Marty Makary and Tracy Beth Hoep

New York Post

What if I told you one in 50 people who took a new medication had a “medically attended adverse event” and the manufacturer refused to disclose what exactly the complication was — would you take it?

And what if the theoretical benefit was only transient, lasting about three months, after which your susceptibility goes back to baseline?

And what if we told you the Food and Drug Administration cleared it without any human-outcomes data and European regulators are not universally recommending it as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is?

That’s what we know about the new COVID vaccine the Biden administration is firmly recommending for every American 6 months old and up.

The push is so hard that former White House COVID coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha and CDC head Mandy Cohen are making unsupported claims the new vaccine reduces hospitalizations. long COVID and the likelihood you will spread COVID.

None of those claims has a shred of scientific support.

In fact, if the manufacturers said that, they could be fined for making false marketing claims beyond an FDA-approved indication.

The questions surrounding Moderna’s new COVID vaccine approved this week are still looming.

Pfizer’s version, approved this week as well, also has zero efficacy data and has not been tested on humans at all. We only have data about antibody production from 10 mice.

The FDA, or Moderna (frankly, it’s hard to tell the difference sometimes), should disclose what happened to the patient who took the new vaccine and had a complication that required medical attention.

The public has a right to know.

The last time the Biden administration approved and recommended a novel COVID bivalent booster, last fall, with no human-outcomes data, it was an epic fail.

Only 17% of Americans took it (and some of those were forced to do so by their employer or school).

Not foreseeing such weak public support for the booster last year, the Biden administration had prepaid pharma $4.9 billion for 171 million doses — many of which were tossed in the wastebasket.

Now it is making the same mistake.

Two weeks ago, the Biden administration upped its orders for the pediatric version of the new COVID vaccines from 14.5 million doses at $1.3 billion to 20 million doses for $1.7 billion, which is more than four times as many pediatric doses as were used last year.

There clearly seems to be a special push this time to give it to children — the same group European regulators are not supporting.

In fact, the original Moderna vaccine was banned in parts of Europe for people under age 30.

European doctors are not alone.

Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine-mandate supporter and FDA adviser from the University of Pennsylvania, told The Atlantic this week that he’s not going to take the new COVID vaccine.

He didn’t take the bivalent booster last fall either, despite being 72 years old.

While he disagreed with Jha on the booster, he recently confessed, “Yes, he was wrong, but you know you can’t say that exactly.”

Yes, you can.

America is tired of political apologists as medical experts. They want the truth.

Offit is at least more honest than most experts who put their heads in the sand and parroted whatever public health officials said.

Pfizer made $100 billion during the pandemic. It can afford to fund a randomized trial to demonstrate to the American people the new booster is effective.

That’s the scientific process.

Unlike influenza, COVID-19 is constantly circulating, so there is ample opportunity to run a trial; indeed, Moderna already ran a randomized trial.

Its trial of just 50 people began four months ago and oddly only reported 14-day side effects.

Why didn’t it enroll more people in its trial? Why didn’t it report three-month effectiveness and do a proper trial?

Conducting a placebo-controlled trial in people during this time would not only yield useful information; it would enable further study of those subjects three and six months from now, when a winter surge may occur.

Let’s be honest: Follow-up studies of COVID vaccines in general have revealed a disappointing truth — mild efficacy against infection is transient, lasting just a few months.

Perhaps Pfizer and Moderna knew the FDA regulatory process was greased for them and they didn’t have to.

It’s time for the FDA to resume its role as a regulator and not the marketing department for Pfizer and Moderna.

It is possible a new booster may help downgrade the severity of COVID infection for select high-risk populations, but that’s all the more reason a proper clinical trial is needed.

It’s also worth noting the CDC’s new recommendation ignores natural immunity, which means many schools will do the same.

A February Lancet review of 65 studies concluded natural immunity is at least as good as vaccinated immunity and probably better.

So if a college student had COVID a few months ago, the CDC wants him or her to get the new shot anyway, but the correct scientific answer is the risks are expected to outweigh the benefit.

