine and in this case, the hospital had noted it in her medical records. The little girl went on to develop Kawasaki Syndrome, (KS is characterized by fever, rash, swelling of the hands and feet, irritation and redness of the whites of the eyes, swollen lymph glands in the neck, and irritation and inflammation of the mouth, lips, and throat) which has been attributed to vaccine damage by many renowned professionals including Dr Michael Innis. The consultant Gillian Baird referred the child to Ms Blakemore-Brown to be assessed because the child had also developed Asperger’s Syndrome.

Ms Blakemore-Brown later wrote about the case in a letter to the British Medical Journal rapid response on the Internet. The BMJ wrote to the parents to check that the information was correct and then published the letter saying that the information was correct.

At this time, Thimerosal was being used in many childhood vaccines. Thimerosal was first put into vaccines by the drug company Eli Lilly. Ms Blakemore-Brown had mentioned in her book that vaccines were a possible cause of ‘Tapestry disorders’ in children.  At the back of the book Ms Blakemore-Brown had mentioned names of lawyers that dealt ‘with claims against manufactures on the basis that autism has been caused by mercury and in particular Thimerosal’. Of course looking back, if this had later been proven to be the case and Lorelei had reacted to the Thimerosal in the DPT vaccine, this would mean that Eli Lilly could be sued for billions of pounds by parents worldwide. Suddenly the book disappeared and parents desperate to have a copy were being told that this was an ‘extremely rare book‘. Was this an early indication that Ms Blakemore-Brown has inadvertently hit upon something that was very damaging not only to the pharmaceutical industry but also the UK government?

This does appear very odd indeed because just a few weeks before this book had been a best-seller on various Autism websites and was the number one best-seller on the Attention Deficit Disorder Information Service (ADDISS) website. This is what Ms Blakemore-Brown had to say in an article she later wrote:-

MMR, Mercury and the Mystery surrounding my book

“Tomorrow, the General Medical Council will start the case against Dr Andrew Wakefield and two other doctors who raised concerns about children they assessed in the nineties, very worried that the problems they found were linked to adverse reactions to the MMR vaccine.

As there has been an almighty reaction by the Pharmaceutical lobby, there has been NO public debate on exactly what has been going on.

In my book, Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry, having seen too many children with what I called ‘tapestry impairments’ many of which developed following the DTP and in fewer cases, the MMR, I suggested there may be a ‘tapestry’ causal effect with vaccines as one thread.

I mentioned Thimerosal and included some lawyer’s details here and in the US.

The launch of the book was at a CHADD conference in Anaheim California in October 2001. Eli Lilly were on the next stand and bought a copy of the book.

On my return to the UK, there was no contact from the publisher.

Within weeks of my book being published, parents were being told by Amazon that it was a ‘rare book’ and that it would take a year to get and would cost $79 plus post and packing!!!

There were none in the shops.

There were none in the warehouses of the retailers.

There were none in the distributors.

The UK National Autistic Society carry all the books on Autism – except mine.

Probably nothing to do with my concerns about the vaccine, a small part of the book incidentally, or about my concern about the use of the label Munchausen Syndrome by proxy when children were genuinely ill – many had suffered reactions to vaccines. The fact that during the time my editor was working on the book, he was invited to change jobs and work on the MSBP/Factitious Illness Guidelines at the RCPCH – Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, I am sure was total coincidence.

Guess I’m just paranoid when it comes to the things done by the powerful vaccine lobby and the need to protect the vaccine programme more than the public…

Prior to the documentary, My Family and Autism, being aired on the BBC, over a year after the trip to Anaheim in which I am seen undertaking an assessment, I was able to at least get the book made more accessible.

If just one person is allowed to speak about their concerns without being leapt on from a great height, I might have confidence that the vaccine programme is safe – but I think they have gone too far and protested too much.

We all now want to know WHY???”

The book issue was not the only strange thing to happen at this time. A series of strange things were beginning to happen; hate posts began to be posted on the Internet site Mothers against Munchausen Allegations (MAMA). This was highly unusual as the site was aimed at supporting mothers who found themselves falsely accused of MSBP. These posts referred to Ms Blakemore-Brown as being unprofessional and a danger to children, some even indicating that she was mad using phrasing such as ‘barking mad’ or ‘paranoid’. At around this time Ms Blakemore-Brown also began to get abusive emails, Ms Blakemore-Brown says that one in particular she remembers was from a Ms Penny Mellor, a campaigner and one of the main contributors to the MAMA board, according to Ms Blakemore-Brown this email was extremely hurtful stating in capitols UNDERSTAND THIS – YOU ARE IRRELEVANT’ then about Ms Blakemore-Brown’s book she had added ‘Tapestry? Weaving? More like basket case!!!!. Shortly after losing her home due to legal costs from the first hearing, Ms Blakemore-Brown managed at last to set up her dream unit, ‘The Tapestry Life Centre’, at the Brunel University in London to support and aid children with autism. This was to be one of the first of its kind but within days of the news of the Centre being made public, the MAMA website, became littered with posts containing the most dreadful slander and libel, sneering at her efforts and asking where the money came from.

Another strange event surrounded the documentary mentioned by Ms Blakemore-Brown in her piece above. Although Ms Blakemore-Brown was featured heavily in the original documentary which was filmed at the Brunel University in July 2003 when the film was made on that documentary starring Helena Bonham-Carter entitled ‘The Magnificent Seven’ Lisa Blakemore-Brown had been airbrushed out.

The BBC say that this was because it was impossible to show all aspects of the documentary and that the film was based on the family itself.

In 2004 Jamie Doward wrote a piece in the Observer entitled Ministers told child harm theory was flawed | UK news | The Observer This article heavily featured Blakemore-Brown and received front-page coverage. Just a month later, Ms Blakemore-Brown along with Charles Pragnell, Helen Hayward-Brown, Dr Kalokerinos and Dr Innis were asked to speak at a conference in Sydney Australia. The Sydney Conference was the first International conference to challenge the diagnoses of MSBP and SBS. The conference was heavily covered at the time by the world press but strangely enough, not here in the UK.  Blakemore-Brown in the same year gave a speech at House of Lords on MSBP which she called MSBP – A PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC TRAP

The speech was a huge success.

It was around this time that the second complaint had gone in to the BPS about Ms Blakemore-Brown.

Had Ms Blakemore-Brown become a public embarrassment to the government, and just who was behind the complaint?

In 2005, Blakemore-Brown was involved in the writing of the Consensus Paper, entitled Misdirection of Social Policy, a powerful document outlining faults in the system when looking at MSBP.

The Consensus document was written by a large group of professionals from various walks of life who saw a system was failing. It appeared that the result was that a large number of innocent parents were being accused of MSBP. These were parents with children who were sick or disabled that were being denied help. These professionals came together to discuss and draw up a document outlining what they saw going wrong and why. It was written for politicians and the government, to advise where the problems were seen to be and where changes may be made, for this reason it was not a Scientific document but a consensus of views. There are many instances where opinions are sought from service users and professionals.

The recommendations should have been discussed further to allow further development of policy. This was the logical way forward. The document had no named author. This was to protect the identities of all the professionals due to the fear of harassment. Sadly the Consensus document was heavily criticized by the media and certain campaign groups including the MAMA internet site, some of who never checked out the facts before voicing their opinions. Every opinion should count when there is a discussion of further improvements of policy. If the scientific community had reservations in accepting this document, they could have used it as a baseline to develop further larger studies containing a random group of cases. The recommendations could have been investigated further but it seems that the child protection specialists have so far failed to examine the issues to determine whether or not they can be implemented.

Specialists from the scientific community have mistaken it and compared the document to a scientific paper when it was simply a consensus of opinions and suggestions to be taken on board and perhaps examined in more detail.

The Consensus was written to effect change. This was a document to enable better guidelines and the changes suggested may have been implemented within government legislation. Recommendations were made and changes could have happened. The document was sadly shelved and gathers dust. The vast divide between child protection specialists and the parent population has caused a serious failure in communication. This in turn now results in falsely accused parents. Their real plight is often undermined or discarded. Various nefarious campaigning groups have overshadowed the true suffering of those who have been wrongly diagnosed. Perhaps this consensus document could be considered by the child protection specialists, government officials and those responsible for creating current policy. A proper robust policy should be developed to enable the protection of the child and the protection of the parent – equally.

Despite the Consensus document backing parents who had been falsely accused of MSBP and aiming to put new guidelines in place, the MAMA website appeared to once again sabotage Ms Blakemore-Brown’s efforts, siding instead with an article written in The Guardian by Jonathan Gornall entitled ‘No names, no proof, no consensus’ http://www.mensaid.com/msbp-fii/press-no_names_no_proof_no_consensus.htm that attacked the document because it had no named authors.

In March 2007, Ms. Blakemore-Brown was featured in the ‘Spectator’ in a piece entitled, What killed Sally Clark’s child? | The Spectator which explained a UK case involving a mother who had been jailed for three years after being accused of killing her baby, despite him dying just five hours after the DPT vaccine .In fact Sally lost not one but two of her children within hours after vaccines.

The article began:-

Sally Clark spent three and a half years in jail wrongly convicted of murdering two of her babies after a jury was assured there was no other explanation for their sudden deaths than that she had deliberately smothered them. Yet five hours before her second child, Harry, was found lifeless in his baby chair, he had been injected with a combined vaccine with a long history of serious adverse reactions.

Harry was eight weeks old, the regulation age for the first of three injections against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTP) and Hib (a bacterial infection that can cause meningitis). He was also given an oral polio vaccine. His biological age was five weeks, as he had been born three weeks premature. Because of the previous sudden death of his brother, Christopher, his breathing was being monitored. He was uncharacteristically dozy from the time of his jabs to the time he died.

Not many people know these facts, because at Sally’s trial the defence did not mention immunisation as a possible cause of death. Two prosecution witnesses, including the paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, assured the jury it could be discounted. Their statements went unchallenged, and the issue did not form any part of the appeal hearings. Professor Meadow, a former member of a Department of Health sub-committee on adverse reactions to vaccines, told the jury that he could not think of any natural explanation for Harry’s or Christopher’s deaths. ”

However, the expert witness in this case was Professor Sir Roy Meadow. Meadow, it has since been discovered sat on meetings discussing sudden infant deaths after the DPT vaccination years earlier when he say on the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunisation, an organisation that decides vaccine policy in the UK. He knew only to well the DPT vaccine could cause sudden infant deaths in some children. IN the Sally Clark case however, he told the jury that vaccinations were unlikely to be the cause of the children’s death. To read papers about those meetings Click Here

During all this time, strange events just continued to happen to Ms Blakemore-Brown including her computer being hacked, her phone being tapped and death threats. More and more despite her dedication and exceptional work on the MSBP/Vaccine issues she found her self pushed aside and cut out of any media or political coverage surrounding the issues. Blakemore-Brown explained about one of the strange occurrences in her article The Politics And Commerce Of Autism By Lisa – ***** THE POLITICS …

I was contacted by Judith Barnard and asked to speak at a conference looking at various matters pertaining to autism and they wanted me to speak on my concerns about MSBP. I agreed and this went ahead at Regents College in Regents Park London. I was also asked to meet with Judith Gould at the National Autistic Society to discuss matters. They apologised for not taking seriously my concerns in 1997, saying that they too now had a family being destroyed by a false allegation of MSBP and had finally seen what I had been trying to tell them some 5 years earlier. There was understandable deep concern about the Guidelines and the section I had picked out. Subsequently Judith Gould, Lorna Wing and Judith Barnard attended a meeting at the Department of Health.

They met Jacqui Smith and a civil servant, Jenny Gray. I was not invited to the meeting and from that time on, no one contacted me again from the NAS, well certainly not in a supportive manner. Something clearly happened at that meeting. My book, Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry: Autism, Asperger’s Syndrome and ADHD, is the only book on autism published by Jessica Kingsley that the NAS do not carry. I address concerns about the use of MSBP, concerns about the possibility that vaccines are implicated in autism, and a full chapter on how the educational system failed children with special educational needs”

So who were behind all these strange events and just what had Ms Blakemore-Brown said that was so important that she needed to be silenced? Had she inadvertently uncovered something that was very worrying indeed to the drugs companies and the UK government? The events that followed appear to indicate that this could well be the case.

It soon materialised that the National Autistic Society who no longer supported Ms Blakemore-Brown or her work were being funded by the drugs company Glaxo SmithKline.

In my article Is There More To Professor Simon Baron-Cohen Than Meets The Eye, I showed how the NAS was receiving funding from Glaxo SmithKline by citing the GSK website which said:-

National Autistic Society (NAS)

NAS provides support and advice to families and individuals across the autistic spectrum and are increasingly concerned by the lack of information and advice available to GPs and health professionals in terms of diagnosing this condition.
We have supported this organisation since 2003.

During 2006:
Our charitable donation of £9,988 will fund a targeted mailing to over 4,000 GP´s surgeries in the UK with information about autism, NAS and their services.
Our funding represents 0.15 per cent of their income overall.”

It then emerged that the group ADDISS was behind the new complaint against Ms Blakemore-Brown .

Lisa says in her article ***** THE POLITICS AND COMMERCE OF AUTISM

Given the profound need for such efforts and such facilities espoused by none other than Jacqui Smith at the Kings Fund Centre just a few months earlier and the considerable media exposure of the wrongful convictions of women accused of killing their children by Professor Sir Roy Meadow, I had every reason to feel optimistic about the Centre, my own future and that of the children I dedicated my working life to.

Within a matter of weeks, another vexatious complaint was drummed up with a group called ADDISS heavily involved at the outset. This group was just beginning to receive considerable funding from Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company which first produced Thimerosal, a mercury-containing vaccine preservative implicated in the rise in autism. Liam Byrne, a Labour Minister who has also had responsibility for matters linked to autism, defended the funding this same group received from the Department of Health at the same time. He was also brought in to spin out the considerable number of recommendations following a two year Select Committee Parliamentary inquiry into the influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Despite knowing about the actions of this group from a colleague, the British Psychological Society ploughed on. The University was bombarded with vexatious calls relating to me and the Director was told, out of the blue, to take early retirement. It was all quite shocking for everyone”

It was around this time and completely out of the blue, another complaint went in to the BPS. This time the complaint was from Penny Mellor, herself an avid campaigner against false allegations of child abuse and the main contributor to the website MAMA. Ms Mellor implied that Ms Blakemore-Brown was not fit to practise and was in her opinion mentally ill.

Ms Blakemore-Brown was shocked as she had only ever met Ms Mellor on three occasions. However. Ms Mellor had tried to sabotage every attempt Ms Blakemore-Brown made to expose the ever increasing number of parents being falsely accused after a vaccine injury had occurred.

Suddenly and without warning Ms Blakemore-Brown was asked to leave the university and close down the Tapestry Life Centre; her lifetime’s dream was shattered.

On winning her case in 2008, three years after the complaint was originally filed, Ms Blakemore-Brown promptly resigned from the BPS as she no longer wanted any association with an organisation she felt was as corrupt as their counterpart, the GMC.  She continued to speak out until the middle of 2009.

Little has been heard from Ms Blakemore-Brown since then. Has she finally called it a day and realised that the drug companies and the UK government have just become too powerful when it comes to vaccinating our children? Well I am sure that is what they would like to think. After all, it would be another ‘notch on their bedpost’ so to speak. Ms Blakemore-Brown has this saying, however: ‘Slowly, Slowly, Catchy, Monkey‘, and I doubt very much that they have seen the last of this amazing women.

On July 18th 2010 it was announced by The Independent newspaper that Ms Mellor had been recruited by the General Medical Council to be part of a group of experts offering guidance to doctors on child protection procedures. In the article by Nina Lakhanni called – Child abduction conspirator hired to advise doctors she wrote:-

A row has broken out after the General Medical Council recruited a woman convicted of conspiracy to abduct a child on to an expert group charged with producing child protection guidance for doctors.

Penny Mellor, from Wolverhampton, served eight months of an 18-month jail sentence after being found guilty of a “wicked conspiracy to abduct” a little girl in 1999. She still maintains she was trying to prevent the child from falling into the hands of social services. Mrs Mellor has been involved in more than 50 complaints against professionals working in child protection, accusing numerous doctors and nurses of misconduct.

The GMC was last night under growing criticism from respected paediatricians, just months after winning widespread praise for setting up the group.

This followed controversy involving a paediatrician, Dr David Southall, an expert on a condition formerly known as Münchhausen syndrome by proxy, in which a person causes injury or illness to another (often their child) to gain attention. Mrs Mellor, who describes herself as a campaigner and medico-legal researcher, has confirmed taking part in around 30 complaints against Dr Southall. The GMC had ruled that he be struck off the medical register but he successfully overturned this at appeal. Mrs Mellor has been investigated, but not charged, for criminal harassment against Dr Southall”.

On 26th July 2010 Ms Blakemore-Brown had this about the to say about the GMC and Ms Mellor in and article entitled  Ms Penny Mellor, The BMJ, The GMC And – The One Click Group – News …

I am no longer astonished about what happens in the country within the so called Regulatory bodies and in the world of so called Child Protection

She continued-

“Ms Mellor seemed hell bent on making sure she was seen to be the only voice for the parents, and any other attempts by others were thwarted. To this day I don’t know why, though clues may lie in the fact that she publicly defended Sir Roy Meadow when it was discovered through FOI that he had been on the Adverse Reactions to Vaccination and Immunisation sub committee of the JCVI. A leading journalist, who, like many others, had been shocked by the Sally Clark case, began to put two and two together – was MSBP a cover up for vaccination adverse reactions and maybe other iatrogenic damage? If so, why would a “housewife” claiming to be on the side of falsely accused parents (many of whom had children whose illnesses began after a vaccine) want to deny that possibility just as Sir Roy himself did in the Clark case? Why is it NEVER considered as part of the differential diagnosis? Who was she protecting? It wasn’t the children who reacted to vaccine whose parents were destroyed by false allegations of MSBP.

Penny Mellor even sent in a vexatious complaint about me, in her many long years of efforts to sabotage whatever I did in relation to MSBP. She sent in a scribbled page to my Regulatory body saying I was not fit to practise – implying mental illness – because she thought that I had said that she had a personality disorder. My own Regulatory body, The British Psychological Society, were only too happy to listen to Ms Mellor and push this complaint through over many years when even their own adjudicator said it was vexatious and should be thrown out. I eventually won, but the damage was considerable. Who influenced them?”

Who indeed, Penny Mellor perhaps?

I have since discovered that shortly before the Director of Brunel University was asked to retire, the University had in fact received funding from GSK.

Since writing this article Ms Mellor resigned from the GMC. In an article covering the story in the BMJ Doctors’ critic resigns from guidance group after protests Clair Dyer had this to say:-

The controversial parents’ advocate and campaigner Penny Mellor has stepped down from the General Medical Council’s expert group on child protection in the face of a High Court challenge to the GMC’s decision to recruit her to the group.

Papers served on the GMC by the paediatrician David Southall argue that her inclusion in the group is “illegal, perverse, and unethical” and contrary to the public interest and the spirit of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.

Dr Southall also contends that Mrs Mellor’s appointment is contrary to the GMC’s obligations in respecting the professional status and work of the doctors it registers and contrary to its role, as established with the Charity Commission, to regulate professional practice and provide advice on standards of conduct and performance and on medical ethics.”

PACA Professionals Against Child Abuse http://paca.org.uk/ had this to say:-

“PACA welcomes the resignation of Mrs Penny Mellor from the expert group set up by the GMC to review doctors’ conduct in child protection matters. Mrs Mellor has led a long-standing campaign against professionals who take a lead in complex and life-threatening child abuse, including paediatricians, pathologists, radiologists and social workers. She has spun a series of false allegations that have impacted on the lives of professionals, as well as the resources of the NHS and GMC, and not least continues to post confidential material concerning families involved in child protection proceedings on public web sites.”

