Recent content by May72031

I've heard it called "anomaly hunting", and it is very popular among conspiracy theorists.

That Guardian article is a rehash of the one they put out a few days previously. It is from the same "journalists" - the appropriately-named David Conn, and Felicty Lawrence. Again, the article is extremely vague about the "complaint" against Hindmarsh. Again, people have speculated about what...

There is no evidence the mum's call logs were wrong.

Has anyone from the "panel of experts" admitted it was a mistake to make the claim that a doctor was responsible for killing a baby with a needle?

If "poor care" was an "obvious explanation" for babies collapsing and dying, then there should be some evidence for this. "Poor care" does not explain the sudden and unexpected collapses and deaths of the babies. Also, we would expect to see similar spikes of unexpected collapses and deaths if...

It isn't actually. You keep suggesting there could be a bunch of "suspicious incidents" that would be "helpful" to Letby, despite there being no evidence of such cases.

Are you suggesting there were more suspicious deaths Letby should be investigated for?

Wait. Is somebody trying to compare the rota sheet data with astrology???? WTF?

I notice that among several suspiciously new and prolific pro-Letby accounts on social media, one madcap cuckoo amongst them is demanding that the doctors and DS Paul Hughes all serve life sentences! :rolleyes:

Again. Too vague. I've seen explanations for this "probe" elsewhere, but don't have official confirmation. But if it is the case these explanations are correct, then the above claims are complete BS.

Indeed. I don't trust her judgement at all.

My theory would be more developed if the Guardian's article wasn't so vague. Also, if he was harming patients a resignation would not end any investigation. One theory is that the complaint was BS and that is why the Guardian is being so vague. Get the innuendo out, but explain nothing. I...

You have no idea if he handed in his registration because the complaint was "serious". There is no evidence whatsoever that he harmed any patients. That Guardian article is so vague it comes across as something Maltin PR got them to publish.

So, I asked (several times) about what exactly this "complaint" was against Peter Hindmarsh, and the responses simply parrot the Guardian article, which does not elaborate whatsoever what the complaint was. It is vague as hell. You'd think from reading the article and the Letbyists it must have...

I've still got no answer about what exactly the "fitness to practice investigation" into Peter Hindmarsh involved. Various newspapers and Letbyists made a big fuss about it the other day...