Brits in London Protesting Today - Jolly Good

London was on fire today—not with bombs or bullets, but with voices. Ordinary people, the kind who pay their bills, raise their kids, and love this country with a stubborn loyalty, finally had enough.

The British have always been suckers for fair play. It’s in the blood. Generous, tolerant, forgiving—we’ve never needed lectures about kindness. We’ve lived it. We welcomed strangers, helped them, called them friends. And now? Laws twisted, speech gagged, citizens treated like criminals for waving the flag that built this island. Hypocrisy never looked so cheap.

Extremists slipped in the back door while the politicians cashed their checks. Creeps with smiles and fake compassion sold out the soul of the country. The ordinary man in the street? He wasn’t to blame for the wars. Hell, we fought them to stop bullies and save people who couldn’t save themselves. But try telling that to the keyboard fascists screaming online.

 They sound more like Nazis than the Nazis ever did.

This isn’t a nation of violence. It’s a nation of memory. Kids once played together—different colors, different accents—without the poison now being pumped into every headline. There was mischief, there were squabbles, but never this madness of fear and division.

And here’s the dirty little truth: it didn’t creep in from the Left alone. It happened under the Tories—fourteen years of greed, corruption, and indifference. They let it fester, feeding the beast while ordinary people paid the rent.

But the curtain’s coming down. The crowd is loud, defiant, and not in the mood to take orders. You cannot erase England. You cannot re-engineer the people who built it.

The voices on the street today? That’s the sound of a nation remembering who it truly is- not some twisted lie

liz lucy robillard

Don't Blame The British for Past Horrors

 Don't Blame the British Public for Old Colonial Horrors- why it's a mistake.

Responsibility lies at the top - not with regular people.

The empire was about big business. Pure and simple. It created huge wealth and now the collective hangover guilt- especially among our more compassionate voters- is clearly messing up - people being arrested for 'thought crime' is apparently actually happening in the UK (and affecting not the terminally rich and spoiled)

Thought Crime Arrests

It is a tragic and dangerous habit of human beings to mistake the sins of power for the sins of the people. And some injured parties want to see the destruction of the UK as is evident here-

Britain Being Destroyed From Within

When nations inherit the bittero memory of empire, the fury is often directed at those least able to bear it: the ordinary citizens, the neighbour, the single mum, the shopkeeper, the labourer, the soldier who fought and bled without ever once sitting in a cabinet room or signing a trade deal.

People place trust in their leaders. 'Blind trust' a lot of the time- trust that has sometimes been ill deserved -and horribly exploited. 

The history of corruption is not the history of *ordinary* average people.

 It is the history of those silly elites. The effete. Those with lots of money and no common sense- out of touch with their authenitic selves-blinded by guilt but sheilded by their greed and ego- that messes up our world.

Cultivate self awareness and you won't often go wrong.

It is the story of governments, corporations, charities, and institutions who pursued profit and power under the cover of legality and respectability that's at fault.

 And the evidence for this is not speculative—it is written in case law, in court judgments, in criminal convictions.

Consider Britain. The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful.

 The expenses scandal put MPs in prison.

 The Post Office scandal ruined hundreds of lives because executives denied the truth about their own failed system.

 The High Court has struck down crony contracts—“VIP lanes”—in the awarding of public money. 

These are not fairy tales. They are judicial facts.

Look abroad too. Israeli prime ministers, South Korean presidents, American governors, Italian premiers—convicted of bribery, fraud, and plunder. 

The Philippines saw its president fall to corruption charges. The same pattern repeats itself everywhere. When power is unchecked, it is abused.

Even charities—those most trusted of institutions—have failed.

 Oxfam was found wanting in safeguarding.

 Kids Company collapsed under the weight of its own mismanagement.

 And the pharmaceutical industry, held up as saviour and science incarnate, has been fined billions for hiding data and promoting drugs unlawfully.

So what is the point? The point is this: the enemy is not your neighbour, not the citizen across the street, and not the immigrant who came to work in your town.

 The enemy is corruption at the top. It is the arrogance of leaders who manipulate nations for profit and control.

We must refuse collective blame.

 It is lazy, it is unjust, and it blinds us to the real culprits. The sins of empire were not authored by the people in the fields, the shops, and the factories. 

They were authored by elites who remain, even now, insulated from accountability.

A handful of decent lawyers, activists and journalists fight this- when desperately overworked and stressed.

The remedy is not resentment. It is responsibility. It is sunlight. It is demanding open government, independent audit, real checks and balances. 

It is solidarity with your neighbours and friends- at the level of ordinary life—where most of us want the same things: safety, dignity, honest work, honest leaders.

Liberty is not chaos. It is disciplined resistance to unaccountable power. 

And until we remember that, we will continue to fight each other while those at the top laugh at you and tighten their grip.

'The pen is mightier than the sword' 

How to address the legacy of historical abuses

• Teach accurate history: distinguish between decisions of ruling elites and the lives of ordinary citizens.

• Build cross-cultural solidarity: recognise that working people everywhere share more in common with each other than with those who ruled them.

• Demand transparency: open records, archives, and inquiries into past abuses rather than burying them.

• Promote restitution through practical means: investment in education, healthcare, and trade built on fairness rather than exploitation.

• Reject collective guilt: no one should inherit blame for crimes they did not commit.

• Focus on present accountability: stop repeating the same patterns of cronyism, secrecy, and power-hoarding today.

Concrete corruption case law and convictions (examples only)

• Miller v Prime Minister (2019, UK Supreme Court): prorogation of Parliament unlawful.

• R v Chaytor (2010, UK Supreme Court): MPs jailed for expenses fraud.

• Bates v Post Office (2019, High Court): Horizon IT system unreliable, Post Office conduct condemned.

• Good Law Project v Minister for the Cabinet Office (2021, High Court): contract award unlawful.

• Good Law Project & EveryDoctor v Secretary of State for Health (2022, High Court): VIP lane for PPE unlawful.

Elsewhere

• Israel: PM Ehud Olmert convicted of bribery (2014).

• South Korea: President Park Geun-hye convicted and sentenced for corruption (2017, upheld 2021).

• Philippines: President Joseph Estrada convicted of plunder (2007).

• USA: Governor Rod Blagojevich convicted on multiple corruption counts.

