Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Hague-based tribunal orders US to pay $37mln to Iran for breaching 1981 treaty

Press TV – March 4, 2021

In a legal victory for the Islamic Republic, the Hague-based Iran–United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT) has ordered Washington to pay $37 million to Iran after finding it guilty of passing Treasury regulations that prevented or delayed the transfer of part of the Iranian assets in violation of the 1981 Algiers Accords.

In a statement released on Wednesday, Iran’s Presidency Center for International Legal Affairs said the tribunal — which resolves claims by nationals and governments of Iran and the US — had ruled in favor of Iran in the legal case brought by Tehran, obliging the US to pay financial damages to the country and restitute some of the assets belonging to the Iranian government and government institutions.

In 1982, the Islamic Republic of Iran brought the case against the US before the IUSCT, which issued its initial ruling in 1992, it added.

After hearings, the center said, the tribunal handed down a final verdict in March 2020 condemning the United States for failing to transfer Iran’s assets or delaying the process.
Under the ruling, the US government was ordered to pay almost $29 million to Iran.

The court also set a time limit for America to restitute some assets with historical value like musical instruments belonging to Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. If the US fails to do so, it must pay Iran $8 million dollars, bringing the total fine to $37 million.

The IUSCT, which was established on January 19, 1981, consists of nine members, three appointed by each government and three (third-country) members appointed by the six government-appointed members.

March 4, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The National-Security State Racket

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | March 3, 2021

Some people are criticizing President Biden for the recent U.S. air strikes in Syria as well as his refusal to sanction Saudi dictator Mohammed bin Salman, the man who U.S. officials have concluded orchestrated the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

Yes, it’s possible that Biden made those decisions. But there is another possibility, one much more likely, one that unfortunately all too many Americans are loath to consider: that it was the U.S. national-security establishment, particularly the Pentagon and the CIA, who made those decisions and that Biden simply deferred to their judgment.

That’s what many people simply cannot bring themselves to consider: that it is the national-security establishment, namely the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and, to a certain extent, the FBI, that is actually running the federal government, especially in foreign affairs. The other three branches, while permitted to have the veneer of power, are expected to defer to critical judgments made by the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA.

And defer they do. When was the last time that Congress significantly reduced the budget for the national-security establishment? You’ll never see it. That’s because the national-security establishment controls Congress. No member of Congress, especially the military and CIA veterans, would dare to take them on. If he did, he would be toast because the Pentagon would immediately retaliate by threatening to close down military projects or bases in his district. The Pentagon’s and CIA’s assets in the mainstream press would immediately take the offensive and accuse the congressman of being “ineffective.” He would be out in the next election.

The Supreme Court has long deferred to the overwhelming power of the national-security branch of the federal government. The Pentagon’s and CIA’s torture and prison center in Cuba, where people have been denied the right to a speedy trial for more than a decade, is an ongoing testament of that deference to authority. So is the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Pentagon’s and CIA’s power to assassinate people, notwithstanding the express prohibitions on assassination in the Fifth Amendment. Indeed, America’s official secrets act wasn’t a law enacted by Congress; it was a judicial doctrine that the Supreme Court crafted out of whole cloth in deference to a demand by the military.

Trump vs. Biden

With the national-security establishment’s decision that President Kennedy’s policies posed a grave threat to national security and, therefore, that he needed to be removed from office, no president has dared to take these people on. In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, it appeared that Donald Trump was going to do so. But for some unknown reason, once he entered into office, he crumbled, surrounding himself with military generals and civilian warmongers. He also surrendered to the CIA’s demands to keep its 50-year-old JFK assassination records secret, on grounds of “national security.”

But there is no doubt that Trump was different. He didn’t show the same deference to the authority of the national-security establishment that other presidents since Kennedy have. That was why the deep state went after him from the very beginning, especially with its nonsensical investigation into whether Trump was a Russian agent who was betraying America, just as they said Kennedy was doing with his policies. Perhaps with time, we will learn the full extent of the deep state’s efforts to ensure Joe Biden’s defeat of Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

Now they have Biden, which is their notion of an ideal president, one who will defer to the omnipotent power of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. Did Biden really select military-industrial complex man Lloyd J. Austen III as Secretary of Defense? It’s much more likely that the Pentagon, not wanting to jack with a civilian overseer, chose Austin and that Biden simply deferred to its wishes.

Unheeded warnings

President Eisenhower warned about this type of governmental structure in his Farewell Address in 1961. He pointed out that it constituted a grave threat to the democratic processes and rights and liberties of the American people. That was more than 50 years ago. Since then, the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI, along with their army of contractors and subcontractors feeding at the public trough, have only grown progressively more powerful and rich.

John Kennedy took these people on directly. Kennedy was not a dumb man. He knew precisely the nature of the power structure he was up against. That was why he played an instrumental role in bringing the movie Seven Days in May into production — to serve as a warning to the American people, the same type of warning that Ike issued to Americans in his Farewell Address.

The problem is that Americans have never paid heed to those warnings. They just don’t want to acknowledge that they had any validity. Indeed, many Americans still do not want to confront the fact that this brutal structure within their governmental apparatus ended up turning its omnipotent power inward against a president whose policies they deemed constituted a grave threat to national security.

Milking the rackets

For some 45 years, the national-security establishment milked the “war on communism” for all that it was worth, constantly engendering deep fear with the American people so that they would continue to vest the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI with ever-increasing power, influence, and money.

It was nothing more than one great big racket, one that continually, year after year, enriched the pockets and expanded the power of those in the military-intelligence establishment.

When Kennedy decided to bring an end to the Cold War racket, he had to be dealt with. And a message needed to be sent to the American people: “We are here, we are in charge, never take us on, and just get used to it.”

When the Cold War ended, their racket quickly morphed into the “war on terrorism.” All the fears about communism that these people engendered in the American people were simply switched to terrorism — or Islam. At first the fear revolved around the notion that foreign terrorists were coming to get us. Now it’s morphed into the notion that domestic terrorists are coming to get us.

They have now come full circle, restoring Russia and China as official enemies who are supposedly coming to get us, just like they supposedly were during the 45 years of the Cold War racket. It’s now a fear-mongering perfect storm — terrorists, Muslims, Russia, and China and, for good measure, Syria, North Korea, ISIS, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, and an unsafe world.

