Good morning, and welcome to the weekend edition of C&C! In today’s terrific roundup: a review of C&C’s mission; corporate media hesitates on boosters and astonishingly discusses original antigenic sin fairly; an explosive story from Texas about investigations of parents for child abuse when kids are transitioning; Sheriff Grady Judd arrests a bunch of sex traffickers and makes a very telling remark about Disney employees; developments in the Biden raid case; the FBI may have raided a bunch of Trump supporters; and a Danish study suggests jabs are NOT effective OR safe.

🗞 *THE C&C ARMY POST* 🗞

🔥 Operation Multiplier Update: We got reports that Christopher Rufo’s donation site link was broken yesterday, and we were able to make contact. They got the link fixed. If you were unable to connect yesterday, or haven’t had the chance, here’s the link again, it should be good now. https://donorbox.org/christopher-f-rufo

Yesterday’s comments included a lively discussion about whether Rufo deserved multiplication, whether he was a fraudster or scam artist or something, and what would he do with the money anyway? I have two things to say about that.

First, I need to keep in mind that we add new readers all the time (welcome!). These folks never heard of Operation Multiplier and it is perfectly normal they have questions. I constantly walk the fine line between over-explaining the operations, which bores regular readers into a stupor, and giving enough detail so that new readers can see why we need every single C&C reader to help out, even if it’s just two cents.

I’m a lawyer. I do my best to vet recipients to ensure they are legit. I have good instincts, but I’m not perfect. It’s theoretically possible we could someday multiply someone who doesn’t deserve it. But I argue that, in the unlikely event it happens, it’s still not important. None of us are giving more than we can easily afford. It’s a very reasonable risk, to the extent there’s any risk.

But the point is: we all benefit anyway. The bigger point of the multiplier is the statement we’re sending corporate media and the narrative cabal. We’re fighting back by supporting whoever is in their crosshairs at the moment. The underdogs. The people who are doing the hard, hard work, while we just have to chip in a little lunch money with a few clicks.

And we’re working together to build something bigger, something we can celebrate, something that ties us together in a FUNCTIONAL community, not just an echo chamber.

It’s the online version of getting together on a Saturday to help out the widows and orphans in the community. And it takes SO LITTLE EFFORT.

The second point — and I want to be cautious about this — is that questions like yesterday’s may not always be in good faith. C&C has long been on the opposition radar, BECAUSE we are moving the needle, and I am confident that moles sometimes crop up in the comments like unholy weeds. I’m not accusing yesterday’s questioner(s) of being bad-faith saboteurs, I’m just asking you all to be on the lookout for Ray Epps and his crew, and use discretion.

Our history of successful multipliers makes us all great. We’re part of the solution. We’ve repeatedly gotten national press in the Epoch Times, as well as mentions by key influencers. It’s working. And I’m so proud of the thousand and thousands of C&Cers who are helping make that happen.

We’re not stopping, either.

🗞*COVID NEWS AND COMMENTARY* 🗞

🔥 It’s time to remind new readers about what this is all about. What _is_ C&C? What’s it FOR? Because I didn’t start doing this just to sarcastically poke at news or politics every day, that’s for sure.

At least, not JUST.

I started C&C right after the pandemic began, at peak covid hysteria, back in late March 2020. At first, I just linked to the small fistful of optimistic or funny stories I could scrape up every day, with a snarky comment or two, as a way to protest and push back against the massive 24 x 7 fear tsunami of fake news like dark rumors of covid crematoriums in China burning day in and day out, fake pictures of bloody gurneys jamming up overwhelmed hospital hallways, and horrifying made-up ‘expert’ models forecasting mile-high case fatality rates.

In other words, C&C has always been about questioning and exposing the narrative, trying to connect the dots, and attempting to figure out what’s REALLY going on. Connecting dots is one of my lawyer superpowers.

As a lawyer, I can only rely in court on things I can prove. In the blog, I usually only rely on mainstream sources, so that the people who are still on the fence, people who are still “in the matrix,” who reflexively reject independent news sources as facially unreliable, have a fair shot at having their minds changed.

In other words, you can usually safely forward C&C to anyone who needs to hear a different point of view, without fear of them sniping, “Oh, you’re just one of those Alex Jones tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists” or something. That’s what I’m shooting for, anyway.

