Lucy Letby. Why do some people only read headlines?

[skyfirechesnut]

I was at work today and someone says so Lucy letby is innocent now. They have just gone with the media headlines. Instead of researching.

Sorry for the fail link but this is quite a good article below on the current state of things. The author has attended all trials and listened to appeals and conferences.

I also don't understand people who say she was scapegoated. If people follow the Thirwall enquiry this is far from the case. She was totally protected, her parents calling up, being in meetings, dictating apologies. It beggars belief.

I can somewhat understand people saying she is innocent based on medical evidence after the press conference but even that is nothing new.

You can't say my expert is better than yours.

Also people seem to think it was all Dewi Evans for the prosecution it wasn't. There was Dr Bohin, Prof Arthurs , Prof Hindnarsh and Dr Mar etc.

That is without the Doctor colleagues if you want to dispute them.

Then they new defence have changed ideas from the conference they had in December.

They are also not totally impartial.
It isn't as simple as the headlines.

Here is the article.

archive.ph/NYg7U

Why did shoo decide suddenly there was no rash as a sign or embolism? He hasn't had this peer reviewed yet.

Because the rash and AE claims were bogus from the start. Mottled rashes are common in neonates for a variety of reasons - infection, trauma, shock, poor perfusion etc. Nor do those type of rashes any connection to AE. Nor was there any sign of AE at autopsy and DrMcPartland’s later review of the pathology found no evidence of air embolism either.

Baby A’s mother had antiphospholipid syndrome, which Baby A did not appear to have inherited but antibodies can cross the placenta nonetheless and cause clotting which is what appears to have happened in Baby A’s case. (Evidence of non-occluding clot in the liver) Baby A was also left without fluids or glucose for around 4 hours. APS also causes a particular kind of rash called Livedo Reticularis.

Lee did not change his mind, his original study was misused.

Evans’ work has effectively been de facto peer reviewed and found to be bollocks.

But then it is possible in other cases to travel over. It is also not peer reviewed.

11 percent is still an amount all be it small.

From a legal standpoint he has said this at the court of appeal already.

Those plagiarists. Wow. There really is no talking to you. 🤦‍♀️

Read the court transcripts.

A blood expert says not.

Child A's blood count was considered 'normal' for his age.
She said she had considered whether Child A's mother's auto-immune disease could have been a significant factor in the death of Child A.
Said auto-immune disease was a rare condition (affecting about 50 in 100,000 people) which affected the mother, which can cause increased blood clotting.
It is "well recognised" that pregnancy can cause issues, which can cause nutritional problems for babies in the womb, and a C-section can be required "to save the life of the mother and the child".
The court hears it can cause premature birth and blood clotting for the mother.
Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, asks: "Did the...syndrome pass on to [Child A or Child B]?"
Professor Kinsey: "No, that is not the case."

Mr Johnson says there was concern the condition had passed from mother to son, but says Professor Kinsey is sure it did not.

"It didn't," Professor Kinsey replies.

Where is this idea that the paper isn't peer reviewed coming from?

Was Prof Kinsey also asked whether APS antibodies could have crossed the placenta, and whether they could have resulted in the clot evident in Baby A’s liver?

A lack of understanding about what peer reviewed means, I expect.

It must be. The American Journal of Perinatology is a peer-reviewed journal. Any paper it publishes is peer-reviewed.

Yes that's it. I don't understand a peer review. 🤦‍♀️

Time will tell. Would love to discuss this in a couple of years time.

You may understand it, but the paper is clearly peer reviewed - look up the journal.

Who says / why do you think it isn't?

I may have got confused because it was an update not a new paper. I will clarify this.
Thanks as I said I like to read around everything from both sides.

Can anyone link who peer reviewed it and when?

Yes I’d be happy to do that. Why wouldn’t I be?

If you do understand peer reviewed can you explain why you think Shoo’s 2024 paper hasn’t been peer reviewed?

Baby A did not appear to have inherited APS, but the mother’s antibodies can pass through the placenta and cause clotting nonetheless. Regardless there is zero evidence of AE as per the autopsy and pathology review. I think Prof Kinsey will regret having hitched herself to the Evans love wagon.

His clarification could also be seen as bias due to his involvement in the case and his objectivity as a researcher could be compromised.

Peer reviewers are almost always anonymous so that authors can't put pressure on them. So you get comments back from Peer Reviewer 1 and Peer Reviewer 2.

Their names aren't ever disclosed after a paper is published that I know of.

Peer review happens between submission of a paper and acceptance, but we won't have an exact date.

Lee has stated that the clarification was suggested by a peer reviewer, actually. But clarifying a distinction that has clearly puzzled people is not showing a lack of objectivity.

If people want to object to any of the substance of his paper, it's all out there for them to look at. I see that one twitter user posted an attempt to discredit it, and Lee gave a very clear and gentle explanation as to what she had misunderstood.

This is just a bizarre claim. Until 5 minutes ago you believed it was an unacceptable paper because it hadn’t been peer reviewed. Now you’ve decided to accuse him of bias.

Shoo’s involvement in the case was the misrepresentation of a 1989 paper. He’s written a new paper including new information from research - not just his own - that adds to the picture. As previously explained this has been peer reviewed.

That could be said about anyone involved in the case. Dr Lee only got involved after the trial, when he became aware of the (mis)use of his research paper. He's retired and lives on a farm in Canada and has said he doesn't usually do medical legal cases as he doesn’t enjoy them. I'm not seeing anything to base the accusation on that he came in with an axe to grind. He was involved because he felt his research was misused, he didn't say his research was misused because he was involved.

Exactly the same thing could be said of all the prosecution expert witnesses. And they didn't have any research of their own to back them up, they relied on some thing that they misinterpreted to suit their own ends.

In the witch hunt blog post shared in a PP, there is a direct quote from Evans that said despite there being no evidence of air embolism at post mortem, it had to be air embolism because everything else had been excluded. That's hardly objective or impartial either. His job was to assist in bringing a successful prosecution, so one could easily question his motivation.

@SnakesAndArrows

I said could be seen as, I am talking legal here and why it could be refused.

Also:
They found a line of air across a blood vessel on a X Ray and globules of air inside baby A's brain. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a blood clot blocking an artery. If the blood clot entered through the longline wouldn't it need to pass through the foreman ovale to the arterial blood?

Legal processes do not reject peer reviewed scientific evidence because the author has written in hope of demonstrating something. That is normal practice.

I mean because he already tried that at appeal.

I really don't know how the CCRC would weigh that. It sounds like a poor argument logically, but legally might be a different matter.

No, Lee referred to a thrombus migrating to the brainstem, and while he didn't go into detail, this would migrate via the lungs to arteries supplying the brain.

What do you mean about the blood clot?

Are you suggesting it was introduced by the long line? This is of course nonsense, but I’ll assume you meant caused by the line, because poorly maintained intravenous catheters are the cause of clots leading pulmonary embolism?

No, the liver clot is mentioned because APS antibodies can cause clots, that is all.