☕️ HANGING OUT ☙ Thursday, December 11, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Special Edition C&C: under building pressure, the Atlantic shattered the omertà on covid jab deaths, in what it hoped would be a limited hangout, but is probably really the beginning of the end.

Good morning, C&C, it’s Thursday! Today, we have a single-story special edition to mark a historic moment in the vaccine wars: the day the progressive permission structure shifted. Behold: the jabby denial phase has ended, and the most destructive limited hangout phase in history has begun.

🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍

💉💉💉

It was the latest headline that must be seen to be believed. The story quietly published on December 8th, and ever since has rippled outwards, in ever-increasing circles of shock and influence. Behold! The far-left Atlantic —the intellectual flagship for educated, professional-class, anti-Trump liberalism— ran a suspiciously honest-seeming story under this eye-popping banner:

Now they tell us! (Sorry, I couldn’t help myself; this was the perfect story for that line.)

Please don’t overreact. They’re awfully sorry and all that, it’s perfectly regrettable, mistakes on all sides, but look on the bright side. Your dearly departed child was a net benefit. The vaccine may not have stopped infections from spreading and killing grandma, but the important thing is that your dead baby’s sacrifice* helped the government reach Dr. Fauci’s jab goals. Hang on to that reassuring fact during your grief. (* note: does not qualify for compensation. We apologize for the inconvenience.)

We shall begin with the article’s demonic, rhetorically manipulative headline. Have some sympathy: the Atlantic’s editors were forced into a horrifying Sophie’s Choice, an agonizing decision between using the word vaccine —which would have triggered a cascade of white-hot denunciations from all the usual suspects— or adopting the anti-vaxx position, referring to them as “shots,” since calling the mRNA treatments “vaccines” was always an Orwellian lie, right from the jump.

They went with “shots.” Yes, Some Children May Have Died from COVID Shots.

Next, consider the diabolical rationale exposed in the story’s sub-headline: “Denial only serves the aims of anti-vaxxers.” The Atlantic didn’t think that admitting the shots killed kids was important because it was true. It did not argue for transparency and reconciliation. Rather, it argued for making a tiny, grudging admission of an admittedly damaging truth, but only to win— by thwarting the real enemy: anti-vaxxers.

You see, lying isn’t wrong per se. It’s only wrong because, in this case, it’s aiding pharma’s adversaries. In short: the Atlantic is morally bankrupt.

The rest of the piece was equally narcissistic and frankly, psychopathic. The sub-headline’s infernal logic threaded throughout the story, where vaccine deaths were framed as acceptable collateral damage of a program that “prevented death on a vast scale,” and the real crisis is malevolent misinformers like Dr. Vinay Prasad, who are (allegedly) “eroding trust” and giving ammunition to RFK and his MAHA cronies, not the dishonest regulators who dismissed or mischaracterized fatal myocarditis cases.

It was simple calculus. The author advocated for telling a little inconvenient truth so as not to throw out the dead baby with the mRNA bathwater. “How can medical professionals discuss the favorable risk-benefit profile of these shots,” the story wondered, “if they aren’t willing to acknowledge their worst risk?”

I chose the word “psychopathic” carefully. The Atlantic article could have been written by an unfeeling, robotic, vaccine-marketing AI* (* free edition).

Robo-Atlantic expressed zero human empathy or sympathy for the victims. It conspicuously avoided grappling with the baseline risk to healthy infants and young children, which was never high enough to justify a “net benefit” claim for that entire cohort. Nor did it acknowledge informed consent as another casualty of the “minimization” (lying), coercion, and manipulative fear-based messaging tactics that it admitted. Those regrettable mishaps were just “tactical errors” because they are giving anti-vaxxers “leverage.”

But never mind. Despite the author’s painstaking effort to avoid any moral culpability and to excuse all the lying and reckless fearmongering as good-faith choices under difficult circumstances, the horrifying message still slipped through, loud and clear: dead babies.

The mRNA cat is out of the doctor’s bag now.

The piece was authored by pro-vaccine stalwart and frequent pandemic writer Dr. Benjamin Mazer. The main thrust of Mazer’s argument was that it was a goofy mistake to “minimize” (i.e., dishonestly conceal) evidence of “rare” pediatric deaths caused by the shots, because “denial creates opportunities for those who want to break the system to rebuild it.” He provided several chilling and detailed examples of stubborn scientific denialism about covid jab deaths that were, frankly, astonishing.

But Mazer was wrong. The lying doctors had it right, whether they consciously knew it or not. Admitting even some infant deaths completely changes the game, permanently and forever.

💉 Admitting even a small number of vaccine‑caused infant deaths is a categorical, not marginal, shift. It moves the mRNA products from the “safe as air” box into the “can kill a healthy child” box, which permanently changes the ethical and legal terrain around mandates, messaging, and consent.

Once the consensus concedes that at least some children died “after and because of” the shots, the prior scheme of categorical assurances, moral shaming, and practical coercion of parents is not just flawed messaging. It is exposed as a wicked deception, a cruel artifice that cornered families into accepting a non‑zero risk of their child’s death to benefit a population‑level project.

When a vaccine program for a cohort with extremely low baseline covid mortality admits, however reluctantly, that it killed even a handful of healthy children, the argument “net benefit in the aggregate” no longer neutralizes the moral charge, because each affected family was never asked to accept that risk on honest terms. The parents of the dead children never consented to “a very small chance this could kill your child.” They only consented, after intense social and institutional pressure, to what they were told was essentially zero lethal risk and was overwhelmingly “safe and effective.”

