In the latest editions of This Week in the New Normal, we mentioned a group of Members of the European Parliament who held a press conference where they opposed mandatory vaccination and the “Green Pass”.
On the 28th five of those same MEPs held another press conference, and while the whole thing is worth watching (embedded above), the highlight is definitely German MEP Christine Anderson who speaks for two of the truest minutes in the EU’s history:
All through Europe, governments have gone to great length to get people vaccinated. We were promised the vaccinations will be a “game changer”, and it will restore our freedom… turns out none of that was true. It does not render you immune, you can still contract the virus and you can still be infectious.
The only thing this vaccine did for sure was to spill billions and billions of dollars in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies.
I voted against the digital green certificate back in April, unfortunately it was adopted nonetheless, and this just goes to show there is only a minority of MEPs who truly stand for European values. The majority of MEPs, for whatever reasons unbeknown to me, obviously support oppression of the people while claiming – shamelessly – to do it for the people’s own good.
But it is not the goal that renders a system oppressive it is always the methods by which the goal is pursued. Whenever a government claims to have the people’s interest at heart, you need to think again.
In the entire history of mankind there has never been a political elite sincerely concerned about the well-being of regular people. What makes any of us think that it is different now? If the age of enlightenment has brought forth anything then, certainly this: never take anything any government tells you at face value
Always question everything any government does or does not do. Always look for ulterior motives. And always ask cui bono?, who benefits?
Whenever a political elite pushes an agenda this hard, and resort to extortion and manipulation to get their way, you can almost always be sure your benefit is definitely not what they had at heart.
As far as I’m concerned, I will not be vaccinated with anything that has not been properly vetted and tested and has shown no sound scientific evidence that the benefits outweigh the disease itself in possible long-term side effects, which to this day we don’t know anything about.
I will not be reduced to a mere guinea pig by getting vaccinated with an experimental drug, and I will most assuredly not get vaccinated because my government tells me to and promises, in return, I will be granted freedom.
Let’s be clear about one thing: No one grants me freedom for I am a free person.
So, I dare the European Commission and the German government: Throw me in jail, lock me up and throw away the key for all I care. But you will never be able to coerce me into being vaccinated if I, the free citizen that I am, choose not to be vaccinated.
Must Watch Very Powerful.
“In the entire history of mankind there has never been a political elite sincerely concerned about the wellbeing of regular people. What makes any of us think that it is different now. – Christine Anderson European Parliament.” pic.twitter.com/oSVYzg81p5
Today, Governor Kristi Noem signed Executive Order 2021-14, protecting state employees from President Biden’s federal vaccine mandates. She also released this video announcing her decision.
“South Dakota is fighting back against President Biden’s illegal vaccine mandates,” said Governor Kristi Noem. “Our state has many contracts with the federal government, and President Biden is attempting to use those contracts to force state employees to be vaccinated against their will. My executive order will protect their rights to medical and religious exemptions under any federal vaccine mandates. I am already talking with legislators about extending these protections to private employees through legislation as well.”
For the medical exemption, employees need a written statement from a physician stating that the COVID-19 vaccination is contraindicated for medical reasons.
For the religious exemption, a form will be made available by the Bureau of Human Resources that shall read in full, “I, [insert person’s full name], dissent and object to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds, which includes moral, ethical, and philosophical beliefs or principles.”
Due to established precedent, this Executive Order does not apply to service members with the South Dakota National Guard who must meet federal readiness responsibilities for deployment.
During the 2022 legislative session, Governor Noem will work with the legislature to make these protections for state employees permanent, and to extend similar health and religious liberty protections to employees of private businesses who adopted mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies.
Today, following Governor Noem’s promise to “see [President Biden] in court,” the State of South Dakota joined a lawsuit against the Biden Administration’s COVID vaccine mandate for federal contractors.
