Interpretation cheat sheet ecg abnormalities chart

Beware of the Mistakes to Avoid When Using Cheat Sheets to help with Forex Trading

2023.05.28 22:19 FXDataPanel Beware of the Mistakes to Avoid When Using Cheat Sheets to help with Forex Trading

Patterns of trading forex offer insight into market trends and help traders make more informed choices. To increase their effectiveness and value traders should be conscious of any mistakes that can reduce its effectiveness This includes mistakes related to cheat sheets for trading patterns that could decrease its value or cause it malfunction completely.
We'll discuss the most common mistakes that traders should avoid using when using their trading pattern cheat sheets and provide suggestions on how to avoid the issues. First off...
Chart Patterns: What Causes Them To Exist? People behave in a similar way throughout time, which results in chart patterns. The traditional academic model assumes that investors are rational, and market prices accurately represent all data available to investors.
With this information the prices should reflect the current market conditions.
The chart patterns are now presenting us with a dilemma. If the information in the market has already been incorporated into price estimates but only the newly available information could have an impact. In this volatile market, how can the past pricing data be used to predict the market's reaction to new information?
Some people claim that you should not or shouldn't invest your money in index funds that are passive, using economic theory, also known by the term efficient market theory (EMH).

Behavioral Finance

A different perspective can be found in behavioral finance, an emerging area of economic theory that argues that the decisions made are usually influenced by biases, and therefore may not always be rationally formulated.
Do we ever make decisions without fully evaluating our actions or carefully planning them making decisions solely on emotions and not rationality? Perhaps you hang on for too long for fear of losing an chance?
These types of irrationalities typically result from people acting unintentionally because they are influenced by powerful emotions such as fear or greed and cause them to act in a way that is illogical. Because people's behavior is often controlled by their emotions certain patterns will appear on price charts that repeat in relation to significant psychological regions.
Keep this last aspect in mind is crucial Any chart can show patterns, however those at higher levels of psychological understanding have more significance and meaning.
Common Forex Trading Patterns Cheat Sheet Errors Numerous types of chart patterns for trading are present in today's forex market. In the beginning, they are broken down into bearish and bullish categories and the latter can indicate that a downtrend is over and bullish patterns suggest the end of it. Conversely, bearish charts signify the end to an upward trend and indicate that a new downward trend is expected to start in the near future Harmony classical candles and patterns with single candlesticks are crucial elements to look for when looking at these charts patterns.

Trading pattern cheat sheets that misunderstand trading

Uncertainty It's unfortunate traders often fall into the trap of relying on cheat sheets and not fully understanding their concepts and the their dynamics, resulting in mistakes in communication and poor judgement when trading.
Neglecting Context
The trends in forex trading must always be evaluated within the larger context of markets to be sure that they are not false signals caused by not focusing on factors such as support and resistance levels, market sentiment and fundamental research. Overlooking Risk Management
Leverage that is too high can lead to losses when strategies for trading become unconnected So establishing appropriate leverage levels and implementing appropriate risk management strategies are essential to ensure long-term success.
Failing to Set Stop Loss Orders
Inability to execute stop loss orders may risk exposing traders to massive loss if a pattern that is unexpected develops in a different way than expected leaving them vulnerable and vulnerable to large possible losses. Stop loss orders serve to minimize the possibility of losing money while protecting capital. Forex Trading Influenced by Emotions
Impulsive Trading Decisions to Trade triggered by emotion, such as greed or fear could result in abrupt deviations from a trading strategy, resulting in an impulsive decision in trading that goes against the guidelines of the plan. Thus, discipline has to be maintained through adhering to your trading cheat sheet's guidelines.
Failure to adapt No strategy is effective in every market situation. Instead of following the established trends blindly, investors need to modify and alter their strategies as market conditions change. Poor Backtesting
Skipping Backtesting
Many traders do not realize the importance of testing their trade patterns against past data. Backtesting lets traders evaluate the pattern's reliability and efficiency over time, giving assurance to traders that it performs efficiently.
Backtesting With Inadequate Sample Size
Running backtests with insufficient samples may not yield reliable results. In order to determine the efficacy for trading techniques more accurately, it is essential to collect an extensive amount of historical information.


Recurring patterns provide traders with an effective method to analyze the mood of the market and anticipate price fluctuations by combining a variety of technical indicators in your trading. A cheat sheet for trading patterns is a quick and easy method of retaining every chart pattern quickly especially in when they are beginning their careers in trading.
The results of trading can be dramatically improved and trading patterns for forex can be made more efficient by avoiding the common mistakes.
Cheat sheets that work require comprehension of pattern patterns and an awareness of market environment as well as the application of risk management methods complete backtesting, and control of emotions.
FXDatapanel lets traders use trading patterns as a valuable source, increasing their chances of making informed and successful trading decisions on the market for forex. If they incorporate these ideas in their daily routines, traders will increase their odds of success on the trading floor.
submitted by FXDataPanel to u/FXDataPanel [link] [comments]

2023.05.28 01:00 jprest12 ECG Results

Hello I am a 30 year old male, that is in relatively good shape. Over the last three weeks I have had the occasion heart palpitation (feels like one strong beat, with a rush of adrenaline). This lead to panic attack, and went to the ER. While there I had an ECG, and got the following results. The ER doctor didn't seem phased but I was reading it and it had information like "right bundle branch block", and "abnormal". Unfortunately I will not be meeting with my PCP until June 8th, but I am looking for some assurance that I am okay. Below are the results from MyChart
Interpreter: Interpreted by ED physician
Rhythm: sinus rhythm
Rate: normal
BPM:: 91
QRS axis: Normal
Conduction: right bundle branch block
ST Segments: Normal
T Waves: Normal
Clinical impression: abnormal ECG and non-specific ECG
submitted by jprest12 to AskDocs [link] [comments]

2023.05.27 20:36 brandonballinger New Health app - beta testers requested

New Health app - beta testers requested
Hey AppleWatch,
Every week in this sub, somebody asks if their Apple Watch deep sleep, HRV, oxygen, heart rate, or ECG data is normal. The usual response is to ask a doctor, ya dingus. But… it takes months to get an appointment, and most doctors aren't trained to interpret data from consumer health devices.
We're a doctor and an engineer building a new health app that helps you interpret your Apple Watch data and get medical care–and looking for beta testers!
It's called Empirical Health. Here's what it looks like:
Here's what's different about Empirical Health:
  • Simplified charts that highlight what's normal / abnormal. Your Apple Watch generates tons of data on heart rate, activity, blood oxygen saturation, sleep stages (REM/Deep/Core), HRV, and more. That raw data can be overwhelming. We help you interpret your health data with simple, colorful charts, where each value's normal range is shown on a colored background.
  • Ask a doctor—directly in the app. Worried? Need actual medical advice? The chat screen lets you ask questions to a board-certified doctor with experience interpreting Apple Watch data. We're currently licensed and insured in a handful of US states, and we can cover the complete scope of primary care, including ordering lab tests, imaging, or prescriptions. Doctor chat is currently a paid subscription, but we're working on getting covered by health insurance.
  • Customized health goals. The point of all data is to actually help you be healthy! So we let you set up customized "rings" to reflect your health goals – including not just fitness, but goals to manage health conditions.
    • Built-in programs for health conditions like POTS, or checking the risk of conditions like sleep apnea. We're adding more programs – let us know if you have a request.
    • If you don't see a program you like, you can build a customized one with daily goals.
    • Rest days! You can set a custom weekly schedule for each goal, including "on" days and rest days.
We're looking for a handful of beta testers. If you're interested, sign up on this google form–we'll be gradually rolling out TestFlight invites over the next week or two:
submitted by brandonballinger to AppleWatch [link] [comments]

2023.05.27 02:34 Cheatography Riptide - Media Studies A Level (WJEC) Cheat Sheet by churger (3 pages) #education #nope #media #alevel #wjec #mediastudies

Riptide - Media Studies A Level (WJEC) Cheat Sheet by churger (3 pages) #education #nope #media #alevel #wjec #mediastudies submitted by Cheatography to Cheatography [link] [comments]

2023.05.27 00:22 griefwitch Positive ANA, Elevated Anti-SS-A, What Could This Indicate?

Positive ANA, Elevated Anti-SS-A, What Could This Indicate?
Hi, I am a 27 y/o female with medical history significant for obesity, anxiety, panic disorder, ADHD, and Left Anterior Fascicular Block. I complained of back pain and hand pain (i type for a living) to my doctor and he ordered a variety of tests to be narrow down causes. He included ANA and to my surprise, I flagged for the following. Can someone help me understand what these results may indicate? To my knowledge, no family history of autoimmune.
submitted by griefwitch to Autoimmune [link] [comments]

2023.05.26 22:15 Bright-Reception6011 Critique my New Grad RN Resume for the ER - PLEASE!!!

Critique my New Grad RN Resume for the ER - PLEASE!!!
Hi, I am a new graduate registered nurse hoping to land a job in the emergency department of a level 1 trauma facility I’ve done my clinical rotations at. I never applied to a very “professional” job like this before and want my resume to be PERFECT!! I am stressing so hard about it. I wanted to get through that I was a nursing student in THEIR ER who threw myself into any and every opportunity I had to learn in their ED. Which is why I listed all of those skills I performed in their emergency room during clinicals, but I'm not sure if to a hiring manager it just sounds like I'm babbling, or if they’d rather see other things I did. Please let me know things that sounds/looks good, versus the things that do not. Or even things that you’d LIKE to see on a resume. I want all and any help I can get! I am so lost on what is good versus what is not. What do you think about the formatting? I tried making it simple to read. I also made sure to get lots of certifications pertinent to the ER to set me apart from other candidates. I know that it is an excessive amount, but I want them to see that I take initiative and am dedicated to learning. Pleaseeeeee help me and let me know your thoughts!!!
submitted by Bright-Reception6011 to nursing [link] [comments]

2023.05.26 22:12 Bright-Reception6011 Critique my New Grad RN Resume for the ER. PLEASE!

Critique my New Grad RN Resume for the ER. PLEASE! submitted by Bright-Reception6011 to newgradnurse [link] [comments]

2023.05.26 13:08 Zenith_mk Finance Cheat Sheet

Finance Cheat Sheet submitted by Zenith_mk to HustleAndInspire [link] [comments]

2023.05.26 06:16 TheGahbageMan Cardiology question about stress test/ECG

40/m non smoker, occasional social drinker.
Overweight but normal lipids/glucose, on metoprolol 50mg and chlorthalidone 25mg for mildly elevated blood pressure. Recently diagnosed with sleep apnea and just starting CPAP therapy.
I've had palpitations for about 10 years now. Multiple abnormal ECGs in the last 2 years. I had a 12 day holter monitor a couple months ago come back with 89 VEs, one couplet, and one triplet, with one run of ventricular tachycardia 5 beats averaging 110bpm.
Last week I had a stress test ECG and echocardiogram with contrast and the person that interpreted the test wrote:
• Exercise stress test was performed. No chest discomfort with exercise, fair exercise tolerance.
• Echo Post Stress: Left ventricular cavity size decreased from baseline. Left ventricular systolic function improved from baseline. Normal wall motion, unchanged from baseline.
• ECG: There were no arrhythmias during stress. Downsloping ST segment depression inferior leads especially leads III and aVF. Also, downsloping ST segment depression in the lateral leads V4 through V6. Depressions 1 to 2 mm. Within 1 minute recovery phase depression becomes more upsloping in character about 1 mm. Mild upsloping depression continues in the late recovery phase. There were no arrhythmias during recovery.
• Post Stress Impression: Abnormal ECG, negative for echocardiographic evidence of ischemia.
• Left Ventricle: Left ventricle cavity size is normal. There is mild concentric hypertrophy. 3D EF unsuccessful due to suboptimal image quality. The quantitative EF by 2D Simpson biplane is 60%. LV global longitudal strain assessment unsuccessful due to suboptimal image quality. There are no regional LV wall motion abnormalities. There is no diastolic dysfunction.
• Left Atrium: Left atrium cavity size is normal.
• Right Ventricle: Right ventricle cavity is mildly dilated. Systolic function is normal. Normal TAPSE (> 17 mm).
• Pericardium: There is no pericardial effusion.
• Tricuspid Valve: There is trace regurgitation. The RVSP is estimated at 30 mmHg.
My doctor is pretty much saying it looks like everything is good; that I just need to lose some weight and watch my diet, even when I ask about the abnormal ECG results.
She is basically saying it's up to me if I want to do any further investigation with an invasive heart catheterization, and that the echocardiogram outweighs the ECG.
I just worry that I could have some kind of blockage because of the ST segment changes and the vtach from the holter, but I'd prefer not to waste my or anyone else's time and resources if I don't need to.
Thank you for reading and/or your feedback!
submitted by TheGahbageMan to AskDocs [link] [comments]

2023.05.25 20:04 molly__pocket Need help determining what’s going or interested if anyone has had similar experience