Supporters of pushing the novel COVID boosters point to the annual flu-shot approval process, which does not require a randomized trial.

But COVID vaccines are very different from flu vaccines.

COVID vaccines have higher complication rates, including severe and life-threatening cardiac reactions. Flu shots have a 50-plus-year safety record whereas COVID vaccines have been associated with a serious adverse event rate of one in 5,000 doses, according to a German study by the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut.

Another study, published last year in the medical journal Vaccine, estimated the rate of serious adverse events to be as high as one in 556 COVID vaccine recipients.

And for young people, the incidence of myocarditis is six to 28 times higher after the vaccine than after infection, even for females, according to a 2022 JAMA Cardiology study.

That’s one of the reasons a study that we and several national colleagues published last year found that college booster mandates appear to have resulted in a net public health harm.

Finally, at a molecular level, some scientists are concerned about what is called immune imprinting and additional ways multiple booster doses can weaken the immune system.

A study published last year in the journal Science described a reduced immune response among people infected who then received three COVID vaccine doses.

If public health officials get their way, a healthy 5-year-old boy will get 72 COVID vaccine shots over the course of his lifetime, if he has an average lifespan, with a risk of myocarditis after each one.

Inexplicably and defying science, the CDC is saying even if a child had COVID three weeks ago, he or she should still get the new COVID shot.

Two of the FDA’s best vaccine experts are gone. Dr. Marion Gruber, who was director of the FDA’s vaccine office, and her deputy director, Dr. Philip Krause, both quit the agency in 2021 in protest over political pressure to authorize vaccine boosters for young people.

Ever since the loss of these two vaccine experts, the agency’s vaccine authorizations have been consistent with an overly cozy relationship between pharma and the White House.

In fact, why have an FDA if White House doctors can simply declare a drug to be safe after discussing secret data in private meetings with pharma?

[…]

Via https://nypost.com/2023/09/14/the-real-data-behind-the-new-covid-vaccines-the-white-house-is-pushing/

On Sept 11, 2023, The New York Times came out with this broadside against Musk. It’s clear the establishment is enraged by Musk’s defiance, and is closing ranks to bring him to his knees. Smears is one of their favorite tools.

Mike Whitney Interview with Ron Unz

Question 1: The Nature of the ADL

Let’s talk about the ADL. Some of your readers may not know that you have written extensively on the ADL and that your analysis prompted Paul Craig Roberts to call you “the bravest man I know.” What Roberts was referring to, I think, is your riveting 2018 account of the ADL’s shadowy history as well as its controversial activities and methods. Here’s a short excerpt from a piece you wrote in 2018 that helps to illustrate what I’m talking about:

In January 1993, the San Francisco Police Department reported that it had recently raided the Northern California headquarters of the ADL based upon information provided by the FBI.* The SFPD discovered that the organization had been keeping intelligence files on more than 600 civic organizations and 10,000 individuals, overwhelmingly of a liberal orientation, with the SFPD inspector estimating that 75% of the material had been illegally obtained, much of it by secret payments to police officials. This was merely the tip of the iceberg in what clearly amounted to the largest domestic spying operation by any private organization in American history, and according to some sources, ADL agents across the country had targeted over 1,000 political, religious, labor, and civil rights organizations, with the New York headquarters of the ADL maintaining active dossiers on more than a million Americans.”

This is shocking information that perhaps only a handful of Americans know anything about. The recent dust-up with Elon Musk has put the ADL’s methods under a microscope particularly their alleged role in censoring people on the Internet. So, my question to you is this: What is the ADL? Is it really a civil rights organization that “combats extremism and antisemitism” or is it something else altogether?

Ron Unz—Founded in 1913, the ADL—the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith—is a very formidable Jewish activist organization that has great influence over the media and other important elements of American society, and therefore is widely feared in elite circles. As I explained in my 2018 article:

In our modern era, there are surely few organizations that so terrify powerful Americans as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a central organ of the organized Jewish community.

