![LucyLetbyTrials's tweet photo. At Lucy Letby's trial, the prosecution repeatedly called her a liar and a gaslighter – on one occasion, for speculating that a baby had died of sepsis.
You know who agreed with Letby? Dr Stephen Brearey, one of her accusers. You know who didn't get to hear about this?
The jury.
In June 2015, over the span of two weeks, three babies died on the neonatal unit where Letby worked.
It was a great shock to everyone, with nurses and doctors alike exchanging thoughts on how this could have happened.
In text messages shown in court, Letby and a fellow nurse discussed the babies' possible causes of death.
Baby D, Letby speculated, had died of sepsis.
This, according to the prosecutor, was a prime example of Letby "gaslighting" her colleagues.
"Well, we know [Baby D] wasn't septic," prosecutor Nick Johnson said.
This was nonsense. Johnson did not "know" that Baby D "wasn't septic." The baby's own post-mortem, which found that she'd died of "pneumonia with acute lung injury" (the doctors had no idea she had pneumonia!) took pains to explain why sepsis couldn't be ruled out.
And Letby's opinion – that Baby D died of sepsis – was shared by none other than the head of the neonatal unit, Dr Stephen Brearey.
Dr Brearey was the man ultimately responsible for the medical care of these babies.
Dr Brearey was the man who first accused Letby of murder. (His suspicions, he would later tell reporters, began when he noticed that Letby was on duty for all three babies' deaths – never mind that he turned out to be wrong about her being the only nurse on duty for all three deaths.)
Dr Brearey was the man found guilty – alongside his colleague, Dr Ravi Jayaram – of bullying and harassing Letby. (The jury likewise never got to hear about this.)
And Dr Brearey was the man who, on the day Baby D died, emailed Dr Jayaram to say, "it appears that neonatal GBS sepsis following prolonged rupture of membranes is the most likely cause for death" for Baby D.
"She was symptomatic from 12 min of age," he wrote, in a follow up email to the rest of the medical team, referring to how Baby D had gone pale and floppy in her father's arms.
Did prosecutor Nick Johnson call Dr Brearey a gaslighter?
Of course not.
The jury never saw these emails.
They only emerged a year after the trial, as part of the public inquiry into the Letby case.
By then, Letby had already been convicted of murdering Baby D.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HIFUUBDW4AAbfBo.jpg)
![LucyLetbyTrials's tweet photo. At Lucy Letby's trial, the prosecution repeatedly called her a liar and a gaslighter – on one occasion, for speculating that a baby had died of sepsis.
You know who agreed with Letby? Dr Stephen Brearey, one of her accusers. You know who didn't get to hear about this?
The jury.
In June 2015, over the span of two weeks, three babies died on the neonatal unit where Letby worked.
It was a great shock to everyone, with nurses and doctors alike exchanging thoughts on how this could have happened.
In text messages shown in court, Letby and a fellow nurse discussed the babies' possible causes of death.
Baby D, Letby speculated, had died of sepsis.
This, according to the prosecutor, was a prime example of Letby "gaslighting" her colleagues.
"Well, we know [Baby D] wasn't septic," prosecutor Nick Johnson said.
This was nonsense. Johnson did not "know" that Baby D "wasn't septic." The baby's own post-mortem, which found that she'd died of "pneumonia with acute lung injury" (the doctors had no idea she had pneumonia!) took pains to explain why sepsis couldn't be ruled out.
And Letby's opinion – that Baby D died of sepsis – was shared by none other than the head of the neonatal unit, Dr Stephen Brearey.
Dr Brearey was the man ultimately responsible for the medical care of these babies.
Dr Brearey was the man who first accused Letby of murder. (His suspicions, he would later tell reporters, began when he noticed that Letby was on duty for all three babies' deaths – never mind that he turned out to be wrong about her being the only nurse on duty for all three deaths.)
Dr Brearey was the man found guilty – alongside his colleague, Dr Ravi Jayaram – of bullying and harassing Letby. (The jury likewise never got to hear about this.)
And Dr Brearey was the man who, on the day Baby D died, emailed Dr Jayaram to say, "it appears that neonatal GBS sepsis following prolonged rupture of membranes is the most likely cause for death" for Baby D.
