☕️ BLACK BOX ☙ Saturday, December 13, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Great unraveling of mRNA platform accelerates: Stanford finds a plausible harm mechanism; rumors swirl of an FDA black-box kiss of death; Epstein files reopen; Trump snares REEs; NSS rewrite teased.

Good morning, C&C, it’s Saturday! Your weekend edition roundup includes: the great unraveling of the mRNA platform accelerates, as Stanford publishes a gold-standard study finding a plausible mechanism of harm in the shots; rumors fly that FDA will put the kiss of death on the jabs in the form of a black-box warning; it’s Epstein time again, as more documents emerge without any gotchas, and Democrats seem to be losing interest anyway; judges agree to unseal grand jury files from three Epstein criminal cases; December 19th Epstein dump date looms; Trump snakes second-largest rare earths mine out from under European Union; and secret extended version of the National Security Strategy teases a global rewrite.

🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍

💉💉💉

The great unraveling continues. If anything, it is accelerating. Earlier this week we reviewed (in a special edition!) the astonishing Atlantic article admitting babies died from the covid shots— right in the headline. On Thursday, Stanford Medicine News ran a similar but unrelated story headlined, “Stanford Medicine study shows why mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis.”

The study was titled, “Inhibition of CXCL10 and IFN-γ ameliorates myocarditis in preclinical models of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination.” It features a whopping 16 authors, all members of Stanford’s cardiology institute. It was funded, in large part, by the National Institutes of Health.

In other words, this is undeniably “gold standard” science.

Unsurprisingly, the study starts with the regurgitated slogan that must always be included for publication in a respectable journal: “The highly effective SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were essential for limiting the COVID-19 pandemic.” That was the first and last time it praised the jabs.

The dense, technical paper identified a potential and plausible biological pathway between mRNA vaccination and myocarditis. It starts with a potential immune overreaction to the presence of foreign proteins, including in this case the lipid nanoparticles, transfected cells, and the spike protein produced by them.

An immune system overreaction can then damage the heart muscle, sometimes leading to myocarditis, which is a kind of injurious inflammation. Even asymptomatic myocarditis can cause permanent scarring in the heart, which can lead to very serious problems years later.

That’s why some doctors say “there is no such thing as mild myocarditis.” The heart is kind of important. Mild myocarditis is like mild brain damage. After all, what are a few neurons here or there, between pharma friends?

💉 Which brings us to the study’s first major takeaway. The Stanford researchers’ conclusions weren’t limited to spike proteins. The authors were careful, concise, and cautiously stayed in their lane, but the obvious implication was that all mRNA vaccines —not just covid shots— carry the same risk. Since they didn’t test any, we don’t know whether the risk varies between types of mRNA shots; it could be even worse for other types of mRNA vaccines.

It is worth noting that, so far, only covid mRNA vaccines have been injected into large, diverse human populations at sufficient scale to reveal rare or delayed adverse immune effects. Other types of mRNA vaccines are mired in small clinical trials and lack comparable exposure data.

In other words, this study is bad news for the entire mRNA platform, not just the covid shots. Until now, the “consensus group” believed that the lipid nanoparticles (tiny globs of artificial fat carrying the mRNA payload) were immunologically neutral, and can safely travel around the body without notice or harm. But this study found that the platform itself could trigger an immune response —sometimes a very bad one— independent of the spike protein and even before many cells had been productively transfected.

Even the UK Telegraph picked up on this point, proving that corporate media occasionally stumbles over a truth nugget:

Imagine that. But the next takeaway was even more significant.

💉 From time to time over the last few years, several strong papers have been published in various places finding problems with the jabs. But this one is categorically different, because it comes down from the tippy-top of the credentialed-class mountain. No one can wave away a peer-reviewed Stanford study with 16 institutional authors. So the publication of this study is, like the Atlantic article, more of a permission structure than any revolutionary scientific discovery.

It’s a green light: we can talk about covid jab harms now.

