Reprinted from The Great Wakeup - Unmasking COVID-19 Deceptions with Dr. Peter McCullough

A Q&A with Dr. Peter McCullough, Internist, Cardiologist and Chief Scientific Officer of the Wellness Company

THE GREAT WAKEUP

AND

PETER A. MCCULLOUGH, MD, MPH

JUN 27, 2024

Dr. Peter McCullough is a distinguished internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist. He is globally recognized for his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing expert advice when few other doctors would publicly stand for the truth. Coauthor of The Courage to Face COVID-19, he advocates for patient well-being over governmental, pharmaceutical, or deep state interests.

This is a 4-part series. In part 4, this brave whistleblower presents a controversial theory about what may be yet another incredible hoax being perpetuated the world. Trigger warning: what Dr. McCullough told me is something I have not heard anyone else in media suggest. It may run counter to your beliefs. Still, I implore you to give it consideration if you truly seek the truth.

MA: What, if any, connection do you see between the possibility of another pandemic, mass migrations, and the potential for World War III? Are these events are interconnected?

PM: The common theme here is instability and disruption. Our challenge continues to be discerning what's real and what's not. Virtually every country right now is telling a similar story about border insecurity. In the U.S., we hear about it basically morning, noon, and night. When I recently went to France, the people there said, "We've got a border crisis!" In Germany, they said the same thing. Recently, there was a mass protest in Sweden over this issue. Justin Trudeau in Canada has declared a border crisis for Quebec.

Yet when I was in Iceland, I happened to read a fascinating op-ed that said, "We have a fabricated border crisis." This led me to wonder: Can all these countries simultaneously be having a border crisis? Can this be real—that so many people are migrating in every direction? Or… is it manufactured instability?

The interesting thing about the border crisis here in America is that 99.9% of the people who come up to me to talk about the border crisis tend to be right-wing. Now, if you take another source of instability—the climate crisis—99.9% of the people with this concern lean left. It makes you wonder: How can crises be segregated into political parties, if they're true crises we face?

MA: That is curious. I can’t help but think there’s something deeper going on here when you put it in those terms.

PM: Speaking of instability, here’s something else that’s curious: The war in Ukraine. Have you noticed there are no embedded reporters covering this conflict? Not to sound conspiratorial but we're told there's a war in Ukraine, that’s it’s been going on for years, yet there are no reports of battle lines and what's been captured and what hasn't.

You turn on CNN or Fox News and there's no report showing where tanks are despite the availability of cell phones and a public willing to post almost any picture of events in their lives. There are no aerial battles being waged, no soldiers parachuting in, no tank battles, no mass humanitarian crises shown to us on newsreels or in posts. And yet, we're constantly told large sums of money are being sent to Ukraine from all over the world, not just the United States.

We're told all these things we can't corroborate for ourselves. This brings us back to your earlier question. If we could corroborate things for ourselves, if we could actually see a climate crisis, if we could go out and observe migrant camps being built in front of our houses, we could say, "Yes, there is a crisis." Instead, we're shown what's called clickbait.

MA: What you’re saying is not something I have heard from anyone else. It’s mind-boggling to think the border crisis could be manufactured.

PM: I know. I’ve personally looked into this because the press has asked me health questions concerning migrants. Some media outlets claim there are 10 million people who have entered the United States. I recently went to a dinner lecture by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick of Texas. He says we're at 13 million. Governor Abbott of Texas says for sure six million have come into Texas. These are large numbers. We have 30 million people living in Texas; six million additional people without homes or jobs would be really hard to hide.

Ask yourself this: what percentage of people does it take to trash a city? I went to San Francisco recently, and it is trashed out. You can see homeless people on almost every block. I saw it with my own eyes. The answer is 7,500 homeless people in San Francisco can trash the entire city. You can't miss 7,500 people homeless on the streets.

So, if 6 million people came to Texas, we would see them up and down the highways. We would see migrant camps all over, just like the homeless camps in San Francisco. It would be unmistakable. Now, I'm located in Dallas-Fort Worth, six hours from the border. I've been on the ground. I will vouch for the fact there are no migrant camps. I've also been to San Antonio. I had some time recently, so I hired a driver to take me around. I will tell you outright: No migrant camps can be seen two hours from the border. I've given public programs in well over 100 US cities over the last year, including in Alaska. I've been in many hotels in many cities. And again, I can tell you, I saw no migrant camps.

MA: That’s a bold claim.

PM: I don’t disagree. People say to me, "Dr. McCullough, you're denying a big problem." They've also said, "Listen, migrants are being put on secret planes and on secret buses, and they're being given secret credit cards."

MA: And what do you say back?

PM: I say, “All of those things are trackable. If anybody can take pictures and put together a report, show us the fleet of planes. Show us the buses. Show us the money. We could easily figure this out."

Meanwhile, I've checked the Department of Homeland labor statistics. The workers in the farm fields are contracting, not expanding. The school systems in Texas are contracting, so there's no new migrant kids going to schools. The emergency rooms are also not overflowing. I'm a doctor, I can tell you. That's not the case.

To be fair, the southern border encounters reported by US Customs and Border control is growing. But it’s been growing at about 5% per year for some time. Is there a lot of action on the border? For sure. Are people taking pictures of it? For sure. But is there a border crisis where massive numbers of people have entered the U.S. that just happens to be concealed perfectly with no means of detection?

I think the answer is no.

MA: What about other countries?

PM: When I was in France, I couldn't see the border crisis there either. When I went to Germany, I couldn't see it. When the Swedish people protested recently, I asked, "What are they protesting over?" It turned out there was one migrant who committed a crime or something they were protesting.

To reiterate, there's always been border problems. If you read Cormac McCarthy’s The Border Trilogy, there's always been chaos on the American border. There were border problems during Trump’s presidency, which is why he tried to build a wall. Don’t get me wrong—there continue to be more migrant encounters with the U.S. Border Patrol reporting more movement at the border.

But I've been to too many places for me to somehow miss seeing this migrant “crisis” we continually hear about.

MA: Couldn’t the migrants be housed in hotels?

PM: I hear that particular claim a lot too. As I mentioned, I've stayed in well over 100 U.S. hotels in the last year or so. I’ve seen no migrants in these hotels. I've even looked into the U.S.’ hotel room capacity. The total is five million. Assuming the number of migrants is really 13 million, that would mean every single hotel room in the country would be filled with these people. I'm in Texas. If six million people really came here, we'd be stepping over the camps on all of our streets.

MA: Again, this is not something I’ve heard before so I’m still processing what you’re saying…

PM: When rational people start to think through all this, they realize, You know what? It must be an exaggeration. And it's important to note that those who accept a border crisis almost instantly reject a climate crisis.

MA: Interesting point.

PM: And I say, “Well, if you’re willing to accept that we have a border crisis, why don't you accept the climate crisis?" It's also curious that these two “crises” have become political issues. Here’s my analysis: there probably is some reality to both arguments, but they're greatly, greatly exaggerated.

MA: Returning to the border, what’s the end goal if the crisis really is exaggerated?

PM: Short-term because both of these “crises” are so polarizing, it allows certain people or certain groups to leverage political issues. If you're a Republican who wants to leverage the situation, you might say, “Let's just keep talking about the border. That's the one thing we can win on.”

Can the Republicans win on great fiscal discipline and prudent spending? No. They've been terrible on both. Can they win on their pandemic response? No. A Republican administration brought in Dr. Antony Fauci. They locked us down. They gave us the “vaccines.” They really can't win on anything. But they think they can win on the border crisis.

MA: What about the left?

PM: As for the left, have they done well with the economy? No. We've got cripplingly high interest rates and out-of-control spending under this administration. Have they done better on education? Not at all. It’s a trainwreck. Have they managed foreign affairs well? No. We've got conflicts brewing all over. Not only that, but the Saudis just ended the petrodollar arrangement that gave us our world reserve currency status. But they feel they can win on the climate crisis. Do you see a common theme here?

MA: Zooming out from these so-called crises, how should people discern what’s really going on for themselves?

PM: For a few years, I was the Chief of Cardiology at the University of Missouri in Kansas City. I love Missouri. It's the "Show Me State." Whatever we are being told, we must do our own research. We must ask to be shown whatever it is the media is claiming. We must think for ourselves. That’s one lesson the COVID scam taught us.

MA: Final question: How do you manage to combat all the evil that's out there and stay positive, especially for the future?

PM: If anything has a premium right now, it’s the truth. The reason I went through the border crisis with you is that I think I'm giving some insights into the truth—no matter how the politicians or the media try to spin reality. If you look outside your window right now, I would bet you don't see migrant camps.

The same thing rings true with the climate crisis. I don't see a climate crisis. It may be a little hotter some days, but I grew up in Texas. When I was a kid, we had many more days where the temperature topped over 100 degrees than we do now. My point is on all these matters, we must seek out the truth with our own eyes. We must demand to be shown the truth instead of simply going along with the narrative—whether it’s coming from sources on the left or the right.

What keeps me positive is the fact courage is really derived from truth. If you know the truth, you can be courageous when you settle it in your mind. My specialty is not the border crisis nor climate. My area is medical. I’ve been all around the world speaking out about this great medical controversy we've been in.

I can tell you, COVID-19 was utterly misrepresented to us. We were told it was far more lethal and far more unassailable. Authorities seized that narrative. Abusing their power, they forced the population to lock down in fear. After that we were told we could wait to be “saved” by an experimental treatment dressed up as a vaccine.

We were completely deceived—wholesale—about the pandemic. But wholesale fraud hasn’t gone away just because that “crisis” is over. Mass deception is

going on elsewhere right now. This is why it’s so important for people to read articles like this and watch podcasts like yours. The truth gives us courage. We must never stop questioning. We must never stop demanding to be shown what’s really going on. 

MA: The more we can dispel the lies and the more we can live in truth the better chance we have to turn things around. Thank you, Dr. McCullough, for your courage. Most of all, thank you for your ceaseless pursuit of truth.

The Great Wakeup is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

https://itsthegreatwakeup.substack.com/p/unmasking-covid-19-deceptions-with?publication_id=1432861&post_id=146052132&isFreemail=true&r=16ettj&triedRedirect=true

Reprinted from LIFESITE NEWS - Over 1,600 doctors and scientists call for ‘immediate suspension’ of COVID shots

More than 26,000 people, including 1,600 doctors, scientists, and academics, have signed onto the ‘The Hope Accord,’ warning that ‘the widespread rollout of the novel Covid-19 mRNA vaccine products is contributing to an alarming rise in disability and excess deaths.’

Andreas
Wailzer

U.S. citizens: Demand Congress investigate soaring excess death rates

(LifeSiteNews) — A group of over 1,600 medical doctors, scientists, and academics have signed a statement calling for the “immediate suspension” of the mRNA COVID shots.

The statement entitled “The Hope Accord” was signed on July 3. Its most notable signatories were diagnostic pathologist Dr. Clare Craig, physician and YouTuber Dr. Suneel Dhand, and evolutionary biologist and podcaster Professor Bret Weinstein. The statement has gained 26,281 total supporters, including 811 medical doctors, 2,102 other healthcare professionals, and 867 scientists and academics.

“A growing body of evidence suggests that the widespread rollout of the novel Covid-19 mRNA vaccine products is contributing to an alarming rise in disability and excess deaths,” the statement begins.

READ: The Telegraph admits COVID shots may have helped cause over 3 million excess deaths

“The association observed between the vaccine rollout and these concerning trends is now supported by additional significant findings.”

“These include the discovery of plausible biological mechanisms of harm demonstrated in laboratory and autopsy studies, as well as high rates of adverse events seen in randomised clinical trials and national surveillance programs.”

“Altogether, these observations indicate a causal link,” the group of experts concludes.

“This new technology was granted emergency use authorisation to address a situation that no longer exists,” the statement continues. “Going forward, the burden of proof falls on those still advocating for these products to compellingly demonstrate that they aren’t resulting in net harm. Until such evidence is presented, regulators should suspend their use as a matter of standard medical precaution.”

The scientists lament that during the COVID crisis, “Fundamental and cherished principles of medical ethics were disregarded” under the pretense of an emergency situation.

“These included: ‘first do no harm’, informed consent, bodily autonomy and the notion that adults protect children – not the other way around.”

“Also, particularly concerning was the erosion of free speech – a democratic principle that underpinned the ability to question untested interventions whilst ensuring other principles were upheld.”

READ: Latest ‘Twitter Files’ reveal Biden officials colluded with Twitter on widespread censorship of medical experts

“The consequence was exposing the public, especially healthy young people – including children – to unacceptable risks of harm,” the experts stated.

“The medical profession must lead by admitting we lost our way,” the group of doctors and other academics said. “By drawing attention to these medical and ethical issues surrounding the Covid-19 response, we hope to validate and amplify the call to establish the relevant facts and ensure vital lessons are learned.”

“An honest and thorough investigation is needed, addressing the root causes that have led us to this place, including institutional groupthink, conflicts of interest and the suppression of scientific debate.”

“We ultimately seek a renewed commitment to the core principles of ethical medicine, returning to an era in which we strive for transparency, accountability and responsible decision-making throughout the spheres of medicine and public health,” the experts conclude.

As the medical professionals pointed out in “The Hope Accord,” overwhelming evidence has shown that the experimental COVID injections have caused millions of deaths and serious injuries, and the dramatic recent pronouncement of a former Japanese government minister apologizing for such deaths attests to that.

In addition to evidence of deaths and serious injuries due to the COVID jabs, it has furthermore been shown that the injections do not prevent the transmission of the virus.

RELATED

Japan’s most senior cancer doctor: COVID shots are ‘essentially murder’

Doctors ‘baffled’ by a ‘mysterious’ new ‘sudden death syndrome’ killing healthy young people

UK watchdog accuses Pfizer of making ‘misleading’ claims, ignoring side effects of COVID shot

UK study of children shows heart inflammation develops after COVID vaccination, not infection

U.S. citizens: Demand Congress investigate soaring excess death rates

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/over-1600-doctors-and-scientists-call-for-immediate-suspension-of-covid-shots/?

Reprinted from Clandestine's Newsletter - The Dems Predictably Oppose the SAVE Act

CLANDESTINE

JUL 08, 2024

The Dems do not care about the will of the American People. So they ship in millions of low-IQ immigrants and give them handouts, to coerce them to vote blue.

They didn’t like the way we voted, so they brought in new voters.

This is why the Dems oppose the wall, border security, voter ID, etc., because their power relies on illegal immigration keeping them in office.

They never believed walls were racist. They never actually cared about “kids in cages”. They never cared about immigrants. It’s always been about election fraud.

They sold out the American People in order to take and retain power. They turned our cities into sh*tholes for their own gain. They ruined the American Dream to line their own pockets off of the fruit of our labor.

And then called you a Nazi for recognizing it.

“Traitorous” is an understatement.

Clandestine’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

https://bioclandestine.substack.com/p/the-dems-predictably-oppose-the-save?publication_id=782803&post_id=146406936&isFreemail=true&r=16ettj&triedRedirect=true

Reprinted from the COURAGEOUS DISCOURSE - BREAKING Publication--COVID-19 Modified mRNA “Vaccines”: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials, Mass Vaccination, and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Part 1

Mead et al Deliver Counter-Punch after Springer Nature Unethical Retraction of High-Impact Paper

PETER A. MCCULLOUGH, MD, MPH

JUL 08, 2024

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

Every major development in medicine evolves over years with peer-reviewed manuscripts and published correspondence along the lines of arguments and scientific discourse. Never had we seen a new technology and mass mandated line of medical products be introduced with no allowance for proper scientific discourse. Not until mRNA.

Mead and co-workers found themselves at the center of a controversy when Springer Nature CUREUS Journal of Biomedical Sciences retracted their paper calling for global market withdrawal of mRNA vaccines. The retraction violated the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines) for retraction and became a news story garnering even more attention. Other papers continued to cite Mead creating a stinging reverberation for Springer who was hoping to silence the paper.

Now epidemiologist M. Nathaniel Mead and six co-authors have punched back with the manuscript divided into two parts for a greater depth of data and analysis on the safety and theoretical efficacy of modified mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In Part I, Mead discloses censorship of the first paper by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, a working syndicate that is hell-bent on suppressing any scientific information on COVID-19 side effects.

You may ask what should have occurred? Springer Nature should have never retracted the paper. Rather letters to the editor and responses to the letters from authors should have been published as proper scientific interchange. The new normal is now unethical retraction, massive publicity, and republication with greater amplification of the message—precisely what the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex is trying to squelch.

Please subscribe to Courageous Discourse as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

President, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Mead MN, Seneff S, Wolfinger R, Rose J, Denhaerynck K, Kirsch S, McCullough PA. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign. Cureus. 2024 Jan 24;16(1):e52876. doi: 10.7759/cureus.52876. Retraction in: Cureus. 2024 Feb 26;16(2):r137. doi: 10.7759/cureus.r137. PMID: 38274635; PMCID: PMC10810638.

COVID-19 Modified mRNA “Vaccines” Part 1: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials, Mass Vaccination, and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex. (2024). International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research , 3(1), 1112-1178. https://doi.org/10.56098/fdrasy50

Subscribe to Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/breaking-publication-covid-19-modified?publication_id=1119676&post_id=146274342&isFreemail=true&r=16ettj&triedRedirect=true

Reprinted from Global Delinquents - Civil War in Donbass 10 Years On

KIT KLARENBERG

JUL 08, 2024

July 1st marked the 10th anniversary of a brutal resumption of hostilities in the Donbass civil war. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it passed without comment in the Western media. On June 20th 2014, far-right Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called a ceasefire in Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation”. Launched two months prior following vast protests, and violent clashes between Russian-speaking pro-federal activists and authorities throughout eastern Ukraine, the intended lightning strike routing of internal opposition to the Maidan government quickly became an unwinnable quagmire.

Ukrainian forces were consistently beaten back by well-organised and determined rebel forces, hailing from the breakaway “People’s Republics” in Donetsk and Lugansk. Resultantly, Poroshenko outlined a peace plan intended to compel the separatists to put down their arms, during the ceasefire. They refused to do so, prompting the President to order an even more savage crackdown. This too was a counterproductive failure, with the rebels inflicting a series of embarrassing defeats on Western-sponsored government forces. Kiev was ultimately forced to accept the terms of the first Minsk Accords.

Anti-Maidan protesters gather in front of the occupied Donetsk Oblast regional administration building, April 2014

This agreement, like its successor, did not provide for secession or independence for the breakaway republics, but their full autonomy within Ukraine. Russia was named as a mediator, not party, in the conflict. Kiev was to resolve its dispute with rebel leaders directly. Successive Ukrainian governments consistently refused to do so, however. Instead, officials endlessly stonewalled, while pressuring Moscow to formally designate itself a party to the civil war. 

No wonder - had Russia accepted, Kiev’s claims that its savage assault on the civilian population of Donbass was in fact a response to invasion by its giant neighbour would’ve been legitimised. In turn, all-out Western proxy war in eastern Ukraine, of the kind that erupted in February 2022, could’ve been precipitated. Which, it is increasingly clear, was the plan all along. 

‘Grassroots Movement’

In the days prior to the April 2014 launch of Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation” in Donbass, notorious war hawk Samantha Power, now USAID chief, openly spoke on ABC of “tell-tale signs of Moscow’s involvement” in the unrest. “It’s professional, coordinated. Nothing grassroots about it,” she alleged. Such framing gave Ukrainian officials, their foreign backers, and the mainstream media licence to brand the brutal operation a legitimate response to a fully-fledged, if unacknowledged, “invasion” by Russia. It is referred to as such in many quarters today.

Yet, at every stage of the Donbass conflict, there were unambiguous indications that the Ukrainian government’s claims of widespread Russian involvement - endorsed by Western governments, militaries, intelligence agencies, pundits and journalists - were fraudulent. One need look no further than the findings of a 2019 report published by the George Soros-funded International Crisis Group (ICG), Rebels Without A Cause. Completely unremarked upon in the mainstream, its headline conclusions are stark:

“The conflict in eastern Ukraine started as a grassroots movement…Demonstrations were led by local citizens claiming to represent the region’s Russian-speaking majority.” 

ICG noted that Russian leaders were from the start publicly and privately sympathetic to Russian-speakers in Donbass. Nonetheless, they issued no “clear guidance” to businessmen, government advisers or the domestic population on whether - and how - they would be officially supported by Moscow in their dispute with the Maidan government. Hence, many Russian irregulars, encouraged by “what they regarded as the government’s tacit approval, made their way to Ukraine.” 

Per ICG, it was only after the conflict started that the Russian government formalised a relationship with the Donbass rebels, although the Kremlin quickly changed tack on what they should do. A Ukrainian fighter told the organisation that he “began hearing calls for restraint in rebel efforts to take control of eastern Ukrainian towns and cities” in late April 2014. However, “the separatist movement in Donbass was determined to move ahead.”

Due to this lack of control, and repeated calls for direct intervention in the conflict from the rebels, Russia replaced the Donetsk and Lugansk rebel leadership with hand-picked figures, who took an explicitly defensive posture. But the Kremlin was ultimately “beholden” to the breakaway republics, not vice versa. It could not even reliably order the rebels to stop fighting. A Lugansk paramilitary told ICG:

“What do you do with 40,000 people who believe that, once they put down their arms, they will all be shot or arrested? Of course, they are going to fight to the death.”

Elsewhere, the report cited data provided by “Ukrainian nationalist fighters”, which showed rebel casualties to date were “overwhelmingly” Ukrainian citizens. This was at odds with the pronouncements of government officials, who invariably referred to them as “Russian mercenaries” or “occupiers”. More widely, figures within Poroshenko’s administration had routinely claimed Donbass was wholly populated by Russians and Russia-sympathisers.

One Ukrainian minister was quoted in the report as saying he felt “absolutely no pity” about the extremely harsh conditions suffered by Donbass civilians, due to the “legal, political, economic and ideological barriers isolating Ukrainian citizens in rebel-held territories” constructed by Kiev. This included enforcing a crippling blockade on the region in 2017, which created a “humanitarian crisis”, and left the population unable to claim pensions and welfare payments, among other gruelling hardships.

Several Donbass inhabitants interviewed by ICG expressed nostalgia for the Soviet Union. Most felt “under attack” by Kiev. A pensioner in Lugansk, whose “non-combatant son” was killed by a Ukrainian sniper, asked how Poroshenko could claim the territory was “a crucial part” of Ukraine: “then why did they kill so many of us?”

‘Worst Option’

In conclusion, ICG declared the situation in Donbass “ought not to be narrowly defined as a matter of Russian occupation,” while criticising Kiev’s “tendency to conflate” the Kremlin with the rebels. The organisation expressed optimism newly-elected President Volodymyr Zelensky could “peacefully reunify with the rebel-held territories,” and “[engage] the alienated east.” Given present day events, its report’s conclusions were eerily prescient:

“For Zelensky, the worst option…would be to try to forcibly retake the territories, as an all-out offensive would likely provoke a military response from Moscow and a bloodbath in Donbass. It could even lead Moscow…to recognise the statelets’ independence. The large-scale military option is mainly advocated by nationalists, not members of Ukraine’s political establishment. But some prominent mainstream politicians refuse to rule it out.”

Zelensky did initially try to resolve the Donbass conflict through diplomatic means. In October 2019, he moved to hold a referendum on “special status” for the breakaway republics in a federalized Ukraine, while personally meeting with representatives of Azov Battalion, begging them to lay down their arms and accept the compromise. Mockingly rebuffed and threatened by the Neo-Nazi group’s leaders, while rocked by nationalist protests against the proposed plebiscite in Kiev, the plans were dropped. So then the President picked the “worst option”.

In March 2021, Zelensky issued a decree, outlining a “strategy for the de-occupation and reintegration” of “temporarily occupied territory.” Falsely characterising Crimea and the Donbass as “occupied by the armed forces of the aggressor state,” it sketched a clear blueprint for a hot war to recapture both territories. Immediately, Ukrainian forces began to mass in the south and east of the country in preparation.

This activity inevitably spooked the Kremlin, leading to a huge military buildup on its border with Ukraine, and extensive wargame exercises, plotting scenarios including encirclement of Ukrainian forces in Donbass, and blocking Kiev’s Black Sea access. Suddenly, the Western mainstream became awash with warnings of imminent Russian invasion, and British and US surveillance flights in the region surged. Media reporting either neglected to mention or outright denied this was explicitly triggered by Kiev’s escalation.

Things quietened down thereafter, although the situation on-the-ground remained tense. In October that year, a Ukrainian drone struck rebel positions in Donbass. Moscow, and German officials, charged that the attack violated Minsk, while Zelensky’s then-right hand man Oleksiy Arestovych denied this was the case. He had by this time openly stated on many occasions war with Russia was Kiev’s price for joining the EU and NATO.

Fast forward four months, and at the start of February 2022, French President Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed his commitment to Minsk. He claimed Zelensky provided personal assurances its terms would be fulfilled. Yet, on February 11th, talks between representatives of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine collapsed without tangible results, after nine hours. Kiev rejected demands for “direct dialogue” with the rebels, insisting - yet again - Moscow formally designate itself a party to the conflict.

Then, as documented in multiple contemporary eyewitness reports from OSCE observers, mass Ukrainian artillery shelling of Donbass erupted. On February 15th, unnerved representatives of the Duma, led by the influential Communist Party, formally requested the Kremlin to recognise the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Vladimir Putin initially refused, reiterating his commitment to Minsk. The shelling intensified. A February 19th OSCE report recorded 591 ceasefire violations over the past 24 hours, including 553 explosions in rebel-held areas.

Civilians were harmed in these attacks, and civilian structures, including schools, targeted deliberately. Meanwhile, that same day, Donetsk rebels claimed to have thwarted two planned sabotage attacks by Polish-speaking operatives on ammonia and oil reservoirs on their territory. Perhaps not coincidentally, in January 2022 it was revealed the CIA had since 2015 been training a secret paramilitary army in Ukraine to carry out precisely such strikes, in the event of Russian invasion.

So it was on February 21st, the Kremlin formally accepted the Duma’s request from a week earlier, recognising Donetsk and Lugansk as independent republics. And now here we are.

Subscribe to Global Delinquents

By Kit Klarenberg · Hundreds of paid subscribers

The role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.

https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/civil-war-in-donbass-10-years-on?publication_id=552010&post_id=146388897&isFreemail=true&r=16ettj&triedRedirect=true

Reprinted from THE EXPOSE - Prof. Angus Dalgleish: The use of mRNA injections is criminal negligence

BY RHODA WILSON ON JULY 6, 2024

“The first thing that I’d ask they do is ban all messenger RNA vaccines! Ban the whole concept of giving the booster, there’s no way in the world these vaccines prevent infection,” eminent oncologist Professor Angus Dalgliesh during a webinar held by the Channel Islands & UK Alliance in April.

The use of the mRNA platform is “a gross medical negligence… really, this criminal negligence now, knowing what we do,” he said.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

UK’s Top Oncologist Prof Angus Dalgleish, Demands Immediate Ban on mRNA Gene Therapy Over Escalating Turbo Cancer Crisis

By Aussie17, 29 April 2024

Well well well, two of the most senior oncologists in the world this week shared their alarming findings with the experimental covid gene therapies. First, we have Prof. Fukushima, and now Prof Angus Dalgleish has reiterated his call to ban all mRNA vaccinations immediately in a forum with Senator Ron Johnson on 26 April 2024.

Read more: Japan’s Most Senior Oncologist, Prof. Fukushima Condemns mRNA Vaccines as ‘Evil Practices of Science’, Aussie17, 28 April 2024

Throw Professor Gabriel Oon in there too, Singapore’s most senior oncologist and founding President of Singapore’s Society of Oncology, who has been warning about the dangers of mRNA tech for some time now.

Read more: Former WHO consultant and Founding President of Singapore’s Oncology Society Prof Gabriel Oon shares his views on COVID and mRNA Vaccinations, Aussie17, 1 August 2023

Could it be that these eminent oncologists from different parts of the world suddenly stopped supporting experimental vaccines and together started saying no to mRNA gene therapy as if they planned it? Let’s get to the heart of it: what these three vocal critics have in common is that they’re retired. This means they don’t have to worry about losing their jobs or money for speaking up. But there are many others still working who keep quiet because they’re afraid of risking their jobs.

So, here comes Prof. Angus Dalgleish. He’s not just any doctor making noise online; he’s a major player in the health field, the genius behind the discovery of the CD4 receptor, and now the head of The Institute of Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy. Discovering the CD4 receptor is a massive deal because it’s like finding the secret entrance that the HIV virus uses to invade the body’s cells, causing AIDS. Prof. Dalgleish’s discovery has led to breakthroughs in medicine, allowing us to create treatments that lock this entrance and keep the virus out. Because of his work, we’ve been able to give people fighting HIV a fighting chance. That’s why Prof Dalgleish is such a big name in the battle against HIV/AIDS.

Regarding the mRNA gene therapy, Prof. Dalgleish didn’t just talk about the bad stuff linked to spike proteins, like blood clotting and the scary Guillain-Barre syndrome. He went even further, sharing stories about his patients. These were people who had been doing well in their fight against cancer, but after getting the booster shot, they faced big setbacks. Their cancer came back worse than before. “I started to see in my melanoma clinic patients who’d been stable for years, who suddenly came in, relapsed. Sometimes the relapse was quite vicious. I mean, they had very bad disease. We had to treat them all over again,” he said. This shows how tough things got for them after the booster.

On top of that, Prof Angus Dalgleish watched three of his friends get the booster shot because they wanted to travel after being trapped at home for two to three years. Tragically, all three of them saw their cancer come back. Even worse, two of them died because the cancer didn’t respond to the treatments that usually work. This heartbreaking experience is why Dalgleish has started to speak out so strongly. He calls the use of mRNA platform in infectious disease “a gross medical negligence… really, this criminal negligence now, knowing what we do.” If that’s not a mic drop moment, I don’t know what is.

But why are Prof. Dalgleish and his fellow big-shot cancer doctors the only ones speaking up loudly while others stay quiet? It’s simple. They can. Being retired means they don’t have to worry about losing their jobs for saying what they think is wrong with the vaccines. This freedom lets them talk openly about their concerns.

Prof. Dalgleish is echoing what his oncology colleagues are calling for: a complete stop to using all mRNA gene therapy. He thinks the booster shot, once praised during the pandemic, is actually causing more problems than it solves. So, what do we have here, folks? A trio of retired oncological rebels, wielding nothing but their knowledge and experience, standing up against an industry seemingly hell-bent on its own agenda. It’s a stark reminder of the price of silence and the value of speaking out, no matter how heavy the crown. Let the rallying cry of Prof. Angus Dalgleish, Prof. Fukushima, and Prof. Gabriel Oon echo far and wide: It’s time to question, time to demand better, and, dare I say, time to listen to those no longer shackled by the golden handcuffs of job security.

Channel Islands & UK Alliance: Professor Angus Dalgleish | Covid Vaccines – Devastating Health Crisis in the Channel Islands, 27 April 2024 (15 mins)

The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…

https://expose-news.com/2024/07/06/use-of-mrna-injections-is-criminal-negligence/

Reprinted from THE EXPOSE - Climate and climate change do not cause or influence weather

BY RHODA WILSON ON JULY 6, 2024

It has become the go-to for climate alarmists and their corporate media collaborators to blame all types of weather on “climate change.”  However, as Roger Pielke Jr. explains, climate is the statistical outcome of the weather.  As such it cannot be the cause of and does not fuel or influence weather.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

Climate-Fuelled Extreme Weather

By Roger Pielke Jr.

It is now a ubiquitous cultural ritual to blame any and every weather event on climate change. Those hot days? Climate change. That hurricane? Climate change. The flood somewhere that I saw on social media? Climate change.

With today’s post, the first in a series, I go beyond the cartoonish media caricatures of climate change, which I expect are here to stay, and explore the actual science of extreme events – how they may or may not be changing, and how we think we know what we know, and what we simply cannot know.

Quite apart from the outsized and oversimplified role of climate-fuelled extreme weather in culture and politics, climate is fascinating and important – and worth understanding as more than a meme. This post lays the groundwork for this new The Honest Broker (“TBH”) series, starting with some important definitions and a quantitative thought experiment.

Let’s start with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) definition of climate” (bold emphasis added):

In a narrow sense, climate is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

Climate refers to a “statistical description”1 of the climate systemdefined as:

The global system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere and the biosphere and the interactions between them. The climate system changes in time under the influence of its own internal dynamics and because of external forcings such as volcanic eruptions, solar variations, orbital forcing, and anthropogenic forcings such as the changing composition of the atmosphere and land use change.

The climate system. Source: NRC 2005. HT Pielke Sr. Note that the sun, volcanoes, and human activities are all defined to be outside the climate system.

The climate system is complicated, but at a high level, we can get our brains around it (above). There is a deeper discussion to be had about why the climate research community decided that people are not included as part of the “climate system,” but let’s leave that for another day.2

That brings us to climate change:

A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.3

Let’s correct one pervasive and pathological misunderstanding endemic across the media and in policy, and sometimes spotted seeping into peer-reviewed scientific research: Neither climate nor climate change cause, fuel or influence weather.

Yes, you read that right.

Climate change is a change in the statistics of weather – it is an outcome, not a cause.

I often use hitting in baseball as an analogy. A hitter’s batting average does not cause hits. Instead, a batter’s hits result in their overall batting average. Lots of things can change a batter’s hitting performance, but batting average change is not one of them.

As the Google NGrams figure below indicates, the idea that climate change is a causal agent has become increasingly common in recent decades, departing dramatically from its use in the IPCC and much of the scientific community. I am sure you can point to examples that you encounter every day.

Using the IPCC definitions, how would we identify “climate change” in the statistics of weather?

The IPCC explains how we detect climate change:

Detection of change is defined as the process of demonstrating that climate or a system affected by climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. An identified change is detected in observations if its likelihood of occurrence by chance due to internal variability alone is determined to be small, for example, <10%.

Let’s illustrate this through a practical analogy. Hold on to your wallet.

Imagine that you are dealt two cards from a standard combined blackjack deck of 6×52 cards (that is, six combined 52-card decks). From this combined deck, the chances of being dealt at least one ace in a two-card hand is about 14.8%.4

Let’s say that I stack the combined deck by adding one additional ace – raising the total from 24 to 25 total aces. Now, what are the chances of getting at least one ace in a two-card hand? The chances have now increased to 15.3%.5

I next add five more aces, for a total of six. Now, in a two-card hand, the chances of receiving at least one ace increases to 18.2%.

We thus have three different decks in our thought experiment:

  1. a standard combined 6×52 deck,

  2. a stacked deck with 1 additional ace – a ~4.1% increase in aces,

  3. a stacked deck with 6 additional aces – a massive 25% increase in aces.

We can next ask: if we did not know that two of the decks were stacked – (2) and (3) – how many hands would we have to play to have a certain degree of confidence that the deck was actually stacked?

To reach a 50% confidence level that the 6×52 card deck was stacked with one additional ace, we would need to play 99 two-card hands. For the stacked deck with 6 additional aces, we’d need just 22 two-card hands.

The table below shows results for different levels of confidence for each of the two stacked decks.

Let’s take the recommended IPCC threshold for detection of change of 90%, and let’s also assume that we play 3 hands per year (comparable to the average number of major hurricanes in the Atlantic every year). In this example to detect a ~4% increase in aces at a 90% level of confidence would require more than 100 years (=329/3).6 Detection of a 25% increase in aces would require almost 25 years (=~73/3).

Note that in this example, the fact and exact magnitude of change (“deck change”) are completely certain. The question is not “Has there been deck change?” (Yes!) but rather, “How quickly does our confidence increase in the existence of that change based on evolving experience?”

The questions become much more complicated if we do not in fact know the magnitude of “deck change” and instead try to use evolving experience to estimate the magnitude of whatever “deck change” may have occurred – for instance, if we are trying to discern whether the change was one or two added aces, or somewhere in between. Complexities multiply further if the number of aces is allowed to change as we are experiencing new hands.

Detection of change is difficult – even in a trivial, stationary statistical process like a very simple card game!

Just imagine if, instead, we were playing Texas Hold’em or Three Legged Knock7 or some other, much more complicated poker game.

Also, “deck change” cannot be used to attribute the cause of receiving an ace in a single hand. If you know that you have a stacked deck with one additional ace, then you can say with certainty that the odds of receiving at least one ace in your next hand increased from 14.8% to 15.3%.

Did that increase of 0.5% increase cause the ace to appear in your most recent hand?

After 329 hands, you can be 90% confident that the greater number of aces that you received over those hands than you would have expected from an unstacked deck are due to the addition of the extra ace.

A final point for today – the thought experiment described today is a pure statistical example. Dealing two cards from a deck does not remotely describe how weather occurs on planet Earth.

Weather can be characterised statistically, but weather does not occur as a result of simple statistical processes.8 Weather is the integrated result of at least: dynamical, thermodynamical, chaotic, societal, biospheric, cryospheric, lithospheric, oceanic, vulcanological, solar, and, yes, stochastic processes.

We are underway, much more to come . . .

Notes:

  • 1 Statistics: “a mathematical body of science that pertains to the collection, analysis, interpretation or explanation, and presentation of data.”

  • 2 Remind me down the road – I have an interesting first-hand account of the origins of the so-called “Bretherton Diagram” that shapes climate research and policy to this day.

  • 3 The IPCC notes that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) employs a different definition of climate change, a consequential decision that I discussed in Pielke (2005): “Note that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ’a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition and climate variability attributable to natural causes.”

  • 4 All math in this post courtesy ChatGPT.

  • 5 This raises the issue of statistical significance vs. practical significance – at what level of change can a sophisticated card player exploit the change? I probably could not make money knowing this level of change to the deck.

  • 6 I’ll refer back to this in a future post.

  • 7 Trademark, Chip H.

  • 8 No one is pulling a ball from an urn that says – 11 hurricanes this year!

About the Author

Roger Pielke Jr. is a climate science policy writer and professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. He holds academic degrees in mathematics, public policy and political science. His research focuses on science, innovation, and politics, and he has written extensively on the governance of sports organisations.  As well as on his blog. Pielke publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘The Honest Broker’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.

Featured image adapted from How Climate Works, American Museum of Natural History

The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…

https://expose-news.com/2024/07/06/climate-and-climate-change-do-not-cause-or-influence-weather/