"She was symptomatic from 12 min of age," he wrote, in a follow up email to the rest of the medical team, referring to how Baby D had gone pale and floppy in her father's arms.
Did prosecutor Nick Johnson call Dr Brearey a gaslighter?
Of course not.
The jury never saw these emails.
They only emerged a year after the trial, as part of the public inquiry into the Letby case.
By then, Letby had already been convicted of murdering Baby D.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HIFUUBDWsAAiXIi.jpg)
![LucyLetbyTrials's tweet photo. At Lucy Letby's trial, the prosecution repeatedly called her a liar and a gaslighter – on one occasion, for speculating that a baby had died of sepsis.
You know who agreed with Letby? Dr Stephen Brearey, one of her accusers. You know who didn't get to hear about this?
The jury.
In June 2015, over the span of two weeks, three babies died on the neonatal unit where Letby worked.
It was a great shock to everyone, with nurses and doctors alike exchanging thoughts on how this could have happened.
In text messages shown in court, Letby and a fellow nurse discussed the babies' possible causes of death.
Baby D, Letby speculated, had died of sepsis.
This, according to the prosecutor, was a prime example of Letby "gaslighting" her colleagues.
"Well, we know [Baby D] wasn't septic," prosecutor Nick Johnson said.
This was nonsense. Johnson did not "know" that Baby D "wasn't septic." The baby's own post-mortem, which found that she'd died of "pneumonia with acute lung injury" (the doctors had no idea she had pneumonia!) took pains to explain why sepsis couldn't be ruled out.
And Letby's opinion – that Baby D died of sepsis – was shared by none other than the head of the neonatal unit, Dr Stephen Brearey.
Dr Brearey was the man ultimately responsible for the medical care of these babies.
Dr Brearey was the man who first accused Letby of murder. (His suspicions, he would later tell reporters, began when he noticed that Letby was on duty for all three babies' deaths – never mind that he turned out to be wrong about her being the only nurse on duty for all three deaths.)
Dr Brearey was the man found guilty – alongside his colleague, Dr Ravi Jayaram – of bullying and harassing Letby. (The jury likewise never got to hear about this.)
And Dr Brearey was the man who, on the day Baby D died, emailed Dr Jayaram to say, "it appears that neonatal GBS sepsis following prolonged rupture of membranes is the most likely cause for death" for Baby D.
"She was symptomatic from 12 min of age," he wrote, in a follow up email to the rest of the medical team, referring to how Baby D had gone pale and floppy in her father's arms.
Did prosecutor Nick Johnson call Dr Brearey a gaslighter?
Of course not.
The jury never saw these emails.
They only emerged a year after the trial, as part of the public inquiry into the Letby case.
By then, Letby had already been convicted of murdering Baby D.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HIFUUBBWMAAtJzV.png)
Olivia
Online
Robin Davison
@RobinDavison2
Independent biotech analyst and commentator. Side interests in architecture and the choral works of JS Bach.
Horam
Joined November 2011
2.7K Following
1K Followers
5.2K Posts
The work Philip Walker has done for Jeremy Bamber’s campaign is outstanding, but his comment on Channel 5 news tonight doesn’t help Jeremy or any other victim of a miscarriage of justice.
He said; "miscarriages of justice are quite rare”.
That is completely untrue.
That is exactly what the establishment wants the public to believe, and sadly most people fall for it.
When campaigners repeat it, they only reinforce the false narrative.
Here are some facts. Let me know if you think these figures indicate something “quite rare”.
As of September 2025 there were estimated to be almost 19,000 completely innocent people in prison in the UK, including those held on remand awaiting trial.
The remand population stood at 17,700. The highest end-of-year figure in at least the last 50 years.
Of those, 6,023 were convicted and awaiting sentence, leaving 11,677 presumed innocent people locked up awaiting trial.
https://t.co/wIUgJI3dKg
Note: A proportion of those £6,023 awaiting sentence will also actually be innocent as the following illustrates.
The real wrongful conviction rate is much harder to determine. Some experts claim it’s up to 5% of the prison population. However, research a few years ago actually found 22% of cases they looked at were unsafe. If that rate was reflected across the whole prison population it would mean well over 19,000 wrongly convicted people. https://t.co/ML0AkbJn8p
That is far too scary to contemplate.
