Nigel Scott

5.9K posts

Nigel Scott banner
Nigel Scott

Nigel Scott

@LibSubversive

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

London انضم Temmuz 2010
1K يتبع975 المتابعون
Nigel Scott أُعيد تغريده
Crazy Vibes
Crazy Vibes@CrazyVibes_1·
Before 1961, premature babies with failing lungs had almost no chance—doctors could only watch them slip away. Then one woman refused to accept that and changed medicine forever. Picture a hospital nursery in 1960. A baby born two months early struggles to breathe. Her tiny chest rises and falls in desperate effort. Her skin turns blue. Nurses and doctors gather around her, but they have nothing to offer. In a matter of hours, maybe less, she will be gone. This scene repeated itself thousands of times each year. Respiratory Distress Syndrome was a death sentence for premature infants. Their lungs were not developed enough to function. Medical textbooks described it as unavoidable. But Mildred Stahlman refused to accept unavoidable. Born in 1922 in Nashville, Mildred was not expected to become a doctor. Her affluent family imagined a traditional Southern life for her. But at eleven, she received a microscope—and everything changed. She fought her way into Vanderbilt Medical School as one of only four women in a class of fifty. She studied abroad in Sweden at leading institutes. She returned home in 1951 and began witnessing the same tragedy again and again—infants dying because no one knew how to help them breathe. And she made a decision: this would not continue. In a small lab beside the Vanderbilt nursery, Stahlman began doing what seemed impossible. She took large adult breathing machines and redesigned them for the smallest patients. She created tiny airway tubes no wider than a straw. She developed methods to monitor oxygen levels in real time. Her colleagues doubted her. The technology did not exist. The risks were severe. A single mistake could damage fragile lungs beyond repair. Stahlman continued anyway. October 31, 1961. A baby girl named Martha Humphreys was born two months early. She could not breathe. Without intervention, she had only hours to live. Dr. Stahlman placed her into the miniature respirator she had built. The machine gently expanded the baby’s chest, helping air reach lungs that could not function on their own. Then Stahlman set up a folding bed beside the machine and stayed, watching every breath. Four days later, Martha was breathing on her own. What had once been impossible was now real. But Stahlman did not stop there. She established one of the first neonatal intensive care units in the United States. She trained specialists from around the world. She developed systems to transport critically ill newborns. She created standards of care that continue to guide medicine today. "If you’re going to practice medicine," she told her students, "the first thing you must learn is charity—unconditional love." She lived by those words. Her team tracked not only medical data but family needs—where they lived, what they could afford, what support they required. Every child mattered. Every family mattered. Dr. Stahlman continued her work for decades. At 101, she was still advocating for premature infants when she passed away in June 2024. And Martha Humphreys, the first baby she saved? She grew up healthy. She married, becoming Martha Lott. And then she made a decision that brought the story full circle. Martha became a nurse in the very same neonatal intensive care unit where her life had been saved. The child who should have died in 1961 spent her life in that room, helping save others. Today, hundreds of thousands of premature infants survive every year in NICUs around the world. Many of them owe their lives to the work that began with one determined doctor who refused to accept limits. The next time you hear about a premature baby surviving against the odds, remember: someone once decided that those odds could change. Someone refused to accept that small lives should be lost. Someone redefined what was possible.
Crazy Vibes tweet media
English
48
945
3.1K
67.1K
Nigel Scott أُعيد تغريده
Máire 🇮🇪
Máire 🇮🇪@mochara57·
A personal observation from my time working (23yrs) in a school 🇮🇪 During supervision duty on corridors before start of classes, during break times & end of school day, one of the regular jobs was moving groups of boys away from near or outside the girls’ toilets. They’d hang around there & target the girls coming out with some really vile, nasty comments. It wasn’t every boy or every day & plenty of teenagers never went near this kind of behaviour, but it happened often enough that it became part of the routine. What struck me most was how schools show a side of teenage life that parents rarely see, a boy who was perfectly decent on his own could completely change when he was with his mates. In the group, some of them switched into this laddish mode where the ‘fun’ was making crude remarks about girls, scoring points with each other by being as obnoxious as possible. It was all about getting laughs & kudos from the pack. I’m pretty sure most parents have no idea this goes on, they see their son at home & assume that’s how he acts everywhere. At the same time, they often don’t realise what their daughters are dealing with every single school day, the comments, the waiting around, the feeling of being targeted just for walking down a corridor or using the toilet. It’s a reminder that the group dynamic in secondary school can bring out behaviours that would never happen in isolation & a lot of it stays hidden from home.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Keeping separate toilets for boys & girls is a basic, common-sense safeguard that protects girls, the group that suffers most when toilets are biologically mixed.
English
70
695
2.5K
36.8K
Nigel Scott أُعيد تغريده
Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens@ClarkeMicah·
Letby is a feminist issue. It is time Britain’s powerful Women’s movement were involved.
Peter Hitchens tweet media
English
27
65
229
15.8K
Nigel Scott
Nigel Scott@LibSubversive·
@MartynPitman @p1154 @cour_michelle @ACLMoss @ContrarianJolly Her defence conceded the insulin poisoning narrative at a pre-trial meeting when it was asserted by the prosecuting team & their medical experts. They lacked the knowledge to challenge it & thereby Letby's ability to question it was kicked from under her.
English
1
0
0
20
Martyn Pitman
Martyn Pitman@MartynPitman·
@cour_michelle @ACLMoss @ContrarianJolly Exactly. But, of course #LucyLetby was essentially forced, by Cheshire Police during her initial under-oath questioning, to admit that the babies had been given exogenous insulin, by 'someone.' But not her. This was then repeated during her trial. The 'smoking gun' that shot her.
English
5
6
28
271
Martyn Pitman
Martyn Pitman@MartynPitman·
This would be Professor Gregory, the Paediatric Endocrinologist who works in Cardiff. The very same Professor Gregory who just happened to work previously with a Consultant Paediatrician called Dr Dewi Evans. That one? 🤔😳 @ContrarianJolly I don't remember that being declared.
The Jالی Contrarian@ContrarianJolly

This Panorama clip, of Professor Gregory’s interview with Ms Moritz, is artfully done. It implies a lot more than it says. bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod… (from 41:23) Firstly, it shows Professor Gregory studying something carefully—we presume, evidence from the case—but a screenshot reveals it is, in fact, a medical journal. (After a bit of Poundshop Poiroting I found it: “Autoimmune Forms of Hypoglycemia” by Lupsa, Chong et al from vol 88, issue 3 of the journal Medicine in May 2009: journals.lww.com/md-journal/ful…) Professor Gregory’s first statement to camera is generalised, abstract and non-definitive, and not really in dispute. “When you measure insulin, if you don’t find any C-peptide, that implies that the insulin has come from outside the body, perhaps in the form of an injection, for example.” Ms. Moritz’ follow-up question presents him not with any specifics about Ms. Letby’s case, but a vague hypothetical which invites him to corroborate what he has just said: “What would you conclude where a baby has low blood sugar, where the baby’s insulin level is in the thousands, and where the baby’s C-peptide is low or unmeasurable?” Professor Gregory: “I would conclude that the baby has had insulin administered somehow or other.” Ms. Moritz then, off camera — notably, she does not put it to Professor Gregory— draws an inference to the Ms. Letby’s case: “That’s what was found in two of the babies Letby was convicted of harming.” This is not an endocrinologist specifically validating the evidence presented at trial: it is, rather, an expert expressing an uncontested generality. This doesn’t really tell us anything. Interestingly, there is no other record of Professor Gregory offering any view on the case.

English
4
11
45
2.1K
Nigel Scott
Nigel Scott@LibSubversive·
@UserrReb I don't understand why you find this troubling. Both women have been subjected to massive miscarriages of justice. They have a lot in common.
English
0
0
2
9
Nigel Scott
Nigel Scott@LibSubversive·
@LibVoice4Women Surely @LibDems MPs represent the alphabet people? Listening to women's concerns would be a conflict of interest.
English
1
0
2
49
Liberal Voice for Women
Liberal Voice for Women@LibVoice4Women·
Elizabeth has spent over 6 months trying to meet her Lib Dem MP. As a lesbian woman, issues about women's rights & childhood transition are deeply important to her. 80%+ children referred to the gender clinic are same sex attracted. Why is access denied? #comments" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">liberalvoices.org/access-denied-…
Liberal Voice for Women tweet media
English
1
28
61
793
Nigel Scott أُعيد تغريده
Liz Webster
Liz Webster@LizWebsterSBF·
🚨 Mark Carney just nailed it: Countries that rushed into dodgy deals with the US under Trump got deals “not worth the paper they were written on.” Sound familiar, Brexit Britain? We ditched the stable EU single market for the fantasy 🦄 of brilliant US trade deals… and ended up with higher costs, bureaucracy, and now Trump tariffs. Time to stop the tantrum and do a proper reset with our biggest trading partner.
English
386
2.4K
8.3K
314.8K
Nigel Scott أُعيد تغريده
esskayultra
esskayultra@esskayultra·
@DanniBrener It's a phenomenon know as "Schrodinger's Trans" in which women's spaces, sports, language, etc is so irrelevant and unimportant that women shouldn't mind giving them up while simultaneously being so consequential and necessary that men will die if they can't have them.
English
81
1.5K
6.6K
59.3K
Nigel Scott أُعيد تغريده
Andrew Gold
Andrew Gold@AndrewGold_ok·
Would you trust Lucy Letby with your child? 🤔 @amandaknox explains why she would...
English
29
14
103
18.8K
Nigel Scott
Nigel Scott@LibSubversive·
@suladoyle @STILLTish Statements like that simply confirm that Polanski does not even understand the point that women are making, much less recognise that there is an issue with two sides. Fingers in ears is not a valid political response.
English
0
1
10
92
Ursula Doyle
Ursula Doyle@suladoyle·
I haven’t met any women who want to ‘reduce the rights of trans people’ as per Zack Polanski’s claim ⬇️ (Sunday Times). Women campaigning against the unlawful removal of our rights are not engaged in a culture war. And why are we the only group whose identity is up for grabs? 🤔
Ursula Doyle tweet media
English
34
176
870
27.8K