matthew0sb0rne.bsky.social
Registered Nurse: Interests and experience include ED and urgent care, trauma, plastics, spinal surgery, advanced practise, nursing science, digital technologies, and education.
558 posts
316 followers
175 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Turns out it was not all that free after all...
comment in response to
post
Here's to the tinkerers, testers, and the curious. đ§Şâ¨
Keep doing what you do, as you might save us all (probably by accident).
comment in response to
post
Yes, science must have ethical boundaries â but discovery thrives on curiosity, not certainty.
X-rays, penicillin, electromagnetism, genetics â none started with a business plan.
They started with someone fiddling with something weird and asking the universe a question.
comment in response to
post
Huh... a website literally called "correlation"
But as all good scientists know, correlation is not causation
comment in response to
post
You should reply that:
"Your rejection didnât meet established standards for clarity or coherence, so it has been returned for you to ârevise and resubmitâ."
comment in response to
post
Per capita leakage in Scotland is lower than most English companies.
Water bills in Scotland are generally lower than in England.
Scottish Water reinvests all profits back into infrastructure â there are no shareholder dividends.
comment in response to
post
Genuine question, how is it worse in Scotland according to Reed???
Scottish Water is publicly owned and accountable to the Scottish Government.
Customer satisfaction is consistently rated higher than water companies in England & Wales.
comment in response to
post
ooooh... interesting!!!
comment in response to
post
Its getting late and I really want a swim as I am trying to rehab after a chest wall injury and I wont get a chance till next weekend otherwise. But I do want to thank you for engaging in the debate, and most importantly not letting it descend into a flamewar/trolling etc.
comment in response to
post
Exploring that isnât a contradiction; itâs part of understanding how complex systems work under pressure.
Preparing students to think critically is part of making future care safer.
comment in response to
post
â like understaffing, poor incident reporting, or cultural problems â get pushed aside because it's more âconvenientâ to focus solely on the individual.
comment in response to
post
The possibility of scapegoating Iâm referring to is at an institutional level, not individual. Once a suspect was identified, especially in a case of this magnitude, there's a risk that systemic issues
comment in response to
post
Iâm not saying the consultants scapegoated Letby. In fact, the evidence shows they raised concerns that were ignored or silenced - though to be totally thorough you do need to examine the idea she was a scapegoat to refute it as an argument.
comment in response to
post
Good question, and I think a demonstrator for why social media is an awkward place to have conversations like this
comment in response to
post
You don't stop misinformation by refusing to engage with uncomfortable questions â you stop it by addressing them with transparency, evidence, and critical thinking.
comment in response to
post
By exploring the possibility of scapegoating â as with any systemic failure â weâre not denying individual accountability. Weâre acknowledging that in high-profile, high-pressure cases, institutions may sometimes shift blame to avoid deeper scrutiny.
comment in response to
post
Because in order to refute it as an argument, you actually have to look at it in a critical manner. Out-of-hand dismissals only leave the door open to more conspiracy theories, not less.
comment in response to
post
Whether something is âtrueâ isnât always a binaryâit's often contested, provisional, and context-dependent, particularly in complex legal and clinical cases.
comment in response to
post
My role isnât to declare what is true â it's to equip students to weigh evidence critically, recognise gaps in process, and understand how both individual and systemic failures can coexist.
comment in response to
post
I would also like to clarify that my personal belief isnât the point. What matters is how evidence is presented, challenged, interpreted, and acted upon.
And there are areas of this case that can and should be challenged. Whether that changes any verdict is not for me to decide.
comment in response to
post
You can take those systemic failures seriously without dismissing the verdict or presuming every element of the case is beyond question.
comment in response to
post
Those events â whether or not they change the verdict â are still instructive.
They show what happens when whistleblowing processes break down, when clinical concerns are minimised, and when safeguarding fails. Thatâs what I mean by "meaningful lessons.â
comment in response to
post
For example:
Doctors raised concerns about Letbyâs presence during collapses. Those concerns were escalated, then dismissed.
