Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To agree with the Guardian about the Netflix coverage of the Lucy letby case?

998 replies

justwandered · 04/02/2026 11:49

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/feb/04/the-investigation-of-lucy-letby-review-netflix?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other]]

I honestly don’t think I’ve come across a show in such poor taste before and I am no stranger to stories about murder and the like.

It crosses a huge line in terms of stripping individuals of their dignity.

I don’t plan on watching it but when I turned Netflix on the other night to put a TV show on for my children there it was - horrid and completely unnecessary.

The Investigation of Lucy Letby review – this sensationalist take isn’t what this awful case needs

The broad-brush, emotive telling of the questions around the neonatal nurse’s conviction uses arrest footage that her parents have said ‘would likely kill us’ if they watched. Did her mother’s howl of distress need to be broadcast?

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/feb/04/the-investigation-of-lucy-letby-review-netflix?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other%5D%5D

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
Oftenaddled · 17/02/2026 23:12

Firefly1987 · 17/02/2026 23:05

He said it in the second panorama documentary IIRC.

He didn't.

He expressed concern that a small number of points from the panel had been discussed and rejected at the trial, unfortunately with some misunderstanding of what the panel had actually said. He didn't say or imply that he "didn't rate" the panel at all.

Oftenaddled · 17/02/2026 23:13

Firefly1987 · 17/02/2026 23:08

But only one nurse was at all those deaths, so that’s what made her suspicious, and accordingly warranted the investigation in which the other pieces of evidence were found.

Exactly! They act like everyone on that unit should've been arrested and had their houses raided when they'd already been eliminated as not having the opportunity to harm the babies. Lucy was the only one whose name came up time and time again and they're acting like a police investigation into her is somehow problematic? Ridiculous!

If the deaths were natural, why does it matter?

Firefly1987 · 17/02/2026 23:18

Oftenaddled · 17/02/2026 23:12

He didn't.

He expressed concern that a small number of points from the panel had been discussed and rejected at the trial, unfortunately with some misunderstanding of what the panel had actually said. He didn't say or imply that he "didn't rate" the panel at all.

There you go with the misunderstandings again. He said something along the lines of the theories will be exposed as not standing up to scrutiny and could end up hurting her case did he not?

If the deaths were natural, why does it matter?

You can't keep parroting that over and over like it's fact. It's still very much in question-hence the need to look at the other evidence.

Oftenaddled · 17/02/2026 23:20

Firefly1987 · 17/02/2026 23:18

There you go with the misunderstandings again. He said something along the lines of the theories will be exposed as not standing up to scrutiny and could end up hurting her case did he not?

If the deaths were natural, why does it matter?

You can't keep parroting that over and over like it's fact. It's still very much in question-hence the need to look at the other evidence.

I didn't state it as a fact. I asked it as a question

Wheresrebeccabunch · 17/02/2026 23:21

Oftenaddled · 17/02/2026 23:02

But if the deaths turn out to have natural explanations, how are they different from any other deaths? And nobody has been counting how many nurses are at deaths from natural causes.

She has had due process - maybe. If you don't count police not disclosing relevant evidence. But due process hasn't prevented hundreds of miscarriages of justice in this country, unfortunately

But that seemed to be the gist of Dr Lee’s evidence and the court of appeal looked at that and decided it wouldn’t have made any material difference. I think they said with one case that yes there was evidence of poor practice by the hospital and that the baby did have an infection but that wasn’t the cause of death.

Yes you’re right due process doesn’t necessarily mean there hasn’t been a miscarriage of justice. Strange defence strategy for her lawyers to take though, not to call expert witnesses of their own making all these points. Anyway I’m off to bed now. We’ll see what happens with the ccrc. Must be agonising for the parents :(

Wheresrebeccabunch · 17/02/2026 23:28

EyeLevelStick · 17/02/2026 22:11

Chester stopped taking such premature babies and multiple birth babies at the same time Letby was removed from the ward. Very few of the indictment babies would have been there had they been born after the end of June 2016. Very little can be inferred from the decrease in deaths.

Interestingly, there was a correspondingly high rate of stillbirths at Chester during 2015 and 2016 but Letby can’t be blamed for those because she wasn’t a midwife.

But was there one particular nurse who was linked to a high proportion of those stillbirth deaths like in this case? If there was it would have prompted an investigation into whoever was the common denominator there too presumably?

