<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for EquityFeminism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.equityfeminism.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.equityfeminism.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Jun 2010 07:59:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Fathers Rights Activist: I Only Hit My Wife In Self-Defense by Celine</title>
		<link>http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2005/fathers-rights-activist-i-only-hit-my-wife-in-self-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-67807</link>
		<dc:creator>Celine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jun 2010 07:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://equityfeminism.devilsadvocate.org/?p=48#comment-67807</guid>
		<description>That is only one side of the story.  Why do you have to be so biased?  You could at least give both sides of the story, before judging someone for something that they perhaps did not do?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is only one side of the story.  Why do you have to be so biased?  You could at least give both sides of the story, before judging someone for something that they perhaps did not do?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Rape By Book Review by JenD</title>
		<link>http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/1994/rape-by-book-review/comment-page-1/#comment-67536</link>
		<dc:creator>JenD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://equityfeminism.devilsadvocate.org/?p=604#comment-67536</guid>
		<description>Can someone please help me find out who I can contact from this website in order to have a newspaper article from 4 years ago removed from this site?  Please post a comment with the information.  Thank you.

JenD</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can someone please help me find out who I can contact from this website in order to have a newspaper article from 4 years ago removed from this site?  Please post a comment with the information.  Thank you.</p>
<p>JenD</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Bonobos, Chimpanzees, and Maureen Dowd by Sammy Sullivan</title>
		<link>http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2002/bonobos-chimpanzees-and-maureen-dowd/comment-page-1/#comment-67480</link>
		<dc:creator>Sammy Sullivan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:13:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://equityfeminism.devilsadvocate.org/?p=313#comment-67480</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;check mine out......&lt;/strong&gt;

keep up the good work man.......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="">
<p><strong>check mine out&#8230;&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>keep up the good work man&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Surrendered Wife Phenomena by Why Hate The Surrendered Wife? &#171; Another God Feering Conservative</title>
		<link>http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2001/the-surrendered-wife-phenomena/comment-page-1/#comment-67472</link>
		<dc:creator>Why Hate The Surrendered Wife? &#171; Another God Feering Conservative</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 04:31:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://equityfeminism.devilsadvocate.org/?p=477#comment-67472</guid>
		<description>[...] Hate The Surrendered&#160;Wife?  I keep reading how all kindsof people hate this book. I jus dont get it. For a while I thought it was just jelousy, but thats not it. Heres how I [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="">
<p>[...] Hate The Surrendered&nbsp;Wife?  I keep reading how all kindsof people hate this book. I jus dont get it. For a while I thought it was just jelousy, but thats not it. Heres how I [...]</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Bonobos, Chimpanzees, and Maureen Dowd by Baseball Crank</title>
		<link>http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2002/bonobos-chimpanzees-and-maureen-dowd/comment-page-1/#comment-8391</link>
		<dc:creator>Baseball Crank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:40:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://equityfeminism.devilsadvocate.org/?p=313#comment-8391</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;BLOG:  Quick Links 7/30/07...&lt;/strong&gt;

*Pedro Feliciano&#039;s meltdown on Saturday can probably just be chalked up to nobody being perfect (Wagner, whose ERA is down to 1.39, is almost certainly overdue for one of those games), but with Joe Smith down in the minors, it&#039;s......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="">
<p><strong>BLOG:  Quick Links 7/30/07&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>*Pedro Feliciano&#8217;s meltdown on Saturday can probably just be chalked up to nobody being perfect (Wagner, whose ERA is down to 1.39, is almost certainly overdue for one of those games), but with Joe Smith down in the minors, it&#8217;s&#8230;&#8230;</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Surrendered Wife Phenomena by greenwych</title>
		<link>http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2001/the-surrendered-wife-phenomena/comment-page-1/#comment-5664</link>
		<dc:creator>greenwych</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:43:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://equityfeminism.devilsadvocate.org/?p=477#comment-5664</guid>
		<description>It is a stupid idea and completely dishonest, but what man would not just love it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is a stupid idea and completely dishonest, but what man would not just love it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Surrendered Wife Phenomena by greenwych</title>
		<link>http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2001/the-surrendered-wife-phenomena/comment-page-1/#comment-5663</link>
		<dc:creator>greenwych</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://equityfeminism.devilsadvocate.org/?p=477#comment-5663</guid>
		<description>I think it is pathetic to mollycoddle and flatter up a man so as to keep him&quot;sweet&quot;--its entirely dishonest.  Both myself and my daughter havw tried this &quot;experiment&quot; in the past--before this idea was around--both of us only managed a week then gave up in hysterics, the men lapped it up and were livid when they realised what we had been doing! We are both single again I might add, hip hop horrah, no messy man to make a nuisance of himself and to pander to!  What a silly woman!