Many professionals have had their careers ruined through speaking out about the dangers of vaccines. Few however have had to endure the years of victimisation that Ms Blakemore-Brown has had to go through. In my opinion this has been a well engineered campaign to destroy the career of a brave child advocate and dedicated professional.

All documents and references cited in this article can be found in full on www.profitableharm.com under Lisa Blakemore-Brown. Many of these documents can be found nowhere else on the Internet.

Other research used

The David Southall Film Clip. For the full catalogue, see here

Reading Ms Blakemore-Brown’s book, Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry, which can now finally be purchased on Amazon. The book however has strangely been edited and not by Ms Blakemore-Brown and is now minus the recommendation from Earl Howe on the back cover.

Conversations with Ms Blakemore-Brown


Author Information:

Christina England

I am a UK journalist with an HND in journalism. I am also a member of ICAP International Coalition of Advocates for the People
i.c.a.p.org

I have an interest in Human Right issues, especially the rights of the disabled and the elderly.

I wish to expose the new evidence that is being uncovered surrounding vaccines.

Many vaccines have been proven to have serious adverse reactions that have been found to cause, Autism, ADHD and other neurological and physical disorders.

I believe that all parents have the right to the information often hidden by the pharmaceutical industries about what vaccines contain and the often devastating side effects that these vaccines have been found to cause.

It is only when a parent has the full facts that they can make a fully informed choice as to whether they wish to have their child vaccinated or not.

Parents also need to know that there are other choices open to them like single vaccines, mercury free vaccines, homeopathic vaccines and diets to boost the immune system to promote good healthy living.

Our children must not become human pin cushions or profit making machines, they are precious and they are ours.

Christina England

AUTISM AND ME/CFS

SOME OF THE REAL PROBLEMS BEHIND MANY CASES OF
SO-CALLED MUNCHAUSEN SYNDROME BY PROXY???

A MODERN DAY SCANDAL

By Lisa Blakemore Brown, Psychologist

06 December 2010

For whatever reason – and I can think of quite a few – vast numbers of professionals in legal, health and educational circles misconstrue symptoms of Autism, ME/CFS (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) and related disorders as child abuse and parents, usually mothers, are accused of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP/FII). I first came across this problem in 1995 and was so concerned that the entire system could be duped by this approach that I began to write about it in 1997 after a mother lost all four of her children, two of whom were ASD/ADHD.  See My Letter of Concern published in The Psycholgist, Journal of the British Psychological Society, September 1997.

Over time I also saw an emerging pattern in MSBP cases – many children changed after  reacting to vaccines.

My not so outrageous observations, that parents with children suffering from disorders such as Autism and ME/CFS were being wrongly accused of MSBP and that vaccine damage may well underlie their illnesses in many cases, are still not accepted, presumably because there would have to be an admission of error and/or incompetence and/or deliberate efforts to dramatically shift the focus away from the real issues on a vast scale. Yet increasingly more and more examples emerge and there is some evidence that despite the so called rarity of MSBP (1 in a million) vast numbers of parents whose children suffer from these disorders are accused of it in every country in which a vaccine programme exists.

In a recent news item on FOX in the United States, a case was reported in which the parents of a child with a mitochondrial disorder were accused of MSBP as they attended hospital very frequently with their ill daughter and the hospitals could not detect the mitochondrial condition. See HERE and published below.

Now this is an interesting case because mitochondrial disorders are suspected as being at the root of many cases of ME/CFS and indeed Autism and recently the family of a young autistic, vaccine damaged child with a mitochondrial disorder, Hannah Poling, won considerable damages for the harm done to their child.  See HERE

To demonise parents of ill children whose conditions are iatrogenic by accusing them of MSBP adds insult to injury, is grossly immoral and unethical, destroys families and prevents recognition of children’s real problems thereby preventing them getting the help they need, possibly forever.  Could we get it any more wrong?

Source:

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=4220&end=4240&view=yes&id=5624#newspost

Categories: AUTISM AND ME/CFS

Are Child Protection Systems Around The World Getting It Wrong?

Christina England

November 14, 2010

It has been reported that 28.6% of Canada’s children and youths are vulnerable to physical and/or emotional injury. These statistics were stated by the information website Child Abuse Effects. The Canadian Child Welfare Research Portal reported that in 2007 an estimated 67,000 children were in out-of-home care across Canada. The figures shown in a briefing document Child protection statistics: A UK comparison for children referred to child protection were unbelievable in the UK in the same year, with England being as high as 545,000, Wales 49,561 and Scotland 11,960. In the USA the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children´s Bureau wrote a report entitled Child Maltreatment 2006 which reported that: “During Federal fiscal year 2006, an estimated 3.3 million referrals, involving the alleged maltreatment of approximately 6.0 million children, were made to CPS agencies.” Out of these an estimated 905,000 children were determined to be victims of abuse or neglect. Interestingly the report states that: “Children in the age group of birth to 1 year had the highest rate of victimization at 24.4 per 1,000 children of the same age group in the national population” These figures although slightly out of date are staggering but how many of the children in care today have actually been taken from loving caring families? One would hope none of them had but sadly this is not the case. Some children it appears are taken from families who are loving and caring because the child protection system has got it wrong. Parents from around the world are saying that they have been falsely accused of child abuse after their child has become sick through no fault of their own. This article tells the tragic story of one such family.

Tess. Happy and Healthy

Tess was born a healthy baby and became a healthy toddler. She was meeting all her milestones and her parents Michele and Barry were very proud of their beautiful daughter. However, in the summer of 2002 things took an unexpected turn. Tess then aged six years old became very ill, she lost her speech and began to deteriorate. Tess was not alone, Michele and Barry also became very ill with a combination of diarrhoea, vomiting, dizziness and burning to the throats. The whole family developed a terrible cough. Tess developed a terrible rash and began to have a series of seizures. Their illness was a complete mystery. Despite tests the doctors were at a loss. It wasn’t until a William A. Croft M.D., diagnosed arsenic poisoning that things began to drop into place.

Life Was Good

A repair man visiting the family home to check their air condition had pointed out that he could see chemicals leaking out of the wood on their decking. Michele and Barry had recently had a brand new decking erected in their garden ironically so that Tess could play safely under the watchful eye of her mother. Unbeknown to them the decking similar to many deckings being used at the time was treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA), usually recognisable from it’s greenish tinge. This treatment was used to protect the wood to kill bugs and bacteria, however because of it’s arsenic content it was highly dangerous and for this reason CCA has been since discontinued. The Pesticides: Regulating Pesticides 2008 said: “Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) is a chemical wood preservative containing chromium, copper and arsenic. CCA is used in pressure treated wood to protect wood from rotting due to insects and microbial agents. EPA has classified CCA as a restricted use product, for use only by certified pesticide applicators. CCA has been used to pressure treat lumber since the 1940s. Since the 1970s, the majority of the wood used in outdoor residential settings has been CCA-treated wood. Pressure treated wood containing CCA is no longer being produced for use in most residential settings, including decks and playsets”.

Tess Ill and Suffering

Sadly this information came too late for Tess and her family who were already very ill with arsenic poisoning. The symptoms of arsenic poisoning taken from the website wiseGeek are extensive and include stomach pain, bowel pain, tenderness and pressure on the body, retching, vomiting, excess saliva, a dry or tight throat, lethargy, thirst and weakness. A hoarse voice, encephalopathy, coma, speech changes or difficulty speaking, diarrhea, a burning sensation while urinating, tenesmus, problems with the anus, cramps, convulsions, cold or clammy sweats, purplish-red skin, a sunken face, red eyes and delirium may indicate poisoning.

She Had Rashes Develop

Dr Croft said that the family were suffering from acute and chronic arsenic exposure from the wood. The deck was condemned as a health hazard and was removed shortly afterwards However the families problems did not end there. Despite this and a report stating that “Barry, Michele and Tess have undergone and will require to undergo extensive hospital, medical surgical, therapeutic and pharmacological treatment” things began to deteriorate and Michele became under suspicion of munchausen’s by proxy. Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy or MSBP is a diagnosis given to a mother or care giver to describe aspects of their behaviour. This behaviour usually includes subjecting what appears to be a previously healthy child to unnecessary and often painful tests or medical interventions i.e.: scans, x-rays and even surgical procedures to gain attention from the medical profession. Tess became subject to child protection procedures. This came as a complete shock to the family because all medical reports had clearly stated that the problems Michele reported were very real. One report presented to child protection about Tess’s condition stated the following: “In 2000 the medical records show a development of skin rashes , numbness, tingling. G.I complaints, behaviour and cognition activities and seizures.” Reports consistently showed a history of seizures, allergies, anaphylactic allergic reactions requiring an epi pen (described as a peanut allergy), fine motor problems, difficulties with spatial awareness, ADHD, thyroid abnormalities the list wass endless. Tess’s thyroid condition was identified in 2008 as being Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. These complaints were clearly not made up or exaggerated as report after report describe the same things. One report in 2008 states “Thyroid antibodies persist” the same report states “Tess’s medical problems are all consistent with exposures to arsenic and chromium that occurred in the 2002 period”.

Physically Deteriorating

Due to Tess’s allergies, Tess was exempt from receiving her vaccinations however, she was vaccinated against her mother’s wishes with the MMR and straight away her problems increased. Michele says “She immediately deteriorated developing hives”. Tess began to lose eye contact and slowly her lovely smile faded.  Last year Tess was removed from the family home and taken into care. Michele was said to suffer from MSBP, she was described as very anxious and on occasions as depressed. Hardly surprising after the catastrophic series of events. Michele is devastated and angry. She says “This was no way to treat a family, it never ends, MSbP for exposure? Your heart breaks, as you watch them struggle with brain fog and bowel issues, school grades drop.. and its a simple thyroid titer issue, known to be caused by arsenic….. EPI PENS denied.. BY doctors and child protection. WHO IS PROTECTED the CHILD?” Doctors repeated time and time again that Michele responded appropriately. Tess was described in the child care reports as being happy and did not present an anxious child. She had a variety of friends and was doing well at school. Tess had described her condition as ‘reactions’ which required an Epi. The CAS could not conclude that Tess was at risk from harm due to emotional abuse. So what was Tess at risk from exactly? Sadly Michele not only lost the child she adores but also her marriage and her home. N.B I have been given full permission to use reports and photos by Michele. I have used Christian names only to protect the family and have not identified which country they come from.