“South Dakota is standing up with other states to protect our people from the Biden Administration’s illegal mandates,” said Governor Kristi Noem. “Though they are delaying their announcement of other mandates because they know those would be unconstitutional, we will not wait to fight this federal contractor mandate. We set up our defense with an executive order earlier this week. Now it’s time to go on offense.”
Earlier this month, the Biden Administration sent notices to federal contractors, including state entities, indicating that they will be enforcing the federal contractor mandate. This lawsuit is in response to those enforcement steps.
This action follows Governor Noem’s executive order earlier this week to protect South Dakota state employees from the Biden Administration’s illegal mandate for federal contractors. Governor Noem’s order guaranteed medical and religious exemptions for these employees, and Governor Noem also announced her intention to bring legislation to extend similar protections to private workers.
South Dakota is joined in the lawsuit by the states of Missouri, Nebraska, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming. You can find the court filing here.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is calling for employers to be held liable if their employees suffer injuries from mandated vaccines — even if the mandates were a result of federal edicts.
“We need to take action to protect Florida jobs and we have a situation now, unfortunately, in our country where we have a federal government that is very much trying to use the heavy hand of government to force a lot of these injections,” DeSantis said.
Saying he and his constituents believe in “basic medical freedom and individual choice,” and that “your right to earn a living should not be contingent upon COVID shots,” DeSantis said
If OSHA ends up coming out with the mandate dictated by President Biden, he plans to contest it, DeSantis added. He also plans to contest federal mandates on contractors that work with the federal government, but also work on the state level.
He also plans to contest the mandate that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are talking about handing down on hospitals and health care providers that accept Medicare and Medicaid.
“So what we’re going to be doing in addition to mounting aggressive legal challenges to federal mandates [is to] be taking legislative action to add protections for people.”
In the name of “public health,” the New York City government this week has been telling city employees to take the experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots by Friday at 5 p.m. or be fired, or as the city government terms it, “placed on leave without pay.” Plenty of city workers of all types upset by this attack on their freedom have been taking to the streets in large numbers to protest, often admirably joined by leaders of their unions.
Apparently, New York City garbagemen upset with their mistreatment have chosen to skip days of work as well. The result, detailed in a Thursday article by Jean Lee at NBC News is trash piling up in parts of the city as regularly scheduled trash collection fails to occur.
What to expect after the Friday deadline? Continued piling up of trash on New York City sidewalks, right next to where millions of people in the densely populated city live, work, shop, and play each day is a good bet. Lee quotes the president of the Sanitation Officers Association:
Joseph Mannion, president of the Sanitation Officers Association, fears the trash pileups might foreshadow a possible worker shortage on Monday if vaccination rates among sanitation workers don’t increase by Friday. He said that the sanitation department has been moving to snow season shifts — 12 hours instead of eight — in anticipation of a possible worker shortage.
‘Prepare for the worst and hope for the best,’ Mannion said.
But Mannion is skeptical and said that he knows many sanitation workers are “hardened in their beliefs” and will refuse vaccination, even if it means being put on unpaid leave.
‘I know more people are getting vaccinated, but is it going to change around 60 percent to 80 percent?’ asked Mannion. ‘I don’t know. I don’t think so.’
More and more people in New York City must be asking themselves which is a healthier, and more pleasant, option: (A) letting trash continue to pile up on sidewalks while 100 percent of garbagemen are confirmed to have taken the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots, or (B) having trash regularly cleared from sidewalks while letting garbagemen choose whether they take the shots? My guess is that most people will choose option B, especially if the trash keeps piling up for weeks or even months on end.
The evidence is pouring in that the COVID-19 vaccines are not as efficacious as advertised against the Delta variant that became dominant in the fall of 2021. The Delta is learning how to thrive. The evidence has further accumulated to show that the vaccinated are showing viral loads (very high) similar to the unvaccinated, and the vaccinated are equally as infectious.
The gestalt of the findings implies that the infection explosion globally – post double vaccination e.g. Israel, UK, US etc. – that we have been experiencing may be likely due to the possibility that the vaccinated are driving the epidemic/pandemic and not the unvaccinated. We have been vaccinating against the wild-type virus that is no longer a pressing concern, even if the vaccine data so far suggests effectiveness for the demographic most susceptible to severe outcomes.
