It was Channel 4, not the Guardian. You were in the Guardian all the time and noone knows who you are
Yes I value the evidence of someone who was cross examined more than 15 who wont show their working and who have less relevant expertise in these specific 2 cases (even if more for the other babies she killed/tried to kill). The evidence was tested
They (unfortunately for you) have far less expertise with insulin, CHI etc than the relevant expert witness. Also immunoassay results have been used to convict insulin poisoning before, even though spectroscopy is superior.
Transient CHI doesnt cause low c peptide in combination with high insulin. Only exogenous insulin does that (or faulty tests).
If it had been suspected at the time, they would have tested the bags and called the police, not sent away chilled samples for diagnostic testing that took a week to be actioned
An immunoassay that measures specific molecules is nothing like a lump, which is a general symptom 🤣
There was only one point in time insulin test per baby. The other tests were blood glucose tests. We know what the blood sugar was at very many points for both babies. Plus we know what carbs they received and when.
Some babies with CHI require surgery to address it. Presumably you dont think babies L and F secretly had surgery and it never got mentioned at trial...
CHI doesnt explain the low c peptide. They could have prosecuted the case of baby Y and the defence could have said "if this baby had ill effects from being administered additonal insulin you cant prove it was the insulin from my client rather than from CHI itself"
You dont understand CHI or the time window of evidence which for babies that survived, extends past the time when Letby was treating them and includes what happened subsequently. If a baby has persistent congenital hyperinsulinism then they need treatment for that.
This is nonsense. A lump vs a biopsy is not at all analogous to an immunoassay vs spectroscopy. Immunoassay is a quality test in its own right. Even the blood glucose tests are more quantative than your "lump"
It was administered via continuous infusion. No other method would have produced the pattern of hypoglycemia seen because duration of insulin action varies acxording to insulin type and method of administration. The duration, speed of onset and recovery means it had to be TPN
They might have thought this case would confuse jurors and affect the other two insulin cases, and it has confused people
C peptide is a byproduct of insulin synthesis, there is no natural reason for it to be supressed when there is high insulin - CHI included
This is true, but the prosecution probably decided it would be too hard to get a conviction for a case where the baby had more than one reason for elevated insulin, one of which was definitely not malicious