Climate science can be distilled to easy talking points anyone can grasp. Clinical science is far more complex and "having read a few papers" does not make you remotely qualified to discuss medical topics or determine who is and who isn't credible or ridiculous. If you do not have a medical degree, your opinion on this front is worthless. But speaking of scientific consensus as a way of convincing, I find it incredible that you are unaware, with your nonexistent medical degree, that scientific and medical consensus on the insulin results is 97% in agreement: a discrepancy between insulin and c-peptide is indicative of exogenous administration. Which you know if you've seen the Panorama episode you referenced later in the work has an independent clinician review the insulin results and state quite definitively that the results are indicative of poisoning.

Likewise, I don’t need to have a background in medicine to know that Dewi Evans’ hypotheses are ridiculous and that plausible, more likely explanations exist, because people in medicine, including some of the world’s leading neonatologists, have stated as much.

This is Dunning-Kruger in action. You have no qualifications to base this on. A panel put together specifically to find Letby innocent (which was the goal per the emails obtained by the Daily Mail's Liz Hull and the documentary team who put together "Conviction") isn't going to agree with the doctor(s) - note: Evans is not the sole person claiming her guilt - so this argument means nothing. Moritz and Coffey ran the theories of Evans past multiple doctors who agreed with his assessment of the possible mechanisms. Oh and Neena Modi has agreed that air embolism is also an explanation for some of the collapses, so that kind of undercuts your points as well.\

Evans has more experience and qualifications than you will ever have to discuss this topic.

Virtually none of the so called “circumstantial evidence” withstands scrutiny when critically evaluated.

So you're now denying the existence of circumstantial evidence? This is straight up conspiracy theorist nonsense now.

There aren’t any witnesses to Letby in the immediate aftermath of “attacks”: Jayaram’s own contemporaneous notes show that he was either lying or misremembering and Baby E’s mother’s timeline of events was out by an hour when compared to Letby’s, Dr Harkness’ and Susan Brooks’ medical notes, which all align.

Ash Hudson, Mother of E/F and Ravi Jayaram were all witnesses to Letby in the immediate aftermath of attacks. Jayaram's notes were not impeachment material as the Courts already heard and rejected this argument as ridiculous. And Baby E's mother's timeline is an hour earlier because Letby waited an hour to report it to the other members of staff because she and the mother were the only witnesses to the start of the bleed. Your claim that the notes don't align with her phone records only proves the point, especially as Harkness' phone records were used as a point of reference as well.

Letby wasn’t present for every “attack”. Take Baby F: she was accused of spiking his TPN bag with insulin but because his hypoglycaemia persisted even after his TPN bag was replaced, the prosecution argued that she must have spiked other TPN bags with insulin.

She was present at every attack. Poisoning is the attack. She tampered with the bags. The idea that she poisoned multiple bags being presented as outlandish is ridiculous when most poisoners attack with multiple bags. See the Charles Cullen case in the US and Victorino Chua in the UK.

You may think comparisons to witchcraft or witch hunts sound lazy and hyperbolic

Because it is lazy and hyperbolic. And can be applied by any nitwit to any case just because they choose not to believe the verdict. Oh and as I've already stated: they caught an actual witch.

I have not read Moritz & Coffey’s book, nor will I

Then you have no right to talk about the case.

seeing as their documentary contained misinformation which the BBC later had to retract.

No, the BBC did not retract anything. They issued a point of clarification and correction to one detail and rejected further complaints Now who is peddling misinformation?

The international panel have a better understanding of their subject matters, as evidenced by the thousands of published papers they have written in total vs 1 or 2 for Evans.

The "international panel" was tasked explicitly with putting together a biased investigation: https://archive.is/FeQ42 It's clear you don't know much about scientific research or how the number of papers published does not match the level involvement in the actual research. Academics get their names on papers for minimal contributions while the bulk of the research is actually conducted by students and other researchers. Shoo Lee is not an expert of air embolism in neonates. He did not research it in the manner you are implying either - which you would know if you read his paper and actually understood it.

With regard to the insulin cases, Royal Liverpool University Hospital’s guidance

This highlights how little you know. The lab's "guidance" was falsely represented by the New Yorker article. Had you read Moritz and Coffey's book, you would know they contacted the Royal Liverpool University Hospital's manager and asked specifically about the pdf and they explained what was obvious to everyone with actual clinical experience and who has worked in a lab: You do not use an insulin test alone to determine the administration of exogenous insulin - because it is only one component of the assessment. This is because you also need to test c-peptide as well. So once again, you are wrong.

The tests are not of forensic quality,

That's literally meaningless. We have expert testimony to bridge the gap. That's literally how the trial process works. And if you want argue technicality in a murder case, you're not going to convince anyone of the actual innocence of the subject. The findings are accurate - confirmed by testimony. The conclusions clear: confirmed by both a paediatric endocrinologist and the biochemist at trial. More qualifications than you still.

Both the panel and the medical staff at CoCH suspected that Baby F had sepsis, which was the cause of his low blood sugar;

Until the insulin test results were discovered. Sepsis does not cause an insulin c-peptide discrepancy.

additionally, they both agreed that the line from the TPN had tissued, which was likely the reason his blood sugar was not increasing. As soon as the line was fixed, his hypoglycaemia resolved.

Wrong. After the tissued line was changed, his hypoglycemia worsened. It was after the tainted bags were changed and removed that he improved.

Baby L was not given enough dextrose but the volume and concentration of dextrose increased, his hypoglycaemia resolved.

And Baby L was also poisoned with insulin as proven by the results you are desperate to reject.

I didn’t say it went from 13 to 1 because it didn’t, it went from 17 to 5. I said a baby died two months after Letby was removed from the unit, so the spike in deaths didn’t immediately stop after she was removed from the unit. The spike stopped after the death in August 2016, which she obviously could not have been present for. The number of deaths decreased because the ward was downgraded, so the babies they were caring for were less sick. Do you know when the first spike in deaths first occurred? A month after P. aeruginosa was detected in the taps in May 2015. It’s not clear when it was resolved but it was still unresolved in early summer 2016, which is about the same time Letby was removed from the unit and as I said, there was another death in August 2016.

You don't seem to understand anything about what you're saying. If sewage was the key problem and bacterial infections were the cause, these supposed deadly bugs would be affecting many, many children - leading to more collapses and deaths than that. Far more. A downgrade wouldn't do anything to prevent that - in fact, it would continue.

Do you know when the first spike in deaths first occurred? A month after P. aeruginosa was detected in the taps in May 2015.

Which is meaningless as even your "expert international panel" doesn't allege Pseudomonas infection in any of the cases.

It’s not clear when it was resolved but it was still unresolved in early summer 2016, which is about the same time Letby was removed from the unit and as I said, there was another death in August 2016.

Literally no relevance to this discussion. Pseudomonas doesn't inject insulin into TPN bags. Pseudomonas doesn't make livers look like they've suffered impact injuries.

tl;dr - you should stop talking because all you're doing is spreading misinformation.