Need help determining what’s going or interested if anyone has had similar experience
Back in NovembeDecember I was very sick and fatigued constantly- catching everything my daughter brought home from school, and it making me sicker than her and usually for longer too. On 12/9 I thought I had a UTI because my urine was dark and had been for days, so I just called in for an antibiotic. My lethargic feeling had peaked and confusion was setting in, so I thought I’d just let it go too long. Before I took a dose of abx I realized I was jaundice in the mirror, but I had been in bed all day so I hadn’t noticed it. My dr fit me in for labs the following Monday where my AST/ALT and bilirubin were through the roof. AST was 1,398 and ALT was 1,760. They increased at the Wednesday 12/15 blood draw, and I was admitted to the hospital Friday 12/17. I received fluids and was sent to a GI specialist the following Tuesday where we repeated labs that were slowly coming down after rest and fluids at the hospital, and discussed that it was probably medication induced hepatitis because of the adderall I was on. I was also at the time taking Olly melatonin/ eldeberry gummies at night to sleep, magnesium, and those were the only supplements so I stopped everything. By January my labs had decreased drastically, and I had gotten into normal range by the end of February, so we assumed it was adderall driven with some reactivated Epstein Barr. In February my GI and PCP Dr agreed to try me on vyvanse 30mg to help with my anxiety from the adhd.
Last week I started feeling extreme fatigue/lethargy again, having abdominal pain, body aches, itchy skin. My PCP called in labwork Monday and the images attached were my elevated levels. My mom has autoimmune, and is a nurse and has been suspicious of autoimmune from day one, but with all of the labwork that was drawn at the hospital and the assumption that it was my adderall, I fully believe my ANA labwork got overlooked and forgotten about because of processing times and not being back by the time I saw a GI (I have attached that as well). Last night I was combing through everything and found the attached last image with positive/abnormal/speckled results that were never brought to anyone’s attention.
I had resumed taking my melatonin/elderberry gummy for sleep in April and have since learned that agitates anything autoimmune. I had only resumed taking it, assuming that my December episode was the adderall. I stopped all supplements on Sunday (5/21) and am feeling loads better today (5/25) already - way less exhaustion, but a faint butterfly rash appeared last night after I’d been out in the sun with my daughter.
I should also point out that a year ago I went through a lot of heart issues that never really got diagnosed except possibly POTS and in December I stopped taking everything at the guidance of my drs too, and have not had the issues I was having except on occasion- nothing that needs daily medication for anymore. I’ve had so many random horrible flare ups of anxiety, and all of these health issues this year. I feel overwhelmed and my dr isn’t concerned about the ANA and it’s upsetting considering the butterfly rash I’ve developed with this liver flare up and how on top of things she normally is.
I’m a 32 year old female with PCOS, and have 1 healthy 4 year old child. My mother has type 1 autoimmune diabetes, dad has type 2 diabetes, and brother has type 1 autoimmune diabetes as well. We’ve done multiple thyroid panels (tsh, t3 and t4) and they’ve all been normal, and no other labwork has been abnormal in the past year.
Any advice, help, etc. is greatly appreciated and thank you for reading all of this.
submitted by molly__pocket to autoimmunity [link] [comments]

2023.05.25 16:41 Jetthaverson ECG results in 23F

Howdy y'all! Im 23 year old female, 38 weeks and 1 day pregnant today. Taking 325 mg of Ferrous Sulfate twice a day due to anemia and I've been taking Tylenol and Tums on an as needed basis (but still under the daily limit for both).
I had an ECG done 5 days ago due to having a resting bpm of 138 and chest tightness. The results finally came back today after being reviewed and I'm just honestly really confused. They did run blood tests as well with the only thing elevated being my d-dimer (521 ng/mL) but they said it's most likely due to being pregnant.
These are my ECG results below Measurements Intervals Axis Rate: 129 P: 132 PR: 104 QRS: 152 QRSD: 71 T: 178 QT: 298 QTc: 374 Interpretive Statements ECTOPIC ATRIAL TACHYCARDIA WITH SHORT PR INTERVAL LEFT POSTERIOR FASCICULAR BLOCK NONSPECIFIC T-WAVE ABNORMALITY
Should I be concerned? I meet with my OBGYN tomorrow and am wondering if I should request an induction so that I can have whatever is going on with my heart investigated without it impacting or endangering the baby.
submitted by Jetthaverson to AskDocs [link] [comments]

2023.05.25 13:49 Djungelskog-Bear Welcome to the r/PVCs community! New users please read:

Welcome to PVCs
This is a community where all are welcome to discuss, learn, and support each other with their questions and concerns they may have about their ectopic beats and other related cardiac concerns.
Before I go any further, I must make it clear that Reddit is NOT a source of medical advice. If you are concerned about your health then please speak to your doctor, or seek urgent medical attention from paramedics or have someone take you to the local ER if you believe this is an emergency.
With that in mind, here’s some commonly asked questions that we see in this community:
Q: What are PVCs?
A: Premature Ventricular Contractions. A heartbeat that happened early and was triggered by the ventricles (lower chambers) of the heart. On an ECG these will typically be wide and abnormal in appearance. Sometimes called VPB – Ventricular Premature Beat, or VE – Ventricular Ectopic.
Q: What are PACs?
A: Premature Atrial Contractions. A heartbeat that happened early and was triggered by the atria (upper chambers) of the heart. On an ECG these will typically look just like any other sinus (normal) heart beat, but outside of the usual rhythm. Sometimes called SVE – Supraventricular Ectopic.
Q: What about PJCs?
A: Premature Junctional Contractions. They tend to be more rare than the two above ectopics, but functionally and visually appear very similarly to a PAC, with very slight abnormalities in the morphology. These are triggered by the atrioventricular junction which is in a central location within the heart.
Q: SVT/NSVT/Bigeminy/Trigeminy – What do all of these mean?
A: SVT: Supraventricular Tachycardia – Lots of PACs in a row very quickly. VT: Ventricular Tachycardia – Lots of PVCs in a row very quickly or NSVT is the same but Non-Sustained lasting 30 seconds or less. Bi/Trigeminy is just a fancy way of saying your ectopics follow a rhythm. Bigeminy means your ectopics are happening every other beat, while trigeminy is every third beat. Quadrigeminy is every fourth beat.
Q: What is sinus tachycardia:
A: Sinus means that it’s a normal rhythm that is beating normally in the way that it’s supposed to. Normal sinus rhythm is what you ideally want to always be in. Sinus tachycardia means a normal heart beat that is running quickly (over 100bpm typically) while sinus bradycardia is a normal rhythm but beating slowly (Typically below 50-60bpm depending upon guidance in your region) All variations of sinus rhythm need to be taken with context – Having a fast or slow sinus rhythm rarely means anything is actually wrong. For example sleeping will slow your heart. Exercise or panic will speed it up – This is perfectly normal behaviour.
Q: Am I in danger?
A: Usually not. The vast majority of ectopic beats are perfectly harmless, albeit annoying at times. If you are concerned then speak to your doctor who can do some testing to check it out. In a structurally normal heart, with a low burden of ectopics you don’t need to do anything about them – PVCs and PACs are perfectly normal and EVERYONE in the world no matter how healthy their heart may be will have them in life. Not everyone feels them. But they are there.
Q: Can you interpret my ECG?
A: I would like to direct you to the ReadMyECG Sub, or alternatively the QALY app where a technician can analyse your ECG and provide feedback. Again though, if you feel you are concerned or need medical advice then please consult a doctor.
Q: Why does my ECG Look weird or different to others I have seen?
A: Personal ECGs from smartwatches are not super reliable. Please take their reading with a pinch of salt. A lot of the time what you are looking at is called ‘artefact’ – Interference/noise picked up from you moving around. Make sure you have a snug fit on your wrist, and that your watch, fingers and wrist are all clean and dry prior to taking a recording. Other than that, remember that the ECG will look different from one person to the next depending upon the exact angle your heart Is aligned within your chest, and specifically where abouts in the chambers the ectopic beats are coming from.
Q: What is the pause I see or feel after one of these beats?
A: This is called a compensatory pause. It’s a perfectly normal thing to see and happens after most people get a PVC or PAC. It’s simply your heart’s electrical system resetting back to the original rhythm before your ectopic beat happened.
Q: So I have ectopic beats, but what do I actually do now?
A: First of all. Speak to your doctor. This is the way to go about any health concern. They may wish to do some tests to rule out anything more sinister potentially going on. But if you have a structurally normal heart and a low burden, you likely need nothing more than reassurance form your doctor and be sent on your way due to their common, harmless nature.
Lots of people struggle with anxiety around this. If I had to give any tips on dealing with this it would be:
· DO NOT Constantly monitor this with a watch or other personal ECG Device.
· DO NOT Obsess over every beat you feel. Learn to ignore it and keep going about your life. Eventually you will stop being bothered by them.
· DO Keep up all the self care you possibly can. Things like a balanced diet, being well hydrated with water, minimising stress and getting enough sleep all minimise ectopics for lots of people.
· DO Seek help with your anxiety. Talking therapies especially CBT, and health psychology work well at learning to deal with this. As does getting a good (non-benzodiazepine) anxiolytic medication to keep your baseline anxiety levels lower alongside this therapy.
· DO Exercise. Unless your doctor specifically told you not to exercise, you should do so. Everyone needs exercise to keep a healthy heart. PVCs in a structurally normal heart won’t bring you to harm, but prolonged abstinence from exercise will do.
· DO Trust your doctor.
submitted by Djungelskog-Bear to PVCs [link] [comments]

2023.05.25 02:34 Cheatography Parcial 4 - biomol - traduccion y proteinas Cheat Sheet by ilpatino2003 (9 pages) #education #biology

Parcial 4 - biomol - traduccion y proteinas Cheat Sheet by ilpatino2003 (9 pages) #education #biology submitted by Cheatography to Cheatography [link] [comments]

2023.05.24 18:49 MK2730 Is this Monkey Branching?

Hi folks,
TLDR; My ex boyfriend (28M) developed a friendship with a female friend (23F) while we were together that I suspected was emotionally cheating. He denies it. We lived together and when I went home to move out three weeks after he dumped me the house had multiple pieces of evidence indicating they might have started a relationship. Is this monkey branching?
Edits: length, unnecessary details, spelling, readability.
I think I got monkey branched. I was hoping I could get some non-biased, third-party insight and support. This has been the hardest thing I’ve had to do in my life thus far. I was in a long term, on and off relationship for nine years, so basically a common law marriage. This relationship started in our formative years (we're the same age, we were 19) and we went through a lot of important life events and formative stuff together. That’s partially why it’s so hard to let go of, although I know the person I fell in love with no longer exists.
As they do, our relationship started out great. I really and truly thought, and parts of me still feel, that he was/is my soulmate. I’m going to give the TLDR; it was great in the beginning, then I discovered he had created Tinder accounts on three separate occasions so we broke up in 2019.
We were apart for a year when we got back together in 2020. We dated for two more years and then in the summer of 2022 he got a contract (he’s a musician) for a three month gig out of state. He lived in a three bedroom apartment with six people: three women and three men.
During that summer he slowly started to ghost me within the first month of being there. He ended up breaking up with me over the phone in August of 2022.
Then, when he got back in September of 2022, he wanted to talk to me. We ended up getting back together again. He told me the reason he had broken up with me was because he wasn’t sure where his life was going after that contract and he also, very subtly, seemed to admit that he had also developed feelings for one of his female bandmates/roommates (22F). He let me know that they had a falling out at the end of that contract though.
Important: I think I was monkey branched when we got back together in September 2022.
And I’m probably an idiot for trusting him again because… Fast forward to now, we got back together in September and we moved into a house together in February.
Idk how tf to TLDR this so this is probably going to be a long post. My bf met this girl at an open mic in January, got her phone number from a mutual friend and then reached out to her to start a band with her.
I got a bad feeling right away considering the context of this last summer. I told him I didn’t feel very comfortable with that. He told me that I needed to trust him. I think it’s important to note that our relationship was AMAZING up until this exact moment (Sept. - Jan.). So I was like okay, I trust you.
Fast forward some more, he wants me to become friends with her. I was open to that but I was also unsure about her initially. The first time I met her, I got the vibe she was trying to figure me out. Idk, it was just kind of odd. I made it clear that I wanted to be her friend that night. I bought us a round of shots, she talked to my boyfriend alone a lot, I asked for her Instagram and said directly “I’m glad I met you, I can tell we will be friends!” but it didn’t really work out that way. Oh also, important context, she was single but still talking to her ex.
I don’t mean to be rude, but she’s also very weird. Not like a cool fun weird, but like says uncomfortable stuff and makes everyone feel off kind of weird. She made a few comments that made me uneasy over the last few months. Examples:
I’m telling you, this was WEIRD AND ABNORMAL. There is so much more I can add, it’s just a lot.
Pretty soon, the one other bandmate was unable to commit to practice very frequently because he was in another successful band. He also did not think this girl was up to par to be in the band at all. Band practice was always at our house. This led to my bf having this girl over at least three times for 2.5-3 hrs at a time to practice alone. That felt really icky to me. Especially because once this whole band thing started, my needs were no longer being met in the relationship. I expressed this to him and set a boundary asking that he not practice with her alone anymore. He agreed.
Then, one day like a month later, I walked in on them in a Zoom call practicing alone. That felt like a betrayal and a work around. He told me it wasn’t and that he was going to tell me because he had nothing to hide.
Important also is that she started to get invited to everything we did that was a social gathering. Our old friends come over or the other bandmate and his gf are invited? This girl is invited and he tells me at the last minute. We go to an open mic? This b is magically there too. She started to be invited or show up to everything and I couldn’t escape it.
Fast forward to end of April, we got into a very stupid argument. I told him we needed space and I left for my parents home out of state.
I texted him the next day and he told me that I dumped him. I don’t recall doing that, I said we needed space. IN ADDITION, who does he hang out with the next day? The girl. I came home because I was furious. When I got there, most of our tequila was gone and there were two shot glasses in the sink. He claimed he used the second one to brush his teeth because the landlord came over and had to turn the water off (which is true) and that he got drunk by himself. Our bed had all of the pillows neatly stacked in the corner of the bedroom (neither of us do that).
I confronted him. He said nothing is going on and nothing happened. For the next two weeks, I thought we were going to work on it. He was wishy washy and went back and forth on if we should fix it. I was very direct in that I wanted to fix this. He had told me that my boundaries with him practicing alone with this girl "prevented him from doing what he wanted to do." He finally said, we can fix this if you let me do whatever I want with music. I said fine and agreed.
THAT WEEK WAS HELL. He had her over 4 days in a row - one day it was from 2:30 - 11:30 pm. They did have a show that weekend but I mean STILL. They went to bars and open mics alone and drove together, got food together, they had a gig and I was told I was not invited and they drove together… I mean how stupid was I?
Oh, I forgot to mention, that time he hung out with her when we “broke up”? He told her I called her a f****** b***** (which tbh I don’t think I’m far off now) and told her I have struggled with un-aliving thoughts. That’s a betrayal, right?
Anyway, one day during the week of her being over all the time, he tells me I made her feel uncomfortable in our house and so I should go apologize to her for what I said about her (when he told her I called her a fing b) so her and I can build trust with each other. Initially I said no but after a few minutes, I agreed. So I go into the room she was in and I’m bawling, she hugs me right away and I say I’m sorry. She says all the right things - he’s trustworthy with her, she’s not trying to make moves, she just wants to be my friend, she forgives me, she tells me if her ex was doing this (having a girl over to work together this much) she would feel upset too (and also mentions she’s not talking to her ex anymore), I should hangout with them when they’re practicing, she also struggles with mental health issues, etc.
She SAYS all the right things… but I still felt sick. Something was off.
WELL. SO. After two weeks of torture, he finally tells me there’s no hope and our relationship is over. I accept it - and he seemed to hate that. What was I gunna do? I had to accept it. So I said that we should try to be friendly and be respectful roommates for the time being so that we can figure out what we’re gunna do with the lease. He didn’t like that. He lashed out and told me that he was having the girl over and there was nothing I could do about it since we were now roommates.
So I left for my parents house out of state again. As I was packing up to leave I asked for more time to get my stuff together. He said no and walked this b into our house as I was bawling and leaving. She had the audacity to give me a giant grin and say "hey" to me in a sing song voice. I asked her “are you really gunna look at me like that?!” I was done.
I didn’t talk to him for three weeks and this past weekend I went back down to move out all of my stuff. When I got there, I had heard from friends that they were at least spending a lot of time at/hooking up in our house and that she was posting pictures on social media in OUR house and tagging him. One of our oldest friends also told me that in April when he was over, my boyfriend had admitted to him that he knew this girl was into him.
I got there and he wasn’t there and wouldn’t sleep there for the two days I was there. I found her shirt hanging in the laundry room, a second toothbrush, a second towel in the bathroom (he only uses one), our house was completely rearranged and there were no sheets on the bed.
He denied all of it. Told me all of this was my fault. He told me I made him feel like a giant POS and congratulations for that. He wore her hat (almost 10000% positive it was her hat) when we talked, said he moved on and I needed to move on, told me “I had a fun weekend out and I have to come home to this” (meaning I had moved out all my stuff and most of the stuff was mine in the house so it was inconvenient to him), told me “I’m just a really busy person”... just overall the talk went terrible. He then proceeded to berate me when I left for my parents house after moving out about how I didn’t even give him a heads up I was moving my stuff out, etc.
There is a lot I'm leaving out here for the sake of summary. I certainly was not perfect either (I would primarily lash out by saying unkind things when he pushed my boundaries and then I would try to reconcile them because I didn't mean it). I'm getting therapy to work through this and to work on any issues I have that may have played a role in this too.
I’m in a lot of pain but also, as I wrote this out, it was kind of cathartic and made me laugh cuz this is ridiculous. I mean, if I was a stranger reading this, I think my reaction would be like DAMN.
So…. This is monkey branching right?
submitted by MK2730 to survivinginfidelity [link] [comments]

