Medical statistics specialist, Professor Jane Hutton has sent this complaint to the BBC. I feel vindicated. Done correctly, the maths gives the extubation rate when Letby was there as exactly normal.

Firstly, the deaths were simply not unexplained. They had specific, natural causes of death listed from their autopsies. Second, the connection drawn *was* from (bad) stats. First the rise in mortality, then an apparent coincidence of Letby’s disproportionate presence.

As for the colleagues who *did* regularly work with her, this is what the Thirlwall Inquiry said about them

Yes you did. But this is stupid. Read the last link I sent if you’re interested in the topic. I won’t waste time arguing about your cattiness

She’s obviously implying it was weak in this case. See also her comments here

This KC addressed this line of reasoning quite well

Your attempt to peruse one single paper on the topic is simply not a match for the hundreds of papers Chase has written on it. Like you, I’m not equipped to understand the literature in one evening, so I’m not going to try.
P.S. screenshot lists the other experts who weighed in on the insulin cases

Who has claimed he was?
The screenshot is from a 2010 column of his.

@gabyhinsliff.bsky.social your article on Letby repeats two of the same mistakes as The Times’ “actual evidence” one:
1) Leaks recently received by David Rose show 10 incidents Evans thought suspicious that Letby wasn’t present for. Unsurprisingly they weren’t on the chart shows to the jury.