Oftenaddled · 17/02/2026 23:36

Mike Hall on Panorama

MH: My opinion is that the jury was not given accurate information about the state of health of the babies prior to their collapse. They were showing signs of being unwell. In terms of the summary reports of the expert panel, the bottom line is that I agree with them, that there is no evidence of inflicted injury in the babies.
...
MH: I think there are some significant flaws in the reports. For a number of the babies, I think they are important, really, and I think a problem is that it could lead to misunderstanding on the part of people who don’t have experience in this area of medicine.
JM (off): Take Baby A. Letby’s international panel says he died from a blood clot after inheriting a rare condition from his mother, but there’s little evidence to support that claim.
...
MH: The possibility that the mother’s condition had in some way caused the babies to collapse was explored at the trial, and the jury were offered that option of an explanation. And obviously they rejected that. And I’m not sure that the expert witnesses have added anything to that conversation.

Have the experts brought anything new? Simply, this depends what's in the new report. But at the very least they have brought the new study of symptoms of venous sir embolism, which is not identical to the information presented to the Court of Appeal.

JM (off): Then there’s Baby I. Letby’s experts say she died in part because of a bug that doctors failed to treat. Once again, Letby’s original defence expert says the evidence isn’t there.
MH: The information of which I’m aware, relating to this bug, that it was last found, identified, about six weeks before Baby I sadly died, and it wasn’t identified in the postmortem report. And so the information which I have about this bug doesn’t lead me to the conclusion that it was a significant cause in the events leading to the baby’s death.

Since then,it's been revealed that this bacterium was in fact found at postmortem and the jury was not told of this fact.

JC: Do you have an opinion on Mark McDonald’s approach?
MH: It seems to me that there’s a real danger it will rebound.
JC: In what way?
MH: In that the flaws WILL be seen… and we find ourselves no further down the road in trying to get justice, or at least a fair trial.
...

So Hall has reservations about these two aspects of the international panel's case, one of which is now irrelevant; the other of which is up in the air, at worst. He's worried about the legal issues. He's certainly not saying he doesn't rate the panel.

Oftenaddled · 17/02/2026 23:39

Wheresrebeccabunch · 17/02/2026 23:28

But was there one particular nurse who was linked to a high proportion of those stillbirth deaths like in this case? If there was it would have prompted an investigation into whoever was the common denominator there too presumably?

We don't know.

But the clearest common denominator would be that the maternity unit had started taking on higher risk deliveries (which we know from hospital data is true) causing more deaths both during delivery (natural or care related) and amongst newborn babies.

Wheresrebeccabunch · 17/02/2026 23:44

Yes there must have been a disproportionate number of baby deaths under her care, otherwise there wouldn’t have been a case to answer in the first place.

Of course other nurses sadly lose babies in their care but if other nurses typically had the same ‘death rate’ as LL that would have been the first and most obvious point for the defence to make. It likely wouldn’t even have prompted an investigation in the first place though if that was the case.

Wheresrebeccabunch · 17/02/2026 23:46

Wheresrebeccabunch · 17/02/2026 23:44

Yes there must have been a disproportionate number of baby deaths under her care, otherwise there wouldn’t have been a case to answer in the first place.

Of course other nurses sadly lose babies in their care but if other nurses typically had the same ‘death rate’ as LL that would have been the first and most obvious point for the defence to make. It likely wouldn’t even have prompted an investigation in the first place though if that was the case.

Sorry meant to quote @Firefly1987 post quoting one of mine!

kkloo · 18/02/2026 00:01

Wheresrebeccabunch · 17/02/2026 23:44

Yes there must have been a disproportionate number of baby deaths under her care, otherwise there wouldn’t have been a case to answer in the first place.

Of course other nurses sadly lose babies in their care but if other nurses typically had the same ‘death rate’ as LL that would have been the first and most obvious point for the defence to make. It likely wouldn’t even have prompted an investigation in the first place though if that was the case.

The unit was understaffed, they didn't have enough qualified nurses to treat the sickest babies and the consultants were doing two rounds per WEEK, compared to daily at other hospitals.

Oftenaddled · 18/02/2026 00:11

Wheresrebeccabunch · 17/02/2026 23:44

Yes there must have been a disproportionate number of baby deaths under her care, otherwise there wouldn’t have been a case to answer in the first place.

