☕️ MRNA MAYHEM ☙ Saturday, May 10, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

C&C correctly predicts major Trump moves; UK trade win; radical immigration shift; stunning tariff policy; China talks progress; Newark mayor arrest; and jab study links mRNA to falling fertility.

Good morning, C&C, it’s Saturday! We’re packing up the hotel room and will return to HQ tomorrow, so Monday’s roundup will be back to normal quality levels. That said, it’s still a terrific roundup for your Weekend Edition: C&C scores predictive win as Deputy Chief of Staff signals consideration of radical immigration policy shift; Trump defies gloomy expert predictions as US-China trade negotiations proceed; Administration scores early victory with preliminary UK trade deal; Trump team telegraphs astonishing, world-shaking tariff policy completely missed by corporate media; another prominent official arrest as New Jersey Mayor feels the J6 pain after making an ass of himself and being arrested for trespassing; and a new, peer-reviewed jab study not only further condemns the safe and effective shots but scientifically links mRNA and plummeting global fertility rates.

🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍

🔥🔥🔥

Proving once again that C&C readers are far ahead of the media’s curve, yesterday, the New York Times ran a story headlined, “Trump Officials Consider Suspending Habeas Corpus for Detained Migrants.” “The Constitution is clear,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steven Miller told reporters outside the White House. The writ of habeas corpus “could be suspended in time of invasion.” Miller was completely correct.

The “somebody said something” story, if you can call it that, was a steaming heap of journalistic excrement. For one example, after repeatedly referring to the writ of habeas corpus as a “right” until readers got the message, it finally got around to quoting the Constitution, which expressly refers to the writ as a “privilege.” Only then did the Times admit circumspectly that it is “a right generally guaranteed.”

Sadly, Times readers are the least well-educated members of our society. They need some kind of remedial program.

A quick refresher for our Portland readers (who, at least, surpass New York Times subscribers in educational attainment). “Habeas corpus” is Old Latin for “show the body.” It’s the legal system’s emergency brake for the government to produce an arrestee in court and justify their imprisonment. It forces officials to either put up (with evidence) or shut up (and release the person), putting the kibosh on secret or indefinite detentions. When courts issue the writ, they’re saying: “Bring the prisoner here, now, and prove you have the right to hold them or else let them go.”

Next, after stating as a fact that the writ may only be suspended by Congress, and not the President, the Times then reported that the four times in American history it was suspended was by presidents. It quoted the infamous story of Lincoln’s suspension, oddly, without mentioning his equally infamous defiance of the Supreme Court’s chief judge. All the Times recalled about that remarkable story was this passive-voice chestnut: “his move was challenged.”

Instead, the Times focused on the fact that Congress eventually authorized Lincoln’s suspension retroactively— two years after the fact.

That retroactive approval was the only time —of the four times— that Congress got involved. So the Times’ argument was at best incomplete, and ignored the strong precedent available to President Trump.

That isn’t to say the article didn’t raise some talking points. It mentioned that three federal judges so far have challenged the Administration’s invocation of an “invasion,” a type of reflexive judicial invasion of the political sphere that would have been much more welcome during the pandemic, when Biden and his progressive allies closed churches and mandated experimental medical treatments, or during the 2020 election debacle, back when judges deferred en masse to “political questions.” But set judicial restraint aside, since the courts have also.

But everything we need to know about the Gray Lady’s journalistic merits was betrayed by the fact that the story quoted zero experts supporting Trump’s position or even allowing it has some historical merit. So much for balance.

I hesitate to predict whether Trump will actually suspend the writ. The hanging threat of suspending it might be a better tool than its use in practice. But if he does suspend the writ, it will only be because the courts —which never interfered with Obama’s or Clinton’s mass deportation schemes— have made it impossible to remove large groups of foreign nationals without time-consuming individual due process.

Despite the Times’ best efforts to confuse everybody and make it impossible to have an intelligent debate, there is a good argument about due process in the context of mass deportation. My legal perspective is that it will come down to the simple question of whether the U.S. is “under invasion” or not. If millions of illegal entries of foreign nationals is an invasion, even a non-traditional one, then the Constitution expressly allows due process to be temporarily suspended.