greenwych</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it is pathetic to mollycoddle and flatter up a man so as to keep him&#8221;sweet&#8221;&#8211;its entirely dishonest.  Both myself and my daughter havw tried this &#8220;experiment&#8221; in the past&#8211;before this idea was around&#8211;both of us only managed a week then gave up in hysterics, the men lapped it up and were livid when they realised what we had been doing! We are both single again I might add, hip hop horrah, no messy man to make a nuisance of himself and to pander to!  What a silly woman!</p>
<p>greenwych</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on British Study Confirms that Multiple SIDS Deaths Not So Unusual by Concerned</title>
		<link>http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2005/british-study-confirms-that-multiple-sids-deaths-not-so-unusual/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Concerned</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2007 17:27:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://equityfeminism.devilsadvocate.org/?p=9#comment-4</guid>
		<description>Seems ironic that David Southall, the professor who accused Sally 
Clarkâ€™s husband of murdering his child whilst he was away from 
home, has been involved with smothering experimentation WITHOUT 
PARENTAL CONSENT.


http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31383&amp;SESSION=875 

EDM 2767 

WORK OF PROFESSOR DAVID SOUTHALL 
17.10.2006 


That this House notes that according to the report written by 
Professor David Hull for North Staffordshire Trust about the work 
of Professor David Southall in the report written for the 
University Hospital of North Staffordshire by Professor McLeish and 
Dr Durbin, Professor McLeish said that Professor Southall `pursued 
multiple clinical research studies that were poorly designed and 
therefore were unlikely to produce new knowledge of worth. More 
worryingly he appears to have had insufficient regard for the 
ethical standards that should surround all clinical studies in 
babies&#039;; believes that such comments are important comments that 
require proper consideration; is surprised that the University 
Hospital of North Staffordshire is unable to find a copy of this 
report; calls for the hospital to find a copy of this report and 
publish its contents; and further calls for an independent judicial 
or Parliamentary inquiry into the research and clinical activities 
of Professor David Southall, the failure of the regulatory system 
to prevent unethical experiments on babies managed by Professor 
Southall and the misuse of child protection and judicial procedures 
both to prevent parents from raising complaints about his research 
and procure children for his research. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1859611,00.html 

Monday August 28, 2006 
Guardian 

Detectives have stepped up an investigation into claims that the 
leading paediatrician David Southall left a child brain damaged as 
a result of a controversial breathing experiment 15 years ago, the 
Guardian has learned. 

South Wales police have broadened their inquiry into an allegation 
that Professor Southall assaulted the boy by carrying out the test 
and are asking dozens of parents whose children may have come into 
contact with the paediatrician over the years to come forward if 
their child suffered any injuries as a result of his treatment. 
Professor Southall has denied that his treatment has harmed any 
child. 

In a letter to parents last week, Detective Inspector Chris 
Mullane, of the force&#039;s child protection unit, said further 
inquiries could be opened as a result of the responses from 
parents. The letter says police are investigating an allegation of 
assault on a boy that may have occurred while he was undergoing 
treatment by Prof Southall at the University Hospital of Wales. It 
asks parents: &quot;Has your child been treated directly or indirectly 
by Professor Southall ... Did your child suffer any injuries or 
adverse effects from that treatment ... Have you reported this 
matter to the police or any other body?&quot; 

The investigation began after the parents of Ben McLean alleged 
that he had been left brain damaged by Prof Southall&#039;s experiments 
at the University Hospital of Wales in 1991. 

The child&#039;s mother, Davina McLean, believes that without their 
informed consent, her five-year-old son was given carbon dioxide to 
breathe and his airway was occluded during a sleep study. She 
claims that she and her husband were forced to take part in the 
study after Prof Southall said they were suffering from 
Munchausen&#039;s syndrome by proxy, and warned that unless they allowed 
Ben to take part he would be taken into care. Prof Southall has 
also denied these claims. 

