Ellipsis marks an important omissionBMJ 2007; 334 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39070.649398.3A (Published 04 January 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;334:7
- Richard Webster, author
- 1Oxford OX2 6TX [email protected]
Gornall, in his article about the paper by Carpenter et al on recurrent infant deaths,1 was right to argue that uncertain data should not be translated into statistics that seem clear cut. But his suggestion that a report by John Emery, the pathologist who initiated the Lancet study, upheld the ultra-suspiciousness of “Meadow's law” is curious.
Emery produced the report for Sally Clark's defence …
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
Sign up for a free trial