2023.05.24 16:21 meandmydoggie are these ecg results anything to worry about?

hello, 23F, 5’7 120lbs. went to the ER for new chest pain. i just got the automated results from my ecg and wanted to know if it was anything to worry about. nobody said anything to me about it, and i’m not sure if any of this is serious. i’m on metoprolol for tachycardia and florinef for low blood pressure
ventricular rate ECG: 101 BPM P-R Interval: 144 ms QRS duration: 82 ms Q-T interval: 342 ms QTc: 400 ms P wave axis: 81 degrees R axis: 92 degrees T axis: -4 degrees
ECG interpretation:
submitted by meandmydoggie to medical [link] [comments]

2023.05.24 16:20 meandmydoggie is my ecg anything to worry about?

hello, 23F, 5’7 120lbs. went to the ER for new chest pain. i just got the automated results from my ecg and wanted to know if it was anything to worry about. nobody said anything to me about it, and i’m not sure if any of this is serious. i’m on metoprolol for tachycardia and florinef for low blood pressure
ventricular rate ECG: 101 BPM P-R Interval: 144 ms QRS duration: 82 ms Q-T interval: 342 ms QTc: 400 ms P wave axis: 81 degrees R axis: 92 degrees T axis: -4 degrees
ECG interpretation:
submitted by meandmydoggie to AskDocs [link] [comments]

2023.05.24 12:11 FyrestarOmega Lucy Letby Trial, Defense Day 8, 24 May, 2023

Dan O'Donoghue:
Andy Gill:
Judith Moritz:
Sky News:
Chester Standard:
Chester Standard:
Nicholas Johnson KC, for the prosecution, will now cross-examine Lucy Letby.
He first asks about the 'conspiracy gang' of four doctors, as Letby previously said there was in the Countess of Chester Hospital last Thursday.
Here was our story about it last Thursday:
He clarifies a minor matter about it.

Child E

Mr Johnson KC asks about the case of Child E.
Letby says: "Possibly yes" to the question if there was medical incompetence that led to Child E's death, in that the night shift team "could have reacted sooner" to the child's bleed.
She says once Child E was bleeding at 10pm, a transfusion could have been made sooner.
She says the "collective team" were responsible.

Letby says it was "an important thing to know" that plumbing issues were a potential contributory factor to the decline of babies' health in the unit.
She said "raw sewage" would come out of the sinks in nursery room 1, as flowback from another unit.
Mr Johnson asks if Letby ever filled in a Datix form for that. Letby says she did not.
​ From Sky News:
Letby then says it is an "important factor to note there were often plumbing issues within the unit".
Letby is asked what this has to do with the death of Child E - or any of the children involved.
She says there was "raw sewage coming out of the sinks and running onto the floor in the intensive care unit".
She says this could have had an effect as well as staff being unable to properly wash their hands.
​ Chester Standard:
Mr Johnson says Letby did fill in a Datix form for Child E.
The form is shown to the court. It is dated August 4, 2015, at 5.53am, which is when the form was signed and filed.
It is classed as a 'clinical incident'.
The risk grading was 'high potential harm'. Letby says she is "not sure about that", as it also says 'Actual harm: None (No harm caused).
It refers to the death of Child E at 1.40am. 'Description: Unexpected death following GI bleed. Full resus unsuccessful. Time of death 01:40.'
The baby's history is recorded in the events leading up to his death. It was filled in by the incident review group panel.
Letby's input on the panel is reporting the incident on the first page of the nine-page report.

Letby is asked if she remembers sending a text message to Jennifer Jones-Key saying it was "too Q word" on August 2, 2015. Letby says she cannot recall, but accepts that would be something she could send.
The 'Q word' is 'quiet', the court hears.
Letby says "there is always something to do", but "sometimes they can be long nights if you haven't got many babies".
She says she enjoyed being busy "when it was managed".

Letby is asked why she, and not Child E's designated nurse Melanie Taylor, signed a correction to a prescription for Child E. Letby says it's standard practice for two nurses to administer prescriptions, and corrections on the form are not based on seniority. She agrees she was keen to raise issues if they needed correcting.
NJ: "Had you fallen out with Melanie Taylor by this stage?"
LL: "No."
Letby denies she had fallen out with anyone.
She agrees she had confidence in her clinical competencies.
NJ: "Do you agree you were a cut above some other nurses, including Mel?"
LL: "No."

A nursing note for Child E from the evening of August 3, 2015 is shown. Letby agrees he was progressing well, although he needed insulin.
Letby agrees Child E at this stage showed no sign of gastro-intenstinal problems.
A rota is shown to the court, showing Letby was the desingated nurse for Child E and Child F in room 1. No other babies/nurses were allocated in that room that night.
Letby is asked if there was anything wrong with this arrangement. Letby: "No."
Mr Johnson says when Letby was giving evidence to Mr Myers, she said when the mother arrived at the unit, she was "bringing milk". Letby says she does not recall from her memory. Mr Johnson says that was what she said on May 5.
Letby: "I can't recall right here right now."
Letby says she cannot remember it specifically, but accepted that version of events. "I don't have any clear memory."
Mr Johnson refers to the transcript from that day, in which Letby told Benjamin Myers KC she believed Child E's mother had arrived at the unit bringing expressed breast milk.
Letby says: "I said 'I think' she brought expressed breast milk." She says it's the same thing.

Mr Johnson asks about the significance of 9pm that night. Letby says: "I don't know what you mean."
Mr Johnson says it's the mother's evidence that she knew Child E was due a feed at 9pm, so came down to the unit for that feed.
Mr Johnson says Letby's recollection that Child E's mother brought milk with her fixes the time as being 9pm.
Letby: "I don't agree."
Mr Johnson asks about the 16ml 'mucky aspirate', which Letby agrees was taken before 9pm.
Mr Johnson asks where the milk for the 9pm feed was coming from.
Letby says the milk would come from the milk fridge in nursery room 1. She says she does "not remember" where the milk would come from for this feed specifically.
No feed was recorded for 9pm.
Mr Johnson says the SHO did not record no feed for 9pm, having said in evidence that would be the sort of thing he would record for a baby.
Letby says sometimes doctors don't record such notes
​ The same exchange from Sky News:
On 3 August 2015, Child E was recorded as making very good progress. He would be dead less than 24 hours later.
"I wouldn't say he was very well, but yes he [was] making progress with his feeds," Letby tells the court.
The twins were the only occupants of nursery one - and Letby was the only nurse in this specific room. All other babies were elsewhere being looked after by other staff.
"You had the nursery to yourself?" Nick Johnson, prosecuting, asks.
"I was the only nurse allocated babies, yes," Letby replies.
Child E's mother brought expressed breast milk to the unit to feed her children - Letby is now asked about what happened when she appeared.
She says she does not remember. Nick Johnson then reads a transcript from her questioning by her defence lawyer, Ben Myers, from last week.
Myers: Do you recall why she had come down?
Letby: I don't recall specifically no.
Myers: Did she have anything with her?
Letby: I think she brought breast milk down.
He asks why Letby was unable to answer the question a few minutes ago.
The insinuation is the mother brought the milk at 9pm - at the time it was believed Child E was already bleeding, and when he was due a feed.
Letby says she believes Child E's mother came down later.
Letby says she spoke to an on-call doctor about omitting his 9pm feed. But the prosecution is suggesting this "conversation never happened".

Letby is asked why the 'large vomit of fresh blood' is not recorded on the observation chart for 10pm. Letby says she recorded it in her nursing notes, and Dr David Harkness was present when it happened.
Letby is asked why she waited over an hour for the observation of the aspirate to be raised with the doctor.
LL: "I don't recall speaking to a doctor", but Letby recalls speaking to an SHO on the phone about it.
Letby says there was no observation of blood prior to 10pm.
NJ: "Was [Child E's mother] telling the truth about you?"
LL: "In what sense?"
NJ: "In the sense of what you said to her - when she says she came down to see her boys, she saw [Child E] with blood around his lips."
Child E's mother's illustration of what she says was present on Child E's lips is shown to the court.
NJ: "Did you ever see anything like that?"
LL: "[Child E] did have blood like that - after 2200."
Letby adds "there was no blood prior to that."
Letby accepts she was alone in room 1 when the mother came down. She says that would have been around the handover time at 8pm.
NJ: "You are not telling the truth about that, are you?"
LL: "Yes I am."
Letby says she does not accept causing an injury to harm Child E. She denies at any stage 'having a fall out' with Child E's mother.
Letby says she has never seen a baby with blood like that around her mouth in her career. She agrees it was "wholly exceptional".
She denies telling Child E's mother the cause of the bleed was via insertion of the naso-gastrinal tube. She says the insertion could cause "a small amount of blood" from the tube.

Letby is asked if she recalls telling police in the case of Child N that NG Tubes can cause bleeding. Letby says it does cause blood, but not in the mouth.
Mr Johnson says Letby has said that previously it can cause oral bleeding. Letby: "Ok."
She denies saying that happened in this case.
She says "medically speaking", "any baby" could have a bleed like the sort seen by Child E.
A text message from Letby to Jennifer Jones-Key is shown: "...He had massive haemhorrhage could have happened to any baby x"
Letby says "at the time" it was thought Child E could have NEC, and "any baby could have had the condition [Child E] had."

Letby is asked to look at her defence statement.
She says Child E's mother had come down with some expressed milk. The statement is dated February 2021.
Letby, in her statement, said "This may have been later than 2100".
Mr Johnson says Letby is now ruling out a time before 2200.
Letby says she cannot say it definitively, but there was no blood prior to 2200.
Letby is asked why she did not mention the vomit when blood went down the NG Tube in her defence statement.
Mr Johnson says Letby is lying by adding additional detail afterwards. Letby denies this.
Mr Johnson asks about the 'mucky aspirate' for Child E, asking if that is 16ml of 'bile', as per Letby's defence statement. Letby says there was bile in the mucky aspirate.
Mr Johnson says there is a difference between 'bile-stained' and 'bile'. Letby accepts 'there was 16ml of bile' in her defence statement is "an error".
She is asked why she put that in, in those terms.
LL: "I don't know."
Letby says this is a clarification of her earlier statement.
NJ: "You are lying, aren't you?"
LL: "No."
The defence statement also refers to 'blood in the nappy' for Child E after he died. Mr Johnson says if that has been heard in her evidence. Letby says she cannot recall.
Letby says it is written in her nursing notes, and nothing was done about it as Child E was deceased by that time.
Letby is asked to look at her nursing notes.
​ Sky News:
Letby is asked as to why her case "has changed" since she gave a full statement to the police. A number of details, the prosecution claims, now contradict what she is saying in court.
"You are lying, aren't you Lucy Letby," Nick Johnson asks, not for the first time referring to her by her full name.
"No," Letby replies.
She is then asked about a statement she made claiming there was blood in Child E's nappy after his death.
She says she wrote something about this in her nursing notes.
The prosecution then hands her a copy of her nursing notes - a short break is called so Letby can reread her notes.
Before the break, Letby was handed a copy of her nursing notes from the night Child E died.
She previously claimed she had recorded in her notes there was blood in his nappy. Letby now tells the court her notes show she did not write anything about blood in Child E's nappy.
"You knew that wasn't true," Nick Johnson, prosecuting, asks.
"No, I couldn't recall my notes specifically at that time."
The prosecution claims Letby has repeatedly falsified medical notes - this being another example of how her recollection of events has changed.
​ Chester Standard:
Mr Johnson says Letby's nursing notes for Child E, as read by Letby during the break, do not record blood in the nappy.
Letby says she could not recall her notes specifically at this time.
Mr Johnson reads about what other medical staff observed following Child E's collapse.
Dr David Harkness recorded, for Child E's observations following the collapse, 'kind of strange purple patches that appeared on the outside of his tummy'. Letby says it was purple, but not patches.
Letby said the other parts were 'more pale' than the pink described by Dr Harkness.
Dr Harkness said he'd only ever seen it before with Child A.
Letby disagrees. She says it was "not the same".
Asked to explain the differences between the two, Letby says it was a "solid block of purpleness" for Child E, and a "more mottled look" for Child A.
Letby agrees it was over the abdomen, but disagrees the purple patches moved around.
Mr Johnson reads through another doctor's observations, who said she had not seen the discolouration, but Dr Harkness was "animated" when he was describing what he had seen to her.
Letby says she was not there for any conversation between the two of them.