An upending of values and morals

Ever since its inception, the deep state has upended America’s morals and values. How many foreign regimes, including democratically elected ones, have these people destroyed in the name of national security? How many brutal military and right-wing dictatorships have they installed into power, trained, supported, and aligned with? How many people, including a democratically elected U.S. president, have they assassinated over the years based on national security?

The obsessive quest to inflict extreme punishment on people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden says it all. Here are people who have done nothing more than disclose the truth about the national-security establishment’s evil and immoral actions. Yet, it is people like Assange and Snowden who are considered to be the evil, immoral ones. What better evidence of an upending of America’s morals and values than that?

If our American ancestors had been told that the Constitutional Convention was bringing into existence a national-security state type of governmental structure, they never would have approved the deal. The only reason they approved the deal was because they were assured that the Constitution was bringing into existence a limited-government republic.

The national-security state is a root cause of many woes under which America is suffering. To get our nation back on the right road, it is necessary that we dismantle, not reform, the national-security establishment and restore our founding governmental system of a limited-government republic to our land.

March 3, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

James Cook University Walks Back Extreme Global Warming Coral Extinction Claims

By Eric Worral | Watts Up With That? | March 3, 2021

Peter Ridd is right – the Great Barrier Reef is not in immediate danger of dying. James Cook University, Peter Ridd’s adversary in his unfair dismissal court case, has just slightly walked back some of their more ridiculous Great Barrier Reef extinction claims.

Coral count rethinks extinction risk

Fraser Barton

The global extinction risk of most coral species is lower than previously estimated, scientists in North Queensland claim.

In a world-first, researchers at James Cook University have assessed the number of coral colonies in the Pacific Ocean and evaluated their risk of extinction.

The study measured the population sizes of more than 300 individual coral species on reefs across the Pacific Ocean, from Indonesia to French Polynesia.

Using a combination of coral reef habitat maps and counts of coral colonies to estimate species abundances, they estimate roughly half a trillion corals in the Pacific alone.

Given the huge size of these coral populations, researchers believe it is very unlikely that they face imminent extinction.

…

Co-author Professor Terry Hughes stated while the study results have huge implications for managing and restoring coral reefs, it is is not the solution to climate change.

“You would have to grow about 250 million adult corals to increase coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef by just one percent.”

…

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/coral-count-rethinks-extinction-risk/ar-BB1e7fD5

The abstract of the study;

The population sizes and global extinction risk of reef-building coral species at biogeographic scales

Andreas Dietzel, Michael Bode, Sean R. Connolly & Terry P. Hughes

Abstract

Knowledge of a species’ abundance is critically important for assessing its risk of extinction, but for the vast majority of wild animal and plant species such data are scarce at biogeographic scales. Here, we estimate the total number of reef-building corals and the population sizes of more than 300 individual species on reefs spanning the Pacific Ocean biodiversity gradient, from Indonesia to French Polynesia. Our analysis suggests that approximately half a trillion corals (0.3 × 1012–0.8 × 1012) inhabit these coral reefs, similar to the number of trees in the Amazon. Two-thirds of the examined species have population sizes exceeding 100 million colonies, and one-fifth of the species even have population sizes greater than 1 billion colonies. Our findings suggest that, while local depletions pose imminent threats that can have ecologically devastating impacts to coral reefs, the global extinction risk of most coral species is lower than previously estimated.

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01393-4

Professor Terry Hughes, whose name appears on this paper, lodged official complaints about Peter Ridd, and in my opinion contributed to Peter Ridd’s dismissal for the crime of being right.

On one hand it is a positive that coral science seems to be edging towards a much needed correction.

But this slight shift towards Peter Ridd’s position, that claims the Great Barrier Reef is on the verge of extinction are grossly exaggerated, in my opinion puts James Cook University into an even more untenable position.

The sooner James Cook University apologises and settles Peter Ridd’s unfair dismissal claim, the better it will be for their long journey back to restoring James Cook’s in my opinion shattered scientific reputation.

March 3, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Why is Death After COVID-19 Vaccination Always Assumed to Be Coincidental?

By Marco Cáceres | The Vaccine Reaction | March 1, 2021

There appears to be a pattern developing when deaths are reported shortly following COVID-19 vaccinations, in that all deaths are assumed to be only “coincidentally” associated with vaccination before all the evidence is in. This raises an obvious question: Is the assumption that the experimental COVID-19 vaccines are never the cause of death scientifically justified or is it a symptom of bias?

Following the death of Drene Keyes in Virginia within minutes of receiving the first dose of Pfizer/BioNTech’s experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 vaccine for COVID-19 on Jan. 30, 2021, the doctors who treated Keyes told her daughter, Lisa Jones, that her mother had suffered from what is called “flash pulmonary edema” (a condition caused by excess fluid in the lungs) caused by a serious allergic reaction, or anaphylaxis.1 2

While anaphylaxis is a known side effect of many vaccines, including mRNA vaccines like the one given to Keyes, almost immediately Virginia’s health commissioner Norman Oliver, MD said that preliminary findings of the investigation into Keyes’ death indicate that the cause of death was not anaphylaxis. Dr. Oliver acknowledged that the death had occurred soon after Keyes had been vaccinated, but insisted that fact was not “evidence of it being related.”1

Dr. Oliver said, “We are currently investigating and do not yet know the cause of death.” Danny Avula, MD, who is director of the Richmond City and Henrico County health departments and Virginia’s vaccine coordinator, said, “They’re looking for patterns, they’re looking for a causation versus just a correlation based on time.”1

Weeks have passed since Keyes died and the official cause of death has yet to be determined. A news report in mid-February noted that the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of Virginia had informed Jones that an autopsy on her mother would not be performed. According to the article, Jones said she had been told the state would not do a full autopsy “due to public health concerns.”1

One can only speculate why Virginia state officials opted out of doing a full autopsy to try and better understand what caused Keyes’ death by citing “public health concerns.” The oddness of that reasoning might only be surpassed by the reason given by the Portuguese Ministry of Justice for not revealing the cause of death for 41-year-old Sonia Acevedo in Portugal on Jan. 1, 2021 two days after being given the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine: “secrecy of justice.”3 4

Other Deaths Reported Soon After Vaccination

There have been reports of other deaths that have occurred during the past two months soon after people have received the COVID-19 vaccine. In each of those cases, health authorities and vaccine providers have immediately written the deaths off as either unlikely to have been connected to the vaccine or, reportedly, the deaths are still being investigated.

