Dr. Zemf

@OlooneyJohn @Keir_Starmer Yup always thought a more honest title for the MOD would be the MOA

and the puppet show carries on @Keir_Starmer You despicable weak lost soul

@JamesMelville I suppose this sort of stuff also ticks a net zero kinda policy 🙈

It took just one week to go from “liberate Iran” to “obliterate Iran”.

@DeniseC48200342 @KateClanchy1 Always find 'leave the grieving families alone' a ridiculous angle. They deserve the truth, those that are actually responsible for the sub standard care, negligence and wrongful imprisonment need to be brought to justice.

@KateClanchy1 Not all murders have witnesses. There was a mountain of evidence and a stringent court case. If the CCRC think the conviction is unsafe, which won’t be until after the Thirlwall inquiry is complete. There will be a retrial. Until then, please leave these grieving families be 💔💔

A strange day to post it but I've been thinking about this one for a while. My tuppence for Lucy Letby. Link in next tweet. #LucyLetby

@ClarkeMicah @TalkTV Don't you think we need to rename the MOD to the MOA??

Once upon a time, we freely debated wars of choice in this country. Now it’s a rarity. My thanks to @talktv for giving a rare slot to a dissenting voice, against the latest mad rush to war.

@ClarkeMicah If 'we' do choose war, can we make it net zero please??

HITCHENS: When we see war, can't we stop and think for at least a minute before joining in? dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…

@wideawake_media Need to aim higher than people like this.

Should celebrities who accepted money to push the experimental mRNA injections—despite a complete absence of long-term safety data—be held personally responsible for the countless fatalities and injuries they have caused worldwide? 🤔

@merrick_diana The ironic fact that the expert witnesses quoted a Prof Shoo Lee paper is significant, if the author of the paper then flies to the UK at his own expense and gathers a team of experts together to state this was not murder. Also the pathologists at the time found nothing suspect.

WHEN SCIENTIFIC DISAGREEMENT IS MISTAKEN FOR PROOF ‘How boxing medical debate into rigid verdict categories harms both justice and science’ This Daily Mail piece does not “disprove” Prof Shoo Lee. It treats a dispute between neonatologists as if it settles the science which is simplistic and naive. Regarding the safety of Lucy's conviction, if senior neonatologists are publicly disputing mechanisms in 2026, that alone suggests the science is contested since a jury heard it in 2023, which in itself should prompt a retrial. In medicine, disagreement is normal and healthy. It is how understanding evolves. When you go to a doctor, seeking a second opinion is standard practice, not because the first doctor must be wrong, but because complex matters produce different interpretations. In a criminal courtroom, however, disagreement is framed as ‘right versus wrong’, ‘guilty versus innocent’. That is a huge problem for justice, and also a serious problem for medicine. When evolving science is forced into binary verdicts, it risks distorting understanding and holding back honest scientific development. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1… Liz Hull’s article frames new research as casting “serious doubt” on Lee’s panel. But what it actually shows is disagreement between experts about the interpretation of air embolism literature. That is very different from proving Lee wrong. The Taiwanese case describes venous air embolism with skin discolouration. Critics argue this undermines Lee’s position that the distinctive rash described in Letby’s trial is specific to arterial embolism. However: • The existence of a venous case with skin discolouration does not automatically replicate the exact clinical presentation described in court. • The mechanism by which venous air could cross into arterial circulation is physiologically debated, not universally settled. • Literature in rare neonatal embolism is sparse and diverse, which limits large-scale study. This is not a ‘black and white’ contradiction. It is a scientific argument about mechanism and specificity. 🔬 In normal scientific practice, this kind of exchange would be welcomed. • Experts challenge each other • New papers emerge • Interpretations are refined • Medicine develops But in this case, instead of being a force for progress, the disagreement becomes a battleground. One side must be “wrong.” One interpretation must be “discredited.” Yet medicine is not a fixed rulebook. It is an evolving body of evidence, particularly in rare neonatal events where data is limited. Liz Hull’s article also uses phrases such as “major omissions” and “significant deficiency,” which shift from reporting disagreement into questioning Lee’s competence. That is a rhetorical escalation. Crucially, Liz frames this as if it resolves the appeal evidence. It does not. It shows only this: 👉 ‘There are experts who disagree.’ In any other context, that would be described as ‘contested medical opinion’. In a criminal case, where liberty depends on interpretation of medical literature, that distinction matters enormously. And that is the real issue.

@DeniseC48200342 @amandaknox You don't have to live in the UK to comment on issues you disagree with, it seems quite small minded to believe you do. Respect? Have some compassion, have you been wrongfully imprisoned for years Denise? The Letby case is quite clearly flawed at the very least needs a retrial.

@amandaknox You don’t live in the UK. You’re getting behind this because you’re motivated to make this about you with your 165K followers. Please mind your own business. You weren’t in the courtroom. Have some respect.

"Evil Nurse." "Britain's worst child serial killer." I read those headlines and my skin prickled. The headlines had called me a monster, too. Were they wrong here? I began seriously looking into the case of Lucy Letby in early 2024, and I was shocked to learn what evidence was used to convict her. In any case, the public narrative around her was loud and clear: Lucy Letby was a cold-blooded psychopath. I've not commented publicly on her case because I believe in doing rigorous research, examining all the evidence, and talking to experts, which I've been doing for the last two years. I'm eager for you to hear what I've learned, not just about Lucy, but about the UK's healthcare system, about its courts, and about how narratives take shape and affect the course of justice. Please tune in February 24th, available from @iHeartRadio and wherever you get your podcasts.

@PinkCrown9 @MattWallace888 That explains how Gavin Arvizo described exactly the location of MJ's porn mags in his bedroom, Jordie Chandler identified markings on the underside of his penis. Yes you sound like a good judge of character. Celebrity status acquitted him, he was a manipulative & shrewd abuser.

I think Michael Jackson loved being with children because they were the only human beings who treated him without any self-interest, bad intentions, flattery, or asking for money, and because they had a great time with him and none of them questioned him, and he felt loved for the first time in his life in exchange for nothing, because everything was innocence and transparency.

After seeing the Epstein files, we all owe Michael Jackson an apology

@Djoko_UTD If you want equal pay, play against the men. Otherwise accept a diff comp derives its money from bums on seats. Get a share of that, that's the reality of it's more popular get more prize money, less popular get less. It's not earnings BTW it's prize money.

Throwback when Rafa Nadal destroyed a fake feminist : “Why don’t men and women earn equal in tennis” Nadal : “Women earn more than men in modelling, nobody talks about it. I believe in equal rights and opportunities. Earnings depend on quality of work”

@PawTickle @ABridgen 🙈 never thought of that

@Doctor_Zemf @ABridgen But didn’t the wings fold back and take the engines through that small entry hole 🤔😂

Do you ever get the impression that someone is not telling us the truth ?

@latimeralder These 2 are up there too 🤣🤣

Jenrick says the Tory Party is toast And so they should be NetZero was their Batshit Crazy idea. Mrs Treason May to the fore. And oh how clever they thought themselves to be! Never forget! Never forgive!

It's not a Y reg, but is it the next best thing? Those with a trained eye will notice the Scottie dog stickers in the window 👀

@Chesschick01 Wrong..... the officer wasn't run over, you've not closed the case 🙈

1.) she is ordered out of her car 2.) she refuses 3.) she backs up 4.) she drives forward into an ice agent 5.) ice agent pulls out gun only when she starts moving forward INTO HIS BODY 6.) self defense 7.) case closed

@lord_chew @7Kiwi It's important to know what propaganda they're subjecting us to. To get an overall view I've always been interested to hear how they sell things.

@7Kiwi Why watch it then? I haven't watched BBC News for six years, I bet I could forecast the schedule of the bulletin: 1 Doom and Gloom - political 2 Doom and Gloom - climate 3 Doom and Gloom - Palestine 4 Doom and Gloom - minority group discrimination 5 The Weather - Doom and Gloom

BBC's climate bloke Justin Rowlatt doesn't understand the difference between power and energy. He means 82TWh of energy, not 82TW which is about 2,000X peak power demand. National broadcaster completely clueless

@ABridgen 9/11 biggest smoking gun!! Maybe Marianna Spring can get her BBC Verify programme to cover this? Folk saying it was a misreport, what nonsense, you can't predict a collapse of a steel structured building, that had fire damage, no previous structure had ever collapsed before this

On 9/11 how were the BBC able to announce that building 7 had collapsed 26 minutes before it actually did ? Do you still watch their propaganda ?

@AstroMikeMerri @ABridgen A misreport 🤣 you can't possibly predict the collapse of a steel structured building, buildings of which had never collapsed due to fire in previous history. Shake your head in shame for suggesting such absurdity. Prior knowledge of a collapse can mean only 'one' thing.

@ABridgen A confused misreport from Reuters. I realise that conspiracy theories get you and your silly little friends far more reassured and overexcited than the complexity of reality, but that doesn’t make them true.

@FightWithMemes 🙈 bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-…

For a brief period of time that we call "The Clown Ages", we were able to look directly through the glass and get a glimpse of the inside of Leftist's brains. It was horrible.

@brownecfm Or you just look like a gullible neurotic. They simply don't work against something that's no more a danger to life than it was pre 2020.

Recent discourse has really cemented for me that many objections to mask wearing are rooted in an insecure kind of masculinity. Wearers seen as 'weak' or 'scared'. This idea is as absurd as calling a soldier weak or scared because he or she chooses to wear a Kevlar vest.