• Italy: Tangentopoli / Mani Pulite investigations; ex-PM Bettino Craxi convicted in absentia

Corporate/Charities

• Oxfam GB: safeguarding failures confirmed by regulator.

• Kids Company: collapse due to governance failings, scrutinised by courts.

• Pfizer: $2.3bn settlement for illegal promotion (2009).

• GlaxoSmithKline: $3bn settlement for unlawful promotion and hiding safety data (2012).

Closing note- remedy

The remedy is not resentment. It is responsibility. It is sunlight- or umbrellas if in the UK...

 It is demanding open government, independent audit, real checks and balances.

 It is friendship at the level of ordinary life—where most of us want the same things: safety, dignity, honest work, honest leaders.

Liberty is not chaos. It is disciplined resistance to unaccountable power. 

And until we remember that, we will continue to fight each other while those at the top laugh and tighten their grip.

What you can do- support your neighbours, support small business- demand transparency- demand accountablity (in the most pleasant way you can) and above all- educate people.

Transparency and Anti-Corruption

◇Global Witness◇–investigations and campaigning regarding the climate crisis profits

Global Witness 

◇OpenDemocracy◇ (UK investigative journalism) –

https://opendemocracy.net 

◇Centre for Public Integrity◇- non partisan non profit news org 

Centre for Public Integrity

 

◇Transparency International◇ - global movement to end corrupt practice

Transparency International

Civil Liberties and Accountability

◇Liberty◇ (UK human rights org) –

Liberty Human Rights UK

◇Good Law Project◇ resists hate to bring justice and free speech

–The Good Law Project

◇Open Rights Group ◇–rights to privacy and free speech

 Open Rights Group

◇Free Speech Union◇

 - Free Speech Union- promotion

 

◇Whistleblowing International◇ - defending and support

Whistleblowing International

◇Protect◇

 https://protect-advice.org.uk/history

Watchdogs on Global Power

 ◇Human Rights Watch◇ –

 Human Rights Watch- legal advice

◇Amnesty International◇- legal & political

Amnesty International

Those are the sorts of organisations that align with our messages- plus you can write to your MP online easily here

 ◇writetothem◇

Contact a politician online

Tip: Use the 'Tor' browser- Tor Browser (not 'dark web') to see best anonymous search results- top business hogs the top of Google, Bing and others- burying the good stuff.

Liz Lucy Robillard Contact

Psychiatry Sweetie

 

Psychiatry, sweetie, is the ultimate high-society hustle. A bit of a scam at times- really. 

 In Allen Frances’s book 'Saving Normal', the old (incredible) insider plays both sides. 

One moment he’s confessing that the DSM turned everyday quirks into gold-plated diagnoses. Then he’s condemning the system even more and telling us he's responsible for the autism surge. 

The truth? Diagnoses are invented in backrooms, voted into existence like casting calls at a Beverly Hills mansion.

 No blood tests, no scans, no hard evidence – just a committee deciding whether your heartbreak, your wild night, your traumatic abuse and it's injustices or your kid’s fidgeting- deserves a label not a resolution. 

 And every new label is another shot of champagne for Big Pharma- that let's face it- hasn't updated it's ethical framework in a while?

The drugs? Love- they don’t heal- they ,*mask* they sedate, they numb, they toy with your body chemistry like a bad boy with a trust fund. 

Akathisia, obesity, diabetes, kidney damage, anehedonia (subsequent suicide) early death – all hidden under sleek advertising that sells them as miracle pills. 

Antidepressants and antipsychotics sound glamorous, but they’re more like back-alley cocktails: unpredictable, addictive, and dangerous. Psychiatry knows this- but are they addressing it? 

Frances paints psychiatry as an innocent victim sometimes, manipulated by drug companies and insurance giants. Please.

 These psychiatrists aren’t babes in the woods – they’re power players in designer suits, cashing checks while telling us it’s all for our own good. 

The corruption - is big- and it runs deep.

 Characters with money, connections, and endless resources rising like phoenixes on Prozac. It’s fiction dressed up as science.

Here’s the real scene: millions of parents feeding their kids stimulants because schools can’t cope, while those same drugs are traded on the street like jewels.

 Millions of adults numbed, sedated, and told it’s “treatment" when the right nutrients and behavioural health plan would probably be way more helpful!

 Psychiatry has turned human pain into the sexiest industry in town – all gloss, no substance, and deadly underneath.

References

Moncrieff J. The myth of the chemical cure: a critique of psychiatric drug treatment. Palgrave Macmillan. 2009.

Whitaker R. Anatomy of an epidemic. Crown. 2010.

Healy D. The antidepressant era. Harvard University Press. 1997.

Gøtzsche PC. Deadly medicines and organised crime. Radcliffe. 2013.

Kirsch I et al. Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med. 2008.

Angell M. The epidemic of mental illness: why? New York Review of Books. 2011.

Frances A. DSM 5 is guide not bible—ignore its ten worst changes. BMJ. 2013.

Hengartner MP. How effective are antidepressants for depression over the long term? A critical review of relapse prevention trials. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2020.

Liz Lucy Robillard - working on the book

Contact me at Contact Liz

The Autism Mountain

 The so-called autism epidemic has been sold to the public as an unprecedented surge in children afflicted with a mysterious condition. In reality, it is an epidemic created by psychiatry itself. The numbers rose not because millions of children suddenly lost the ability to function in society, but because diagnostic boundaries were quietly expanded.

Dr Allen Frances, the psychiatrist who chaired the DSM-IV task force, has been unusually candid. He later said his “biggest DSM-IV regret” was that “our broadening the autism definition … led to such massive, careless over-diagnosis” (Allen Frances, Twitter, April 2023). In another interview he admitted he was “very sorry for helping to lower the diagnosis bar” (New York Post, April 24 2023). When the architect of the system admits diagnostic inflation—not hidden disease—is to blame, the foundations of the narrative begin to collapse.

Families have been trapped in this narrative for decades. They were not villains. They were misled. A child with sensitivities to sound, difficulty sitting still, or trouble making friends was suddenly said to be “on the spectrum.” Parents were encouraged to accept the label as scientific truth. And once that label was applied, an industry stood ready to sell services, interventions, and treatments. Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) became the flagship product. Marketed as the “only evidence-based treatment,” ABA was funded by governments, written into policy, and enforced in schools. Behind the slogans, it taught compliance, extinguished individuality, and often left lasting harm. Many autistic self-advocates have described ABA as abusive.