Source:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/198970
Further to this article here is another incidence of a mother whose daughter was exposed to CCA treated wood and the subsequent health problems that arose as a result.
Laurette Janak’s letter to the EPA FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Please see:

You can also read more about Ms. Janak and her daughter’s injuries in the newspaper story published in The Buffalo News on Feb. 8, 2002.

http://www.bancca.org/CCA_Victims/Accounts/Testimony1/Buffalo_news_pg1.htm


Misdiagnosis Of Child Abuse Related To Delay In Diagnosing A Paediatric Brain Tumour

Author: Lynne Wrennall

Journal: Clinical Medicine Insights: Pediatrics Clinical Medicine: Pediatrics 2008:1 1-12

Publication Date: 20 May 2008

Public Health Research Group, Criminology Programme, School of Social Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Clarence Street, Liverpool, United Kingdom, L3 5UG.

Abstract

Conflicting opinion regarding the relative weight that should be allocated to the investigation of organic causes of child illness, compared to the pursuit of suspicions of child abuse, has generated considerable public debate. The discourse of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy/Fabricated and Induced Illness is at the centre of contention. In particular, concern has arisen that children’s medical needs are being neglected when their conditions are misdiagnosed as child abuse. This paper documents a case study in which the use of Child Protection procedures was linked to the belief that the child’s illness had “no organic cause.” The case study is contextualised in a review of literature relevant to the diagnostic process. The deployment of the Child Protection perspective resulted in significant delay in the diagnosis of the child’s brain tumour. The child was ultimately found to be suffering from an optic chasm mass lesion involving the hypothalamus and the medial temporal regions, resulting in Diencephalic Syndrome. The evidence in this case is that erring on the side of suspecting Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy/Fabricated and Induced Illness, was not “erring on the side of the child.” Several lessons need to be learned from the case. The importance of ensuring that the Child Protection perspective does not displace adequate assessment of alternative explanations for the child’s condition is emphasised, as is the need for good communication in medical relationships. Strategies involving empathy, mediation, negotiation and conflict resolution may provide a more appropriate and therapeutic alternative to the use of Child Protection procedures in cases where the diagnosis is contentious. The need to re-write relevant policy, protocols and guidance is imperative.

Background

Diagnosis of child abuse in the medical context has been highly contested for some time (Hayward- Brown, 2003, 2004; Hayward-Brown et al. 2004). In the specifi c case presented here, the misdiagnosis of child abuse involving the discourse of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy/ Fabricated and Induced Illness [MSbP/FII] displaced the medical knowledge necessary to assist a child. The Child Protection discourse of MSbP/FII that permeated the exposit case was launched in an article in The Lancet by the controversial paediatrician, Roy Meadow. Meadow (1977) presented two
case studies alleging that parents had fabricated and induced their children’s illness. Since then, the definitions of MSbP/FII have varied considerably across the literature and amongst differing professional groups. Broadly put, the discourse of MSbP/FII is constituted by allegations of child abuse centred around claims that parents and carers, usually Mothers, are harming children by causing them to suffer a fi ctional or induced illness (Wrennall, 2007:961). Proponents of the discourse argue that MSbP/FII is common, extremely dangerous and frequently fatal (Meadow, 1977; Davis et al. 1998). The discourse has been implicated in some of the major murder trials involving women and in
numerous cases in the Children and Family Courts in English speaking countries around the world (Wrennall, 2007). Subsequent critique of Meadow’s evidence as an expert witness (Royal Statistical Society, 2001; Nobles and Schiff, 2005; Streater, 2006: 7–11; Watkins, 2000) and the role of the discourse in false allegations, Miscarriages of Justice and hostile adoptions, is now well known (Wrennall, 2007; Raitt and Zeedyk, 2004).

Conclusion

The discourse of MSbP/FII has been linked to medical, forensic and legal misadventure. In the exposit case, the misdiagnosis of child abuse, delayed accurate medical diagnosis and caused serious harm to a child. It is imperative that suspicion of child abuse does not displace appropriate medical investigations.

Learning Points

• The differential diagnosis should afford due
diligence to the consideration of the views of
service users and their advocates.

• From the outset, the differential diagnosis
should allow for relevant rare medical conditions
of a serious nature.

• Claims of “no organic cause” for illness are
vulnerable to refutation and should be avoided.

• The threshold for referral to relevant medical
specialists should be lowered, especially where
pediatric neoplasm is, or should be, included in
the differential diagnosis.

• Consultants should make Primary Care Physicians
aware of the limits to their knowledge and
suggest referrals to other specialisms where
appropriate.

• A risk analysis should properly weigh the costs
of undertaking tests requested by service users
against the risk of delayed diagnosis.

• Erring on the side of diagnosing child abuse,
may not “err on the side of the child.” Judgmental
narratives can have an adverse impact on
accurate diagnostic practice.

• The potential for “Groupthink” to produce
“risky shift” judgment in the context of Child
Protection multidisciplinary teams, needs to be
considered.

• Strategies involving empathy, communication,
mediation, negotiation and confl ict resolution
should be trialed, in cases where suspicions of
child abuse have arisen,

• Policy, protocols and guidance relating to
Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy/Fabricated
and Induced Illness must be re-written to better
protect the interests of health and social care
service users.

Please see source to download entire paper at no cost:

http://www.la-press.com/misdiagnosis-of-child-abuse-related-to-delay-in-diagnosing-a-paediatri-article-a803

Persecuted Parents Or Protected Children?

Allegations cost their reputations, their money and nearly their kids

Wednesday, August 7, 2002

By CAROL SMITH
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

The pounding on the door late that August night set Chris Brooker’s heart hammering.

He and his wife were just getting ready for bed. His stepdaughter and grandson, who lived with them, had gone to Disneyland and the older couple were enjoying the unaccustomed peace of an evening alone.

Now four police cars were blockading the street in front of his house, their flashing lights creating an eerie strobe against the Renton neighborhood’s modest split-levels.

Brooker opened the door and stared into the face of a beefy detective, one hand on his holster, the other thrusting out a warrant. He was flanked by three more officers.

Christopher Bateman and his mom
Christopher Bateman and his mom, Michelle, cut out a paper airplane. Bateman was accused by Dr. Kenneth Feldman of intentionally poisoning her son. Bateman lost custody of her son until a CPS inquiry cleared her. Grant M. Haller / Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Click for larger photo

They came to take Brooker’s 4-year-old grandson into protective custody.

And to gather evidence against the person accused of poisoning him — the boy’s mother.

With that, the Brookers plunged down a rabbit hole of accusations into the bizarre world of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. It would take nearly three years and $100,000 in legal fees to find their way out and clear their daughter’s name.

They blame their odyssey on a Seattle pediatrician named Kenneth Feldman.

So do at least five other families who claim they, too, were victimized by a misdiagnosis that ripped apart their lives.

Feldman, one of Washington’s top child-abuse experts, considers himself an authority on Munchausen by proxy — a controversial mental illness that drives mothers to deliberately make their children sick, or falsify symptoms, in order to get attention for themselves. Fathers are almost never diagnosed with the disorder.

Many experts believe the syndrome to be rare, but Feldman is convinced otherwise. During the last 25 years, he’s been involved in more than 100 Munchausen cases — far more than any other doctor in the state.

Because Feldman works for Children’s Hospital and Medical Center in Seattle and consults for the state’s Child Protective Services agency, those allegations invariably trigger strong emergency responses, often resulting in the removal of young children, at least temporarily, from their homes.

It’s that power that is now being publicly questioned. At least five families have sued Feldman over the past six years, claiming he was negligent or reckless in misdiagnosing Munchausen by proxy. In each case, CPS investigators found no evidence of Munchausen, poisoning or any other abuse. Children were returned, cases closed. Never were any criminal charges filed.

P-I Special Report

Read more

But the consequences were severe: One family lost a child they were in the process of adopting. Others spent their life savings getting their kids back, undergoing intense psychiatric testing.

“It was like the Salem witch hunts,” Brooker said. “You are guilty until proven innocent.”Once a mother is labeled a Munchausen by proxy suspect the stigma is severe. The suspicions follow families, often from state to state. They become pariahs in their communities. They fear taking sick children to the doctor. Some children are traumatized from forced separations.

Feldman has so far escaped legal penalties or sanctions because he’s required to report suspected abuse, and he’s protected even if he’s wrong.

On the advice of his attorney, Feldman won’t say whether he has ever been wrong or changed his mind regarding a Munchausen case.

“It’s always a balancing act when you’re dealing with the safety of the child versus the family’s integrity and the family’s well-being,” he said in a recent interview. “We do our best to narrow the level of uncertainty.”

But other experts who have reviewed the cases are convinced Feldman’s conclusions distorted the evidence, unfairly implicating parents.

“It looks to me like there is a big epidemic of Munchausen surrounding Dr. Feldman,” said Dr. Gil Kliman, a San Francisco psychiatrist who testified against Feldman in several of the lawsuits.

“Even if he were seeing a million patients a year, he couldn’t diagnose that many,” said Tom Ryan, an Arizona attorney who has handled dozens of cases in which mothers have been falsely accused of having Munchausen by proxy.

While Feldman believes most pediatricians have undetected Munchausen-by-proxy parents in their caseloads, he’s claimed in depositions to have seen an equal number of cases in which he’s ruled out the syndrome. Because there’s no central place where documented cases are reported, it’s impossible to tell how common Munchausen by proxy is. Estimates by experts range from 1 in a million to 2.5 in 100,000.

