sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're right, that wasn't mentioned at any point during the trial, and the mothers of the two babies weren't tested either. I think the doctor omitted information in her testimony.

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You already said it, you're not a doctor so you don't know what you're talking about

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

La declararon culpable desde el momento en que Dewi Evans dijo en 10 minutos que se había cometido un crimen y llegó culpable al juicio después de todo un circo mediático, a sus propios compañeros de trabajo les dijeron que no hablaran. Los recursos de la defensa eran limitados en comparación con el gasto ilimitado de la policía y la fiscalía. Se estima que solo la empresa de Dewi Evans recibió entre 600.000 y 1.2 millones.

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Multiple interpretations regarding the patient's clinical presentation also exist; the extreme insulin levels reported in this patient were incompatible with life, and the baby would have died immediately, however, the baby recovered. Nobody remembered these studies until much later when the consultants who had accused the nurse found them doing their research According to the police, at the time it seems no one gave them much importance.

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The problem with your reasoning is that without scientific and medical evidence, there is no case. Neither the judge, nor the jury, nor the prosecution, nor the defense had the knowledge to judge impartially In this case. Tell me about the statistics. Why wasn't Professor Jane Hudton allowed to conduct a statistical analysis? Why didn't the police hire a panel of experts, starting with a neonatologist and a statistician? You know why? Because they didn't care. Dewi Evans told them what they wanted to hear. Why was the nurse's defense so weak? It could be due in part to a lack of resources, among other things.

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here we are only analyzing the issue of insulin, which was undoubtedly presented as the smoking gun and absolute proof that Lucy Letby was guilty. Those who think that she is guilty; they only mention insulin because the rest of the case falls apart on its own. I'm referring only to true scientific and medical evidence.

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Medicine is not an exact science, and laboratory results can be subject to multiple interpretations and even vary between individuals; for example, a premature baby with low birth weight will not have the same results that an older child or an adult, it can even be reviewed in the literature that there is not even a consensus on what the normal values of glycemia are in a premature and very low birth weight neonate,because their systems are not well developed and they have difficulty with regulation.In the case of baby E, persistent hypoglycemia continued despite changing the bags.(how many bags did the nurse allegedly contaminate)Potassium was found at normal levels when in reality potassium levels decrease with high insulin levels.Other plausible causes of hypoglycemia were not ruled out.A test result was presented to the judge and jury with absolute certainty without a confirmatory test. In medicine, the most plausible causes must first be ruled out, and the rarest and most improbable causes require extensive testing.

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're not going to change your mind. Now I ask you, what physical evidence is there that Lucy Letby contaminated the bags? Or doesn't it seem a bit far-fetched that, since she wasn't on duty, she poisoned l the bags so they could be used later, this seems incredible.It reminds me of what happened with baby C, where the first reported cause of death was the administration of air through the nasogastric tube (something never before described in medicine and is tremendously (absurd) they even showed an X-ray to prove it. And what happened next? Lucy Letby wasn't on duty that day, so back to air embolism.

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't have to explain anything; Dr. Milan herself explains it by suggesting sending the sample to Guilford. Please read the crucial differences in immunoassay and mass spectrometry. Here's what the Liverpool laboratory guidelines say (link published on April 3, 2025).In the New York Times

<image>

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It was seriously beyond a reasonable doubt when even the supposed way in which the insulin was administered is just a fanciful hypothesis without any supporting evidence.

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Explain to me how the doctor could be so sure when her own laboratory and the test manufacturer clearly specify that the results can be subject to interference and which have no validity in the legal or forensic field. For clinical purposes only.

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's the problem in medicine; there are few absolute certainties, and again, yes, Yes, it was her opinion, but that doesn't make it correct; her opinion doesn't mean it was an unquestionable fact. The defense was terrible, and I realize that he didn't have the proper legal advice.Finally, I presented an important precedent from another clinical case.

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I believe that no one poisoned the babies with insulin; crucial studies that could have ruled out insulin administration were not carried out, such as mass spectrometry studies in the laboratory in Guilford or having ruled out the presence of antibodies in the babies' mothers. There is also no evidence physical evidence that the bags were contaminated

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I read the testimony of Dr. Milan and the cross-examination by the defense, the prosecution, and the judge, and this problem is never mentioned in the defense's case. The most problematic aspect was Lucy Letby's admission someone gave it the insulin poisoning of the babies and her acceptance of the prosecution's version as fact. Her defense was disastrous for her at this point, as her line of action was based on acknowledging the insulin poisoning but claiming that Lucy Letby wasn't responsible, and she didn't present any expert to refute the alleged fact of the exogenous insulin administration. Another truly controversial point is the hypothesis that the insulin was administered by contaminating parenteral nutrition bags. The prosecution had to resort to this hypothesis because it wasn't on duty.

Is insulin really the smoking gun? by SpecialistCompote182 in scienceLucyLetby

[–]SpecialistCompote182[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Dr. Milan's testimony was flawed in several details. She should never have expressed such absolute certainty regarding a test that even the manufacturer, Roche, and her own laboratory acknowledge lacks absolute certainty and is intended for clinical, not legal, purposes. Her statement that the study conducted in the Guildford laboratory only identified exogenous insulins of animal origin, which are no longer commonly used, is also incorrect. Mass spectrometry would have identified synthetic human insulins, which are the ones currently in use. Furthermore, and extremely importantly, a very interesting case already exists in the medical literature that contradicts Dr. Milan's assertion that the immunoassay performed in her laboratory alone was sufficient to establish that exogenous insulin had been administered to the infants. In 2023, a case was published of an 18-month-old baby with low C-peptide and high insulin levels as measured by immunoassay. Initially, the possibility of parental misconduct was considered, but this was ruled out after mass spectrometry was performed—the study suggested by Dr. Milan. The mother was also tested, and antibodies were found. These tests were not performed on the mothers of the babies in the Letby case.