Lucy Letby and the C-peptide evidence, incontrovertible?

 Is it? The independent experts that have no financial interests questioned it all, ai explains:

Prompt: Why the c-peptide evidence in the Lucy Letby case is questionable and how subsequent experts have refuted it?

Why the C-peptide evidence in the Lucy Letby case is questionable and how experts have refuted it:

• Test Reliability:

The prosecution used immunoassay tests to detect insulin and C-peptide levels. These tests showed high insulin and low C-peptide, suggesting someone had injected insulin. However, immunoassay tests are known to be unreliable for detecting synthetic (exogenous) insulin.

• Expert Criticism:

Dr. Adel Ismail, a clinical biochemist, noted these tests can produce errors. He pointed out that in cases like Baby F’s, with extremely high insulin levels, retesting should have been done because of the risk of false results.

• Manufacturer’s Warning:
The lab that did the tests had stated that their insulin assay is not suitable for detecting injected insulin. This casts doubt on the prosecution’s conclusions.

• Lack of Confirmatory Testing:
Experts say more accurate methods like mass spectrometry should have been used to confirm the findings. This was not done.

• New Expert Review:

Letby’s legal team submitted an 86-page report to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), signed by seven senior medical experts. It challenges the insulin evidence and raises the possibility of natural causes or mismanagement.

• Wider Medical Opinion:
A separate panel of 14 experts reviewed the case and found no clear signs of intentional harm by Letby.


• Conflicting Views:
Some experts, like Prof. Keith Frayn, argue the tests are generally reliable, but others stress that without confirmatory testing, the results shouldn't have been taken as conclusive.

• Appeal Process:
The CCRC is currently reviewing this new evidence, which could impact Letby’s conviction.

Chatgpt & liz 2025 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Witchhunt

From my upcoming memoir: 'My son suffers from severe autism or possibly Angelman syndrome (which wasn't definitively excluded when he underwent genetic testing). As a concerned parent, I reached out to several specialists in the field of autism, desperate to know how best to support him. In 1994, when my son was two, I started an information service called Autistic Information Matters to seek answers, provide support, and share facts. After much difficulty with professionals—including a Professor Ben Sacks who cruelly suggested I send my two-year-old to an institution (I told him to get out)—I discovered Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA). At the time, I believed it might be a miracle cure that could help my son begin speaking. However, after extensive research and insights from other parents, I came to realize that autism is an umbrella term, encompassing a variety of conditions rather than a single disorder. (I have written more about this elsewhere.) During this time, I wa...
Read more

Evidence Against Trans?

  chatgpt & liz lucy robillard, April 21st, 2025 It's natural to want to protect women from harm, especially from serious threats like rape. Some argue that to prevent even one assault, trans women (biological males) should be excluded from female-only spaces like toilets and prisons.  While this comes from a place of caution, it doesn’t hold up under evidence or ethical scrutiny. *Studies consistently show that inclusive policies do not increase assault rates in restrooms or changing rooms* Trans women using female spaces *does not* correlate with higher risks of violence against cisgender women according to studies.  The idea that cis men might pretend to be trans to access women’s areas is *extremely rare* and laws already exist to punish such behavior.  Are those laws effective enough? On the other hand, trans women face high rates of violence when forced into male-designated spaces, especially in prisons or public areas.  Denying them access often puts ...
Read more

Honouring Abused Women

  The idea that vulnerability disqualifies you from safety is perverse. It’s a cruel inversion of morality, peddled by the very professions sworn to protect. Social workers (not all, but enough to matter), lawyers, psychiatrists, police—these institutions too often treat a traumatised woman as a nuisance, a liability, or worse, a fantasist. If you flinch, you’re dramatic. If you weep, you’re unstable. If you speak up, you’re paranoid. This grotesque logic renders a woman’s suffering not only invisible, but suspect. They do not ask, What happened to her? They ask, What is wrong with her? It’s psychiatry’s favourite bait-and-switch. Diagnoses fly like confetti—borderline, histrionic, treatment-resistant—as though medical jargon could smother the stench of misogyny. And the legal profession is no better. A woman under siege is told to document everything while her stalker moves freely, slipping through legal loopholes like grease through fingers. The solution is not to plead more pre...
Read more