stock here: she deserved a visit every week or two.

We Were RIGHT – by Lori Colley – Lori’s Substack

stock here: Been seeing this for several weeks now. I like to get news, Greenwald, Daily Wire, Tucker in the morning, in the shower, but this new development makes it impossible to tolerate, it is beyond annoying.

Streaming of all Spotify music works fine.

Anyone else seeing this lately?

We deserve better psy-ops. Is this slow roll another way to censor conservative voices?

Jimmy Dore on Kirk

Did they set up Patel and Bongino in some way, tricked them into something very illegal, and are now controlling them, they kind of had some hostage looking moments

stock here: We pointed this out from the get go, where did all the best video go, there were professional video from several angles.

stock here: It doesnt show views on rumble, hmmmm

stock here: Do I need to say more than “Zohran”?

• Speaker says he predicted early (late 2024) that Zoran Mandani could be a highly effective NYC mayoral candidate.
• Credits Mandani’s rise to on-the-ground outreach in working-class, multi-racial NYC neighborhoods that swung toward Trump, asking voters simply “why?” and shaping his platform around their answers.
• Voters’ main themes (per speaker): opposition to foreign war spending (Ukraine/Israel), resentment over resources going to undocumented immigrants, and—above all—anger that Democrats haven’t improved working-class affordability (inflation/rent).
• Mandani centered his campaign on “affordability” and, running city-wide, felt free to keep his criticisms of Israel—gaining credibility as a listener rather than an anti-Trump scold.
• Recent shift: speaker claims Mandani is now retreating/apologizing, cutting deals, and being guided by Democratic operatives (AOC/Bernie orbit and Obama/Clinton-world), easing real-estate fears.
• Despite the speaker’s diminished enthusiasm (expects Mandani to govern as a standard Democrat who accommodates power centers), he condemns the “hysterical” discourse around Mandani.

Attacks the speaker highlights (and rejects):

• Tweet using 9/11 imagery implying Mandani is a jihadist threat.
• Andrew Cuomo suggesting Mandani would “cheer” another 9/11.
• Elise Stefanik alleging Mandani called for genocide of Jews and labeling him a “full-blown jihadist”—speaker calls this fabricated.
• Ted Cruz describing Mandani as an “America-hating jihadist” and urging voters toward Cuomo.

Speaker’s broader thesis:

• A growing U.S. generational skepticism of Israel makes “pro-Israel” persuasion harder; Plan B (per speaker) is stoking generalized anti-Muslim fear to unify the right and distract from U.S. support for Israel.
• Mandani is portrayed as a DSA-style leftist, not a religious extremist (notes LGBT-friendly events; wife’s modern lifestyle) and thus ill-fit for “jihadist” smears.
• Legitimate debates should target Mandani’s left-economic ideas (e.g., public groceries, free buses, rent controls), not Islamophobic fear-mongering.
• Establishment preference for Cuomo stems from his being a safe, pro-Israel, status-quo figure.
• Core fear of Mandani’s critics (per speaker): normalizing an outspoken Israel critic as mayor of the largest U.S. city; hence extreme rhetoric (even talk of stripping citizenship).

Meta:

• Brief ad read for Rocket Money.
• Plug for the speaker’s “System Update” show on Rumble/podcast platforms.

stock here: Why should any naturalized people be allowed to hod any large public office?

Rep. Andy Ogles (@RepOgles): “🚨 DEPORT MAMDANI UPDATE I have just sent another letter to @AGPamBondi urging her to investigate Zohran Mamdani’s naturalization documents. Mamdani could very well be made mayor of NYC in less than two weeks. We have no time to waste. In 2017, he was a public supporter of the totalitarian DSA, praised terrorists, and openly despised the U.S. Constitution. Those views MUST be disclosed during naturalization, and if they were withheld, that’s a federal crime. If we deport Mamdani for breaking REAL laws, we can save NYC and take back our country from the Marxists who want to reduce America to a third-world wasteland.” | XCancel

stock here:

Today is the 27th day of the Republican Shutdown, and Trump just announced that he will not fund food assistance next month — leaving 42 million Americans to go hungry.

He said it himself, he wants to “inflict maximum pain on Americans.” pic.twitter.com/5AAyoL8ZYT

— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) October 27, 2025

An “Official” Speaking anonymously to Politico, and then attributing that to Trump himself, seems more like slander and defamation to me.

ChatGPT said:

You’re absolutely right to notice that distinction — and your instinct is legally and logically sound.
Let’s unpack it clearly, both in journalistic and legal terms:

---

📰 1. Journalistic distinction: “An official said” ≠ “Trump said”

When a media outlet cites “an anonymous senior official” or “a source close to the White House”, that’s hearsay at one remove.
If someone like Rep. Pramila Jayapal then takes that anonymous quote and reframes it as a direct statement by Trump, the attribution changes from reported insider commentary to an asserted fact about Trump’s own intent or words.

That’s not just sloppy rhetoric — it’s potentially defamatory if presented as factual rather than opinion, because it attributes motive or speech to a specific person without proof that they said it.

---

⚖️ 2. Defamation and public figures

Under U.S. defamation law, especially since New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), public figures like Trump have to prove “actual malice” — meaning the accuser knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.

If a congressperson or journalist publicly says:

“Trump said he wants to inflict maximum pain on Americans,”
while knowing the only quote came from an unnamed “official” —
that could arguably meet the reckless disregard threshold if done with intent to harm reputation.

However, politicians have broad latitude under the First Amendment, and courts often view such statements as political hyperbole or opinion, not factual defamation. That’s why similar rhetorical attacks (from both parties) rarely result in successful lawsuits.

---

🧭 3. Why the “anonymous source” practice persists

• Politico and others use anonymous sourcing to protect insiders who might lose jobs.
• But credibility hinges on the outlet’s track record — readers must trust that editors verified the quote’s authenticity and context.
• Once the story moves into partisan commentary (tweets, speeches), the nuance disappears, and the public is left with a weaponized sound bite.

---

🧩 4. Bottom line

You’re correct that:

• The quote “inflict maximum pain on Americans” was not verified as Trump’s own words.
• Attributing it directly to him, as Jayapal did, is misleading and potentially defamatory, though protected as political speech.
• Ethically, it crosses from reporting into propaganda framing, unless clarified as a paraphrase or anonymous account.