During the Constitutional Debates, founder James Madison argued that “in cases of imminent

danger the general government ought to be empowered to defend the whole Union.” And in Federalist No. 43, Madison explicitly included “insurrections” and even “domestic violence” as threats akin to foreign invasions— and said the federal government must intervene.

That particular type of key question —whether or not something that looks like an invasion is in fact a “real” invasion— has never been decided by courts, which have always deferred to the political branches, especially in times of emergency. A ruling on the constitutional validity of Trump’s “invasion” declaration would push the courts into shaky new legal ground —a real example of overreaching— a nuance the Times studiously ignored.

🔥🔥🔥

Chalk up another expert failure, if you can find room on the board to mark another tally. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran a story headlined, “Exclusive — China Sends Xi’s Security Czar to Trade Talks With U.S.” Defying expert predictions that China would easily outwait Trump’s crippling tariffs, the two countries began meeting yesterday in Switzerland to begin negotiations.

It was another narrative sea-change. Corporate media has packed its columns and airwaves with experts laughing like braying donkeys at the idea that China would ever cave on its public promises that it would never ever negotiate with Orange People unless the tariffs were first reversed. That, of course, was their second argument, after chortling experts explained (drawing with crayons so we deplorables could understand) that tariffs only hurt American consumers, a moronic claim that was instantly belied by the wails of anguish from foreign trade partners and by plummeting egg prices.

While they never mention it, reporters also never argue with the fact that China has been a poor economic partner for a very long time. The Chinese manipulate their currency to squeeze profits out of U.S. customers, brazenly steal and knock off U.S. inventions and ignore international intellectual property laws, fuel fentanyl forces, conduct corporate espionage, inject marxist nonsense into our colleges and universities, and generally swank around like they own the United States’ government and can do whatever they want.

Anyway, once again corporate media was wrong. Trump was right. The Chinese are, in fact, negotiating. And those negotiations follow the announcement of a UK-US deal that contained a massive hidden disclosure that should have been yesterday’s top headline.

🔥 Thursday, in a dramatic V-Day speakerphone meeting with UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer, Trump announced the first “trade deal” following Liberation Day. CNN reported the story under the headline, “Trump’s first trade ‘deal’ doesn’t bode well for the rest of the world.”

CLIP: Scott Jennings explains progress from first trade agreement with UK (1:41).

It was more of an incremental agreement than any finalized trade deal, which is completely unsurprising given the complexities and wild varieties of issues involved in international trade. The short version is that some key UK and American industries —cars, steel, and beef— were mutually excused from tariffs on both sides, and the 10% minimum was retained on everything else. Negotiations continue.

The general sense is that America is winning the negotiations. According to Trump’s team, this initial deal will create $6 billion in new tariff revenue for the U.S., in addition to $5 billion in new markets for American farmers. Industry agreed. Yesterday, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association issued an enthusiastic press release titled, “President Trump Secures Win for America’s Cattle Producers.”

As usual, the media missed the real headline. Yesterday, we learned for the first time that Trump’s ten percent across-the-board minimum will remain— as a permanent new income source. Press Secretary Leavitt told skeptical reporters (1:07) that, “The president is committed to the 10% baseline tariff, not just for the United Kingdom, but for his trade negotiations with all other countries as well, permanently, even after the deals are done.”

It was an economic nuclear bomb.

An astonished reporter picked up on that explosive bit of news, the quiet declaration of a permanent tariff baseline, and pressed Leavitt, asking again, “Permanently? Even after the deals are done? Like, that is going to remain?” Secretary Leavitt doubled down a stressed, “The President is determined to continue with that baseline tariff. I just spoke with him about it earlier.”

🔥 It is, perhaps, too much to hope this buried announcement suggests the emerging borders of a breathtaking Trump plan to actually replace the income tax, or some part of it, with an “External Revenue Service.” The real story isn’t about beef or Bentleys— the buried lede was the shocking revelation of a permanent 10% baseline tariff, across all trade, and even after agreements are signed.

