Won’t Someone Be the Voice of Sanity? A New Eye-Opening Q&A Series with Dr. Peter McCullough, Part 3

Won’t Someone Be the Voice of Sanity?

A New Eye-Opening Q&A Series with Dr. Peter McCullough, Part 3

Dr. Peter McCullough is a distinguished internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist. Recognized for his courageous leadership during the pandemic, he provided expert advice to the U.S. House and Senate. Co-author of The Courage to Face COVID-19, he advocates for medical strategies that prioritize patient well-being over pharmaceutical interests. His work challenges many mainstream narratives to uncover truth in our times.

In Part III, Dr. Peter McCullough presents a controversial view on illegal immigration, questioning the story we are told. We also discuss why people around the world may be subject to a mass hoax—once more based on fear—this time of foreign invaders.

MA: In the presidential debate between Trump and Biden—that feels like 100 years ago—Trump claimed 20 million illegals have entered the U.S. under Biden’s administration. Why do you think Trump never mentioned deporting these 20 million people should he return to power?

PM: Boy, wouldn't that be a task? If there are truly 20 million illegals who aren't supposed to be here, can you imagine the task of finding them, physically rounding them up, and deporting them? It turns out there are roughly 250,000 to 300,000 deportations yearly. That was the average number under Obama, and it was the same under Trump. In fact, Obama did a little better on deportations than Trump. So if Obama was so terrible on the border then Trump would have rounded up all the illegals Obama let in and had a lot of deportations under his term. But he didn't. Let's give Trump credit for a million or 1.2 million deportations. Can you imagine a 20-fold effort above that?

MA: That does sound daunting. Why do you think no one on the right has mentioned the logistics of such a mass deportation?

PM: No one on the right-wing side of the border crisis has seriously mentioned rounding these people up and deporting them. No one. I recently went to a dinner with Dan Patrick, our lieutenant governor in Texas, and his number of illegals was over 14 million. No mention of deportation from Dan Patrick. Another commentator was on Fox a few weeks ago, and his number of illegals was vastly different. When the numbers vary so much, that's a big problem. There should be some agreed-upon number, some roundabout number. The numbers of illegals claimed to be coming to the United States fluctuates widely. It makes you wonder what the real number must be.

MA: Why aren't we seeing these large numbers of illegals reflected in more visible ways?

PM: As of now we don't know where these illegals are, why they're not more visible, and why they're not in the labor statistics. As stated, the numbers look roughly the same when you compare legal immigration from the Obama administration through Trump and now Biden. If it was truly an open border situation, you'd expect some type of signal.

I think you and I accept that there's always a lot of commotion on the border—fentanyl trafficking, sex trafficking, crimes, etc. Cormac McCarthy, one of my favorite authors, wrote about the border trilogy, and there's been action on the border for centuries. There's always a border crisis. Trump had a border crisis, and he tried to build the Trump border wall and only got 400 miles completed. Now, if the border was perfectly controlled under Trump, there would be no need for a wall. So the point I am raising is this: similar to the COVID-19 hoax, what if what we're being told about illegal immigration is not true? What if it’s preying upon natural and historic fears around an invasion? And is there any way for us to verify what we're being told?

MA: As for the last question, we can look at the statistics. Let's review the numbers.

PM: Agreed. US Customs and Border Control is really a treasure trove of data. They have a lot of data over time, and it's relied upon. Preparing for this interview, I went through graph after graph. And yes, under Biden’s administration, there is more activity in what's called encounters. An encounter is the biggest number people should review. Here's the story from the Pew Research Center, which should be pretty solid: migrant encounters at the US-Mexico border hit a record high at the end of 2023. US Border Patrol had nearly 250,000 encounters with migrants crossing into the United States from Mexico, according to government statistics.

The Obama administration had the lowest number of encounters—under 50,000. Obama did way better than Bush in this regard. In March 2000, under President George W. Bush, there were 220,000 encounters. There's always a lot of encounters around the holidays; December and January are always high. During the Trump years, in January 2018, he had 132,000 encounters. So, Obama did great on encounters. But this is from the Pew Research Center, and I don't know anybody on the right who would bring this up and seriously consider it.  I’ve never heard anyone in MAGA cite the data that Obama deported more illegals than Trump.

MA: Can you explain further what is meant by 'encounters' and the significance of these numbers?

PM: Encounters are defined as apprehensions—migrants taken into custody in the U.S., at least temporarily, to await a decision on whether they can remain in the country legally, such as being granted asylum. The second type of encounter is expulsions—migrants immediately expelled to their home country or last country of transit, carried out under Title 42 of the US Code. So, encounters are actually kind of a good thing because these are people being apprehended or expelled. That's what we know right now.