From my own research across multiple sources I estimate the true figure is around 8%, so just on 7,000 wrongly convicted and in jail. That gives my overall figure of almost 19,000 innocent people (including remand prisoners) currently imprisoned in the UK.
Attached is a list of some of the acknowledged wrongful murder convictions in the UK since 1970. A total of 155 innocent people's lives completely ruined. And that’s just a sample of wrongful murder convictions alone.
Until the public wakes up to the reality of what is happening in our justice system there is no chance of the government ever bringing in the radical reform that is so desperately needed.
@DavidDavisMP @ClarkeMicah @EmpowerInnocent @DavidLammy @davidkurten @MoJGovUK
#JeremyBamber #MiscarriagesOfJustice #WrongfulConvictions #JusticeReform
Visual summary of the Countess of Chester Hospital cluster factors (credit Chris Morris). No need to indulge in fantasies about killer nurses, the reasons are staring us all in the face #LucyLetby
"Although this has been very traumatic, my strong desire to remain in Chester and within CoCH remains, and I am hopeful that we can find a professional way forward to enable my return to where I feel I belong."
Read the letter Lucy Letby wrote to her accusers after a hospital grievance investigation found in her favour, and she was told she could come back to work: https://t.co/tMAeTOE160
Alas, Letby never came back to work.
A few weeks after she wrote this letter, and right before she was scheduled to return, one of her accusers, Dr Ravi Jayaram, told the hospital that he'd once walked in on her trying to murder a baby.
It only took Dr Jayaram a year and a month to tell the hospital about this – about walking in on an attempted murder on a baby.
It took Letby winning an HR complaint against him for Dr Jayaram to speak up.
Once he did, the hospital called in the police.
This is astonishingly unprofessional. Dewi Evans wasn’t employed as a detective, and it wasn’t his job to assemble inculpatory evidence.
He was supposed to be a neutral clinical expert. The answers to these questions were entirely irrelevant to his medical opinions. #Letby
Who to follow
Madeleine Armstrong
@ByMadeleineA
Senior reporter at @ApexOnco; cat lover; Croydon Harrier
Jacob Plieth 
@JacobPlieth
Journalist @ApexOnco. The Wolverine Of Biotech / Mr ASH. Never paid for a blue tick. Interested in: oncology. Not interested in: what stock you bought today.
Amy Brown
@ByAmyBrown
UK-based contributor for @BiotechTVHQ, and freelance writer on the business of drug development.
Hi @justinmadders, @RachaelMaskell, @Alison_McGovern, Dame @DianaJohnsonMP, and Sir @MarkTamiMP
I wrote two weeks ago to ask to you to speak up for justice for Lucy Letby, I haven’t yet got a reply, so am trying again on Twitter.
Best Wishes
Peter Hayes
The BBC has really been shown wanting in the Letby case. In the past, it commissioned programmes like Rough Justice that investigated and exposed miscarriages of justice. Now it seems to play an active role in creating them.
Heartbreaking to hear Andrew Malkinson speak on his stolen years & how the system badly cheated him. Yet, the hypocrisy of the BBC is sickening. Panorama & Judith Moritz actively work to bury another miscarriage of justice. Lucy Letby is a victim of the exact same broken system.
Heartbreaking to hear Andrew Malkinson speak on his stolen years & how the system badly cheated him. Yet, the hypocrisy of the BBC is sickening. Panorama & Judith Moritz actively work to bury another miscarriage of justice. Lucy Letby is a victim of the exact same broken system.
The Lucy Letby case has revealed how Cheshire Police conducted interviews with her from trial transcripts.
In the case of Baby F the first question put to Lucy letby was "Did you inflict an injury to Baby F?"
Attached to this thread is the transcript. 1/3
This is very important and especially so given the Government's plans to curtail jury trials (and to a defendant's right to appeal). It obviously makes it more likely convictions are secured in politically-motivated show trials.
I am glad @thebarcouncil are making a clear public stand against the outrageous attempt to prosecute my colleague, Raj Menon KC, for reminding jurors of the text of this plaque on the wall of the Old Bailey.