Dozens of deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations have been reported in Europe, India, Israel and other regions of the world.3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

There have been several well-publicized deaths after COVID-19 vaccination in the United States, including the death of 56-year-old Gregory Michael, MD in Florida on Dec. 18, 2020 two weeks after getting the first dose of Pfizer/BioNTech’s experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 vaccine.41 42

Dr. Gregory’s death was followed by the death of 60-year-old Tim Zook in Orange County, California on Jan. 9, 2021 four days after getting the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine and the death of a man in his late 40s who died on Jan. 17 in Nebraska one to two weeks after getting the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. There was also the death of a 64-year-old man in Placer County, CA on Jan. 21 three hours after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.43 44 45 46 47

More recently, there was the death of 90-year old Daniel Thayne Simpson in Michigan on Feb. 4 the day after he received the first dose of Moderna’s experimental mRNA-1273 vaccine and the death of a man in his 70s on Feb. 7 in New York 25 minutes after getting a COVID-19 vaccine, followed by the death of 36-year-old J. Barton Williams, MD, who died on Feb. 8 in Tennessee just weeks after receiving the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.48 49 50

Finally, there was the death of a 78-year-old woman within minutes of getting the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine at California State Polytechnic University in Pomona on Feb. 12 and the death on Feb. 16 of former Detroit news anchor Karen Hudson-Samuels, 68, the day after getting a COVID-19 vaccine.51 52 At least thus far.

Officially, No Post-Vaccination Deaths Have Been Linked to COVID-19 Vaccines

Interestingly, despite the close proximity of the sudden and unexpected deaths of all these people to the times they were given COVID-19 vaccinations, none of the deaths have been deemed by health officials to be related to the COVID-19 vaccines recently administered. Most deaths have been judged to be merely coincidental or a specific cause of death has not yet been given.

Almost unanimously, mainstream media outlets have forwarded the narrative that nobody has died from a COVID-19 vaccination. One news report noted:

While people have died after receiving the vaccine, doctors say those deaths are not—in any way—linked to the vaccine. Every time someone gets sick or dies after getting the shot, government agencies investigate to ensure there is no link. So far, the CDC has been unable to identify a single case where the vaccine is the cause of someone passing away.53

“Scientists say it’s human nature to draw a connection between events—especially when they happen close together—but it doesn’t mean one caused the other,” wrote Stephanie Widmer, MD in an article published by ABC News.54 Dr. Widner offered the following quote from fellow physician William Schaffner, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center:

We all know that the rooster crows before the dawn, but we don’t think the rooster makes the sun come up, simply because they are related in time.54

That’s an interesting way of looking at things. But then, the same might be said of those who have been listed as having died of COVID-19. After all, an unknown number of people, whose deaths were attributed to COVID-19, had underlying poor health conditions, known as “comorbidities. ” Those underlying poor health conditions, including heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes and other co-morbidities, could have been the major reason they died. Yet, because those individuals tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 disease—whether symptomatic or asymptomatic—they were counted as having died of COVID-19.

The truth is that some people are obviously dying of COVID-19, while others are dying from well-known chronic diseases that are leading causes of death in the U.S. every year.55 56 57 58

Is There an Inherent Bias Against Blaming Vaccines?

I suspect the same may be true of those who have died so soon after getting a COVID-19 vaccination. However, there is no way to prove that there is an inherent bias against considering the possibility that a COVID-19 vaccine can, in rare instances, cause a person to die suddenly and unexpectedly shortly after vaccination. There will be no way to obtain the necessary evidence to prove it if health authorities refuse to complete full investigations (including conducting autopsies) into these cases.

Could it be that Virginia’s medical examiners, or those above them, were reluctant to conduct a full autopsy on Keyes for fear of what they might find? How much did the possibility that Keyes’ death could have been connected to the vaccine she received factor into the “public health concerns” of Virginia health officials, who refused to do an autopsy? Were they concerned that discovery of a connection might discourage some people from getting vaccinated?

One can only ask the questions.

March 3, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

The Antibody Deception

The Antibody Deception from Rosemary Frei on Vimeo.

By Rosemary Frei, MSc | March 2, 2021

The world has been fixated for months on novel-coronavirus PCR testing, contact tracing and vaccination.

Meanwhile, another major part of the Covid biomedical complex has received far less attention: the use of antibodies for detecting, diagnosing and treating infection with the novel coronavirus.

Hundreds of antibodies have been approved for these purposes since January 2020. And hundreds more are poised to start being marketed soon.

This is part of the biomedical gold rush: by last summer already, antibodies were on track to become the most lucrative medical product, with global revenue projected to reach nearly half a trillion dollars by 2024. Profit margins in the range of 67% aren’t uncommon.

Pharma giants such as AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly are among the companies grabbing the largest chunks of the novel-coronavirus-antibody market. And some of the most muscular government agencies, including Anthony Fauci’s US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the US’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, are part of the action (see, for example, the second-last section of this article, on antibodies used to treat Covid).

Virtually every study and piece of marketing material related to Covid is premised on scientists having positively and correctly identified the presence of the novel coronavirus (also known as SARS-CoV-2) in the material they’re working with.

The job of that identification is usually given to antibodies that are said to bind to the novel coronavirus. The assumption is these antibodies are able to pick out the virus and only the virus from among every other organism and substance surrounding it.

Unfortunately it turns out that the antibodies rarely (if ever) do that. This is because of, among other things, inadequate verification of the antibodies’ accuracy in targeting the virus by the companies that manufacture and sell them. And there’s even less verification by government regulators.

Let’s take a 30,000-foot tour of a couple of the main features of the antibody-industry landscape, which is awash in complexity and cash.

Can Antibodies be Created That Only Bind to One Type of Virus or Another?

Antibodies are tiny, finely-tuned, parts of our immune system. One of their main functions is to seek out viruses and bacteria that may have the potential to cause disease. Antibodies bind to and neutralize these microbes so they can’t multiply and spread.