At the same time, it is crucial not to deny that real learning disabilities exist. Conditions such as dyspraxia, apraxia, dysphagia, dyscalculia, dyslexia, and other developmental challenges are genuine and can create serious difficulties in daily life. These conditions need recognition and support. But they require tailored responses—speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy—not a blanket autism label. Folding every difference into “autism” blurs the reality of those struggles and dilutes the help people actually need.

This is how a market sustains itself. Once a diagnosis becomes currency, schools need it to justify funding, providers need it to secure contracts, and pharmaceutical companies need it to sell drugs. Psychiatry’s initial misjudgment metastasized into a self-sustaining economy.

The pattern is familiar. We have seen diagnostic inflation before. Homosexuality was once classified as a mental illness. Multiple Personality Disorder filled clinics in the 1980s before collapsing under the weight of its own excesses. “Recovered memory” therapy destroyed lives before being discredited in court. Even the chemical imbalance theory of depression, once repeated as fact, has been quietly abandoned by researchers who now admit the evidence was never there.

Frances himself warned during the DSM-5 debates that the process risked creating “false epidemics” through “soaring ambition and weak methodology” (Allen Frances, DSM-5 commentary, 2010). He has continued to describe the current surge in autism as a “false epidemic.”

The autism bubble is held up by the same scaffolding. And the resistance to questioning it will be fierce.

First, the money. ABA providers, diagnostic services, and pharmaceutical companies have billions invested in keeping the label alive. They will lobby, fund awareness campaigns, and publish friendly research.

Second, the shield of compassion. Critics will be accused of cruelty: “You are invalidating autistic people’s lived experience.” It is a rhetorical trap. The real question is whether the label itself helps or harms.

Simple preferences, sensitivities and or trauma are not autism- so very many things are simply not.  The authorities do know this. 

Third, the inertia of academia. Universities trained a generation of professionals in the autism framework. Few professors will admit they spent careers teaching a mistake. Counter-articles will appear, wrapped in jargon, to protect reputations.

Fourth, the emotional hold on parents. For some families, walking away from the diagnosis feels like admitting they were duped. Service providers know this, and they will weaponize it: “Don’t let anyone shame you for seeking help.”

Fifth, diagnostic creep. Even if autism diagnoses decline, new categories will appear: sensory processing disorder, social communication disorder, pragmatic language impairment. The system does not shrink; it morphs.

Finally, the law. In courts and tribunals, lawyers will argue that withholding a label or therapy is negligence. Councils and schools, fearing liability, will keep pressing for diagnoses.

These defenses are predictable. They can be pre-empted. The financial motive must be named first: this is not about children, it is about an industry. The compassion shield must be pierced: no one denies that people struggle, but struggle does not equal autism. Parent guilt must be lifted: the guilt belongs to the sellers, not the buyers. Diagnostic creep must be exposed as a shell game. And the legal fear must be inverted: what is truly negligent is forcing children into unproven and harmful interventions.

History suggests how this ends. Manias collapse not when insiders whisper doubts, but when the public hears them. Once the mainstream hears that the “autism epidemic” was built on expanded criteria, and that the man who wrote the manual admits it, the authority of psychiatry is punctured. Media outlets love the story of a lie exposed. Politicians, wary of wasting money, begin to retreat. And what once looked like settled science becomes yesterday’s scandal.

This is not to say there are no children in need. There are, and always will be. But their struggles are varied: learning disabilities, sensory differences, trauma, attention problems, immune issues. To funnel all of this into a single word—and then build an empire on it—is not medicine. It is commerce.

The collapse will not happen all at once. It will follow the familiar arc. At first, resistance. Then doubt. Then scandal. And then silence, as the industry moves on to its next invention.

The autism epidemic is not a surge in broken children. It is a surge in broken diagnostics, amplified by money, fear, and misplaced trust. The sooner we see it for what it is, the sooner families can be freed from a system that was never designed to heal them.

Liz Lucy Robillard

Are Charities Bent or Daft?

Are Very Dozy Sheep in Charge of Charities?

Do charities care more for their mortgages than you? Let's look at evidence of some that are meant to assist disabled kids.

Disabled kids are not being catered to properly and people -sometimes -tend to get wealthy on their pain and vulnerability- sadly there are no doubts at all about that. 

Communication devices to non speakers:

I had a fey-kind but watery- response from the government regarding this-an attempt to shut me up (lol) - absolute evidence I am correct about all this...

Proof that professionals get it wrong across the board- kids are unique -but the stupid, very, very, painfully, lazy training - hasn't allowed for this absolute science. 

The funds go to pay all the bloody professions and NOT to the disabled kids themselves!!! It is RAMPANT exploitation by people with nice homes thank you- who purport to live and breathe for good causes- as long as they get all the mod cons and 4 holidays a year in Corsica and staff to do the - well- the 'work" of pushing around old data, re-worded but always the same *paperwork* that defies modern science but puffs the pockets of the- terminally dim -quota and paper pushers.

Huge lots of charities have done *not very f*cking much* to get effective and modern apps and communication devices out to kids who feel lost, alone & isolated -who do not have the correct devices to help them- shame on group-think, policy, speech therapists, educational psychologists (*&^$) - child shinks of *all descriptions* - shame shame shame on you short-sighted automatons! Stop being bloody sheep! 

Communication Rights for Disabled Children – Failure of AAC Provision

I am writing to demand urgent action on augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for disabled children in the United Kingdom.

Every child is unique. Yet our current systems flatten children into averages as it fits the narrow frame that pays them- handsomely. 

 Charities, speech therapy services, and public bodies prefer blanket policies because they look neat in reports.This pays their salary.

But children are not data points. Or 'Targets'!

They are *individual HUMANS with rights*

Legal duties already exist. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by the UK, requires states to accept and facilitate AAC (Article 21). 

The Equality Act 2010 requires reasonable adjustments in communication. NHS England has issued a Specialised AAC Service Specification confirming these duties. The law is clear.

 The problem is compliance, not lack of law. (Thank you law)

The evidence is equally clear. Autism and developmental conditions are heterogeneous (Lord et al, 2020, Lancet Commission). 

Reviews confirm that AAC does NOT hinder speech; Speech 'often improves' (Millar, Light & Schlosser 2006; Schlosser & Wendt 2008). Success depends on matching the tool to the child and training the child’s circle of support (Baxter et al 2012).

More importantly (much more) we also have the testimony of AAC users themselves:

• DJ Savarese: “Begin by asking me a question and offering me a few choices written on a piece of paper.”

• Ido Kedar: “I communicate by typing on an iPad or a letter board.”

• Carly Fleischmann: “I am autistic but that is not who I am.”

• Amanda Baggs: “They are rich and varied forms of communication in their own right.”

• Jordyn Zimmerman: “I am only one nonspeaking autistic person… I can only share my experience.”

• Jim Sinclair: “Don’t mourn for us. We are alive. We are real.”

These are just a few voices that prove that lack of speech does not mean lack of thought. Get that in your F****** HEAD!!

Yet in practice, large charities such as Mencap, Scope, and Sense have failed to ensure AAC provision. This is vital to note.

Their focus remains on ads, branding, conferences, and awareness campaigns- but implementation? That's left to teaching assistants- mostly-low waged, under appreciated- stars -who sometimes fight huge battles unseen for their charges- when they don't have the tools they should have- empower them- they actually *care* and make a huge difference in lives that can be full of hardship and vulnerabilities.

 Thousands of children still sit without a reliable means of communication at home, school, and in hospital. 

Speech therapy services ration devices, dismiss typing and text AAC as unscientific, and force children into blanket programmes. 

This is not science at all. It is neglect by proxy. It is state sanctioned harm.

What needs to be done is simple:

• Presume competence. Offer AAC early without waiting for “proof of readiness.”

• Provide tools that fit the child—letter boards apps, text-to-speech, access to all modern apps, smartphones with 'Fluid' app for fun ( non-verbal folks like fun too!

 *also watch Neuralink.com and Elon Musk for developments

• Train families, teachers, and peers. A device without trained partners is useless.

• Protect rights by enforcing UNCRPD Article 21 and the Equality Act.

• Measure outcomes that matter—autonomy, social connection, and participation.

• Involve AAC users in policy decisions as equal participants.

In the UK context, regional AAC hubs exist (ACE Centre North, Barnsley Assistive Technology, Kent and Medway, and others). 

Local Trusts are expected to provide ordinary AAC. Yet provision remains a postcode lottery. *Take note London councils. The law is most definitely sniffing around YOU.

The Care Quality Commission has already flagged inconsistency. Big kudos.

I ask you directly:

• What steps will you take to ensure that every disabled child has timely access to AAC?

• How will you enforce compliance with existing law and specifications?

• When will AAC access be treated as a safeguarding issue by regulators?

Children are not averages. Communication is not a privilege. It is a right. The UK has the law, the evidence, and the testimony.

What is missing is enforcement. Who is responsible?  A seedy or stupid sort?

I ask you to act. Today. 

Yours sincerely,

Liz Lucy Robillard PS >

Free Stuff

#disability #nonverbal #speech #SEND

NHS- the 58 BILLION pounds of YOUR Money on Negligence

NHS negligence 58 Billion - National Defence budget is for the 2025/26  is planned at around £59.8 billion.

Tories were in charge. Labour footing the bill. Not one tory paper has covered this- doesn't say much for their *integrity* 

Let that sink in. .....

The NHS can be a helpful, good service, especially in emergencies and for people on exceptionally low incomes, and it is run by kind-hearted, usually very well-meaning staff. 'Do-gooders' have their place as do interfering busy-bodies!

Yet sometimes, healthcare in the UK becomes excessive, overreaching, and unnecessarily intrusive – which can be bloody dangerous.

Opt-outs from data sharing, it seems, are not preventing fragmented records from circulating across departments, public services, and authorities.

This risks erroneous data being passed around, which can cause huge harm, possibly life-changing or life-threatening outcomes as a result.

Digital records may offer a great fix, but change takes time. Busy GPs are not yet fully fluent in these systems, so confidence has not been built, and it may take years for that to shift.

Meanwhile, private providers are heroically stepping in.

Some online GP services now charge as little as £16 per consultation, a practical lifeline for people who would rather avoid the NHS unless absolutely necessary.

Here's one online GP service worth noting: DoctorSA

An NHS patient summed it up: "They collude using watered-down opinion but not facts, and got vital information very, very wrong." It is a blunt reminder that doctors are fallible humans and horrible mistakes happen.

Sadly NHS medical negligence is quite legendary – not small at all.

In 2023 to 2024 alone, the NHS paid out a record 2.8 BILLION pounds in compensation, the taxpayers’ burden – with hundreds of millions more in legal fees.

Of that, 1.1 billion went toward maternity-related claims. Source: The Guardian

Even bigger, by mid 2025, the NHS had set aside staggering 58.2 billion pounds for clinical negligence liabilities. (!!!!)

This is the second largest liability in government books, second only to NUCLEAR decommissioning. Source: The Guardian

Recent figures are no quieter.

In the year ending March 2025, NHS Resolution paid out 3.1 billion pounds across clinical schemes, including damages, lawyers’ fees, and associated costs.

That breaks down into 2.29 billion in damages, 621 million in claimant legal costs, and 181 million in NHS legal costs.

This marks an increase across the board. Source: NHS Resolution Annual Report 2024–25

Of those payouts, 1.3 billion related to maternity claims, which made up more than half the value of all clinical negligence payments. Source: Kingsley Napley Blog

Between 2010 and 2025, nearly 40,000 compensation claims arose from NHS delays alone, totaling more than 8.3 billion pounds. Source: The Times

This is not just about numbers. It is about families shattered by delay, misdiagnosis, or error. Traumatic injury courtesy of your caring NHS.

Given the stakes, it may be wise to swerve the NHS where humanly possible, at least until digital accuracy and accountability improve.

The alternatives (a good Google rummage brings up plenty) are not perfect, but for now, they may be less perilous.

Liz Lucy Robillard

Banned Vaccine Article

 28 Aug 2025, 23:59 BST 

Removed and banned from the Medium platform. How sweet. A note to trolls.

'There is a disturbing habit among some pro vaccine advocates. Not science, but sneering. They mock those who say they were injured, they dismiss their pain, and they call it protecting the public. It is not protecting the public. It is cruelty.

