Skip to content

April 2026: Thirlwall Inquiry final report due after Easter · CCRC still reviewing 31+ independent expert reports · Shoo Lee Panel (Feb 2025): no medical evidence of deliberate harm.

Lucy Letby Facts
Independent science archive — overview
·Dr Sarrita Adams; science4justice.nl

science4justice.nl — archive summary

A summary of the science4justice.nl open-access archive of scientific analyses of the Letby medical evidence. The site's detailed laboratory-protocol analyses of the Roche Cobas insulin immunoassay, line-by-line comparison of the Lee & Tanswell 1989 air-embolism paper against trial descriptions, and catalogue of Liverpool-lab sample-handling failures were among the first public-interest scientific resources on the case. Independent endocrinologists and Panel contributors have drawn on its analyses.

Last updated
15 min read

Licence: Publicly released

Original source: science4justice.nl

Mirrored on this site:

Publicly released material, attributed to its original publisher.

Context

science4justice.nl is an open-access scientific archive founded by Dr Sarrita Adams. The site has published the most detailed public scientific analyses of the Letby medical evidence since 2023. This page summarises the archive’s principal contributions.

The insulin dossier

The site’s October 2023 piece “The insulin question” is still the canonical plain-English summary of why the Letby insulin evidence fails a forensic standard. It documents:

  • The Roche Cobas immunoassay’s own manufacturer guidance requiring mass spectrometry confirmation for forensic use.
  • Every known false-positive case in the assay’s published literature.
  • The 2010 versus 2012 Royal Liverpool laboratory protocol change.
  • The clinical conditions other than exogenous insulin that generate the assay pattern: auto-antibodies, sepsis, adrenal suppression, liver disease, kidney disease, drug cross-reactivity.
  • The sample-handling failures: gel tubes, delayed centrifugation, ambient-temperature storage.
  • The physiological implausibility of the reported 4,657 pmol/L value on the Crown’s own spiked-TPN theory.

The air-embolism dossier

The archive includes a line-by-line comparison of the Lee & Tanswell 1989 paper’s diagnostic criteria against the clinical descriptions used at trial. The comparison demonstrates that the trial descriptions do not meet the 1989 paper’s specificity criteria — which is the conclusion Dr Shoo Lee himself subsequently confirmed at the February 2025 press conference.

The scientific-method dimension

Beyond the case-specific analyses, science4justice.nl has published methodological pieces on how forensic use of clinical tests should work, what a differential-diagnosis framework requires, and why the methodology the Crown’s experts applied departs from modern clinical-science norms. This methodological framing has informed how the subsequent Panel report structured its own review.

Why the archive matters

At the time Dr Adams began publishing on the case, most UK press coverage was accepting the prosecution narrative. The archive was one of the few public-interest scientific resources where a reader could see the evidential critique worked out to primary-source detail. It filled the gap between specialist scepticism and public understanding for the crucial 2023–2024 window.

Read alongside

Dr Sarrita Adams — biography, Evidence: insulin, Air embolism line by line, Joint Insulin Report summary.

Related on this site

Attribution and licence

Sourced from science4justice.nl . Mirrored on this site on 2026-04-21 with attribution to the original publisher.