1. Been thinking more about the op-ed, which seems to dismiss our investigative series as “anecdotes,” which “often do not convey the full story." It seems like a good opportunity to highlight some of what @keribla and I reported 👇
2. In this story, a pair of grandparents were wrongly sentenced to 25 years in prison based largely on the dubious testimony of a pediatrician who “did not base his opinions on the particular facts” of the case, a court found. nbcnews.com/news/us-news/p…
3. In this case, child abuse specialists repeatedly misstated the evidence against a mom who they accused of medical child abuse. Two years later, she remains separated from her daughter. One doctor said reunification is never in the child’s best interest. nbcnews.com/news/us-news/d…
4. Here, doctors uncovered evidence of a clotting disorder that might have explained why an infant had excessive bleeding after a short fall in the driveway. The hospital child abuse team never shared that information with CPS and even denied it existed. nbcnews.com/news/us-news/t…
5. Although an acclaimed neurosurgeon said this child’s brain bleed was not concerning, a child abuse pediatrician reported to CPS that the condition was “certainly inflicted,” conveying a level of confidence that cannot be supported by science. nbcnews.com/news/us-news/d…
6. We found several cases where doctors used that type of language, using terms such as “100 percent” and “certain” to describe conclusions that usually cannot be proven with absolute confidence. This language is sometimes all the evidence CPS needs to remove children.
7. Other times doctors reported conclusions with hyperbolic language with no basis in science, like claiming that a child who suffered a skull fracture and subdural bleeding had injuries consistent with an “unrestrained motor vehicle accident” or a “fall from three stories.”
8. We found arrangements where doctors salaries are directly funded by the same state CPS agency that asks them for independent case reviews. And we found doctors veering out of their lane, making recommendations about whether parents should be allowed to be with their children.
9. Our stories acknowledge that child abuse pediatricians are likely correct most of the time, particularly in cases where children have suffered extensive unexplained injuries. Far too many children are abused, and these doctors save lives.
10. But our reporting revealed serious issues that are worthy of discussion, but that were not even acknowledged in this letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
11. Based on this separate AAP letter from this week dismissing these types of stories as unhelpful “anecdotes,” it appears this might be part of a coordinated response. kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/…
12. Neither letter acknowledges the possibility that child abuse pediatricians might get it wrong, that some might be more prone to errors than others (as in any field), that when that happens it is deveatating for families. They do not acknowledge any room for improvement.
13. In terms of anecdotes, we’ve heard hundreds more of them in recent weeks, from families across the country who believe their cases were mishandled by doctors. We’ll be digging into those and sharing more of them in the coming weeks.
14. In the meantime, check out our complete @NBCNews / @HoustonChron Do No Harm series here: nbcnews.com/news/us-news/d…