Mel Gibson had long been one of the most popular stars in Hollywood and his 2004 film The Passion of the Christ became among the most profitable in world history, yet the ADL and its allies destroyed his career/

[…]

Because of its media influence, the ADL’s coverage has almost always been extremely favorable, portraying it as one of America’s leading watchdogs against dangerous extremism, especially anti-Semitism or racism. Given this powerful, positive image, the ADL successfully gained the role of content gatekeeper at some of America’s largest Internet companies, helping to determine what may or may not be said on such important platforms as Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter. Indeed, a few years ago Silicon Valley’s San Jose Mercury News profiled the ADL Director who was responsible for policing “hate speech” across the American-dominated global Internet.

Meanwhile, that same media influence has ensured that only very few people have ever become aware of the organization’s long history of illegal spying upon enormous numbers of Americans, including such notable figures as Martin Luther King. Jr. I discussed this in my 2018 article:

The choice of the ADL as the primary ideological overseer of America’s Internet may seem natural and appropriate to politically-ignorant Americans, a category that unfortunately includes the technology executives leading the companies involved. But this reflects the remarkable cowardice and dishonesty of the American media from which all these individuals derive their knowledge of our world. The true recent history of the ADL is actually a sordid and disreputable tale.

[…]

Not long [after the 1993 SFPD raid], an ACLU official who had previously held a high-ranking position with the ADL revealed in an interview that his organization had been the actual source of the highly controversial 1960s surveillance on Martin Luther King, Jr., which it had then provided to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. For many years Hoover had been furiously denounced in the national media headlines for his use of tapes and other secret information on King’s activities, but when a local San Francisco newspaper revealed that an ADL spying operation had actually been the source of all that sordid material, the bombshell revelation was totally ignored in the national media and only reported by fringe organizations, so that today almost no Americans are aware of that fact.

I know of no other private organization in American history that has been involved in even a sliver of such illegal domestic espionage activity, which appears to have been directed against almost all groups and prominent individuals—left, right, and center—suspected of being insufficiently aligned with Jewish and Israeli interests. Some of the illegal material found in the ADL’s possession even raised dark suspicions that it had played a role in domestic terrorist attacks and political assassinations directed against foreign leaders. I am no legal expert, but given the massive scale of such illegal ADL activities, I wonder whether a plausible case might have been made to prosecute the entire organization under RICO statutes and sentence all of its leaders to long prison terms.

Instead, the resulting government charges were quickly settled with merely a trivial fine and a legal slap on the wrist, demonstrating the near-total impunity provided by massive Jewish political power in modern American society.

In effect, the ADL seems to have long operated as a privatized version of our country’s secret political police, monitoring and enforcing its ideological doctrines on behalf of Jewish groups much as the Stasi did for the Communist rulers of East Germany. Given such a long history of criminal activity, allowing the ADL to extend its oversight to our largest Social Media platforms amounts to appointing the Mafia to supervise the FBI and the NSA, or taking a very large step towards implementing George Orwell’s ” Ministry of Truth” on behalf of Jewish interests.

*[DrB] It was from information gathered in this raid I learned that my group Citizens in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador had been spied on by the ADL since 1981.

Via https://www.greanvillepost.com/2023/09/13/elon-musk-and-the-true-history-of-the-adl/

By Paraschiva Florescu and Rob Verkerk Ph.D.

Alliance for Natural Health International

With babies developing with a tablet in their hands, the next logical step, ostensibly for the sake of everyone’s convenience, is to implant a cellular communications device — yes, a mini mobile phone — in the bodies of our children.

And — I hear you ask: What about the accompanying risks? Shall we just ignore them? Let’s face it — our kids’ tablets provide such a useful means of keeping the little ones occupied, giving stressed parents a break.

Have you witnessed anything about children and their relationships with technology that makes you uncomfortable, bearing in mind the importance of subconscious programming during the early years of life?

Do they constantly pull their phone out of their pocket during a conversation? Do you see them scrolling, seemingly mindlessly?