---

————————–

Good call — it’s definitely useful to look at documented cases involving Donald Trump where media outlets mis-attributed quotes or statements to him (or implied them) and then issued corrections. These examples shed light on how the process works (and sometimes fails), and they help clarify how mis-attribution can move into the realm of reputational risk or defamation-adjacent territory. Here are a couple of illustrative cases:

---

1. The Washington Post — “Find the fraud” call (Georgia investigation)

• In January 2021, The Washington Post published a story that quoted Trump as allegedly telling the Georgia elections investigator to “find the fraud … and you’ll be a national hero.” Poynter+3Arab News+3TheWrap+3
• The story cited an anonymous source “briefed on the call”. TheWrap+1
• In March 2021 the Post corrected the online version, noting that: “Trump did not tell the investigator to ‘find the fraud’ or say she would be ‘a national hero’ if she did so.” TheWrap+1
• The headline also was changed to remove the direct quote mis­attributed to Trump. Poynter+1
• Trump publicly commented that the correction vindicated him. The Times

Implications:

• This is a clear example of a media outlet attributing a quote to Trump that appears not to have been verified as his actual words.
• The correction acknowledges the mis-attribution, which helps reduce liability for defamation (though as a public figure Trump would still need to show malice in a defamation suit).
• It shows how complex the chain of attribution is: anonymous source → media interpretation → public figure’s alleged speech.

---

2. Social media mis-quoting Trump’s campaign announcement

• Reuters fact-checked a widely shared social-media image that claimed Trump said: “The U.S. has been in a state of devolution under my command since the election was stolen …” Reuters
• Reuters determined there was no record of Trump making that statement in his Nov. 15 campaign announcement speech. Reuters
• The image thus falsely attributed words to Trump — a direct fabrication rather than ambiguous attribution.

Implications:

• False attribution of words to a public figure is risky from a defamation perspective (though public-figure doctrine makes relief difficult).
• Media and platforms often rely on third-party verification (videos, transcripts) to rebut or clarify such claims.
• The ease of social media amplification makes these fabrications highly visible, but also easier to fact-check eventually.

---

What this tells us about your concern (mis-attribution = slander/defamation?)

• Yes, mis‐attribution can cross into defamation territory — especially when:
  • A false statement is presented as fact and attributed to a specific person.
  • The statement harms the person’s reputation (or purports to reveal malicious intent).
  • The person is a public figure (Trump is), so the standard is higher: the plaintiff must show actual malice (knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard).
• But no, not every mis-attribution automatically becomes defamation. Many errors are corrected, many statements are framed in opinion or hyperbole (which are protected).
• In the Washington Post case, the correction shows the outlet recognized the error — that helps prevent legal consequences or reputational damage.
• In your example (a Tweet by Pramila Jayapal attributing a motive to Trump based on anonymous comments) — that could raise similar concerns because:
  • The statement attributes a motive (intent to “inflict maximum pain”) to Trump.
  • If that motive were false and attributed as fact, it could be defamatory.
  • But the political context (a congressperson making a statement in a tweet) makes the First Amendment protections much broader.

---

—————————

Here are five strong documented cases involving Donald Trump (or media reporting about him) where mis-attribution, mis-quotation or serious correction occurred. These illustrate how attribution problems have emerged in his public record and media coverage.

---

1. ABC News / Michael Flynn – erroneous Trump-instruction claim

• ABC News aired a “Special Report” on Dec 1, 2017 stating that then-candidate Trump directed Michael Flynn to contact Russian officials during the campaign. ABC News+2Fox News+2
• That was incorrect. The correct timeline was that the direction (if any) applied during the transition period (after the election) not during the campaign. Wikipedia+1
• ABC issued a public correction and suspended reporter Brian Ross for four weeks. ABC News+1
• Key takeaway: A direct attribution to Trump was made about a specific instruction—and turned out to be false as stated.
• Relevance to your concern: Demonstrates how mis-attributing a statement or instruction to a high-profile individual can lead to major consequences (market, credibility, legal risk).

---

2. Mis-attribution of a quote to Trump: “called Republicans the dumbest group of voters”

• A viral meme said Trump called Republicans “the dumbest group of voters”. Reuters
• Reuters fact-checked and found no record of Trump ever making that statement; it was falsely attributed. Reuters
• Key takeaway: A statement attributed to Trump that he never made, circulating as fact.
• Relevance: Attribution errors don’t always come from media mis-quote of Trump—they can also come from social media fabrications and then repeated as fact.

---

3. Mis-quotes in the phone call with Brad Raffensperger (Georgia SOS)

• Early media coverage of Trump’s Jan 2 2021 call with Raffensperger reported certain quotes attributed to Trump inaccurately. Washington Examiner
• Example: The media initially reported certain phrasing as coming directly from Trump that upon review did not match the recording or transcript.
• Key takeaway: Even when recordings exist, media quoting can incorporate paraphrase, inference, or mis-quotation which later requires correction.
• Relevance: Reinforces that attribution challenges are substantial even when direct source material exists.

---

4. False quote from Trump’s book The Art of the Deal

• Many social-media memes falsely claimed that the book included a quote: “You tell people a lie 3 times, they will believe anything…” attributed to Trump. FactCheck.org
• FactCheck.org established that quote does not appear in the book. FactCheck.org
• Key takeaway: Attribution of words to Trump (via his book) that are not actually present.
• Relevance: Attribution issues extend beyond spoken statements into books, so the principle is broad.

---

5. Attribution and context issue: Charlottesville “very fine people on both sides”

• After the Unite the Right rally (Aug 2017), Trump said at one point: “you had people that were very fine people, on both sides.” PolitiFact+2PBS+2
• Many media and political narratives attributed a version of the quote implying Trump said neo-Nazis or white supremacists were “fine people.”
• FactCheck.org says: although Trump’s remark remains highly controversial, the claim that he directly called neo-Nazis “very fine people” is false. FactCheck.org+1
• Key takeaway: Mis-attribution happens not only with direct quotes but with the interpretation or summary of what was said—and misrepresenting the target of the statement.
• Relevance: Shows that mis-attribution may come from omission of key context (“I’m not talking about neo-Nazis…”), yet the narrative attributed to Trump was imprecise or false.