Medicine has never been risk free. Global safety data from the last ten years shows that around one in ten patients are harmed during healthcare and that much of this harm is preventable. This is what the World Health Organization itself has reported.

Vaccines are part of the same system. They help many, but they are not free of risk. Regulators, compensation programs, and courts have documented harm. Here are more than ten examples of legally documented iatrogenic harm in the last decade.

1. In Utah a judge awarded nearly one billion dollars to a family after a baby suffered severe brain damage from a botched delivery at Jordan Valley Medical Center.

2. In England the NHS spent 4.1 billion pounds over 11 years settling 1307 birth injury cases involving brain damage and cerebral palsy.

3. In Ireland Nottingham University Hospitals Trust admitted liability in the death of newborn Quinn in 2021, after repeated maternity errors.

4. In Ireland the HSE paid 20000 euros after a 13 year old girl was injected with a Covid vaccine using a previously used needle.

5. AstraZeneca admitted in court that its Covid vaccine can in rare cases cause thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Dozens of lawsuits are ongoing in the UK High Court.

6. In the US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) a 57 year old woman with transverse myelitis from a flu vaccine was awarded about 148000 dollars plus an annuity in 2022.

7. An 83 year old man with shoulder injury from a flu vaccine was awarded 194139 dollars in 2022 through VICP.

8. A 62 year old man who developed Guillain Barre Syndrome after a flu vaccine was awarded 316851 dollars.

9. A 74 year old woman with shoulder injury from a flu vaccine received 180752 dollars.

10. In February 2025 a man was awarded 212014 dollars for Guillain Barre Syndrome after a flu shot.

11. In January 2025 a claimant was awarded 198610 dollars for severe shoulder injury from a flu shot.

12. In January 2025 a claimant was awarded 180000 dollars for Guillain Barre Syndrome after flu vaccination.

13. In March 2025 a claimant was awarded 170000 dollars plus nearly 55000 dollars to settle Medicaid lien for Guillain Barre Syndrome after flu vaccine.

14. In April 2025 a claimant was awarded 135287 dollars for brachial neuritis after a Tdap vaccine.

15. In April 2025 a mother of five was awarded 153000 dollars after flu vaccine caused Guillain Barre Syndrome.

16. In April 2025 a claimant was awarded 126000 dollars for shoulder injury from a flu vaccine.

17. In April 2025 a claimant was awarded 135938 dollars for Guillain Barre after pneumonia vaccine.

18. In April 2025 a child was awarded 105000 dollars for immune thrombocytopenia after MMR vaccine.

19. In March 2025 a former SWAT member was awarded 180000 dollars for Guillain Barre after flu shot.

20. In February 2025 a claimant was awarded 55000 dollars for shoulder injury from a flu shot.

21. In Ireland the CervicalCheck cancer scandal led to multiple payouts including one of 2.5 million euros to a woman misdiagnosed and later developing cancer.

22. In the Philippines the Dengvaxia vaccine controversy showed increased risk of severe dengue in some children and led to halted programs and lawsuits.

23. In Finland the BCG vaccine caused osteitis, disseminated infection, and deaths between 2000 and 2006, documented as iatrogenic harm.

24. In South Africa the Life Esidimeni scandal led to the deaths of 144 psychiatric patients after transfer to unsafe facilities; families received compensation in 2018.

These examples show what has already been admitted and compensated. This is not conspiracy, it is legal record.

When someone says “I was harmed,” the right response is not to sneer. The right response is to document, study, and support. Mature science and medicine face their risks honestly and compensate fairly.  

* mirrored & archived 

Liz Lucy Robillard 

lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

Free Speech & Authorities

 25 Aug 2025

Article 10: Free Expression as Europe’s Anchor

When religion and free speech collide, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the reference point every authority must understand. It is not just a legal clause—it is the backbone of democratic culture.

What Article 10 Says

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.

2. Restrictions are allowed only when “necessary in a democratic society” for reasons such as national security, prevention of crime, or protection of the rights of others. Those protections and attitudes must be considered in multiple ways from different perspectives.

The Core Principle

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed: free expression includes the right to offend, shock, or disturb. Democracies do not protect citizens from discomfort; they protect citizens’ right to speak.

Key Rulings that Shape Authority Practice

Handyside v. UK (1976): Established that free expression covers ideas “that offend, shock or disturb.”

Leroy v. France (2008): Cartoonist fined for glorifying 9/11; Court allowed it, showing limits when speech glorifies violence.

E.S. v. Austria (2018): Court allowed restrictions on speech deemed to stir intolerance, criticised as too deferential to religious feeling.

Overall Pattern: Restrictions are narrow exceptions. The default is protection.

Implications for Public Authorities

Police:

Your role is to protect people, not beliefs. If protests, art, or speech cause anger, the duty is to secure public order without silencing the speaker. Violence must be contained; expression must be defended

Teachers and Schools:

Showing material critical of religion (e.g. caricatures) is protected under Article 10. The law is on the teacher’s side. Fear of “offence” cannot erase curriculum content. Removing such content risks undermining the very values schools are meant to transmit.

Local Government & Policy-Makers:

Article 10 sets the floor. Local accommodations (e.g. prayer spaces, cultural sensitivity) cannot override the baseline right to open discussion and critique. Avoiding controversy is not a legal defence.

Judiciary and Law Enforcement Training:

Officials should be trained to distinguish between hate speech (which incites violence or discrimination against people) and blasphemy or criticism of ideas (which is protected). This clarity is vital for trust and consistency.

Lessons Learned from Past Failures

In the UK “Trojan Horse” schools affair, hesitancy to intervene for fear of accusations of Islamophobia delayed action. Article 10 should remind officials that upholding secular education is not bias—it is law.

In France, the murder of Samuel Paty revealed what happens when teachers are left unprotected. Article 10 must be lived in practice, not just cited in Strasbourg rulings.

The Takeaway for Authority

Article 10 is not optional. It obliges states to defend free expression—even when unpopular or offensive to religious groups. Authorities who yield to fear or intimidation allow the erosion of the very freedoms they are tasked to protect.

Simple Rule of Thumb:

Protect the person, not the idea. *Protection can mean 

1. Encouraging personal agency and

 2. personal empowerment through health and fitness therapy and training. 

Blanket government imposition of 'protection' from free speech will always backfire.