Of course other nurses sadly lose babies in their care but if other nurses typically had the same ‘death rate’ as LL that would have been the first and most obvious point for the defence to make. It likely wouldn’t even have prompted an investigation in the first place though if that was the case.

Yes, there were more deaths than average (for Chester) while Lucy Letby was on shift. I'd like to try to explain that.

Chester was a very small intensive care unit (four cots). There were always babies in the other cots, but sometimes none or only one in the intensive care cots - or sometimes up to four, with more babies needing intensive care than there were cots.

These babies were meant to have one-to-one care from a qualified nurse. This could be a level 6 nurse (more senior, better paid) or a level 5 nurse with an extra certification. There were only two of these level 5 nurses on the staff.

The unit was required to have two level 6 nurses and two level 5 nurses on every night as a minimum. One of the level 6 nurses had to be in charge of the shift. The unit had about 10-15 level 6 nurses, and about 15-20 level 5 nurses (staffing varied over the time we are looking at). And only those two level 5 nurses who were qualified to give one-to-one care.

Whenever there was more than one ICU baby on the ward, the manager needed to put either three level 6 nurses or two level 6, one level 5 with qualification, and one other level 5 on the ward that night.

Chester never in any of the shifts we have a record for (which isn't just the deaths) put three level 6 nurses on at night. It was two level 6, one level 5 with quaification, and more level 5s without. Obviously, that's the cheaper option.

So, at night you were going to try to move things around whenever you had more than one ICU baby in, to get either Lucy Letby or the other nurse with the certification. Except that the other nurse was established in her career. She had been working longer than Lucy Letby and pointed out that she rarely saw her because Lucy was the one who was willing to take on the extra shifts.

If you were a level 5 nurse without the qualification or a level 6 nurse, you could take your turn coming in at night with lots of other people. But if you were Lucy Letby, you were top of the list to come in when there were two or three or more babies needing intensive care. And of course, these were the babies most likely to die, and the more of them were on the ward, the more likely one would die.

This is why Lucy Letby's shift pattern looks different from the others. Her manager did explain this at the time. Babies, for all sorts of reasons, were more likely to die at night. And she was willing to swap around and work the night shifts with the sickest babies. When eventually she was present for two daytime deaths it was the same sort of scenario. Staffing was usually better in the day, with more level 6 nurses in, but on those days the hospital had admitted 6 - 7 babies needing one-to-one intensive care.

There are other arguments to be made around why random events can cluster, but in the case of Chester, it's also obvious from their staffing roster and the way they staffed their highest intensity shifts that Lucy Letby would very easily end up being on shift for a higher number of deaths than anyone else.

Any nurse who is in a similar position on the staffing rosters should probably make changes before their unit sees any spike in deaths, because it is a terribly vulnerable position.

Oftenaddled · 18/02/2026 00:21

Worth saying too, @wheresrebeccabunch that the defence was not allowed to discuss what the judge called the construction of the case or the circumstances in which any "non-indictment" babies collapsed or died. They weren't allowed to share evidence of understaffing or dangerous conditions as described in an external report in 2016. So the defence couldn't say the things you suggest and the jury could never hear them.

It does feel like a case where "due process" could have been fairer and more transparent. I know that if I had been a jury member on a case like this and only found out about these things from the media afterwards, I'd be horrified.

Firefly1987 · 18/02/2026 00:30

@Oftenaddled but that might go in LL's favour if she was there for other collapses/deaths but they only focused on the trial ones. Wouldn't calling a plumber to talk about the sewage fall under "dangerous conditions"?

Oftenaddled · 18/02/2026 00:36

Firefly1987 · 18/02/2026 00:30

@Oftenaddled but that might go in LL's favour if she was there for other collapses/deaths but they only focused on the trial ones. Wouldn't calling a plumber to talk about the sewage fall under "dangerous conditions"?

The plumber could give direct evidence of dangerous conditions on the ward, but this wasn't the evidence in the RCPCH report I mentioned.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your first point there?

EyeLevelStick · 18/02/2026 08:20

Wheresrebeccabunch · 17/02/2026 23:21

But that seemed to be the gist of Dr Lee’s evidence and the court of appeal looked at that and decided it wouldn’t have made any material difference. I think they said with one case that yes there was evidence of poor practice by the hospital and that the baby did have an infection but that wasn’t the cause of death.

