Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tim's avatar

Has Gill or anyone else actually suggested a plausible illness that might have killed these babies? Let’s take Child D. It would have to be something which:

- causes a baby to collapse *and then also recover* incredibly rapidly, in ways which the on duty doctor said he’d never seen before and “couldn’t make sense of”, 3 times in the space of about 4 hours, the 3rd time leading to its death

- produce a distinctive reddish rash on its torso which a doctor and nurse with decades of experience each said they’d never seen before; a rash which then went quickly as the baby recovered

- produce an x-ray showing a column of air in the baby’s large vessel near its spine which another experienced neonatal doctor said he’d never seen in any other baby outside of a car crash

- somehow this mysterious disease only ever caused these sudden collapses when Letby was alone with the baby, not when anyone else was present (never in front of the assigned nurse, which wasn’t Letby)

The only thing this all fits with is air embolism, administered by Letby. There’s literally an x-ray showing it ffs!

So again, what is this mysterious illness? You can’t just fudge it, it has to fit all the above criteria.

And that’s for *one baby*. There’s similarly compelling evidence for all the others.

Until I see Gill, or anyone else for that matter, accounting for facts like these, on a baby-by-baby basis, in any way which isn’t completely laughable, I’ll continue to treat these truthers with the contempt they deserve.

Expand full comment
Richard Gill's avatar

This is so funny: Chris talks about "a small gathering of statisticians". Well, there were about 50 persons at the meeting, and the majority were not statisticians. There were many medics, many lawyers, and many investigative journalists present.

Expand full comment
136 more comments...

No posts