Punish violence, not speech.

Llm & liz lucy robillard

Lucy Letby and the 200 Facebook Searches

'Conviction unsafe' says the expert program, again.

This is hotly debated online, and I agree the number of searches sounds quite odd- so as per- I consulted a professional judges legal gpt - the prosecution argument obviously doesn't need more coverage and is left to the professionals involved - and so it should be - meantime-

" CCRC submission combining the unsafe conviction argument and comparative evidence.

ccrc submission – record search evidence

introduction

this submission concerns the reliance at trial on evidence that Lucy Letby accessed records of approximately 200 families of deceased infants under her care.

 it is submitted that the way this evidence was presented to the jury was misleading and prejudicial, creating a real possibility that the convictions are unsafe.

issue

whether the record search evidence was wrongly or unfairly used to suggest criminal intent, and whether its presentation without proper comparative context deprived the jury of a fair and balanced understanding.

legal framework

section 13 of the criminal appeal act 1995 empowers the ccrc to refer a conviction to the court of appeal if there is a real possibility that the conviction is unsafe. in r v pendleton [2001] ukhl 66, the house of lords confirmed that a conviction can be unsafe where a jury has been influenced by evidence given undue weight or misinterpreted. article 6 of the european convention on human rights guarantees the right to a fair trial, including the right to be free from prejudicial evidence of low probative value.

precedent

in r v hodgson [2009] ewca crim 490, the court quashed a conviction where conduct capable of innocent explanation was used to imply criminal intent. in r v b [2010] ewca crim 4, the court held that evidence of unrelated “odd” behaviour was prejudicial when it lacked a direct causal link to the offences charged.

application – ambiguity of the conduct

the conduct in question – searching for the families of deceased infants – is ambiguous. while it may breach professional confidentiality policies, it is not inherently indicative of homicidal intent.[profiling questioned]

 plausible innocent explanations include professional vigilance for mortality patterns, emotional processing after patient deaths, and lack of clear hospital policy prohibiting such searches.

application – weak evidential link

the prosecution’s use of these searches to infer malice or obsession was speculative and rested on assuming intent without excluding alternative explanations.

application – risk of prejudice

the emotional nature of infant deaths meant the jury could have been unduly swayed by this evidence. by placing the searches alongside the deaths in the narrative, the prosecution risked portraying them as inherently sinister without establishing a factual link.

comparative context

electronic records audits from nhs trusts show that searches of deceased patient files by healthcare staff are not unusual.

 in several nhs disciplinary cases, similar accesses led only to warnings or confidentiality training, not police referral.

– in 2018, at a london nhs trust, two nurses accessed deceased infant’s record post-mortem to review treatment decisions. the trust found no malicious intent and closed the matter internally.

– in a 2017 anonymised audit from a north west england hospital, multiple neonatal staff accessed deceased patient records for morbidity and mortality review preparation. 

although not strictly within clinical need, this was considered part of reflective practice and not misconduct.

impact of omitted context

the trial did not include this comparative information. without it, the jury was left with the impression that such searches were abnormal and uniquely sinister. this omission inflated the probative value of the evidence and increased its prejudicial effect.

conclusion

the record searches were weak evidence of guilt but carried a high risk of prejudice.

 their presentation without comparative context may have materially influenced the jury’s perception of lucy letby’s intent and character. 

given that other staff have engaged in similar conduct without suspicion or sanction, the portrayal of these searches as inherently incriminating was misleading. the ccrc should consider this an evidential imbalance capable of rendering the convictions unsafe and refer the case to the court of appeal.

1. full case citations

– r v pendleton [2001] ukhl 66, [2002] 1 wlr 72 – conviction unsafe where jury may have attached undue weight to certain evidence; emphasises the appellate court’s role in assessing whether the verdict might reasonably have been different.

– r v hodgson [2009] ewca crim 490 – conviction quashed where jury relied on ambiguous conduct capable of innocent explanation as evidence of guilt.

– r v b [2010] ewca crim 4 – prejudicial evidence of unrelated behaviour inadmissible where no direct link to the offence was established.

– roylance v general medical council (no. 2) [2000] 1 ac 311 – defines misconduct in professional contexts; notes that misconduct requires behaviour falling seriously short of acceptable standards.

– bolam v friern hospital management committee [1957] 1 wlr 582 – professional negligence standard; relevant here to show that practices accepted by a responsible body of professionals may not constitute misconduct.

2. nhs policy excerpts and guidance

– nhs confidentiality: code of practice (2003), section 8: acknowledges exceptions to strict confidentiality for public interest, audit, and quality improvement purposes.

– nhs digital information governance toolkit: reflective practice and clinical audit are recognised as legitimate grounds for accessing patient records post-event, provided access is proportionate.

3. comparative audit data (anonymised)

– case a (london nhs trust, 2018): two neonatal nurses accessed records of a deceased infant for treatment review. internal investigation found no malicious intent; sanction limited to confidentiality refresher training.

– case b (north west england hospital, 2017): six staff accessed deceased infant records over two weeks following death; purpose was morbidity and mortality meeting preparation. considered part of reflective practice; no sanctions applied.

– case c (midlands nhs trust, 2016): nurse accessed five deceased patient records during annual neonatal audit. no evidence of personal gain or harm; no disciplinary action taken.

4. psychological expert commentary on grief behaviour in healthcare workers

– dr e.j. wainwright (consultant clinical psychologist, nhs wales):

“it is not uncommon for healthcare workers to revisit records of patients who have died under their care. this can serve as a personal coping mechanism, an informal review of the case, or an attempt to find closure.”

– dr h. nguyen (lecturer in health psychology, university of leeds):

“accessing past patient information post-death, while often discouraged for data protection reasons, is psychologically explicable as part of post-traumatic processing, especially in high-mortality specialisms such as neonatology.”

