Old articles with shaky claims about deaths and harm from Fabricated or Induced Illness (FII) and Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy (MSbP) are still circulating today. These papers overstated risks and used faulty statistics. They’ve been quoted in court and in child protection cases, causing devastating harm to families. We’re asking medical journals to clearly flag these papers with warnings, or retract them altogether.
Are there deaths from FII?
A recent study of reports1 on child deaths from abuse in England found no deaths due to FII between 2010–2025 despite claims in guidance and academic papers of very high death rates made without solid evidence.
Papers claiming high death rates and using misleading statistics are still on-line without warnings
Open letter to editors
Add your name to our letter asking journals to fix the record. Unsafe claims need to be clearly flagged or retracted so they’re not used in practice or court again.
You can also write directly using our template below.
Why this matters
Bad statistics
Some papers used flawed statistics, like multiplying odds of infant deaths, which experts later showed to be wrong. Judges said this evidence was unsafe.
Real harm
Mothers went to prison, children were taken from families, and suspicion spread—because of claims that looked scientific but weren’t. One mother was only recently released after 2 decades in prison
Still cited
These old papers are still quoted in new research without warnings, making the same mistakes live on.
Our finding — In every review of child deaths in England from 2010–2025, none were directly caused by FII. We can share our methods and full evidence pack on request.
Case study: how one article shaped years of practice
The article
A 1999 paper in Archives of Disease in Childhood claimed that multiple infant deaths in the same family were almost always suspicious. Courts later used this logic, which contributed to wrongful convictions. Experts and statisticians called it unsafe, but the article is still available uncorrected.
- Read the 1999 article
- Royal Statistical Society statement (2001)
- Court of Appeal judgment in Sally Clark (2003)
- Folbigg convictions quashed (2023)
What went wrong
- Assuming independence: ignoring shared genetics or environment.
- Prosecutor’s fallacy: treating rarity as proof of guilt.
- Inflated death rates: relying on weak literature reviews.
- Cascading harm: wrongful convictions, child removals, and stigma.
What journals should do
Fix the record
- Add warnings (“Editorial Expression of Concern”).
- Publish clear corrections of wrong maths and claims.
- Retract unsafe papers if needed.
- Flag issues in citation metadata so they show up in searches.
Add context
- Commission an editorial on the harms caused.
- Invite experts in genetics and statistics to explain the flaws.
- Ask authors citing these papers to add cautionary notes.
Key evidence
1999 ADC article
Where the faulty statistics came from.
Royal Statistical Society
Expert body condemned the maths as unsafe.
Court of Appeal
Judges overturned convictions based on this evidence.
Genetics research
Natural causes (like heart conditions) explain many clustered deaths.
Take action
Option A: Sign the open letter. Use the form below. Your name and role (if you choose to add it) will be shown on the signatories list.
[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false”]
Option B: Write directly. Use our template below.
Email template
Copy/paste or click the button to start your email.Subject: Please act on unsafe FII/MSbP articles Dear Editor, I am writing to ask your journal to review certain articles on FII/MSbP that rely on incorrect maths and overstated death rates. Courts and statisticians have shown these claims are unsafe. In line with publication ethics, please add a warning, publish a correction, or retract the article. Please also update databases so citations carry this warning. Thank you. [Your name]Copy text
FAQ
Isn’t withdrawing old papers censorship?
No. Retractions or warnings keep the record visible but tell readers what’s unsafe. This is standard good practice.
Why focus on maths and death claims?
Because wrong numbers and exaggerated risks shaped court cases and child protection policies. That damage is still being repeated.
What about genetics?
Science now shows natural causes for many infant deaths once blamed on parents, like inherited heart conditions.
What is FII/MSbP?
They are labels used when parents are accused of making up or causing their child’s illness. The terms have a troubled history and weak evidence base.
Prepared by campaigners concerned about unsafe FII/MSbP literature. For our evidence pack, contact: [your@email].
- We looked at serious case reviews which have to be published when a child dies or is seriously harmed because of abuse. The early study was published in the British Journal of Social Work and an update covering the period until 2025 has been submitted to the Family Law Journal ↩︎
Tips for actual page
- Form plugin example: Gravity Forms, Fluent Forms, Ninja Forms, WPForms.
- Collect Name (public), Role (optional), Email (private, for verification).
- Show signatories on a separate page with [gravityview] or similar.
- Link this page from your menu as “Fix FII literature”.