The judge in this ancient case locked the jurors away for contempt of court for failing to return a guilty verdict.
They held out against the pressure of being "locked up without food for 2 nights" until they were freed on a writ of Habeas corpus by the Chief Justice.
The case established the right of jurors to "give their verdict according to their convictions".
This case is a line in the sand for the criminal bar.
Any judge who objects to me reading the text of this plaque to a jury can lock me up too. Because I will not be prevented from doing my duty by threats and judicial intimidation.
We are all Raj Menon now.
The remit of the Thirlwall Inquiry is crystal clear - it will not challenge Lucy Letby's verdicts.
So if she is in fact innocent - as now seems highly likely - and those babies were victims of NHS sub-optimal care, the £17m report (and counting) is worthless. 🧵 (1/11)
Big announcement today: the Senior Coroner for Cheshire has vacated the scheduled start date for the inquests into the deaths of six babies Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering, on account of the @Thirlwall_Inq having told the Coroner's Court that their already much-delayed report won't be published in time for it.
"The Senior Coroner for Cheshire has received an indication from the Thirlwall Inquiry that publication of its report is expected to be delayed until after the Parliamentary recess," H.M. Coroner’s Court Cheshire announced today.
"In light of this development, the inquests touching upon the deaths of six babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016 – cases which are linked to the criminal proceedings resulting in the conviction of Lucy Letby – will remain suspended."
The inquests are now slated to begin on 10 May 2027, with the Coroner's Court looking "to ensure that the findings and recommendations of the Thirlwall Inquiry can be fully considered before the inquests proceed."
The Senior Coroner's update comes on the heels of the Thirlwall Inquiry announcing yesterday, for the fifth time in a year, that publication of its report was being postponed further.
The Thirlwall Inquiry declined to specify a date for when the public can expect its report to be published, save to say it "will be published at the earliest practical date," at some point "after the summer recess of Parliament."
As of July 2025 – the latest for which financial disclosures are available – the inquiry's costs had surpassed £15 million.
The Thirlwall Inquiry was set up in the immediate aftermath of Letby's trial, at a time when wall-to-wall news coverage brandished her Britain's worst serial killer of babies in modern times. The inquiry's mandate was to figure out why she wasn't stopped sooner, with the report originally scheduled to come out last year.
But the Letby case has since erupted in controversy, with world-leading doctors and medical experts questioning the evidence used to convict her.
Lady Justice Thirlwall, who chairs the inquiry bearing her name, has previously referred to the mounting questions over the safety of Letby's convictions as "noise."
Yes, the judge himself directed the jury in his summing-up:
“An X-ray was taken at 12.38 on 12 June… Professor Owen Arthurs told you the most striking thing was the dilatation of the stomach, which was full of gas and unusual.”
That is the exact same X-ray Dewi Evans originally claimed showed deliberate harm. Massive air deliberately injected into Baby C.
At the time that X-ray was taken, Lucy Letby was not on duty and had not even met Baby C.
The judge highlighted this X-ray as important evidence but never once told the jury that Lucy Letby could not possibly have caused the harm seen on it.
He directed their attention to the prosecution’s key piece of “evidence” while completely failing to mention the devastating fact that exonerated her.
That is not a neutral summing up.
Can I ask everyone, if the judge is pointing the jury to this X-ray as important evidence of deliberate harm, who exactly caused it?
The answer, of course, is nobody.
Because no deliberate harm ever took place.
Evans’ entire theory was complete nonsense, yet he managed to hoodwink the police, the CPS, the judge and the jury with it.
This single point alone exposes the whole investigation and trial as the farce it truly was from start to finish.
Vera Baird, as interim Chair of the CCRC, you have the power to end this travesty today.
Refer the case back to the Court of Appeal immediately.
Lucy Letby is 100% factually innocent.
The truth is the only thing that should matter in any decent and civilised society.
Source of the judge’s exact words:
https://t.co/ndcMNpFkLJ
(Compiled from official court reporters present in court)
@VeraBaird @ccrcupdate @DavidDavisMP @NadineDorries @ClarkeMicah @EmpowerInnocent
At Lucy Letby's trial, the prosecution repeatedly called her a liar and a gaslighter – on one occasion, for speculating that a baby had died of sepsis.
