This story from @liammannix about the quashing of debate within forensic science is one of the most wild things I've ever read ping @RetractionWatchhttps://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/legal-threats-and-police-searches-debate-explodes-over-baby-shaking-science-20210513-p57rkp.html …
-
-
And while I have absolutely no expertise in paediatric forensics, I've read Dr. Brook's piece which while retracted is still available as a preprint, and it does not seem like a wild and unscientific document https://www.researchgate.net/profile/C-Brook/publication/333978817_Is_there_an_evidentiary_basis_for_shaken_baby_syndrome_The_conviction_of_Joby_Rowe/links/5f5c7d1f299bf1d43cfcaccd/Is-there-an-evidentiary-basis-for-shaken-baby-syndrome-The-conviction-of-Joby-Rowe.pdf …pic.twitter.com/zacVowBSpq
Show this thread -
Needless to say - Dr. Brook could be totally wrong. He is also not an expert in paediatric forensics But as I said, I've read his piece, and followed the references. It's not a wild or unsupported theory as far as I can tell
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