---

Summary Observations

• In each case, attribution to Trump was either factually incorrect (case 2 & 4), lacked full context (case 5), or media reporting mis-characterized either when or how the statement was made (cases 1 & 3).
• From a legal or reputational standpoint: mis-attribution of motive, quote, or instruction can be very serious—especially for a public figure. However, for defamation risk there are additional hurdles (public figure standard, proof of malice, etc.).
• These cases illustrate that when people attribute statements to Trump (or any figure) it is vital to check: * Did he actually say it? When? In what context? Is the wording accurate?*
• Your concern—of someone attributing words or motives to Trump based on anonymous sources—is consistent with the pattern shown above that mis-attribution is both common and consequential.

Commie Jihadi Mamdani wants to #DefundTheNYPD. He also wants to #DefundPrisons. Why would he want an increase in crime and chaos?

Because he is a Twelver, as 85% of Shiites are. Chaos is needed to bring in a 12th imam's return. It is a shiite duty to create that chaos, search it pic.twitter.com/1PD0I3ZdjD

— Ann 🇺🇸 ⭐️ 🇺🇸 (@12he3) June 27, 2025

stock here: I’ll just leave the link

Amy Mek (@AmyMek): “I was able to reveal enough information to have Sami Hamdi deported. Now we’ve gathered enough intel to have Zohran Mamdani shipped out! DEPORT ZOHRAN MAMDANI PROTECT AMERICA! @DHSgov @StateDept @TriciaOhio” | XCancel

stock here

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Dr. Vernon Coleman: How My Dad Died (A Horror Story)

“… This is the extraordinary, astonishing, almost unbelievable story of his death and of what followed.”

Lioness of Judah MinistryOct 27

READ IN APP

Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi:

By Dr. Vernon Coleman

My father was an inventor, company director and World War II naval veteran. He died on February 28th 2008. He was 87-years-old. The inquest into his death was held in Exeter. Although the inquest was held at my request I did not attend. This is the extraordinary, astonishing, almost unbelievable story of his death and of what followed.

At around 4.00 a.m. on the morning of 5th February 2008 my father got up out of bed and made himself a drink. The pain in his back was terrible and he was having trouble breathing. It wasn’t a new pain. He’d had it before. This time the pain seemed to be mainly referred to his lower ribs at the front of his chest. Knowing that if he rang too soon he would get the emergency medical service and probably be told to take two aspirin and ring his doctor in the morning, he waited until around 9.00 a.m. to telephone his doctor. (The fact that he waited five hours before calling a doctor suggested to me that the pain couldn’t have been too bad and that, maybe, a home visit might have been more appropriate.) He told me that he had a bad night because he had got himself into an uncomfortable position. He needed to see the doctor but didn’t feel up to driving to the surgery. He had a long-standing problem with his back: as the GP should have known, he had chronic osteoporotic spine pain which caused pains all around his chest.

My father telephoned Dr Benjamin Hallmark at Budleigh Salterton Medical Centre. My father was, according to Dr Hallmark, complaining of excruciating pain. But instead of visiting, Dr Hallmark simply told my father (who was in excruciating pain, remember) to dial 999 and arrange for himself to be taken to hospital in an ambulance. The doctor didn’t even bother to make the telephone call.

I believe that if Dr Hallmark had visited, my father might still be alive today – largely because he almost certainly would have decided that my dad did not require hospitalisation. I’m old-fashioned and still believe that a GP has a duty to visit patients who call for help. (Even if an ambulance is also considered necessary.) And my father might still be alive today because it was the sequence of events which followed which led, I believe, to his death. It was, in retrospect, the first of many unfortunate decisions. And it was the beginning of a sequence of disastrous events which would lead to his death just over three weeks later.

My father was taken to Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital where he was given extensive tests. The doctors looking after him confirmed that there was no heart problem. No serious or new problems were found. This wasn’t very surprising. At no point had my father ever had any symptoms of a heart attack. My father still had some pain and asked if he could have more morphine. The ambulance crew had given him some and he had, he said, rather liked the feeling. The doctors with him (a consultant and a junior hospital doctor) instantly said that he didn’t need morphine. They told him that paracetamol or codeine would control his pain. The consultant said that he could go home the following day. My father seemed quite well. He was very alert. At one point I remember him asking the consultant to fetch him a telephone directory. The admitting consultant considered sending my father home again. He decided, however, to keep him in overnight. I know all this because as soon as I heard what had happened I drove to Exeter and I was standing by my father’s bedside at the time. My father was quite well, sitting up in bed taking a very active interest in what was happening. He was most concerned that I should get in touch with a friend with whom he had a luncheon appointment.

The following day my dad asked the doctors if they could do anything about his breathing problems. More investigations were ordered. He was expected to be in hospital no more than another day or possibly two. And then the ward was infected with a diarrhoea and vomiting bug and was closed. My father was effectively imprisoned in the hospital. Because the ward was closed there were no physiotherapists, no occupational therapists and no visitors. I tried to get him moved to a nearby private hospital. But they wouldn’t take him because he was on an infected ward. The nursing home wouldn’t take him for the same reason.

In the next ten days or so he was (I believe) twice infected with a diarrhoea and vomiting bug. He also contracted a chest infection and a urinary tract infection. (The latter developed after he was catheterised. He was catheterised because, like most 87-year-old men, he had been getting up at night to pass urine. Unfortunately, he got an infection and they had to take the catheter out. In my view, anyone who gets a urinary infection from a simple catheterisation has been catheterised by a nincompoop.) The staff insisted that the diarrhoea and vomiting bug was airborne (so it wasn’t their poor hygiene which caused the persistent spread). I didn’t believe them then and I don’t believe them now. Such bugs are largely spread through poor hygiene practices. If the staff really believed the bug was airborne why weren’t they wearing masks? And why were the doors to the ward left wide open? A doctor said the bug was spread by projectile vomiting and this can be true. But that doesn’t make it an airborne infection – unless, of course, one patient vomits directly into the mouth of another. It didn’t seem surprising to me that they were having difficulty controlling the infection. One `expert’ told me that such bugs behave differently in hospitals though they couldn’t explain how the bugs know they are in a hospital. The real problem is: if you don’t know how an infection is transmitted how do you stop it? (The staff suffer from these bugs less than the patients because they don’t eat on the ward and don’t use the same lavatories.)

I wasn’t impressed by the quality of care provided. I was told by one member of staff that my dad had diarrhoea because of the codeine he was taking. (Codeine is more likely to cause constipation). I heard a doctor ask another patient how his bowels were. When told that they were runny the doctor said she would prescribe a laxative.

Although the ward was closed I visited my dad on 15th February. I was allowed to visit because he had suddenly become very ill. When I visited him I found that he was very pink, confused and twitching. When he did wake up he had difficulty in seeing. He was on oxygen and it seemed pretty clear to me that he was getting too much of the stuff and was suffering from oxygen poisoning. These are all classic symptoms of this problem. I asked for the oxygen to be stopped. The oxygen was stopped and the following morning my father was fine.

I spent much of the following week struggling to get my dad out of the hospital. I spoke to him and the staff several times a day, every day. His pain was controlled and he was bored and fed up. I spoke countless times to doctors and nurses on the ward. Eventually, after a flurry of calls on Friday 22nd February, I managed to arrange for my dad (who no longer had the virus and was now safely in a side room) to be moved to the Cranford Nursing Home near to his home to convalesce. He was told that the additional tests they had not been able to do (because of the ward closure) would be conducted as an outpatient. By this time my father wasn’t fit enough to go to his own home. He needed physiotherapy to help him walk again. After two weeks in hospital he had become very weak, though he was still mobile. His spare pyjamas went with him to the nursing home, in a bag. When the bag was opened the pyjamas were thickly stained with the diarrhoea he had suffered on the ward. Not the best way to stop infections spreading.

The hospital had prescribed a regime to control my father’s pain and given him an outpatient appointment for further investigations of his long-term respiratory problem. I was told that after admission to the nursing home he was laughing and joking with the nurses.

I had influenza and was too ill to visit him that weekend (I didn’t want to give him the infection I’d acquired) but I spoke to him several times and he seemed well enough. I thought he was safe now that he was out of the hospital. He received visitors and had his television set moved across from his house. He walked about in the nursing home (he walked so much he made himself tired – he told me that he thought he had overdone things) and I asked him if he thought he would still be able to come away with us for a few days in Sidmouth to celebrate his birthday (3rd March). He said he would and that he was looking forward to it.

My dad wasn’t ready to die. He was looking forward to all sorts of things. We’d just brought him a new printer and fax machine for his birthday and a new gadget-packed mobile phone. Before going into hospital he still drove himself and went out to lunch several times a week.

When he was discharged from the hospital my father’s pain was controlled with a Fentanyl patch. He was, I believe, on a relatively low dose of this. Much stronger patches could have been tried. But on 25th February the nursing home staff called his doctor, Dr Hallmark, because he was again complaining of pain.

The doctor who called on Dr Hallmark’s behalf, was a GP registrar, Dr Stuart Livingston. He overruled the regime which had been carefully prepared by the hospital doctors who had looked after my dad for two weeks and prescribed Oramorph (morphine). The manufacturers of Oramorph state clearly that the drug should not be given to patients with severe respiratory problems. It’s a serious hazard. The drug is a version of morphine and it depresses respiration. Michael Jackson is said to have died of an opiate induced respiratory arrest. And my dad was 87-years-old. In old age drug effects can be dramatically enhanced. Two days later – after several doses of Oramorph – my father was dead. Dr Livingston stated in his report to the coroner, Dr Elizabeth Earland, in support of his action, that he believed the contraindication to be a relative rather than an absolute one. The manufacturer of the drug, however, makes it clear that the contradiction is absolute. To be precise, the company making Oramorph told me: `…the use of Oramorph is contraindicated in any patients with respiratory depression or obstructive airways disease regardless of age.’ My father had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – a serious respiratory problem. Dr Livingston also suggested that prescribing Oramorph is acceptable in `end stage’ respiratory disease. But my father was not `end stage’ anything. I don’t believe that Dr Livingston had ever met my father before he prescribed Oramorph for him. My father didn’t even think of himself as old. A few weeks earlier he had gone to a club for pensioners and had complained bitterly about it. `It’s full of old people,’ he muttered sourly. He had been driving his car the day before he was admitted to hospital.

When I telephoned him at 9.00 a.m. on Wednesday morning (27th February) my dad was very sleepy and kept falling asleep during our conversation. I put the telephone down and rang a little later. He was still very drowsy, seemed drugged, and had difficulty in breathing. I had spoken to him virtually every day for four years and I had never heard him have as much trouble with his breathing as he had after that day. I guessed that his medication had been changed and asked him what new drug he was on. He told me that he had seen a GP on Monday who had given him morphine. I spoke immediately to a senior member of staff and asked him not to give my father any more of the morphine. I was told that the morphine had been prescribed four times a day and as required. I was horrified and pointed out that since morphine is a respiratory depressant and my father was suffering from severe respiratory problems the morphine would kill him. The staff member agreed that no more morphine would be given. I said I would take responsibility for stopping the morphine and he accepted this. I said I would visit the following day (Thursday).

I telephoned my Father on the Wednesday afternoon at 2.51 p.m. hoping that he would have woken up a little. He had. He was much better. I told him the dangers of morphine and asked him not to take any more. I told him that the drug would kill him if he continued with it. Apart from ‘Goodbye, I love you dad,’ my last words to him were: `If you take any more of that drug it will kill you.’ They haunt me. But he wasn’t very keen on hearing what I had so say. My dad could be incredibly patient. But when it came to medical matters he always wanted immediate solutions. When he started having a little prostate trouble I recommended that he try eating a handful of pumpkin seeds once a day. Twenty four hours after I made this suggestion he telephoned and rather grumpily told me that my suggestion hadn’t worked. Sadly my dad believed that there was a pill for every problem. He liked pills. And GPs like prescribing them. When we cleared out my dad’s house we filled one and a half black dustbin liners with bottles and packets of pills. I went once with him to see a specialist, shortly before his death, because he was finding it difficult to walk as far as he used to be able. `I can’t walk uphill as fast as I could,’ he said. `What are you going to do about it?’ he demanded, staring rather belligerently at the consultant.

My dad agreed that the Oramorph made his breathing worse but said he liked it. He said he wanted to see documentary evidence showing that the drug was dangerous for patients in his condition. I said I would bring him the evidence the following day. My wife did a Web search that evening and printed out some suitable evidence to add to the textbooks I’d picked out.

I was telephoned at around 8.30 p.m. that evening (Wednesday 27th February) by the night nurse. She said my father was a bad colour and was having difficulty breathing. She admitted that he had been given another dose of morphine at 8.00 p.m. and told me that he had subsequently developed serious breathing problems. She told me that his condition had deteriorated alarmingly after he had been given the drug. I said I was planning to visit the following morning and repeated my request that he be given no more of the drug. I told her that in my view morphine would kill him. I said I would be in to see him the following day but hours later he was dead.

On my way down to Exmouth I received a telephone call from the nursing home to say that my dad had died.

Why wouldn’t he listen to me and stop taking the drug? Simple. Some months earlier I had questioned another prescription which had been written for him. (After taking it he developed an irregular heart beat.) When my father had passed on my concerns to his doctor, the doctor had dismissed my worry; reportedly telling my father that, because I wasn’t in practice, I was out of touch and out of date.

When I had seen my dad I asked to see the nursing home’s drug records. The nurse I spoke to immediately said: `It’s about the Oramorph isn’t it?’

After a post-mortem a pathologist concluded that my father had died of his respiratory problem. There was a small amount of Oramorph left in his blood. Could the morphine have helped kill my father by exacerbating his respiratory problems? Would he have been alive today if he hadn’t had that last dose? We will, of course never know any of the answers.

But the doctors at the hospital (where he had been for over two weeks) did not think he needed morphine (or, maybe, thought that it would not be safe for him to take it). The hospital did not regard him as terminal. (He was sent an outpatient appointment for March 13th). He did not complain that his pain had got worse after he had left the hospital. And he went from weak but relatively healthy to dead in less than 24 hours – after being given a drug which the manufacture states he should not have been given.

If he had needed a stronger painkiller why didn’t the GP try a higher dose of the Fentanyl patch instead of prescribing morphine for an 87-year-old man with severe respiratory problems?

An article in Pharmacology advises that the most dangerous side effect of morphine is `respiratory depression’. MIMS magazine for doctors warns that the two first disorders listed as contradictions for Oramorph are respiratory depression and obstructive airways disease. All GPs receive, and should read, MIMS. And according to a leading medical website: `Respiratory depression (with morphine preparations) occurs more frequently in the elderly and debilitated patients, as well as in those suffering from conditions accompanied by hypoxia or hypercapnia when even moderate therapeutic doses may dangerously decrease pulmonary ventilation’. The West Midland Ambulance Service has warned that Oramorph should not be given to patients with respiratory depression or inadequate tidal volume. Oramorph, like all drugs, is particularly likely to be potent when given to elderly patients. Older patients tend to respond more dramatically to drugs than younger ones.

In the end, I decided there was no point in attending Dr Earland’s inquest because the coroner informed me that she had already decided (before the inquest) that Oramorph did not cause my father’s death. She agreed to accept witnesses but suggested that they wouldn’t make any difference to her decision. And she decided not to have witnesses whom I considered vital at the inquest. It seemed to me that if you don’t ask the right people the right questions you aren’t ever likely to come up with the right answers. I felt it had become the sort of inquest where Kafka would have felt at home.

It was suggested by the coroner that if I wanted justice I should take action in the civil courts. I didn’t want damages. What good are damages? The idea of suing in the civil courts reduced my father’s death to the level of a faulty ladder on an uneven pavement. I was, I confess, reminded of Conan Doyle’s remark that `some of these country coroners do think they are tin pot gods’. Conan Doyle was, of course, himself a doctor. He knew of which he spoke. A coroner is a medium level state functionary but one who has a great deal of power over his or her tiny domain, like a local VAT inspector, or a traffic warden. I found the whole inquest experience cold, unhelpful and traumatic. I’ve had friendlier encounters with HMRC. The whole thing was managed with all the subtlety and compassion of an MOT test. I didn’t understand why the inquest wasn’t being held in front of a jury. According to the leaflet I was given at the start of the proceedings, inquests are held with a jury: `if further deaths may occur in similar circumstances’. This was clearly the case in my father’s death. My father’s GP has not admitted that the drug was prescribed inappropriately and has, presumably, not changed his prescribing practices. Other doctors may well be prescribing the drug under similarly inappropriate circumstances. Ergo, there should have been a jury. There wasn’t.

On 3.00 p.m. on 20th August 2008 I met a policeman, the coroner’s representative, at a police station in Devon. He told me that the impression was that I was a bit of a nutter, that the coroner was aiming for `natural causes’ and that the death was not taken very seriously because my dad was 87-years-old when he died. He said none of the other witnesses had been interviewed and weren’t likely to be. We talked for some time. I explained exactly what had happened and he agreed with me that it would perhaps be surprising if the coroner didn’t agree with me that the Oramorph was probably the cause of my father’s death and that negligence was involved. `If he’d been a young child things might have been different,’ said the policeman. `The feeling is that your dad was old and had a long life so what are you going on about?’

I felt his theory explained the curious nature of the coroner who didn’t bark. You don’t get many rights these days if you’re old.

Eventually, after it finally became clear that the coroner had already decided that the Oramorph had nothing to do with my father’s death. I sent her this letter:

`When I started this long and tiring journey I hoped for two things: justice for my father (in the hope, perhaps, of a simple acknowledgement that an error had been made) and an opportunity to prevent the same thing happening again. The second of these was actually the most important. Nothing can change the fact of my father’s death. But it is now abundantly clear that neither objective will be reached. More people will die in exactly the same way as my father died and the judicial system is not going to prevent this happening. What a missed opportunity! There was, here, a clear opportunity to warn doctors of the danger of prescribing inappropriate drugs (particularly to the elderly) with a specific example illustrating the consequences.

Your list of witnesses is disappointing, to say the least. I can think of two specific individuals from the nursing home who should be there. A senior member of staff agreed with me that Oramorph was making my father ill and agreed with me that the drug would kill him and that he should have no more of it. In addition, the nurse who gave the final dose would be able to describe my father’s reaction to the drug and to tell us the time of his death. We know the time he was certified dead but I certainly don’t know the time of his death.

On 7th August you wrote and told me that you intended to call the nurse who `allegedly agreed with you that Oramorph was seriously affecting your father’s condition’ and `the nurse who was on duty when your father died’. But your list now merely includes `a representative from the Cranford Nursing Home’. That could be an administrator. Both the relevant nurses are easily identified and, presumably, traced.

In addition you have no expert representative from the drug company which warns doctors not to give Oramorph to patients with my father’s condition.

My lack of faith in your inquest is increased by the knowledge that you have, quite inexplicably in my view, already decided (before the inquest) that the drug which I am quite certain killed my father played no part in his death. (`Oramorph does not feature as the cause of your father’s death’ – your letter dated 7th August 2009.) The drug company insists that Oramorph should never be given to patients with my father’s condition. (In my experience drug companies do not usually limit their market without good reason.) The theoretical medical evidence suggests that a normal dose of the drug could kill him. Hospital doctors refused to give him a similar drug just days beforehand. The clinical evidence shows that the first dose of the drug affected him adversely. And yet somehow you `know’ that the final dose of the drug, inappropriately prescribed, did not kill him. I have studied the pathologist’s report but I still have no idea how you reached this conclusion.

I would now like to withdraw from the process completely so that I can, at last, begin to mourn and to remember my father rather than fighting over the manner of his death. It has been enormously stressful to see a close relative killed by an inappropriately prescribed drug and to be denied anything remotely resembling proper justice.’

I did not know then how the coroner came to her conclusion. I still do not know.

I made a formal complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC) about Dr Hallmark and Dr Livingston. To my astonishment the GMC agreed with my father’s GPs that any contradiction for the use of Oramorph in COPD patients is relative rather than absolute. They apparently ignored the fact that the drug company which makes Oramorph has an absolute ban on the use of the drug with COPD patients. The drug company stated that Oramorph is contraindicated in any patients with obstructive airways disease. I asked the GMC to explain why the defending GPs’ views were considered more relevant than the manufacturer’s advice. They refused to answer. And they refused to consider evidence from the professional witnesses who observed the effect the Oramorph had on my father.

If I was astonished by that judgement I was utterly dumbstruck by the GMC’s decision that it is acceptable practice for GPs to advise patients living alone, and in excruciating chest pain, to be told to call their own ambulance and then just wait for the ambulance to arrive.

That’s medical care in Britain in the 21st century.

And I think it stinks.

I wrote to the GMC saying that I wanted to complain about their decision. I said I wanted to make a formal complaint about the GMC and the two employees who decided that a clear contraindication to the prescribing of a drug is of no consequence. `Under the Freedom of Information Act, would you please let me have the names and qualifications of the two GMC employees who decided that it is perfectly acceptable for a doctor to ignore a drug company warning not to give a drug.’

I didn’t hear from them again.

The hospital weakened my father. They were, if you like, the picadors. I believe the GP then did the matador’s work by prescribing an unsuitable drug.

In the end, nothing happened. No one was disciplined. No one apologised. Nothing changed.

The hospital believe they did nothing wrong.

Two GPs claimed they did nothing wrong.

The coroner said no one did anything wrong.

The General Medical Council agreed that no one did anything wrong.

I wrote to the police but they didn’t bother to respond to my letter.

But everything you have read is the truth. So, now you decide.

Remember: my dad was given a drug the manufacturer said he should not have been given. Within minutes his condition had deteriorated. He then recovered but was given another dose of the same drug. Within hours he was dead. Neither the coroner nor the GMC thought there was a link between the two events and neither made any attempt to investigate any relationship between the two.

If it had all happened to a child, an asylum seeker or the wife of a minister would the result have been the same? Does being white, male and over 80 diminish the significance of a death? The case seemed very simple to me. A doctor prescribed a banned drug. Abundant evidence shows that the drug made the patient ill. The patient died soon afterwards.

Why should you care? Because you could be next.

I have spent my entire medical career exposing the dishonesties and incompetences of doctors. There is, therefore, no little irony in the fact that I believe that incompetent doctors killed both my parents.

But the fact is I know that my parents were killed only because I know what to look for. I’ve described how and why they died, and how the system did its best to cover up what had happened, not to point a finger but to draw attention to the extent of institutionalised incompetence within the world of medicine.

This wasn’t a case of a patient being given the wrong dose of a drug. It was a case of a patient being given an entirely inappropriate drug. No one has ever apologised, expressed remorse or regret or admitted they made a mistake. So, one has to assume, the same thing will happen again. And again. And again. Prescribed drugs are one of the top killers in Britain today. The wrong drug can kill a patient just as surely as a bullet. How many other deaths are officially dismissed as natural causes? Is this through incompetence or a lack of caring or is it deliberate policy? How many deaths which should be investigated are never reported to the coroner? How many coroners refuse to investigate such cases?

Just how big is the iceberg?

NOTE
The essay above is taken from Vernon Coleman’s book entitled `Why and how doctors kill more people than cancer’. The book is available via the bookshop on www.vernoncoleman.com

Copyright Vernon Coleman October 2025

stock here: Mandy is one of the best.

Body Language – A look at Peter Thiel of Palantir | Bombards Body Language

stock here, it’s 14 minutes

stock here: its been downloading for over 40 minutes. Hard to imagine this data is opensource?

Gridded Bathymetry Data | GEBCO

Trump immediately stating that it was “bad fuel”, makes me think he is just downplaying the brute force show of technology by China.

I would be concerned thats its a warning from china, using a special energy weapon, to throw off all three flying computers in these craft, verify 3 computers voting like most spacecraft have

ChatGPT said:

Your concern that this could be a deliberate “energy-weapon” or electromagnetic disruption by South China Sea adversary is interesting — but from what is publicly known about the two aircraft (a MH‑60R Seahawk helicopter and a F/A‑18F Super Hornet jet) and their flight-control/avionics design, here’s how the technical situation stacks up — what we do know, what we don’t know, and how plausible your theory is in light of the public record.

---

✅ What we do know about their flight-control / computer redundancy

For the F/A-18F Super Hornet

• The Super Hornet uses a fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system. According to general sources: a digital fly-by-wire system “virtually all … incorporate either redundant computers (triplex, quadruplex etc.) to prevent loss of signals in the case of failure.” Wikipedia+1
• A more specific release: BAE Systems was selected by Boeing to upgrade the “flight control computers (FCCs) … for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet” with “quad-redundant FBW flight control systems (FCS)” noted. PR Newswire+1
• Therefore, it is publicly acknowledged that the Super Hornet’s flight control system has at least quad-redundancy in its FBW architecture.
• Also: its “mission computers” or “advanced mission computers” (AMCs) handle sensor/mission processing, but these are separate from the flight control computers. (See for example the AMC for the Super Hornet) General Dynamics Mission Systems

For the MH-60R Seahawk

• The MH-60R is the U.S. Navy’s multi-mission maritime helicopter. U.S. Navy+1
• We have documents showing upgrades to its “Mission Computer / Flight Management Computer (MC/FMC)” modules: e.g., Curtiss‑Wright Corporation awarded a contract by Lockheed Martin to upgrade the MH-60R/S MC/FMC to improve resilience for “new battlefield threats / cyber-attacks”. curtisswright.com+1
• However, I did not locate publicly detailed information (in my quick scan) about the exact voting logic (triplex vs quadruplex vs other) inside the MH-60R’s flight-control computers.

---

⚠️ What we don’t know / what’s uncertain

• We do not have access in public records (at least easily found) to a full breakdown of the aircraft’s voting logic “3 computers voting” (i.e., triple redundancy) versus “4 computers” (quad redundancy) especially for the MH-60R.
• We aren’t sure how the MH-60R’s flight control computers are structured (how many independent channels, how voting logic is implemented). The public references tend to be about mission/management computers rather than detailed flight-control redundancy.
• We don’t have any authoritative public source indicating that the two crashes were caused by electromagnetic weaponry (directed-energy), hacking, or any malicious interference. Investigations are ongoing, per the news.
• The “30 minutes apart” coincidence does raise anomaly potential, but operationally there could be other explanations (mechanical, environmental, maintenance, fuel, human error) that may be more mundane.

---

🤔 How plausible is the “energy weapon / computer voting gone bad” scenario?

Let’s assess from a systems-engineering viewpoint:

• High level of redundancy: Both aircraft use advanced redundant systems (quad-redundant in Super Hornet’s case) for flight control. That means any one computer failing (or one channel) should not lead to catastrophic loss of control on its own — the system is designed to tolerate such failures.
• Voting logic: In a typical “triplex voting” system, three computers compute independently; the system compares results and if one deviates, it’s excluded, and the majority (2 of 3) remain. In “quadruplex” systems, there may be four independent channels or more, and some logic to exclude outliers. The BAE article for the F/A-18E/F references “quad-redundant FBW flight control systems” explicitly. PR Newswire+1
• Directed energy / electromagnetic interference (EMI) as attack vector: For an adversary to use a special energy weapon or EMI to cause both aircraft to lose multiple computers or channels, the attacker would need to:
  1. Be physically close enough or have sufficient energy projection to affect the aircraft’s flight control computers/actuators (which are in hardened military systems and likely shielded).
  2. Overcome the redundant channels (i.e., cause at least 2 or more channels to fail or produce invalid output) such that the system cannot maintain control.
  3. Do it in such a way that two different aircraft (with different platforms, although same carrier group) crashed within 30 minutes. That would imply a very coordinated, highly capable attack.
• Environmental / maintenance / mechanical factors: Meanwhile, common-cause failures (e.g., fuel contamination, maintenance lapses, software/hardware obsolescence, simultaneous system fault) may also explain two mishaps in a short time period, especially on a carrier where operations are intense.
• Probability and evidence: While the possibility cannot be fully dismissed given the opaque nature of military incident investigations, there is no public evidence so far to support a “directed-energy weapon” cause. Investigations normally look first at mechanical/human/maintenance/fuel causes.

---

🔍 My reasoned judgment based on available info

Given what we know:

• It is technically plausible that the aircraft have multi-channel redundant flight control computers (confirmed in the Super Hornet case).
• It is less likely (based purely on publicly-available evidence) that a directed-energy attack caused both crashes — mainly because the complexity of such an attack is very high, and there is no firm public indicator.
• It remains wise to keep this scenario as one of the hypotheses, not ruled out, but also not currently the most probable without further data.
• The fact that two aircraft were lost within ~30 minutes is unusual, and merits special investigation — including both standard causes (maintenance, fuel, mechanical) and less common ones (electromagnetic interference, software/hardware common mode failure) — especially since carrier-based operations involve specific stresses.

---

——————–

how likely is this to be bad fuel, do they even use the exact same fuel

ChatGPT said:

Good questions — let’s unpack what we do know about fuel use in the F/A‑18F Super Hornet and the MH‑60R Seahawk, and assess how plausible a “bad-fuel” scenario is in this case.

---

✅ What we know about fuel types and compatibility

1. Fuel type for carrier-based US Navy aircraft
   • The US Navy typically uses the jet fuel specification called JP‑5 for carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. (JP-5 has a high flash point (~60 °C) and is therefore safer for shipboard operations). Wikipedia+1
   • The F/A-18 Super Hornet article notes that it “most commonly uses JP-5 jet fuel.” Wikipedia+1
   • For helicopters like the MH-60 series, aircraft also use jet fuel (turbine engines) with appropriate specifications; while I found fewer explicit statements for MH-60R use of JP-5 specifically, given that it is a US Navy ship-borne helicopter the expectation is that it uses the same shipboard aviation fuel type.
2. Fuel-system testing and alternative fuels
   • The MH-60S (a sibling variant of MH-60R) was flown in a test using a 50/50 bio-fuel blend with conventional naval jet fuel. Naval Air Systems Command
   • For the F/A-18E/F & EA-18G program, alternative fuels (50/50 blends of synthetic or bio-feedstock) were qualified and the JP-5 specification was revised to allow such blends. DENIX+1
3. Conclusion on “do they use the exact same fuel?”
   • Yes, very likely: both aircraft (the MH-60R helicopter and the F/A-18F jet) operating from a US Navy carrier should be using the same core shipboard jet aviation fuel (JP-5) or equivalent specification.
   • This means a single contaminated fuel batch (or poorly managed fuel supply) could plausibly affect multiple aircraft onboard or servicing from same source.

---

⚠️ How likely is “bad fuel” as a cause in this incident?

Given the above, here are factors that make “bad fuel” a possible cause — and also reasons why it may or may not be the leading suspect.

Supporting factors:

• If both aircraft used the same batch or source of fuel (on the same carrier ship), contamination or adulteration could be common-mode failure affecting multiple types of aircraft.
• The coincidence of two aircraft from the same carrier in roughly the same timeframe increases plausibility of a shared logistic/maintenance issue (fuel, servicing, environment) rather than completely independent failures.
• In carrier operations, fuel storage, distribution, bunkering operations are highly complex; possibility exists of cross-contamination, water ingress, microbial growth in fuel, incorrect additive mixing, or variable quality especially in deployed operations.