What have you witnessed when walking in your local neighborhood: perhaps children with their heads buried in their devices and empty quiet parks?

Whichever way you cut it: family dynamics are changing rapidly as digital technologies take an ever more important role in our lives, and our children’s lives, and, courtesy of social media, human relationships are becoming increasingly virtual.

With babies developing with a tablet in their hands, the next logical step, ostensibly for the sake of everyone’s convenience, is to implant, a cellular communications device — yes, a mini mobile phone — in the bodies of our children.

This technology is a key part of the development of the currently emerging Fourth Industrial Revolution that includes everything from artificial intelligence (AI) to the Internet of things and robotics.

In fact, in case you think this idea is fanciful, it’s given as “Shift 1” in the book of the same name, by none other than Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Think just how many of today’s teenagers might be up for an implantable mobile device: imagine the convenience! No need to subscribe to any platforms, and they’ll never need to worry again about losing their mobile phone!

Mobile phones are becoming an extension of today’s youth. But is there a more sinister agenda unfolding?

How about this for an idea, the first part of which has been borrowed from the playbook of a number of industries, tobacco and opioids, to name just two: create digital addiction or extreme dependence, disconnect humans from each other and from the natural world around them and re-program them in ways that prevent them operating as independent, free-minded citizens and make them compatible with the grand masterplan of the world’s current puppet masters.

In the process, you’ll also be able to surveil their every move via the devices they use to communicate, shop with, bank, drive with, meditate with, recreate with. The mobile device, its associated apps, and its ever-improved camera and recording capabilities have literally become an extension of ourselves.

The notion that dependency or addiction is created on purpose to surveil and control us, is of course just a theory. But disconcertingly, there are a lot of facts along the way that suggest that our dependency on our handsets and computers might be part of a very deliberate plan that leads humanity — at least those that conform — into a transhuman and posthuman future.

This is the future of humanity that the likes of futurist and Google engineer, Ray Kurzweil, historian Yuval Noah Harari, Schwab, and many others in influential positions, are increasingly considering an inevitability. But, like most addictions and psychological re-programming — it is a choice, albeit one that might be difficult for many to avoid.

Defining the problem

Digital or social media addiction can be described as “being excessively concerned about SNSs [social networking sites], motivated by a strong desire to log in to or use SNSs, and devoting so much time and energy to SNSs that it impairs other social activities, studies/job, interpersonal relationships and/or psychological health and wellbeing.”

It’s fair to say that based on this definition, the vast majority of our youth could be considered to be addicted to social media.

The World Health Organization recognizes gaming addiction as a disorder, but not digital addiction (also known as technology overuse) more broadly.

Other studies disagree that digital technologies have a “standalone addictive power” and distinguish between true addictive disorders and negative side effects of social media use.

Even if one disagrees that it is a pathological addiction, just as disconcerting is the development of an extreme dependency on digital technologies to such an extent that a new term, nomophobia, entered the Collins Dictionary, as “a state of distress caused by having no access to or being unable to use one’s mobile phone.”

Whether our youths are addicted or “just” nomophobes, there is a sinister problem here, part of a bigger plan of Big Tech that’s been unfolding for some time.

Watch Paraschiva’s interview with David Charalambous

Paraschiva Florescu recently spoke to David Charalambous, founder of Reaching People and a behavior and communication dynamics expert about the very real issue of digital addiction in young people and how we can combat it. Or listen to the interview here.

Big Tech’s big plan

Nothing that goes on social media platforms, data such as messages, photos, texts, etc. belongs to us anymore. It becomes the property of the platform itself. Data is currently one of the most valuable assets in the world.

The incessant attempts of big corporations to transform everything into data is a form of control.

It’s being used maliciously to feed into AI systems in order to understand our human behavior. How we think, what we buy, how many steps a day we take — all this is valuable information that Big Tech is gathering.

These AI systems are designed to control us.