Letby is asked to read her retrospective nursing note for Child E, which described Child E's collapse and subsequent decline until he died in his parents' arms at 1.40am.
The note would have been made with reference to medical notes, Letby tells the court.
Letby is asked to look at an observation chart and a blood gas chart.
Letby says when things are going on, it would be standard practice to write, also, on the back of handover sheets or spare bits of paper.
Letby is asked about a "purple band" of discolouration she had recorded for Child E. In her police interview, Letby accepts struggling to recall the size of it at that time.
Mr Johnson says for May 5's evidence, Letby said it was a "red horizontal banding across his abdomen", and only on the abdomen.
Letby agrees with Dr Harkness it was on the abdomen, but does not agree with Dr Harkness's observation it was patches.

Letby is asked to look at a chart showing aspirates for Child E, which included 'minimal aspirates' prior to the collapse.
Letby agrees that showed no signs of gastro-intenstinal issues for Child E, until the 9pm reading of 16ml 'mucky' aspirate, in her writing.
Letby "cannot recall" why Belinda Simcock had written in the 10pm aspirates column. Letby "assumes" the blood came out following those 10pm readings.
"Why was Belinda there at all?"
"I can't say for sure."
Letby says Belinda had come to assist for the 16ml aspirate observed an hour earlier.
Letby says she "cannot say" why Belinda was carrying out observations at that time.
Letby says she "cannot explain" why the blood aspirate is not recorded in the aspirate chart, but is in her nursing notes.
Letby is asked to read a note on the schedule for Child E, in which it is said Belinda Simcock gave a feed to a child in room 2 at 10pm.
Letby says she cannot recall why Belinda Simcock had come to room 1 for the 10pm readings.
Mr Johnson asks if Belinda Simcock was brought in to sign paperwork at the time of the collapse to cover for Letby's actions. Letby denies this.
Letby said Belinda Simcock had carried out the drip readings for Child E, and signed it, as specific information like that is not passed on from one nurse to another.

Letby is asked if she recalls who rang Child E's mother when Child E collapsed.
She said it would have been a "collective decision" to contact the midwifery staff.
Letby accepts Child E's mother made a phone call at 9.11pm, but does not accept the evidence of the conversation about Child E 'bleeding from his mouth' and there was 'nothing to worry about'.
Benjamin Myers KC, for Letby's defence, rises to say Letby cannot say what was or was not said in a phone call she was not part of.
NJ: "You killed [Child E], didn't you?"
LL: "No."
NJ: "Why in the aftermath were you so obsessed with [Child E and F's mother]?"
LL: "I don't think I was obsessed."
Letby says she "often" thought of Child E and Child F.
Mr Johnson says the name of Child E and F's mother was searched for nine times, and the name of the father once.
Letby said she searched "to see how [Child F] was doing."
One of the searches was when Child F was on the neonatal unit.
Letby said the other searches were made after Child F had left the unit, so "collectively" what she had said was correct.
Mr Johnson says Letby was looking for the family's reaction. Letby disagrees.
One of the searches is on Christmas Day. "Didn't you have better things to do?"
Letby said the family were on her mind.

Child G

Mr Johnson tells the court he is now looking at the case of Child G. He will go 'out of sequence', chronologically, and deal with Child F at a later point.
Letby says she cannot recall what Child G's due date would have been [Child G having been born at a gestational age of 23 weeks and 6 days on May 31, with the date of one of the events "not standing out" to her.
A message from Letby's phone to a colleague: "Due date today!"
Letby says she knew at the time [September 21, 2015].
Letby says the date of the event for Child G was "a coincidence".
Letby says Child G had "extreme prematurity" which had complications requiring additional care.
Letby disagrees that Child G was "fine" by the time she came to the Countess of Chester Hospital, saying she had a number of ongoing issues.
​ From Sky News:
Child G was born extremely premature, at a different hospital, before being moved to the Countess of Chester.
Letby initially claims she did not remember Child G's due date.
But a September 2015 text shown to the court says: "Due date today!"
"By the time she arrived at Chester [Hospital], she was fine, wasn't she?" Nick Johnson, barrister for the prosecution, asks.
"I don't agree she was fine, she had a number of ongoing issues," Letby replies.
The prosecution says Child G was due to go home when she first collapsed - she was in nursery four, the one for the lowest dependency babies.
Letby disputes this.
"Are you exaggerating her problems?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," Letby replies.
She says Child G was still being tube fed and needed a higher level of care. But the prosecution asks Letby what specific problems the infant may have had that meant she wasn't due to go home imminently.
"As of the 7 September, what were the unusual problems that Child G had?" Mr Johnson asks.
"I can't answer that," says Letby.
​ Chester Standard:
Letby denies that Child G was ready to go home by the date of the first event on September 7, saying babies in the special care room, nursery 4, can still be there for several weeks.
Letby says Child G had a number of previous problems including relating to feeding, and had sepsis.
Letby says Child G was on oxygen and had feeding issues by September 7, 2015.
Mr Johnson asks Letby to look at Child G's nursing records for her days leading up to her projectile vomit. Letby agrees there is nothing "unusual" in those days.
Feeding charts are shown for Child G for September 5 and 6. Child G is being fed expressed breast milk via the NGT or bottle. Letby agrees the picture is looking good for Child G from these charts.
Mr Johnson says the feed at 11pm on September 6 would not have been done twice by mistake. Letby says she has never suggested that has happened.
Letby agrees the observations for Child G before 2am on September 7 are "good".
​ From Sky News
Letby has claimed Child G still needed oxygen - but charts from the time show this was removed two days prior.
"I know she was back on it by the 7 September," Letby says.
"Of course, she was because by that point she had brain damage," prosecution lawyer Mr Johnson replies.
He then asks: "Would you agree, all the signs on the 5th are good?"
Letby also agrees Child G's vitals were "good" the following day.
"Do you agree the picture shown by the data is a good one?" Mr Johnson asks.
Child G first collapsed as she celebrated a particular life milestone - which the staff had been planning to mark.
A text Letby sent to a colleague after the first collapse is show to the court.
It said: "Awful isn't it. We'd all been sat at desk at start of night making banner".
​ Chester Standard:
NJ: "You knew this was day 100 of [Child G's] life, didn't you?"
LL: "Yes."
NJ: "It was a big day for her."
LL: "Yes."
Letby agrees she and other nurses would celebrate 100-day-old babies on the unit, and a banner had been prepared to mark the occasion.
A staffing rota for the night shift of September 6-7 is shown to the court. Letby is in room 1 as the designated nurse for one baby, and Ailsa Simpson is the designated nurse for one other baby in room 1. A nursing colleague is in room 2 as the designated nurse for Child G.
Letby rules out staffing levels or staff incompetence as a contributory factor in Child G's death.
Asked if anyone had made a mistake, Letby says "potentially", Child G had been overfed by a nursing colleague, but that was not what she was saying had happened.
Letby: "I can't say for definite that didn't happen. I'm not saying she did do that, but it is a possibility."
Letby says it is a "possibility" the amount of milk was mismeasured when calculating the feed.
NJ: "Are you suggesting it's a realistic possibility?"
LL: "No."
​ From Sky News:
Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, is continuing to question Letby's claims her colleague (who cannot be named for legal reasons) overfed Child G.
"To have fed Child G twice as much presumably would have taken twice as long?" Mr Johnson asks.
"Yes," Letby replies.
Letby says the experts presented evidence of overfeeding.
"How would they know? Which experts?" Mr Johnson asks.
Letby takes a sip of her water and does not reply to this question, staring straight ahead in silence.
Mr Johnson then asks about the scene when Letby and her colleagues discovered Child G had vomited onto the floor.
​ Chester Standard:
Nicholas Johnson KC continues to cross-examine Lucy Letby in the case of Child G.
Letby says it was a "possibility" Child G was overfed by a nursing colleague, but adds: "I don't believe that happened."
Mr Johnson says to overfeed Child G twice as much would have taken twice as long.
Letby says 45mls of milk feed would take around 15-20 minutes.
Letby refers to medical experts Dr Evans and Dr Bohin that overfeeding was a possibility.
Mr Johnson describes what Letby had seen, including that Child G's abdomen was "firm and red", with the sight of that and vomit on the floor leaving her "shocked".
"That was a clear recollection you had last week, giving evidence?"
Letby says that happened at approximately 2.15am.
Her nursing note is shown to the court: '[Child G] had large projectile milky vomit at 0215. Continued to vomit++. 45mls milk obtained from NG tube with air++. Abdomen noted to be distended and discoloured. Colour improved few minutes after aspirating tube, remained distended but go nil by mouth with IV fluids...'
Letby says she disagrees with the evidence of Dr Sandie Bohin, saying a pH reading of 4 can be obtained from milk aspirated from the stomach

A photo of Child G's cot, with circles marking where the vomit fell outside of the cot, is shown to the court.
Letby is asked to look at her police interview for Child G.
Letby said it was in her cot.
NJ: "This was an extraordinary vomit, the likes of which you had not seen in your career."
LL: "I have, but not in neonates."
Letby says it's an "oversight" she had not mentioned the extent of the vomit in police interview.
Letby says Child G was "still vomiting" when she went in to see Child G with Ailsa Simpson.
NJ: "You were not there with her, were you?"
LL: "Yes I was."
Letby is asked to look at her police interview. She says at the time of the vomit she did not remember where she was, then went into the room where Child G was.
Letby is asked why there is no mention of Ailsa Simpson in the interview. Letby says she was describing her own response.
The neonatal schedule is shown to the court for Child G.
Mr Johnson says Letby deliberately misstated the time at which Child G had her vomit [at 2.15am], and says it was much closer to 2am. Letby disagrees.

Sky News:
The prosecution now says Letby "misrepresented" the time Child G vomited - which she says was 2.15pm.
Letby claims she and a colleague (who cannot be named for legal reasons) were at the nursing station at the time Child G collapsed.
But notes from the unit show this colleague was feeding a different baby at 2.15pm - and the length of time it would have taken for her to defrost and warm that baby's milk would have made it impossible to be where Letby says she was.
This colleague also says she was called to Child G at 2.35pm.
The prosecution says Letby changed the time to try to point suspicion in the direction of the colleague, who was her "best friend".
"No," Letby says.
"You deliberately overfed her," says Mr Johnson.
"No, that's not true," Letby says.
​ Chester Standard
Mr Johnson refers to Dr Alison Ventress's notes 'Called to v [Child G] at 2.35'.
He says that is an accurate time, and Letby had misstated the time so Letby's colleague could instead be blamed for overfeeding, and Letby overfed Child G.
Letby: "That's not true."
Mr Johnson asks where the air came from before 'Neopuffing'. Letby says she cannot say without looking at the nursing notes.
Letby's note: '...45mls milk obtained from NG Tube with air++...'
The note does not mention Neopuffing. Letby says that is "an oversight".
Mr Johnson: "The truth is that you injected [Child G] with milk and air, didn't you?"
Letby: "No."

Letby is asked to look at her second police interview for Child G.
In it, Letby said air had got in through the feeding syringe.
She tells the court it had been suggested to her as a possibility.
Mr Johnson refers to Child G's 3.15am collapse, with Dr Alison Ventress recalling 'blood-stained fluid coming up'.
Letby denies inserting something into Child G's airway and/or causing the deterioration.
​ Sky News:
Child G's attacks had "echoes" of the deaths of babies C and E, prosecuting barrister Nick Johnson says to Lucy Letby.
Mr Johnson: "You inserted something into Child G's airway, didn't you?"
Letby: "No."
Mr Johnson: "You caused the bleeding, as you did with many of these children."
Letby: "No, that's not true."
​ Chester Standard
Dr Ventress and a doctor colleague said '100ml of aimilk' had been aspirated from Child G following the 6.05am desaturation.
Letby says she does not recall the 100mls coming out, and asks if it was documented.
Dr Alison Ventress's note is shown to the court. It includes '...NG aspirated as abdo appeared v large ~100mls aspirated...'
Letby: "I don't know how the air got there. It's after Neopuffing."
She accepts the note as an account of what happened.
Letby is shown nursing notes made for the following day shift by a colleague. Letby agrees there are no signs Child G had a build-up of fluid or air from the notes made.
​ Sky News:
After Letby finished her shift, she returned to the neonatal unit later that day - she claims to sign some paperwork.
"You went to visit Child G didn't you?" Nick Johnson, the prosecution barrister, asks.
"I didn't visit Child G, no. I went to do what I needed to do," she says, adding that she was sorting some documentation.
"Were you looking for an opportunity to finish her off?" Mr Johnson asks.
"No," Letby says.
Mr Johnson asks Letby about a statement from Child G's father that, on 7 September, she was no longer the same baby.
"I can't comment on that," Letby says - saying that nobody knows their own child like the parents.
​ Chester Standard: ​

Child G, 2nd Charge

Mr Johnson refers to the second bout of vomiting on September 21, 2015. Letby said she thought she recalled the mother was there as it was during visiting time.
Letby had said she did not believe it was an emergency, and did not recall Child G "going blue".
Asked if she agrees with Child G's father that Child G was "not the same" after the first deterioration, Letby replies: "I can't comment on that, nobody knows their babies like the parents do."
Mr Johnson asks why Letby was giving Child G the 9.15am feed on September 21.
Letby: "She wasn't awake and she was due her immunisations."
Letby says, "feeding wise", she had no concerns with Child G. She said there was an ongoing issue with Child G's low temperature.

For that September 21 day shift, the court is shown the rota, and Lucy Letby was the designated nurse for Child G that day in room 4, along with two other babies.
Lucy Letby was also responsible for a fourth baby 'rooming in with parents'.
NJ: "Did it annoy you that you were in nursery room 4?"
LL: "Not at all."
Mr Johnson says that Letby, when giving evidence, aspirating can interrupt digestion. Letby said when fully aspirating, that can happen.
She tells the court on this occasion, NGT feeds would be preferable for babies receiving immunisations as they can be quite unwell after them and may need rest.