Truth AND accessibility.

🔥 It’s easy to feel frustrated with corporate media, ever since government killed it, skinned it, and is wearing its skinsuit walking around pretending to be a reporter and demanding respect.

But in a way, the government’s assassination of corporate media is a blessing. It’s now easier to see what the current narrative is supposed to be, how they’re trying to manipulate us, both by what corporate media says — all together now — and by which ‘experts’ they clumsily cherry pick to comment on their one-sided, narrative-advancing stories.

You can always tell when corporate media can’t figure out how to use a particular subject to further the narrative, when it actually reports both sides of an issue. If the article quotes opposing experts, that means they don’t care about the subject, except maybe as camouflage in which to hide the real rhetorical payload.

So, while what they DO say is instructive, I actually learn the most about how to counter the narrative by noticing what they DON’T cover.

A great example was how, during covid, there was a corporate media blackout on the topic of original antigenic sin, which independent scientists were screaming bloody murder about from the jump. In a normal, pre-narrative world, media would’ve snatched up a subject like OAS and used it to torture government agency scientists at press conferences. So it was a dead giveaway when corporate media all plugged their ears and pretended like they never heard of that totally fringe, conspiracy theory, OAS.

💉 The OAS embargo has obviously lifted, telling us much about the current state of the narrative. Yesterday, ABC News ran a story headlined, “What You Need to Know About ‘Original Antigenic Sin’ With Fall COVID Boosters Around the Corner.”

It’s IN THE HEADLINE. I bet you never thought you’d see THAT headline. Here’s the very first paragraph from ABC’s article:

With new COVID variant-specific booster shots set to roll out in the coming week, vaccine scientists argue that more research is needed to understand how a person’s early immune response — either through vaccination or infection itself — may impact future protection against a constantly evolving virus.

My goodness. That might make some people hesitate! They might wait to see what happens! And … guess who is on the OAS bandwagon now? Vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit, that’s who. He was quoted for the story:

”Where this matters is if you keep giving booster doses with [original] strain, and continue to lock people into that original response, it makes it harder for them to respond then to essentially a completely different virus,” says Dr. Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Philadelphia.

Of course, Offit knew about OAS all along. He’s acting like he suddenly discovered it now, though. But what does it mean? Have a gander at this alarming little nugget from about midway down ABC’s article:

Some experts say they are concerned that frequent boosting with the original version of the vaccine may have inadvertently exacerbated immune imprinting. At this point in the pandemic, some adults have received four or more doses of the same vaccine.

Although still theoretical, some scientists worry about a potential backfire, with frequent boosting handcuffing the body’s natural immune system and leaving it exposed to radically different variants that might emerge in the future.

A potential backfire! That doesn’t sound too good. And then — throwing all vaccine hesitancy caution to the wind — the article quoted an expert who pondered about exactly how often people should be boosting anyways:

”It is true that the best boosts typically are the ones that are given infrequently, that immunologically, if you boost too much and too frequently, then you often have a lower immune response at the end,” said Barouch.

The BEST boosts are INFREQUENT! That’s not good for business. And it’s not what the CDC says, either.

Then, for balance, the article quoted some experts who waved off the OAS concerns, explaining that if we have a variant-specific booster, OF COURSE we would want to use that. That doctor also said she doesn’t “really think immune imprinting poses a threat.” She doesn’t THINK so; not exactly a strong position. Another expert, Dr. Paul Goepfert, told ABC, “I suspect that we’re still going to do very well against severe disease and hospitalization” — even if OAS does take a toll.

He SUSPECTS. That sounds a lot more hopeful than certain. Science.

C&C discussed original antigenic sin over a year ago, while the corporate media embargo on OAS chatter was in full effect. Something’s obviously changed in the narrative, we can see that, in a slew of other current events including Fauci’s abrupt resignation.

But what can we learn from ABC’s OAS article, about the NARRATIVE? I’ll make three observations.

First — obviously — the embargo is now lifted on facts that might cause “vaccine hesitancy.” That’s interesting.

Second, corporate media clearly hasn’t been compelled to push the new hybrid booster shots every chance they get. That’s also interesting, and probably not what you thought was coming.

But third, the article was “balanced” — in the pre-covid media tradition — in that it raised a provocative issue, and then quoted QUALIFIED expert opinions on both sides, leaving the thinking part up to the reader. Imagine that, they DO believe we can think for ourselves. At least, about this. And what THAT means is that the current narrative payload no longer includes covid theater.

