Thanks for that important correction. I have amended accordingly. I don't agree with what you say about the tests (see Anna Milan's testimony to Thirlwall). Baby F definitely had hypoglycemia. He was kept alive by being pumped with glucose.
Nothing to agree with, it's science, go and check it out you will find that what I told you is 100% reflected in scientific literature and it is well acknowledged (any lab technician, biochemist or the specifications for those immunoassays themselves can confirm what I explained), but somehow completely misunderstood and misargued, which to me is rather questionable.
You cannot argue with accepted scientific facts and standards, even if they are misquoted and abused in legal circles.
Baby F: you are misunderstanding what I wrote.
1) Those immunoassays are designed to measure c-peptide/insulin in a FASTING state. Once a patient has been put on glucose they are no longer in a fasting state, tests used under those conditions are used OUTSIDE of its mode of use (they are NOT designed for non-fasting states).
2) those immunoassays only INDICATE (not definitely prove) the presence of exogenous insulin, and ONLY if HYPOGLYCAEMIA is present at the same time of the immunoassay.
Both Ethel Hall and Baby F were NOT hypoglycaemic at the time of the test (in fact, baby F had blood glucose levels so high that they could not be accurately measured by the equipment used).
Again, using these assays when the patient is not hypoglycaemic is a complete misuse of it, directly against what and how it is designed to detect and function.
3) If one of those immunoassays is used appropriately, i.e. when the patient is fasting and is hypoglycaemic, and it returns very high levels of insulin to c-peptide and exogenous insulin administration is suspected, then further testing MUST be carried out using mass-spectrometry: this is the test that can definitely confirm the presence of exogenous insulin.
Those immunoassays are NOT designed to detect and diagnose the presence of exogenous insulin, and there are many reasons why the c-peptide to insulin ratios may appear unusual, including not having used the correct dilutions, which is why additional tests MUST be carried out.
These immunoassays must be used within the parameters they were designed to operate, and in both Ethel Hall and Baby F and Baby C cases, they were not.
This is not something I am making up. It is 100% supported by all scientific literature relating to these immunoassays. This is not something you can choose to disagree with. These are facts.
These are just your assertions. Several experts in the Letby case said that the test results unambiguously showed that the insulin was exogoneous. The defence made no attempt to contradict them. Neither the lawyers in the Norris appeal nor the Letby appeal are claiming the test results were wrong. The idea that the tests didn't prove insulin poisoning seems to be noting more than a niche internet meme.
And you would find that out if you did your research, like an investigative journalist should, instead of attacking me.
Ask the assay manufacturers like Roche, see what they tell you.
And stop going back to the Letby case or the Norris case.
These are verifiable scientific facts outside of the Letby or the Norris case.
Stop stomping your feet and putting your fingers in your ears and go and do some proper research, with proper experts, not the idiot consultants used in the British courts.
Thanks for that important correction. I have amended accordingly. I don't agree with what you say about the tests (see Anna Milan's testimony to Thirlwall). Baby F definitely had hypoglycemia. He was kept alive by being pumped with glucose.
Nothing to agree with, it's science, go and check it out you will find that what I told you is 100% reflected in scientific literature and it is well acknowledged (any lab technician, biochemist or the specifications for those immunoassays themselves can confirm what I explained), but somehow completely misunderstood and misargued, which to me is rather questionable.
You cannot argue with accepted scientific facts and standards, even if they are misquoted and abused in legal circles.
Baby F: you are misunderstanding what I wrote.
1) Those immunoassays are designed to measure c-peptide/insulin in a FASTING state. Once a patient has been put on glucose they are no longer in a fasting state, tests used under those conditions are used OUTSIDE of its mode of use (they are NOT designed for non-fasting states).
2) those immunoassays only INDICATE (not definitely prove) the presence of exogenous insulin, and ONLY if HYPOGLYCAEMIA is present at the same time of the immunoassay.
Both Ethel Hall and Baby F were NOT hypoglycaemic at the time of the test (in fact, baby F had blood glucose levels so high that they could not be accurately measured by the equipment used).
Again, using these assays when the patient is not hypoglycaemic is a complete misuse of it, directly against what and how it is designed to detect and function.
3) If one of those immunoassays is used appropriately, i.e. when the patient is fasting and is hypoglycaemic, and it returns very high levels of insulin to c-peptide and exogenous insulin administration is suspected, then further testing MUST be carried out using mass-spectrometry: this is the test that can definitely confirm the presence of exogenous insulin.
Those immunoassays are NOT designed to detect and diagnose the presence of exogenous insulin, and there are many reasons why the c-peptide to insulin ratios may appear unusual, including not having used the correct dilutions, which is why additional tests MUST be carried out.
These immunoassays must be used within the parameters they were designed to operate, and in both Ethel Hall and Baby F and Baby C cases, they were not.
This is not something I am making up. It is 100% supported by all scientific literature relating to these immunoassays. This is not something you can choose to disagree with. These are facts.
These are just your assertions. Several experts in the Letby case said that the test results unambiguously showed that the insulin was exogoneous. The defence made no attempt to contradict them. Neither the lawyers in the Norris appeal nor the Letby appeal are claiming the test results were wrong. The idea that the tests didn't prove insulin poisoning seems to be noting more than a niche internet meme.
You are wrong.
And you would find that out if you did your research, like an investigative journalist should, instead of attacking me.
Ask the assay manufacturers like Roche, see what they tell you.
And stop going back to the Letby case or the Norris case.
These are verifiable scientific facts outside of the Letby or the Norris case.
Stop stomping your feet and putting your fingers in your ears and go and do some proper research, with proper experts, not the idiot consultants used in the British courts.
Christopher, thank you for all your pieces on the Letby case, it has been a pleasure and a relief to see the facts and arguments so honestly set out.