Humans and our ancestors have been making antibodies in our bodies to fend off infections for millions of years. Then a few decades ago companies got involved in the discovery and manipulation of antibodies, partnering with university labs.

There are two main categories of antibodies. One is ‘polyclonal’ antibodies. These are garden-variety antibodies that bind to a variety of different substances and/or organisms.

The other is monoclonal antibodies. As the name implies, cloning is involved in their creation. First an antibody that is specific to a particular amino-acid sequence (amino acids are the building blocks of proteins) of interest – for example, one from a protein on the surface of a virus or bacterium — is identified. Then the immune-system cell which produced that antibody is ‘cloned’ in the lab. As a result, each set of monoclonal antibodies binds to that particular amino-acid sequence.

I emailed one of the English-speaking world’s leading authorities on monoclonal antibodies, Harvard Medical School professor Clifford Saper, to get clarity on this. I asked him if it’s true that, as most in the antibody-commercializing arena claim, a monoclonal antibody can be created that’s specific for (that is, binds to) just one type of virus or just one other type of organism.

Saper replied [bolding and italics added by me for emphasis]: “No, there is no such thing as a monoclonal antibody that, because it is monoclonal, recognizes only one protein or only one virus. It will bind to any protein having the same (or a very similar) sequence.”

The implication of Saper’s statement is that any attempt to use a monoclonal antibody to verify the presence of the novel coronavirus will yield a large rate of false-positive results. That is, they will indicate that the novel coronavirus is detected when in fact it hasn’t been. That’s because there’s a high probability that the monoclonal antibody is binding to something else besides the virus (this is known as ‘cross-reacting’).

(I recommend this review paper by Saper, and this one and this one co-authored by Yale pathology professor David Rimm, to anyone wishing to learn about antibody validation.)

And in fact, the vast majority of antibodies and monoclonal antibodies marketed as being specific for the novel coronavirus were developed years ago for detecting SARS-CoV-1. They were then simply repurposed for identifying SARS-CoV-2 — with very few if any checks for whether they also cross-react to other organisms or substances.

I sought confirmation of this repurposing from Zhen Lu. She’s the North American marketing manager for Sino Biological, a Beijing-headquartered company that develops and sells, among other things, hundreds of antibodies. Lu replied to me via email, “Yes, antibodies are repuposed [sic].”

I also checked and received confirmation from Pratiek Matkar, a senior staffer from BenchSci, an antibody-database company. And to see for myself, I logged into the BenchSci database (Matkar granted me a guest account), selected all antibodies for the novel coronavirus, and looked to see which organisms had been used in cross-reactivity tests for them. SARS-CoV-1 was the only one that came up in this check.

This all explains something I observed last week: Sino Biological had just changed the content of its home page for the section of their website on antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The page now announces that they’ve introduced new “matched antibody pairs” that work better at finding the virus. The pair consists of a “capture antibody” and a “detection antibody.”

And they claim these pairs are more accurate at finding the novel coronavirus: that they “have high specificity without cross-reactivity with MERS-CoV, [or with the common human coronaviruses] 229E, NL63, HKU1, [and] OC43.”

The only way I can interpret that is they know the antibodies they’ve been marketing for months as being specific for the novel coronavirus bind to other things, such as common human coronaviruses.

How Are Antibodies Harnessed in Tests for the Novel Coronavirus?

One of the main types of tests for the virus contains antibodies that are ostensibly specific for the novel coronavirus. The way they’re designed to work is that if the virus is present in a blood sample the antibodies bind to it and, as a result, the test gives a positive signal.

The other type of test contains sequences of protein from the novel coronavirus; if antibodies to the virus are present in a blood sample, they bind to the protein sequences and produce a positive result.

The manufacturers are supposed to conduct accuracy checks of their test kits before they put them on the market. These checks largely consist of estimation of the rates of false positives and false negatives (the latter is a negative result when the antibody or protein of interest is contained in the sample being tested by the kit).

However, companies do this cursory accuracy check with only very few samples of a small number of viruses — and rarely on bacteria or any other of the millions of biological substances that can be present in the blood.

Despite this very inadequate validation and the strong incentive for the companies to make their products look good, as documented last May by David Crowe, the manufacturers often record a significant rate of false positives. The false positives are to everything from West Nile virus to various types of human coronaviruses.

Usually the companies and governments wave that off as insignificant. Occasionally though, the test kits are so bad that they’re taken off the market.

For example, an antibody-testing kit sold by a company called Chembio Diagnostics was launched on March 31, 2020. It was almost immediately granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An EUA allows companies to rush products onto the market with very minimal oversight. Brazil and the European Union also gave the nod for the Chembio test to be sold in their jurisdictions in April and May 2020, respectively.

Then in June 2020 the FDA pulled it off the market. The agency said ”this test generates a higher than expected rate of false results.” (Note that the top table on page 13 of the product insert for that “revoked” Chembio test indicates it cross-reacts to the human coronavirus 229E.)

But in November 2020 the Chembio antibody test again was approved for use in Brazil. And on January 14, 2021, the test got the nod in the European Union, the UK and Ireland.

Is it identical to the rest that was so inaccurate it was pulled off the market last June? It’s hard to tell. There is no product insert for it that I could find. In fact there’s very little information about it on the webpage for the test; you have to request the information. I submitted a request on Jan. 23 and haven’t received it yet.

Two of the heads of the FDA branch that approves testing devices penned a February 18, 2021, New England Journal of Medicine article. In it, the pair admitted that the FDA’s EUAs allowed too-loose approvals for serology tests.

They indicated the FDA has tightened its criteria for approval of these tests. They also point to efforts by other government agencies to evaluate serology tests. But the pair don’t say a word about the need to move toward objective, thorough test validation. They also are mute on the fact that EUAs are still being issued.

(Also note that the FDA and Health Canada listings of the 65 serology tests approved to date in the US and 19 approved to date in Canada continue to give the sensitivity [correct identification of positive samples] of the tests by ‘positive percent agreement’ and specificity [correct identification of negative samples] by ‘negative percent agreement.’ These are relative measures of accuracy – that is, compared to other tests – rather than objective/absolute accuracy, and therefore are poor facsimiles of accuracy.)

One of the many major figures in the Covid-biomedical complex who are priming the pump of the antibody pipeline is Ian Lipkin. He’s director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University in New York. Lipkin is involved at high levels in many global organizations including the World Health Organization and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well in pharmaceutical companies. (And he is quoted in a ‘fact-check’ of a July 2020 article I co-authored with Patrick Corbett titled, “No one has died from the coronavirus.” Lipkin states, among other things, in the fact-check piece that “Conspiracy theorists are not persuaded by data.”)

Lipkin co-authored a Feb. 12, 2021, paper in which he and his team claimed to have identified, using a new ‘peptide-microarray’ technology they invented, 29 amino-acid sequences unique to the novel coronavirus. They assert that antibodies specific to the sequences could be created – and that these in turn could be harnessed “to facilitate diagnostics, epidemiology, and vaccinology” for Covid. (The only conflict Lipkin and some of his co-authors disclose in the ‘competing interests’ paragraph at the end of article is that they invented the peptide-microarray technology described in the article.)

Do Antibodies Used to Treat Covid Fare Any Better?

Antibodies are also being marketed to treat Covid. Some are sold singly (known as ‘monotherapy’) and others in pairs. They are deemed to confer ‘passive immunity.’

Among the most-reported-on set of antibodies for treating Covid is the Regeneron monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab. This pair reportedly was used in October 2020 to treat then-U.S. President Donald Trump. The combo subsequently was granted an EUA by the FDA on November 21, 2020. It also is being considered for approval by Health Canada.

I’d like to focus on a somewhat lesser-known monoclonal antibody called bamlanivumab. It’s being used both singly and as one half of a pair for treatment of symptomatic Covid patients early in the course of their infection. The antibody was discovered, and clinical study of it started, by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (which is headed by Anthony Fauci) and a Vancouver, British Columbia-based company called AbCellera Diagnostics. The antibody is being manufactured and sold by Eli Lilly. It costs more than $1,200 a vial.

AbCellera is developing a significant pipeline of other antibodies. Its capabilities for this were developed over the past two-plus years as part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Pandemic Prevention Platform program.

(AbCellera also has received hundreds of millions of dollars from the Canadian government, including for building an antibody-manufacturing plant. And Peter Thiel, who co-founded both PayPal and Palantir, is a board member. So is John Montalbano, who’s also on the board of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and until 2015 was CEO of RBC [Royal Bank of Canada] Global Asset Management. This and significant positive media coverage helped propel the company to the biggest Canadian-biotech-company Initial Public Offering to date, on Dec. 11, 2020.)

Bamlanivumab was given an EUA by the FDA on November 9, 2020, for treatment of mild to moderate Covid. And Health Canada gave the monotherapy an interim authorization on November 17. It’s not getting much traction in clinical practice so far in Canada, though, perhaps because of the less-than-stellar results from clinical trials (see below).

But this hasn’t deterred the Canadian and US federal governments, which combined have purchased close to half a million of these tests. For example, most recently, on February 26, the US government bought 100,000 vials.

The only study on bamlanivimab made public prior to the November 9 FDA approval was one posted October 1, 2020, on the website of the online-only journal bioRχiv. [My Feb. 3, 2021, and Feb. 11, 2021, articles — on the new variants and the associated modelling papers, respectively – noted that the journal and its sister publication medRχiv contain only non-peer-reviewed articles and were created by an organization headed by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife.]

The study used rhesus monkeys and provided very extensive details about how the antibody was discovered and checked for specificity to the novel coronavirus. The researchers concluded that the antibody – at that time known as LY-CovV555 — has “potent neutralizing activity” against SARS-CoV-2.

On January 14 I emailed the lead author of that paper, Bryan Jones. He’s a researcher in Lilly’s Biotechnology Research Program. I asked Jones where in their paper is the proof the antibody is specific to SARS-CoV-2 (and therefore isn’t binding to something else instead of, or in addition to, the novel coronavirus).

He responded promptly, as follows [bolding added by me for emphasis]: “While we did determine that LY-CoV555 is specific to SARS-CoV-2 (and doesn’t bind to the spike protein of SARS-CoV), that is not specified or detailed in any of the figures or tables [in the paper].”

Jones pointed me to several parts of the paper and supplemental material published with it that he said show, via indirect extrapolation, that the antibody is specific for the novel coronavirus.

That’s not exactly convincing.

Then on December 22 a study in the New England Journal of Medicine gave a thumbs-down to the usefulness of bamlanivimab in people hospitalized after receiving a Covid diagnosis. The paper noted that in late October the study was stopped because the antibody didn’t help the patients any more than did placebo.

But this didn’t deter Lilly.

On January 21, 2021, the company issued a news release about a study of bamlanivumab in residents and staff of nursing homes. They claimed their research showed that the antibody “significantly reduced the risk of contracting symptomatic COVID-19.”

However, they didn’t back this up with much information. The study hasn’t been published in a journal or presented at a scientific/medical meeting. And there’s no word on when it will be.

Despite that, on the same morning the release was sent out by Lilly, glowing articles appeared in major media outlets stating that the study showed bamlanivumab appears to significantly reduce Covid symptoms in the frail elderly.

For example a Bloomberg article was posted at 8 a.m. on Jan. 21 with the headline, “Eli Lilly Antibody Cuts Covid-19 Risk Up to 80% in Nursing Home Study.” The article was carried in many other media outlets such as the Globe & Mail.

The article quoted Lilly’s Chief Scientific Officer Daniel Skovronsky as saying, “This is an urgent situation. Where there’s an outbreak in nursing homes and people haven’t yet received the vaccine, this could be a potential way to protect them before they get it.”

And January 21 New York Times piece by senior science journalist Gina Kolata quotes a vaccine expert at Boston Children’s Hospital, Ofer Levy, who wasn’t one of the scientists involved in the study, as saying, “I see only positives here. This is a win.”

Kolata also reported that Lilly plans to ask the FDA for an EUA for bamlanivimab for prevention of Covid in the frail elderly, focusing on those in nursing homes and long-term-care homes.

In parallel, Lilly is pivoting to using bamlanivumab in combination with another monoclonal antibody called etesevimab. A study on this combination in people with mild or moderate Covid was published on January 21, 2021. The results indicate it doesn’t reduce symptoms, but only lowers the viral load of people.

This didn’t deter Lilly either; it’s spinning this in the media as a very positive result. And so is the FDA: on February 9 the agency issued an EUA for the combination of the two antibodies for treating mild or moderate COVID.

Then the next twist in the plot happened, on February 16: a paper published that day in bioRχiv indicated that bamlanivumab doesn’t neutralize the South African and Brazilian variants of the novel coronavirus.

I’ll Leave the Last Words to Scott Adams

Dilbert-cartoon creator Scott Adams makes this observation on page 13 of his book Loserthink: “One thing I can say with complete certainty is that it is a bad idea to trust the majority of experts in any domain in which both complexity and large amounts of money are involved.”

This perfectly describes the situation with antibodies for the novel coronavirus.

Buyer beware, follow the money, and stay tuned.

After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei became a freelance writer. For the next 22 years she was a medical writer and journalist. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca.

March 3, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

The Origin of the Species – and of our Viral Issue!

Ivor Cummins | March 2, 2021

The New York Times, WSJ and all of the media have mused about the origins of this virus – well here we explain the actual science and data, and what IT actually tells us.

NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_…​

Alternatively join up with my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/IvorCummins

March 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

New data reveals British sea level records stretching back 200 years

Credit: University of Liverpool / National Oceanography Centre (Liverpool branch)
Tallbloke’s Talkshop | March 2, 2021

The graph looks consistent with mild warming following the Little Ice Age. About 30 cms. or 1 foot of sea level rise in 130 years since 1890 is nothing remarkable. The average duration of solar cycles was longer in the 19th century than in the 20th but that trend is reversing now, with a lot more sunspot-free days per cycle. Climatic effects may follow.
– – –
A study published by University of Liverpool scientists, alongside colleagues from the Liverpool branch of the National Oceanography Centre, has uncovered and analyzed new sea level records from the nineteenth century which show that the increased rate of the rise of British sea level took place from 1890 onwards, says Phys.org.

Nowadays, sea level measurements around the British Isles are made by tide gauges which record digitally and transmit the data automatically.

The best of these records are fed into the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) which brings together the long, reliable tide gauge records from around the world.

However, in the nineteenth century the only long tide gauge records for Britain which stretched back beyond 1895 were from Aberdeen, Liverpool and Sheerness, and of these only Sheerness has records from before 1858.

None of these records is continuous, and it is not clear whether they represent the sea level of Britain as a whole, but they suggest that there was little in the way of British sea level rise prior to 1890.

Now in a paper published in the journal Progress in Oceanography, Liverpool researchers have for the first time produced a continuous sea level rise record for Britain dating back to 1820 by piecing together new sources of information from more than 100 new sites.

The new sources include old manuscripts, maps, admiralty dockyard data and tidal ledgers and provide a huge amount of detailed sea level data for different times and different locations around Britain.

Continued here.

March 2, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

CNN.com Gaslights Readers on Failed Ocean Predictions – Now Claims Opposite

By James Taylor | ClimateRealism | March 2, 2021

Just one year after climate activists and their media allies spread fear with claims that global warming is causing the world’s ocean currents to speed up, CNN.com is now claiming the opposite – and claiming scientists predicted a slowing of ocean currents all along. CNN’s attempt at “Gaslighting” (a term derived from the 1944 movie Gaslight, in which a man attempts to convince his wife that she cannot believe her own memory) reveals the lack of honesty and lack of scientific basis for alarmist climate claims.

CNN published an article this morning titled, “The slowing down of ocean currents could have a devastating effect on our climate.” In the course of claiming all sorts of existential threats caused by slow ocean currents – including stronger hurricanes, heat waves, and sea-level rise – CNN asserted, “The slowdown of ocean circulation is directly caused by warming global temperatures and has been predicted by climate scientists.”

Except that “climate scientists” and the activist media were telling us exactly the opposite just one year ago.

On February 6, 2020, NASA published an article titled, “Arctic Ice Melt Is Changing Ocean Currents.” The article claimed global warming is speeding up ocean currents. According to the article, “A major ocean current in the Arctic is faster and more turbulent as a result of rapid sea ice melt, a new study from NASA shows. The current is part of a delicate Arctic environment that is now flooded with fresh water, an effect of human-caused climate change.”

On February 6, 2020, Scientific American published an article titled, “Ocean Currents Are Speeding Up, Driven by Faster Winds.” The article claims, “Climate change may in part be spurring the acceleration, which could change how heat and nutrients are pushed around the oceans.”

On February 5, 2020, Science magazine published an article titled, “Global warming is speeding up Earth’s massive ocean currents.” Quoting a scientist reviewing data on ocean-current speeds derived from instruments on Argo robotic floats, Science reported, “The evidence in the Argo data is absolutely astonishing,”

On February 6, 2020, the website Live Science published an article titled, “Ocean currents are getting faster.” The article claimed, “The change is driven by global warming and wind.”

To ensure the public was sufficiently aware and sufficiently alarmed about accelerating ocean currents, Washington Post climate change reporter Chris Mooney published a February 5, 2020, article titled, “World’s oceans are speeding up – another mega-scale consequence of climate change.” According to the article, “It’s the latest dramatic finding about the stark transformation of the global ocean — joining revelations about massive coral die-offs, upheaval to fisheries, ocean-driven melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, increasingly intense ocean heat waves and accelerating sea level rise. … This suggests the Earth might actually be more sensitive to climate change than our simulations can currently show.”

On February 11, 2020, NBC News published an article titled, “Climate change models predicted ocean currents would speed up – but not this soon.” According to the article, “Climate models had predicted that ocean circulation would accelerate with unmitigated climate change, but the changes had not been expected until much later this century … The disparity suggests that some climate models may underestimate the effects of global warming.”

Now, quickly and completely forget everything you just read. New data are destroying all those claims of climate change speeding up ocean currents. As CNN reports this morning, ocean currents now appear to be slowing down, not speeding up, due to global warming. And, remember, as CNN tells us, climate scientists predicted this all along.

March 2, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

American mouthpieces for Israeli regime had unrivaled access to Obama White House: Former Official

Press TV – March 2, 2021

A former senior US official has said some 20 American mouthpieces for the Israeli regime had unrivaled access to the White House during Barack Obama’s presidency, highlighting the close link between Israeli lobbies and the White House and Congress.

Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser under Obama, said he had to meet with Israel lobbyists as much as all other interest groups combined.

