Skip to main content

I don't believe it

Followers of my blog may have noticed that I have been looking at the research of Professor David Southall of North Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Recently I obtained a leak of the report of Professor Hull into Professor Southall's research at NSNHST. The whole issue is quite complex, but there is part of this report I cannot really believe is written down.

Professor Hull is the same Professor Hull that wrote the report that showed that Beverley Allitt was not responsible for most of the deaths of the patients she was responsible for.

(See this BMJ report)

He has analysed various research projects many of which I am worried about. E5 is the most incredible, however. (and that takes some doing)

E5 involves giving babies with breathing problems Carbon Monoxide to measure their oxygen diffusing capacity.

Now using CO at low concentrations to measure oxygen diffusing is known Eg here

However, it is quite clear that:
5.1 Absolute contraindications to performing a diffusing capacity test are
5.1.1 the presence of carbon monoxide toxicity
5.1.2 dangerous levels of oxyhemoglobin desaturation without supplemental oxygen.


In other words according to the respiratory care journal it should not be given to babies who need extra oxygen (the babies selected for this test).

Now what makes me almost fall off my seat in shock is the following in Professor Hull's hyper secret report:

4.5.1 Were the invesigations safe?

Inert gases. One arm of this investigation was the measurement of pulmonary blood flow using inert gases.


To me the inert gases are Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton and Xenon, Radon is inert chemically, but not in a nuclear sense. Methane is not really inert, but Carbon Monoxide cannot be described as an inert gas.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…