14 more of ‘the smallest and sickest babies’ who make it in Scotland would not have survived in England but a consultant from Nottingham (!) tells us that Scottish Government delays are putting them at risk here

are being put at risk by delaye in the reorganisation of neonatal care.

Help Talking-up Scotland keep goin

Crowdfunder at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-talking-up-scotland-keep-going

Or by direct bank transfer to: JOHN WATSON ROBERTSON Sort Code – 08-91-04 Account – 12266421

BBC Scotland‘s insert in BBC Breakfast today includes this evidence from Dr Stephen Wardle, president of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine:

So yes, delays in making progress with these proposals will be affecting the outcome for some of these babies.

Wardle is a Consultant Neonatologist at Nottingham University Hospitals. The BAMP is essentially a trade union and not some leading research centre for neonatal medicine.

Nottingham University Hospitals? From BBC Nottinghamshire in 2024:

After years of gathering evidence, senior midwife Donna Ockenden is due to publish her review – the largest of its kind in NHS history – of maternity failings at Nottingham’s two major hospitals. Hundreds of babies have died or been injured while under the care of Nottingham University Hospitals (NUH) NHS Trust, which runs the departments at City Hospital and the Queen’s Medical Centre.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyr7em4323mo

What is the mortality rate for these ‘smallest and sickest babies?’

These include babies born before 24 weeks, who inevitably have very high mortality and make up a large share of neonatal deaths.

England and Wales (ONS, 2024): 3.0 neonatal deaths per 1,000 live births.

Scotland (NRS, 2023): 2.7 per 1,000.

A 0.3 per 1 000 rate is only a 0.03% difference but out of around 45 000 per year is 14 babies in Scotland and around 150 in England & Wales.

14 babies make it. What could matter more?

Sources:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/childhoodinfantandperinatalmortalityinenglandandwales/2024/pdf

https://nrscotland.gov.uk/media/yicputl1/vital-events-reference-tables-2023-publication.pdf

Help Talking-up Scotland keep goin

Crowdfunder at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-talking-up-scotland-keep-going

Or by direct bank transfer to: JOHN WATSON ROBERTSON Sort Code – 08-91-04 Account – 12266421

Discover more from Talking-up Scotland

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

11 thoughts on “14 more of ‘the smallest and sickest babies’ who make it in Scotland would not have survived in England but a consultant from Nottingham (!) tells us that Scottish Government delays are putting them at risk here”

  1. Could Dr Wardle please comment on this:
    Since Thirlwall first published Inq0000844 (https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/evidence/inq0000844-blood-test-results-of-child-f-produced-for-the-criminal-proceedings-of-r-v-letby-dated-13-08-2015/), the biochemical ‘evidence’ that baby F was poisoned with insulin, I have repeatedly reported to various MSM that a glucose value (page 2 of Inq0000844) of 999.0mmol/L, almost seven times higher than the Guinness book of Records entry for record high blood sugar in a human being, is a complete impossibility. The actuality is that the 999.0mmol/L result is a (very) old analytical computer (is it still SMAC?) error message. It is highlighted on the Inq0000844 report as abnormal. Basically the entire sample is unfit for purpose and the test must be repeated (it wasn’t and is not in any case a test of forensic quality, as stated on the test kit data sheet). The Insulin (it even states on the Inq0000844 result that “INTERPRETATION OF INSULIN LEVEL DEPENDS ON GLUCOSE”) and c-peptide results and ratio are equally invalid. Yet this was the objective evidence for a finding of the attempted murder of baby F and the farce is compounded in the Thirlwall report summary – https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/summary-chapter/summary-report/the-babies/#toc-heading-baby-f – paragraph 2.51 which again repeats the insulin and c-peptide values with no mention of the concomitant 999.0mmol/L impossible glucose value. How can this be? The baby L (also conviction for attempted murder by insulin poisoning) summary (2.96 onwards) has a similar but less egregious problem (no contemporaneous lab blood sugar stated at all (was there one, it would be essential standard practice?)), only cot-side tests available but still a technically invalid test. The junior doctors who rejected these tests at the time were technically correct to do so but now face criticism and are browbeaten into admitting their ‘error’. Is there anyone on TUS with a MSM contact? I have failed despite many attempts and know that my latest message to The Guardian has been received but not, as yet or as previously, actioned. All anyone has to do is look. What is going on? Look for yourself, Professor Robertson, and if you are convinced by the evidence can TUS succeed where everyone else has failed?