In other words, it looks like the narrative makers have abandoned covid as a way to manipulate our feelings, leaving corporate media to do what it wants with the virus.

Fascinating. You with me so far?

🔥 Here’s another one. This controversial story was buried so deep that I didn’t see anything about it at all until this week, when corporate media finally found a narrative-consistent way to report it.

Way back in February, Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, instructing the agency to investigate children who were transitioning genders, to see if child abuse was occurring. In his letter, Abbot said:

[I]t is already against the law to subject Texas children to a wide variety of elective procedures for gender transitioning, including reassignment surgeries that can cause sterilization, mastectomies, removals of otherwise healthy body parts, and administration of puberty-blocking drugs…

Texas law imposes reporting requirements upon all licensed professionals who have direct contact with children who may be subject to such abuse, including doctors, nurses, and teachers, and provides criminal penalties for failure to report such child abuse.

There are similar reporting requirements and criminal penalties for members of the general public.

Texas law also imposes a duty on DFPS to investigate the parents of a child who is subjected to these abusive gender-transitioning procedures, and on other state agencies to investigate licensed facilities where such procedures may occur.

Pretty strong, no?

So, back in February, Abbott announced in no uncertain terms that TEACHERS can be criminally liable for failing to report instances of child abuse evidenced by confused kids whose parents might be pushing them into gender transitions. And then Abbott pushed for investigations. You’d think teachers unions would have gone ballistic. Not to mention the trans army. But, like me, you probably never even heard about any of this, especially if you live outside Texas.

How could corporate media miss THIS story? Remember, it was happening the whole time the “don’t say gay” fracas was unfolding in Florida, and while DeSantis and Disney were duking it out. It would have been perfect timing for hysterical stories crying about government overreach and trans bigotry in Texas. But no. Embargoed.

I stumbled across the story yesterday, when the Washington Post finally ran an article headlined, “Mom Says Trans Eighth-Grader Was Questioned by Texas Officials at School.” It reports on two lawsuits that were filed MONTHS AGO against Abbott’s letter, seeking to stop all Texas DFPS investigations into the well-being of transitioning children.

The gist of the current story is that attorneys, trying to stop the state from investigating transitioning kids for child abuse, filed an affidavit from a mom who claims her eighth-grade daughter got depressed after Texas DFPS workers questioned her at school. The officials were allegedly asking good questions like, why was she trying to become a boy?

So now WaPo is trying to flip the script, suggesting that Texas is abusing kids, rather than the parents. But that’s not the real story.

Given how much attention the trans issue gets in corporate media, you’d think you would have heard all about these facts: Texas AG Ken Paxton’s original opinion memo, Abbott’s letter, the two lawsuits, an order partially suspending DFPS investigations, and so on.

But there was almost no coverage of this top-of-fold story until now.

Why? What can we learn from corporate media’s deliberate myopia? Well, for one thing, Texas’ investigation of parents for trans child abuse obviously didn’t fit the narrative, and was maybe even dangerous to the narrative. Were the narrative spinners worried that most people would AGREE, that child welfare agencies SHOULD check on situations where minor children are suddenly and unexpectedly transitioning? Or did narrative makers fear that other states might copy Texas?

My instinct is that corporate media narrative crafters worried that the story might slow down the trans movement, which was spreading like wildfire through public schools, by maybe giving virtue-signaling parents something to think about before leaping on the trans train.

Again, as this story shows, we can often learn more about what’s really going on by what corporate media DOESN’T want to talk about. And that helps us discover where the narrative’s weaknesses can be found.

🔥 Yesterday, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd announced the results of a sting operation arresting ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY people for human trafficking, including several public school teachers and at least one Disney employee.

Some of the arrestees were prostitutes, which Judd said he also considers victims. When arrested, Judd said that the department also immediately refers those arrested victims — the prostitutes — to social services. He explained that many of these ladies are victimized by traffickers:

“…folks, the overwhelming majority of these ladies are, or have been in the past, taken advantage of. You know, they used to call them, ‘oh he’s the one who provides for me, he’s the one that gives me a ride,’ but what we’ve found is many, many, many times, that in fact, this person is trafficking this lady. He’s making a profit off of her. He is controlling her very life.”

