Good morning, and welcome to the new week! I trust all our C&C dads received the kingly treatment yesterday. Today’s roundup includes: a comment in a major journal calls out the jabs for injuring immune systems — but will it last?; a study links sperm problems with jabs; bad news for guys who want to compete with girls in sports; Biden Administration surprised by unintended sanctions consequences; and Ukraine may be at a tipping point.

🗞*COVID NEWS AND COMMENTARY* 🗞

💉 A surprising comment published today in the journal Virology, titled “Adverse Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines and Measures to Prevent Them.” It’s even available on the NIH’s journal website.

Most astonishing was how the comment didn’t pull any punches. Look at how it ended: “In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination is a major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients.”

Wow. That’s as direct as anything I’ve yet seen.

The author begins the comment noting a recent Lancet study on waning post-vaccination immunity, which found “immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals.”

In other words, the Lancet study suggests eight months after vaccination, jab recipients seem to be somewhat worse off than unjabbed folks, at least in terms of immune function.

The comment’s author suggested that depressed post-vaccination immune response could explain the link between the jabs and shingles. He uses the term “vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome,” and he calls for an end to boosting. For each of his criticisms and warnings, the author cites a study to back it up.

Actually, the comment is also a handy reference summarizing other recent vaccine-harm studies.

Given his skeptical tone, by the time I reached the end of the comment, I was extremely curious to see how he would frame the mandatory magic words that you have to say to get published these days. It was brilliant! Here’s how he did it: he said, “To date, when comparing the advantages and disadvantages of mRNA vaccines, vaccination has been commonly recommended.”

To date! And, word-lovers: note the skillful use of the passive voice.

To my knowledge, this comment is the most vaccine-critical article yet published in any of the recognized journals. But will it survive, even with an “editor’s note?” And, when other scientists see this comment, will they recognize it as permission for THEM to start talking?

💉 Meanwhile, a peer-reviewed study just published in the journal Andrology providing fuel for ‘depopulation’ conspiracy theories, titled “Covid-19 Vaccination BNT162b2 Temporarily Impairs Semen Concentration and Total Motile Count among Semen Donors.”

The data looks bad. Although the number of participants (36) was relatively small, the statistical results approach certainty. Here’s the chart summarizing the study’s findings. I marked two figures in particular with red flags for you:

The test subjects did not take boosters. So these results only reflect the effects on sperm after two shots.

In general, they found a significant and sustained post-jab decrease in sperm concentration and motility. The chart reports sperm concentration fell by -14.5% during the initial measurement period (15-45 days after the second jab), and continued falling through the end of the study (150+ days). That’s highly suggestive: why wouldn’t these numbers be recovering? What mechanism is continuing to operate 150+ days out to keep sperm concentration suppressed?

Sperm motility also fell — by two basis points — during the second period (75-120 days). And, like sperm concentration, motility continued falling through the end of the study period.

The study’s authors devoted an impressive part of their word allowance to praising the jabs. They repeatedly suggested that the detected harms to sperm is “transient,” meaning temporary. But transience wasn’t completely reflected in the published data, as shown in the charts, except perhaps in semen volume, which had nearly recovered by the 150+ day period.

Oddly, the study’s authors didn’t mention boosters or speculate at all about the potential effect on sperm from repeated boosting. A control-F search of the study for the word “booster” comes up with nothing. Bupkis.

The study’s authors do speculate — without any evidence — that the harmful effects are not caused by any damage to the testicular system, but are just a sign that shows the jabs are working: “rather than a direct effect on testicular cells (ex. via ACE receptor), we believe that systemic immune response is a more reasonable explanation for the temporary concentration decline.”

I’m not familiar with the mechanism by which “systemic immune response” prompted by vaccination could injure sperm in this way. Maybe someone could explain it in the comments. The authors don’t explain it; the single-line supposition is just hand-waving. Nor do the authors explain why they rejected the possibility that the spike is binding to the ACE2 receptor, which is highly expressed in human testes and related cells and would seem like a pretty good target, as many others have speculated.

I’m guessing that the study authors had to include all this pro-vaccine jargon in order to survive peer review. Those reviewers would have wanted serious cover to sign on to something like this. The study ended with a bang:

While on first look, these results may seem concerning, from a clinical perspective they confirm previous reports regarding vaccines’ overall safety and reliability despite minor short-term side effects. Since misinformation about health-related subjects represents a public health threat, our findings should support vaccinations programs.

