Cot deaths 'expert' Sir Roy may not have been wrong
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Findings of a cot death study that helped to discredit the paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow were challenged by a report published yesterday in the British Medical Journal.
A paper published in 2005 in the medical journal, The Lancet, suggested that the vast majority of second infant deaths in families who have already lost a baby were due to natural causes. In 2005, research led by Prof Robert Carpenter, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found that as many as 90 percent of second deaths were natural.
The study was based on more than 6,000 babies who passed through the Care of the Next Infant (Coni) scheme, set up by the Foundation for the Study of Infant Death.The paper was published when murder convictions connected to sudden infant deaths were being reviewed. The BMJ report, led by investigative journalist Jonathan Gornall, alleges that classification of deaths in the study were changed after the death of a senior researcher, Professor John Emery, who had prepared a report on the Coni scheme in 1998 and concluded that 40 per cent were "unnatural". But, by 2005, the proportion of "unnatural" deaths had fallen to 13 per cent, because some had been re-categorised as natural. Others were excluded and 13 unclear deaths were listed as "natural". The BMJ report says: "The authors created the illogical corollary that all the deaths in the series that were not unnatural must be natural."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments