By Jeff Childers
Welcome to the Weekend Edition, C&C, and Happy Saturday! I predicted an exciting year, and so far the year has been over-delivering. Your roundup today includes: the CDC drops a late announcement that the jabs might, maybe, who knows, be linked to strokes caused by blood clots; I discuss a developing theory about the genesis of the vaccines and mandates; top vaccine official resigns; The Washington Post features a celebrity covid-minimizer; Putin replaces generals; crack-addled Hunter lived in the house where Daddy kept his top-secret docs in the garage; and intra-nasal covid vaccines disappoint jab lovers.
🗞*WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY* 🗞
💉 Late yesterday afternoon, right before the dull weekend news cycle, where you always bury inconvenient announcements, the CDC excreted an electrifying limited hangout: way over in one tiny corner of the data, the hyper-diligent agency detected a barely-noticeable signal of a link between the jabs and sudden and unexpected ischemic strokes. Now it is going to diligently investigate, you betcha.
An ‘ischemic stroke’ is when blood clots or other particles block the blood vessels to the brain. So the stroke itself isn’t the cause of death. It’s just a side effect of the clotting.
Politico ran the story with this headline: “CDC, FDA See Possible Link Between Pfizer’s Bivalent Shot and Strokes.” And for good measure, they added this sub-headline: “The agencies said the surveillance signal ‘is very unlikely’ to represent a ‘true clinical risk’ and said they continued to recommend the vaccine.”
Well why not?
These days, when they say something is “very unlikely,” that is wokecabulary for, “it’s almost certainly true.” Even though Politico’s subheadline was loaded with weasel words and reassuring intent, I’m going to argue it was really meant to make people hesitate. It’s an open question as to “why?”
To make it totally fair, I’m including a screen cap of the headline in situ:
First notice the deliberate use of the quote marks. Next, note that Politico also used the attributive word “said” twice in the same sentence. On a basic level, both the quote marks and the word “said” are intended to show the words’ source. Politico was quoting “The agencies.”
But there’s another layer. Corporate media is trained in using the quotation marks as little tiny daggers of punctuation to indicate skepticism. For example, they usually quote anything positive Governor DeSantis says about Florida, to signal their disbelief.
It might seem like a super fine point, but the skeptical quote marks and the leery double “saids” are tells. Contrast the original sentence with how easily Politico could have written the same thing, but without the quotes and either “said,” and without losing a jot of meaning:
The agencies said the surveillance signal “is very unlikely” to represent a “true clinical risk” and said they continued to recommend the vaccine.
The surveillance signal is very unlikely to represent a true clinical risk and the agencies continued to recommend the vaccine.
See the difference? The second sentence is a lot stronger, and doesn’t sound nearly as suspicious. The rewritten version is the style we usually see in stories about the jabs.
By quoting the CDC’s words, Politico is saying, “don’t blame us, this is what the CDC said.”
I also think the words “true clinical risk” are telling, and Politico noticed, and highlighted them. What, exactly, is the difference between “true clinical risk” and just regular “clinical risk?” The only alternate to “true clinical risk” is “false clinical risk,” which isn’t clinical risk at all. The over-emphasis of using the totally unnecessary word “true” as a modifier for “clinical risk” makes readers subconsciously wary.
It’s like that old chestnut from Hamlet: methinks the CDC doth protest too much.
The CDC’s actual statement, as quoted in the article’s body, is even worse:
“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal … represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the statement said.
“Totality of the data.” Please.
I called the announcement a limited hangout because the CDC cabined its “very unlikely signal” to just one single type of one lone brand of vaccine, Pfizer’s booster, and one narrow age range: over 65. All the other post-jab strokes in the other age ranges and brands are just distracting coincidences. No signals there.
Politico also made this remarkable concession:
[R]are but serious side effects — which can occur with any pharmaceutical product — have arisen since the vaccines’ debut.
It’s a cautious admission, not unlike what we’ve seen before, but note the absence of the adverb “very” before the word “rare,” and use of the word “serious” to modify side effects. That’s huge. There is a big difference between “rare” and “very rare.” And you better believe Politico chose its words carefully.
Anyway, the announcement set social media on fire.
@healthbyjames CDC/FDA are way late on this stroke signal! Look at these massive numbers of stroke within 28 days from taking a COVID-19 vaccine in three Nordic countries! This woman was on FOX telling her story in 2021 and I provided commentary. #courageousdiscourse open.substack.comNeurologic Devastation after COVID-19 VaccinationThe Cruelest Stroke of All…2:49 AM ∙ Jan 14, 2023177Likes94Retweets
Florida’s Surgeon General also noticed and, to my ear, his jokey tweet suggests an underlying profound frustration:
What better time than a Friday afternoon for @CDCgov and @US_FDA to let Americans know that the mRNA shots they’ve been pushing may be causing strokes? Don’t worry, we’ll make sure the word gets out😉just like we’ve been doing for months. cdc.gov/coronavirus/20…
My humble suggestion would be that Florida lead again, and use this news to shift from recommending against the vaccine for certain age groups, to recommending against the vaccines for EVERYONE except maybe high-risk. Maybe.
I checked the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. None of those corporate media outlets carried the CDC story anywhere on their home pages. I guess to their readers this is not news.
🔥 There’s developing new angle to the CDC’s limited hangout, and maybe to the entire covid story from Day One. I’m working as hard as I can to verify this information, but many commenters have asked about it, and it is beginning to look like the international response to the pandemic was a U.S. military operation right from the jump.
Critically, the military is not bound to any of the laws about testing vaccines or proving safety or efficacy. Its powers supersede the rules governing private pharmaceutical companies. If, as it is starting to appear, Pfizer and Moderna were acting as military contractors and not private pharma firms, it would explain a WHOLE LOT of the pandemic’s myriad unanswered questions.
For example, it would explain why the CDC occasionally approved the vaccines over the negative votes of its own vaccine committee. And how two pharma companies simultaneously invented the same vaccine days after the state of emergency began. And why no other vaccines have been approved (and why the one-shot J&J version was quickly yeeted).
Here is one of the FOIA documents. It’s a $2 BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT award to Pfizer from U.S. military procurement in July of 2020.
This letter reflects a contract award. It says the request for proposal was issued earlier, on June 9th, 2020. The project isn’t for “development” of a vaccine. It is for “large-scale vaccine manufacturing” of a “medical countermeasure.” Which means the vaccine must have already been ready for manufacturing in June. This document strongly suggests the DoD — or somebody — already had the formula, and the military needed someone like Pfizer who could make the vaccine at scale.
To fill in the details, we will need to see the Government SOW (the statement of work), and the MCDC RPP 20-11 (request for proposal) dated June 9th, 2020. It might take the House of Representatives to get those documents.
Here’s the top of the MCDC’s web page:
“Prototypes for Medical Countermeasures.” Huh. We already know that Pfizer has successfully defended at least one lawsuit asserting the vaccines were prototypes. It was a prototype. But did the prototype come from Pfizer’s lab or from the DoD’s countermeasures inventory?
I don’t want to get too far ahead of this story. There could be a perfectly reasonable explanation, like Operation Warp Speed used the military to handle logistics, and the military grabbed the MCDC as the closest match to what they needed. But the language on this award letter is suspect. For example, the vaccine is clearly considered a “medical countermeasure” — a key MCDC term.
In military terms, a countermeasure is generally a specific weapon used to combat a particular known enemy tactic. But in the case of the pandemic, who was the enemy? Mother Nature? Maybe it’s just excessive military-speak, but the letter makes it sound like a traditional military response, not a special ad-hoc project awarding Pfizer a contract to make its own vaccine.
In other words, if the vaccine did not already exist, then shouldn’t the letter refer instead to “development of” the vaccine? The state of emergency was declared in March, 2020. That doesn’t leave a lot of time to broker development of a vaccine, award a contract, the vaccine gets developed, and THEN the requests for proposals for large-scale manufacturing could be issued in early June.
So what we really need to know is: WHO INVENTED THE MRNA VACCINE PROTOTYPE? Was it a MILITARY prototype, or not? Or maybe did Moderna invent the vaccine under an MCDC countermeasures grant, and then the military recruited Pfizer for its expertise with large-scale drug manufacturing?
These questions are critically important, not least because they affect every aspect of vaccine liability. If Pfizer and Moderna were operating under emergency military orders, using the DoD’s prototype vaccine formulae, and were legally bound to help conceal national security secrets like where the vaccines came from and how they work, then the drugmakers’ liability profile is a tiny fraction compared to what it would be if they were the original drugmakers.
Now, even if all this is true, there remain legal theories to reach Pfizer and Moderna. For example, they could still be liable as agents and co-conspirators, but they might have some very unusual defenses, like sovereign immunity.
It is very hard to sue the military, because of sovereign immunity and because the military is not bound by all the safety and disclosure laws and regulations that private firms — and even the CDC and FDA — are subject to. The military operates above all that.
But this is still good news. If the pandemic response really was a military-industrial-pharmaceutical SNAFU, then we may be a whole lot closer to finding out who was really behind the disaster. And it might be very surprising indeed.
The truth will out.
Unless something develops to derail this theory, I’ll have more to say about it soon.
🔥 Are the rats scurrying off the ship? The Washington Post ran a puffy story yesterday headlined, “David Kessler, Biden Official Key to Covid Vaccine Effort, Steps Down.” They even kissed his butt in the headline. Kessler, a former FDA commissioner and dual pediatrician-lawyer, first joined Biden’s campaign, then his transition team, then became the science director of Biden’s covid response team.
Yesterday Kessler announced without explanation he’s going back to his cushy academic job at UC San Francisco. I have no special insights, but it sure looks like great timing.
🔥 In breaking news from 2020, The Washington Post ran an op-ed penned by TV covid expert, reliable narrative mouthpiece, and contributing editor Leana Wen yesterday, headlined “We are overcounting covid deaths and hospitalizations. That’s a problem.”
Oh, she noticed!
Wen immediately asked whether U.S. covid death reports include Americans dying FROM covid or dying WITH covid? She concluded it’s mostly “with,” and not “from.” Wen patiently explained, “Two infectious-disease experts I spoke with believe that the number of deaths attributed to covid is far greater than the actual number of people dying from covid.”
Where have these experts been for three years?
Anyway, it’s not just a LITTLE overestimated. One of Wen’s experts guessed that “90 percent of patients diagnosed with covid are actually in the hospital for some other illness.”
At this point my eyes were rolling so hard I could see the entire bottom edge of my brain pan.
Compare Wen’s next paragraph to anything I wrote on Coffee & Covid in the summer of 2020:
“Since every hospitalized patient gets tested for covid, many are incidentally positive,” he said. A gunshot victim or someone who had a heart attack, for example, could test positive for the virus, but the infection has no bearing on why they sought medical care.
You. Don’t. Say.
During my review of hundreds of medical examiner reports from Florida, my absolute favorite case was the one where an unlucky roofer was laying shingles on a three-story building, and was struck by lightning that drilled a smoking hole through the roof and two underlying floors. He was thrown three stories down to the ground where he broke his skull, neck, back, and most of his ribs. Barely alive, the hapless roofer was rushed to the hospital where he mercifully died without ever waking up.
But, he tested positive for the virus in the ER, so: Covid death!
Even more hilariously, Wen’s experts blamed the over-reporting — not on financial incentives — on fear-mongering headlines:
[Dr.] Dretler is quick to add that the imprecise reporting is not because of bad intent. There is no truth to the conspiracy theory that hospitals are trying to exaggerate coronavirus numbers for some nefarious purpose. But, he said, “inadvertently overstating risk can make the anxious more anxious and the skeptical more skeptical.”
See? All this fearful reporting is forcing the hospitals to put covid on people’s death certificates.
Wen pointed out that Massachusetts has shifted to dual-reporting both patients coded as covid, as well as patients who got the steroid dexamethasone, part of the approved covid-treatment flow chart:
The smaller, darker curve are the “real” covid patients. What’s interesting is how high the non-steroid curve is. These are folks the hospitals are calling covid patients but aren’t treating for covid. The inflated number is at a six-month high. Weird, huh?
Where was all this keen, insightful reporting when we could have used it two years ago? Two years ago, this kind of story was verboten. In their terminology, Wen quoted two covid-minimizing doctors. That kind of talk used to get you canceled and your medical license revoked. But now, look how Wen defended her covid minimizers:
Both Dretler and Doron have faced criticism from people who say they are minimizing covid. That is not at all their aim. They have taken care of covid patients throughout the pandemic and have seen the evolution of the disease. Earlier on, covid pneumonia often killed otherwise healthy people. Today, most patients in their hospitals carrying the coronavirus are there for another reason. They want the public to see what they’re seeing, because, as Doron says, “overcounting covid deaths undermines people’s sense of security and the efficacy of vaccines.”
