chapter twelve
CHAPTER TWELVE. THE AIR EMBOLISM HYPOTHESIS.
Dr Dewi Evans put forward the HYPOTHESIS that Lucy Letby had injected air, using a hypodermic needle, into the veins of some of the babies. In this chapter, I will provide quotes from various sources which tend to show that this is simply a HYPOTHESIS, WHICH HAS NO REAL FOUNDATION.
First, here are a few quotes from the book Baby Killer 2. Is Lucy Letby Innocent, by Stu Armstrong, ISBN 9798301688835, printed by Amazon.
Page 24:- “Air embolism can occur naturally, according to medical experts.”
Pages 60 to 66:- Dr Rachel Pennington, paediatrician and neonatologist is quoted:- “There are - - - natural air embolisms from - - - resuscitation procedures.”
Pages 40 to 45:- Forensic pathologist Dr Eleanor Hughes is quoted:- “Air embolism is difficult to confirm post-mortem.”(She then states that natural air embolism could occur during medical procedures.)
Now, here are quotes from Private Eye Special Report – The Lessons of The Lucy Letby Case, by Doctor Phil Hammond MD.
Private Eye Report Part 3:- A senior practising neonatologist states as follows:- various procedures, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, high pressure ventilation etc can cause air embolism.
Private Eye Report, Part 13:- Doctor Dewi Evans accused Lucy Letby of injecting air into the veins of various babies, causing air embolism. His evidence was “rashes” that some of the babies had. He based his diagnosis on an article by Doctor Shoo Lee, which stated that air embolism can cause rashes. However, the paper referred to pulmonary vascular air embolism, not venous air embolism. If air was injected into the baby, it would cause venous air embolism. According to Doctor Shoo Lee, venous air embolism would not cause rashes. Only pulmonary vascular air embolism could cause rashes.
Private Eye Report, Part 13:- In Doctor Dewi Evans’ report he stated that air embolism should be detected in a post mortem by “a bloody froth well known to pathologists”. In fact, the post mortems found no evidence of such “bloody froth” in the hearts of any of these babies.
Now, here is a quote from the book Lucy is Innocent, by Paul Bamford, SECOND EDITION, ISBN number 9798326484130, (I strongly recommend this book!) pages 72 to 76:- Some of the babies had rashes, and Doctor Evans stated that this must indicate air embolism. He relied on a paper – “Pulmonary Vascular Air Embolism in The New-born”, by S. K. Lee and A. K. Tanswell in The Archives of Disease in Childhood, 1989, volume 64, pages 507 to 510. The article states that, in eleven percent of babies with air embolism, a rash occurred.
It is also mentioned in the book (page 75) that the rashes in the babies clustered time-wise – June, July, and August of 2015. This suggests an infection on the unit.
In this book, Professor Kendrick, an accredited authority on neonatal pathophysiology (See pages 25, 42, and 356 of the book for his credentials) states as follows:- (A). He has never seen or heard of such a rash in connection with injection of air – and (B). There is no plausible mechanism for such a rash to occur – and (C). The rashes of these babies do not fit the description of the rashes as describes in the above paper – and (D). Rashes often occur with infection. Professor Kendrick describes the air embolism hypothesis as “fanciful”.
On page 219 of the book, Baby M is discussed. Doctor Jayaram did NOT record a rash in the case notes, but he LATER recalled a rash on the baby.
On pages 48 to 50, Baby B is discussed. The accusation was air embolism. According to Doctor Kendrick, air embolism would take several hours to clear, and the baby could not have survived. In fact, the baby DID survive. (My comment:- In that case, air could NOT have been injected into the baby!)
This comment is from a U-Tube video.
Lucy Letby's lawyers to share 'new evidence' they claim 'significantly undermines' convictions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXuRLIPI9DY
Neonatologist Doctor Richard Taylor stated that air embolism would be apparent for several hours on an X-ray. The X-rays showed no evidence of air embolism, and the autopsy showed no evidence of air embolism.
Now for quotes from a U-Tube video. A “dream team” of very highly qualified neonatologists from around the world were assembled under the direction of Doctor Shoo Lee (co-author of the above mentioned paper) to examine the medical reports of the various babies. Here are the details of the video:-
LIVE: Lucy Letby press conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOgkGT1_lAM
In this video, Doctor Shoo Lee explained that the paper (referred to above) did not distinguish between arterial and venous air embolism. The allegation was that she injected air into the VENOUS system. In a new paper published in 2024 in The American Journal of Perinatology, he separated the cases of venous air embolism and arterial air embolism. When air was injected into the veins, there are no rashes described in the literature. He then went on to explain – If you pump air into the VENOUS system, the blood containing the air is pumped to the lungs. The lungs have a system of small blood vessels that filter out any air, so that the air never even reaches the skin, so as to cause a rash.
Doctor Shoo Lee stated categorically that air embolism was NOT the cause of death or collapse in any of these babies; and that this was the finding of the international “dream team” of neonatology experts.
So there you have it. ALL the experts say that the air embolism hypothesis of Doctor Dewi Evans was completely wrong!