Staff were reportedly told to apologise to her. Some were even threatened with referral to the GMC for speaking up.
comment in response to
post
Thatâs a fair challenge, and Iâm happy to clarify.
Iâm referring to the documented accounts of what clinicians reported, how management responded, and what processes were (or werenât) followed â not to whether every individual piece of that evidence proves guilt beyond doubt.
comment in response to
post
If we fail to ask these questions, we risk missing the deeper lessons that could prevent future harm â and thatâs a disservice to patients, professionals, and justice alike.
comment in response to
post
It is not about guilt or innocence, but about understanding how conclusions are reached â whether the processes were robust, whether concerns were ignored, and whether wider institutional or cultural failings played a role.
comment in response to
post
My position consistently emphasises the importance of examining systemic factors and ensuring that medical evidence is interpreted with appropriate expertise.
comment in response to
post
The same holds for other debates, such as vaccine conspiracy theories, for example; if you're going to challenge misinformation effectively, you have to understand the arguments used by those promoting it â even if you know those arguments are flawed.
comment in response to
post
It's not about what I believe.
I am trying to examine all the arguments, even the less credible ones.
It's about anticipating objections, counterargument analysis, opposition research.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
So while we await formal conclusions, the existing evidence already offers meaningful lessons on professional courage, safety culture, and the consequences of inaction.
Teaching students to engage with that responsibly is part of preparing them for real-world nursing.
comment in response to
post
Published analyses from BMJ, The Lancet, HSJ, and others pointing to clear patterns of systemic failure;
And familiesâ public statements raising serious questions about NHS leadership and safeguarding processes.
comment in response to
post
We already have:
Sworn testimony from doctors who raised repeated concerns;
Investigative reporting showing how those concerns were dismissed or silenced;
comment in response to
post
You're right â the official findings are still pending, and they will be vital. But that doesnât mean we must remain silent or passive in the meantime.
comment in response to
post
Private Eye criticised the superficial focus on Letby as a lone âevil nurse,â warning this risks obscuring the bigger issue: how NHS leadership can and did suppress warnings. Also highlighted the disturbing trend of gagging clinicians using legal threats.
comment in response to
post
It also covered familiesâ calls for justice not just against Letby, but against the hospital executives who dismissed repeated alarms.
comment in response to
post
The BBC published a detailed timeline and summaries of the trial, including coverage of missed opportunities to suspend Letby earlier, despite senior doctors raising serious concerns.
comment in response to
post
The guardian had extensive reporting highlighted how hospital executives repeatedly failed to act on warnings from consultants. The paper drew attention to a âculture of denial and defensivenessâ and emphasised the need for stronger whistleblowing protections.
comment in response to
post
HSJ published reports showing there were at least 10 internal warnings about Letby that were dismissed or ignored. It also covered the erosion of trust between clinicians and senior management at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
comment in response to
post
BMJ discussed the safeguarding failures and repeated concerns raised by doctors that were not acted on. It highlighted that accountability must include both the individual and the trustâs leadership.
comment in response to
post
The Lancet emphasised that the Letby case is not just about one individual, but about systemic failures â poor governance, ignored warnings, and a culture that discouraged whistleblowing. It warned that without real reform, the NHS remains vulnerable to repeat failures.
comment in response to
post
And youâre right â she was questioned for over 60 hours, and the jury deliberated for 110 hours. That alone tells us how profound and complex the case was. If we leave it at âone bad nurse,â we do a disservice to future patients and professionals alike.
comment in response to
post
We discuss whistleblowing, safeguarding, accountability, clinical red flags, and organisational culture. These are not distractions from the case â they are core lessons because of it.
comment in response to
post
I'm very clear with students: the legal verdict stands. Iâm not questioning Letbyâs guilt but I am encouraging them to look at the wider failings that allowed harm to continue despite multiple warnings.