So … NOW it’s BAD to “undermine people’s sense of security” by overcounting covid deaths. Okay. Got it.
Not that it will surprise you, but there’s no scary legend over Wen’s op-ed saying something like, “The Washington Post believes the pandemic is real and serious and does not endorse or agree with this editor’s opinion.” Not only was Wen’s covid-minimizing op-ed published at all, it was published without comment or any rebuttal op-ed.
We are entering a new narrative phase.
🚀 This week, the Hill reported that Russian President Putin has replaced his top Ukraine general again, in a story headlined, “Russia’s Putin Replaces Commander of War In Ukraine.” General Gerasimov replaces General Surovikin, appointed in October, who will now oversee air operations.
President Lincoln repeatedly replaced generals during the Civil War until he found one who could win — the unlikeliest general of all, Ulysses S. Grant. So rotating top staff is not, by itself, any sign of weakness. But it IS a sign of dissatisfaction. I wondered whether it might be in response to the recent news that the U.S. is now shipping our best missile defense system — the Patriot missile — to Ukraine.
Ukraine needs our most advanced missile defense system because of how much it’s winning.
Ukraine has been out of the top-of-fold headlines lately. Especially absent are the unintentionally hilarious reports of how “Ukraine is walloping Russia like a teenager beats a drum.“ Russia has been losing the war for a year now.
Another morning spent sheltering from Russia’s missiles, another reminder of Russia’s strategic failure in Ukraine. As its forces suffer heavy losses on the battlefield, Russia continues to bombard cities and civilian infrastructure. Ukraine stands strong. So will we.10:39 AM ∙ Jan 14, 20232,528Likes572Retweets
If Russia keeps losing this badly, they’ll own all of Ukraine by this time next year.
🔥 Independent researchers located paperwork late this week appearing to show that crack-addled whoremonger Hunter Biden was renting the house with the garage where Pappy Joe was carefully safeguarding his top-secret classified documents in a cardboard banker’s box. The Big Guy wasn’t exactly giving his son a great deal though. Hunter apparently reported the rent was $49,910 a month, or about $600,000 a year, for a house worth about $1.6 million:
In case you were worried, Hunter’s salary for doing nothing as a Burisma director was $50,000 a month, so he could afford to live in Daddy’s house. It was a perfect match. Even-Hunter, I mean Even-Stephen.
💉 Nature ran a quiet story back in November headlined, “Intranasal COVID-19 Vaccine Fails to Induce Mucosal Immunity.” You may recall that the intranasal vaccine was widely touted by the jab-happy as the salvation to the vaccine “problem.” They gleefully anticipated people who don’t like shots would snort up a lot more mRNA vaccines. And, babies.
“The prospect of achieving [containment of #SARSCoV2] with nasal vaccines is high, but will only be possible with dedicated funding, priority, and breaking down of any regulatory hurdles,” write @EricTopol & @VirusesImmunity in a @SciImmunology Editorial: fcld.ly/482pv9l
You see, among their many other failures, the mRNA vaccines do NOT induce “mucosal immunity,” which is the antibody response in your nose and upper respiratory tract where covid infects you. That’s what we call a major design flaw, and is probably one reason the covid shots don’t stop infections or transmission, if not the reason they don’t work at all, but that’s another story.
During the phase I nasal vaccine trials, 7 out of 12 members of the medium- and high-dose intransasal trial groups then caught symptomatic covid anyway. Just like the mRNA shots! But that was a Fail when it came to the nasal version.
The nasal vaccine now joins the long, unremarkable list of other failed vaccines for SARS viruses and the common cold, all now consigned to the dustbin of pharmaceutical history.
Have a terrific weekend, and I’ll see you back here on Monday to kick off another glorious week in Post-Pandemia.
C&C is moving the needle and changing minds. If you can, I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-learn-how-to-get-involved-
© 2022, Jeff Childers, all rights reserved
Published with author’s permission.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal Florida.