The data seems to suggest that the infection is 50:50 (vaccinated versus unvaccinated) while the UK is reporting 70% of deaths in the vaccinated (Delta variant) though there is debate on differential based on < 50 versus >50 years old. It appears that it is the vaccinated who are getting infected and thus transmitting the virus at a far greater rate. This unravels the demand for universal vaccine passports.
The Marek’s disease (‘leaky’ non-sterilizing, non-neutralizing imperfect vaccines that reduce symptoms but do not stop infection or transmission) in chickens model, and the concept of the Original antigenic sin (if an initial exposure or priming of the immune system is sub-optimal (Eugyppius) e.g. vaccination with the 2020 spike protein epitopes, then the sub-optimal priming is basically “fixed.” That is to say, it prejudices the life-long immune response with re-exposure due to the immune memory or learning.
Here I present a combination of 22 studies and stories that underscore just how big a problem this is for the NIH, CDC, FDA, and vaccine developers. It certainly highlights the problems with vaccine mandates that are currently threatening the jobs of millions of people. It raises further doubts about the case for vaccinating children.
Cases in point:
1) Gazit et al. out of Israel showed that “SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected.”
2) Acharya et al. found “no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta.”
3) Riemersma et al. found “no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine “breakthrough” infections. Furthermore, individuals with vaccine breakthrough infections frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses.” Results indicate that “if vaccinated individuals become infected with the delta variant, they may be sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to others.” They reported “low Ct values (<25) in 212 of 310 fully vaccinated (68%) and 246 of 389 (63%) unvaccinated individuals. Testing a subset of these low-Ct samples revealed infectious SARS-CoV-2 in 15 of 17 specimens (88%) from unvaccinated individuals and 37 of 39 (95%) from vaccinated people.”
4) Chemaitelly et al. reported a Qatar study which showed that the vaccine efficacy (Pfizer) declined to near zero by 5 to 6-months and even immediate protection after one to two months were largely exaggerated.
6) Riemersma et al. reported Wisconsin data that corroborate how the vaccinated individuals who get infected with the Delta variant can potentially (and are) transmit (ting) SARS-CoV-2 to others (potentially to the vaccinated and unvaccinated). They found an elevated viral load in the unvaccinated and vaccinated symptomatic persons (68% and 69% respectively, 158/232 and 156/225). This implied no difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated in terms of carriage and transmission (symptomatic). Moreover, in the asymptomatic persons, they uncovered elevated viral loads (29% and 82% respectively) in the unvaccinated and the vaccinated respectively. This suggests that the vaccinated can be infected, harbour, cultivate, and transmit the virus readily and can be doing this unknowingly.
7) Subramanian reported that observed increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination when they looked at 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States. In other words, there is no clear discernable relationship (maybe a marginally positive association, where higher vaccination did not reduce the transmission).
8) Chau et al. (HCWs in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh), looked at transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among vaccinated healthcare workers in Vietnam, and their findings further ransacks the COVID-19 injection landscape and throws it into turmoil in terms of disastrous findings. 69 healthcare workers were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. 62 participated in the clinical study. Researchers reported “23 complete-genome sequences were obtained. They all belonged to the Delta variant, and were phylogenetically distinct from the contemporary Delta variant sequences obtained from community transmission cases, suggestive of ongoing transmission between the workers. Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020”.
9) A CDC report by Brown in the MMWR (Barnstable, Massachusetts, July 2021) found that in 469 cases of COVID-19, there were 74% that occurred in fully vaccinated persons. “The vaccinated had on average more virus in their nose than the unvaccinated who were infected.”
10) Finland nosocomial hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients): “In conclusion, this outbreak demonstrated that, despite full vaccination and universal masking of HCW, breakthrough infections by the Delta variant via symptomatic and asymptomatic HCW occurred, causing nosocomical infections.”
