Search This Blog

Tuesday, 14 January 2014

Child Protection and Medical 'Experts'

In essence it concerned parents who have lost, or are in danger of losing their children, arising from ‘expert’ medical evidence provided to local authority social services (the lead agency in child protection work) and the family courts. The infants and young children featured had one thing in common - all were found to have multiple broken bones which could not be explained by their parents.

Cause for concern, on the face of it, and no-one (least of all myself, as I have worked in child protection for many years) will take exception to safeguarding children from serious physical harm.

The medical authorities referred the cases to the social services, and child protection procedures were initiated. The parents did not know how the injuries occurred, and did not admit liability. Care proceeding were taken, and largely on the basis of medical evidence, many parents are losing their children, and living under the threat of any newborn child being removed in a similar fashion.

The ‘expert’ medical evidence stated in these cases that the injuries had no medical cause, and therefore, could only have been done through the abuse and mistreatment by the parents. Unfortunately, this ‘expert’ medical advice was not correct. The programme outlined that most of these children had extremely low levels of Vitamin D, and that this could, and should have been put on the agenda when considering whether the children had been abused. So who was at fault here.
  • The social services who acted mainly on the information given to them by medical ‘experts’? 
  • The family courts who acted mainly on the information given to them by medical ‘experts’?
  • The medical ‘experts’?
Even the BBC, loyal supporters of the Conventional Medical Establishment, almost brought themselves to admit that the medical evidence was wrong, and that they should have been aware of the consequences of serious Vitamin D deficiency - one of which is rickets (a disease now apparently in the process to returning to this country).

There is certainly a similar reluctance to challenge the Conventional Medical Establishment within local authority social services departments, and within the family court. Indeed, there is a reluctance throughout society to challenge conventional medical expertise!

There is, however, no such diffidence within the Conventional Medical Establishment to claiming not only expertise, but an expertise bordering on infallibility! So if a child is found to have multiple broken bones, and the ‘expert’ medics can provide no explanation for them, the parents are blamed. There can be no other explanation as doctors know, and can explain everything, about health matters.

The word of conventional doctors seems to have become the unquestioned, unchallenged ‘law’ of the land.

Has this happened before? Do you remember ‘shaken baby syndrome’, for which several mothers were imprisoned on the almost sole basis of the evidence of conventional medical ‘experts’. And that these mothers were eventually released when the medical evidence was found to be deeply flawed.

And do you recall the issues raised by many unexplained cot deaths (otherwise known as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDs)? 

The only difference with ‘shaken baby syndrome’ and SIDs is that there are medical explanations, but the explanations were not given by the conventional medical ‘experts’ involved presumably because it did not suit them to do so. In other words, SIDs has been found to be caused by the very medicine they prescribe for us!

So should these conventional medical ‘experts’ have known about the link between broken bones and Vitamin D deficiency? Should these parents have lost their babies? As the BBC Panorama programme indicated, the link between Vitamin D deficiency and Rickets has been known for over 100 years. So what this knowledge does, yet again, is to raise a vital question. 

To what extent can we trust the Conventional Medical Establishment to tell us the truth? How honest are our doctors about the dangers their drugs and vaccines cause us? And just how far will conventional medical ‘experts’ go to prevent us from knowing about the harm their medical system is doing to our health.

This is just another reason for all of us, but particularly the mainstream media, the social services, and the courts, to begin to question seriously the safety, effectiveness, and indeed the honesty of the Conventional Medical Establishment.