Professor Sir Roy Meadows

[Peri]

Any opinions on Professor Sir Roy Meadows.

[MargeB]

Yeah. He did some good, but that was probably a fluke, and all the Munchausen by proxy stuff should be re examined.

Moral of the story is: if thou art carp at Stats, leave it all well alone.

[Artful]

Who is he? From what andy hughes and MargeB say, he sounds like an unpleasant chappy.

[SteveD]

For Artful:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3307427.stm

[Artful]

Thanks, SteveD. That was extremely interesting.

[libertie]

Yep, certainly does cast a doubt on everything he has done!  Can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to loose a child then find yourself accused of it's death, no time to grieve properly or anything.  How truly awful that must be!!

[inferno]

Is it just me or has andy hughes had a personality change?

[Dom Tuk]

The amount of grief that this man has created for families around the UK is unbelievable. Children taken away from parents on the basis of his expert statements, innocent mothers in prison and he wont even apologise. The GMC will no doubt completely exonerate him. Atleast he is on god company with his queens honours list. He and Mugabe could have lots to talk about.

[Dom Tuk]

I heard Jonathan Ross mention that the original by Dolly Parton (?) is even better. I dont know anyone who has heard it though.

[Gevs1966]

Personally I think that the Rik Waller version holds the most credability in modern music times!

Back to the original question, does the article in the link posted above not say that Roy Meadows was not responsible and that it was pathologists evidence that forced the court of appeal to overturn their verdict?

"It is also true that the Court of Appeal decision to quash Mrs Clark's murder convictions did not hinge on Professor Meadow's statistics.

Instead, the crucial factor was the revelation that evidence from pathologist Dr Alan Williams had not been made available at the original trial"

[Peri]

Totally beside the point Dolly Partons version is definitely the best.

[catra1]

as someone who occassionally works in the role of an expert witness this case worries me, there is a difference between saying this is a possibility and this is probable. I dont think you can ever say the later in a case like this if you were not there- research statistics and academia can be dangerous if they are not used responsibly!
Catra

[sorkycat]

I would just like to say that i find that if there was ever a witch hunt, then professor Meadows was the scapegoat. myself and my younger brother would not be here today if it wasnt for the proffesional sir roy. He was the person who treated us both for nephrotic syndrome when we were both very young, the desease was virtually unheard of and without him we would have surely died. i wish people would just think about the countless fammilies that he has helped...

[Hgrove]

Totally agree with Andy Hughes, except of course he was allowed to retire on full pension, bonuses etc., before they commenced proceedings against him.  How ironic to all his victims.  I once came across a very old midwifery textbook he had written ages ago (1970s I think).   You could tell his attitude to women from the warnings about how every mother could be an abuser if, for ex., the baby had very bad nappy rash (sign of neglect in his book) and on and on.

[El D]

Just to offer an alternative - my mother has spent many, many years in the health sector and has no doubt through her dealings with mothers from all walks of life that munchausens by proxy, whatever you call it, exists as a mental illness. I admit I know nothing of the prof himself, sounds like a bit of a dinosaur.

[billuk2005]

I guess the truth is that Meadows did not have usfficient knowledge of statistics to be a 'Expert witness'.  But in which case perhaps we should examine the skills of the prosecution and the defence legal teams in a) not testing his knowledge and skills in statistics and b) not having sufficient understanding of science and the methodology of research methods in healthcare.

They should have tested his knowledge of statistics by bringing in their own specialist (another expert!) and they should have cast doubt on his use of unpublished and hence not reviewed by other experts as to its validity.  There is a way to check on the validity of scientific papers that is used when assessing the value of such papers for use in the real world. Why didnt the Defence legal team do what it was supposed to do and test his evidence. 

Perhaps the defence team should also be brought before their own professional body for negligence.

[ruffles86]

nice one billuk2005, i completely agree and have been trying to tell people that for ages.
i am very biased-this 'dinosaur' saved my life back when i was 18 months old, and know for sure he's not evil as he is described. he didn't do right by a long shot (and does deserve to have something done about it), but just remember all the lives he has saved, not just the ones he was involved in messing up. i owe the man my life and can't get hold of him because people want to harm him. i can't even say thank you for what he did for me now i'm old enough to understand.
why the hell wasn't he questioned??

Ruth Lister