Yes you’re right due process doesn’t necessarily mean there hasn’t been a miscarriage of justice. Strange defence strategy for her lawyers to take though, not to call expert witnesses of their own making all these points. Anyway I’m off to bed now. We’ll see what happens with the ccrc. Must be agonising for the parents :(

I don’t think those judges understood Dr Lee’s evidence though. As far as I can see there was nothing indicating air embolus as a cause of death in any of the babies.

Wheresrebeccabunch · 18/02/2026 08:34

Oftenaddled · 18/02/2026 00:11

Yes, there were more deaths than average (for Chester) while Lucy Letby was on shift. I'd like to try to explain that.

Chester was a very small intensive care unit (four cots). There were always babies in the other cots, but sometimes none or only one in the intensive care cots - or sometimes up to four, with more babies needing intensive care than there were cots.

These babies were meant to have one-to-one care from a qualified nurse. This could be a level 6 nurse (more senior, better paid) or a level 5 nurse with an extra certification. There were only two of these level 5 nurses on the staff.

The unit was required to have two level 6 nurses and two level 5 nurses on every night as a minimum. One of the level 6 nurses had to be in charge of the shift. The unit had about 10-15 level 6 nurses, and about 15-20 level 5 nurses (staffing varied over the time we are looking at). And only those two level 5 nurses who were qualified to give one-to-one care.

Whenever there was more than one ICU baby on the ward, the manager needed to put either three level 6 nurses or two level 6, one level 5 with qualification, and one other level 5 on the ward that night.

Chester never in any of the shifts we have a record for (which isn't just the deaths) put three level 6 nurses on at night. It was two level 6, one level 5 with quaification, and more level 5s without. Obviously, that's the cheaper option.

So, at night you were going to try to move things around whenever you had more than one ICU baby in, to get either Lucy Letby or the other nurse with the certification. Except that the other nurse was established in her career. She had been working longer than Lucy Letby and pointed out that she rarely saw her because Lucy was the one who was willing to take on the extra shifts.

If you were a level 5 nurse without the qualification or a level 6 nurse, you could take your turn coming in at night with lots of other people. But if you were Lucy Letby, you were top of the list to come in when there were two or three or more babies needing intensive care. And of course, these were the babies most likely to die, and the more of them were on the ward, the more likely one would die.

This is why Lucy Letby's shift pattern looks different from the others. Her manager did explain this at the time. Babies, for all sorts of reasons, were more likely to die at night. And she was willing to swap around and work the night shifts with the sickest babies. When eventually she was present for two daytime deaths it was the same sort of scenario. Staffing was usually better in the day, with more level 6 nurses in, but on those days the hospital had admitted 6 - 7 babies needing one-to-one intensive care.

There are other arguments to be made around why random events can cluster, but in the case of Chester, it's also obvious from their staffing roster and the way they staffed their highest intensity shifts that Lucy Letby would very easily end up being on shift for a higher number of deaths than anyone else.

Any nurse who is in a similar position on the staffing rosters should probably make changes before their unit sees any spike in deaths, because it is a terribly vulnerable position.

Edited

Thanks for detailing that - really helpful.
I’m still not convinced because it seems they did look at the statistical evidence in a fair bit of detail- again this would have been a really easy and obvious point for the defence if it was just that she was on more often, and on more dangerous shifts. The number of deaths in her care was found to be statistically significant it seems. The best they seemed to be able to say was that sometimes bad things do tend to cluster.

Also if nothing else it did mean an investigation into her specifically was warranted, and not into every nurse like PP have suggested. That’s when the other evidence was found. That’s the thing with circumstantial evidence it’s not just one thing, it’s several pieces of evidence and causes for suspicion, that in and of themselves might have an alternative explanation, but all together create the absence of doubt.

A notable lack of defence even though she had very senior experienced counsel. No expert witnesses, no character witnesses. You’d think her friends would be lining up to support her and fight for her like with that horrible nanny shaking the baby case years back - her friends, family and neighbours testified and formed a group to fight her conviction as I recall. But apparently only one of LL’s friends didn’t have doubts. I just read an interview with her friend Karen and LL apparently commented that she is the only person who didn’t question her. People here and on the internet generally seem more passionate in her defence than people who know her in real life.