Mazer, bless his heart, tries to confine the deaths into numerically absorbable externalities (aka, friendly fire), but once you accept that healthy children were killed by a state‑sponsored intervention that parents did not truly understand, the moral stakes are profoundly altered. Mandates, coercive messaging, and suppression of dissent all look, in hindsight, like a grotesque machine that funnelled families into lethal risks they never consented to and were never properly told existed.

Real human beings implicitly understand that, even if psychopaths like Ben Mazer can’t relate. And the signs of awakening are popping up everywhere.

💉 Yesterday, I texted a link to Mazer’s article to my best friend from high school, who now lives in the deep-blue Northeast. Here’s what he promptly returned:

The “lib friend” gets what Dr. Mazer missed. It’s what all the lying doctors implicitly understood. And the Atlantic —a trusted member of the technocratic tribe— printed it, creating a permission structure allowing hardened progressives to shift on the vaccine issue.

I found other comments similar to my friend’s, blooming like winter pansies, in comments below tweets about the Atlantic piece. For example:

It’s too much to say this article alone will topple the creaky, sagging, covid jab edifice. But the Atlantic isn’t alone. The truth, having finally laced up its sneakers, is racing out. Last week, former CBER Director Peter Marks grudgingly allowed “it’s possible” that the covid shots caused pediatric deaths. Corporate media coverage treated the claims in Dr. Prasad’s leaked memo as irresponsible— but not inherently implausible.

We’re now entering the next phase. Let’s explore the possibilities.

💉 Much of the public has already tuned out the institutionalists, which is why RFK is now running HHS, firing career scientists, and otherwise tossing around his bureaucratic wrecking ball. This Atlantic article and its stingy sentiment of throw them a few bones (of dead kids) will not reverse that loss of trust. If anything, it will accelerate cynicism among the holdouts.

Now that stubborn denial has become untenable, they want to shift the debate down one notch, from “no kids died” to “a few kids died, but it was worth it.” But there’s no shifting track left. It’s been torn off the dashboard. Unlike in previous vaccine scandals such as the Cutter polio incident or the Pandremrix-narcolepsy episode —which they are almost certainly furiously studying now for PR tips— they stretched too much, too far this time with covid.

Washington Post headline, April 2020:

The public forgot about the Cutter vaccine and Pandremrix. But it’s different this time. Too many people were involved. Basically, it was all of us. And even the hardcore pandemic defenders, even if they won’t say it out loud, must now wonder: “wait … go back … what about all the lying?” Or more gently, “how did they get it so wrong?”

Remember: every single American adult with legal capacity recalls being told, approximately sixteen million times, that “this is the safest and most studied vaccine in history.” If so … then how did they miss the killing babies part? Either they lied about studying the jabs, or they lied about the harms. Or both.

Either way, they lied— and if they lied about that, what else have they been lying about?

Current surveys find that large segments of the public, especially outside the blue enclaves, no longer automatically trust government agency statements about vaccines. Instead, many exist in a “malleable middle” that doubts official narratives while not (yet) fully embracing alternative theories. Into that spongy disquiet, a belated message of “yes, some children died, but don’t overreact, and don’t help the anti‑vaxxers” reads less like humble transparency and more like coerced confirmation that they will only disclose the truth to the minimum extent necessary.

💉 I’ll conclude with two final thoughts. First, why now? Why did the Atlantic’s editors agree to publish this incredibly damaging limited hangout, even with all its “nuance” and qualifications? It seems to me that there is only one explanation: they have given up on the shots. They’ve milked Bessie till she’s udderly dry. Uptake for any new shots is down into the teens for adults and single digits for kids. Major bodies like Florida and now the CDC have moved to risk‑based or “ask your doctor” recommendations, and most Americans say they will probably not get any further boosters.

September headline from local affiliate WPTV-5 (Florida):

In other words, they’ve finally given up. They’ve finally surrendered their fantastic dreams of perpetual vaccine annuities, of annual covid jabs plunged into arms along with the seasonal flu shots, ringing cash registers like Christmas bells. They’ve thrown in the bloodstained towel. They cut the self-replicating cord.

With fantasies of astronomical covid jab profits gone moribund, the priorities have changed. It’s no longer now about plunging one more round of highly profitable mRNA juice into Americans’ arms. Now it’s about salvaging trust in all other vaccines and in biomedical technocracy in general. Hence the starter’s pistol shot announcing the race toward an acceptable limited hangout.

Next, we should appreciate how this new demolition phase started, which is described right at the start of the article. It began with Dr. Vinay Prasad’s leaked internal letter, in which he referred to finding ten kids killed from covid shots out of 96 studied. Dr. Prasad is one of ours, an RFK appointee and an iconoclastic jab skeptic.

Thank you, Dr. Prasad.

While it is entertaining to wonder whether the leak of Dr. Prasad’s letter was intentional, ultimately it doesn’t matter. That letter —intended to remain private within FDA— unleashed a pent-up debate, like it was letting a genie out of a dusty old bottle.

Vinay Prasad unknowingly sparked a hidden revolution that had been restlessly waiting for ignition. Where it will end is unclear. But, on the other hand, the revolution is only just beginning. And the white-coated fraudsters are desperately scrambling to get ahead of what’s coming next.

Have a terrific Thursday! Coffee and Covid will return tomorrow with a normal-style roundup of all kinds of essential news and commentary that will inform, delight, and amuse you.

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