The Assassination of President Kennedy

On this 50^th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy, it is possible that the true story will soon be understood. It has taken fifty years, but thanks to the indefatigable efforts of a small number of freelance journalists and authors, a clear picture is emerging which is even uglier than conspiracy theorists first imagined. Print, video and blog media have been busy at work, and much can be found to enlighten and confuse.

The short version is this: Conspiracy is no longer crazy theory. It is certain, albeit convoluted. The frontal shot from the grassy knoll is indisputable evidence supporting triangulated gunfire. 

Still photo from Zapruder film showing right frontal impact of bullet

One man, James Files, has come forward as the Mafia hit man behind the fence on the knoll who fired the right frontal shot that spewed blood and brain matter out of the back of JFK’s head onto witnesses who have testified being hit by same. Of course there are those who dismiss James Files’s videotaped confession as unreliable, but his story is worth considering seriously. See for yourself by starting with Hillel Levin’s 2011 article in Playboy entitled How the Outfit Killed JFK and Files’s confession on video (2 URLs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfT1I9CqREw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFhu-yeyb_Y

Who actually killed JFK is one question. Who organized the assassination is more complicated. The most startling evidence, however, is that which implicates Lyndon Johnson as the person who ordered the assassination. The nine part video series The Men Who Killed Kennedy has aired over the last decade on the History Channel, but after the airing of the ninth episode which focused on LBJ’s role in the murder, law suits from LBJ supporters forced the series off the networks. Episodes can still be viewed on youtube. The first six episodes covered material used in Oliver Stone’s film JFK, but episodes 7,8, and 9 shed important new light on the case, especially the LBJ connection in episode 9, entitled The Guilty Men.

Most recently, Roger Stone’s anticipated book The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ could turn out to be the analysis that undoes the Warren Report. It is not a certainty, though, because a government-orchestrated cover-up continues to be robust. Materials that were released piecemeal over the years had much edited out with black marker.  Supposedly all remaining evidence will be released either in 2017 or 2029 depending on whom you read. Either way, full truth requires transparency with access to all evidence, and it is already too late for that.  

In a recent op-ed in the LA Times, Richard M. Mosk, former staff member of the Warren Commission, finished his piece with “I hope on this 50^th anniversary the public will be skeptical of new criticism of the commission and be more doubtful of the new conspiracy theories than of the Warren Commission.” Who would use such language without an agenda?  It is hardly a truth-seeking statement. The Warren Report had trouble from the start and has lost credibility gradually over the years as courageous individuals have slowly come forward to make statements. A better hope to have is complete transparency from the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and other government bodies involved so that the truth about JFK’s murder, ugly or not, coup d’etat or not, becomes known and we can start the process of healing this long-standing national wound.

 Best regards,

https://www.jameschanningshaw.com

Oyster stew, please, glass of Chablis

Mr. Uddin

Quick trip to New York City a few weeks ago (see also Everyman Espresso posting) and made my requisite pilgrimage to the Oyster Bar Restaurant at Grand Central Terminal. Open stool at the bar directly in front of the master oyster chef who’s been performing magic there as long as I can remember. Order my usual: “Oyster stew, please, glass of Chablis.”

Tall, silent and aloof, facing the bar and tables, the master performs his magic with an elevated gas-heated single-portion cooker, one of two he has going simultaneously all day: butter and nectar first, short sizzle, scoop of about 8 small oysters, Worcestershire, paprika, stir, heat it up, finally rich milk and spices, heat to near boil. With an arm-wrestle-like twist of the wrist he empties it into the bowl. Takes about one minute.

The master steps down to a wash-basin directly in front of me. I ask permission, then, “How long have you been doing this?”

“Twenty-four years.”

That’s fits with my recollection of my first visit: oyster stew and Chablis about twenty-four years ago. The gentle man’s name is Komor (or Komy) Uddin, originally from Bangladesh. “May I write a little something?” “Sure.” “With your picture? I took your picture.” “That’s fine.”

Thank you. Until next time, Mr. Uddin.

Cheers,

for all of James's blogposts, books, and more, visit his website:

https://www.jameschanningshaw.com

HELPING PATIENTS

Sir Luke Fildes: The Doctor

            For centuries, our heroes in medical philosophy have extolled the importance of 'first, do no harm', and 'treat the patient, not the disease'. In today’s world of sub-specialization, the concept of helping patients can get overlooked and unfortunately, you, the patient, are at the mercy of doctors.   

Do physicians actually have a duty to help patients? Is that what society expects of us? Many doctors might say no, that if, for example, a patient is referred to a gastroenterologist for abdominal pain and nothing is found after 'both-end-oscopy', it is perfectly acceptable to discharge the patient back to the referring doctor with no answers or recommendations. Others might think that patients should expect a specialist to actually search for the cause of the pain and help manage the problem.

            It can be argued that helping patients is the primary goal of doctoring. It is when diagnoses or treatments are less than definitive that the concept of being of some help to patients becomes most relevant.  

            So. What does ‘helping the patient’ mean beyond the basics of Hippocrates and Osler? This is my short list. 

FOR PATIENTS:

•   More than anything, it begins with the doctor regarding you as a human being, worthy of respect, whether you are a CEO or homeless.

•   It means the doctor never talking down to you.

•   It means that the doctor acknowledges and respects the family or friends who accompany you into the examination room.

•   It means teaching you, when possible, about your condition, not merely saying, "I'll notify your family doctor."

FOR PHYSICIANS:

•   More than anything, helping patients means putting the interests of the patient above our interests of revenue production, academics, teaching and career.

•   It means being willing to admit failure with one treatment, while continuing to find an alternative.

•   It means being more concerned about a patient's health than about our own legal liability, even when there are risks from a particular therapy.

•   It means never using the phrase ‘there is nothing I can do for you’ except when it is absolutely true, and then still not using it.

•   It means knowing that even if cure cannot be achieved, the caring, teaching, hand holding and outlining of expectations are important parts of management.  

•   It means knowing when to stop treatment (chemotherapy, for example).

•   It means rethinking difficult cases that don’t make sense. Start again from the beginning. 

•   It means combining evidence-based knowledge with experience to arrive at the most appropriate treatment for every patient.

•   It means learning to use new effective drugs, or at least referring to someone who knows how to use newer drugs.

•   It means prescribing off-label drugs if those are the most appropriate treatment.

•   It means getting help from those with more expertise, not for the purpose of getting rid of the patient, but to help arrive at a diagnosis and treatment.

•   It means taking extra time during the day if needed, to deal with an urgent problem.

•   It means sometimes providing treatment even when there are relative contraindications.

•   It means assisting a patient with an urgent problem outside the realm of one’s specialty by facilitating a referral to another specialist or having a discussion with the primary care doctor or contacting home health nurses or calling an ambulance if necessary.  

•   It means prescribing narcotics when needed, even if we suspect drug-seeking behavior. The risk of a one-time prescription is nil for the physician. 

•   It means being available personally or through shared 'on-call' arrangements, and to take responsibility for complications of treatments originating in our offices. 

•   It means never allowing one’s own beliefs or moral convictions to stand in the way of proper medical management.

•   Finally, it means never overlooking the fact that even as specialists, we are doctors first, specialists second.

March 18, 2013

https://www.jameschanningshaw.com