Professor Bainbridge obviously didn't read the paper
If it sometimes seems like health sciences professionals are constantly changing their minds about what's good or bad for you, maybe it's because some of them are just lousy scientists.
We should acknowledge that there is no proof that the subsequent studies and meta-analyses were necessarily correct. A perfect gold standard is not possible in clinical research, so we can only interpret results of studies relative to other studies. Whenever new research fails to replicate early claims for efficacy or suggests that efficacy is more limited than previously thought, it is not necessary that the original studies were totally wrong and the newer ones are correct simply because they are larger or better controlled.
Even worse, oddly enough, another blogger who supplied him a TrackBack somehow managed to relate this article to the Terri Schiavo case. I hate to tell Hennessy this, but this article says nothing with regards to the Terri Schiavo case, nor does it make the point that he seems to want it to make, namely that that experts are often "wrong in individual cases." In fact, it doesn't even address the issue of individual cases at all (particularly the diagnosis of something like a persistent vegetative state, which is no doubt what the blogger was implying the experts made a mistake about). It addresses only the issue of clinical studies about interventions that were later found to be either not efficacious or not nearly as efficacious as the early study showed! But never let a few facts stop you from making your ideological point, eh?
*Yes, I'll concede that the Wakefield study that claimed to find a link between the MMR vaccine and autism is an example of a lousy investigator managing to get a lousy study published in a high-visibility journal. Fortunately this doesn't happen that often, and when it does it often causes an uproar like the one that happened in the wake (sorry for the choice of words) of this study.