Prosecutions of Munchausen cases are rare as well. King County authorities could only recall one or two criminal prosecutions in the past 20 years.

The rate of Feldman’s allegations so alarmed Kliman that he filed a complaint with CPS, citing the “error rate Dr. Feldman has in making this diagnosis, and the frequency with which the children have other causes for their conditions.”

All of the children involved in the cases that triggered lawsuits had been or were eventually diagnosed with verifiable diseases or disorders that explained their symptoms. One child, for example, was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, after her mother was first suspected of Munchausen.

When the lawsuits came, Feldman claimed immunity under child-protection reporting laws and won. The cases were dismissed before trial.

As a physician, Feldman is a “mandated reporter,” which means he’s legally required to report abuse if he has “reasonable cause to believe” that a child is being harmed. He doesn’t need proof, and if he makes a mistake, unlike a treating physician, he can’t be held accountable for a wrong diagnosis and its aftermath. In the most recently appealed case, however, Washington Court of Appeals Judge Kenneth Kato wrote a stinging dissent.

Bateman family
Ida Brooker, left, and her husband, Chris, second from right, spent $100,000 clearing their daughter, Michelle Bateman, of accusations that she abused her son, Christopher. Grant M. Haller / Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Click for larger photo

“Dr. Feldman apparently has a penchant for diagnosing (or misdiagnosing) MSBP, notwithstanding its rarity and his questioned qualifications to make that diagnosis,” Kato wrote in May. “Whether the doctor acted in good faith cannot be determined as a matter of law in these circumstances. It is a question for the jury to decide, not the court.”

Lawyers for the family that filed the appeal are now asking the state Supreme Court to review the case. A decision is expected within a few weeks.

The families who have dealt with the Munchausen allegations say they’ve suffered emotionally and financially. They want Feldman, CPS and Children’s Hospital to be held accountable.

  • Doug and Melissa de Jong lost their daughter for six months in 1997 when she was still breast-feeding. They spent $17,000, maxing out their credit cards in the process, to handle legal fees.The experience was so distressing they moved to Birch Bay, Wash., to be away from the Seattle doctors. Their daughter was eventually diagnosed with cerebral palsy.”We’re still to this day paying for it, emotionally and financially,” said Doug de Jong. “They put the burden of proof on the parents to prove our innocence.”
  • Dena Royal can no longer find a local pediatrician willing to treat her three school-age children, two of whom have chronic medical problems, because of the stigma of suspected Munchausen.CPS closed its investigation of her family in April after preliminary tests showed many of one son’s unusual symptoms may be the result of a rare genetic disorder. Even though the case was closed as unfounded, Feldman has refused to remove the red child abuse alert on her children’s medical charts at Children’s, where her kids see specialists. Royal feels the alert is affecting their medical care by making specialists fearful to pursue tests as questions arise.”It’s like being branded with a big scarlet letter,” she said.
  • Kevin and Nancy Grennan traveled from Illinois to see specialists at Children’s in 1995 in hopes of curing their daughter’s epilepsy. Previous treatments hadn’t alleviated the seizures, which were affecting her ability to speak.Instead, Feldman reported the case to Illinois child-protection authorities and they lost their daughter for three months. They spent about $30,000 before the child-abuse case was closed.
  • Robert and Kristi Yuille were planning to raise a family on their ranch in Republic, Wash., when Munchausen allegations derailed the dream. A baby they were in the process of adopting was taken away in 1996 after living with them for nearly a year.Although CPS closed the case, the Yuilles had to sell their ranch to fund their legal battle to get the baby back. They never did.In each case, the families got swept into the child protection system with no independent evaluation of whether Feldman had made the right call.Indeed, Feldman himself admits in court documents that as a pediatrician, he is not qualified to assess the mental health of the mother, which would require a psychiatric evaluation.Yet when a parent suspected of Munchausen is reported to CPS, the agency calls on a list of medical specialists to evaluate the case. Because of his reputation, Feldman is the specialist most frequently called.CPS said the lawsuits haven’t affected Feldman’s standing as a consultant. “You are innocent until proven guilty,” said Bernie Friedman, a risk-management official with the agency.

    Feldman reviews the child’s medical history looking for “inconsistency and elaborations” or outright falsifications. He admits he doesn’t always have access to all the child’s medical records.

    He usually doesn’t interview the mother because he says the mothers, by definition, will misrepresent the situation. But he will sometimes try to interview another family member about her. Sometimes, he also recommends covert video surveillance during hospitalization to catch the mother in the act of harming her child.

    If Feldman decides the mother likely has Munchausen by proxy, the agency mounts a full child-abuse response, typically removing the child from the home pending a dependency hearing. In most cases, parents have to find and pay for their own second opinions to get their children back.

    Feldman is paid for his consultations with CPS through a consulting contract funded by the state and managed by the University of Washington. He is also one of the main medical advisers to the Child Protection Team at Children’s.

    Typically, the team meets to discuss the case before making a referral. Outsiders, such as the child’s regular doctors, may be invited to that meeting. Feldman reports his findings to the team.

    “He’s viewed as someone with an awful lot of expertise and because of his report, his expertise needs to be listened to carefully,” said Dr. Richard Molteni, medical director at Children’s.

    Angry accused parents and lawsuits come with the territory of child-abuse consulting, Molteni said. So does the risk of being wrong.

    “I know what it must feel like to be accused unjustly,” Molteni said. “I also understand the consequence of not doing that. … It’s a lot harder to look a relative in the face and have to say I’m sorry we didn’t report (suspected abuse) when we had the chance and now a child is dead.”

    Critics say there aren’t enough safeguards built into the system.

    “The destructive force it unleashes on these families is tremendous,” Ryan said. “It’s like being sucked into a black hole. … The state can expend millions and the poor family is absolutely overwhelmed.”

    Poisoned perceptions

    That was true for Michelle Bateman and her parents, the Brookers.

    As police meticulously searched their house, even rifling through their spice drawers, the stunned grandparents tried to piece together what was happening.

    Police eventually found what would become a key piece of evidence against their daughter: a small bottle of syrup of ipecac.

    Ipecac is a common first-aid supply used to induce vomiting in accidental poisonings and found in most households with young children. The bottle, still sealed and past its expiration date, was on the top shelf of the family’s hall medicine cabinet.

    Bateman was 20 when her son, Christopher, was born. Unmarried, she and her baby lived with the Brookers so she could go to nursing school.But the baby was fussy and uncomfortable nearly from birth, said Ida Brooker, who recalls walking the inconsolable baby for hours before dawn. The family grew increasingly frustrated as doctors couldn’t help them.

    Finally, they were referred to Dr. Ross Kendall, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital and Health Center in Tacoma. Although he diagnosed Christopher with cyclic vomiting stemming from abdominal migraines and started him on medication, he admitted in depositions that he suspected Bateman of Munchausen from the start.

    Michelle Bateman
    Doctors say their suspicions that Michelle Bateman suffered from Munchausen syndrome by proxy were triggered by Christopher’s many trips to the hospital. Grant M. Haller / Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    Click for larger photo

    Her “hostility” to people who suggested other diagnoses, persistent doctor visits and Christopher’s lack of response to treatment reinforced this belief, he said later in court documents, noting: “Mother fits the profile.” Over the next two years, without telling the family, he began testing Christopher’s urine for ipecac to see if Bateman was intentionally dosing him to make him vomit.

    After three times, a test came back positive. Kendall reported Bateman to state authorities. And CPS went to Feldman.

    Without seeing Christopher or talking to Bateman, and based on his own reading of certain records and discussions with Kendall, Feldman told CPS, “Christopher clearly fits the primary criteria for Munchausen syndrome by proxy.” He based part of his assessment on her repeated trips to the emergency room to treat Christopher’s vomiting. Yet Kendall’s orders were that she was to take him to the ER after each episode for IV infusions of an experimental drug called Kytril.

    The ipecac test also figured prominently in Feldman’s analysis, even though toxicologists say it cannot distinguish ipecac from pseudoephedrine, a common cold medicine ingredient Christopher was taking on Kendall’s advice.

    Based on Feldman’s recommendation, the state removed Christopher from his home.

    Bateman was devastated. So was Chris Brooker, who recalls breaking down on his front porch that day.

    “I just sat out there and cried for two hours,” he said.

    To mount a legal defense, Ida cashed in her Boeing retirement fund. He sold stock and other assets, including a cherished collection of rare military helmet plates.

    They petitioned the court to become Christopher’s legal guardians and won, but only on the condition that Bateman move out and her visits be restricted to two hours a week. For the next 2 1/2 years, she was supervised and tested by CPS until authorities were finally satisfied she didn’t have Munchausen and closed the case in 1999.

    Christopher, now 10, is still in counseling to deal with the experience.

    According to the family, Kendall contacted them years later through their attorney and apologized for “the inconvenience” he had caused them.

    “I lost my child, my home, my job, my parents. My son lost his mother, his home and his security,” Bateman said. “That’s an inconvenience?”

    Kendall could not be reached for comment. Feldman, who declined to discuss specific cases, has never contacted the family.

    Many parents fit ‘profile’

    Bateman’s case illustrates the dangers of “profiling” parents, experts said. Parents of very sick children, young or anxious parents, or those who advocate aggressively for their children all “fit” the profile of people suffering from Munchausen by proxy.Those who seek multiple opinions, who have worked in the medical field, or who go to the doctor frequently also fit, as do those whose children have multiple illnesses that don’t match known syndromes.

    Some specialists point out that many of their patients’ mothers have been accused of Munchausen before their children were eventually diagnosed with unusual disorders.A parent who is calm in the face of serious difficulties, or one who gets extremely angry and demanding both fit the profile. Also fitting the profile are parents of sick children who frequently acquire detailed knowledge about diseases, leading them to appear “obsessed” with their children’s disorders.

    And in a particularly Kafkaesque twist, denial that you have Munchausen is a sign you have it.