That’s not just a negotiation tactic. It might be the outline of a structural re-engineering of the entire way America funds its government.

We may be witnessing the rollout of what amounts to a federal revenue replacement strategy: a pivot away from internal income taxation toward a nationalist model of externalized funding through border tariffs. It’s not protectionism; it’s a fiscal coup d’état. And it is exactly how the US government was always funded before the income tax.

It sure makes me think. How about you?

🪳🪳🪳

Readers must let me know when the ‘arrests’ stories become dull and repetitive. But at this point, I am confident my audience continues to enjoy evidence that the useless old saw no one is above the law continues being sharpened and is back to lopping off branches. NBC ran another encouraging story yesterday headlined, “Newark mayor arrested at ICE detention facility in New Jersey for alleged trespassing.”

January 6th survivors will find it equally annoying but also guffaw-producing that NBC’s headline editors labeled the mayor’s trespassing charges as “alleged.” Pictured above, Newark’s unaccountably prosperous Mayor —and current New Jersey gubernatorial candidate— is ‘Ras Baraka,’ if that’s his real name.

What happened was yesterday, in what was presumably a political stunt gone wrong, Mayor Baraka tried to enter an ICE facility to “inspect conditions,” and generally made himself an odious nuisance and an unwanted distraction to innocent federal immigration officials trying to do their official jobs. After being repeatedly warned and asked to leave— a privilege not offered to January 6th “trespassers”— Mayor Baraka was unceremoniously arrested and criminally charged.

He’s lucky they didn’t charge him with insurrection.

Former Trump attorney and new interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba broke the news on Twitter:

Mayor Baraka, 55, got his photo op, but maybe not the one he’d had in mind. Images provided by Baraka’s office showed the mayor being escorted by federal law enforcement agents with his hands behind his back. The Mayor is not a terrific public speaker. “At the end of the day, you know, we didn’t do anything wrong. You know, this should not have happened today, but it did,” Baraka said.

Charges have not been dropped, and Mayor Baraka must appear in court.

New Jersey Democrats rushed to Baraka’s defense. “Mayor Baraka is an exemplary public servant who has always stood up for our most vulnerable neighbors,” Governor Phil Murphy (D) said in a statement. If Mayor Baraka is what top Democrats think is exemplary, I would hate to see the bad ones.

💉💉💉

Appropos for Mother’s Day, a quiet March jab study made the rounds this week. The study, published in the Journal Vaccines, was blandly titled, “Impact of mRNA and Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccines on Ovarian Reserve.” Scoffers complained it was “only” a rat study, but it was another iron nail in mRNA’s coffin.

The truth is: it was more terrible news for the jabs. The slow trickle of truth emerging in the scientific journals is reaching a cacophonous crescendo. This newest study confirmed the worst suspicions of many folks who’ve long suspected a link between plunging worldwide fertility rates and the simultaneous worldwide deployment of the mRNA vaccines.

For heterodox experts who’ve long warned, “Something this widespread with this kind of novel platform could have unintended reproductive effects,” this study landed like a flashing red light. It doesn’t settle the debate— but it clearly shifts the burden of proof. The dismissive “safe and effective” mantra now looks a lot less like a conclusion and more like a placeholder awaiting serious investigation.

This new peer-reviewed animal study raises questions that demand answers about the human effects of covid vaccines —especially the mRNA types— specifically on female fertility. The researchers gave rats human-equivalent doses of either Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine or Sinovac’s inactivated spike vaccine. A few weeks later, they checked the furry little volunteers’ ovarian tissues.

What they found was extremely sinister. Both vaccines disrupted normal ovarian function, both reducing the number of healthy egg follicles and increasing the number of dying or damaged ones. Hormone levels tied to fertility, particularly “anti-Müllerian hormone” (AMH), dropped significantly— and most sharply in the mRNA group. In plain English: the rats had fewer eggs and significant signs of reproductive stress.