The court is shown a feeding chart for Child G. A 40ml feed of expressed breast milk was given at 9.15am, signed by Letby.
After the feed, there were 30ml 'two projectile milk vomits', Letby noted. Child G also had a large bowel motion, 'loose, watery green', and there was a 'review by Drs'. The note is signed by Letby. She says she cannot recall which doctors carried out the review from that note.
The 9am reading is recorded on the observation chart for the temperature. Mr Johnson suggests there are two 'dots' in that column recording temperatures. Letby says she cannot recall what the line is below the dot.
NJ: "Did you go back and cook the charts to make it look like [Child G] was declining?"
LL: "No."
Letby says both dots are "in the normal range".
Letby: "I haven't misdocumented anything." Two dots are recorded in the 3am column [when Letby was not on shift], and Letby suggests someone else has misdcoumented.

Letby's notes for that day are shown to the court.
They include... 'at 1015 x2 large projectile milky vomits, brief self resolving apnoea and desaturation to 35% with colour loss. NG tube aspirated - 30mls undigested milk discarded. Abdomen distended, soft. Drs asked to review. Temperature remains low, tachycardiac >18bpm since vomit.'
Mr Johnson says it's "not an innocent coincidence" that Child G deteriorated one hour after being fed by Letby.
Letby: "Yes it is."
Letby is asked to look at her defence statement. It included: "I did not shout for help as I did not think this was an emergency."
Letby is asked if she sought to minimise what had happened. LL: "No."
Mr Johnson refers to Dr Peter Fielding's note. It says: "[Child G] had an episode @~10.20 where she had 2 projectile vomits witnessed by nursing staff...nurse called for help."
Letby denies 'minimising' events, saying this was a "self-correcting" event for Child G.

Letby sent in a text to her work colleague: '...looked rubbish when I took over this morning and then she vomited at 9 and I got her screened'
Mr Johnson says that text has two lies in it. Letby accepts she got the time wrong but says she was not asked about Child G's colour. Mr Johnson says Child G was doing well.
Mr Johnson shows a nursing colleague's note from the previous night shift and Letby's nursing note from that day shift. "Any suggestion [Child G] was looking 'rubbish'?"
Letby says Child G looked 'pale', but didn't use "rubbish", in clinical notes.
Letby denies deliberately falsifying times or making up negative observations for Child G.
Letby denies "passing off responsibility to other people", as suggested by Mr Johnson.
NJ: "In fact, you are the person causing all these problems."
LL: "No I'm not."

Child G, charge 3

Mr Johnson asks Letby to look at her defence statement for the 3.30pm incident for Child G.
Letby said she looked round the screen and saw Child G's monitor was off, she was alone, and behind the screen.
Mr Johnson asks if that was correct.
Letby: "Yes."
The statement adds Letby wanted the matter of Child G being left alone on the procedural trolley behind the screens by a doctor ["to be reported" seems to be missing from Chester Standard], but a nursing colleague did not want to report this.
Letby agrees it was "an innocent coincidence" that she was the only nurse in the room at this time.
Mr Johnson said Letby had told in evidence that Letby was preoccupied with other babies in the room she was caring for, while doctors tried to cannulate Child G behind screens "for some time".

The court is shown a neonatal schedule for Child G and other babies for September 21. Letby is recorded as having three duties for other babies in the 90 minutes prior to Child G's collapse. One of the three events was for a differently designated nurse's baby in room 2.
Letby says that does not mean she was not preoccupied with the babies, and may have been dealing with their families or other duties.
Letby is asked about the event and her looking behind the screen, that Child G was 'dusky, blue and not breathing'.
Letby is asked if that was true. "Yes."
Letby agrees she picked Child G up, put her in a cot and Neopuffed her. She says the Neopuff equipment would not stretch to the trolley.
A nursing colleague "froze" and went to get a separate nursing colleague.
Letby said, in evidence, she was "very concerned" by what had happened.
Mr Johnson says one thing not mentioned in the defence statement was Letby moving Child G from the trolley to the cot. He asks why Letby had not mentioned that. Letby says she cannot say.
Mr Johnson says Letby "took advantage of a situation that presented itself". Letby: "No."

Mr Johnson says when the cannulation process was taking place, Letby must have been in the room. Letby says she would not have been there all the time.
One of the charts is shown for a baby that Letby was looking after, with the chart requiring readings that took 'about 5 minutes' to make.
Letby says she was "in and out of the nursery all day", on activities that did not require being cotside. She says she does not recall "at any point" being told by doctors they had finished with the cannulation process for Child G.
Letby says it would have been "up to the doctors" to remove the screens and make sure Child G was safely back in her cot following the cannulation.

Child H

Mr Johnson moves on to the case of Child H. Letby says she does recall Child H, due to the chest drains that were put in place.
Letby said chest drains had to be couriered from Arrowe Park Hospital, as it was "unacceptable" they didn't have sufficient supplies at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Mr Johnson asks if Letby filled in a Datix form for that. Letby says she does not recall.
Letby is asked about the text message she sent to Yvonne Griffiths on September 26, 2015 about the "not so positive comments that have been made recently", with regard to Letby and colleague Shelley Tomlins working in room 1, over their relative lack of experience.
Letby says she cannot recall which nurses, specifically, had been making those comments, but they were band 6 nurses. Letby agrees this message followed events for Child H.
Mr Johnson refers to the staffing rota for September 25-26. Letby says it was not the night staff who were making the comments. Mr Johnson asks if it was the day staff, why did they allocate Child H to Letby? Letby replies the comments had come in recent days prior to this.
Letby, in her defence statement, questioned how familiar the doctors were with chest drains.
Letby, when questioned on this, says this would be non-consultants.
In her defence statement, Letby said she could not recall the specific details of Child H's collapses.

Letby is asked to refer to her defence statement, in which she said her memory for both nights when Child H's collapses "merged into one". Letby added she was also looking after a severely disabled baby.
Letby now accepts the disabled baby was born later in the shift.
Letby tells the court staffing levels were not a contributory factor in Child H's collapses.
Letby said she would "question whether the [chest] drains were securely put in" for Child H, as a potential contributory factor in Child H's collapses.
Letby accepts Child H was born in a good condition, and that she recovered quickly.
She tells the court she cannot comment on her interpretation of the security of the chest drains, from her observations.
From Sky News:
Letby has previously said she was looking after "another severely disabled baby" at the time Child H first collapsed.
But paperwork from the unit shows the severely disabled baby in question was born later in the shift.
When asked if medical incompetence contributed to the infant's collapse, Letby says she is not sure.
But she says she questions "if some of the drains were securely put in".
Nick Johnson, for the prosecution, asks: "Do you agree that Child H was born in good condition?"
"I can't comment on that," Letby replies.
Medical notes shown to the court indicate this was the case.
Court is adjourned for the day
submitted by FyrestarOmega to lucyletby [link] [comments]

2023.05.23 20:15 qthistory A puzzling tale of 3 chest x-rays

A tale of 3 chest x-rays, my doctor is puzzled. I have a follow up with him again next month.
52M, obese, hypothyroidism, hypertension, slightly elevated cholesterol (120 LDL), GERD, mild asthma. Taking levothyroxine, losartan, atorvastatin, lansoprazole, and Symbicort.
What's confusing my doctor is:
a) the jump from perfectly clear x-ray in #1 to x-ray #2 being "no change" but also finding "Chronic perihilar infiltrates." How can something be both no change from a perfectly clear x-ray but also note an abnormal finding that wasn't on the previous film?
b) the jump from concluding "no active process" in x-ray #2, to then saying that my existing active process was slightly increased on x-ray #3.
X-ray #1 was read by one radiologist who then moved elsewhere, with #2 and #3 read by the radiologist who replaced him. My doctor suspects that the current radiologist is straining to find things that are really not significant.
Dr. Google of course puts heart failure at the top of the results, but I had a stress test and stress echocardiogram in December 2021 (at the time of x-ray #1), and an ecg and treadmill stress test 7 weeks ago in March 2023. All normal.
Thoughts on interpreting these x-ray results, anyone? Thanks in advance.
submitted by qthistory to AskDocs [link] [comments]

2023.05.23 17:10 Allstajacket [QUESTION] Preparing cover tunes. Do you make charts or cheat sheets?

Hi there!
I’m a drummer, but dabble in guitar a bit. I’d like to be able to play the guitar for some songs in the future with my band for fun to change things up, but also I’d like to help my bandmates develop the best practices. In the drum world, charts (short-hand notes) are a big thing and I’m currently learning how to make them efficiently. (Previously I would just use sheet music.)
Is it similar for guitar? Do you guys use charts or make short-hand notes for songs?
What do your charts look like? Would you be willing to share examples?
Thanks in advance! 🤘🤘🤘
submitted by Allstajacket to Guitar [link] [comments]

2023.05.21 22:18 pjlee01 Rotten regulators (the Bar Standards Board and the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries) and what needs to be done about it

Rotten regulators (the Bar Standards Board and the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries) and what needs to be done about it

The Bar Standards Board (BSB)

There seems to be clear evidence that the Bar Standards Board is currently a rotten regulator (2023)
You will see below that the Bar Council admits that the BSB has lost the confidence of the profession and the public.
There are at least 4 cases where the BSB's behaviour towards barristers has been highly questionable.

BSB v Sarah Phillimore (SP)

Sarah is a family law barrister who (like the vast majority of women, and many men, including me) is gender critical, including the belief that sex is immutable.
She has faced repeated concerted attacks by trans rights activists, including reporting her to the police (who eventually agreed that the complaints had no merit) and the BSB.
Far from defending her against what clearly appear to have been politically motivated attacks, the BSB supported the trans rights activists (in the first of many instances of the BSB displaying bias).
See .
The BSB initially complained about 27 tweets but after a response by SP reduced that list to 3. As SP demonstrated, it was impossible for members of the public to distinguish those 3 from the other 24. So the BSB's complaint was ludicrous, thereby bringing it (and barristers by extension, since the BSB claims to act to protect their reputation) into disrepute.
Furthermore the BSB eventually conceded that none of those 3 breached professional standards.
Ms Phillimore also credibly accuses the BSB of bias (something that other barristers also accuse it of, and supply credible evidence for):
"That such a case study would be presented by the BSB as a ‘helpful’ example is perhaps less of a mystery when I look at the questions asked regarding diversity and equality at the end of the consultation response which demonstrate quite clearly where the BSB finds itself in promotion of ‘gender identity’ ideology."

Allison Bailey (AB)

Allison is a black lesbian criminal defence barrister who is also gender critical. After tweeting in support of the LGB Alliance, like SP, she also faced concerted attacks by political opponents, including Stonewall and barristers within her own chambers, Garden Court (GCC). An employment tribunal ruled last year that GCC had discriminated against her.
Her witness statement shows that the BSB displayed bias, a disregard for conflicts of interest, poor judgement, and an astonishing view (that lesbians who objected to having sex with trans women were as morally at fault as white rugby players who refused to allow black players into apartheid era South African rugby!) in the role it played in the case:
From Allison Bailey's witness statement (the numbers below refer to numbered paragraphs in , the BSB seem to have taken no action against Prof [X] (who made comments that GC women found offensive) despite AB complaining about them to [Y], who is a member of the BSB Board. In contrast [Y] said AB's comments definitely breached BSB! (which turned out to be wrong).
546 "It was not until I read the Subject Access Request that I realised the full significance of the 14 December 2018 protected act. I realised at that point that it had led to the downturn in work I had received in 2019. Prior to that, I had known that I had received some pushback (including mainly from MB) and I had been aware of the hostility [Y] had shown me when I complained about [X]. "
331: GCC barrister who is also on BSB Board queries whether AB has breached BSB code: "At 08:28 on 24 October 2019 (Bundle Page 2017), [Y] wrote to the other two Heads of Chambers, the chief Executive and member of the communications team about me. He queried whether I had breached the BSB Code (he was a board member of the BSB) and whether I had unlawfully discriminated against any person. He had not read my tweets."
341: GCC barrister and BSB Board member making inaccurate/incorrect statements without evidence: "[Y] followed that up four minutes later at 13:15 by expressing concern that “this is damaging to our reputation” and asking whether he could confirm that they were investigating a complaint. He stated that “the suggestion that she may have breached the equalities Act [sic] is very serious” (Bundle Page 2059). I had not breached the Equality Act and it should have taken no more than a moment’s consideration to make this clear, as it is obvious that the Equality Act is not breached by comments on a matter of public interest on Twitter that have no bearing on any relationship covered by the Act or on any individual. However, the kneejerk reaction from Heads of Chambers was to lend immediate credence to this allegation, and respond to it by issuing a public statement about me, to which I return below. I do not believe that this would have happened had I not been gender critical and expressing my beliefs about sex, gender and the Stonewall agenda."
361 [Y] (BSB Board member) remaining involved in the process, despite clear conflict of interest/prejudice to AB's position in the event of her having to defend a complaint from BSB:
In that email, I also asked that [Y] should recuse himself, given his role on the BSB (Bundle Page 622-3). TB had raised this with me already (paragraph (339) above) and I was worried about it. I wrote: “Anything that is said in this process that BSB board members are involved in could prejudice any complaint I have to defend before the BSB. No discourtesy to him or anyone else is intended or implied”.
362 ([Y], a QC and BSB Board member - incorrectly as it turned out - prejudged the outcome of a potential BSB investigation, without AB having had any opportunity to defend herself)
The BSB also seemed not to care about conflicts of interest here.
"As set out below though, he continued to be involved, despite the ostensible position taken by Garden Court that he had recused himself. The other Heads of Chambers continued to keep him copied into correspondence (for example at Bundle Page 2121, but also generally). On 4 November 2019, he called MS to tell her that “of course” my actions were a breach of the BSB Code, a question that had been explicitly put to him by SH in his capacity as a member of the BSB Board (Bundle Page 2545). This was precisely the kind of conflict that I was seeking to avoid when I asked [Y] to recuse himself, which he understood when he agreed to do so."
In the course of the Allison Bailey v Stonewall and Garden Court Chambers, CMcG (former Vice Chair of the Bar Council's ethics committee, and put forward by the BSB to provide GCC with an opinion on Ms Bailey's tweets - again without asking Ms Bailey for her response! Although this seems to be more GCC's fault than CMcG's) infamously compared the general reluctance of lesbians to have sex with transwomen (the "cotton ceiling") to racism in South Africa under apartheid! (see

Dinah Rose KC (DR)

Political activists objected to DR acting for the Cayman Islands in a case about same-sex marriage legislation (see
The BSB had to apologise (twice) because of the poor way it had treated Ms Rose. As with Allison Bailey, it displayed prejudice and bias by only listening to one side of the story (see, emphasis added ):
The Bar Standards Board has taken no regulatory action against Dinah Rose KC, and has made no ruling against her. We apologise to Ms Rose if this has not been made sufficiently clear. The letter quoted in The Times did not include any discussion of rC28, as the report received referred to another rule in the Handbook. The BSB accepts that both are relevant. In any event the BSB did not find Ms Rose to have been “reckless” or to have acted inappropriately. The BSB accepts that, before reviewing its original decision and in the circumstances of this case, it would have been appropriate to have invited Ms Rose to comment on the review. It apologises to Ms Rose for its failure to do so, and has commenced a review of its processes for the future.
This led to this stinging criticism of the BSB (see, emphasis added)

The BSB’s handling of the complaint against Dinah Rose was unacceptable and inexcusable. It is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of fairness to ever issue a decision document to a complainant which is critical of a barrister without providing the barrister with an opportunity to be heard or to comment.
“The BSB is failing to meet its performance indicators for the exercise of its regulatory functions. It is dealing with cases much too slowly. The BSB must now concentrate on its core responsibility of investigating allegations of professional misconduct in a timely and accurate manner, and do so in a way that conforms to the elementary principles of natural justice which were overlooked in this case.
“The BSB has undertaken to review its own processes. This must be a transparent and ‘root and branch’ review of process if the BSB is to regain the confidence of the profession and the public.