He said there were 10 to 20 individuals who invariably took the position of the Israeli regime and were apparently scripted by the Israelis in some cases.

“You just have this incredibly organized pro-Israel community that is very accustomed to having access in the White House, in Congress, at the State Department. It’s taken for granted, as given, that that’s the way things are going to be done,” Rhodes said in an interview with US-based Foundation for Middle East Peace.

Rhodes said White House national security aides were expected to appear at the Israel lobby group AIPAC’s annual conference, but if they paid attention to Arab-American or peace groups, they could “get in trouble.”

The former Obama official said he was warned at times by members of Congress about the “acute” financial threat of taking on the lobby as the Israel lobby’s access was reinforced by “compliant media and Congress.”

Rhodes said the Biden team is forgetting the “history,” that Israel made life hell for Obama, when the Obama White House pretended that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu believed in a “two-state solution” when he never did.

He also recalled Netanyahu’s pressure by calling on “vast” rightwing media resources in the US.

“The media interest is dramatically intensified [on this issue]. And that’s both a very aggressive kind of pro-Likud media in the United States. It’s also just the mainstream media delights in any Israel controversies. Netanyahu knew that he could gin up the rightwing pro-Likud media in the United States, which is pretty vast, but he also knew that if he needled Obama he would create a week-long political story, because political reporters view Israel as a domestic political story, not a foreign policy issue.”

Regarding efforts to block anti-Israeli moves at the UN, the former Obama official said whenever there was an international incident like the Goldstone Report or the Turkish Flotilla,” you have to make sure that you’re doing everything that you can at the UN to kind of block this from going forward.”

On Iran, Rhodes said “by the way, it’s not as if anyone plans to “decenter” Jews! Today it is no coincidence that the top three officials in the Biden State Department — Tony Blinken, Wendy Sherman and Victoria Nuland — are all Jewish. These appointments are meant to reassure the Israel lobby of Biden’s support.”

“The same reason Obama hired Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in 2008 by reaching out to an Israel lobbyist to be the intermediary. The same reason that for many years all of the Treasury undersecretaries for counter-terrorism, enforcing Iran sanctions, were Jewish.”

March 2, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli interrogator sexually assaults Palestinian child detainee

Defense for Children International – Palestine – February 10, 2021

Ramallah – An Israeli interrogator allegedly physically and sexually assaulted a 15-year-old Palestinian boy in Israeli custody during interrogation in mid-January at a Jerusalem detention facility.

The 15-year-old boy* was detained by Israeli paramilitary border police forces from his home around 5 a.m. on January 13, 2021, in the occupied East Jerusalem neighborhood of Issawiya. Israeli forces transferred him to Al-Mascobiyya interrogation and detention center in West Jerusalem where he was bound and blindfolded and detained in an interrogation room. An individual accused him of throwing stones and Molotov cocktails and then allegedly subjected the boy to physical and sexual violence amounting to torture, according to documentation collected by Defense for Children International – Palestine.

“Israeli forces routinely subject Palestinian child detainees to systematic ill-treatment and torture following arrest,” said Ayed Abu Eqtaish, Accountability Program Director at DCIP. “These latest allegations are a particularly disturbing reminder that Palestinian children in Israeli custody are vulnerable to all forms of violence. Israeli authorities must immediately investigate these allegations that amount to torture.”

DCIP maintains that all children must be entitled to have a parent present at all times during interrogation, as well as have access to a lawyer of their choice prior to interrogation and throughout the interrogation process. DCIP demands that all interrogations of children must be audio-visually recorded.

When he was detained on January 13, the boy was already subject to house arrest following a previous arrest in November 2020 and was scheduled to appear in court that day.

Upon arrival at Al-Mascobiyya interrogation and detention center, the boy was forced to sit in a hallway bound and blindfolded where he was subject to physical violence by those passing by, according to documentation collected by DCIP.

“Every two to three minutes, someone would come by and slap, push, punch, or kick me,” the boy told DCIP. “I kept silent and never said anything. I did not know what was going on, but it was painful and tiring.”

He was eventually brought into an interrogation room. “A man came to the room and told me his name was Captain Kamel,” the boy told DCIP. “He kicked me and punched me while shouting and saying I should tell him what I did. Whenever I told him I did not do anything, he would beat me harder. He threatened to shock me with electricity, but I told him I did not do anything.”

The boy alleges the individual then knocked him to the floor while blindfolded and raped him with an object, according to documentation collected by DCIP. The individual threatened that the sexual violence would continue unless he confessed to the allegations against him.

The boy was then made to stand against a wall, where the individual inflicted extreme pain on his genitals. “There are no words to describe that moment,” the boy told DCIP. The Captain subsequently threatened the boy, telling him that the physical and sexual violence would continue if he told his lawyer what had occurred.

Around 15 minutes after the incident, Israeli forces transferred the boy to another room where he met with a lawyer for about five minutes. Then, he was taken to a room where a man in civilian clothing introduced himself as an Israeli interrogator. The boy was interrogated for almost four hours, during which he experienced verbal abuse and was forced to sign papers written in Hebrew, the content of which he did not understand, according to information collected by DCIP.

With his court session adjourned for four days, the boy was detained in a room with four other children for three days. After that time, he was again taken to an interrogation room. He was interrogated for approximately four hours, at the end of which he was again forced to sign papers in Hebrew. The following day, January 17, he was released under the terms of house arrest pending another court session at a later date, according to information collected by DCIP.

“What he did to me was very oppressive and humiliating,” the boy told DCIP. “I want this house arrest to end because it is exhausting. I want my life back. I want to leave the house and see my friends.”

Palestinian children in East Jerusalem are prosecuted in Israel’s civilian criminal legal system, not the Israeli military court system, due to Israeli authorities’ unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, a move unrecognized by the international community. Palestinian children living in East Jerusalem are generally subject to the Israeli Youth Law, which theoretically applies equally to Palestinian and Israeli children in Jerusalem. However, evidence collected by DCIP clearly demonstrates that Israeli authorities implement the law in a discriminatory manner, denying Palestinian children in East Jerusalem of their rights from the moment of arrest to the end of legal proceedings.