Without an admission you can never really know though so we’ll see what happens with ccrc.

kkloo · 18/02/2026 09:12

Wheresrebeccabunch · 18/02/2026 08:34

Thanks for detailing that - really helpful.
I’m still not convinced because it seems they did look at the statistical evidence in a fair bit of detail- again this would have been a really easy and obvious point for the defence if it was just that she was on more often, and on more dangerous shifts. The number of deaths in her care was found to be statistically significant it seems. The best they seemed to be able to say was that sometimes bad things do tend to cluster.

Also if nothing else it did mean an investigation into her specifically was warranted, and not into every nurse like PP have suggested. That’s when the other evidence was found. That’s the thing with circumstantial evidence it’s not just one thing, it’s several pieces of evidence and causes for suspicion, that in and of themselves might have an alternative explanation, but all together create the absence of doubt.

A notable lack of defence even though she had very senior experienced counsel. No expert witnesses, no character witnesses. You’d think her friends would be lining up to support her and fight for her like with that horrible nanny shaking the baby case years back - her friends, family and neighbours testified and formed a group to fight her conviction as I recall. But apparently only one of LL’s friends didn’t have doubts. I just read an interview with her friend Karen and LL apparently commented that she is the only person who didn’t question her. People here and on the internet generally seem more passionate in her defence than people who know her in real life.

Without an admission you can never really know though so we’ll see what happens with ccrc.

@Wheresrebeccabunch
The number of deaths in her care was found to be statistically significant it seems. The best they seemed to be able to say was that sometimes bad things do tend to cluster

That's a valid explanation though, it's not an out-there suggestion, clusters do happen and some hospitals have to be the worst every year.

I don't necessarily think they should have investigated every staff member, but I think if they did then they would have found a list of circumstantial evidence against many of them.

The Telegraph reported that a nurse at the COCH had wanted to be a character reference and was warned it would be bad for her career if she did.

NorfolkandBad · 18/02/2026 09:27

The number of deaths in her care was found to be statistically significant it seems. The best they seemed to be able to say was that sometimes bad things do tend to cluster

When events which don't fit with the chosen narrative are ignored, the statistical evidence is substantially weakened.

Perp, P, was present at all 10 deaths - very significant
Perp, P, was present at 30 deaths, but only 10 are considered here - manipulating stats to get the answer wanted.

Mark Twain "Lies, damned lies and statistics"

CosaFareAPasqua · 18/02/2026 09:47

Um the police didn't ever look at the statistics in any level of detail and no one showed anything to be statistically significant...

What they did do was briefly employ a statistician called Jane Hutton. When she started asking questions (probably the sort of things OftenAddled mentioned above about how it was decided who was on which shifts) they realised she wasn't likely to rubber stamp their theory but actually wanted to shock/horror investigate it. They then quickly dropped her after advice from the CPS and said the case wasn't about statistics after all.

I think she is now providing advice to Lucy's defense. Honestly I feel you couldn't make it up. This case is a horror show on so many levels and that is why so many people are kicking up a fuss about it. Not because everyone has gone mad or because of Lucy's hair colour or something.

EyeLevelStick · 18/02/2026 10:08

Wheresrebeccabunch · 18/02/2026 08:34

Thanks for detailing that - really helpful.
I’m still not convinced because it seems they did look at the statistical evidence in a fair bit of detail- again this would have been a really easy and obvious point for the defence if it was just that she was on more often, and on more dangerous shifts. The number of deaths in her care was found to be statistically significant it seems. The best they seemed to be able to say was that sometimes bad things do tend to cluster.

Also if nothing else it did mean an investigation into her specifically was warranted, and not into every nurse like PP have suggested. That’s when the other evidence was found. That’s the thing with circumstantial evidence it’s not just one thing, it’s several pieces of evidence and causes for suspicion, that in and of themselves might have an alternative explanation, but all together create the absence of doubt.

A notable lack of defence even though she had very senior experienced counsel. No expert witnesses, no character witnesses. You’d think her friends would be lining up to support her and fight for her like with that horrible nanny shaking the baby case years back - her friends, family and neighbours testified and formed a group to fight her conviction as I recall. But apparently only one of LL’s friends didn’t have doubts. I just read an interview with her friend Karen and LL apparently commented that she is the only person who didn’t question her. People here and on the internet generally seem more passionate in her defence than people who know her in real life.

Without an admission you can never really know though so we’ll see what happens with ccrc.

The Royal Statistical Society has expressed its concern about the use of statistics in this and other medical cases.

It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term “statistically significant” in this context, and the Cheshire Police took active steps not to employ a statistician. Although I can see why you would say this, given the state of media reports.

After Sally Clark one would have thought the justice system would have learned, but it seems not.

CommonlyKnownAs · 18/02/2026 10:24

Yes, there've been concerns from professional bodies about both expert evidence and witnesses in the legal system for some time now, before Letby. This report was produced by the Royal Statistical Society in 2022, ie pre conviction.

https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/News/2022/Report_Healthcare_serial_killer_or_coincidence_statistical_issues_in_investigation_of_suspected_medical_misconduct_Sept_2022_FINAL.pdf

https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/News/2022/Report_Healthcare_serial_killer_or_coincidence_statistical_issues_in_investigation_of_suspected_medical_misconduct_Sept_2022_FINAL.pdf

Oftenaddled · 18/02/2026 11:26

Wheresrebeccabunch · 18/02/2026 08:34

Thanks for detailing that - really helpful.
I’m still not convinced because it seems they did look at the statistical evidence in a fair bit of detail- again this would have been a really easy and obvious point for the defence if it was just that she was on more often, and on more dangerous shifts. The number of deaths in her care was found to be statistically significant it seems. The best they seemed to be able to say was that sometimes bad things do tend to cluster.

Also if nothing else it did mean an investigation into her specifically was warranted, and not into every nurse like PP have suggested. That’s when the other evidence was found. That’s the thing with circumstantial evidence it’s not just one thing, it’s several pieces of evidence and causes for suspicion, that in and of themselves might have an alternative explanation, but all together create the absence of doubt.

A notable lack of defence even though she had very senior experienced counsel. No expert witnesses, no character witnesses. You’d think her friends would be lining up to support her and fight for her like with that horrible nanny shaking the baby case years back - her friends, family and neighbours testified and formed a group to fight her conviction as I recall. But apparently only one of LL’s friends didn’t have doubts. I just read an interview with her friend Karen and LL apparently commented that she is the only person who didn’t question her. People here and on the internet generally seem more passionate in her defence than people who know her in real life.

Without an admission you can never really know though so we’ll see what happens with ccrc.

Thanks, but I really don't see how the circumstantial evidence creates anything like an absence of doubt here. As to why her defence didn't make the argument - I suspect they knew how hard it is to shake people away from a false "common sense" view of statistics. But actual experts in statistics don't agree.

Applecharlotte2 · 18/02/2026 12:34

Oftenaddled · 17/02/2026 23:02

Didn't happen. Major exaggeration of his position

It did - he said it on camera - he fears that after the CCRC look at the panel evidence they will be no further on - funny that he is the defence witness they decided not to call!!!

neonate endocrinologist expert also on camera doing very much the opposite of dismissing insulin results from tests and what he would conclude

Geoff chase being very careful with words and went from saying insulin results would be not uncommon to actually would be possible but not common

this all on the panorama - these were the experts not the journalist interpreting their opinions and getting it wrong

Oftenaddled · 18/02/2026 13:11

Applecharlotte2 · 18/02/2026 12:34

It did - he said it on camera - he fears that after the CCRC look at the panel evidence they will be no further on - funny that he is the defence witness they decided not to call!!!

neonate endocrinologist expert also on camera doing very much the opposite of dismissing insulin results from tests and what he would conclude

Geoff chase being very careful with words and went from saying insulin results would be not uncommon to actually would be possible but not common

this all on the panorama - these were the experts not the journalist interpreting their opinions and getting it wrong

I've pasted what he said in a post upthread, so people can have a look at that if they want to see and assess it.

Chase didn't move from common to not uncommon. People describing what he said are certainly not being careful with words. They're mismatching everyday and scientific (statistical) language to suggest he contradicted himself.

Neonate endocrinologist didn't comment on the Chase / Shannon theory but only on the original test results, so I wouldn't see that as anything new or problematic.

Swipe left for the next trending thread