11) Israel nosocomial hospital outbreak (also spread among HCWs and patients) both revealed that the PPE and masks were essentially ineffective in the healthcare setting. The index cases were usually fully vaccinated and most (if not all transmission) tended to occur between patients and staff who were masked and fully vaccinated, underscoring the high transmission of the Delta variant among vaccinated and masked persons.
12) UK’s Public Health England Report # 42 on page 23 raised serious concerns when it reported that “waning of the N antibody response over time and (iii) recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.”
13) This UK report #42 (Table 2, page 13), as well as those reports 36 to 41, show a pronounced and very troubling trend, which is that the double vaccinated persons are showing greater infection (per 100,000) than the unvaccinated, and especially in the older age groups e.g. 30 years and above.
14) CDC’s Director Rochelle Walensky admitted that the vaccines are not stopping transmission which is an admission limits vaccine effectiveness.
15) Levin et al. “conducted a 6-month longitudinal prospective study involving vaccinated health care workers who were tested monthly for the presence of anti-spike IgG and neutralizing antibodies”…they found that “six months after receipt of the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, humoral response was substantially decreased, especially among men, among persons 65 years of age or older….”
18) Suthar et al. examined the durability of immune responses to the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. They “analyzed antibody responses to the homologous Wu strain as well as several variants of concern, including the emerging Mu (B.1.621) variant, and T cell responses in a subset of these volunteers at six months (day 210 post-primary vaccination) after the second dose…data demonstrate a substantial waning of antibody responses and T cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, at 6 months following the second immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine.”
19) Nordströmin Sweden report on their study which shows that (cohort comprised 842,974 pairs (N=1,684,958), including individuals vaccinated with 2 doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2, and matched unvaccinated individuals) “vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against infection waned progressively from 92% (95% CI, 92-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 47% (95% CI, 39-55, P<0·001) at day 121-180, and from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07).”
20) CDC Director Rochelle Walensky’s and Dr. Fauci’s call for boosters basically tells you all you needed to know, that the vaccine has failed to live up to its most elaborate promises.
21) Yahi et al. reported that “in the case of the Delta variant, neutralizing antibodies have a decreased affinity for the spike protein, whereas facilitating antibodies display a strikingly increased affinity. Thus, ADE may be a concern for people receiving vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence (either mRNA or viral vectors).”
In conclusion, many people want the vaccine and they should be free to accept it as individuals. The public benefit of universal vaccination is now is grave doubt, and, as such, should not be expected to contribute to eliminating the social cost of the virus, much less be mandated by governments.
Dr Alexander holds a PhD. He has experience in epidemiology and in the teaching clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology. Dr Alexander is a former Assistant Professor at McMaster University in evidence-based medicine and research methods; former COVID Pandemic evidence-synthesis consultant advisor to WHO-PAHO Washington, DC (2020) and former senior advisor to COVID Pandemic policy in Health and Human Services (HHS) Washington, DC (A Secretary), US government; worked/appointed in 2008 at WHO as a regional specialist/epidemiologist in Europe’s Regional office Denmark, worked for the government of Canada as an epidemiologist for 12 years, appointed as the Canadian in-field epidemiologist (2002-2004) as part of an international CIDA funded, Health Canada executed project on TB/HIV co-infection and MDR-TB control (involving India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Afghanistan, posted to Kathmandu); employed from 2017 to 2019 at Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Virginia USA as the evidence synthesis meta-analysis systematic review guideline development trainer; currently a COVID-19 consultant researcher in the US-C19 research group
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) on Nov. 3 will join organizations and individuals in “Worldwide Walkout” by calling in sick or taking a personal day to protest the unprecedented loss of freedom that has occurred the world over since the COVID pandemic began.
Parents will also pull their children out of school for the day to protest the many restraints that have applied directly to children.
