chapter fourteen
CHAPTER FOURTEEN. THE INSULIN POISONING ALLEGATIONS.
The prosecution accused Lucy Letby of injecting insulin into some of the babies. In this chapter, I will review the evidence regarding this allegation.
Here are some quotes from The Private Eye Special Report. The Lessons of The Lucy Letby Case, by Doctor Phil Hammond MD.
Private Eye Report, Part 4:- Alan Wayne Jones a professor of toxicology states that the immunoassay test that was used to test for insulin in this case has a risk of false results. Other experts have stated that these false results are even more common in neonates. The jury were never told of this failing. Another insulin expert states that “there is no evidence of insulin poisoning”.
Private Eye Report, Part 7:- Four experts in insulin testing have told The Telegraph that the immunoassay test is too prone to error. It is also noted that a lot of insulin would have been required to produce such a high apparent level in the babies, but there was no insulin missing from the unit’s insulin supply.
Private Eye Report, Part 5:- “The jury didn’t hear about - - - - the third case of “definite insulin poisoning” which was shelved after the baby received a diagnosis of hyperinsulinism”.
Private Eye Report, Part 15:- a 100 page report by Professor Geoff Chase concluded that the deliberate insulin poisoning convictions “have no scientific justification whatsoever.”
Here is a quote from the book What Doctors Don’t Tell You, by Lynne McTaggart, published by Thorsons, 1996, page 37:- “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, studied a representative sampling of laboratory tests all over the US and found that about a quarter of all tests has incorrect results.”
Here is a quote from a U-Tube video
Lucy Letby: What The Jury Didn't Know
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqe4dEuK128&t=601s
Expert (on the physiology of insulin) Geoff Chase stated that a lot of insulin would be required to kill a baby – almost the unit’s whole supply. In fact, no insulin was missing from the unit.
Now for a quote from the article in The New Yorker (issue for May 20th, 2024) by Rachel Aviv, entitled – A Reporter at Large – Conviction.
Page 42:- Guidelines on the website for The Royal Liverpool University Hospital Laboratory (where the insulin samples were sent for testing) warn that its insulin test is not suitable for the investigation of whether synthetic insulin has been administered.
Now for a quote from The Daily Mail for February 5th, 2025, page 9:- Doctor Adel Ismail, a world-leading expert in such (insulin) tests stated that a second follow-up test in such cases is “absolutely vital”. In the cases of Baby F and baby L, follow-up tests were not carried out by the lab.
Now for a quote from The Guardian, February 5th, 2025, page 10:- A report by Professor Geoff Chase of The University of Canterbury in New Zealand has concluded that the two babies’ insulin and C-Peptide levels were “typical” for babies their age, and that the tests used by the prosecution were “not of forensic quality”.
Now for some quotes from the book Lucy is Innocent, by Paul Bamford, SECOND EDITION, ISBN number 9798326484130 (I strongly recommend this book!)
Pages 105 to 106:- Professor Kendrick, an “accredited authority on neonatal pathophysiology (See his qualifications on pages 25, and 42, and 356 of the book), states that the recorded levels of insulin would have been lethal, and yet the babies survived.
Page 230:- The high insulin concentration in the blood samples was discovered by Doctor Jayaram two and a half years after the event. (My highlighting.)
Page 248:- When the blood samples were sent for analysis, the laboratory recommended the hospital to have the samples tested at a specialist laboratory in Guildford. This was never done.
Page 255:- One of the insulin samples was not properly refrigerated.
Page 256:- The exogenously injected synthetic insulin theory was based on the fact that when the pancreas produces insulin, it also produces C-Peptide. However, in these blood samples taken from the babies, there was a high insulin concentration, and a low C-Peptide concentration – ie:- a mismatch. However, Professor Vincent Marks is quoted as stating that the low C-Peptide concentration does not conclusively prove the administration of exogenous synthetic insulin.
Now some quotes from a U-Tube video:-
A “dream team” of highly qualified neonatologists from all over the world, assembled by neonatologist Doctor Shoo Lee, perused the medical reports relating to the various babies, and Doctor Shoo Lee read out their conclusions regarding cause of death or collapse for a selection of the babies – at a press conference. This press conference can be viewed on the following U-Tube video:-
LIVE: Lucy Letby press conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOgkGT1_lAM
This was what Doctor Shoo Lee had to say about the accusations of injecting insulin into the babies:- The allegation was as follows:- The baby had a high insulin level, but a low C-Peptide level. This indicated the administration of exogenous synthetic insulin. When the pancreas produces insulin, a small protein – C-Peptide is cleaved off from the insulin. If the pancreas produces insulin, the levels of insulin and C-Peptide should rise together. If the insulin is exogenous, the insulin level should rise, but the C-peptide level should not rise.
In the unit, one of the babies had low blood sugar level, so the doctors incorrectly pumped large amounts of sugar into the baby, which stimulated the high production of insulin, causing an insulin “spike”, which caused further low blood sugar level. They SHOULD have pumped in the sugar very slowly, not in the large quantities that they actually used. (This incorrect procedure explains why the babies had such a high insulin level in their blood.)
Doctor Shoo Lee now quoted Professor Geoff Chase, who studies insulin physiology. He reported that pre-term infants have different insulin and C-Peptide standards to adults. The C-Peptide level measured would have been average for this pre-term baby.
If the insulin levels had actually been as high as reported, then the potassium levels would have been reduced; but, in this baby, the potassium levels were normal, so the insulin level could not have been as high as reported. There was clearly a mismeasurement of the insulin involved.
QUOTE:- “The Insulin/C-Peptide ratio was within the normal expected range for pre-term infants”.
QUOTE:- “The prosecution experts were using standards for adults which do not apply to pre-term infants”.
QUOTE:- “Pre-term infants have a lot of antibodies which bind insulin. If you measure the insulin level in a baby, you don’t only measure the active insulin in the blood. You also measure the insulin bound to the antibodies. So you get a falsely high level of insulin when you measure it in pre-term infants”.
QUOTE:- “The immunoassay (test) is unreliable”.
QUOTE:- “There are many interference factors. For example, sepsis, antibiotics, antibodies will all cause the measurements to be wrong. Therefore you get false positive insulin readings. This baby had all of the above. The baby had sepsis, antibiotics, antibodies etc.”.
QUOTE:- “The Baby’s insulin and C-Peptide levels do not prove that exogenous insulin was used, and are in fact within the normal range for pre-term infants”.
My comment:- The allegations of insulin poisoning seemed plausible at first. However, after looking more closely at the matter, and in the light of all the above quotes, it becomes clear that no “insulin poisoning” ever took place. Lucy Letby was convicted on the basis of “junk science”.