When Ben left hospital he was placed in foster care, but a year 
later a court found the McLeans had not harmed their child. Ben, 
now 20, lives with his parents and has severe speech and learning 
difficulties. Mrs McLean told the Guardian: &quot;We are pleased that 
other parents out there who may have concerns are being contacted. 
All we want is justice for our son.&quot; 

Prof Southall has attracted praise and controversy during his long 
career. Last year he was found guilty of serious professional 
misconduct and banned from child protection work for three years 
after wrongly accusing the husband of Sally Clark of killing their 
baby sons. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/realmedia/midlandstoday/bulletin.ram 


South Wales Police Heddlu De Cymru 

Working with the Community Cydweithio Gydaâ€™r Gymuned 

Public Protection Unit 
Central Police Station 
King Edward VII Avenue 
Cathays Park 
CARDIFF 
CF10 3NN 

Telephone (029) 20527272 

10th August 2006 


Dear 

South Wales Police are currently investigating an allegation of 
assault on a young boy that may have occurred whilst undergoing 
treatment by Professor David Southall at the University Hospital of 
Wales. 

I have been given your details by Mr William BACHE, Solicitor, who 
assures me that he has your authority for me to make contact with 
you. 

I would be obliged if I could be provided with certain replies to 
the below questions. I must emphasise that South Wales Police are 
not carrying out an enquiry into Professor Southall, but are 
investigating one allegation of assault carried out in our force 
area. It may well transpire that further enquiries are carried out 
in the future if document dictate that to be the appropriate course 
of action. Please reply via email if you wish or I have enclosed a 
S.A.E.for your convenience. 

1. Has your child been treated directly or indirectly by Professor Southall. 
2. If yes please outline the document of that treatment. 
3. Did your child suffer any injuries or adverse effects from that 
treatment. 
4. Have you reported this matter to the Police or any other body 
such as the GMC (please specify). 
5. If you reported the matter to the police 
i) which force 
ii) when 
iii) have you details of an investigating officer or any other 
means of reference 
iv) Result of the Police investigation 

My apologies for being brief and to the point, but I am sure you 
appreciate the complexities of this enquiry. 

Yours faithfully 


Chris Mullane 
DETECTIVE INSPECTOR 
chris.mullane@south-wales.pnn.police.uk 



DAILY EXPRESS TUESDAY FEBRUARY 6 2001 Page 30 

Scandal of &#039;smothered&#039; babies in cot death test 
Police investigate experiments on little children with lung problems 

EXCLUSIVE 
BY LUCY JOHNSTON 
AND JONATHAN CALVERT 


SECRET hospital cot death experiments in which doctors planned deliberately 
to `smother&#039; babies are being investigated by police. 


The research project, devised by some of Britain&#039;s leading child 
specialists, 
envisaged using tiny infants with severe breathing difficulties. 

The babies&#039; faces were to be covered with a mask attached to a breathing 
machine and their mouths `smothered&#039; for up to 10 seconds on five occasions. 


It is not clear whether the scheme was ever fully carried out, but 
it appears that some parts did take place. 


The controversial procedure, approved by an ethics committee, was 
regarded as safe. The infants would be secretly monitored by 
doctors as they got older. If they died of unrelated illness, 
pieces of their lungs, brains, livers, and hearts would be sent to 
a pathologist in Sheffield Children&#039;s 
Hospital for analysis and comparison with the project data. 

The study was designed to help discover whether cot death was 
caused by breathing and heart abnormalities and involved children 
across the country. 

In a highly unusual move, doctors decided they would not seek 
written consent from parents because they did not want to cause 
alarm. 

The study, named the Sudden Infant Death Project, was planned to be 
carried out at three hospitals: Rotherham District General, the 
Doncaster Royal Infirmary and the Barnsley District Hospital during 
the late Eighties and early Nineties. 

A spokesperson for the Rotherham District General Hospital said: 
&quot;Our consultant has said that the study did go ahead so I&#039;m pretty 
sure it did.&quot; 

A spokeswoman for the Doncaster Royal Infirmary said it could not 
comment on the matter &quot;because it is subject of a police inquiry&quot;. 

The Daily Express has evidence the experiment could also have been 
conducted at other hospitals. Two sets of parents believe their 
children were brain damaged after being put into similar 
experiments. 

The two children, whose brains were developing normally, now have 
speech and co-ordination problems and severe learning difficulties. 

The parents have not been able to find out what happened while 
their children were in hospital. 


British Medical Journal paper recording the experimentation in smothering.

What higher authority to confirm this evil practice?