‘Follicles’ are the functional core of a woman’s reproductive system— they’re tiny fluid-filled sacs in the ovaries that each contain an immature egg. Every menstrual cycle, a woman’s body selects a few of these follicles to mature. Ideally, one of them releases a viable egg during ovulation. But here’s the catch: women are born with a fixed number of follicles, and once they’re gone, that’s it. No replacements; you get what you get. This finite supply is called the ovarian reserve, and it determines both a woman’s reproductive lifespan and her fertility potential.

While rats aren’t humans, the biological mechanisms are close enough to be terrifying. Rats have ovarian follicles and reproductive hormones remarkably similar to humans, which is why they’re widely used in reproductive research. While there are some differences in timing and hormonal cycles, the fundamental biology is the same.

Not only did the study show damage to the follicles themselves, but it evidenced that vaccination —especially with mRNA— disrupts hormone signaling related to fertility, by reducing the AMH hormone that indicates how many viable eggs remain. That single finding could plausibly explain the widespread reports of disrupted menstrual cycles following covid vaccination.

The study didn’t look at direct ‘fertility outcomes’ (actually getting pregnant), but it showed clear changes to the structures and hormones that make fertility possible in the first place. The findings don’t prove the vaccines harm human fertility— but they demolished the idea that there’s no evidence of harm.

There is now conclusive evidence of harm, even if not conclusive proof. And the evidence is strong, consistent, biologically credible, and peer-reviewed.

This study suggests the FDA skipped a critical step: before mass deployment, this kind of reproductive impact should have been studied in depth. Instead, it’s only being belatedly noticed by independent researchers after the needled horse is out of the barn. More research in human women is urgently needed— not to create panic, but to finally take the question seriously.

💉 Global fertility rates have been declining for years, blamed largely on socioeconomic trends like delayed childbearing, urbanization, and falling marriage rates. But what’s grabbed everyone’s attention was the sharp acceleration in the decline during 2021–2023— a period that coincides almost exactly with the worldwide rollout of mRNA covid vaccines.

In some countries, birth rates dropped 7%–15% year-over-year, far beyond typical demographic variation, and without any clear alternative explanation.

For example, here’s a March, 2024, headline from The Lancet:

This rat study didn’t prove causation, but it showed a plausible mechanism: vaccination-induced follicular loss, reproductive hormone disruption, and increased ovarian apoptosis (cell death). If a similar effect occurred in women —even temporarily— it could reduce fecundity (the ability to conceive) during at least that window.

And since conception is already a narrow, monthly biological opportunity, small disruptions across large populations could have macro-level fertility effects— especially in low-replacement societies already teetering below 2.1 births per woman. A global birth rate collapse would be a slow-motion extinction event. It would creep up until some awful tipping point was reached and then it would quickly be game over.

💉 The study resolved a critical question: is this possible? The next question demanding an answer now is, why aren’t public health authorities urgently conducting large-scale reproductive follow-up studies on women of childbearing age, using easily detectable markers like AMH and antral follicle counts?

The reluctance to blame jab makers and government jab pushers is a poor reason to delay urgently needed research. It’s not just “water under the bridge,” or as Hillary might ask, “at this point, what does it matter?” The point is that, if we can identify the cause, we can start working on the cure.

The longer we tiptoe around the possibility that mass vaccination campaigns might have played a role in plummeting fertility, the longer we delay both accountability and solutions. Because if the shots are indeed part of the problem, then understanding how they affect reproduction is the first step to developing interventions, reversals, and informed screening. This isn’t (only) about blame; it’s about basic public health triage: find the bleeding artery and clamp it, even if it clobbers the credibility of a few cockroach-like public health experts.

Our public health experts are obviously corrupt, sold-out, and useless. Hopefully, President Trump’s new HHS will notice this study and fund more research stat.

Have a wonderful weekend! Moms— please enjoy a richly deserved day of rest and joy tomorrow for Mother’s Day. We will reconvene on Monday morning to kick off the new week the best C&C way.

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