“No government in history has ever surrendered power in the absence of a demand,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel. “We need to tell these governments and their friends in the technocracy, the Silicon Valley billionaire boys club, the mainstream media and the pharmaceutical industry that we will no longer tolerate their trampling of citizens’ rights.”
Emboldened by reports of a recent walkout of Southwest employees — which led the airline’s management to drop plans to put unvaccinated employees on unpaid leave — nurses, doctors, teachers, police officers, firefighters and other workers are expected to participate in the protest.
“We need brave citizens to peacefully refuse to comply with unlawful and unethical edicts that for the past year-and-a-half have been allowed to trump individual rights and freedoms. Those days are over. There will be no business as usual until segregationist and coercive medical policies advanced by government authorities end once and for all.”
Organizers announced the protest after the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which advises the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, on Tuesday recommended the agency authorize Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization COVID vaccine for children 5 to 11 years old.
The vote to recommend authorization of this vaccine, despite evidence that COVID does not pose a threat to young people, is causing even more unrest among those concerned with the safety of COVID vaccines in all age groups.
“This vote by VRBPAC to put young children at risk of serious injury, and even death, is one more reason people need to stand up to tyranny, and let businesses and governments know we will no longer comply with reckless decisions that threaten the health of our children,” said CHD Executive Director Laura Bono.
CHD chapters, coalition partners and local community organizers are planning mass gatherings of people in peaceful noncompliance to take place in high-exposure areas in many cities and states. Visit “Worldwide Walkout” for locations and details. If you don’t see one for your area, reach out to others in your community to plan an event. Choose a location that is easy to get to and can be seen by many.
Once your date, location and time are in place, tell us your plans so we can help amplify your message.
CHD.TV will carry live coverage of the day’s events.
IT’S hard to tell sometimes whether the mainstream media is ingenuous and stupid, or disingenuous and malign. Their across-the-board, uncritical and almost adulatory reporting of Israel’s ‘first out of the traps’ mass vaccination programme prompts this observation. Check out Israel on Google: however many pages you search, you won’t find one critical article on the Israeli vaccination programme’s efficacy or ethics.
Had it been an unmitigated success there’d be no cause for surprise. But the truth is otherwise. Despite its early roll-out and achieving rates of vaccination in vulnerable groups upwards of 90 per cent, it’s no secret that over the summer the country experienced another wave of the virus that vaccination proved no barrier to. By early August the vaccinated (not the unvaccinated) in Israel were reported by a leading Israeli health official to account for 95 per cent of severe and 90 per cent of new hospitalisations for Covid-19. Significant ‘excess’ deaths in non-Covid vulnerable age groups also raised serious questions about the vaccines’ safety. In addition, this pre-print study (un-peer reviewed) published in August found natural immunity conferred longer lasting and stronger protection against the disease and hospitalisation caused by the Delta variant than the vaccine.
None of this evidence caused Israel’s government even a pause for thought. Au contraire the country was first off the mark again – this time with ‘booster’ third and fourth jabs all endorsed by the MSM with articles crediting it with powers its predecessors strangely lacked:
‘ . . . third doses are highly effective at preventing people from becoming infected with Delta, among those who are willing to be vaccinated,’ one enthusiastic professor opined. He said they not only dramatically reduce a person’s susceptibility to infection, they create a barrier to the onward transmission and spread of the virus.
The message from Israel for the UK is clear, or so the i newspaper would also have us believe. The booster is the way forward that our Government must follow with all speed.
This is the theory we’ve explained more than once in these pages. It accounts for the unaccountable – in this case for vaccine enthusiasts’ (do more) irrational response to the vaccines’ failure to deliver; for the ‘doubling down’ phenomenon – anything rather than acknowledge they may have got it wrong or placed too much reliance on what was always uncertain.
Faithful to the theory, they claim in face of negative data that their actions were successful in averting the worst, going further into denial with professions that had they not acted it would have been worse; thus setting up a canny ‘heads-we-win, tails-you-lose’ interpretation of things.
Festinger, the originator of this particular theory of human behaviour, explains it as ‘a psychic condition of tension and discomfort brought about by a palpable contradiction in an individual’s mental world’. It is an unease that must be eliminated: ‘Accordingly, something in the individual’s conscious awareness has to be invented, altered, ignored or denied.’
What is undoubtedly being denied by the authorities and their propagandists is the other side of the story – not only the inconvenient data but the human testimonies of those who have fallen foul of the experimental vaccine. This is the ultimate denial, keeping invisible the very real victims and survivors of the vaccines whose accounts are too threatening to the official narrative for the authorities to acknowledge.
Thank God then for the The Testimonies Project from Israel … to make sure their voices are heard, since they are not being heard in the Israeli media.
It’s a project that needs replicating worldwide to ensure that the millions of Covid vaccine victims are not airbrushed out of history and that there will be record of the human suffering that politicians can and must be brought to account for.
The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA) has warned of substantial “supply chain disruptions” if the US enforces vaccine passports at the border.
A few weeks ago, the US Department of Homeland Security announced a vaccine mandate for all international travel including truck drivers that will take effect in January. The announcement has been heavily criticized by cross-border truckers. According to Transportation Network, one executive in the Canadian trucking industry warned that the mandate would lead to a “disaster.”
This week, the CTA warned that the mandate would increase supply chain disruptions. Trucks facilitate about 70% of the $650 billion trade between Canada and the US. About 40,000 US drivers and 120,000 Canadian drivers operate in the cross-border trade between the two countries.
The CTA said that about 20% of drivers will stop cross-border operations once the vaccine mandate is enforced.
“CTA conservatively estimates that 20 percent of Canadian truck drivers crossing the border (22,000), and 40 percent of U.S. truck drivers (16,000), would almost immediately exit the Canada-US trade system should the vaccination mandate take effect in January 2022,” the organization said.
It called on both the US and Canadian governments to “reexamine appropriate mandate timelines for cross-border truck drivers.”
The group also argued that more time is needed to create a “seamless mutual system of identification for drivers” to avoid delays when drivers are showing proof of vaccination.
However, the Biden administration appears to be disregarding the warnings of “dire consequences” from leading truck organizations by proceeding with the vaccine passport plans.
With President Biden succumbing to the CIA’s demand to continue keeping the CIA’s records relating to the Kennedy assassination secret, the question naturally arises: What is the CIA still hiding? (See my blog post of yesterday entitled “Surprise! Biden Continues the CIA’s JFK Assassination Cover-Up.”)
To understand what they are still hiding and why they are still hiding it, it’s necessary to go back to the 1990s during the era of the Assassination Records Review Board — and even further back than that to November 22, 1963 — the day that Kennedy was assassinated.
People often say that if the CIA and the Pentagon had orchestrated the assassination of President Kennedy, someone would have talked by now.
That’s just not true. When it comes to murder, people don’t talk. They know that if they do talk, they run the risk of themselves being murdered, maybe their families too. People who participate in murder schemes know that they had better keep their mouths shut or else.
One example is Mafia figure Jimmy Hoffa. We still don’t know who killed Hoffa. That’s because no one talked. Another example is Johnny Roselli, the liaison in the CIA-Mafia partnership to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro. We still don’t know who murdered Roselli. No one has ever talked.
People who talk also run the risk of being prosecuted because there is no statute of limitations for murder. A good recent example is real-estate heir Robert Durst. He was recently convicted of murdering a person twenty-one years ago.
So, it was always a safe bet that the CIA and the Pentagon would be able to keep their regime-change operation in Dallas sealed in secrecy.
However, not so with respect to the fraudulent autopsy that the Pentagon carried out on President Kennedy’s body on the evening of the assassination. When the ARRB released people who had participated in the autopsy during the 1990s, they talked.
The problem that the plotters had, however, is that in order to carry out this part of the cover-up, they had to enlist the assistance of many people within the vast national-security establishment who played no role in the assassination. Since all those people were innocent and mostly unwitting participants to the cover-up, they didn’t have the same incentive to stay quiet as the people who knowingly participated in the assassination itself.