You know who agreed with Letby? Dr Stephen Brearey, one of her accusers. You know who didn't get to hear about this?
The jury.
In June 2015, over the span of two weeks, three babies died on the neonatal unit where Letby worked.
It was a great shock to everyone, with nurses and doctors alike exchanging thoughts on how this could have happened.
In text messages shown in court, Letby and a fellow nurse discussed the babies' possible causes of death.
Baby D, Letby speculated, had died of sepsis.
This, according to the prosecutor, was a prime example of Letby "gaslighting" her colleagues.
"Well, we know [Baby D] wasn't septic," prosecutor Nick Johnson said.
This was nonsense. Johnson did not "know" that Baby D "wasn't septic." The baby's own post-mortem, which found that she'd died of "pneumonia with acute lung injury" (the doctors had no idea she had pneumonia!) took pains to explain why sepsis couldn't be ruled out.
And Letby's opinion – that Baby D died of sepsis – was shared by none other than the head of the neonatal unit, Dr Stephen Brearey.
Dr Brearey was the man ultimately responsible for the medical care of these babies.
Dr Brearey was the man who first accused Letby of murder. (His suspicions, he would later tell reporters, began when he noticed that Letby was on duty for all three babies' deaths – never mind that he turned out to be wrong about her being the only nurse on duty for all three deaths.)
Dr Brearey was the man found guilty – alongside his colleague, Dr Ravi Jayaram – of bullying and harassing Letby. (The jury likewise never got to hear about this.)
And Dr Brearey was the man who, on the day Baby D died, emailed Dr Jayaram to say, "it appears that neonatal GBS sepsis following prolonged rupture of membranes is the most likely cause for death" for Baby D.
"She was symptomatic from 12 min of age," he wrote, in a follow up email to the rest of the medical team, referring to how Baby D had gone pale and floppy in her father's arms.
Did prosecutor Nick Johnson call Dr Brearey a gaslighter?
Of course not.
The jury never saw these emails.
They only emerged a year after the trial, as part of the public inquiry into the Letby case.
By then, Letby had already been convicted of murdering Baby D.
![LucyLetbyTrials's tweet photo. At Lucy Letby's trial, the prosecution repeatedly called her a liar and a gaslighter – on one occasion, for speculating that a baby had died of sepsis.
You know who agreed with Letby? Dr Stephen Brearey, one of her accusers. You know who didn't get to hear about this?
The jury.
In June 2015, over the span of two weeks, three babies died on the neonatal unit where Letby worked.
It was a great shock to everyone, with nurses and doctors alike exchanging thoughts on how this could have happened.
In text messages shown in court, Letby and a fellow nurse discussed the babies' possible causes of death.
Baby D, Letby speculated, had died of sepsis.
This, according to the prosecutor, was a prime example of Letby "gaslighting" her colleagues.
"Well, we know [Baby D] wasn't septic," prosecutor Nick Johnson said.
This was nonsense. Johnson did not "know" that Baby D "wasn't septic." The baby's own post-mortem, which found that she'd died of "pneumonia with acute lung injury" (the doctors had no idea she had pneumonia!) took pains to explain why sepsis couldn't be ruled out.
And Letby's opinion – that Baby D died of sepsis – was shared by none other than the head of the neonatal unit, Dr Stephen Brearey.
Dr Brearey was the man ultimately responsible for the medical care of these babies.
Dr Brearey was the man who first accused Letby of murder. (His suspicions, he would later tell reporters, began when he noticed that Letby was on duty for all three babies' deaths – never mind that he turned out to be wrong about her being the only nurse on duty for all three deaths.)
Dr Brearey was the man found guilty – alongside his colleague, Dr Ravi Jayaram – of bullying and harassing Letby. (The jury likewise never got to hear about this.)
And Dr Brearey was the man who, on the day Baby D died, emailed Dr Jayaram to say, "it appears that neonatal GBS sepsis following prolonged rupture of membranes is the most likely cause for death" for Baby D.
"She was symptomatic from 12 min of age," he wrote, in a follow up email to the rest of the medical team, referring to how Baby D had gone pale and floppy in her father's arms.
Did prosecutor Nick Johnson call Dr Brearey a gaslighter?