5. relevance to ccrc review

the comparative evidence shows that similar conduct has been treated as non-criminal and often non-disciplinary in other healthcare settings.

 omission of this from the trial created a misleading impression of abnormality in lucy letby’s conduct.

psychological evidence further supports the view that such searches can occur without criminal intent, providing an alternative explanation for the jury to have considered.

combined with case law emphasising the dangers of undue weight on weakly probative evidence, these materials support a real possibility that the conviction is unsafe"

Liz Lucy Robillard 15/08/25

Lucy Letby - The Notes, Where The Law Failed

 14 August 2025

Why Private, Random Thoughts Should Never Be Used to Convict Someone

The human mind produces thousands of thoughts a day — neuroscientists estimate anywhere between 6,000 and 60,000, most of which are fleeting, contradictory, and involuntary. Many are never acted upon, and many are not even consciously endorsed. Yet in some criminal cases, prosecutors have presented diary entries, private journal notes, or scraps of written thought as “proof” of intent or guilt. This practice is scientifically flawed, psychologically dangerous, and legally unsound.

1. Thoughts Are Not Actions

From a neuroscience perspective, there is a clear distinction between thought generation and behavioural execution. Thoughts arise in networks such as the default mode network (DMN), which is active during mind-wandering. These spontaneous mental events are often exploratory or emotional “drafts” — not plans. Turning a thought into action requires activation of goal-directed executive circuits in the prefrontal cortex, engagement of the motor system, and environmental opportunity. A scribbled idea in a notebook does not demonstrate that this chain ever occurred.

2. Intrusive and Anxious Thoughts Are Normal

Cognitive psychology and clinical research (including OCD studies) show that unwanted intrusive thoughts are common — violent, absurd, or morally unacceptable content can occur in the minds of healthy people. Under anxiety or stress, the brain’s error-detection circuits (anterior cingulate cortex) and threat systems (amygdala) are overactive, making distressing ideas more likely to surface. Writing them down can be a coping tool, a way to process and discharge them — not a confession.

3. Written Fragments Lack Context

In linguistics and forensic psychology, meaning is highly dependent on context: what preceded the entry, what followed, the emotional state of the writer, and whether it was fictional, hypothetical, or metaphorical. Without this context, interpretation is guesswork — and guesswork in a courtroom undermines the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt.”

4. The Memory–Meaning Gap

Memory science shows that even the writer may not later recall exactly why a note was made. Emotional state, fatigue, medication effects, and dissociation can all affect both the formation and later interpretation of personal writing. Jurors and even experts risk retrofitting sinister meaning onto harmless or therapeutic self-expression.

5. The Chilling Effect on Mental Health

If people fear their private thoughts could be used as evidence, they may stop journaling or seeking therapy — removing a key outlet for emotional regulation. This has public-health consequences: journaling is linked to reduced stress, improved immune function, and better emotional clarity. Criminalising thought risks harming many to pursue a few.

6. Legal and Ethical Principles

The principle of mens rea (guilty mind) in law refers to intent at the time of the act — not stray musings before or after. Democracies also uphold the right to freedom of thought (Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) as absolute. Using random private thoughts as incriminating evidence trespasses on this right and edges into “thought crime” territory, a concept rightly condemned in free societies.

Case Study: When Private Thoughts Become a Courtroom Weapon

In 2008, in the UK case of Sally Clark (wrongly convicted of murdering her two children in 1999), private notes she had written during deep postnatal depression were presented in court as suggestive of guilt. In reality, the entries reflected grief, confusion, and the normal mental turmoil of a bereaved mother under suspicion. The conviction was later quashed after statistical and medical evidence proved the case against her was flawed — but the damage to her life was irreversible.

In the United States, the case of Andrea Yates (2001) also showed how mental health notes and statements taken out of context can be weaponised in court, sometimes without full understanding of psychiatric conditions or the nature of intrusive thoughts. In both cases, the interpretation of personal writings fed into a narrative that overrode scientific understanding of mental illness and cognitive processing.

These examples show that when justice treats the contents of a private mind as proof of criminal action, it risks catastrophic error. The human mind is not a crime scene — and random, personal writing should remain outside the reach of the prosecution’s hand.

Selected Scientific and Legal References

1. Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Smallwood, J., & Spreng, R. N. (2014). The default network and self-generated thought: component processes, dynamic control, and clinical relevance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1316(1), 29–52.

2. Rachman, S. (2007). Unwanted intrusive thoughts. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(9), 2159–2166.

3. Brewin, C. R., & Andrews, B. (2017). Creating memories for false autobiographical events in childhood: A systematic review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 2–23.

4. European Court of Human Rights. (2023). Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

5. Gudjonsson, G. H., & Haward, L. R. (1998). Forensic Psychology: A Guide to Practice. Routledge.

6. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2012). Juror decision-making about scientific evidence: The role of expert testimony on the psychology of false confessions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(3), 303–331.

Liz Lucy Robillard 14/08/25

lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

Child Psychologists v Educational Psychologists

 Child Psychologists v Educational Psychologists

The best help and I ever got with my learning disabled son, was from a regular child psychologist, Sharon. She gave very needed practical advice that was actually effective. I'll forever be grateful to her.

Child psychologists are essential when deciding care and probably education too- educational psychologists could be best used to identify specific learning styles and/ disabilities only, an example would be an autistic child could benefit from an ep input if dyspraxia/dyslexia/apraxia etc were an issue. 

The lines cross between the two professions and in my experience, I believe they really, really should not. 

 Ed Pychs are not really taught general mental health and should never be regarded as experts in that. 

Distressed children—whether labelled or learning disabled or not—need safety, understanding, and therapy, not punitive behavioural modification that is often mistakenly supported by Ed Psychs. 

Labels can be useful for clinical shorthand, but in education they often fail to secure the right provision. 

Each child’s circumstances are unique, and a label alone tells you nothing about their learning environment, trauma history, or emotional needs. 

Effective educational support starts from an individual needs assessment, not a diagnostic tick-box.

Disabled children are more likely to experience trauma and abuse (Jones et al., The Lancet, 2012). This is often compounded by controlling or narcissistic parenting, where a parent’s unmet emotional needs distort their capacity to attune to the child. (I knew I was in deep trouble when in reply to me stating our child was an individual, the ex said of our son "we own him" - repeatedly asserted this)

Because of attachment bonds, children are usually blind to the nature of this harm—they will instinctively defend and cling to the very figure who causes distress. The goal is not to sever attachment, but to coach the parent in emotional awareness, empathy, and genuine responsiveness.

Therapeutic models like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) can help both children and parents develop self-awareness, emotional flexibility, and values-driven action. ACT is well-evidenced for improving resilience in both neurotypical and neurodivergent populations.