The military did its best to keep everyone quiet by telling the autopsy participants that what they were doing was classified. Everyone in the military knows what that means — people are expected to take classified secrets to the grave with them. Participants to the autopsy were required to sign written secrecy oaths. They were also threatened with court martial or criminal prosecution if they ever revealed what they had done or seen.
As I pointed out in The Kennedy Autopsy, the scheme for a fraudulent autopsy was actually set into motion at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Immediately after Kennedy was declared dead, the Dallas County Medical Examiner, Dr. Earl Rose, announced his intent to conduct an autopsy on the president’s body, as Texas law required. That was when a team of armed Secret Service agents, brandishing guns, told Rose in no uncertain terms that they would not permit him to do the autopsy. Forcing their way out of Parkland Hospital, they took the body to Dallas’s Love Field, where new President Lyndon Johnson was waiting for it. Johnson then took the body back with him to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, where he delivered it into the hands of the military.
Although the mainstream media always treated all this as normal, given the dominant role that the national-security establishment was playing in Cold War America, it was actually quite bizarre and aberrant. The military never had any jurisdiction or legal authority to conduct the autopsy. At that time, killing a president was not a federal crime. The United States was not at war with any nation state. Kennedy was not killed on the field of battle. His killing was a straight murder case under Texas state law. Any criminal prosecution for the assassination would take place in Dallas. A genuinely honest autopsy would be a critically important part of that criminal prosecution, especially since a sharp team of criminal-defense lawyers would inevitably be defending the accused.
The military was mostly, but not entirely, able to keep its fraudulent autopsy secret for some 30 years, until the ARRB began releasing people who had participated in the autopsy from their vows of secrecy. As the ARRB began forcing the military to release its records relating to the autopsy, the dam of secrecy surrounding the autopsy broke wide open. That’s when the fraud became apparent. That’s why the JFK Records Act was such a nightmare for the Pentagon and the CIA. If it hadn’t been for that law, there is no doubt that the military’s fraudulent autopsy would still be shrouded in secrecy today.
What the Pentagon and the CIA learned from the era of the ARRB is that the community of assassination researchers is composed of some very smart people. By analyzing the evidence that the ARRB was succeeding in getting released, assassination researchers were able to put together the pieces of the puzzle that established a fraudulent autopsy, along with lots of other pieces of circumstantial evidence establishing that what occurred on November 22, 1963, was a highly sophisticated national-security state regime-change operation.
The leading figure in this endeavor was Douglas Horne, who served on the ARRB staff. Anyone who reads Horne’s five-volume book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board will inevitably conclude that the autopsy that the military conducted on the Kennedy’s body a few hours after the assassination was fraudulent to the core.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy being conducted on President Kennedy’s body, especially given that the scheme for a fraudulent autopsy was launched at the moment Kennedy was declared dead.
It stands to reason that if a government agency is being forced to reveal records relating to a regime-change operation, that agency is going to keep the most incriminating evidence secret for as long as possible. We still don’t know what the CIA is still hiding, but we can safely assume that there is a good reason why the CIA does not want to let those super-smart assassination researchers get a hold of it.
That’s why the national-security establishment will fight tooth and nail for permanent secrecy on their remaining JFK assassination-related records. Oh, the Pentagon and the CIA will most likely authorize Biden and the National Archives to release some innocuous records for appearance’s sake. But make no mistake about it: They will make certain that Biden, the National Archives, and all future presidents comply with their demand for permanent secrecy on what they need to hide on a permanent basis.
L.A. City Council unveiled its new plan to harass its unvaccinated workers with bi-weekly COVID tests to paid for by employees.
Los Angeles City Council has announced that its police officers, firefighters and other city workers who have not yet received their experimental COVID-19 pharmaceutical gene therapy injections – will be ‘given more time’ to get their jabs under the new plan approved by the City Council.
City officials hope that a constant campaign of harassment and financial penalties waged against its workers will encourage any remaining unvaccinated employees to submit to the corporate jabs.
City workers who haven’t given up their constitutional right to bodily autonomy by Dec. 18th will face “corrective action” and punishment by the city, including legalized targeted harassment by city officials, according to their plan released yesterday.
Until then, the city’s unvaccinated workers will be required to get tested for COVID-19 twice per week, on their own time, and at a cost of $65 for each test – deducted straight from their paychecks.
California official will be studying the results of this program closely, no doubt with plans to replicate it across other sectors of society, and as a coercive instrument for businesses as well.
Mortality data tells us information about deaths in Australia and is usually released every 6 weeks. For an unexplained reason, the latest data is over 15 weeks overdue.
As Government becomes more and more powerful, anyone who challenges the current policies is smeared and censored. The legacy media happily parrots the propaganda, afraid of losing government funding.
Unreliable, intermittent wind and solar energy will leave Australian families sitting in the dark without coal-fired power to back them. ‘Renewables’ only farm taxpayer money, not energy.
Joanna Lumley has said that a return to rationing could help solve the climate crisis. The 75 year-old actress said that eating meat and travelling could be rationed to save the planet.
Speaking to Radio Times Lumley said:
“These are tough times and I think there’s got to be legislation. That was how the war was and at some stage we might even have to go back to some kind of rationing, where you’re given a certain number of points and it’s up to you how to spend them – whether it’s buying a bottle of whisky or flying in an aeroplane.”
She said that people could be compelled to cut back on weekend breaks abroad and to move to a plant based diet:
“Perhaps people have got to think a bit harder. Maybe more of our holidays should be at home or taking trains, and not hopping on a plane to Magaluf for the weekend.
I don’t get ill because I’m vegetarian. I still have plenty of energy. I am absolutely fine, I gave up meat 45 years ago.”
When you frame any problem, whether real or imagined as a war, you can justify almost anything right? Remember all that “workers on the front line” nonsense at the beginning of the scamdemic? Remember “the war on covid?”
Didn’t I say last year, that climate lockdowns would be a thing? I said that Sunday driving would be rationed as well as certain foods. This will tie in with the social credit system of course.
Not reducing your meat consumption, your travel, your overall carbon footprint ultimately, will eventually be seen as treachery.
… Groupthink was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.
Janis was curious about how teams of highly intelligent and motivated people—the “best and the brightest” as David Halberstam called them in his 1972 book of the same name—could have come up with political policy disasters like the Vietnam War, Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Bay of Pigs. Similarly, in 2008 and 2009, we saw the best and brightest in the world’s financial sphere crash thanks to some incredibly stupid decisions, such as allowing sub-prime mortgages to people on the verge of bankruptcy.
In other words, Janis studied why and how groups of highly intelligent professional bureaucrats and, yes, even scientists, screw up, sometimes disastrously and almost always unnecessarily. The reason, Janis believed, was “groupthink.” He quotes Nietzsche’s observation that “madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups,” and notes that groupthink occurs when “subtle constraints … prevent a [group] member from fully exercising his critical powers and from openly expressing doubts when most others in the group appear to have reached a consensus.”[2]
Janis found that even if the group leader expresses an openness to new ideas, group members value consensus more than critical thinking; groups are thus led astray by excessive “concurrence-seeking behavior.”[3] Therefore, Janis wrote, groupthink is “a model of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”[4]
The groupthink syndrome
The result is what Janis calls “the groupthink syndrome.” This consists of three main categories of symptoms:
1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.” [emphasis added]
2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.[5]
3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]
It’s obvious that alarmist climate science—as explicitly and extensively revealed in the Climatic Research Unit’s “Climategate” emails—shares all of these defects of groupthink, including a huge emphasis on maintaining consensus, a sense that because they are saving the world, alarmist climate scientists are beyond the normal moral constraints of scientific honesty (“overestimation of the group’s power and morality”), and vilification of those (“deniers”) who don’t share the consensus. … Read full article
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 