Of course not.
The jury never saw these emails.
They only emerged a year after the trial, as part of the public inquiry into the Letby case.
By then, Letby had already been convicted of murdering Baby D.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HIFUUBEXQAANo1B.png)
This is the level of absurdness that characterises this whole fiasco.
“She wasn’t there, but it is possible that she was there but nobody remembers, even though nobody ever saw her, and so this x-ray proves she did harm the child on the 12th, but actually it was the 13th, despite no evidence that she harmed the child on the 13th either”
It is all over the place. And some people don’t seem to have a problem with it. 🤷🏻♂️
The consultants were key witnesses for the prosecution. You would think the fact that they only took their historical concerns to the police after losing the grievance claim would be germane to their credibility as witnesses.
The ruling in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms recognised that prisoners need access to journalists to challenge unsafe convictions. So restricting that access in cases like Jeremy Bamber raises real concerns about fairness!!! https://t.co/XvFtgzMAne
On a point of evidential safety:
Justice Goss treated the insulin evidence as the evidential nub that elevated the otherwise entirely circumstantial framework of the #LucyLetby case to "beyond reasonable doubt". But where an evidential "undoubtedly" runs into a scientific "impossible", the only thing we can be sure of now is that the anchor for "beyond reasonable doubt" in the Letby case has given way.
The case is now adrift.
Scientific analysis no longer offers any certainty in respect of the circumstantial reasons advanced for Lucy Letby's ongoing imprisonment.
Indeed, Justice Goss gave jurors permission to use their early certainty about Letby's guilt in the insulin cases as evidence pointing to her guilt in all the other cases.
https://t.co/SQA5wDuhYe
This is an important point that most people may not be aware of. In 2022 I was permitted supervised access to my seized personal laptop at @cheshirepolice HQ - this was part of my Employment Tribunal disclosure provisions.
I quickly discovered that Cheshire Police had removed 6 months of my personal emails - dated between March 2019 & Sept 2019 - they even conceded in open court that they had managed to ‘lose’ this evidence.
This crucial evidence covered what international forensic experts had determined about the #WilmslowMurders (#SilverKiller) and they also covered what a senior Cheshire Police detective said to me when I informed him that the Wilmslow cases were definitely double murders and not murder suicides.
I later spoke with a former police forensic IT expert about these missing emails. His response to me was:
“Stef, the police have *definitely* tampered with your laptop, emails just don’t accidentally disappear like that”
This evidence was exculpatory evidence for me - but it incriminated Cheshire Police and its senior police officers. I wanted my laptop to be forensically tested by an independent authority.
I requested the return of my laptop multiple times, and I asked what legislation they were using to keep hold of it. But I was ignored each time. Professional Standards even said to me “We’re keeping it” without saying how they were actually legally allowed to keep it.
Later in 2022 as part of my grievance investigation, @gmpolice ordered @cheshirepolice to return my personal laptop to me as they had no legal basis to keep hold of it.
But Cheshire Police ignored this directive and instead they chose to destroy my laptop. They destroyed what was my personal property - that had all my past academic work stored on it, as well as my childhood memories.
This is the same police force that ‘investigated’ #LucyLetby. I wouldn’t be surprised if exculpatory evidence has mysteriously gone missing for her too. Maybe this is why they refuse to disclose the SIO decision logs 🤔
There needs to be an independent investigation into this police force, and for all complex death investigations to be removed from them immediately. My own experience has taught me that you cannot underestimate the lengths that this police force will go to, to cover up their fundamental incompetence and repeated failures to investigate complex cases properly.
@DavidDavisMP
@ClarkeMicah
@policeconduct
@ccrcupdate
@VeraBaird
@legalmarkmc
@HMICFRS
@PrivateEyeNews
@LucyLetbyTrials If Thirlwall failed to recognise the significance of the email, how could the defense have been expected to request it from them? Thus, this information could not have been produced at the retrial. Is this not the very definition of "fresh evidence" for the CCRC?
#Letby
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.2M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.6M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
109.1M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.3M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.6M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
86.9M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
80.7M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.3M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.4M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
68.7M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.6M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.5M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
61.2M followers
X
@x
60.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60M followers