Jon Holbrook (JH)

In yet another case where the BSB took sides in online political disputes, the BSB first acted irregularly (breaching its own rules about confidentiality), see
The BSB then tried to avoid having to justify in public its decision to sanction a perfectly reasonable tweet. (The tweet defended freedom of speech against an Islamist who -in the context of a history teacher having just been beheaded - was making the implicit threat that civil war would happen in France unless Charlie Hebdo was shut down. Charlie Hedbo is the magazine at which 12 members of staff were murdered by terrorists, 11 people were injured, and 4 Jewish people were shortly afterwards murdered at a nearby supermarket.)
The BSB quite rightly lost that fight (to keep the public away from the hearing) and then (again quite rightly) lost the appeal and Mr Holbrook was vindicated - for a second time, in fact arguably for a third time given the BSB's attempt to keep the hearing secret.
JH is now suing the BSB , see for discrimination and harassment.
He sets out further credible accusations of bias by the BSB:
They started following his personal Twitter account, but not his professional account.
Since 2019 the BSB has supported the celebration of "Pride", a political movement.
The BSB have published numerous documents that address the issue of Diversity, as it arises under the UK Equality Act, but not a single one that recognises "philosophical belief" as a protected characteristic.
The BSB Board member involved in the Allison Bailey case played an active role in Mr Holbrook being expelled from his Chambers (unfairly, because the tweet complained about - "stroppy teenager of colour"- was found by the BSB not to have breached any rules). The BSB said that the Board member's actions were ok because he had acted in a personal capacity: once again, the BSB showed a lack of respect for conflicts of interest. As Mr Holbrook points out, this was also double standards by the BSB: they exonerated their Board member because he had acted in a personal capacity, but brought a complaint against Mr Holbrook, who was also acting in a personal capacity.
The BSB took action against Jon Holbrook, Allison Bailey, Joanna Toch, Sarah Phillimore, and mistreated Dinah Rose but there is no evidence of the BSB taking similar action against anyone of a left-wing or woke persuasion.
Mr Holbrook's case (bolstered by the BSB's defeats -twice - in its complaints against him, and by its climbdown against Sarah Phillimore), is that the BSB misstated the law in its Social Media Guidance of 2019 to 2022. In 2022, the BSB was forced - as a result of Mr Holbrook's successful appeal against it, see paragraphs 45 and 46 of - to issue revised guidance that complied with the actual law, as opposed to the BSB's previous - clearly faulty - interpretation of the law.

Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (FoA)

There seems to be clear evidence that the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries is currently a rotten regulator (2023)
The IFoA:
Has defended (and continues to defend) wife beating, Female Genital Mutilation, child marriage, sexual slavery (and hence rape) against criticism. (By claiming - in a disciplinary case that it is pursuing against me, that is remarkably similar to the one that the BSB lost against Mr Holbrook - that such criticisms, although made in a personal capacity, fail to "show respect for others").
As a result is a hostile environment for girls/women, ex Muslims, Jews, Christians, free thinkers, humanists and atheists.
Has been misleading students, employers and universities for years about how long students take to complete its exams, and hiding that a very high proportion (at least 30%) dropout (never complete the exams) (see
Turned a blind eye to plagiarism in its own magazine (see
Says it is too busy to respond about allegations of widespread cheating in its exams (
Boasts about having improved its website, when the said website still has a terrible search facility and repeatedly crashes on exam results (and even booking) days.
Misled its members in its recent consultation about proposed changes to its Actuaries' Code (see
Has repeatedly refused to be transparent about how it operates its exam system, thus amplifying suspicions that it operates a hidden quota system.
Removed integrity from its list of values. (In the light of the above, I have to say: "this really shows".)

What can be done about such regulators?

What can be done about such regulators, whose behaviour is clearly letting down not just the professionals they claim to sit in judgment over, but the public?
As can be seen both from:
• the BSB's reluctance to defend its policies in public (as in their failed attempt to get Mr Holbrook's appeal hearing to be held in private), and
• the IFoA's proposed change to its disciplinary process (under which accused actuaries may not publish any details of the accusations against them * - the very policy which led to such a miscarriage of justice in the Post Office scandal, in which at least 555 convictions were declared unsafe or unlawful - had the victims known that so many were accused, the true reason for the problem: software errors would have been very obvious. See
a large part of the solution has to be exposing the regulator's dubious behaviour in public forums. As is commonly said:
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
[Note \: quite frankly, the IFoA's gagging order on future accused members is appalling, and IFoA members were very misguided in not asking the IFoA to remove this during the vote last year.]*
Given that there is a significant power imbalance between the BSB and barristers, and the IFoA and actuaries, most of the work of speaking up (incidentally a professional responsibility for actuaries, but one which the IFoA signally fails to follow itself) falls to members of the public. That can of course include actuaries (and other non barristers) speaking up on behalf of barristers, and barristers (and other non IFoA members) speaking up on behalf of IFoA members.
I echo the Chair of the Bar's stinging criticism of the BSB: what are they going to do to regain the confidence of the profession and the public?
And (as a former member of the IFoA): what will the IFoA do to address the above criticisms?
If you agree that these regulators are behaving poorly, please join me in calling publicly for significant and credible improvement. If not, please explain why.
submitted by pjlee01 to Actuary_news [link] [comments]

2023.05.21 06:11 whyohwhy115 2023 SUGA Agust D Tour ‘D-Day’ Megathread Pt. 2

Hello everyone!
The last tour thread was getting thicc (almost 10k comments!) so we’re creating a new one to kick off the Asia leg of the tour!
Information for the 2023 SUGA - Agust D ‘D-Day’ Tour will be collected and organized here. Unless new information is noteworthy enough to need a new post, please use this thread for concert discussion and questions.


Meet up Thread

Tour Announcement

Information Regarding On-site Sales of Official Merchandise at the East Coast Concerts

Information Regarding On-site Sales of Official Merchandise at the Mid-West and West Coast Concerts

Official Merch 🇺🇸 U.S limited on-site only merch

JAKARTA Official Merchandise Sales Notice






Click for concert information including times, seat charts, and bag policies.



City Advice Threads



Japan Prices

  • Assigned Seats
    • ARMY Membership (GLOBAL/USA) Advance Tickets: 15,400 Yen (VAT included)
    • General Tickets: 16,500 Yen (VAT included)
  • VIP Seats (Upgrade Tickets)
    • Only for ARMY Membership (GLOBAL/USA) raffle: 26,400 Yen (VAT included)
    • Assigned Seats 15,400 Yen + Upgrade Tickets 11,000Yen


  • Standard tickers: 5,800 / 6,000 / 5,500 / 4,500 / 3,500 / 2,500 Baht
  • VIP Package: 6,200 Baht


  • VIP SEATED: $348
  • CAT 1 STANDING: $288
  • CAT 2: $288
  • CAT 3: $248
  • CAT 4: $198
  • CAT 5: $168
  • CAT 6: $168 (Restricted View)
Info to be added as it becomes available
submitted by whyohwhy115 to bangtan [link] [comments]

2023.05.20 23:17 aowshadow Rereading the Frame, part 11

That did take me a while to work out.
Welcome to Rereading the Frame, a punctual series impervious to ethical scrutiny.
I’m done. Everything points out to me shitting the worst episode of all ti-WAIT! STOP THE PRESSES! New maps!!!
This gives me renewed energy: fasten your seatbelts guys, we’ll proceed full force.
Onwards, like the Titanic!


Chapters 71 and 85
Kvothe goes chasing the wind, but finds a shipwreck instead. Then he saves the maer’s life, loses some tak games and sneaks Denna in a private club despite having the members’ card already.
Kote’s narration gets interrupted: the generous Mayor Lant wants to include his mistress in his will. To do that he squats the whole inn for half an hour, but mind, he won’t pay more than a penny. Bast tries to open Kvothe’s chest and fails. The threat of Celum Tinture still looms over the Fae princeling’s head.
Kvothe fights with Denna, gets fucked sideways by the maer and gets introduced to the magical world of bandits hunting.
The Bentleys visit the Waystone Inn. Bast refuses his paternity over little Ben. Collecting taxes proves to be the most hated job ever, even in a fantasy setting.

