If you were previously on the fence about Lucy Letby’s guilt, have the Thirlwall findings swayed you either way?

You cannot possibly be suggesting that all cases of babies with low blood sugar are attributable to insulin poisoning?

Dr ZA said she checked and established that no other child on the neonatal unit had been prescribed insulin, making accidental administration unlikely. She dismissed the idea of deliberate administration of insulin

What about Baby E? Baby Fs identical twin who had been receiving insulin in the same room until he died the day before.

What kind of checking did she do then? Did she even check at all I wonder?

I'm not an expert on insulin admittedly but these were unusual findings and the baby collapsed with severe hypoglycaemia. So that's the four abnormal insulin results, and Letby's connected to ALL of them. So yes, I'd be amazed if this wasn't indicative of poisoning given all we know.

You constantly conflate hyperinsulinaemia and hypoglycaemia.

Hyperinsulinaemia does cause hypoglycaemia, but hypoglycaemia requiring additional glucose is much, much more commonly attributable to other causes (for example, infection) and is quite common in neonates and the elderly.

Interesting reading

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/lucy-letby-16.pdf

& you know that from where?

https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/news-ge/sark-based-letby-supporter-hopes-his-evidence-will-help-secure-her-freedom/

Experts continuing to submit reports to the CCRC.

Says the Thirwall enquiry who also said Lucy Letby seemed to enjoy the drama around death. She really is a truly evil piece of work if this is true. She wheeled the cold cot into the room and plugged it in when the baby was still alive.

For an enquiry that should be based solely on facts

"seemed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

It seems that it is possible for me to think less of the enquiry than I did before.

@FrippEnos well we're all ears as to why you think she did it-considering she wasn't even baby C's designated nurse so shouldn't have had anything to do with his family.

It seems that it is possible for me to think less of the enquiry than I did before.

Only because you think Lucy Letby's innocent (which you're wrong about)

I would imagine that whichever nurse did this, did this because they thought the baby was dead. But the evidence that this was Lucy Letby (since the father said he had not been sure who it was until the inquiry) is pretty thin anyway.

@Oftenaddled why does it matter if it was Letby or not if according to you, the nurse did nothing wrong?

Thought the baby was dead???

Whoever it was, Letby or not, it was a mistake; nurses are human, they are fallible, although the most plausible explanation is that the parents were, understandably, mistaken and unable to accept their baby was no longer with them.

However it happened, and whoever was mistaken, it is tragic, and I cannot imagine the suffering the parents lived through. What it is not is evidence of murder.

@Frequency there's a lot of "mistaken" parents in this in order to defend the baby killer isn't there?

Yes, there appears to be a pandemic of mistakes. The original pathologists were mistaken; the reviewers from the RCPCH were mistaken; internal reviewers were mistaken; the external reviewers into 13 of the deaths were mistaken; Shoo Lee et al all mistaken...

Chester Police themselves were mistaken until they met with the consultants.

As I have repeatedly posted in reply to you before.

I don't know whether LL is innocent or guilty, I believe that the werdict is unsound.

But none of that has to do with an enquiry that has put forward points that are not based on the (biased) facts that they where given and has tried to make heroes out of people that didn't do their job correctly and in several cases have been caught lying.

I also haven't been part of the baby C disussion so I am not sure why you have tried to bring me in on that.

How did they evidence that? The enjoyment of drama part that is.

But none of that has to do with an enquiry that has put forward points that are not based on the (biased) facts that they where given and has tried to make heroes out of people that didn't do their job correctly and in several cases have been caught lying.

I find all this criticism of the consultants very distasteful. They battled to save those babies lives, and a lot more would've died if it hadn't been for them.

You can find it as distasteful as you like.

They did fewer rounds than they were supposed to and at least one was caught lying by his own email.

They are the facts.

I find it a lot more distasteful that a dedicated nurse was scapegoated to draw attention away from a failing unit and is in prison for life for crimes that didn’t even happen, but you do you.

It seems like you think it was the consultants’ decision to only two rounds per week? Their job plans were/are entirely dictated by the Trust, in line with its operating model. They can’t just leave their other work to go and do additional ward rounds because they feel like it.

My understanding is that the consultants had actually been pushing a business case for additional resource which was approved, but then the trust kept delaying taking it forward.

If they felt it was neglect, they could have all resigned, but they didn’t! A friend of ours, a professional refused to sign a fraudulent VAT return for his employer. He was marched out of the building by security. This was about the lives of very vulnerable babies, way more important than money!

If they'd put as much energy into pushing for the changes suggested by the various reviews to be implemented as they did into convincing everyone Letby was a murderer and playing at detective, things could have turned out differently.

Instead, they refused to accept that the spike in deaths was at least in part down to their own inexperience and poor care and continued pushing the narrative of a killer nurse.

The consultants were pushing for additional resource and saying the level of cover was potentially unsafe well before the RCPCH came in. It was the trust management that were denying it

I’m interested to know what levers you think were actually available to them other than escalating risks and submitting business cases?