Our data are also used to inform new developments such as neuromorphic computers, which are artificial “brains,” and “pervasive neurotechnology.”

It might not surprise you that the CEO of SharpBrains, one of the leaders in this field and an allegedly “independent market research firm,” is also on the panel of the WEF’s Council on the Future of Neurotechnology.

Data from social media sites are collected by business owners.

Eighty-six percent of business owners gather data from their customers, with 64% using data from social media sites, mainly Facebook and Instagram.

Our data are used to inform propaganda campaigns from voting to vaccination, as portrayed in the Netflix documentary “The Great Hack.”

Tristan Harris, tech “ethicist” featured in the movie “The Social Dilemma,” (see here and here) suggests in his piece at the Nobel Prize Summit 2023 that social media is about “re-wiring the flows of attention and information in our society.”

Think of it this way: life on this planet has always revolved around an energy exchange of some sort.

A carnivore eats a herbivore, yet the energy of the herbivore’s body returns to the ground to fuel other life forms, including the progeny of the herbivore. The currency of exchange for a beautiful work of art is typically money.

The transaction that occurs is typically regarded as a fair exchange for raw talent, years of experience and hours and hours of attention and creativity expression, a value that can be subsequently traded (recycled).

With social media, the exchange is often very unbalanced. We give to it (attention, time, ideas, creativity) and we get little more than a dopamine hit in return.

It leaves us feeling more empty and unfulfilled, a bit like trying to fill a bottomless bucket, but we go back for more dopamine. We are turning our youth into dopamine junkies.

[…]

The perspective of big science

The formal science of evaluating the risks and benefits of social media appears to give the impression of balance. Some (see here and here) identify negative consequences of social media such as cyber-bullying, cyber-racism and issues relating to the exchange of sexually explicit content between minors.

Yet many papers deny or ignore any link between depression, anxiety, social disconnection, low self-esteem, poor self-image or body dysmorphic disorder with the amount of time spent on devices.

That’s despite these effects being frequently cited in the popular press, because they are widely observed, being supported by limited studies. On the contrary, the literature (that often in turn reflects the interests that fund research), frequently bigs up the benefits of digital technologies used almost ubiquitously by our youth.

For example, a recent review reminds us that social media is now the “primary mode of peer interactions and communication among adolescents,” this trend has been further magnified by the COVID-19 era.

Another review finds that “social gaming may also increase feelings of connection and sense of community.”

In Indigenous communities, “mobile phones are viewed as an extension of a person and may be shared by family members” whilst “forming community through social media can act as a process of uniting and healing for the Indigenous community,” finds Emma Rice, a researcher at Georgetown University.

Others go as far as saying that isolation in young people is more common among those who are disconnected from digital sources of entertainment and social media.

Yet, does social media offer genuine connection, and is a digital connection equivalent to a real-world connection?

Edward Hallowell, Harvard psychiatrist, writes in his paper about the “human moment” to illustrate meaningful connection as “an authentic psychological encounter that can happen only when two people share the same physical space.”

This might have something to do with our improved perception of non-verbal communication when we are in close proximity to one another.

But it may also be linked to the close interaction of proximal human biofields (the electromagnetic field that radiates beyond every living being). With digital technologies, we can all agree that we have connectivity, but perhaps we don’t experience connectedness.

This is the “Story of Separation” that contemporary thinker and philosopher, Charles Eisenstein, elaborates on in his book, “The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible.”

In this story, we are led to believe that we are “separate individuals in a universe that is separate from you as well … you are a bubble of psychology, a mind (whether brain-based or not) separate from other minds and separate from matter.”

Technology of course is just viewed as a further (and inevitable) separation of ourselves from the natural world, with neurotechnologies and AI increasingly being sold to the youth as the champions in this adventure that we must embrace, not reject.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/big-tech-kids-cell-mobile-phone-tablet/

Truth, however, like a river meander, proves unstoppable over time.

Some sixteen months after the peaceful assembly of people from all areas of our country was brutally invaded and dispersed by henchmen of the political State, an extraordinary documentary film has emerged: River of Freedom.

I attended the sold-out Wellington premiere on 7 September at the Embassy Theatre and was myself transported to that relatively brief but powerful time when the citizenry reclaimed their rights, stood their ground and created, in microcosm, a society of mutual sustenance — an ideal, as it were, founded upon by charity, compassion and tolerance, and united, despite considerable diversity.

Watching the images of the multitudes who had the audacity to oppose the government’s demolition of fundamental human rights and its imposition of divisive and, frankly, illegal mandates, I was reminded of the many kindly and generous people I met, the determination to assert our unalienable rights, our requests for someone — anyone — from the elected body of Parliament simply to meet with us and to discuss our concerns, and the monolithic refusal of our politicians to engage.

I was reminded too of the creative joys that emerged from the occupants of Parliament’s terrain as we waited for a ‘representative’ to do his or her duty, such as the makeshift basketball court where I spent many an hour while on my daily rounds, the tents where music poured forth, and the meals supplied for free to all and sundry.

On one particular evening as I wound my way around, I was stopped in my tracks by a live rendition of the song I had been yearning to hear for weeks: Tom Petty’s ‘I Won’t Back Down’.

I remember too the day when victims of the mandated Jab were memorialized by a string of white crosses hung across our stage. I was honored to have said a few words on their behalf.

As the days and weeks wore on and the government’s frustration with a strong and peaceful presence grew, police actions became more aggressive and attempts to undermine our ability to continue residence became bolder. And all of this occurred during a period when a ‘vax apartheid’ state had been declared and those of us who were unjabbed were not permitted access to restaurants, churches, theatres, barbers, cinemas or gyms …

On the first of March 2022 I was part of a team that had been assembled to negotiate a peaceable solution to a situation that had become very tense. A member of the police force was slated to join, but this representative never appeared. On my way home that afternoon I happened to notice that the street next to Wellington’s main police station was filled with unmarked vans. I concluded that the police would stage a raid the next morning and I informed everyone I knew — filmmakers, protest leaders, media personnel and the like. Most — not all — told me that my fears were unfounded. They were wrong.

Fortunately the filmmakers of River of Freedom were there to record the fascistic thuggery that took place on 2 March, which included the use of tear gas and 40 mm rubber bullets against peaceful citizens. An elderly man had his hip broken thanks to a police assault and the first ambulance called to assist refused to take him to hospital.

Such were the memories that crowded upon me as I viewed River of Freedom, as I watched a brilliant and beautifully shot and viscerally moving documentary bring us a ‘real news’ account of what happened.

At my barber’s the other day I chanced to mention the Parliament protests — he cuts hair within a stone’s throw of the area — and I could tell by his reaction that his view of the event was the one promulgated by Radio New Zealand and the Dominion Post and the State-funded TV stations and other organs of propaganda — that a bunch of dirty low-lifes had conspired to make unnecessary trouble. I suggested he see River of Freedom; whether he will or not is another matter.

I understand that cinemas around the country, cinemas in towns large and small, have been booked out for showings of the film and that plans are underway to make the documentary available to an international audience.

Director Gaylene Barnes, producers Jared Connon and Julian Arahanga, cinematographer Mark Lapwood, and the entirety of the team deserve to be commended for presenting a genuine history of one of New Zealand’s most significant political and social events — for correcting the record, for countering falsehood and for inspiring those of us who have fought for our rights to continue our fight.

Make no mistake: that coming together in early 2022 had consequences felt within the corridors of political power. We served them notice, with peace, dignity and strength.

And if they think they can pull another fast one, they should think again. We are better prepared.

Via https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/p/river-of-freedom-deluge-of-truth

Executive Action

Directed by David Miller (1973)

Film Review

Until three days ago, I had no idea this film existed. I find it extraordinary that only 10 years after Kennedy’s murder, a major Hollywood studio publicly disclosed that the alleged perpetrator Lee Harvey Oswald was a known intelligence and FBI asset.