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7135/887

or condensed URL here

http://tinyurl.com/2so6pd</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems ironic that David Southall, the professor who accused Sally<br />
Clarkâ€™s husband of murdering his child whilst he was away from<br />
home, has been involved with smothering experimentation WITHOUT<br />
PARENTAL CONSENT.</p>
<p><a href="http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31383&amp;SESSION=875" rel="nofollow">http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31383&amp;SESSION=875</a> </p>
<p>EDM 2767 </p>
<p>WORK OF PROFESSOR DAVID SOUTHALL<br />
17.10.2006 </p>
<p>That this House notes that according to the report written by<br />
Professor David Hull for North Staffordshire Trust about the work<br />
of Professor David Southall in the report written for the<br />
University Hospital of North Staffordshire by Professor McLeish and<br />
Dr Durbin, Professor McLeish said that Professor Southall `pursued<br />
multiple clinical research studies that were poorly designed and<br />
therefore were unlikely to produce new knowledge of worth. More<br />
worryingly he appears to have had insufficient regard for the<br />
ethical standards that should surround all clinical studies in<br />
babies&#8217;; believes that such comments are important comments that<br />
require proper consideration; is surprised that the University<br />
Hospital of North Staffordshire is unable to find a copy of this<br />
report; calls for the hospital to find a copy of this report and<br />
publish its contents; and further calls for an independent judicial<br />
or Parliamentary inquiry into the research and clinical activities<br />
of Professor David Southall, the failure of the regulatory system<br />
to prevent unethical experiments on babies managed by Professor<br />
Southall and the misuse of child protection and judicial procedures<br />
both to prevent parents from raising complaints about his research<br />
and procure children for his research. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1859611,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1859611,00.html</a> </p>
<p>Monday August 28, 2006<br />
Guardian </p>
<p>Detectives have stepped up an investigation into claims that the<br />
leading paediatrician David Southall left a child brain damaged as<br />
a result of a controversial breathing experiment 15 years ago, the<br />
Guardian has learned. </p>
<p>South Wales police have broadened their inquiry into an allegation<br />
that Professor Southall assaulted the boy by carrying out the test<br />
and are asking dozens of parents whose children may have come into<br />
contact with the paediatrician over the years to come forward if<br />
their child suffered any injuries as a result of his treatment.<br />
Professor Southall has denied that his treatment has harmed any<br />
child. </p>
<p>In a letter to parents last week, Detective Inspector Chris<br />
Mullane, of the force&#8217;s child protection unit, said further<br />
inquiries could be opened as a result of the responses from<br />
parents. The letter says police are investigating an allegation of<br />
assault on a boy that may have occurred while he was undergoing<br />
treatment by Prof Southall at the University Hospital of Wales. It<br />
asks parents: &#8220;Has your child been treated directly or indirectly<br />
by Professor Southall &#8230; Did your child suffer any injuries or<br />
adverse effects from that treatment &#8230; Have you reported this<br />
matter to the police or any other body?&#8221; </p>
<p>The investigation began after the parents of Ben McLean alleged<br />
that he had been left brain damaged by Prof Southall&#8217;s experiments<br />
at the University Hospital of Wales in 1991. </p>
<p>The child&#8217;s mother, Davina McLean, believes that without their<br />
informed consent, her five-year-old son was given carbon dioxide to<br />
breathe and his airway was occluded during a sleep study. She<br />
claims that she and her husband were forced to take part in the<br />
study after Prof Southall said they were suffering from<br />
Munchausen&#8217;s syndrome by proxy, and warned that unless they allowed<br />
Ben to take part he would be taken into care. Prof Southall has<br />
also denied these claims. </p>
<p>When Ben left hospital he was placed in foster care, but a year<br />
later a court found the McLeans had not harmed their child. Ben,<br />
now 20, lives with his parents and has severe speech and learning<br />
difficulties. Mrs McLean told the Guardian: &#8220;We are pleased that<br />
other parents out there who may have concerns are being contacted.<br />
All we want is justice for our son.&#8221; </p>
<p>Prof Southall has attracted praise and controversy during his long<br />
career. Last year he was found guilty of serious professional<br />
misconduct and banned from child protection work for three years<br />
after wrongly accusing the husband of Sally Clark of killing their<br />
baby sons. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/realmedia/midlandstoday/bulletin.ram" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/realmedia/midlandstoday/bulletin.ram</a> </p>
