The shaken baby syndrome report was not the result of a conspiracy. Response to Dr. Narang et al.

Conflicts of interest issues. Response to Lucas et al.

“…They maintained that in a clinical situation, the triad is mostly seen in association with impact trauma to the head or body and is merely used in medico‐legal settings. This is simply not correct – see our reply to Narang et al . Furthermore, in our experience, this does not imply that there is no connection between the clinical examination and the medico‐legal values at stake.…”

The scientific evidence regarding retinal haemorrhages. Response to Hellgren et al. and Levin

“…The Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment did initially invite an expert to take part, but there were potential conflicts of interest that precluded his/her participation. It was also noted that child protection teams had developed guidelines that were strongly prejudicial to the present research question, as they stated that if the triad was observed, without signs of impact, the diagnosis of abuse was quite clear – see also our response to Narang et al .…”

Shaken baby syndrome and the risk of losing scientific scrutiny

“…The results of this project were first published as a report in Swedish , and later in English and as a paper in Acta Paediatrica . We welcomed any comments on these publications and received a number of critical comments , to which we responded . In the following text, we discuss what happened in the final phases of this work and discuss whether the scientific rigour risks being lost when a paradigm is under threat.…”