The first thing I notice is how incredibly short it is just 10 pages.
For comparison I had travel insurance policy document that was 80 pages
Then when you read it most of it is general information about procedures
The amount that is supposed to be about the Manchester attack is very small.
This is supposed to cover many severe injuries and medical procedures for those injuries for many patients.
No victims are named so no information about injuries or procedures can be tied to any individual.
We can conclude that any of the XRAY or computer generated MRI images belong to any of the alleged Manchester victims.
There is also conflicting information regarding Shrapnel damage and the XRAY images,
"Shrapnel injuries however, are usually relatively low velocity
injuries and therefore do not cause as extensive cerebral damage
as seen with high velocity bullets"
"A piece of shrapnel in the form of a large metal nut
was retrieved from left fronto-temporal soft tissue"
soft tissue so not bone. Also how large is a large nut there should be a size here 20mm or something.
"in the region, planning for up to 300 casualties. A regional
major incident simulation exercise was performed a few months
prior to the attack, with the scenario involving a suicide bomber
at a large shopping complex. This provided a practical, real time
overview of local response times and personnel and resource
management across our major trauma centres "
The Trafford centre exercise was on the 10th of May 2016 The Manchester Arena attack was on the 22nd of May 2017 just over a year after the exercise. Not a few months prior as stated in this report.
Is this a continuity error was this document started a few months after the The Trafford centre exercise?.
It seems to me that they have taken an existing document about medical procedures for blast injuries and tagged on the Manchester information but have been careful to be non specific.
So it is not possible to cross check any injuries against any individuals with a later story.
Having read the Manchester Arena Attack: management of paediatric penetrating brain injuries
https://annas-archive.org/scidb/10.1080/02688697.2020.1787339
The first thing I notice is how incredibly short it is just 10 pages.
For comparison I had travel insurance policy document that was 80 pages
Then when you read it most of it is general information about procedures
The amount that is supposed to be about the Manchester attack is very small.
This is supposed to cover many severe injuries and medical procedures for those injuries for many patients.
No victims are named so no information about injuries or procedures can be tied to any individual.
We can conclude that any of the XRAY or computer generated MRI images belong to any of the alleged Manchester victims.
There is also conflicting information regarding Shrapnel damage and the XRAY images,
"Shrapnel injuries however, are usually relatively low velocity
injuries and therefore do not cause as extensive cerebral damage
as seen with high velocity bullets"
"A piece of shrapnel in the form of a large metal nut
was retrieved from left fronto-temporal soft tissue"
soft tissue so not bone. Also how large is a large nut there should be a size here 20mm or something.
"in the region, planning for up to 300 casualties. A regional
major incident simulation exercise was performed a few months
prior to the attack, with the scenario involving a suicide bomber
at a large shopping complex. This provided a practical, real time
overview of local response times and personnel and resource
management across our major trauma centres "
The Trafford centre exercise was on the 10th of May 2016 The Manchester Arena attack was on the 22nd of May 2017 just over a year after the exercise. Not a few months prior as stated in this report.
Is this a continuity error was this document started a few months after the The Trafford centre exercise?.
It seems to me that they have taken an existing document about medical procedures for blast injuries and tagged on the Manchester information but have been careful to be non specific.
So it is not possible to cross check any injuries against any individuals with a later story.
this topic is being 'channel' in a certain way.
You are opening yourself up for ridicule by being too thoughtful about it !
Good luck, and thanks for the info.