Which is not to say this study failed to break any new ground. As far as I know, it’s the first study to describe all three parts of an identified injury pathway: (1) a concrete mechanism of harm (a cytokine loop), (2) an organ-specific injury (the heart), and (3) confirmation of the mechanism through blockability (using neutralizing antibodies or an anti-inflammatory supplement).

Curiously, all the work described in the study was completed in 2023. That’s a long runway to publication in mid-December 2025. There is no smoking gun, but it appears the publication of this study was delayed until now. Which raises the question: why now?

As I conjectured before, my best guess is the drug cartel has finally given up on pushing the covid shots, and maybe on the whole mRNA platform. But that only shifts the question one step backwards: In other words, what is now making them give up on the shots?

Which brings us to the next remarkable development.

💉 Yesterday, CNN ran an exclusive story headlined, “FDA intends to put its most serious warning on Covid vaccines, sources say.” It’s the dreaded “black box” warning, which the FDA reserves for the most dangerous types of drugs. “The plan shocked outside experts,” CNN reported, “who said there was no basis for the warning.” Well. There’s no basis for ‘experts.’ But I digress.

A black box warning is the FDA’s nuclear option. It’s the strongest safety label the agency can place on any drug or vaccine, reserved for risks that are serious, potentially irreversible, or life-threatening. The warning is literally boxed in black ink at the top of the drug label so it cannot be overlooked, skimmed, or buried down in the fine print.

Black box warnings are not suggestions, footnotes, or talking points. They are how the FDA formally announces: this risk matters. Black boxes are rare, reputationally toxic, and legally consequential. Once applied, they signal to doctors, hospitals, insurers, and courts that the risk is “material” as a matter of law, not opinion.

Once a black box exists, the ground rules permanently change. Even the most enthusiastic, guideline-faithful physician cannot realistically ignore it without stepping into legal quicksand. The warning must be disclosed to patients as part of informed consent; failing to do so is no longer a judgment call but a liability problem. “Following APA guidance” stops working as a shield, because FDA labeling outranks press releases and reassurance campaigns.

Hospitals’ risk management officers will mandate documentation, insurers will demand compliance, software systems will prompt patient disclosures, and plaintiffs’ lawyers will staple the warning onto every complaint. Doctors may still recommend— but they can’t minimize, pressure, or pretend there’s nothing serious to discuss. A black box doesn’t ban a product; it forces patients to face true risks.

And once that bell has rung, it never unrings.

💉 It’s not a done deal. The story was based on “two people familiar with the agency’s plans,” which could be a couple of psychics, for all we know. And, even assuming they were legit FDA leakers, CNN said, “the plan has not been finalized and may still change.” So.

But even the story itself hurts the jab mission. “What’s happening now is death by a thousand cuts,” said a “former federal health official,” who remained anonymous because “they were not authorized to share information with a reporter.” Was it leaked by foes or friendlies?

Either way, the leak was designed to raise a small storm of controversy. The article rounded up a baker’s dozen of ‘experts’ who enthusiastically criticized the FDA’s alleged future move, which has not yet happened, and may never happen. We shall overlook these premature doomcryers.

But diabolical jab doctor, former vaccine committee member, and pharma shill Paul Offit told a podcast host this week that “myocarditis was a very small price to pay. People need to have realistic expectations; you’re going to learn as you go.” Behold the grandfatherly banality of evil.

CLIP: Dr. Paul Offit confirms war criminal status (1:02).

How about that warm-spirited, scientific nuance? “We’ll learn about the risks together, as we go!” Now they tell us. Back when they were coercing people to take the shots —jab or job!— they weren’t nearly so nuanced. And, “it was a small price to pay,” Offit quite generously declared. Yes, but who paid the price? Do the people who paid the piper also agree how small the price was?

Easy for him to say.

One thing we know for sure is that Paul Offit didn’t pay the price. It’s not his heart. Just the opposite. It’s well known that Paul made millions off his rotavirus vaccine, which he sold to Merck. He currently hogs a Merck-endowed chair at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (ironically, ‘CHOP’), runs the school’s endowed Vaccine Education Center, and mints more money with grants related to vaccine development.

It’s pretty rich that he’s talking about the “price” that everyday people who aren’t compensated for injuries have to pay.

It is literally impossible to find someone more conflicted than Paul Offit. Why anyone listens to him at all is beyond my comprehension. Well, I know why they promote him, but enabling evil is just as bad as what Offit is doing.

If the FDA does black-box the covid shots (as it should), even pharma shills like Dr. Offit will have to tread very carefully. The FDA establishes the standard of care, and if doctors like Offit advise patients to defy it, the docs can become personally liable. (Which, by the way, is the same reason so few good doctors defied CDC/FDA guidelines during the pandemic.)

Here’s the thing: as CNN’s article showed, the FDA leaks like a rusty sieve. Assuming pharma also has its sources inside the FDA, which seems pretty safe to assume, then they all know what’s coming. Maybe that’s why they’ve suddenly become so much more forthcoming about the shots. By the time the FDA finally does something— it will be ‘old news.’

All in all, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Democrats’ long, failed experiment in coercive public health is finally, at long last, reaching a shuddering stop. As we’ve previously discussed, once the public finally grasps the horrifying extent of the fraud that was perpetrated upon us, it will crush into powder the last remaining shards of trust in the institutions. There’s no going back now.

🔥🔥🔥

It’s Epstein time again. Yesterday, the New York Times ran a story headlined, “New Photos From Epstein Estate Show Ties to Trump, Clinton and More Powerful Men.” But the sub-headline sighed, “The images, released without context by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, revealed little new about the deceased sex offender’s ties to prominent men in politics, entertainment and finance.” Womp.

Democrats dumped 92 handpicked photos out of more than 95,000. Why they didn’t produce the whole file is anybody’s guess. “It was not clear,” the Times said, “whether Mr. Epstein, who is not in all of the images, took some of the photos or how they ended up in his possession.” Huh.

Nor did the Dems release the original emails to which the pictures were attached. In a spasm of virtue-signaling, they also added redactions of women’s faces, “to protect the victims,” even though most of the photos have long been in the public domain without redactions.

The Epstein Transparency Act, or whatever they called it, requires the DOJ to dump the entire Epstein file by December 19th —i.e., in six days— albeit subject to holdbacks for ongoing investigations and national security. In other words, nobody will ever be happy.

The latest 92 photos included three of President Trump, from around 30 years ago. The first was a recycled shot that is already public and widely trafficked, showing Epstein and Trump at a 1997 Victoria’s Secret party in New York City. The other two show Trump with unidentified women, but not Epstein, and without any context. (Social media sleuths identified one as Trump standing with participants in a pre-Millennial Hawaiian Tropic beauty contest in South Florida, but that’s unconfirmed.)

Other pictures in the Democrats’ hastily assembled scrapbook included figures we’ve seen many times before: Woody Allen, Steve Bannon, Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, former Prince Andrew, former Israeli PM Ehud Barak, and of course, Bill Gates.

Yesterday, while answering reporters’ questions, President Trump brushed off the new pics. “Everybody knew this man. He was all over Palm Beach; he has photos with everybody,” Trump said. Obviously, nothing in this tiny data dump moved the needle anyplace. But that didn’t stop corporate media from running over 100 stories about it, even if only to declare it a non-story.

But there was one thing that sparked my curiosity. I dove into the crazed comments to the Times’ story (you’re welcome). One cannot help but depart from that dirty job except with a strong sense that rank-and-file Democrats are beginning to cool on the whole “Get Trump” part of the Epstein story. For example:

Here’s another one, expressing a similar sentiment, which got 31 “recommends:”

Don’t misunderstand; some users did continue their wild and deranged speculation about President Trump’s relationship with Epstein. But they were relatively few (less than 20%?) and betrayed a kind of aggressive nuttiness that seems to be seeping out of the majority.

In that sense, Congressional Democrats are now aligned with the kookster wing of the party, while the mainstream wants to set sail into more promising anti-Trump winds. Somehow, it’s becoming another 80/20 issue.

