what really needs to be done is an overhaul of the courts' expert witness system. It should be peer-reviewed to stop something like this happening again. Clearly the prosecution highly regarded Prof Meadows' research and opinions, yet statistical and epidemiological academics found his work flawed - but their opinions weren't called on in court - even the by defence team (I think, correct me?).
Many, many paediatricians agreed with Prof Meadows' work. He is widely known in the field and extensively published. It's not like Shipman.
What he did was wrong - but why was he allowed to make a diagnosis without meeting the patient? Why did the courts or the Royal College of paediatricians not pick up on this - why did they sanction this way of working? And, let's face it, it's not just Meadows who worked in this way; his professional practice came under scrutiny as a result of a high-profile case. Paediatricians won't work this way again, and I do think, to a certain degree, Meadows has been made a scapegoat for a judical mode of practice that is very, very flawed.