    “There are individuals who see Munchausen by proxy around every corner,” said Dr. Marc Feldman (no relation), an Alabama psychiatrist who has testified on both sides of those cases.

    “Some people became intrigued with the novelty and drama of it and have sought to establish themselves rapidly as experts in the field,” he said. “One way to do that is to say you’ve seen a whole lot of cases.”

    But that doesn’t mean all those reported cases were truly Munchausen.

    “It can lead to pinhole vision, where only those features that matched Munchausen by proxy were commented on and all information contrary to the diagnosis was disregarded,” he said.

    Being sued five times for alleged misdiagnoses, he said, should raise red flags.

    “That’s pretty high,” he said. “If I’d been sued five times for anything, I would probably ask for supervision for my work before I proceeded.”

    Molteni, of Children’s Hospital, stands behind Kenneth Feldman’s work, saying that despite the lawsuits and complaints there’s no need for any additional review or auditing of the Munchausen diagnoses.

    But in recent years, a half-dozen families have complained about Feldman to the state licensing board alleging unprofessional conduct related to misdiagnosing the disorder. In five of those cases, the Washington State Medical Quality Commission closed the complaints after reviewing Feldman’s explanations for his actions, asking for no further review. One case is still under investigation.

    A strong advocate

    None of this fazes Feldman, who lectures around the region on the threat of Munchausen by proxy.

    Bespectacled and soft-spoken, Feldman, 58, betrays little of the passion that has given him a reputation as a tireless advocate for children’s welfare. He doesn’t flinch at criticism, but admits to being wearied by the relentless legal challenges. “It’s stressful to be involved in any way, let’s just leave it at that,” he said. “But someone has to do it.”

    Feldman, who went to medical school in his home state of Wisconsin, came to Seattle in 1970 as an intern in pediatrics at Children’s. Over the years, the father of two increasingly focused on childhood-injury prevention. He claims to have seen his first case of Munchausen by proxy in the ’70s before the phrase was even coined.

    Today, he divides his time between his work in general pediatrics at Children’s, research and child-abuse consulting and work with low-income families.

    He operates out of a cramped, windowless office at Children’s, lined with case files. The Munchausen database he keeps is one of the only ones like it in the country.

    “He’s a pioneer in Munchausen,” said his former teacher, Dr. Abe Bergman, a pediatrician at Harborview Medical Center and head of the child abuse medical consulting network run by the University of Washington, through which Feldman consults.

    Feldman, whom Bergman said was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, is accustomed to fighting for causes he believes in.

    His research on the effect of water heater settings on scalding injuries has been credited with reducing the national incidence of tap-water burns. In the mid-’80s, he fought to get legislation passed that reduced settings on water heaters.

    Admirers say Feldman is a brilliant diagnostician.

    “He knows every rare disease,” said Bergman. “His mind is like a computer.”

    Feldman said he deals aggressively with suspected Munchausen cases because children are in grave danger. “About 1,200 kids will sustain new events of suffocation and poisoning in the United States this year,” he said. “And that’s probably an underestimate.”

    Children should not be reunited with mothers who’ve been diagnosed with Munchausen, he said. And he faults the courts for returning them.

    “It’s hard for the court system to get a handle on this,” he said. “Juries tend to believe a parent wouldn’t do it. Judges tend to believe they wouldn’t do it.

    “Children are usually returned. But that doesn’t obviate the diagnosis.”

    Families call for oversight

    Given the murky nature of most Munchausen cases, some experts are calling for more oversight before a child is removed from his parent.

    One solution is to get rid of the label altogether. If a parent is suspected of harming a child, investigate it as a criminal assault case, not a vague psychiatric condition, some experts say.

    Others say the state should not let a pediatrician alone make what is essentially a mental health assessment. And before a child is removed from a home, the family should have the opportunity to get an independent assessment.

    Experts also recommend that all records be scrutinized in determining whether a mother has lied or mischaracterized her child’s medical history, not just some of them.

    “Munchausen by proxy should be diagnosed based on objective signs and symptoms, not based on one’s impression of the parent,” said Marc Feldman, the psychiatrist.

    The families that have sued Kenneth Feldman argue that there needs to be some way to hold him accountable. “I understand the need to protect our children, but the way the system is set up there are severe penalties if you don’t report, but nothing on the other side,” said Doug deJong, who nearly lost his daughter to a Munchausen allegation.

    “If you falsely accuse or make a mistake, there is no penalty. There’s no incentive to be careful.”


    P-I reporter Carol Smith can be reached at 206-448-8070 or carolsmith@seattlepi.com

    Source:

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/81574_munchausen07.shtml

  • Medical Expert Evidence: The Continuing Failure Of The Legal System

    Some years ago I wrote in On Line Opinion and other publications about the failure of our legal system to heed the injustices that have occurred concerning the beliefs and speculations of British kidney specialist, Professor Sir Roy Meadow. These issues involve both civil and criminal jurisdictions.

    There has been some improvement particularly with the cases of R v JKF; and R v Matthey.

    In R v JKF a mother was charged with the attempted murder of her daughter. The prosecution attempted to use similar facts evidence concerning the deaths of two other children. James J ruled that the deaths were not similar and the case failed.

    In Matthey, the mother was charged with the murder of her four children. Again the case failed and did not proceed to trial. Both of these cases were based on Professor Meadow’s theories although the theories were not mentioned by name in the cases. As Coldrey J said in Matthey, an expert prosecution witness Dr Susan Beal “reasoned backwards” to construct a case for murder.

    These cases were based on Meadow’s now discredited cot death theory: one infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder (The ABC of Child Abuse, BMJ Publishing Group, 1997, page 29). This theory has been rejected in many other cases such as the Ward case in Tennessee USA (State of Tennessee v Shabree Ward No. M2002-01816-CCA-R3-CD [2003]). In the Angela Cannings judgement (R v Angela Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim. 01), the UK Court of Appeal said the cot death theory “had to stop”, while in Sally Clark’s case (R v Sally Clark [2003] 200203824 Y3), the judges described Meadow’s medical and statistical evidence on cot deaths as “wrong”, stating that such evidence “should not have been put before a jury” and that “the wisest course would have been to exclude it altogether”.

    Meadow is also responsible for the child abuse belief of munchausen syndrome (factitious illness) by proxy (MSBP) (The Lancet, 1977) that is widely, but erroneously, accepted in the child protection sector, by police and the judiciary in Australia. The basis of this allegation is that a parent or other carer has deliberately fabricated or induced an illness in a child. There is no scientifically-based evidence to support Meadow’s beliefs that were based on anecdotal comments on two of his patients.

    Meadow and the proponents of the theory fail to consider other reasons for a child’s death or illness. These include adverse reaction to drugs or the combination of drugs, environmental poisoning, allergies to foods or food additives or an adverse reaction to chemicals, vaccination damage, genetic problems, doctor negligence or misdiagnoses and the like. Rather, when the matters are fully investigated there are compelling evidentiary alternatives to an unsupported belief that a mother killed her child or caused the child to be sick. The label of munchausen syndrome by proxy entails the use of prejudicial profiling, at the expense of hard evidence.

    In one influential decision for the Australian judiciary, Meadow’s MSBP was rejected by the Queensland Court of Appeal in the case of R v LM (QCA 192 [2004]). The court ruled that MSBP or factitious illness (FII) was inadmissible in evidence and ruled out the testimony of doctors alluding to the alleged disorder. The court stated that MSBP/FII was not a recognised medical condition, disorder or syndrome. In the case, Justice Holmes remarked that the Crown’s use of MSBP “explained nothing”, “the Crown’s argument … was inherently circular” and “did nothing to prove criminal conduct”. That legal reasoning was adopted by the UK High Court in the Family Division (A County Council v A Mother and A Father and X,Y,Z children [2005] EWHC 31 Fam). In the case, Justice Ryder stated that he hoped MSBP would be “consigned to the history books”.

    Yet, despite the discrediting of the theories, the use of Meadow’s beliefs continues in Australia with child protection agencies in New South Wales, and other states still use the cot death theory and MSBP in child abuse cases.

    Medical anthropologist Dr Helen Hayward-Brown specialises in the research of false allegations of munchausen syndrome by proxy. She is concerned that social services continue to use this label, or similar labels, to remove children from families or accuse mothers of attempting to murder their children. She is particularly concerned that social services are becoming “quasi- medical practitioners” who are making uninformed decisions about particular medical conditions.

    For example, a mother and child who both suffer from a rare genetic condition are separated because social services “don’t like the mother’s parenting style”. In fact, social services have overlooked the diagnosis and special medical needs of the child. It is also apparent that mothers of autistic children are increasingly at risk of their children being removed. For example, if a mother, under medical directions, provides supplements to her child, she is accused of “poisoning” her child and “doctor shopping”. In other words, social services are removing children from parents, despite the documented support of these families’ doctors.

    The common practice of removing children on emergency orders on a Friday afternoon, leaving no time for families to engage a legal practitioner, is another problematic complication of the power of these erroneous theories. It also reflects a judicial system which is allowing the profiling of parents without accurate evidence.

    Most recently, Dr Hayward-Brown has noted that social services are aware that the diagnosis of MSBP has been discredited, so parents actually receive an “invisible label”. Parents are continuing to be accused of MSBP, with its concomitant profiling, but the label is not used in court documents.

    A significant court success was a case of a mother originally accused of MSBP some 15 years ago by Meadow when he was provided with medical files and other material by a child protection agency. This mother’s children were placed in care, except for the eldest child. Around 2004, when the mother was expecting another child, she went interstate to give birth as she was afraid that the newborn child would be taken from her at birth. (Removals at birth have increased dramatically over the last few years.) After the birth, social services became aware of her situation and she fled. Five years later her child was found and taken into care. The subsequent court ruling resulted in the mother resuming full time care of the child. She is unable to regain custody of other children taken from her based on the now discredited MSBP theory.

    There is a certain irony in this case. If a mother is accused of MSBP, she is supposed to be harming her child to get attention from the medical profession. In this case, when the mother fled she was apparently not in a position to get attention from medical professionals.