Based on a book of the same name by Mark Lane* and Donald Freed, the film was promoted as “fiction” incorporating “historical documented fact.” It depicts an eminently plausible scenario in which a network of business interests, rogue intelligence agents and sharpshooters conspire to kill President John F Kennedy.

In one scene, the conspirators review actual documents from Oswald’s military record revealing steps the CIA took (including training him in Russian) to create a suitable cover story to embed him in the Soviet Union as a double agent. Despite his dramatic renunciation of US citizenship at the US Embassy in Moscow (and his promise to turn over classified military secrets), the Russians refused to bite. The conspirators then review how his handlers returned him to the US, first to New Orleans, then to Dallas where they find him a job at the Texas School Book Depository and pay him a small stipend as an FBI informant.

Other “documented fact” presented in the film include the absence of Kennedy’s entire cabinet from the US, except for Lyndon Johnson (who was with him in Dallas), Robert McNamara (secretary of defense) and Robert Kennedy (attorney in general). On November 22, 1963, the rest were airborne on their way to a major conference in Japan. The filmmakers also point out that the emergency code book mysteriously disappeared from their plane, that all phone lines were down in Washington DC in the hour following the shooting and that neither the secret service nor the Dallas police failed followed required procedures in safeguarding the president’s motorcade.

The film depicts three shooters (none of them Oswald), one each in the School Book Depository, the Records Building across the street and on the Grassy Knoll in front of the motorcade.

The primary “fictional” component of the film is the identity of the conspirators. I was surprised it presented no evidence from New Orleans District Attorney James Garrison’s 1967 prosecution of JFK assassination co-conspirator Clay Shaw.  During Shaw’s trial, Garrison presented extensive evidence about the role Permindex* (responsible for numerous assassination attempts on late French president Charles De Gaulle) played in financing and orchestrating the assassination.

The film loosely portrays Kennedy’s killers as eugenicists keen on reducing the global population of dark skinned people, who are also deeply unhappy about the global nuclear test ban treaty, as well the president’s decision to withdraw all US troops from Vietnam by 1965.

There’s great archival footage of some of Kennedy’s more memorable speeches and Oswald’s interactions with reporters while in police custody. Claiming to be a “patsy,” Oswald insists he never killed anyone (neither the president nor police officer J D Tippett). Oswald was officially arrested and charged for murdering Tippett.

The film ends by scrolling through the names of 18 material witnesses (to the assassination) who died under mysterious circumstances between November 1963 and February 1967.

*Lane is best known for his number one bestselling 1966 critique of the Warren Commission report Rush to Judgement.

*Permindex, also referred to as Permanent Industrial Exposition or Permanent Industrial Expositions, was a trade organization French intelligence identified as orchestrating numerous assassination attempts on De Gaulle, as well as the successful assassination of John F Kennedy and numerous other world leaders.

Newsweek

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) whistleblower makes bombshell claims against the U.S. intelligence agency on Tuesday relating to the origins of COVID-19.

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence announced that members heard testimony from a CIA whistleblower who alleged that the CIA “offered six analysts significant monetary incentives to change their position on COVID-19’s origin.”

“The whistleblower, who presents as a highly credible senior-level CIA officer, alleges that of the seven members assigned to the CIA team tasked with analyzing COVID-19 origins, six officers concluded that the virus likely originated from a lab in Wuhan, China,” the House’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic said in a press release. “The CIA, then, however, allegedly offered financial incentives to six of the experts involved in the investigation to change their conclusion in favor of a zoonotic origin.”

The announcement on Tuesday comes several months after the Wall Street Journal obtained classified intelligence reports in February, which found that the U.S. Department of Energy determined that COVID-19 likely originated from a lab in Wuhan, China.

“The whistleblower further contends that to come to the eventual public determination of uncertainty, the other six members were given a significant monetary incentive to change their position,” House’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner said in a joint statement.

Via https://www.newsweek.com/cia-whistleblower-bombshell-claim-covid-conspiracy-1826498