Oliver's videos are very poor.
She is constantly misrepresenting what the panel said and what was said in court.
She also carries on as if she has seen the medical records, which she has not, or the full medical reports from the experts, which she has not
Of course I haven't seen either of those things either, but I have seen the panel summaries she is discussing and the trial reporting and transcript excerpts. So it is easy for me, simply by reading, to see that she is mistating things.
For example, re baby O:
She misrepresents what the panel says about the child's hematoma. This was probably present from birth. But that does not mean it was bleeding from birth - that wouldn't necessarily happen and she never claims this.
She mixes up the child's first collapse and the child's third collapse when taking about ventilatory pressures.
She says that the panel was wrong about ventilatory pressures being high because there was a lower start value. This doesn't mean the second pressure, which she does cite, isn't high. But she also ignores a third, higher pressure - all in the trial records. Presumably she thinks her viewers won't double check.
That's a typical one minute sequence. Her level of accuracy on things we can check is appalling. Other assertions could only be verified with access to the medical records, which she hasn't got.
I am sure Cindy is a very good dog, but for whatever reason, Oliver is not acting here as a very good scientist. She is not trustworthy.