    Like

    Reply

      1. Understood, and no problem, but I’m pretty sure Scotland will be hugely affected and perhaps condescended to in the manner of Dr Wardle when the Thirlwall Inquiry recommendations are implemented UK wide. And the English critics will be quick to point out any unusual clusters of neonatal morbidity and mortality in the Level 3 (highest level) neonatal unit at the QEUH, easily the closest hospital department to the southern end of the Shieldhall sewage complex where the pipes enter. There’s a lot of trouble ahead and this website, and only this website, has predicted it all (I was truly astonished). Plus outing this issue when no-one else will might bring much deserved MSM and therefore more importantly general public attention and overdue respect. There has been worldwide interest in the Letby case since Dr Choo Lee’s team of global experts became involved (and all but disregarded by the Inquiry). And there’s been a lot of perplexity about the lack of impact of this site recently or so Grok AI tells me! But your (excellent but under-supported ) website, your shout. Anyway, thanks for taking a look. No-one else has!

        Like

        Reply

          1. ‘But your (excellent but under-supported ) website, your shout. Anyway, thanks for taking a look. No-one else has!’

            Thanks for that

            Could you write a piece where you get a chance to fully flesh out your argument and at the end at least briefly compare with developments in Scotland?

            John

            Like

            Reply

            1. BAPM is the major professional resource for neonatal medicine in England. It is a co-ordination and support resource interwoven with all aspects of neonatal/perinatal care, not just doctors but nurses and other support staff and not least families (free membership for parents and carers!). So nothing really to do with trade unions at all. There is no direct equivalent in Scotland since the Scottish Perinatal Network (SPN) also strongly involves maternity services and is therefore wider ranging. To the best of my knowledge the two organisations complement each other and I don’t think Dr Wardle (on the executive committee of BAPM) would necessarily be regarded as inappropriate when speaking about Scottish neonatal services, though it is perhaps gauche in the current political climate. Either way these organisations are reeling in sorrow for the families affected at the moment and probably don’t know which way to turn politically. Decisions are now going to be forced on them by the Thirlwall recommendations even though (IMHO) the Inquiry should have been paused until the Letby situation is resolved. And how Dr Shoo Lee’s (apologies for previous misspelling 😊) team of internationally renowned experts can be virtually sidelined when they have willingly given their services pro-bono is beyond me. I also acknowledge my spelling advisor’s 😊 note that “errors in the glucose results presented” may include the 999.0mmol/L blood glucose result but it is a shame that this was not stated explicitly for all to understand. In conclusion, I fully expect the Thirlwall recommendations to be implemented in Scotland and for the current Scottish proposals for three level 3 neonatal units and relative downgrading for the rest to be implemented. And, of course, one of those level 3 units is barely a stone’s throw away from…you know what. IMHO the best thing to happen now would be for real publicity about the 999mmol/L glucose (it just had to be ‘999’) so that there is public demand for further investigation before changes are implemented. Which means resolving the Letby case. It’s all such a mess. I’ll have a go at semi-neutrally summing this up if you want, it’s a big undertaking. But Scotland will definitely be affected.

              Like

              Reply

  2. With some trepidation I must ask the prof a question. Have you noted that the state broadcaster’s Scottish branch no longer asks for opinions from our own universities? Why go to Nottingham, excellent though that university might be, but how many medical schools do we have in Scotland? Then ask why MacPravda never consults them.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  3. I think it is from the period around 2014 that I noticed a trend and wondered why they didn’t just contact Glasgow / Strathclyde / Caledonian / West of Scotland for an appropriate viewpoint. Not good enough for MacPravda? Would a LiibDems-style FOI shed a bit of light?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. So many ‘anonymous’ contributors! But the Thirlwall/Letby one can’t spell…it’s Dr Shoo Lee! His team’s ‘Summary of Joint Expert Witness Report on Baby F and L’ (i.e. the babies who were victims of attempted murder via exogenous insulin) finds a lot of reasons to reach “Our inescapable conclusion..that this evidence significantly undermines the validity of the assertions made about the insulin and C-peptide testing presented in court”. https://lucyletbyinnocence.com/shoo-lee/Summary%20of%20Joint%20Expert%20Witness%20Insulin%20Report%20on%20Babies%20F%20and%20L.pdf. Even if fellow anonymous can’t spell, well spotted on the 999.0mmol/L blood glucose. Shoo Lee’s expert’s may actually have covered this by b) “errors in the glucose results presented” and it’s perhaps a shame that they weren’t more explicit. But the impossible 999.0mmol/L is an easy one for the general public to follow. If they ever get told!

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment