Post Covid Fallout and Commentary

[LightRoasted]

For your consideration ...


Another covid death ... er bird flu death ... er flu death .... er a common cold death ... er maybe not.

What is just too gaslighting is that these propagandists can tell the world what a person died from, all without worrying about patient confidentiality, to wit: "On Monday, the Louisiana Department of Health said the person had died from the illness but shared few other details because of patient privacy [confidentiality] rules." However though we can say, "The patient was over 65 and had underlying medical conditions." We just aren't going to tell you what those "underlying medical conditions" were because that would tell you the actual cause of death and ruin our fear porn narrative which would hurt vaccine sales and our advertising revenue from the pharmaceuticals.

So, no, we can't say, won't say, what other health problems/issues/aliments/diseases/disorders/illnesses/infirmities/afflictions the patient had that were causative to his death because . . . . patient confidentiality.

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/06/nx-s1-5250251/bird-flu-death-louisiana

 

[Hijinx]

For your consideration ...


Another covid death ... er bird flu death ... er flu death .... er a common cold death ... er maybe not.

What is just too gaslighting is that these propagandists can tell the world what a person died from, all without worrying about patient confidentiality, to wit: "On Monday, the Louisiana Department of Health said the person had died from the illness but shared few other details because of patient privacy [confidentiality] rules." However though we can say, "The patient was over 65 and had underlying medical conditions." We just aren't going to tell you what those "underlying medical conditions" were because that would tell you the actual cause of death and ruin our fear porn narrative which would hurt vaccine sales and our advertising revenue from the pharmaceuticals.

So, no, we can't say, won't say, what other health problems/issues/aliments/diseases/disorders/illnesses/infirmities/afflictions the patient had that were causative to his death because . . . . patient confidentiality.

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/06/nx-s1-5250251/bird-flu-death-louisiana

What patient confidentiality? Every person who goes to his funeral knows what he died from.

 

[GURPS]

Women's Boobs EXPLODE After COVID Vaccine, Many Women Report Vaccine Causes BOOB GROWTH​

 

[GURPS]

️ THE GRAND JURY REPORT ☙ Thursday, January 9, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS ​

[ the entire blog post deals with the Report ... here is a clip ]

The next major limitation the Grand Jury faced was the scale of the deception and obfuscation, which resulted in a deficit of relevant evidence. Nowhere was that limitation more obvious than in the Jury’s extended and thoughtful analysis of vaccine safety and efficacy. Unlike the FDA, Moderna and Pfizer didn’t refuse to provide documents. But they did something arguably worse: they provided millions and millions of pages.

There may be some gold buried somewhere under that document dump. Who knows. But the key documents, the documents that could have resolved long-lingering questions about safety and efficacy, were never produced. Instead, that information was withheld under long-recognized FOIA exceptions for patient-level data and trademark protection.

In spite of that, the Grand Jurors did the best they could, pressing their experts to review the data the shotmakers provided, plus all the available open-source data, as well as the most current available studies.

In other words, the Jurors completed a Herculean effort involving an entire team of qualified experts. And guess what they found: Despite the millions of pages the shot makers gave them, and despite all the testimony from the manufacturers, various doctors, and jab experts, they could not confirm the vaccines were either safe or effective.

In fact, they had more questions at the end of the 18 months than when they’d started.





As murky and indeterminate was the efficacy problem, determining the vaccine’s relative safety was even worse. Of course, by this point, most of us understand the vaccines are not “safe” in the sense that fresh air is “safe.”

Not even close.

The Report explained that, in this context, “safety” is a term of art boiling down to a risk/reward matrix: is the additional risk of encountering a serious adverse event outweighed by the relative reduction of risk of acquiring the disease? If yes, the industry considers the vaccine “safe.” This is a long-established terminology that has always blown my mind, since any risk/reward determination is inherently subjective.

Are the regulators risk-seeking or are they risk-averse? One clue is that they routinely find medical treatments to be “safe” even though there is a non-trivial risk of death, which most lay folks would not in any way understand to be “safe.”



Finally, the Grand Jury repeatedly stressed that a river of subsequent studies purporting to show vaccine safety relied on the original two rounds of EUA trials and their data, thereby stacking stale inferences on outdated assumptions. This limitation is, once again, the result of a combination of manufacturers taking advantage of loopholes and the FDA running interference for them.

For example, we should know a lot more about vaccine safety at this point, but the manufacturers stopped all safety testing once they got their EUAs. Although the FDA purportedly required “postmarketing safety studies” to continue, and has even asked for specific types, such as for pregnant women or on myocarditis, the manufacturers have never finished any of them:

To date, Moderna has not completed any of its other postmarketing requirements. All of the studies above except for No. 11, which was terminated, are still underway… The FDA would not speak to us directly, so we are not sure what their excuse would be for not holding Pfizer and Moderna's feet to the fire. Frankly, we are not sure any answer would satisfy us at this point, nor should it satisfy anyone else.​

In other words, the FDA just keeps granting Pfizer’s and Moderna’s requests for extensions. So who is to blame? The manufacturer, who is legally compliant because the FDA has granted their extension requests? Or, is the FDA the real culpable party, since it is providing its stamp of legality on whatever the shot-makers are doing (or not doing)?

For instance, one still-uncompleted study includes the extremely important question of how many vaccinees have elevated blood troponin levels consistent with a diagnosis of subclinical myocarditis? Private studies raised serious questions about this, and the FDA ordered the makers to conduct a study, which was started —checking the compliance box— but has never been finished.

The Grand Jury could not speculate about any problems that heterodox scientists don’t yet recognize as valid, established issues. For example, there was no discussion of turbo cancer anywhere in the report. I don’t think that’s a failure of the Grand Jury, it has more to do with the rules constraining them. Interestingly, they did discuss the contaminant DNA found in the shots, which the Jurors labeled as an established fact:

There is excess template DNA in Pfizer's and Moderna's vaccines. That is a fact. The residual DNA contamination does not appear to be causing any direct or obvious harms, but nobody knows for sure. Multiple witnesses we heard from expressed concerns about this phenomenon, but we found no studies demonstrating clinical outcomes that could be reliably attributed to DNA contamination. On the other hand, there is a lot about this technology that we don't know, and none of the witnesses who we spoke to were able to definitively dispel our concerns.​

Contaminant DNA is a perfect metaphor for the failure of government agencies. Scientists are concerned about the established fact of unintended “excess template DNA” in the shots, but what has the FDA done about it? Nothing. How can anyone say the shots are safe when so much remains unknown and unstudied?

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch...55247-c3ff-4ccc-8181-19d6771a30c0_632x844.png

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

The UK Telegraph ran an astonishing article yesterday headlined, “People harmed by Covid jab to tell of ‘devastating results.’ On the one hand, I told them we would eventually see headlines like this about their “safe and effective” genetic treatments for a common cold. On the other hand, here we are.





At a UK Inquiry this morning, jab victims will testify that “coronavirus vaccines went ‘horrifically wrong’ for many people after the government told the public they must have the jab.” They will also testify that the “devastating results could have been prevented if the government had acted sooner to warn people of the dangers.”

Unsurprisingly similar to our own PREP Act’s horrible program, in Great Britain 17,500 people have applied for official vaccine injury compensation. But over four years, the UK program has only paid a paltry 188 claims. Hundreds more have insultingly been rejected for “not being disabled enough.”

Worse, the British program just pays people disabled by the shots a maximum of £120,000 (about $150,000), but only if the government agrees the claimants are “over 60% disabled.” You can imagine the awful Orwellian arguments opened up by that squishy standard. Sorry, mate, you still have one good eye and you can talk properly half the time, so. Only fifty-eight percent.

The vaccine defenders will also be testifying in force, of course. It’s a roster of evil characters who the British despise as much as we despise our own Mengele-like “doctors” Fauci, Birx, Hotez, Offit, and so forth. I noted with a laugh that one of the planned pro-pharma witnesses is “Professor” Heidi Larson, who is, get this, an “expert in vaccine hesitancy.”

I think we are more expert in vaccine hesitancy than Heidi Larson could ever hope to be.

The inquiry might wind up a whitewash, but well-organized vaccine injury groups plan to make sure the government knows it’s been in a fight. But consider that simple, damning headline. If the tone of the Guardian’s article was any sign, the narrative has already shifted.

Watch out below! In related news, Barron’s ran a delightful story yesterday headlined, “Moderna Stock Sinks. It Disappoints With Covid-19 Vaccine Forecast.” Ruh-roh.





Break out your emergency vial of schadenfreude for immediate use. “On Monday,” Barron’s gloomily reported, “Moderna stock lost a fifth of its value after yet another disappointing financial update fueled worries that the company is going to run out of money.”

The Darling of Wall Street? Say it isn’t so. A company that loses a fifth of its value (20%) in one day is a company that is experiencing the financial equivalent of an old-school root canal without anesthetic. “The market for Covid-19 vaccines,” the financial mag flatly informed readers, “has collapsed.”

It’s about time.

Twelve months ago, Moderna’s financial analysts forecast $5 billion in covid vaccine sales for Moderna this year. But yesterday, the same analysts “revised” that estimate down to $1.5 billion, a shrinkflation event that panicked die-hard investors who snatched up their phones and screamed, “sell! sell! sell!”

But, but, but … the pipeline! What about the pipeline? Moderna’s long-praised pipeline of dozens of new and improved mRNA-based wonder drugs for virtually everything that ails us? Well, Barron’s grudgingly allowed, “vaccine sales are eroding too quickly to comfortably tide the company over until the pipeline matures.”

But wait! What about Moderna’s brand-new RSV shot?? It is the company’s only other product, just recently released under expedited FDA approval last year. What about that part of the pipeline? Moderna’s brand new drug? A whole new disease and a whole new market? Well, listen for the thudding sound…




The stupid name surely didn’t help. They should probably stop putting ‘m’ in front of everything, since it seems like for some reason the market isn’t demanding more mRNA drugs, not like they’d all hoped.

Maybe it has something to do with how the drugs are grown in giant vats of poo bacteria. I’m only asking. I’m a lawyer, not a poo-pill designer.

Anyway, things are apparently so bad that it’s come to this:



You saw it here: the first official media reference to the possibility that Moderna will slide back into the gory abyss out of which it originally crept.

It turns out the deep state can create companies. It can give its new companies unlimited funding. It can staff them with expensive (but diverse) employees and give them positive press and every conceivable advantage. But they still can’t make those companies succeed at hawking bad products.

Start the clock on Moderna. It’s just a matter of time. Then, it will be “one down.”

☕️ CANDY CRIMES ☙ Tuesday, January 14, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Laken Riley Act headed toward passage and progs upset; Fetterman trip to Trump; tale of two special sessions; Florida preps to deport; British covid inquiry in news; worst company, best result; more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[GURPS]

In the post-pandemic period, there were two particularly appalling and incontrovertible studies about the mRNA jabs that more than anything else started the slow reversal of science’s great stampede toward genetic therapies. The first was actually a group of studies, led by Kevin McKernan, confirming the shots were contaminated with DNA fragments of bacteria normally found in human waste. (Literally, “s— shots.”) The second was a gold-standard study finding “frame-shifting” (mutational drifts) in the induced spike proteins. Yesterday we received a third seminal study to help sink the shots and the Frankenstein’s nightmare called mRNA technology.





The peer-reviewed study published yesterday in the prestigious Nature Biotechology, titled “Nanocarrier imaging at single-cell resolution across entire mouse bodies with deep learning.” It had forty authors. There’s safety in numbers. They cautiously avoided criticizing the covid shots directly, but the implications were unavoidable.

This study investigated lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), which are the tiny globs of fake fat that deliver mRNA into cells. They tracked the LNPs’ distribution and effects throughout the body—which they found far beyond the injection site. The researchers found that even at very low doses, LNPs wander far afield and worse, they accumulate in unintended organs, triggering immune disregulation and metabolic disturbances.

The study’s carefully documented conclusion upended the government’s original claims the mRNA vaccines would remain “localized at the injection site” (i.e. that they’d quickly and harmlessly dissolve in your shoulder). The findings also provided a plausible explanation for what causes serious known side effects like myocarditis.

These findings aren’t altogether new. They align with earlier findings from a widely ignored 2022 Japanese biodistribution study. The difference now, though, is these scientists used cutting-edge imaging technology to track LNPs in mice, and they used A.I. to analyze very complex data sets (such as systemic effects with multiple variables) and for modeling simulations at various LNP dosages.






There are several levels here. Superficially, the FDA should urgently re-examine the biodistribution issue and immediately require the shotmakers to confirm these findings and study the long-term effects and implications. Of course, we all know the benighted FDA will do nothing of the kind, at least not for five more days.

Next, and more significantly, the study further undermined the foundations not just of the covid shots, but of mRNA technology writ large. This week, Moderna —a pharma firm that only develops mRNA drugs— lost a fifth of its stock value on news of actual sales far below original, conservative projections.

But now we also know that Moderna’s stock plunge preceded the publication of this new biodistribution study by a single day. That timing was probably not coincidental.

The study’s findings reveal the third structural problem with mRNA. Until those structural problems are solved, or even addressed, mRNA risks becoming nothing more than a forgettable footnote in the sordid history of scientific failure: a tragic tale of overpromised innovation and blind faith in cutting-edge technology, calamitously unraveled by unmet safety and efficacy standards.

And that is assuming things don’t get any worse. Which is the point—we don’t know. This study provided no reassurances. And it probably poisons all mRNA projects.

Take, for instance, the long-promised vision of using mRNA to deliver customized cancer cures. The concept involves encoding the mRNA with some protein from your specific cancer, in theory prompting the body to mount a targeted immune response. But so long as the treatment relies on lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to deliver its mRNA payload, this study suggests a potentially catastrophic risk: the cancer protein could unintentionally transfect major off-target organs like the heart, liver, kidneys, and spleen, potentially spreading cancerous material throughout the body while simultaneously disrupting the immune system.

Needless to say, that would be a bad combination. Unless we are missing something, the future of targeted mRNA cancer treatments does not look bright. As for respiratory viruses, that ship has already sailed.

The truth continues to dribble out. This study presented an unavoidable obstacle to all future mRNA development, a new reveal that joins and combines with the first two major revelations. This most terrible idea of mRNA is not yet dead, not quite, but all of mRNA’s major organ systems have been infected, and it’s been moved to hospice, leaving its loudest proponents languishing in the denial stage of grief.

This study is extraordinary progress. It really does seem like everything sad is coming untrue, slowly perhaps, maybe bit by bit, but it is happening..

☕️ COMING UNTRUE ☙ Wednesday, January 15, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Hegseth confirmation in the bag; flag fracas symbolizes Democrats’ latest attempt to criminalize the President; massive Starbucks culture shift; incredible new peer-reviewed study tanks shots; more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

The New York Times dribbled out yet another turbo-cancer story yesterday, this one under the headline, “Cancer’s New Face: Younger and Female.” The sub-headline explained, “Although long considered a disease of aging, certain cancers are turning up more often in younger women, according to a new report.” It never mentioned the jabs, so you can stop wondering right now.




Let us count the ways the New York Times conceals truth. Since the jab rollout in late 2020, corporate media and Big $cience have deceptively reported rising cancer rates —especially in unusual populations— by relying only on older data showing creeping cancer rates but nothing more recent than 2019.

In other words, see? it can’t be the jabs, dummies.

Of course, they only just recently became alarmed about decades of slowly rising cancer rates through 2019 — in 2023. One suspects that the more recent numbers evidence a horrifying post-jab spike. Hence all the obfuscation. But they are telling us about the increase in cancer sort of metaphorically. No need to point the finger of blame, old boy.

They kept that silly game going through, but this article was different. At first, I thought it must be that, now we’re in 2025, readers might not so readily accept researchers cutting the cancer analysis off six years ago. Indeed, when I read the American Cancer Society report fueling the article, I noticed they’d finally advanced cancer data to 2022.

They’re far from current, but the lagging official cancer analysis is overlapping the early jab period now.

Instead of making it obvious they were citing old data, the Times just didn’t cite any time periods at all. “Certain cancers are turning up more often,” the Times said, but how much more often? Since when? The Grey Lady had no comment.

This strategic shift explains the brand-new bias toward young women. In the pre-2020 data, cancers were creeping up evenly, across the board, without discriminating. For example, a big Lancet study published last August using the pre-2020-data never mentioned any pro-woman bias, across 34 different types of cancer:




But now, six months later, cancers “which used to affect far more men than women,” the Times explained, are “striking young and middle-aged adults and women more frequently.”

If you read “young and middle-aged adults” as college and working-age adults, it becomes obvious that phrase describes the population most likely to have gotten tangled up with a mRNA vaccine mandate. And, lest you decry cancer’s deplorable sexist bias toward the fairer gender, digging into the ACA report revealed that men of any race were far more likely to die from their cancers than the ladies, which sort of evens things out.




The Times apparently found men’s excess death rates to be so boring it was utterly unworthy of mention. At all.

Anyway, of course the sold-out scientists interviewed for the story remain baffled, perplexed, and bewildered. They have no new ideas, even about the rising rates of lung cancer and mouth cancer despite the government’s thirty-year war on tobacco. What could cause nearly all cancers to sharply increase in previously unaffected age groups? Could it possibly be environmental factors? Microplastics? Forever chemicals? Red dye number 3, just banned by the FDA? The shots? Nope.




The Times rolled out a long, blamey laundry list of cancer self-causes including: eating too much red meat, eating too much everything, drinking too much, being lazy about cancer screenings, smoking too much, vaping too much, staying up too late, and, I am not making this up, waiting too long to have kids, due to hormonal shifts or something.

Science! Never deny it.

The great thing for the Times about all those proposed “personal responsibility” causes is that they don’t offend any big industry partners or government regulators. Blaming it on us doesn’t hurt anybody’s bottom line.

Ironically, the Times ran a related story yesterday headlined, “What to Know About the Ban on Red Dye No. 3 in Food.” It took activists years to force the FDA to ban the oncogenic coloring chemical, erythrosine, through a citizen’s petition, which the FDA resisted the whole time, even though erythrosine has been banned in topical cosmetics since 1990.

Why didn’t the Times take the glaringly obvious opportunity to connect the two related stories, even if only conceptually? But neither mentions the other, leaving it up to the reader to do the work.

Not only that, but only a few weeks ago another big study fueled many corporate media headlines, like this one from Fortune:




The Times’ new cancer story did not mention this December study linking cancer to ultra-processed foods. (Actually, no Times headline has mentioned processed food since last July, while Kennedy was still a presidential candidate.)

So, even though environmental factors are a target-rich environment themselves, the Times mentioned none of these recent stories, relying only on the self-causes of cancer, with no logical explanation for why age-old lifestyle excuses like overeating and drinking too much should suddenly cause more cancer in young people now.

☕️ BLAME GAMES ☙ Friday, January 17, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

More media messaging over spiking turbo cancer; Deep state rewrites history of Biden's involuntary departure; FBI's DEI office enters witness protection; Trump tax revolution quietly begins; more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[GURPS]

Speaking of banned companies, yesterday Science.com ran a story headlined, “Federal officials suspend funding to EcoHealth Alliance, the nonprofit entangled in COVID-19 origin debate.” The five-year ban extends to all federal contracts between the government and EcoHealth or its criminal founder, “Doctor Mengele” Peter Daszak.



As nearly everyone knows, Daszak and his grant-grabbing “nonprofit” EcoHealth Alliance spearheaded gain-of-function research into making coronaviruses more deadly and more infectious. They did it at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, where the pandemic started.

Science.com called the ban “possibly a mortal blow,” probably because neither Daszak nor EcoHealth has any customers apart from the United States government. But it is not as mortal of a blow as endured by people who died from Daszak’s genetically engineered bioweapon, the spike protein.

One workday before Trump assumes control of HHS, the agency finally approved the Republicans’ long-standing request to ban these bad actors. EcoHealth has its defenders. Bowtied wonder, jab pusher, and fellow science-grant-millionaire Dr. Peter Hotez, Baylor College of Medicine, defended the sleazy rent-seekers, saying that “EcoHealth Alliance is one of the few organizations we have to track the emergence of new and dangerous virus pathogens. If they disappear, our national security suffers.”

One of the few organizations tracking pandemics? Has Hotez never heard of the W.H.O.? At least he admitted it’s all for the security state. We can hope they disappear. But like an engineered virus, we can probably never completely eliminate them.

It was a little more accountability progress. And we will never, ever stop until the job is completely finished and justice has been obtained.

☕️ FROZEN IN ☙ Saturday, January 18, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Inauguration switch creates cold metaphors; deportations hit the ground running Tue morning; Team Biden clocks out for the last time; media punished by defamation liability; HHS bars EcoHealth; more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[PJay]

 

[GURPS]

Despite Biden Pardon, Fauci Still Faces Legal Perils. Here They Are.​

Biden’s pardon negates the two Senate referrals for criminal activity. But future hearings could still require Fauci to respond to evidence that he might have perjured himself, and open him up to future prosecution if he stands by statements that can be proven to be false.

Hiding Use of Private Email​

Fauci is said to have communicated over a back channel about controversial beagle research.
New York Post

Another area of potential inquiry is Fauci’s congressional testimony last summer denying his use of private email to conduct official business, “Let me state for the record that to the best of my knowledge I have never conducted official business via my personal email,” Fauci wrote in his sworn statement to Congress.

This testimony seemed to contradict evidence in a 35-page memo compiled by Republican investigative staff. One email showed Fauci’s second-in-command, Dr. David Morens, suggesting someone speak with Fauci through an unofficial, private channel. In another email, Morens wrote that he would contact Fauci on Gmail.

After Fauci’s testimony, the writer of this article reported in the DisInformation Chronicle that Morens had connected KFF Health News reporter Arthur Allen with Fauci on Fauci’s private email back in May 2021. The NIH did not respond to comment about Fauci’s use of private email to conduct government business with reporters.

In a second example, the New York Post reported that the watchdog group White Coat Waste Project accused Fauci of lying to Congress about his private email use after they released documents showing Fauci was backchanneling with a Washington Post reporter on his private email.

“I will send you an e-mail via my gmail account,” Fauci wrote in an email dated Oct. 29, 2021, to Washington Post reporter Yasmeen Abutaleb.

Fauci’s lawyer told the Post that Fauci was discussing a personal matter with the Washington Post reporter, although he did not explain what this personal matter was.

Justin Goodman, senior vice president at White Coat Waste Project, said the evidence is clear that Fauci contacted the Washington Post about issues regarding his NIH work and then denied it to Congress. “He should be prosecuted, not pardoned.”

 

[GURPS]

 

[stgislander]

I have no issue with the goals for Stargate as long as they follow well established protocols for testing. Don't do like the Covid vaccines (that weren't vaccines) by rushing them to market foregoing testing, and then pressure everyone to take them.

 

[LightRoasted]

For your consideration ...

I find it amazing that in the 70's with the swine flu vaccine where it was found that over 500 people developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after receiving the vaccine and 25 died, some died within hours of getting the shot, it was immediately pulled form the market.

And yet, we now have another (flu) vaccine that is accountable for the deaths of over 37,000 people, with hundreds of thousands experiencing many of those "rare" side effects, and it's still in the market and being injected into people.

What metric has changed since then that allows government to not issue a recall?