Mitigating factors / reasons to be cautious:

• Aircraft fuel systems (especially military) have multiple checks, filtration, quality assurance, and fuel supply chain standards. A fuel contamination event large enough to crash multiple aircraft would likely trigger immediate emergency flags earlier.
• A fuel fault typically causes degraded performance (engine power loss, flame-out, surging) rather than immediate catastrophic control failure (though depending on scenario it could lead to crash). The articles say “crash into the sea” but don’t provide details such as engine failure, flame-out, loss of flight control — so we don’t yet know if fuel fault matches the failure mode.
• A helicopter and a fighter jet have different flight profiles, usage, loads, systems so a single fuel defect would have to be severe or affect multiple subsystems to crash both aircraft nearly simultaneously.
• The investigation is ongoing, and until detailed incident data (fuel samples, engine data, maintenance logs) are released, fuel remains a hypothesis but not confirmed.

---

🔍 My estimate of probability

Putting it all together: given shared fuel type and the carrier context, I’d assign a moderate probability to fuel being a contributing factor (say 30-40% likelihood), depending on other facts (fuel age, supply chain logs, sample analyses).
However, I’d still consider other causes (mechanical failure, maintenance error, environment/weather, simultaneous software/hardware fault, or even deliberate interference) equally or more plausible unless fuel evidence emerges.

————————–

stock here: wow, from Miss Frill

Mind Control Missile Murder Madness: PERIMETER OF THE CLOUD MINDERS

wordman

October 8, 2025 at 11:58 PM

Mary Miss Frill weighing in with the fact that MJ recorded this and then he died:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6A33a7X0to

To which I’ll just say he recorded this right before too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtKIF5FUVOc

https://www.youtube.com/embed/CtKIF5FUVOc

Comm: this is actually the regular version in 109 countries.


Fun Fact: While Michael Jackson was dealing with child molestation charges, Jeffrey Epstein was enjoying his protection for child trafficking….
Beat me, hate me
You could never break me
Will me, thrill me
You can never kill me
Jew me, sue me
Everybody, do me
Kick me, kike me
Don’t you black or white me
All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us

https://www.bitchute.com/video/CHNwWGm7uvYS

stock here: remember when Kyle Rittenhouse shot those ruffians at a George Floyd mostly peaceful burn down? The next day Wisconsin was pelted with chemtrails. I wonder the reason, it’s been super warm this fall except for a few days. My bird feeder had 3/4″ of ice on top. I pulled all my peppers and veggies yesterday, except the Kohlrabi and Brussel Sprouts.

That’s a Fire Pit with the Raised Bed Gardens behind it.

Taking out 3 Pines today, as 1 is dead, and 2 are encroaching on other pines. Winter is coming.

stock here: I see this as a totally harmful power play. “Care for Creation” is not care for Humans, it is manipulate the humans by pretending that climate change requires international agreements (Globalism).

A-Eye disagrees, that will be more common.

This is a very interesting development. Let’s unpack the recent event and assess whether it appears to be good change, just change, or has potentially disastrous implications — especially in light of the historical reference you gave about Henry VIII and the split of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church.

---

✅ What actually happened

• Charles III (king of the UK) and Pope Leo XIV publicly prayed together in the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City. This is the first time a British monarch has done so with a Pope since the Reformation (about 500 years after Henry VIII’s breakaway). Reuters+2The Washington Post+2
• The visit was framed as an ecumenical gesture of healing, unity and cooperation between Anglican (Church of England) and Catholic traditions — with a particular focus on shared concerns such as environmental protection (“care for creation”). The Guardian+1
• The historical significance cannot be overstated: the break in 1534 when Henry VIII declared himself head of the Church of England after the Pope refused an annulment, set off a long stream of religious conflict, division and identity issues. The Guardian+1

---

🤔 Why it matters

• Symbolic value: The gesture sends a strong message that centuries-old divisions might be softening, that past enemies (in religious institutional terms) might move toward cooperation rather than antagonism.
• Ecumenical momentum: For Christians in the UK and globally, this may boost inter-denominational dialogue, potentially reducing sectarian tension, promoting common causes (poverty, climate change, etc.).
• Institutional implications: Because Charles is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the monarch still has certain symbolic religious duties in the UK, his engaging publicly with the Pope touches on questions of identity, authority, church-state relations.
• Public perception: Many in the UK will view this favorably (as a step toward reconciliation). Some may view it skeptically (for example fearing Jesus‐politics, or worried about loss of identity for Anglicanism, or that this is too worldly or politically influenced).

---

⚠️ Possible risks or “disastrous” potential

• Confusion of identity: The Church of England has its own distinct identity, theology, governance. Too much rapprochement with Rome could raise questions among Anglicans about doctrinal independence or compromise.
• Internal backlash: Within both Anglicanism and Catholicism there are factions wary of unity if they believe it might require concessions (on women clergy, sexual ethics, authority, etc.). This could stir conflict. For example, the Anglican Communion is already under strain over issues of gender and sexuality. Le Monde.fr
• Political or constitutional implications: In the UK the monarch’s role in the established Church is deeply embedded. If closer unity leads to changes in that arrangement (even indirectly) it might provoke constitutional or legal tensions.
• Symbolism vs substance: A strong symbolic gesture is good, but if nothing concrete follows (or if it is seen as PR) it may generate cynicism or disillusionment.
• Cultural or religious backlash: In a pluralist society such as the UK, some might see this as favouring Christian unity in a way that excludes other faiths or non-faith views. Moreover, those deeply Protestant might view it as too Catholic, and those Catholic might still see the schism as unresolved.

---

🧐 My assessment: Good change, but with caveats

On balance, I lean towards this being a good change. I think the gesture of public prayer and dialogue is positive: it opens doors, softens old wounds, creates opportunity for cooperation across churches, and reflects a mature willingness to transcend past hostilities.

However — it’s not automatically just or without risk. The justice dimension (in terms of right relationships, truth, transparency) depends on how institutions live out the gesture. If it’s merely symbolic without follow-through (or if it glosses over deeper issues of theology, governance, identity) then it could lead to disappointment or even new conflicts. So I’d say:

• ✔ Good change: because it promotes unity, reconciliation, shared action, and reflects a healthier religious-social environment.
• ⚠ Just change: yes — provided it respects each tradition’s integrity, addresses historical harms, involves meaningful cooperation rather than superficial symbolism.
• ❗ Potentially disastrous: if one or both sides ignore underlying issues of doctrine, power, identity, or if the move leads to unintended loss of autonomy, internal division, or backlash.

stock here: One of my go to guys for Ukraine. First time I saw his channel. Only 6.11K subscribers, now 1 more.

stock here.