Palestinian children in the Israeli military detention system are overwhelmingly subjected to widespread and systematic violence and ill-treatment, according to documentation by DCIP. Between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, DCIP collected sworn affidavits from 752 child detainees, describing their arrest, interrogation, and detention experiences. Of these, 72 percent were subjected to physical violence and 61 percent to verbal abuse. Less than one percent were threatened with sexual violence; however, sexual violence amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment are known to be underreported by child detainee survivors.

A 2015 study on sexual torture by Israeli authorities found that the sexual torture of adult Palestinian male detainees by Israeli authorities is systematic, and includes verbal sexual harassment, forced nudity, and physical sexual assault.

*The boy’s name is known to DCIP but is not disclosed here due to privacy concerns.

March 2, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Military Fraud in JFK’s Brain Examinations

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | March 1, 2021

Ever since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, it has been a favorite pastime of the mainstream press to speculate on the disappearance of Kennedy’s brain after the autopsy that was conducted by the U.S. national-security establishment. Such speculation, however, enables the mainstream press to avoid confronting the real issue regarding JFK’s brain: the fact that the two brain examinations carried out as part of the autopsy involved lies, deception, and fraud on the part of the autopsy physicians.

Why would military physicians who conducted the autopsy engage in lies, deception, and fraud? After all, the autopsy was conducted just a few hours after the assassination. Why would it have been necessary to engage in lies, deception, and fraud so soon after the assassination?

There can be only one answer, one that the mainstream press and the Washington, D.C., establishment have been loath to acknowledge for the past 50-plus years: The lies, deception, and fraud were a part of the cover-up of a highly sophisticated violent domestic regime-change operation that the national-security establishment carried out against Kennedy.

The autopsy physicians claimed that there was only one brain examination. That was the official story they put out in 1963. It remained the official story for some 30 years because of the shroud of secrecy that the military placed over the autopsy proceedings.

People who participated in the autopsy, for example, were forced to sign secrecy oaths promising never to reveal what they had seen in what they were told was a highly classified operation. They were told that if they ever talked, they would meet with severe punitive measures.

The ARRB

In 1991, Oliver Stone came out with his movie JFK, which posited that that Kennedy had been killed as part of a highly sophisticated domestic regime change operation at the hands of the national-security establishment, no different from the ones that the CIA carried out both before and after the assassination, such as Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Cuba in the 1960s, Congo in 1961, and Chile in 1973.

The movie pointed out that the national-security establishment had shrouded the assassination in national-security state secrecy, notwithstanding its official story that a lone nut had assassinated the president. Public reaction to the secrecy pressured Congress to enact the JFK Records Act, which mandated an end to the official secrecy. The Assassination Records Review Board was called into existence to enforce the law.

Among other things, the ARRB discovered that there had been two separate brain exams, contrary to what had been the official story for 30 years. The first brain exam was attended by two of the three autopsy physicians, James Humes and J. Thornton Boswell, and the official photographer for the autopsy, James Stringer. It was not attended by the third autopsy physician, Pierre Finck.

Stringer testified that at that initial brain exam, the brain was sectioned, which meant that it was sliced like a loaf of bread. That is standard procedure in an autopsy in which there is a gun shot to the head, as there was in Kennedy’s assassination.

The second brain examination was attended by Humes, Boswell, and Finck. Stinger did not attend that second brain examination, which Finck confirmed in his testimony. Stringer also said that the photographs of the brain that were taken at the second brain exam, which are the official photographs that were placed in the record, were not the ones he took at the first brain exam, which have disappeared.

Thus, that’s how the ARRB determined that there were two separate brain exams that had been falsely, deceptively, and fraudulently conflated into one brain exam for 30 years. Stringer’s testimony established that he was at the first one. Finck’s testimony established that he was at the second one.

At the second brain exam, the brain that was examined was a fully intact brain, albeit damaged. Why is that significant? Because it is impossible to reconstitute a sectioned (i.e., sliced up) brain into a full brain. It just cannot be done.

That leaves but one alternative: The brain at the second brain exam could not have been Kennedy’s. It had to be someone else’s brain. There is just no other possibility.

Of course, it would not have been difficult for the autopsy physicians to have secured another brain. Bethesda Naval Medical Center, where the autopsy was being carried out, was a teaching hospital for medical personnel. It is common that body organs are available at such facilities.

There is something else to consider. Two FBI agents who attended the autopsy, Francis O’Neil and James Siebert, told the ARRB that the official autopsy photographs showing the brain to be largely intact, albeit damaged, are inconsistent with the greatly damaged brain that they witnessed at the autopsy.

Military fraud and the mainstream media

The Washington Post and the Associated Press both punished stories about the ARRB’s findings regarding the two brain exams. There are here and here. You would think that there would be a nationwide spate of editorials and op-eds condemning what had happened, that there would be calls for Justice Department indictments, and that there would be calls for congressional investigations. You would think that there would be investigative reporters doing their best to get to the bottom of all this.

From what I know, there was none of that. The shroud of secrecy that the military had placed over the autopsy had succeeded. By the time that the ARRB uncovered the fraud regarding the two brain exams some 30 years later, the mainstream press was largely indifferent to what had happened. Either that, or they were simply too afraid to confront the Pentagon and the CIA over the matter. Or maybe they were concerned about being labeled “conspiracy theorists” if they pursued the matter.

What about the ARRB? Did it follow up on its discovery about the two brain exams with an aggressive investigation? Nope. And there was a simple reason for that. Someone had slipped a provision into the JFK Records Act that absolutely prohibited the ARRB from investigating anything it uncovered. It was a provision that was strictly enforced by the ARRB board of trustees on the ARRB staff. If any staff members was caught violating it, he would be immediately fired.

Does that make any sense? Here you have a law mandating the release of records that have been kept secret for 30 years. But if the ARRB finds anything incriminating in those records, it is prohibited from investigating it. What better way to advance a cover-up than that? And yet, from what I know, there were never any editorials or op-eds in the mainstream press condemning that highly unusual feature of the law.

As I have repeatedly emphasized, especially in my two books  The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2, there is no way to come up with an innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. The only possible explanation for this type of patently criminal conduct is cover-up — a cover-up of the national-security establishment’s assassination of President Kennedy, on grounds of protecting the nation’s “national security” from a president whose foreign policy was supposedly leading America to defeat at the hands of the communists.

March 1, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »