New Lucy Letby details

[Mrsdoyler]

Did you see today in the news that LucyLetby originally failed her nursing training.

Reason: Lack of empathy

Yes you've been unlucky. You can't at them all with the same brush.

Correct.

I expect that (sadly), for as long as she is in prison, people will persist with these crazy conspiracy theories. I say sadly because, given she's never getting out of prison, it'll continue to be a source of distress for the bereaved families.

Not even Baby C where the evidence came from a day when she wasn’t on shift?

You may well be right that she’ll never get out of prison.

@GossIsAGit

How many times do you need it spelling our re baby C?!

You are spreading misinformation on this thread

@SassK very well said

Possibly, pharmacy would confirm if any was supplied to the unit. It has other uses too.

What is the misinformation she is spreading?

Wasn't there another insulin incident that wasn't included? I wonder if there was another nurse on the ward for or just prior to all the insulin cases.

“In one case, from November 2012, a baby boy collapsed and water was subsequently discovered in his breathing tube – a highly irregular occurrence. The clinical notes confirm that the nurse looking after him was Letby.”

How the fuck do you get water in a breathing tube?!

Yes.. there is a stock dose of insulin in the fridge generally.

For the avoidance of doubt - there was no test for synthetic insulin that’s the point.

The test was an immunoassay that tests antibodies to insulin as a proxy for the amount of insulin in the system. It has a reasonably wide margin of error due to cross-reactivity with other substances in body and when used in the lab can result in false positives.

Then there is the issue that infant glucose-insulin metabolism differs significantly from adults. Preterm neonates’ intricate background physiology that maintains glucose in a narrow range in adults does not work in neonates.

The inference that exogenous insulin could be present is from the discrepancy between the apparent insulin level and the c peptide level.

Insulin and c peptide levels are influenced by the organs that clear them. C peptide is produced in equimolar quantities with insulin, and is principally cleared by the kidneys. Insulin is cleared by liver and peripheral tissues in a highly variable way, as well as the kidneys.

The physiology of neonates is immature and the variation in blood volume, liver metabolism and renal function may affect the reliability of insulin and c peptide readings. It may produce variable results requiring multiple samples to get a reliable reading.

For expert perspective on other problems with the test please read the Telegraph article linked a few pages back.

Is this third case the baby that was diagnosed with hyperinsulinemia at Alder Hey? Or is this actually a fourth case?

It seems to me Moritz and Coffey still have not grasped the point that professional statisticians have made repeatedly of the dangers of false correlation and over-reliance on coincidence.

Or maybe they have but are persistently using licence payer funds to support their original judgment in the face of now considerable criticism from medics and scientists and to bolster sales of their book.

I know all of this but everything I have read suggests three false positives in that period of time, while technically possible, would be so unlikely to occur it’s almost ridiculous to suggest it. By my understanding false positives with these types of tests don’t just occur randomly - there are certain conditions that each baby would need to meet to generate a false positive, and these themselves are very rare.

I understand the tests used were not suitable for forensics, but nonetheless the issues they have appear to be so rare that while one and perhaps at an absolute stretch two false positives could just be exceptionally bad luck, three would be unimaginable.

This is what I’m trying to understand - if there is any alternative credible explanation for these results, other than three false positives in a tiny space of time when such results are unheard of.

For the other deaths the alternative explanations are far more plausible than murder, especially given the scant evidence for any foul play and the overwhelming evidence the unit was a shambles. But these insulin cases I am not really seeing a plausible explanation, other than that someone did it on purpose.

Based on another article I read by Moritz since posting the link to her first BBC piece yesterday, she thinks LL is guilty mostly due to her demeanour in court, and the fact she didn’t protest her innocence. Pretty shocking to me that an ostensibly serious journalist thinks this is proof of anything.

The insulin evidence I put in a totally different category - given that it is actually evidence! I understand Moritz has biases. But so do many people reporting on this case.

This is the Telegraph article. The suggestion is that the C peptide levels aren’t inexplicably low.

https://archive.ph/Zzh8P

Sorry I can’t access that - just a blank page for me. If you tell me the name of the article I can try to generate an archive link that works for me

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/18/insulin-tests-convict-letby-cannot-be-relied-upon/

@Mirabai you do like to twist things

You are only reporting part of what Moritz said

WTAH it is so frustrating dealing with people who consistently point out minor details to suit their narrative that LL is innocent

It is ridiculous that people are claiming she was found guilty because there was no statist giving evidence at her trial!

Do you think Ben z Myers is so stupid that he would turn down expert testimony that could clear his client?!

He really is not stupid, dumb or foolish - that would be those of you here who are doubting him! And defending Letby

I can only go on what you said:

If it’s unlikely two synthetic insulin tests could give a false positive, it’s vastly more unlikely that three would.

Anyhow, the kinetics of insulin and c peptides in preterm neonates are relatively unstudied and I have not send produced hard and fast data on false positives on insulin immunoassay in preterm neonates. There are wide range of variables that could affect results.

To give examples - one false positive case turned out to be caused by antibodies to mice, another turned out to be proinsulin.

I’m not twisting anything.

It’s bizarre to imply discussion of the data in the case is from the biased persective of LL’s innocent rather than the science itself.

Do you really think the question over the reliability of the tests is a “minor detail”?

It's awful to read today's reports of these other incidents. It's not surprising, because I think most of us were probably expecting it (and unfortunately there is likely to be more uncovered).
It's incredibly upsetting just to read about it, goodness knows how the families of the babies she targetted must feel.

It's more about justice being served. I'm sure you'd want a fair trial if you were in court accused of something.

The more time goes on, the bigger the holes in the case against her.

The fact that Letby supposedly murdered Baby A in full view of four other people bears repeating as well.
https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/ll-part-6-the-incredible-dr-dewi?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true

Hmmm - strong stench of gaslighting!

Letby was able to offer next to nothing by defence, her guilt was established by two juries and validated by three appeals court judges.

So what IS your aim (in picking at the carcass of this horrific case) out of interest? It would appear you're trying to establish the most unlikely miscarriage of justice ever?

A well researched response 😌