☕️ 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.

Good morning, C&C, it’s Friday! The final Friday and the final weekday before You-Know-What. Today’s roundup includes: guess who gets the blame for the latest corporate media cancer story on spiking turbo cancer rates in working age people; guess who gets the blame for pushing Biden out in latest deep-state narrative spin; Federal Bureau of Investigation flies its DEI offices by night into witness protection; and Trump’s terrific tax changes get underway.

🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍

💉💉💉

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.

🔥🔥🔥

Now that he’s said goodbye, the Times can finally tell the truth. Or tell something. Yesterday, the Times ran a salacious sounding political exposé —too late to be useful, of course— headlined, “‘I’m Urging You Not to Run’: How Chuck Schumer Pushed Biden to Drop Out.”

The story had all the hallmarks of a deep-state psyop, like lots of delicious and controversial insider detail — without a single named source. “This article,” the Times arrogantly explained, “is based on interviews with half a dozen people who participated, and who recounted their parts in it on the condition of anonymity.”

In other words, we must take the Times’ word for it. Nor did the Times ever say who rounded up all those anonymous insiders so they could be anonymously interviewed. It’s just one of those mysteries, like the Sphinx, the Great Pyramids, or whether the Monopoly Fatcat ever wore a monocle. I say yes.

This boldly revisionist story sounded more like a made-for-tv script. The Times even insisted that nobody ever —NOT EVER— thought Biden wasn’t right in the head. Certainly not Democrats, and certainly not Senator Schumer. “For months, Mr. Schumer had been concerned that Mr. Biden was going to lose,” the Times airily explained, but “it wasn’t that he thought Mr. Biden was not capable of the job.”

So … what was it then? What prompted Schumer in mid-July to take the historic decision to drive out to Rehobeth Beach, where Biden was imitating a kumquat and not working again, to confront the senile senescent? We cannot evaluate the Times’ anonymous sources for their credibility, since we have no idea who they are. But they (he? she?) said what prompted Schumer to shiv Biden was not his senility at all — just that Republican smears were so darned good:

See? It wasn’t Democrats who forced Biden out. It was really dastardly Republicans making a big deal about Brandon’s age. If you think that is a ridiculous bit of propaganda, just wait. Behold the way the article ends, with a crying Chuck Schumer:

Really? Schumer was literally sobbing over an emotional encounter? Of telling Joe Biden that he, Chuck, thought Joe should consider bowing out? Have you seen Chuck “Six Ways from Sunday” Schumer?

This story was a story all right, a whitewash, a cleanup job, a progressive fantasy blaming mean-spirited, ageist Republicans for hitting Dark Brandon below the belt and forcing him to drop out. But most importantly, it was definitely not any anti-democracy Democrats that did it.

I suppose it was inevitable. The deep state needs to help its pet political party move on from this electoral disaster, and blaming Republicans probably seemed like the easiest way to do it. We’ll see whether it sticks.

🔥🔥🔥

Now they tell us! Yesterday, the Hill ran a flabbergasting story headlined, “FBI shuttered DEI office last month.” Wait. Last month? You mean, after the election and after the nomination of Kash Patel to run the discredited “law enforcement” agency? Behold, the Trump Effect strikes again.

In a written statement emailed to the Hill, the FBI non-explained that, “In recent weeks” —*weeks? when exactly?— “the FBI” —who at the FBI?— “took steps” —baby steps? pigeon steps? adult human steps?— “to close the Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI), effective by December 2024.” Effective as of a WHOLE MONTH?

Hold on a sec. Were they saying they already closed it? Last month? Like…secretly? Without anybody even noticing? What on Earth?

Well, spank my pillows and call me Sally. The brave men and women of the FBI apparently jettisoned their woke DEI office in the dead of night, anonymously, without anyone getting the credit or the blame, so their arrogant, virtue-signaling credentials could remain un-smudged by progressive criticism from their woke peers.

Fox’s article confirmed these suspicions, adding the remarkable fact that “The agency didn't specify why it had closed the office.” So brave! So virtuous! So transparent! Let’s just close it, hunker down, and not answer questions.

I mean, why would a government agency explain shutting down its most publicly visible office? Like it owes taxpayers an explanation, haha.

🔥 Whatever the FBI’s DEI office was up to, it must have been really gross. President Trump thought so, too:

FBI special agent and whistleblower Steve Friend tweeted that he knew why the agency speed-disassembled its DEI office: to shield the employees working there from all being made instantly redundant —i.e., DOGE’d— and fired en masse:

In other words, the FBI’s entire DEI office just went undercover, like cockroaches scurrying under the refrigerator. It’s in witness protection! Where it will stay, living off the grid and trying to survive in hiding for the four years till Trump is gone.

Here’s a routine reminder of how the Democrats magically transformed an Enron paper-shredding law into an insurrection law wielded against curious Capitol tourists. If the FBI shreds any documents, it could be more insurrection. So be careful, FBI.

Finally, I won’t be sad to see the end of “Diversity Agents,” whatever they are. I’m just saying:

🔥🔥🔥

Haha! Corporate media studiously avoided this final good news story, which WFLA ran under the headline, “Florida congressmen introduce new ‘No Tax on Tips Act.’” Media is going to do everything it possibly can to make sure voters never know it was President Trump and Republicans who tore off the yoke of taxed tips. The new bill was filed by Florida’s terrific Senator Rick Scott and Texas’ Ted Cruz.

Florida is leading again. Not only did Florida Senators sponsor the tax bill in the Senate, but Florida Representatives Vern Buchanan and Byron Donalds introduced the Act in the House.

The Act would allow “traditionally tipped employees” to claim a 100% deduction on tipped wages, not to exceed $25,000. (In other words, they’d still have to report the tips.) Traditionally tipped employees include barbers, nail techs, delivery drivers, valets, bartenders (AOC!), waitresses, and any other employee customarily tipped.

Folks seem to think the Act will pass. As for me, I was hoping the entire income tax would be abolished, tips and all, in favor of tariffs, but I suppose this can be a start.

Have a fantastic Friday! C&C will return tomorrow morning with the Weekend Edition, where we will discuss the upcoming Inauguration schedule. Don’t panic. Everything will turn out terrific.

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