    Agencies continue to pursue the mother in R v JKF who was also directly accused by Sir Roy Meadow. Once the case failed in the Supreme Court, the police and the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office took the matter of the deaths of the mother’s two other children to the Coroner’s Court in late 2009. At the time of the two deaths in 1998, police provided the coroner with death certificates for the two children noting that medical conditions were the cause of the deaths. The deputy coroner justified the delay in the hearing on the basis of other court hearings involving the mother. The mother was not entitled to legal counsel, as the Coroner’s Court is a court of inquiry. For these reasons, there was no cross-examination of witnesses who had previously given evidence for the prosecution.

    The deputy coroner raised the issue of munchausen syndrome by proxy but declined to make a finding on the matter. He found that one child died of natural causes while the other child died as a result of “probable” introduction of foreign substances. The deputy coroner did not say that the mother had introduced the foreign substance.

    He stated that as result of the decision in R v JKF, he was not satisfied that a jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Despite lack of definitive evidence and the failure of criminal charges, the child protection agency refuses to reinstate the mother’s custody rights to her only living child.

    A succession of UK, Queensland and USA superior courts have found that Meadow’s cot deaths and MSBP beliefs have no legal foundation – R v LM ruled the MSBP label inadmissible evidence. The British General Medical Council and the Royal Statistical Society have criticised Meadow’s use of statistics and his lack of concern about the matter. I question why Meadow’s discredited beliefs are still being used in Australia, in both civil and criminal jurisdictions, as they are based on speculation, beliefs and surmise – no substantive evidence of illegal acts or probative evidence of children being at risk of harm.

    About the Author

    Michael Nott is an advocate for mothers falsely accused of munchausen syndrome (factitious illness) by proxy. He is an external law student at the Macquarie University. He can be contacted by email at: michalenottATyahoo.com.au or nott_michaelATyahoo.com.au.

    Source:

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10596

    The Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy Witch Hunt

    By Michael Nott – posted Tuesday, 24 May 2005

    Consider this. If you are a mother with a young child who has a very difficult-to-diagnose illness, you could find yourself looking down the aggressive barrel of a child protection agency. They could take your child into foster care, and the courts could allow you only very limited supervised contact with your child again, if at all.

    There is no evidence that you have caused the child’s illness. Often the children at risk are very sick but a parent may have challenged a doctor’s medical treatment.

    Such a scene is happening in a number of countries, including Australia, Germany, New Zealand, UK and the US. In some cases it is happening without evidence, driven by the speculative, circumstantial and prejudicial, much the same way as the witch hunts of old. It follows on from the Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP) theory introduced by British pediatrician, Professor Sir Roy Meadow (Lancet in 1977), also known as “factitious illness”, “pediatric falsification disorder” and similar terms.

    Named after the 18th century German figure Baron von Münchhausen, famous for his “tall stories”, Munchausen Syndrome is where one is alleged to be causing problems in oneself, e.g., self harm, or presenting oneself at hospital too many times. Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is where one is alleged to be causing problems in another person, usually one’s child. In most cases, the mother – as the usual care-giver – is accused. I write as an advocate for mothers accused of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.

    The MSBP theory has found favour in powerful sections of the medical profession, child protection, academia, law enforcement and the judiciary. According to medical sociologist Dr Helen Hayward-Brown it has become a nightmare waiting on the doorstep of every family with a sick child. Hayward-Brown was awarded her doctorate for investigating false allegations of MSPB, when many of her case studies were based in Australia.

    “Ordinary mothers and fathers are being accused of child abuse because their children have an illness that some pediatricians cannot diagnose, or (because) the parents strongly question the doctor over the child’s treatment,” she said.

    “The parents are refused the opportunity to obtain a second medical opinion as this is labelled ‘doctor shopping’, part of the MSBP child abuse profile – even though doctors are ethically obliged to allow it and it is a patient’s right to obtain a second medical opinion. A mother could be doing nothing wrong, other than showing anxiety and care for her child and questioning doctors on the care of her very sick child,” she said. “Before long, she could be accused of child abuse and face criminal charges. It is just like the witch hunts of centuries ago that were based on guesswork.”

    MSBP is based on a “profile” or label that allegedly indicates the mother’s behaviour. Such a profile includes the mother who shows too much interest in medical procedures, paradoxically taking no interest in the child’s medical care, and the mother who passively accepts everything but also seeks attention by going to the media. Hayward-Brown said that generally an accused mother will be told she has little hope of her children being returned unless she confesses to MSBP.

    Charles Pragnell, an expert British defence witness in child protection, now based in Melbourne, Australia, said that the labelling of a carer, usually the mother, with child abuse prevents proper investigation. Bringing legal action or making a complaint against a doctor is thereby effectively stopped.

    Hayward-Brown said, “The MSBP profile used by doctors contains paradoxes that make it very difficult, almost impossible, for mothers to prove their innocence. For example, being an over-protective parent is part of the MSBP profile, but so is being a negligent parent.” Child protection agencies often took the view that a mother must be guilty and failed to undertake appropriate investigations.

    “It does not matter if it is called a disorder, behaviour or syndrome. It does not matter if it is seen to be psychiatric or pediatric. The outcome is the same,” she said.

    The legitimacy of the MSBP theory is now undergoing intense scrutiny worldwide. Challengers allege a lack of scientific integrity with highly questionable support literature in medical journals; there is concern that a minority of influential members of the medical profession continue its use. Pragnell made the point that Meadow’s MSBP research had not been subject to peer review.

    Meadow is facing professional misconduct charges (June 2005) being brought by the British General Medical Council, concerning alleged misleading and contradictory evidence. The Royal Statistical Society publicly condemned (October 23, 2001) his statistical methodology, relating to his evidence in the Sally Clark case. A supporter, Professor David Southall, has also been found guilty of serious professional misconduct regarding a child abuse case. The UK Government has ordered official reviews of both criminal and civil cases involving Meadow’s MSBP and cot death theories. The Opposition has called for a public inquiry.

    In the US, Howard Fishman, a former education director at the Harvard Medical School’s psychiatry department, commented, “The child abuse industry has devoted itself to the removal of children from their homes based on spectral evidence, phantom disorders and fanciful modes of purported abuse that should be assigned to the trash bin of junk science”.

    Evidence involving the label or profile of MSBP has been rejected by Australian courts. For example, the Queensland Court of Appeal (R v LM [2004] QCA 192), ruled it prejudicial and inadmissible. The South Australian Supreme Court (S4118, 1993) ruled that, although a pediatrician, Professor David Southall’s MSBP testimony could only be regarded as a lay person’s opinion.

    Meadow’s cot death theory – that one child death in the same family is a tragedy, two suspicious and three murder – has been rejected by the UK Court of Appeal (R v Angela Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim. 01) and in Tennessee, US, (2003, no. 99-D-2836). Judicial comments in the UK Clark case (R v Sally Clark [2003] 200203824 Y3) were that Meadow’s medical and statistical evidence on cot deaths in the case was “wrong” and “grossly overstated”.

    The Queensland Court of Appeal (R v LM [2004] QCA 192), in a unanimous judgment, stated MSBP (or factitious disorder by proxy) was not a recognised psychiatric disorder or mental illness in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV). The court went on to say that MSBP had no agreed sets of symptoms or signs that allowed it to be classified into a recognised psychiatric diagnostic system, it was not a recognised medical condition, disorder or syndrome, and the court excluded evidence from a psychiatrist as “extremely prejudicial”. Justice Holmes noted that the MSBP argument was inherently circular and did nothing to prove criminal conduct.

    The Australian Capital Territory’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Richard Refshauge, said the QCA decision on MSBP made “clear that if a woman is to be prosecuted for harming her children, it is not enough to put a label on it; facts are required to justify the case”.

    “By labelling the woman in this way with MSBP or factitious illness by proxy you are saying the woman is guilty, as the label creates the guilt … People are not convicted for having a syndrome or a particular behaviour; they are convicted for the illegal acts that they do.”

    The QCA decision resulted from a case in a criminal court, where guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt, but Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is frequently used in care proceedings in the children’s court where a decision rests on the degree of probability and does not necessarily abide by the rules of evidence.

    According to Pragnell, this is the heart of the problem. He said that in care proceedings, hearsay evidence was admissible, while such evidence would be inadmissible in criminal matters. Therefore, in care cases, the cards were heavily stacked against mothers when added to any balance-of-probability decision. He suggested care courts should be inquisitorial, aimed at establishing what has happened and what the outcome should be.

    As Hayward-Brown pointed out, parents had limited finances and were often denied government legal aid and support as opposed to the authorities, which appeared to have unlimited funds.

    The NSW child protection agency, Department of Community Services (DOCS), has confirmed it is “precluded” by law from using allegations of MSBP as the basis for the removal of a child. Yet, the writer believes it has used MSBP allegations for many years as the central allegation in child protection proceedings. Written statements to this writer from DOCS (September 10, 2003 and September 24, 2003) suggest that DOCS was in breach of its own legislation when it stated the “Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (Section 71, Subsection 2) precludes DOCS from taking any medical condition of a parent or carer into account when making a child protection decision”. The Director-General of DOCS, Dr Neil Shepherd, declined to be interviewed for this article.

    Pragnell claims some medical authorities show scant regard for legal requirements. “This is causing immense harm to the status of the medical profession and public trust in physicians, as relatives and friends of affected families are alarmed and angered by the needless and unwarranted removal of children and, in some cases, the imprisonment of innocent mothers,” he said.

    Earl Howe reported although the UK Government was looking at a restricted group of court cases where the verdict may have gone the wrong way, “It is disappointing that the Government is not addressing the MSBP or factitious illness by proxy diagnosis that is the core of the problem”.

    In NSW, Victoria and Queensland, MSBP allegations are still being made against mothers. According to Hayward-Brown, there is no indication of any body in NSW or Australia showing concern about the need to review current and previous cases involving Meadow’s evidence, diagnoses and theories.

    Australia’s Federal Government, through its Institute of Family Studies and its Child Protection Clearing House, still recognises MSBP as a valid “diagnosis”. Similarly, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has made use of Meadow’s theories on its website.

    Hayward-Brown stated that medical professionals were afraid to speak out publicly against their colleagues for fear of marginalisation and persecution in a small medical community. “This problem is not going to go away,” she said.

    Legal firms and lawyers had refused to take on MSBP cases as they were too controversial and, “legal aid has been refused to MSBP cases by legal aid bodies in both NSW and Victoria on the grounds that they will not succeed,” she said. This had also occurred in the UK. Cases were often long, complex and involved expensive medical witnesses. Such a denial of legal representation had been found by the European Court of Human Rights to be a breach of human rights in an MSBP case (P, C & S v the UK; no. 56547/00; 2002) where the UK Government was found guilty and fined. This same court found that it was a breach of human rights to remove a child at birth due to a previous allegation of MSBP.

    “No one seems to want to take responsibility over MSBP allegations: the doctors and hospitals, DOCS and the health department keep blaming each other,”Hayward-Brown said. Ministers’offices and opposition health spokespeople were quiet on the issues.

    In a statement to this writer (July 26, 2004), the NSW Commissioner for Children and Young People, Gillian Calvert,  said there was no consensus among the professionals on MSBP. Calvert described MSBP as “a complicated and difficult diagnosis with significant differences of opinion among medical and legal professionals: there are some medical experts who support and diagnose the syndrome and those who dispute its existence”.

    It appears the commission has decided not to take any firm action or use its legislative power to order an inquiry. The commission has also declined to answer questions on whether it is “irresponsible and careless” to allow the current situation to continue. The commission’s parliamentary committee head, Barbara Perry, declined to be interviewed.

    NSW Police has also declined to release information on its use of Meadow, Southall and a US MSBP proponent. The NSW Solicitor-General’s office also refused to respond.

    Hayward-Brown said she was concerned that the diagnosis of MSBP was not being properly addressed in Australia: “No one wants to change the status quo and upset the careers of many doctors and social workers.” She thought authorities could also be reluctant to review cases because of the possibility of negligence claims.

    Pragnell maintains that child protection systems are deeply flawed, erratic and dysfunctional: “There is now a worldwide storm brewing regarding child protection injustices,” he said. “And governments across the globe should take notice as the current situation will no longer be tolerated.”

    To this writer, the authorities in Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy cases have a punitive approach towards parents and their children, who need support rather than punishment and suspicion. Compassion is sadly lacking. We need to reverse the witch-hunt trend and stop persecuting anxious mothers for challenging professional opinions, which in medical eyes, is so often seen as challenging their professional standing.

    Michael Nott

    Source:

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3485

    MSBP Panoramic Views: Part VI

    False accusations of Munchausen by Proxy, The Truth Behind the Label: Part 6 – Panoramic Views

    10 April 2010

    False accusations of Munchausen by Proxy, The Truth Behind the  Label: Part 6 – Panoramic Views

    Christina England

    Vactruth.com
    04/10/2010

    Panoramic Views

    I recently came across a group of Professionals who call themselves PACA which is Professionals Against Child Abuse. PACA is a group of professionals who work in child protection who are there for one another. This group came together after several high profile cases where paediatricians and professionals had cases against them at the GMC. The homepage of their website says:

    Welcome to PACA

    PACA (Professionals Against Child Abuse) is an association of professionals who care for children that came together in 2007 in response to several high-profile cases against paediatricians at the GMC”.

    Whilst I can fully appreciate their need to come together and support each other, they should have children’s needs and welfare at heart instead of their own. I feel sad that they do not recognize that occasionally they do get it wrong and that they do not fully appreciate the impact of the stigma that goes with a false accusation. Professionals together make a powerful force to reckon with.

    So what happens to the parents who have been falsely accused when the police have gone and social services have left?

    Some of the lucky ones do get help. They meet professionals like Lisa Blakemore-Brown Child Psychologist, Expert Witness and Expert in Autism, Charles Pragnell, an independent social care management consultant, a Child/Family Advocate, and an Expert Defence Witness – Child Protection , Dr Helen Hayward-Brown, doctorate in the social sciences (interdisciplinary: sociology, anthropology, psychology) Earl Howe, House of Lords, Countess Mar, House of Lords, Michael Nott, Former Radio and Television Journalist, Clifford Miller UK Lawyer, Dr Michael Innis Pathologist and a Haematologist , Dr Harold Buttram MD, FAACP and various like-minded professionals throughout the world who do listen and care. These are all professionals who are prepared to go that extra mile. Unfortunately many child protection professionals are not and largely remain detached from the real situation.

    Parents should not be treated like criminals. The sentence “innocent until proven guilty” should be respected. If the label MSBP has to be used then a clear precise criteria of what it is should be agreed. At present the umbrella is far too wide. There has to be clear set boundaries as to what does and does not amount to MSBP. For example can you really put “pictures on tee shirts” and parents who may be over anxious into the same category as someone who has been proven to put injections of faeces into the bloodstream of a child? If a parent appears over anxious or a little mis-guided then professionals should speak to them and reassure them, they may be afraid or in need of help and support. If a parent does need help need help then they should be referred to the relevant agencies . Is an accusation of child abuse really productive or counter-productive?

    According to the evidence shown by Lisa Blakemore-Brown which has since been seen and backed by others, more and more families with Autistic children are being accused. Could this be because professionals are not understanding ASD fully, or because of the vast numbers now coming through the system? Could a MSBP label be a cover for vaccine injuries, put in place to quieten parents who ask too many questions or are a little too insistent that a vaccine injury is to blame? Lisa Blakemore- Brown and many like her certainly think so. If my case is used as an example then children are not being correctly diagnosed and parents are being accused of making up conditions and being told that their children are normal when it is blatantly obvious that they are not.

    I would like to see professionals from all sides including the Government, sit down and discuss their views and opinions. They all have valid opinions and views and if they all worked together then a sensible realistic set of Guidelines could be drawn up. After all the key issue is the protection of the children. I realise this will never happen and I guess the MSBP war will rage on for eternity.

    Professionals warned the Government this was happening many years ago so why is it still happening and why were these professionals suppressed?

    Lisa Blakemore-Brown wrote to Jack Straw in 1996

    It states in Guardian 2004 Ministers are told child harm theory was flawed : that

    “Lisa Blakemore-Brown, a child psychologist and expert on autism and Asperger’s Syndrome, who, as chairwoman of an organisation called Promoting Parenting Skills acted as an adviser to the Home Office, wrote to then shadow secretary Jack Straw in 1996 warning that MSBP had resulted in a mother being wrongly separated from her children.”

    She had mentioned her concerns several times, in the Psychologist letter in 1997 and in an article in the “The Therapist” in 1998. This was a year after Sir Roy Meadow had himself written an article for The Therapist. On reading Lisa Blakemore-Browns letter in the “Psychologist” the Editor of the The Therapist contacted Lisa Blakemore-Brown to ask if she would write an article showing the opposite view to start debate.

    Blakemore-Brown first mentioned the possible vaccine link as early as 1996 but instead of her concerns being taken seriously, attempts to destroy her career and discredit her reputation have continued ever since. One has to wonder why this is.

    MSBP was once thought to be a rare syndrome but today more and more cases are coming to light. Are more parents abusing their children if so why? I heard of one professional bragging in an interview that he had spotted 70 cases locally and that he could spot an abusive parent a mile off. That is scary especially if true. Is his area typical or was it because he was taking the guidelines so literally that he was spotting more cases than he should have been?

    So is there help out there for parents like me? Well there is a little. Attitudes are slowly changing through cases being publicised and highlighted showing injustice, Governments are being forced to sit up and listen. There are campaign groups operating and a few Internet forums. I have listed a few below to help.

    I realize in writing these articles I may come under further attack. It may well be seen as more of my “attention seeking behaviour”. Of course this I feel will justify my accusers, by making them feel they were right all along. My reason for writing this is not to get attention but to educate professionals, especially those just qualifying and the general public to understand the term MSBP and just what damage can be done when attaching this label falsely to a parent or care giver. I particularly wanted to highlight how parents of many vaccine injured children are now being falsely accused. I also want to help other parents who have been falsely accused to feel that they are not alone.

    One day maybe professionals will stop and think. They may decide to do further tests and not be so keen to accuse parents and carers of abuse.

    Just a small note to end this series of articles with, my Social Services did inform my MP after many meetings with them trying to get my data cleared that “I had been cured of MSBP during the process”. However cured or not my data is yet to be cleared.

    I would like to say a special thank you to all the professionals who helped me personally, especially Lisa Blakemore-Brown who is an amazing and remarkable lady. I would urge her to carry on with her wonderful work despite the terrible damage that has been done to her because of her beliefs and outspokenness. To the many who will criticize me, I would like to say I am not a bad person just a mother who tries her best for two children she loves very much. I may have made mistakes and I do get things wrong, I am human and a parent and we all do. There is no manual for parents to follow, we have no guidelines it’s the professionals who have those. They are the ones protected by unions not us parents, our job is to protect our children but who protects us when things go wrong?

    (Part: 1 | Part: 2 | Part: 3 | Part: 4 | Part: 5 | Part: 6)

    RELATED LINKS

    Parents Centre

    Mackenzie Friend

    Resolution

    Fassit – a support and information forum

    Unity Injustice -a support and information forum

    Fathers 4 Justice – father’s campaign group

    Justice for Families

    Pro Bono Unit

    Free Representation Unit

    European Court of Human Rights

    European Court of Human Rights – Applicant Section

    Parents and Children’s Rights

    Children Rights Alliance

    Every Child Matters

    The Law Society Directory

    Profitable Harm

    http://vactruth.com

    Source:

    http://vactruth.com/2010/04/10/false-accusations-of-munchausen-by-proxy-the-truth-behind-the-label-part-6%E2%80%93panoramic-views/

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 118 other followers