🔥 In related news, three days ago, Politico ran a story headlined, “It’s official: All of the Epstein, Maxwell secret grand jury docs will now be released.”

After President Trump signed the Epstein Transparency Act into law, the DOJ went back to the two Epstein criminal cases (including the 2006 Florida case) as well as Ghislaine Maxwell’s, making three cases altogether. In each case, the DOJ asked each judge to authorize the release of all the sealed grand jury materials.

Between December 4th and December 10th, all three judges granted the request. Before the Act’s passage, the judges had all previously denied the DOJ’s same requests. (All are Democrat appointees.)

Politico’s article was surprisingly short on speculation about what might be disclosed. In fact, the brief article didn’t quote a single source or expert at all. Nor was the story about the three judges’ agreement widely covered anywhere. I’m interpreting this newfound disinterest the same way I’m taking the comments to the Times’s story— the initial euphoria over getting Trump is wearing off.

🚀🚀🚀

Wednesday, the Canadian Deep Dive ran a story headlined, “US Beats EU to Brazilian Rare Earth Deal With $465 Million Commitment.” Trump snaked them!

During the shutdown, the European Union tried to buy up all of Brazil’s production of so-called rare earths (i.e., industrial magnets). Brazil has the second-largest supply in the world after China, which has been playing hard to get. But Stéphane Séjourné, the European Commission’s VP for Industrial Strategy, told Dutch newspaper NRC that American officials had already sealed up the Brazilian deal three days before his scheduled visit to Brazil in November.

The EU moved fast, but it was still too slow. They probably figured the US was paralyzed during the shutdown. But our negotiators moved even faster. Remember the new National Security Strategy document, with its “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine? Stay out of our hemisphere.

Every so often, we get a glimpse into the greater geopolitical movements that are unfolding on the ground, far beyond the talking heads and Twitter posts. I don’t know about you, but I am reassured that our team is moving so effectively.

Speaking of the National Security Strategy, there’s another big story lurking under the world’s roiling waters.

🚀 Yesterday, IMI Daily ran a story headlined, “Leaked US Strategy Ponders Fracturing EU; Warns of “Civilizational Erasure.”” Apparently, there is a longer, more detailed secret version of the public National Security Strategy, although the Administration denies it. Both Politico and Defense One claimed to have seen it. Assuming it is legit, it held even worse news for Old Europe than the public version.

Specifically, Defense One reported the ‘secret’ draft outlined plans to replace the existing G7 group with a “Core Five Forum,” including the United States, China, Russia, India, and Japan— the countries with populations exceeding 100 million. Like the G7, the Core Five “Superpower Club” would hold regular summits on specific themes of world interest, which is what the G7 is supposed to do.

Europe was conspicuously not included. If the rumors are true, it’s being kicked to the curb, or not picked for any team.

Until very recently, such a plan seemed completely impossible and unthinkable, batty conspiracy-theory stuff. But nobody’s laughing now. U.S. corporate media —which just ran a hundred stories sourced from two anonymous leakers about what the FDA might do— completely ignored this world-shaking story.

As a reminder, the G7 includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and America. Apart from the US and Japan, it’s not exactly a group of global heavyweights. I mean, Canada? The G7 was originally formed in 1970 on an emergency basis following the collapse of the Bretton Woods financial system.

The world now looks very different than it did in 1970. (As a historical curiosity, Russia was added in 1990, but got kicked out in 2014 when the Ukraine unpleasantness began. It looks like Russian is back on the menu.)

The implications are incalculable. If it’s real, it could completely reshape the planetary world order, not just by scrapping the leech-like, ready-for-retirement G7, but by even calling into question the utility of the United Nations itself. This C5 is our first glimpse into what Trump might have in mind with his “multipolar world.”

We’ll keep a close eye out for developments. In the meantime, let me know what you think about it in the comments.

Have a wonderful weekend! Race back here on Monday morning, for another key roundup of essential news and commentary.

Don’t race off! We cannot do it alone. Consider joining up with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could sure use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠

How to Donate to Coffee & Covid

Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com