Pascal Bercker

@CalCarrie Do you really think that people who want her free believe that she is a baby killer? Isn't it because they must believe she is innocent?

@PBercker She's a murderer, a baby murderer at that, why do you stupid fools want her free. My local hospital by the way, I had my three children there so 🖕

The many problems with the Lucy Letby conviction (Thanks to NotebookLM for the well-done video). This is a brief summary of the brilliant Lucy Letby Analysis by Chris.

@jacksonlambNo1 It might be the other round - people like are unable to handle the awful truth that your justice system (in the UK) is partly broken, and that the NHS has become dysfunctional. Who would want to acknowledge that awful truth? Not you, apparently.

@PBercker The only problem with Letby’s multiple convictions is that we have now have a generation of tin foil hat wearing innocence bots who can’t handle the truth.

@SpringFord14 I made it with NotebookLm (AI from Google) because many will not have the time to view the hour-long video this is based on.

@PBercker This is brilliant worth 6 minutes of anybody's time.

@frederi21962339 You are woefully misinformed to believe that. Do you know the origins of those notes that we used in court?

@PBercker Err...Letby confessed

@ells_bells09 Yes - I said so in the description! Read it for yourself! It's an AI summary of a much longer post that most won't take the time to view. Any problems with that?

@PBercker Was this AI created?

4 Pizzas for 7 Friends — Who Will Get Their Pizza? A Combinatorics Problem open.substack.com/pub/pascalberc…

I just published Estimating Pi With A Simple Simulation on Netica medium.com/p/estimating-p…

Genetic diagram of Brilliantium flowers chatgpt.com/s/m_69adf0cdaf…

@CPMorris1234 @IMudlet @DrSusanOliver1 @UKPatriots2geva @drpaulclarke Keep the moral high ground, Chris, and don't get involved in these school-yard spats!

@IMudlet @DrSusanOliver1 @UKPatriots2geva @drpaulclarke I'm not proposing a debate, I've interviewed dozens of people on YouTube previously, most of whom were doctors and professors, plus 65 experts for my book. I'm perfectly happy to interview Dr. Oliver if she's up for it. I have no interest in Internet spats or name-calling.

I challenge @drpaulclarke and @DrSusanOliver1 to both explain themselves in an interview with @CPMorris1234. Don't just mouth off on X. Explain in an interview with Chris why you think Lucy is guilty. You won't because you know you will be ripped apart.

I can understand disagreeing with Dr. Shoo Lee and thinking that he is mistaken. But why go so far as saying he is a charlatan? Why did he ever get involved in the first place? Being from Canada, he never needed to be a part of this, and it's not clear to me how a charlatan could assemble a panel of experts who might in fact have disagreed with his diagnosis. Do you doubt his credentials?

It's so bizarre, isn't it? Endless pressers, after documentary, after interview, after article, after podcast. Immediately there's an article, that not one of them have been able to debunk, they're clutching their pearls at the unfairness of it all. Shoo Lee is a charlatan. He always was a charlatan. He just told them what they wanted to hear.

t.co/Yp7XMrEPG4 On Friday night @lizhull published an extraordinary piece in the @DailyMail - an interview with neonatologist @drpaulclarke in which he calmly, methodically dismantles one of the central scientific claims underpinning the Letby innocence‑fraud narrative. Dr Clarke brought forward four papers that Shoo Lee did not include in his rewritten 1989 review, published in December 2024 - just weeks before he stood at a podium on 4 February 2025 and told the cameras that venous air embolism does not cause discolouration, and that only pulmonary air embolism does. Except the four papers Dr Clarke cites do describe discolouration in venous air embolism. And one of them was in Lee & Tanswell’s own 1989 collation of others' studies. So Lee once knew this evidence existed. Then, in 2024, it vanished. That should be a front‑page story. It goes to the heart of the credibility of the expert whose “no malfeasance….ladies and gentlemen, there were no murders” line which has been repeated endlessly by those pushing the #innocencefraud narrative. And yet - silence. No @guardian. No @Telegraph. No @thesun. These same outlets have been prolific in publishing innocence‑framed pieces, often within hours of each other, often recycling the same talking points. Newspapers routinely lift each other’s stories. But not this one. So the question becomes: why? Is it the gravitational pull of @MaltinPR, Letby’s own PR company, shaping which angles get oxygen and which quietly suffocate? Is it the old boys’ network instinctively closing ranks around senior figures, avoiding anything that might embarrass them or contradict MPs and journalists who have already nailed their colours to the innocence‑fraud mast? Or is it simply that a woman wrote it - misogyny- and investigative work by women mysteriously becomes less “shareable” the moment it challenges a comfortable narrative? Whatever the reason, the outcome is the same: A story that should have detonated across the media landscape has been quietly buried.

I just published David Blackwell & Black History Month — An Early Bayesian — A Man Ahead of His Times! medium.com/p/david-blackw…

I just published Bayesed on What You See - a probability puzzle - medium.com/p/bayesed-onwh…

A map of Bayesiana

I just published Collecting Toys II — A Simple Probability Puzzle, With A Bayesian Network Every box of cereal contains one toy from a group of 5 distinct toys, each of which is mutually independent from the others and is equally likely to be within a given box. How many distinct toys can you expect to collect if you bought 7 boxes? medium.com/p/collecting-t…

Nearing my best steak!

@SeanD174 @MatthewWielicki But more than that, in France, where I live and where summers are getting unbearably hot, at least for us.

@MatthewWielicki In any case the Global Average Temperature has increased by only 1.5 Celsius over the past century.

People obsess over 'global average temperature' like it's some sacred number. Right now, in Texas, one spot is sitting at 3°F while another is baking at 83°F... an 80-degree difference on the exact same day. A single global average hides massive regional extremes and tells you almost nothing about what people are actually experiencing where they live. Averaging the whole planet is like averaging your freezer and your oven and claiming the kitchen is 'perfect room temperature.' The number is mathematically real. The meaning people assign to it is mostly nonsense.

@MatthewWielicki Your claims need more clarification.