What killed Sally Clark’s child?

Wednesday, 16th May 2007

Neville Hodgkinson asks why the jury in the Sally Clark trial was told to discount the DTP jab given to her second child, Harry, just five hours before he was found dead

Professor Sir Roy Meadow was first to describe MSBP. Previously held in high esteem for his work in this field, in 2005 he was struck off by the General Medical Council for giving ‘erroneous’ and ‘misleading’ evidence that helped wrongly convict Sally, and two other mothers, of killing their children. Last year he was reinstated, after an appeal to the High Court in London. Mr Justice Collins said he had acted in good faith when he gave evidence at the Clark trial, including his widely publicised claim that the probability of two cot deaths in a family such as the Clarks’ was 73 million to one. Studies suggest a more realistic figure is 64 to one. The judge said he had ‘made one mistake; it was a mistake that was easily and widely made’.

Clearly, Professor Meadow is much respected and has made a distinguished contribution to medicine. But was it really such an innocent mistake? Or was the professor — in common with his paediatric colleagues — avoiding facing up to a reality, unpleasant for professionals who have for years defended a controversial vaccine: that when a tiny baby dies five hours after being injected, a link between the two events might be more probable than that the mother was a murderer?

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

More articles from: Neville Hodgkinson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

carol jewell

March 16th, 2009 8:43am Report this comment

Sally and her family deserve justice for her and her family. To cover up the fact the little baby had had a combination of chemicals pumped into it's body should have those involved in administering this lethal cocktail in the High Court. There is a link between the condition of the little baby and the administering of the injections. The baby was said to have been sniffeling before the injections were given. This was a sign all was not well and to then inject the baby with these chemicals was an appalling act of medical irresponsibility. The all too freely of flooding synthetic chemicals into the body just has to be vigorously opposed. In the case of babies who are showing signs and symptoms ( as Sally's little boy did ) of a weakness in the pituitary gland, the chemicals would have a further devastating effect on this gland and major organ failure would result. The most common cause of the symtoms the baby was showing would be the presence of the viruses Measles; Mumps; Chicken-pox; Rubella in the central nervous system..

Jack Humphries

July 31st, 2009 7:34pm Report this comment

It is probable that the person who vaccinated the child killed the child, complicit with the person who instructed that the child be vaccinated, and the parent/s of the child who consented for the child to be vaccinated.

Nick Hewes

August 3rd, 2009 10:51pm Report this comment

"No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts"

Lord Salsbury, (letter to Lord Lytton), 1877

Lisa Blakemore-Brown

December 3rd, 2009 6:21pm Report this comment

It may be of interest to readers of this article that Sir Roy Meadow has now mysteriously removed himself from the General Medical Council Register. Read about it in the following article I have just written:

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=3100&end=3120&view=yes&id=4111#newspost

Post comment