The numbers are all over the place. Some have said a large number of people have gone through, and you and I have gone through the exercise of whether we can see this in our daily lives. I've given you my rationale for what I think is visible to us. In the last couple of weeks, I sent you a picture of an emotionally devastated soccer player in Germany saying, "I just can't take it anymore with all these illegal people pouring into Germany." I wonder how many people in America know there's a border crisis in virtually every other country at the same time? You never hear about the border crises in Quebec, Ireland, Germany, France, Denmark, Norway, or Sweden on American TV. Isn’t that curious?

MA: Assuming all this is true, what is the end game with the illegal immigration situation? For instance, could it be used to drum up support for more advanced facial recognition technology, leading to digital and biometric IDs?

PM: I am not quite sure of the end game, but one thing is clear. This situation is politically opportunistic. Here’s what I mean. We can acknowledge virtually everybody who brings up illegal immigration as a pressing political issue is on the right. Similarly, those who bring up climate crisis tend to be on the left. (I'm going to use right and left as designated terms as I don't think other descriptors apply.) For instance, we could say liberal means the left, but liberals used to say, "my body, my choice." That all went away when “liberals” asked that we all be mandated to take an experimental shot. That's not very liberal, do you see what I mean? Meanwhile, the left now advocates for censorship on social media. That’s a very different belief from traditional liberalism so the word liberal no longer applies to this group, nor does “civil liberties” or “libertarian.”

So, I'm going to use the word left to describe this political faction. How about the right? You might say the right is conservative. But look at the vast spending of the George W. Bush administration and the Trump administration. The term conservative doesn't apply to either administration’s economic policies. So-called conservatives, Bush and Trump were big spenders in office, completely fiscally irresponsible. There's nothing about that economic position that's conservative. Next, look at the stance on COVID vaccines from the right. They wanted freedom and liberties, policy positions typically not found on the right. So I'm going to use the terms right and left for lack of better options. If others started doing this, we'd have a more informed discourse.

MA: So is the illegal immigration situation about winning elections, or is there another goal?

PM: To answer that, consider this question: how can a problem like the border crisis be a right-wing concern almost exclusively? Likewise, how can the climate crisis be almost exclusively a left-wing issue? Next, how come those of us in the middle politically can’t see either as a real crisis? The truth is, we're not being overrun by illegals up and down our streets. I travel to cities all over the country, I stay in many hotels—hundreds of hotel stays. Never do I see a crisis of illegals congregating in the hallways or lobbies. We also can't see the climate crisis. The temperature outside remains roughly the same as it did yesterday and last year. We can't see it. Yet we're told there are subtleties to the climate crisis, like it’s getting hotter or there are more hurricanes related to the climate crisis, but we can’t notice it.

I recently listened to NPR radio, and they said the reason the water is rising in Venice is due to the climate crisis. As if the water has never risen in Venice before. As for the border crisis, we're told it's out of control.  But you can't see it because people are in secret planes and on secret buses, given free secret credit cards. They are supposedly lounging around in hotels for years, not working because we don't see them in the labor statistics. They're also not showing up in any educational statistics. There's no evidence of more bodies around, except, interestingly, to vote.

To this point, some people have said all these illegals are here so they can vote for the DNC. Is there any credibility to this? Recently, more Republican-dominated states tried to put into law that you can't vote without showing citizenship proof. The U.S. House of Representatives put forward legislation for this, and the Democrats were against it. This is very interesting. Why would anybody be against proof of citizenship to vote?

MA: Their case is that it's disenfranchising people. What do you think the real issue is?

PM: Look. You need proof of citizenship for all kinds of daily activities. Try to get on a plane without an ID or passport and you’ll see what I mean. Why would it not be required for voting? Why would the Democrats be so strongly opposed to this? In fact, how could any Democrat support an illegal immigrant, someone who's not supposed to be here, voting? Maybe the right has sussed this out correctly. Maybe this big importation of people is carefully concealed but poised to vote Democratic. You can't make this up. You really can't. I honestly once thought that the right-wing conspiracy— that all the illegals are here to vote for Biden—was pure bluster. Yet when the Democrats show massive resistance to any type of voter ID or proof of citizenship, I'm starting to get suspicious. I'm really starting to wonder, am I missing something here?

MA: Good question. I have to wonder the same thing…

For more on these historic, unprecedented times, please tune in next week for Part 4. My sincere thanks to Dr. McCullough for his thoughtful, courageous insights.