See? The results only SEEM concerning. But in reality, they show safety and reliability. If you squint hard enough. And tilt your head.

🔥 Yesterday, the New York post reported some bad news for men hoping to compete in women’s sports, in an article titled, “Lia Thomas Banned as FINA Votes to Restrict Transgender Women From Competitions.”

The article reported that yesterday — on Sunday — world swimming’s governing body effectively banned transgender women from competing in women’s events, starting Monday. I say “effectively banned” because the new policy only lets swimmers compete in women’s events if they completed “transitioning” before age 12.

FINA president Husain Al-Musallam told the Associated Press that the organization was just following the science. “The scientists are saying that, if you transition after the start of puberty, you have an advantage, which is unfair,” Al-Musallam’s spokesman explained.

I guess now I’ll have to return all those new bikinis that I ordered.

🚀 Bloomberg ran a querulous article last week headlined, “Corporate ‘Self-Sanctioning’ of Russia Has US Fearing Economic Blowback.”

Bloomberg reported that some chatty Biden administration officials are — privately — expressing concern that rather than dissuading the Kremlin, sanctions are exacerbating inflation, worsening food insecurity and punishing ordinary Russians more so than Putin or his allies.

Who could have ever seen this coming?

The article explains that Biden initially cheered when hundreds of companies, from McDonald’s to energy-giant BP, abruptly cancelled their operations in Russia, often shedding in-country assets at fire-sale prices. It showed the sanctions were working! Take that, Russia! No more McNuggets for you!

And then, all the consequences that the Biden team forgot to consider started showing up.

As I suggested last week when discussing the “surprising” fertilizer shortages, Bloomberg explained U.S. companies are terrified of running afoul of draconian punishments for sanctions violations, and “are going beyond any legal requirements to ensure they don’t accidentally violate sanctions policies.”

But why would companies do that, when the rules are so clear? They ARE clear, right?

Actually, what is the opposite of “clear?” One risk management consultant quoted for the article explained that even the Biden Administration doesn’t know what’s legal and what’s not. “Companies ask, ‘Should we be applying sanctions to this entity?’ and the government will come back and say, ‘You need to make your own decision,’” the expert said.

In hindsight, it seems obvious that hastily-implemented sanctions against a major trade partner would have to create a certain amount of economic dislocation. How did Biden and his team miss that? It almost seems like Biden isn’t thinking things all the way through. One wonders if the pace of current events is getting just a little too quick for the former vice-president.

🚀 Corporate media seems to finally be recognizing that the Ukraine war is not going well. Fox News ran a story this morning headlined, “Ukraine-Russia War: US, West Delay in Delivering Weapons Gives Putin Edge in Donbas Region.”

The carefully-worded article explains that major NATO members Germany and France are now leaning toward preferring a peace deal that could allow Russia to keep its gains in the huge Donbas region of Ukraine — and some Biden Administration officials might be leaning in the same direction.

This could be a problem for continued sanctions, because Russia can exploit a difference of opinions between major NATO allies.

There also seems to be a significant change in the TONE of the war reporting. For two months, all we’ve heard about is how Russian tanks were getting stuck in the mud and running out of gas, literally and metaphorically. But former U.S. General Jack Keane told Fox this weekend that Ukraine is now at a “tipping point,” and desperately needs more and better weapons to stop the Russians.

A tipping point is a point of no return.

All the various media reports this weekend reported their stories about the war in that same grim tone. For instance, ZeroHedge ran a story yesterday headlined, “Ukraine Says ‘Prepare For The Worst’ In Donbas; Kharkiv Will Likely Be Next ‘Frontline City.’” Kharkiv is Ukraine’s second-largest city after Kyiv.

Even the New York Times was dour. The Grey Lady rounded up news from various Ukrainian battlefields yesterday, repeatedly describing the country’s situation and its future prospects using discouraging words like “pummeled,” “faltering,” “encircled,” and “withering.” Not too good.

Given the corporate media’s historic discipline about war coverage, this seems like a change in strategy of some kind. One wonders where things are headed next. I’m going to be optimistic that this means the hapless Biden team is starting to recognize that they need to plan things through a little better.

Have a magnificent Monday! I’ll be back tomorrow with more.

Share

You can help get the truth out and spread optimism and hope: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-learn-how-to-get-involved-

MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Twitter: @jchilders98
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com