Details worth pointing out

The splendid mayor Lant
The only guy to ever negotiate prices in the Frame is… the richest guy in Newarre.minus Kote? I won’t lie to you: I wouldn’t hang out with Lant irl, but as a character I really like him. More on Lant later, after the details section.
The most worldly of you will think: “well, of course Lant is rich. Unlike the other characters, he just proved you that he takes money seriously.” Except Kote’s prices are actually fair. If you don’t want to check past episodes, just consider how Kote treats the Bentleys.
Red Gremsby
There’s no more Gremsby wine in the Waystone Inn. I find this a little mystery, because usually the Waystone Inn is as supplied as it gets. Kote says it’s because of the roads, and that could very well be another of Rothfuss’ reminders of the Frame’s grim situation.
But I also I like to think that Gremsby isn’t… that much of a wine.
Hear me out: WMF 17 told us that barrel whiskey (the best Kote has) costs a penny a swallow. Lant won’t pay more than a penny for a glass of wine, which tells us that Gremsby is supposed to be quality wine.
However… we already saw in the Foundation what quality wine is, and Kvothe did too. For example, at the maer, Kvothe had his personal wine cabinet. And at the Eolian he could taste wines from all over the Four Corners. Here are all the wines Kvothe knows about:
-Grape pomace wine (poor quality – here only on a technicality)
-Ruh wine (given they have no land I find it impossible for them to have a specific variety, but I want to note it nevertheless)
-Spiced wine (Tarbean – generally poor wine)
-Fallows red (Skarpi’s choice – quality unknown)
-Deep red wine (different unnamed varieties)
-Honey wine
-Cerbeor wine (Aturan, pale pink)
-Avennish wine (fruit wine, sweet and light)
-Black wine (from Shalda mountains)
-Velegen wine
-Feloran wine (dark and fine – it shows up multiple times, possibly Vintish?)
-Vintish wine (a true luxury)
Here in Newarre, however, Kote doesn’t have Gremsby. But he has at least three wine varieties: “Old wine, smooth and pale”(possibly Cerbeor?), the famous strawberry wine (possibly Avennish?) and the one he gives to Lant.
Logic wants Kote to have at least a fourth one, affordable for everyone, but the text doesn’t mention it. Possibly a fifth one if the wine from WMF 136 isn’t the same he gave to Lant. Logic wants it to be different, since Kvothe took Lant’s glass of wine from the kitchen.
Anyways: I cannot confirm it and maybe it’s just my personal opinion, but I like to think Gremsby is not something spectacular, but rather a low-medium quality local wine. AKA Mayor Lant doesn’t know much about real wines.
Aowshadow, mind a question?
Sure, why not-
Is it called Rereading the Frame or Rereading all the Wines in KKC? Is this your indirect way to tell us you’ve got a problem? AKA: are you finally done talking about wine for today?
…not yet
Here’s a curiosity: dark wine never equals to something good for Kvothe. Remember when he gets drunk after fighting with Denna? When he gets alchemically poisoned? When he eavesdrops Denna’s tragedy?
Kvothe vs Kote: cards
In some past episodes I already talked about how most of the times, whatever Kote does (or doesn’t) in the Frame is a dark mirror of what Kvothe was used to do in the Foundation. Here we see another example with the fake card game. Foundation Kvothe was an avid card player, and enjoyed playing with his friends. He was quite of a card shark too. For example, in Vintas he had no problems emptying Baronet Bramston’s pockets with some Faro games.
But here in the Frame? Cards are just a tool for Kote’s act, and he never plays with them.
Imagine Kvothe playing and drinking with his friends at the Eolian, between some laughter, crowd noise, music all over the place and the occasional listener buying him a drink. And why not, the occasional Denna cameo.
Kote, instead? Look at him, in the most silent Inn in miles and miles, zero friends except for some clients that don’t even believe him (Aaron), that misread his old self completely (Old Cob) or misread his current self (Bast). The only remaining guy holds Kvothe’s story hostage and is more interested in some stupid trial records than what Kote wants to talk about. The only toast? To a poor soul who died last night.
Here, music is no occasion for fun. Nor is alcohol (check Bast’s behavior at the beginning and end of WMF), nor is chatting, mostly about the terrible events happening all around. It makes sense that cards aren’t an occasion for fun either.
Unrelated: Faro is supposed to be a game that rewards probability calculus (something a University student like Kvothe would like), but I also wonder if Denna taught Kvothe some card tricks from time to time. It wouldn’t surprise me the slightest, given he took from her the hidden knife trick, for example.
Brass key
Another reminder from Rothfuss that keys and locks in this inn are a bit strange. Worth reminding that this is a brand new info from WMF, since in NoTW there’s no mentions about it.
Kvothe vs Kote: rumors and secrets
In the Foundation, Kvothe knows a lot of secrets, and pays close attention to rumors, especially whenever he is at some inn. In the Frame, Kote doesn’t even know about… the worst kept secret in the village.
The Lightning Tree
Widow Creel and Old Lant are also mentioned in TLT, so we’ll see them again at the end of this reread.
The puzzle lesson
We can see Kote proving that he didn’t forget his times with Abenthy, because now he’s pulling out a full Ben teaching experience. Notice the game/challenge aspect of the lesson, and even questions about lateral thinking (“what would you do if something knocked back?”).
I wonder if Rothfuss took inspiration for this teaching method from personal experience of from Richard Feynman. I mean, given Rothfuss’ study curriculum, I refuse to believe he doesn’t know Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!
Speaking of Feynman, any of his videos is worth watching. But since you are here exclusively for KKC…
Actually I am only here because you owe me money.
…SINCE YOU ARE HERE EXCLUSIVELY FOR KKC, concerning Feynman I am sure you’ll appreciate this.
Celum Tinture
The amount of mentions make the dreadful book a Cekhov Gun, more than a recurring joke. Not surprising that Kvothe, ‘not good with alchemy’, keeps an alchemic book in the Waystone Inn. Today we also learn about some of the stuff he keeps in the basement!
Btw: we all remember that Celum Tinture shows up even in the Foundation and in The Lighting Tree, right?
I didn’t bother checking, but I wonder if Celum Tinture gets even more mentions than the Book of the Path. Given it’s the only study book that gets mentions both in and outside of the Frame besides obviously The Mating Habits of the Common Draccus… more than wondering if something’s up, I wonder what is up.
About names
We all call it the thrice-locked Chest, but I had forgot that the name comes from Bast. Kote says the name is fine, but that doesn’t make it necessarily true.
Speaking of another name, Kote calls himself Kvothe the Bloodless. How curious.
NoTW is clear: Kvothe has many names, bought and paid for them. Why calling himself the Bloodless instead of Kingkiller?
Case 1: he likes Bloodless. Not a surprise: Bloodless evokes his unbending nature in face of injustice, and may remind him of one of the very few good things he actually made, aka the Arrowcatch.
Case 2: he dislikes Kingkiller. Given his reaction when Aaron was talking at the start of WMF, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Case 3, the crackpot one: he doesn’t use Kingkiller because he didn’t kill any king, but just took the blame. After all, isn’t this series about creating expectations and then pulling the carpet from under our feet?
Bast knows what pirates are
That’s not a given!
Getting older
Plunder the chest, crack the chestnut… guess Kote has truly become older. He’s never been stranger to puns, but once he was sharper. Seriously, this kind of shitty puns belonged to Sim, not Kvothe!
Here we see some grammarie in action, although it fails. I promised you in the past that we’ll look at all those instances in a single episode, and so it will happen. Worth pointing out that IF all faen and human magical disciplines are a way to come closer to Naming, here we see copper doing his shenanigans once again.
Bent wire, prybar… these are not tools for the assistant of an innkeeper. This stuff came from before Newarre. Worth noting that these tools come from Basts’s room, not Kvothe’s.
Bast’s prybar is made of a “bright metal”. I bet ha’penny it’s not made of iron, for obvious reasons.
Note: Bast doesn’t use the famous Edro technique because Kvothe’s story has yet to reach that point!
Over 400 pounds
Clear evidence that Bast and Kvothe are strong? These two guys managed to move the chest upstairs. Given the display of strength by Kote in early NoTW, I guess he was the one on the bottom-side of the stairs, given that’s the heaviest side.
An inquisitive mind would ask: “why did the chest have to be moved upstairs, especially since there’s no way to open it, nor steal it unless you have a bulldozer?”
Strange, soft, ringing noise
like a padded bell being struck in a distant room.
When Bast’s hatchet gets stopped by “something”, a muffled sound can be heard. That seems to rule out something like the warding stones from WMF 146, since those made no sound. Chances are, an improved version of the arrowcatch is involved. That would also explain why the chest weights so much, although over 400 pounds it’s the weight of the empty chest. But the protection device could be built in the chest itself, like the locks.
The other instances when iron striking/being struck by something and producing a bell-like sound I can recall are: 1 Tehlu striking Encanis.; 2 Aaron striking the skindancer; 3 Kvothe shattering an iron sword with sympathy in WMF 131 (although that’s a different case).
But Bast’s hatchet is not made of iron, supposedly.
Possible play on words
He (Bast) looked at the chest, large as a gentleman’s traveling trunk.
Would that make Kote a gentleman? Beware of his anger, then!
Since I’ve talked about wine…
…let’s talk about acids as well, LOL.
Muriatic and formic exist, but so does Aqua Regius, although under a slightly different name.
According to Wikipedia it is “a mixture of nitric acid and hydrochloric acid, optimally in a molar ratio of 1:3.[b] Aqua regia is a fuming liquid. Freshly prepared aqua regia is colorless (…) It was named by alchemists because it can dissolve the noble metals gold and platinum, though not all metals.”
By the way,
“We have some potent stuff downstairs”.
Mh, finally some mention about something kept in the basement. For the time being, let’s add it to the Waytone Inn catalogue!
Crumpled sheets
In NoTW, we learnt that Kvothe’s memoir was crumpled. Here welearn there’s crumpled sheets. In WMF 151 we’ll learn it’s three sheets in total. I think Kote telling Bast to leave the crumpled page on the floor, to then picking it up in WMF 151 is only due to narrative effect. Ending WMF 71 like that works well.
Bast offers his chair to Hap
This is a little nice touch that I like. It’s not something he’d usually do. Notice that when Lant came in the Inn, Bast stood there at the table. He had to be hushed upstairs.
Little trick from Rothfuss that immediately directs the reader to side with the unluckiest family in Newarre. Again, like in Lant’s case, we’ll talk more about these characters later.
Remember Aaron being a young daydreamer in WMF 2?
The Bentleys were part of his wishful thinking. Aaron believed that if he took the Penitent King’s coin some things would stop happening. Needless to be said, he’s wrong on all accounts.
1 Things will start get better again - False. The whole Frame is about the world being on fire due to Kvothe – things are NOT going to get better.
2 The levy taxes will stop – LOL. How does Aaron think the King is paying him the royal?
3 The roads will be safe again – No. Roads are never safe: bandits have existed, exist and will always exist. Also… introducing the new feature: “ScraelTM - courtesy of Kvothe the Eternal Fuckup!” Free trial for those wandering outside Newarre at night!
4 The Bentleys won’t lose their land – Sure. And I am going to get blown by all my exes at the same time, while their current men cheer for me. What’s next Aaron, Book 3 gets published? Frame 12 is going to show up on time?
The Bentleys are fucked, period. No amount of Kote’s little help will save them. It will help, but that’s it. WMF 85 is quite clear on the subject.
Aaaaaah! Woman alert! I repeat, woman alert!
Just when I was about to think that the Waystone Inn was a members-only sausage festival, here we find a rare example of named female in the Frame. And not only she has a name, but she’s actually here, on scene! Aren’t you scared? Brrr… this is scary stuff!
Jokes aside: did this lack of characters bother me? No. But after some repeated online criticism, it bothered Rothfuss: according to the man himself, if he could redo it all, he’d put some girls in the Waystone Inn. And so he did, halfway of WMF. It makes sense that Hap doesn’t have any lines of dialogue. I mean…
What has Mary written to Bast? It’s either private correspondence we have no hints about, or possibly commissions, given that sometimes Bast is supposed to do errands for Kvothe outside of Newarre. But Mary’s as poor as it gets and has been in financial troubles for at least a year, so this doesn’t make much sense. Unless TLT or Book 3 shine some light, this will stay a mystery.
Shades on Abbe Grimes
Emphasis on that “probably” Kote throws in. Unrelated for the sake of this reread, but finding a modern fantasy author who doesn’t shit on Christian-like clergy is impossible.
As far as we know Grimes is a decent sort of fellow (I mean, if Bast of all people is shocked!), but there’s an underlining mistrust from Kvothe and obviously the author. The fact that the Bentleys are presented as positive as it gets is not unintentional, imo. Notice how the emphasis is quickly moved from Grimes to the organization he represents. While on one side Kote has every reason to resent the Tehlin cult… I think it’s also on Rothfuss, given that Bast immediately “understands” without objecting.
About last wills
Rothfuss is right: testaments make beasts out of humans. I’ve never been in a testament reading that didn’t come down to knife fighting.
When I die, I want my belongings to be put in a septic tank and have my heirs pit-fighting inside the tank while wearing bikinis. Everyone will be free to enter The Grand Battle Royale (that’ll be the name of the contest), as long as they pay the price of admission: snorting part of my ashes with a five euros bill.
KKC has a little peculiarity: widows beat widowers 4 to 1, stories excluded (not that stories change much, actually they favor the widows team!). This would be easily explained if there were recent conflicts, but except for the rebellions against the Penitent King (that’s how Widow Creel got her status? I mean, if she’s that hot, she’s young) there doesn’t seem to be that much war around.
Temerant’s situation in the Frame is on the verge of precipice, not in the abyss already.
You see what young men like Aaron do?
Well, that could be a reason why girls outlive boys. But what about some Adem widowers? Mysteries, mysteries…

Why have I the feeling that you still need to say something.
So: wine, hot suffering widows… that’s what you’re about today? That’s the kind of reread you provide to the community?
Hell no my friend, this is a classy reread! Therefore, let’s move on something cleaner: let’s talk about toilets.
The dirty business
Mary wants to take little Syl to the restroom. The restroom door is near the stairs. This makes no sense.
1 Newarre has no sewers, as far as we know. Nothing points towards that direction, and for many good reasons. Sewers are one of the last things to come to the countryside, where you can do your business… well, everywhere.
2 Upstairs, in Chronicler’s room, there’s a chamber pot. Thinking about it, there’s also chamber pots in Ambrose’s supercalifragimodernexperalidocious inn room. The maer, and I repeat the fucking maer has a chamber pot. If anything, the fact that pipes for warm water exist in the maer’s mansion is a wonder of modernity. But chamber pots are for when you cannot go outside, and nothing more.
Why on Earth should Kote keep a toilet inside the inn when there’s countryside all around? If you really have to, put a bathroom outside, near the stables, and you’re set.
Doing otherwise is stupid. You don’t want to see the guy who cooks emptying the restroom's bucket right from where you eat! Unless you’re willing to let the entirety of the clients shit all day long and then empty the restroom only at the end of the day…
Unless Rothfuss pulls a Harry Potter on us and tells us that University Masters used to teleport their shits with sympathy, of course.
The only alternative explanation I have is that he needs gases or organic fuel to power whatever he’s doing in the Waystone Inn basement, but I don’t think Rothfuss would do that. If anything, because there would be readers who would go “he’s powering his trap with shit LOLOLOL”.
Mary trusts her little baby to Bast
And not to Kote.
I wonder if this is still an occurrence like in the Foundation, when girls can immediately tell that Kvothe’s not in for the long term, or if she sees a side of Bast we don’t see. More when we’ll read TLT. Let’s just say that with girls, Bast presents himself in a different way. Problem is, in 99% of the Frame we see him with men (always brief appearances), his Reshi or Chronicler.
I also wonder if that’s why Kote jokes with Bast about the paternity of the baby.
He’s blonde!
That’s Bast’s rebuttal. Not “I wouldn’t touch that girl”. Not “they are a good family”.
“He’s blonde,” that’s his first rebuttal.
I find it a bit funny, and telling both of Bast and his dynamic with his Reshi.
Little Ben calls Bast dog, which Bast doesn’t like. This doesn’t surprise us, given the text gives him cat-like connotations all the time.
The singsong chant to calm little Ben
A rare instance of Kvothe doing his theatrics for something positive and selfless. I really like this touch from Rothfuss, and I love that Kote does NOT actually calm the baby.
Except that Mary obviously offers a justification :’( But hey, we take whatever we can get.
I’m not sure if this was intentional on Rothfuss behalf (99% sure this is just wishful thinking: of course he was more interested in metric, wordplay and the scene with Bast) but I like to think that Kote’s singsong is a textbook example of one Kvothe’s two major flaws: hubris.
Why? Because the chant was working. But instead of just keeping it simple, Kote had to make it…more. He had to make it rhyme with a joke to his public (Bast) instead of focusing on calming little Ben. The song had to calm the baby, but also had to have perfect metric, but also had to make sense, and had to flex on Bast.
Remember Tintatatornin at the Eolian? Or whenever Kvothe speaks with the maer? Or… well, the almost entirety of The Kingkiller Chronicle? You can all sum it up here, in this little funny episode.
About prices
Coherently with all the Frame info, the Bentley accept the cheapest form of alcohol there is: pomace cider.
Oh no! Call the social services, he’s talking about alcohol again!
B-but! Anyways, It’s worth noting that the Bentley’s last will costs nearly as much as… Mayor Lant’s afternoon drink. And only because Chronicler gave them a discount the size of my dick: enormous (according to my mom).
Newarre may be a small poor town, but a gap between the likes of Old Cob and the Bentleys still exists. Mind: Old Cob wouldn’t buy whiskey from the tap (in WMF 17 he only accepted it because Kote offered a toast), but still he can afford pie and the daily drink.
The Bentleys? Make no mistake: when Mary reaches to pay for the cider, it’s not like she was really in for a drink. She’s basically paying the implicit ‘entrance ticket’ since Chronicler is in the Inn, exactly like Lant did. As Kote says, he hasn’t see the couple in “a long while”. No need to guess why.
Once again, evidence of Chronicler being sharp
I’ve been pestering you through all the reread about Chronicler noticing stuff and registering it in his brain without necessarily saying it out loud. This time, since it involves something else than Kvothe, Rothfuss shows it on page: Chronicler gifts the Bentleys a generous discount because he “has eyes” and remembered “the smith’s prentice words”.
I’m banking a castle on Chronicler pointing out something about Kvothe on Book 3. More on this in the next episode, because we will find another implicit evidence of Chronicler keeping his cards face down.
Unrelated: in the Foundation you don’t see how much paper costs, when Kvothe is at the University. Here you can finally have a price approximation!
About dresses and patches
I don’t remember where I theorized that Wil and Sim could be “paying” Kvothe via their cards game to help him out. In the same way, here Kote is “paying” the Bentleys by breaking his own fence and so on.
A possible evidence to support this headcanon (is it?) of mine would noticing two parallels: 1 both the Bentleys and Kvothe are too proud to ask for help 2 both dress in rags. Chronicler noted the Bentleys’ dresses on his own. You really think Wil and Sim never noted Kvothe’s? Come on.
Tangentially related, but Chronicler’s generosity shouldn’t be understated: not only he’s giving them a discount that makes him lose money, but he’s been robbed just few days ago.
Third levy
Let’s go to WMF 93 and notice that a lockbox of taxpayers money (if it really is tax money we’re talking about, because the Eld job to me looks shady as fuck), has over two hundred royals.
Assuming that’s a normal tax for the Foundation, here in the Frame we are talking about levy taxes by a group of guys friendly called bleeders.
How much money are they taking from people? And giving the third levy tax is going to come, how much have they taken already?! Well, the bleeders’ song gives us a hint about their methodology: they are as merciful as locusts.
Consider: if Carter takes the King’s coin he gets a royal. If you need to squash some rebels, 200 soldiers aren’t enough. Actually, the fact they are recruiting people for the third time is quite telling by itself.
Once again, an independent hand
At the end of WMF 85 one of Kvothe’s hands surprises Kote by being curled in a fist. This is not the first time that hand plays this kind of games.
Let’s test your drowsiness level: SLEEP CHECK! Quick: answer! Which hand are we talking about? Left or right? Past episodes already provided you some hints, and it ain’t over yet. More about this in future episodes. SLEEP CHECK OVER!
Play on words
Whenever in KKC Kvothe “looks, (…) a rueful smile on his face” you can bet that the word “Edema” has been mentioned or will be mentioned soon.
Possible foreshadowing
I’m keeping this one near the end because I didn’t want to start with crackpottery. When Kote decides for the puzzle lesson, he goes “Better yet, assume I am dead (…)”, to which Bast replies, GENTLY, “that’s a little grim, Reshi”.
And Kote fires back, without any hint of laughter in his voice “life is a little grim, Bast (…) You’d best start getting used to it.”
Here’s the crackpot: if Kote is a man waiting to die, and let’s say he can’t go past the doors of stone (aka sleeping, as we’ve seen already and as we’ll see in the future… or dying, and about that I’ll make something at the end of this reread), this whole exchange assumes a different connotation. It’s that “gently” adverb that should throws us off, because it prepares Kote’s almost brusque reply. Without that “gently”, it’s just Kote being grim as the Frame likes to portray him from time to time. But with that “gently”, Kote’s comment can be interpreted in multiple ways.
On a personal note
I love the little songs in WMF 85. I also like that while the first song presents a series of jobs and their summarization, the second one does the same but hammers again and again over the same concept: the bleeders’ job is to take, take, take until nothing’s left.
The two songs also contribute in bringing the morale down, making the tone bleaker.
Calling the genie
For once, Kvothe’s polishing the bar “absentmindedly” makes sense. Last time (WMF 46-47) the bar was used both for eating and drinking. Given Kote asks Lant if he wants something to eat, it makes sense the kitchen’s still open, which means the Inn hasn’t had its post-lunch cleaning session.
But we all know this is more about Rothfuss reminding us Kote’s habits than anything else.
The Edema don’t own property, as a rule.
Says the guy who calls himself Ruh to the bone. Now: of course he’s pretending to be someone else and cannot betray his true origins, but still this tells us that Kvothe is here for something really specific.