<p>South Wales Police Heddlu De Cymru </p>
<p>Working with the Community Cydweithio Gydaâ€™r Gymuned </p>
<p>Public Protection Unit<br />
Central Police Station<br />
King Edward VII Avenue<br />
Cathays Park<br />
CARDIFF<br />
CF10 3NN </p>
<p>Telephone (029) 20527272 </p>
<p>10th August 2006 </p>
<p>Dear </p>
<p>South Wales Police are currently investigating an allegation of<br />
assault on a young boy that may have occurred whilst undergoing<br />
treatment by Professor David Southall at the University Hospital of<br />
Wales. </p>
<p>I have been given your details by Mr William BACHE, Solicitor, who<br />
assures me that he has your authority for me to make contact with<br />
you. </p>
<p>I would be obliged if I could be provided with certain replies to<br />
the below questions. I must emphasise that South Wales Police are<br />
not carrying out an enquiry into Professor Southall, but are<br />
investigating one allegation of assault carried out in our force<br />
area. It may well transpire that further enquiries are carried out<br />
in the future if document dictate that to be the appropriate course<br />
of action. Please reply via email if you wish or I have enclosed a<br />
S.A.E.for your convenience. </p>
<p>1. Has your child been treated directly or indirectly by Professor Southall.<br />
2. If yes please outline the document of that treatment.<br />
3. Did your child suffer any injuries or adverse effects from that<br />
treatment.<br />
4. Have you reported this matter to the Police or any other body<br />
such as the GMC (please specify).<br />
5. If you reported the matter to the police<br />
i) which force<br />
ii) when<br />
iii) have you details of an investigating officer or any other<br />
means of reference<br />
iv) Result of the Police investigation </p>
<p>My apologies for being brief and to the point, but I am sure you<br />
appreciate the complexities of this enquiry. </p>
<p>Yours faithfully </p>
<p>Chris Mullane<br />
DETECTIVE INSPECTOR<br />
<a href="mailto:chris.mullane@south-wales.pnn.police.uk">chris.mullane@south-wales.pnn.police.uk</a> </p>
<p>DAILY EXPRESS TUESDAY FEBRUARY 6 2001 Page 30 </p>
<p>Scandal of &#8216;smothered&#8217; babies in cot death test<br />
Police investigate experiments on little children with lung problems </p>
<p>EXCLUSIVE<br />
BY LUCY JOHNSTON<br />
AND JONATHAN CALVERT </p>
<p>SECRET hospital cot death experiments in which doctors planned deliberately<br />
to `smother&#8217; babies are being investigated by police. </p>
<p>The research project, devised by some of Britain&#8217;s leading child<br />
specialists,<br />
envisaged using tiny infants with severe breathing difficulties. </p>
<p>The babies&#8217; faces were to be covered with a mask attached to a breathing<br />
machine and their mouths `smothered&#8217; for up to 10 seconds on five occasions. </p>
<p>It is not clear whether the scheme was ever fully carried out, but<br />
it appears that some parts did take place. </p>
<p>The controversial procedure, approved by an ethics committee, was<br />
regarded as safe. The infants would be secretly monitored by<br />
doctors as they got older. If they died of unrelated illness,<br />
pieces of their lungs, brains, livers, and hearts would be sent to<br />
a pathologist in Sheffield Children&#8217;s<br />
Hospital for analysis and comparison with the project data. </p>
<p>The study was designed to help discover whether cot death was<br />
caused by breathing and heart abnormalities and involved children<br />
across the country. </p>
<p>In a highly unusual move, doctors decided they would not seek<br />
written consent from parents because they did not want to cause<br />
alarm. </p>
<p>The study, named the Sudden Infant Death Project, was planned to be<br />
carried out at three hospitals: Rotherham District General, the<br />
Doncaster Royal Infirmary and the Barnsley District Hospital during<br />
the late Eighties and early Nineties. </p>
<p>A spokesperson for the Rotherham District General Hospital said:<br />
&#8220;Our consultant has said that the study did go ahead so I&#8217;m pretty<br />
sure it did.&#8221; </p>
<p>A spokeswoman for the Doncaster Royal Infirmary said it could not<br />
comment on the matter &#8220;because it is subject of a police inquiry&#8221;. </p>
<p>The Daily Express has evidence the experiment could also have been<br />
conducted at other hospitals. Two sets of parents believe their<br />
children were brain damaged after being put into similar<br />
experiments. </p>
<p>The two children, whose brains were developing normally, now have<br />
speech and co-ordination problems and severe learning difficulties. </p>
<p>The parents have not been able to find out what happened while<br />
their children were in hospital. </p>
<p>British Medical Journal paper recording the experimentation in smothering.</p>
<p>What higher authority to confirm this evil practice?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7135/887" rel="nofollow">http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7135/887</a></p>
<p>or condensed URL here</p>
<p><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2so6pd" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/2so6pd</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
