To think that Lucy Letby will get a new trial?

No endocrinologists have responded to the new study yet, that I'm aware of, but I'm sure those of them with a scientific bent will be interested in new developments in the field. That's quite normal in all aspects of medicine.

Well, not if he didn't specialise in that area, no. But who are you going to get to design insulin tests or delivery mechanisms? Engineers or endocrinologists?

I mean, you're taking his opinion over actual endocrinologists, I just wouldn't personally that's all.

Why are you so insistent that Geoff Chase isn’t an expert? Do you think the University of Canterbury has made a terrible mistake?

@Barbie222

Whether or not Letby called for a doctor on one occasion was really here nor there when viewed against the great stack of evidence against her

What "stack of evidence", the vast majority of "evidence" seems to be theories and circumstantial?

My dad was an engineer but I wouldn't ask him about insulin results either!

I think it was a junior doctor-they assumed it was simply a mistake but yes it should've been followed up. The physicians can look at the symptoms the babies were showing and see how they matched the abnormal test results. Geoff Chase can't speak on any of that. Once again the science folks ignore the rest of the evidence because all they know is science and think that trumps everything else.

Plenty of physicians think otherwise. Mark McDonald's submission on insulin isn't just from Shannon and Chase. It's from them alongside a statistician and physicians (including endocrinologists)

Do you know what engineering is? I'm amazed anyone thinks it's not relevant to how a test for insulin would work.

No, he’s not a physician. But he is an expert in insulin analysis, which is one of the major issues under discussion here. And the physicians are not experts in insulin analysis, no matter how much you want them to be.

You say ALL the physicians say there’s no doubt this was insulin poisoning, but that’s manifestly untrue. Shoo Lee’s panel do not believe this was insulin poisoning, for a start. I know you think the panels are only “so-called experts” but that’s a really silly position to take.

As and aside, can you explain why, when the physicians received the reports from the Liverpool lab that showed unusual ratios, they decided to ignore them? Surely if the lab results are so reliable and never throw up odd results they would have been horrified and taken action?

He's not and has never been a physician. ALL the actual physicians are saying there is no doubt this was insulin poisoning and you're listening to the one that isn't because you don't want to believe it.

The https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/ site certainly nails its colours to the mast with that title. Might be worth saying though, that I first read nearly all the material on external sites. It's just a really useful central repository.

A number of court transcripts are the exception. But a handful of people who support both prosecution and defence cases have published long excerpts, on YouTube and Reddit mostly, and it's reassuring to find that when what they publish overlaps, it matches.

I was glad to see lately that transcripts will now be archived at least as long as convicts are in prison. I was really shocked to learn that until now, they were usually destroyed after a few years, so you could be in jail with no comprehensive record of the case against you. But I believe that they should be publicly available (with appropriate redactions)

Yes, agreed on both counts. Evans just isn't a scientific thinker - or he disguises it well! - and he placed too much emphasis on his personal experience in a very different unit years before.

Even the fact that Chester's consultants weren't neonatologists wouldn't matter much, but it needs to be remembered that none of them was spending more than a quarter of their working hours on the neonatal unit - being generous - and it was such a small ICU that their experience of dangerously ill babies would have been very limited. It really was a perfect storm at Chester.

Geoff Chase clearly is an expert on insulin and it's silly to dispute this. The people who complain about Dewi Evans not being a neonatologist are also being silly, because anyone of his vintage wouldn't have that title either and that's not the problem with his evidence. The one doesn't cancel out the other.

Chase / Shannon work discussed at https://archive.is/yvvsS (Telegraph)

Lucy Letby was only on shift for the third insulin case after the sample had been taken.

It's some of that new evidence people are always talking about.

Chase and Shannon's work, along with work by endocrinologists and other specialists, is part of Mark McDonald's CCRC submission.

The design and appraisal of tests to measure insulin is engineers' responsibility. Endocrinologists don't design the tests. In the same way, they don't design delivery methods, which is why Hindmarsh was so irresponsible to guess at the effects of insulin sticking to plastic at Lucy Letby's original trial.

You need both engineers and endocrinologists to work in this problem, and they need to collaborate - as the defence now has them doing. I do not think it will change your mind but I think anyone else interested will be able to see how well qualified Chase is to discuss insulin measurement from his publication profile

scholar.google.com/citations?user=SOISrB0AAAAJ&hl=en

We don’t know how many other test results from that lab (which tests samples across the whole Merseyside region) showed unexpected ratios. We do know that a proficiency test sample showed the wrong ratios. What’s your explanation for that?

Indeed. It’s new evidence. Which is grounds for the CCRC to review the case…

And Professor Geoff Chase is an expert in insulin analysis. Why do you persist in denying this?

You can have an opinion. What I’m objecting to is the attribution of anger to someone who clearly isn’t angry.

@SnakesAndArrows no I know there was a third insulin case and turns out she was on shift for that also. The thing to remember is the extent of her crimes isn't known and she hasn't been put on trial for every baby she attacked. So people can point out other collapses or odd insulin results but it doesn't mean she wasn't there for them too.

Where's these vastly abnormal tests someone has managed to dig up out of thousands of standard ones then? That Lucy couldn't have possibly been near?

Nobody’s being silenced here. @followtheswallow. I’ve got my opinion and addled has theirs, which they’re perfectly entitled to post. I’m interested and learning from what I’m reading here, but on balance I do still feel she’s guilty of harming these babies as I don’t think that what I’m reading effectively discredits what I think happened. That’s normal healthy Mumsnet.

I don’t much like being told I can’t have an opinion, though, so I’ll push back against that in the same tone that’s handed out to me. And naturally, I’m inclined to be suspicious when the links shared come from a pro Letby site. So I’ll continue to post and think about this case as I please, thank you all the same.

You think LL sneaked into the lab at the Royal and interfered with the analysis of the proficiency test sample?

Well that's clearly never been seen before or her defence would've been all over it. Geoff Chase isn't even an insulin expert FFS all this talk of Dewi Evans not technically being a neonatologist (purely because it didn't exist as a separate specialism where he studied/worked) but yeah lets listen to a mechanical engineer on insulin 😆you couldn't make it up. I think I'll stick with the actual endocrinologists.

i think you don’t understand this at all.

Insulin and c-peptide are both produced naturally by the pancreas in a specific ratio. C peptide does not exist in synthetic insulin.

If there is more insulin than normal this indicates exogenous administration BUT

• insulin may persist in a bound state effectively giving it a longer than expected half-life; the immunoassay doesn’t differentiate between bound and un-bound insulin
• the immunoassay used is not suitable to be used to detect factitious insulin - and it says so on the report
• there was at least one other anomalous result at around the same time that LL could not have had anything to do with
• a lab proficiency test was failed at around the same time because of similar inaccurate results

@Oftenaddled does not appear angry at all. On the contrary she’s extremely calm.

Don’t do that ‘you are so angry’ rubbish to try to silence people.