Then, as Judd was rolling through his famous arrest cards, he got to a point where he casually remarked, “and new Disney employees. Oh yes, we always have Disney employees.”

We ALWAYS have Disney employees. Gosh. If I were a “family-friendly” entertainment giant, I wouldn’t want law enforcement talking about me that way. I’m just saying. That’s not good for business!

🔥 Yesterday, constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz approved of the judge’s decision to appoint a special master in the Biden Raid case.

Newsmax @newsmax

"The judge was right to appoint a special master and I hope the appellate courts will see it that way." @AlanDersh affirms Judge Cannon's position in the Trump Mar-a-Lago raid case. @seanspicer @LyndsayMKeith MORE: youtu.be/OaEAp4to3_0

September 9th 2022

179 Retweets581 Likes

Dershowitz suggested that the court should pick a retired federal judge who’d been appointed by a Democrat president to be the special master, to eliminate the appearance of bias. Not a bad notion, but the master would have to pass muster with conservatives, too. If you could find a retired democrat judge with an impeccable record of even-handed decisions, it might work.

But I don’t know. I was thinking maybe Steve Bannon might be a good pick for special master. He’s had experience with the system. He’d be fair.

Nobody liked my idea. Responding to the judge’s order to provide them, Trump’s lawyers and DOJ lawyers each suggested two options for special master. Trump’s team recommended Raymond Dearie, a former chief judge of Eastern District of New York who also served on the FISA court, and Paul Huck Jr., a former partner at Jones Day who was general counsel to former Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who is now the democrat candidate for Governor.

The DOJ offered two retired federal judges, one of whom previously reviewed materials seized from Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen, and the other a retired D.C. Circuit judge, who is probably just like the current crop of D.C. judges, or worse.

Well. I still like Bannon. Who do YOU think could be Trump’s special master? Let me know in the comments.

🔥 Speaking of Bannon, he told an interviewer yesterday that the FBI raided 35 Trump supporters this week. I don’t have any details yet, but will keep you posted as this explosive story develops.

We’ve been neatening the Childers household in case we get a visit too. Michelle REALLY hates it when people come over to see me and she doesn’t have a chance to straighten up first.

I’m more afraid of her than the FBI, to be honest.

💉 Somehow I missed this electrifying pre-print study from July, titled “Covid-19 vaccinations and all-cause mortality — a long-term differential analysis among municipalities.”

In the study, a Dutch researcher compared overall mortality rates in Dutch cities between 2019, 2020, and 2021. He explained that he relied on all-cause mortality to avoid confounders of age, culture, population density, and problems with rules for counting covid deaths.

What he found was there was NO statistical correlation between all-cause mortality when comparing the pre-vaccine period to the period after the vaccines came out, and suggested that it suggests the vaccines were NOT effective at preventing deaths, despite what that fool Fauci says:

Normalized to 2019, we found no correlation between municipal mortality in 2020 with vaccination uptake in 2021, which shows the effectiveness of our confounder accounting. We could not observe a mortality-reducing effect of vaccination in Dutch municipalities after vaccination and booster campaigns… Our results add to other recent findings of zero mRna-vaccine effectiveness on all-cause mortality, calling for more research on this topic.

So, that’s interesting. But even more interesting, the researcher observed a STRONG statistical correlation between the dual vaccine rollouts and increased all-cause mortality, in other words, he found spikes of deaths around the two big jab pushes:

We did find a 4-sigma-significant mortality-enhancing effect during the two periods of high unexplained excess mortality.

In other words, the study also showed strong evidence that the vaccines were not ‘safe’ either. So, a simple comparison of all-cause mortality during the pre- and post-vaccine periods shows neither safety nor efficacy. I know, you’re shocked.

This study reminds me of the period about a year into the pandemic when the comparative mask studies started coming out. It was the beginning of the end, even though it took a while.

Here’s the link.

Earlier this week I bungled Swedes and Swiss. But Dutch people come from the Netherlands, NOT Denmark. People from Denmark are called Danes. It’s not confusing at all. So there.

Have a wonderful weekend, and I’ll see you back here Monday morning for another packed roundup.

Share

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-

Twitter: @jchilders98
Truth Social: @jchilders98
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com
Emailed Daily Newsletter: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com