Which specialists have commented on INQ0000844 – Blood Test Results of Child F shows blood glucose of 999mmol/l thirlwall inquiry
Executive summary
The only specialist explicitly reported as commenting on INQ0000844 — the blood test results for Child F — is an unnamed consultant paediatrician who gave oral evidence to the Thirlwall Inquiry and said she “deeply regrets” having rejected the possibility of deliberate harm after blood tests showed abnormally high insulin [1]. The inquiry record itself lists INQ0000844 among exhibits and the PDF of the exhibit is publicly available, but the reporting and inquiry material supplied do not identify other named specialists who have publicly commented on that specific document [2] [3].
1. The exhibit exists; the inquiry listed it as evidence
INQ0000844 is formally catalogued by the Thirlwall Inquiry as “Blood Test Results of Child F” and appears in the public evidence list and in the Week 4 oral evidence materials, confirming that the document was submitted into the inquiry record [4] [2]. The inquiry’s website also hosts a PDF copy of INQ0000844, indicating the underlying test data are part of the public inquiry bundle even where narrative commentary is limited [3].
2. The consultant paediatrician who spoke — anonymous but on the record — expressed regret
Local reporting of the oral evidence states that a consultant paediatrician, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told the Thirlwall Inquiry she “deeply regrets” rejecting the idea that someone had deliberately harmed Child F after blood tests revealed abnormally high levels of insulin, directly tying clinical interpretation of the bloodwork to the witness’s testimony [1]. That report is the clearest piece of public reporting attributing clinical comment about INQ0000844 to a specialist.
3. No other named specialists are cited in the supplied reporting about INQ0000844
Beyond the anonymous paediatrician’s testimony, the supplied sources list INQ0000844 among many exhibits and email chains entered into evidence but do not, in the material provided here, record commentary from other specific named clinicians [2] [3]. News summaries and inquiry listings reference the exhibit but do not attach additional identified clinicians’ statements about the blood-results document in the excerpts supplied [4] [2].
4. What the reporting indicates about interpretations of the results
Reporting highlights that the blood tests showed “abnormally high levels of insulin,” a finding that prompted clinical discussion and — in the case of the consultant paediatrician reported by the Chester Standard — later regret about not taking concerns of deliberate harm more seriously at the time [1]. The public evidence file (INQ0000844) is available for scrutiny but the supplied excerpts do not include a full forensic or expert commentary within those pages that would identify who originally interpreted the lab values or how they were communicated within the hospital [3].
5. Limits of the published record and possible reasons for anonymity
The inquiry and press coverage reflect legal and confidentiality constraints: witnesses may be anonymised for legal reasons and formal inquiry exhibits are catalogued without necessarily naming every clinician who examined or commented on a single item of clinical data [2] [3]. Consequently, while the exhibit is in the public record and at least one consultant paediatrician has publicly commented on its implications, the reporting provided here does not allow attribution of commentary to laboratory scientists, pathologists, or other named specialists who may have been involved in generating or interpreting the blood-glucose/insulin figures [2] [3].
6. Alternative readings and institutional context
News coverage and the inquiry context show divergent institutional dynamics: clinicians on the unit and those later called to give evidence have been portrayed as both defensive and repentant, and the Thirlwall Inquiry is assembling documentary evidence — including INQ0000844 — alongside witness testimony to determine whether systemic failures occurred [1] [3]. The reporting supplied does not resolve technical questions about the test results themselves or whether other specialists (forensic toxicologists, clinical biochemists) formally reported on INQ0000844 in the inquiry record; that absence reflects limits of the excerpts provided rather than proof no such experts engaged with the file [2] [3].