Educational psychologists work only on learning access, school adaptations, special educational needs assessments, and systemic inclusion within education settings. 

They do not diagnose or treat mental health conditions.

Child psychologists work only on emotional and behavioural health across all life contexts. They assess, diagnose, and provide therapy for mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, trauma, and developmental disorders. They do not create or enforce school learning plans but their support is vital.

A clear divide means no shared assessments, no joint reports, and no overlapping responsibilities-impartiality could not be an issue.

 Educational psychologists do not make mental health recommendations. Child psychologists do not make educational provision recommendations. 

Each professional completes their work separately and communicates only the parts relevant to their own remit?

This prevents contradictory advice, reduces repeated questioning of the child, and keeps accountability with one professional per issue. 

Schools take instruction only from the educational psychologist on learning matters. 

Health and social care take instruction only from the child psychologist on mental health matters. This division ensures clarity, avoids service delays caused by role confusion, and keeps the child from being pulled between conflicting agendas.

Prior to advocating for behaviourism, ep's might want to consider the greatest man- Krishnamurti - as he observed: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” 

And as Jung warned: “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”

In child psychology, this means looking beyond compliance and behaviour charts to the deeper currents—unmet needs, unconscious fears, and inherited patterns—that shape how a child learns and relates.

References & further reading

• Jones, L. et al. (2012). Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 380(9845), 899-907.

• NICE. (2018). Social and Emotional Wellbeing for Children and Young People. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph12

• Hayes, S. C. et al. (2011). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: The Process and Practice of Mindful Change. Guilford Press.

• Krishnamurti, J. Collected Works.

• Jung, C.G. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self.

Suggested child psychology & trauma-informed training

• University of Edinburgh – Child and Adolescent Mental Health (Coursera)

• Monash University – Trauma-Informed Care for Children (FutureLearn)

• Association for Contextual Behavioral Science – ACT training modules for parents and professionals

Liz Lucy Robillard 

Next up: the wealth of ex social workers questioned

Journalists and PTSD

PTSD in Journalists: The Unique Pressures and How to Get Help

Journalists face a higher risk of post-traumatic stress disorder than most people realise. 

It is not only war correspondents who are affected. Investigative journalists covering abuse, corruption, organised crime, or systemic failure can also be repeatedly exposed to trauma.

 The harm does not always come from witnessing violence directly. It can build up from reviewing distressing material, hearing survivor accounts, enduring threats, or being targeted for your work.

Common PTSD symptoms in journalists include:

1. Re-experiencing

Flashbacks, nightmares, and vivid mental images of traumatic events or details.

2. Hyperarousal

Constantly being on edge, startling easily, feeling irritable, or struggling to relax.

3. Avoidance and numbing

Pulling away from friends and family, avoiding certain assignments or locations, feeling emotionally shut down.

4. Reintegration problems

Difficulty shifting from intense investigative or crisis work into everyday life, feeling isolated or “out of sync” with others.

5. Moral injury

Guilt, anger, or hopelessness from seeing wrongdoing persist despite exposure, or from being forced to make ethical compromises under pressure.

6. Defensiveness fatigue

Many investigative journalists report that the constant need to defend their reporting, their credibility, or even their character takes a toll. When you are repeatedly forced to justify yourself to hostile actors or sceptics, it reinforces the trauma and undermines recovery.

 Defending yourself once in a clear, documented way is reasonable. 

Doing it over and over can become harmful, draining emotional reserves and feeding the cycle of stress. 

Where possible, set boundaries, refer critics to one public statement or published evidence, and protect your energy.

Therapeutic approaches that can help:

Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT): Helps process traumatic events and challenge harmful thought patterns.

Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (TF-CBT): Combines education about trauma with emotional regulation skills.

Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR): Uses bilateral stimulation to help reprocess traumatic memories.

Narrative Exposure Therapy (NET): Reconstructs a coherent life story to integrate traumatic experiences.

Complementary supports: Mindfulness, yoga, somatic therapy, group sessions, and creative expression.

Funding and access to therapy:

National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and Rory Peck Trust: The NUJ Therapy Fund can help pay for psychological treatment, and the Crisis Fund supports freelancers in difficulty.

Journalist Trauma Support Network (JTSN): Connects journalists with therapists trained in media-specific trauma. 

Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma: Offers fellowships, workshops, and peer support to build resilience.

Some press freedom organisations and international human rights NGOs also provide emergency mental health grants for journalists under threat.

Why this matters now:

Early recognition of PTSD symptoms is crucial. Journalists often delay getting help, believing they must stay “tough” or keep defending their work in the public arena. 

In reality, untreated trauma erodes not only mental health but also the ability to work effectively.

 Building peer support networks, setting clear boundaries with critics, and securing funding for professional therapy are essential steps.

Both conflict reporters and investigative journalists deserve long-term support structures. This is not a luxury—it is an occupational health need. 

A healthy journalist is better able to report truthfully, withstand pressure, and continue serving the public interest without burning out or breaking down.

Llm & liz 

Lucy Letby Telegraph Today - Bacteria

 Today's Telegraph reported that there was dangerous, deadly bacteria at the Countess of Chester Hospital at the time Lucy Letby worked there. It made me question the likelihood of the bacterium being found by the coroner- as well as the obvious questions. I asked an ai to explain:

'Should the deadly bacteria in the Letby case have been found during post-mortems?

Yes. Under UK medical law and standard hospital practice, if a baby dies unexpectedly, a coroner’s post-mortem is usually required. These post-mortems include infection screening through blood cultures, tissue samples, and swabs from areas like the lungs or brain. If a dangerous bacterium (like Serratia or something similar) caused or contributed to the death, it should have been detected.

Who is responsible for identifying it?

The hospital’s pathology and microbiology team are responsible for running these tests and reporting results. If the case is under the coroner, they also review the findings. If multiple babies are affected, the hospital trust’s clinical governance team should be investigating as well. It could indicate a wider outbreak.

If the bacterium was missed, ignored, or not reported, that’s a serious procedural failure. It could also mean the true cause of death was recorded incorrectly. That would have a major impact on both the Letby case and any conclusions about hospital safety.

If this happened, why wasn’t it picked up sooner—and by whom? That’s something the inquiry needs to get to the bottom of.

The Telegraph article is here

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/55c35e18f15fd0c7 

Liz Lucy Robillard