drsusanoliver.bsky.social
Scientist who is passionate about correcting misinformation
https://www.youtube.com/backtothescience
248 posts
124,760 followers
727 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Yes, I was just posing for the camera. I decided to get the photo as an afterthought. I used to compete in my 20s. The weights that I am lifting now are quite light in comparison.
comment in response to
post
If you see your doctor, they can arrange a blood test to check your antibody levels.
comment in response to
post
He only discusses accidental. He has also classified cases as being from mechanical ventilation when the original author said they were from accidental IV injection of air.
comment in response to
post
I have answered every question that you asked. You are clearly a dick head. I am blocking you now.
comment in response to
post
5
comment in response to
post
I don't know any medical people employed in Chester.
comment in response to
post
That's why they are having the Thirlwall inquiry. It is one of the questions they are trying to answer.
comment in response to
post
Because no one advised the pathologists that there were suspicions, so they didn't involve a trained forensic pathologist.
comment in response to
post
They were clinical not forensic autopsies. The pathologists involved have explained all this at the Thirlwall inquiry. I have no background, but I have spoken to a number of neonatologists and neonatal nurses about the case. All think Letby is guilty.
comment in response to
post
Sorry, you need to educate yourself on the roles of different specialists. Just one example, neonatologists don't perform autopsies, and therefore, they aren't qualified to interpret pictures of livers.
comment in response to
post
What are you going on about? You are making absurd claims that I don't agree with. I am not being careful.
comment in response to
post
Oh dear. You don't even have a basic understanding of medical specialities. Paediatric is an adjective - not a noun. I have not mentioned any paediatricians. I have covered the specialists qualified to analyse the specialist data that neonatologists aren't.
comment in response to
post
No, you are saying that. I am not.
comment in response to
post
I have no idea what you are going on about. They were briefed to come up with alternative causes of death that didn't include murder, and they did. However, their alternatives don't fit the evidence just like the alternatives that different experts came up with in December.
comment in response to
post
I live in Australia.
comment in response to
post
I provided you with a link that answers your question. I have no idea why Dr Lee's friends have come up with implausible methods of death for the children that isn't supported by the evidence of experts from the relevant fields (i.e. pathology, haematology, endocrinology, radiology).
comment in response to
post
pubpeer.com/publications...
comment in response to
post
A bit of both. The report is laughable if you are familiar with the evidence - just like the one in December. Dr Lee deliberately published a review paper to help the defence and categorised cases differently than the original authors.
comment in response to
post
I don't. My reply didn't mention paediatricians.
comment in response to
post
Because in December, the other experts convinced people who aren't familiar with the evidence that they were right because they were experts, but they must have been wrong because the new experts are saying something else.
comment in response to
post
They are inconsistent with the evidence found by perinatal/paediatric pathologist, the paediatric haematologist, the paediatric endocrinologist, and the paediatric radiologist. And Dr Lee deliberately changed classifications of AE from the original authors in his review paper.
comment in response to
post
No, I am just asking what happened to the other experts who came up with completely different equally implausible alternatives to murder.
comment in response to
post
Yes, they also said that about the other experts whose reports were presented at the December conference. Now, they are hoping everyone has forgotten about them.
comment in response to
post
I will take that as a no. You have no idea what evidence was used to convict her.
comment in response to
post
Just to be clear, is that yes, you are familiar with ALL the evidence presented at trial.
comment in response to
post
It is a yes or no question. Only 3 characters required to answer. I asked if you were familiar with ALL the evidence presented at trial.
comment in response to
post
As I said, they didn't use statistics. Are you actually familiar with ALL the evidence presented at trial?
comment in response to
post
More recently Saritta Adams who had the website science on trial, which supported nurse serial killer, Lucy Letby, was found to have lied about completing her PhD.
comment in response to
post
Statistics weren't used to convict her. In fact the true statistics that she was present for 12 out of 13 deaths whilst only working 20% of shifts wasn't even mentioned at trial. They only focused on the deaths where they had strong evidence.
comment in response to
post
It only destroyed it for people with no knowledge of the case. For everyone else, it was just a rehash of the defence arguments at trial that had already been rejected by the jury because they didn't fit the evidence.
comment in response to
post
Back in the day, they pushed Andrew Wakefield's dodgy paper.
comment in response to
post
Yes Private Eye have been pushing it for awhile. After the December press conference, they were pushing what was said then. Now they are pushing the completely different version from the new press conference.
comment in response to
post
Yes that's an example of what I am talking about. The article doesn't even mention the previous press conference where totally different claims were made.
comment in response to
post
The PR company, Maltin PR, is counting on journalists being too lazy to do their own research, and instead, just parrot their PR release. The CCRC won't be so easily swayed.
www.maltinpr.com/maltin-pr-ho...
comment in response to
post
His first few articles seemed reasonable to me, but then I decided to do a deep dive and they started to seem misleading.
comment in response to
post
OK. I will add it to my list of videos to watch.
comment in response to
post
No. I am not familiar with him.
comment in response to
post
This calls the credibility of the whole report prepared for Lucy Letby's defence and PR team by Dr Lee and his collaborators into question /3
comment in response to
post
It appears that this conflict of interest may have unduly influenced the categorisation of cases in the review paper to help create a false narrative to suggest that Ms Letby is innocent and that, instead, several clinicians are incompetent. pubpeer.com/publications... /2