The people

I like WMF’s Frame. Newarre seems more choral, for lack of better words, and its denizens feel more alive than, let’s say, a Caleb from early NoTW.
I really like that Kote’s narration is interrupted by someone else’s menial necessities. This openly contrast with what will happen in next episode, where the narration will be interrupted by Bast’s shock (and by the author’s need for secrecy – this time the breaks are more due to flow than the necessity of withholding info).
It’s chart time!
[̲̅$̲̅(ツ)$̲̅] Mayor Lant [̲̅$̲̅(ツ)$̲̅] (ツ)ᕤ The Bentleys ᕦ(ツ)
Alone Altogether
Two secret sons (do they know he’s the father?) Two official sons
Negotiates on the price, and doesn’t get what he wants Get what they’d like for free, despite trying to pay
Fine clothes, embroidered jacket Worn-out clothes, patches and seams
Kote couldn’t care less about him (doesn’t even know Lant’s open secret) Kote actively tries to help them
Bast has to be removed to leave his chair Bast immediately gives his chair up
Drinks from glass Drink from cup
Rich As poor as it gets
Old All four of them are described as young
“Lant” can also mean “stale urine” “Bentley” can also be the dope ass “Continental GT V8”
I like mayor Lant. The same way I like the mayor from Sepúlveda’s The Old Man Who Read Love Stories, because both could use a beating in the parking lot, but as characters they make other people shine. This is doubly true in Arcadia Newarre, where everyone apparently lives in perfect harmony. Once Lant shows up, finally we learn that Widow Graden’s relatives were ready to skin each other over a music box, that despite Grimes being a decent fellow there’s someone who mouth behind his back (Kote) and of course there’s Lant himself.
Now that’s the countryside I know and can relate to! Bless you Lant for that, for bringing a ray of real life in an otherwise perfect rural town.
If any of you is missing the irony, remember that I know TLT paints another picture of Newarre as well. It’s the Frame’s nature to make everything in Newarre so partial and compartmentalized. There couldn’t be any other way, especially since Kote refuses to go out and socialize (think of Shep’s wake, for example).
Point is: Lant, fuck yeah. Finally we have an asshole in the Waystone, but not the kind of asshole who skins waymen and then comes at night to disembowel farmers. Nor those assholes hired by Bast. Lant is just a rich, stupid dude. And that’s perfect.
What? How can I tell you he’s stupid?
Because if you want some privacy, all you need to do is going to that table far away and lowering your voice tone, instead of acting theatrical, locking the inn’s door and having people go upstairs to then shout to make them come down. No wonder everyone knows his secrets, he doesn’t understand what keeping low profile means! Like… you see Kote and Bast hearing what the Bentleys are saying? No. Table’s far away, all you need to do is not screaming... Fuckin’ Lant, LOL


For the purposes of Frame 11, X is the Penitent King. I just recently considered how much his presence haunts the Frame, because while his nametitle shows up just few times, we still see his influence, be it direct or not. Mentions of rebels, Kvothe’s bounty, Aaron/Carter considering the idea of taking the King’s coin, and once again the levy taxes.
I don’t think we’ll get His Penitent Majesty visiting the Inn in Book 3, but His presence it’s still here. I can’t wait to read his reveal, although I’m 120% sure it’s Alveron.
I think the Penitent King’s role to be slightly more important than perceived: surely in the Foundation, but also in the Frame. Until the situation evolves, he’s the only real link we have with Kvothe’s past, given they seem to know each other (WMF 17).

Dark chest of wonders

Due to character limit, I’ll just say: Roah wood, resistant to fire and acid, precautions against naming (copper) and Fae (iron), multiple metals inside the lock gears, some sympathy (?) against blows, heavier than your mother. The locks are protected against picking, which is admirable in itself.
No hinges (it works with pressure?). Is the joke about something knocking back actually a joke? Possible correlation with Folly's mounting board beside the material? Unknown. What does it keep? The million talents question. Is it Kvothe's best work? Most likely. Where and how did he build it? This is worth a post on its own, sadly here I don't have enough character space :(
As you can guess, this was the last section I wrote. I guess I could do like in Frame 2 and continue in the comments section, but back then it looked like shit!
My initial plan was just skipping this section but then everyone of my two readers would have jumped at my throat screaming “you’d skip the fucking thrice-locked chest because all you want to talk about is toilets you fucking schizo rrraaahhh!”
And the answer is... yes. Problems?
Worry not: we check the chest in Frame 14.

Kote’s lies

Kote’s act in front of the major is quite evident. Normally he’d never wring his hands. Quite a stereotyped reaction, whom Lant pays no attention to.
I guess the broken fence too, although it’s business from the past.

Narrator shenanigans

Fair game this time. The POV does not immediately focus on Kvothe because Lant’s footsteps aren’t heard at first, which means that if there was a POV, it’d be Chronicler (also Kote disappears briefly in the kitchen).
Then it immediately focus on Kvothe rather than Bast (if Kvothe apologetically rests his hand on Bast’s knee, it’s clear the POV’s on him. Same as the end of the chapter, since it’s Kvothe who follows and closes the door). It can’t be Bast because he closes his eyes “as if he were listening”. Were it Bast POV, there wouldn’t be either “if” or “listening”.
In past chapters the POV’s transition was signaled by spacing on pages, or different paragraphs. In WMF 71, probably given the chapter’s short size, it happens seamlessly.
WMF 85 is all Kvothe, although it starts with a sort of global perspective. As said before, no tricks this time. Unsurprisingly. These two are transition chapters.
Worth pointing out that in both chapters it’s “Kvothe” unless he’s expressly acting as “Kote” with the new guests, but as said in the Bastpast I don’t believe that Rothfuss is following a precise rule, but rather he’s going with the flow. I strongly believe that the Kvothe/Kote switches aren’t always done coherently. By this point of the series I don’t even see it as a flaw anymore, it’s just a matter of fact. If and when the series ends, I’d like to do a retrospective over this stuff. Until then, I’ll believe there’s nothing to be drawn from these name switches. At least, not with consistency!

The nature of Frame interruptions

These two chapters are textbook intelligent breaks. WMF 71 breaks right after a romantic scene between Kvothe and Denna, and gives us just enough pages of chest puzzle to prepare for the turning point in the Foundation: Kvothe’s commission for the maer is going to end!
It’s anything but a surprise that WMF 72 immediately starts with “several days after” and basically tells us that the job for the maer is done. Because Rothfuss was playing a little trick. Guess what: WMF 71 was a break indeed, but not from Kvothe’s errands for the maer, but rather a necessary pause before the turning point with Denna.
The point is: WMF 71 is a necessary break and doesn’t outstay its welcome; it’s quick, nice, and right to the point; it breaks the tempo and gives us the necessary description of the thrice-locked chest, which we’ve seen since NoTW, and which will most likely show up at the end of Book 3.
The break from WMF 85, on a narrative standpoint, fits like a glove: by this point we’ve been with Kvothe’s party in the woods for nine chapters already. A narrative break is needed, especially because of the second part of Iax’s story. I don’t think Rothfuss could have done it without a Frame break unless he had to invent some new sub-adventure in the Eld, but by that point he had enough meat to cook all over the stoves.
But it also plays a trick. At least, imo.
Unlike 71, 85 doesn’t introduce any new plot element. It’s more a re-statement about how shit things are. Always welcome, especially in a five-paged short chapter that introduces some side characters mentioned since NoTW. That’s it. But it ends with a line about “what sort of dark desires lead a group of men to wait beside the road, killing tax collectors in open defiance of the king.”
And that leads us to immediately assume, chapters later, that Kvothe’s party found tax money. I’m not that sure about that. So to say, I think Kvothe’s party went searching for a dog and found a horse instead. Maybe I’ll make a separate post for this subject, since it’s outside of the Frame’s purposes. For the sake of this thread, let’s just say that despite rocking, WMF 85 adds absolutely nothing new. Given’s KKC otherworldly’s “textual ergonomics” it feels really strange. My tentative solution is: Rothfuss wanted 1 a girl in the Waystone Inn, 2 reminding us how shit things are and 3 pulling out a little misdirection.
I’m not able to translate in English how I feel about how Rothfuss treats words in KKC. There’s no space wasted, terms, metrics, word count (but also their length! Think of the prologues!) and phonetics are always calculated. That’s why WMF 85 seems a bit strange. Also, in good narrative, every scene does serve at least one between two purposes: it tells us something about the plot or about the characters. In this sense, WMF 85 is quite a cheapskate, and that’s why I suspect that some fuckery is involved.
You have no idea how much English language pisses me off, because what I’ve just wrote reads like a criticism while it’s not. Me right now :(((
Long story short: given how Rothfuss normally operates, I feel WMF 85 is playing some little narrative trick.

Geography and time notions

Nothing relevant, this time. FWIW It makes sense for Lant to come after lunch, it’s exactly when the Inn is supposed to be empty. People are working in the fields!
Of course the mayor doesn’t want to eat, he’s already had lunch at home and cannot risk staying in the inn for too long.
The table where Chronicler sits it’s far from the bar.

Maps from the readers: the evaluation

I love Waystone Inn maps. I really do. Now, let me tell you a story: once Viagra stopped working, the doctor told me there was nothing else to do and I was ready to upgrade my condition to fertilizer. But then I saw a new map and my cock became harder than Karnak’s obelisk. Now my wife is satisfied and my dog is happy (for different reasons, you disgusting criminals). Now my neighbours cannot sleep at night, which is good since I hate them, and I am known at work as Lanre Reborn.
And that’s all thanks to new Waystone Inn maps!
Now that you know the truth, you have no excuses: drawing your version of the Waystone Inn map, if you’re a man, becomes a moral obligation. And if you’re a woman, an exercise in foresight. Let’s say one day we meet irl and you fall in love with me: what’s the point if I can’t do the business? Drawing your map: an investment for a possible future.
-u/Jaded-Invite-4907 for this.
A combat grid! Wanna save Shep from the skindancer with your OC character? Now you can!
Check the details of the furniture, between other things.
Vote: 10/10

The Waystone Inn catalogue

The inn features:
-Wines/cideglass for wine/brass key/Celum Tinture/chest/paper sheets (already discussed previously)
-Worn deck of cards
-Lockpicking tools (bent wire, prybar of bright metal)
-Bast’s hatchet
-Formic acid, muriatic acid, some Aqua Regius
The inn lacks:
-Gremsby wine
-Music, of course

Personal comment

WMF Frame chapters > NoTW Frame chapters. With the only, relevant, exception of WMF 1. That’s my incontestable opinion. But it’s also my incontestable opinion that I should get a wake-up blowjob every day, and today I’ve been woken up by the alarm clock instead. I guess my opinion’s actual value is not what I think it is.
Next episode will come out before the spoiler chapter, I guess. Fwiw I’m doing some KKC related things all at once. But whether they’ll be posted or not, that’s another issue.
Thanks for reading and for your insights, past episodes can be found here.
submitted by aowshadow to kkcwhiteboard [link] [comments]