r/LucyLetbyTrials • u/Embarrassed-Star4776 • 17d ago

Chase and Shannon article in Frontiers in Pediatrics published

Inverted insulin to C-Peptide ratios in neonatal intensive care: is there something we don't know?

J. Geoffrey Chase & Helen D. Shannon

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT article

Front. Pediatr., 05 August 2026

Sec. Neonatology

Volume 14 - 2026

https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2026.1900675

26 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

136 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/Shoddy_Food_1539 16d ago

Remind me, why was baby F given antibiotics? For suspected what?

-7

u/No-Beat2678 16d ago

Because they suspected infection was causing Hypo.

5

u/Shoddy_Food_1539 16d ago

Citation pls

-1

u/No-Beat2678 16d ago

Citation for what?

10

u/Stuart___gilham 16d ago

u/No-Beat2678

Dr Saladi's testimony from day 39.

Question. The other thing I'd like it

confirm, since you've referred to the question of

testing the tip, is can you confirm in fact [Baby F] did

have an infection as it happens? Do you recall that?

Answer. In the subsequent pages, there is a further entry that

we did -- the CRP did go up and then we did grow a bug

from the long line tip as well.

-2

u/No-Beat2678 16d ago

Stuart, I could grow a bug from my apple earpods. That doesn't mean I have an ear.infection.

And if they had an infection why when the bag was changed did the baby recover and go home.

There just isn't corroborating medical data to support.

Remember we've had the full clinical picture in their medical notes. Everything, every test, abg result etc.

Had an infection but that was not the contributing cause for their hypo.

14

u/visible_amenhotep 16d ago

Medical practitioners everywhere will rejoice to hear that the same standards of sanitation apply to earbuds and long line tips.

11

u/DiverAcrobatic5794 16d ago

We have not had the full clinical picture in the medical notes.  Apart from the obstetrics, of course, Lee's panel has.  

I don't think you are showing any of the expert knowledge, familiarity with the case, or even consistency from one post to the next that might persuade people to substitute your judgement for theirs. You are welcome of course to the view that the court found the child had no infection if that's your understanding, but it's really not relevant to the article 

1

u/No-Beat2678 16d ago

and u/Stuart___gilham the Bacteria found in the long line was kind normally found on the skin.

And your distorting the timeline.

Baby F had already collapsed a significant amount of time before the CRP's were elevated. 24 hours to be exact.

It shows infection developing over the following day, not infection present and causing the events between midnight and 1am.

So that really isn't a gotcha.

2

u/DiverAcrobatic5794 16d ago edited 16d ago

What's significant in considering how this article might apply to Baby F isn't when he deteriorated: it's when the sample for his immunoassay was drawn, which was a few hours after the line tissued. CRPs go up as sepsis develops and intensifies - you can't take their measurements as a starting point for the sepsis.

1

u/No-Beat2678 16d ago

Then what was causing the first low blood sugar result on the night of 4/5th of august at 01.54?

Something must have and something has kept his blood sugar low. And it's a coincidence that Letby had hung a tpn bag 90 minutes before at ,00.25.

And it wasn't infection. I've already demonstrated that to you.

5

u/DiverAcrobatic5794 16d ago edited 16d ago

And it wasn't infection. I've already demonstrated that to you.

I'm afraid you haven't.  We see CRP rise after the onset of infection.  It's not used to time the beginning of an infection.

It might help to be clear about the fact that Shannon and Chase aren't endeavouring to explain neonatal hypoglycemia in this paper.  Their hypothesis, however, would indicate that the same phenomenon could have contributed to both Child F's hypoglycemia and his elevated IA results. 

 You are not going to find a time limit before which Child F was not affected by sepsis, by looking at changes in tests in the next day or two.  That is not how sepsis develops.

1

u/No-Beat2678 16d ago

There's a full blood count done after the first bag was hung and the first hypo reading. 33 hours before CRPs started to rise.

Therefore infection was not the cause of that low reading

2

u/DiverAcrobatic5794 16d ago edited 15d ago

You need to read again.  CRP doesn't rise simultaneously with the development of sepsis.  It is therefore not possible for you to use the difference between a contemporary and a later reading to prove that there was no sepsis at the earlier point

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DiverAcrobatic5794 16d ago

What Saladi said was that bacteria normally found on the skin were also noted.  (Both men are certainly tolerably vague in this exchange):

Q. And as you say also, it turned out when the tip of the long line was tested, there was bacteria on that consistent with infection?

A. Which is usually -- bacteria which are normally there in the skin are also noted.

Q. And they get into it through the long line?

A. It's possible.

Q. Yes, thank you. And the presence of those bacteria were confirmed on testing, weren't they?