@xmaymejanex @Justinejj1@LancsHospitals You bloody well will see me later. I need to get my bag back. (Plus I couldn’t possibly stay away - I’d miss you all too much). Thank you for my flowers, borderline abusive messages, and 5 years of being fantastic colleagues xx
One of the challenges of being a doctor and an investigative journalist is that you have to live with doubt and you sometimes get things wrong. You're often dealing with probable truth and uncertainty, and the picture changes as information accumulates. I changed my mind about the pandemic fairly quickly. Having assumed the Sars-CoV-2 virus might behave in a similar way to the Sars-CoV-1 virus, and it might be easier to stop transmission because most people would have symptoms, I altered my position when it became apparent the virus was spreading rapidly through air with minimal or no symptoms. I don't delete my tweets as a reminder that we learn most from mistakes.
I have also changed my position on the Lucy Letby trial. I assumed initially that the evidence presented by seven consultant paediatricians with over a hundred years of experience, coupled with the opinions of six expert witnesses for the prosecution, had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly as no experts were put on the stand by the defence. In my 34 years writing for @PrivateEyeNews, I have nearly always found that senior medical whistleblowers are right, and indeed without those brave enough to speak up, such as Professor Steve Bolsin, scandals such as the high excess deaths in paediatric cardiac surgery in Bristol would have remained hidden.
What has made me doubt the Letby case is proven beyond reasonable doubt is the number and quality of experts following their professional and moral duty to speak up and put a counter view. We now have experts of equivalent status debating the evidence, some certain Letby is guilty, some certain she is innocent but most saying we just can't know either way beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence presented.
It makes me extremely angry that this debate didn't happen in court at the initial trial. There have been numerous intelligent proposals for delivering more complex scientific and statistical evidence to juries, such as "hot tubbing" experts from both sides so they take the stand together and a proper debate is heard in court. Alternatively a panel of the experts could present their views on behalf of the court, rather than one side or another.
What is totally unacceptable, in a trial of this complexity and uncertainty, is to only hear from experts from one side. It must be extremely distressing for expert counter views to be emerging after the verdict and appeals. If we want to improve the justice system, we need to address this as a matter of urgency.
Letby may appeal again. Given the state of the justice system, as overcrowded as the NHS, it could take 5-10 years for this to be heard. She may lose again. Or she may not, and we can have yet another public inquiry into how we might prevent future miscarriages of justice by offering the best scientific and statistical advice to criminal trials as they happen, not after the event.
@KirstyChallen@Josh_Mash@AndyCurran8@Smiller2790 😂 Kirsty I couldn’t have put it better myself! Enjoy Wythenshawe Josh (what is all this chatter about Jason??). Very sorry I missed the doughnuts, I presume they’re all gone now.
@Michell89149809@LancsHospitals@LthtrPals Congratulations!! Lovely news 💕 Maeve is absolutely gorgeous and I look forward to meeting her. Wishing you all lots of sleep! Xx
@VivekKhashu @RCEMpresident I interpreted ‘internal’ as meaning within the hospital rather than within the ED. There are definitely hospital processes which contribute to the extraordinary waits in the ED for a hospital bed.