☕️ NONSENSE ☙ Thursday, December 7, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
ALERT: Another bomb dropped on the jabs yesterday, and it could be the fatal blow; former Speaker McCarthy quits; and the House Committee publishes major tranche of Biden Bribery evidence.
Happy Pearl Harbor Day! Today’s roundup includes one of those game-changing, critically-important updates: a brand-new study that is a metaphorical sneak attack on Pfizer’s Pacific vaccine facility where the covid shots are made; plus: former Speaker McCarthy quits and goes home; and the Biden Bribery committee releases bold new evidence on Joe’s involvement with the “family business.”
🗞💬 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 💬🗞
🔥 I’m sorry. Many of you will be heartbroken over this, but Fox News reported a story yesterday headlined, “Kevin McCarthy to resign from Congress after being ousted as House speaker.” He’s taking his toys and going home. If he can’t be Speaker, he just won’t play at all.
To be fair, McCarthy wrote a whole narcissistic ‘Swan Song’ op-ed for the Wall Street Journal yesterday about his decision. But the Fox story was a lot shorter and more informative.
Kevin’s op-ed offered zero nutritional value. It explained nothing. I suppose the it was nice that its tone was cheerful and upbeat, but why wouldn’t it be? The former Speaker will soon be a vice-president at a big military defense contractor or Merck or someplace, making millions and working from his yacht. You have to read between the lines to discover that Kevin, still sore from his ouster, just jammed his thumb into the GOP’s eye, handing oleaginous Governor Gavin Newsom a special election, to replace Kevin’s vacant republican seat in the narrowly-controlled House.
Oh well. I’ve been intensely frustrated with him at times, and I was happy to see the Speaker position rotate, but I would also have been perfectly happy to see Kevin continue serving as a productive House member representing his California district. Buh bye Kevin.
In a sign of the times, the Fox story pegged Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) as McCarthy’s “top rival” and credited Matt with “booting” Kevin “from his House speakership position.” Apparently the young, rising Representative also booted Kevin all the way out of Congress.
In terms of political stock, Matt Gaetz is way up, and Kevin McCarthy is down.
🔥 The House Ways and Means Committee, currently investigating the Biden Bribery Impeachment case, posted an informative update on its website yesterday headlined, “Newly Released Evidence Underscores Joe Biden’s Excessive Use of a Secret Email Address to Communicate with his Son’s Business Associates - House Committee on Ways and Means.” It’s a pretty big deal.
Red-faced democrats have pounded the table complaining about this outrageous impeachment investigation when there’s NO EVIDENCE!! that Joe and Hunter’s businesses had anything to do with each other. And Joe Biden has offered to arm-wrestle anybody who wants to take him and pounded the table many times shouting (32 decibels) that there’s NO EVIDENCE!!! he was ever involved in Hunter’s business dealings.
Not ever. Never ever. Never ever, ever. And you can’t prove it.
So the Committee sighed, said fine, and yesterday coughed up three hundred and twenty-seven emails between Joe Biden — not in his own name, but using dumb aliases that sound like some kind of inside joke — where the former Vice President communicated with various of Hunter’s sketchy business associates and unindicted co-conspirators.
Tellingly, fifty-four emails were exclusively — meaning only the two men were included on the email — Joe wasn’t just carbon-copied or anything — between only Joe Biden (as Robert L. Peters or Robin Ware) and one particular Hunter Biden business associate named Eric Schwerin.
Eric is particularly noteworthy in the sordid saga as being the genius in charge of structuring the Biden family’s various complicated, bribe-obscuring, worldwide spider network of shell companies laundering the Biden fortune. And somebody has to tell Eric what to do. You didn’t think Hunter was running the complicated maze of businesses, trusts, and bank accounts, did you?
If you believed that, you’ve been hitting Hunter’s crack pipe too hard.
Another email proved Joe Biden attended a “lunch” in D.C. with yet another unsavory character named Patrick Ho (if that’s his real name, and this time there remains considerable doubt over his identity). Weeks after that lunch, Ho was indicted by Trump’s DOJ as a top-level Chinese spy.
But one month before his arrest, Ho — get this — paid Hunter the princely sum of one million dollars as a legal services ‘retainer.’ Here’s the Committee Exhibit 608B:
Nobody knows what Hunter was supposed to do to earn that million. And, why were Joe and the Ho lunching in D.C., right before Ho paid Joe’s bagman, I mean son, a million dollars for nothing, and right at the time the DOJ was hot on Ho’s heels?
We can all agree that at minimum, it’s a bad look, and you can tack that bad look onto the giant, swelling list of Biden’s other ‘bad looks.’
(In one of my remarkable cases, opposing counsel admitted in an early hearing that “at first blush, the evidence looks bad” for his client. I got a copy of the transcript and turned that delightful phrase right back on them for the rest of the three-year lawsuit, mentioning it every chance I got, including in no fewer than twelve appellate briefs. Fun times.)
Anyway, let’s talk about that million-dollar retainer. I happen to know a lot about retainers. You sort of need to know, as an attorney. Mismanaging client retainers is the most common way for an attorney to get disbarred. And getting disbarred is the legal equivalent of being stripped of your medical license, or dishonorably discharged, except worse, because disbarment is a lifelong black mark. That’s Tom. He got disbarred. It hurts the former lawyer’s future employment prospects as badly as a felony record (except that it quixotically improves the disbarred lawyer’s chances of being hired by a drug cartel).
Even before I get to principle number one of retainers, here’s principle zero: don’t hire crackheads to be your attorney. Especially don’t give them a million dollars of your money in advance of services not yet rendered. (And that was a million in 2017 dollars, so.)
With that out of the way, here’s Retainers Principle Number One: a retainer legally remains the client’s money until the attorney does the work. Attorneys must escrow client retainers in a separate trust account. Commingling attorney money and client money is a giant no-no, a greased fast-track to disbarment.
Once, I held a substantial retainer for years for a client who went to prison for a half decade (for a bad DUI auto accident). I could not touch his money. It wasn’t my money. It was my client’s money. I kept it safely for him until he got out. In fact, while incarcerated, from time to time he would direct us to use some of the funds to pay things like his appellate attorney or some disputed bills, which we did, of course, because it was his money.
There is almost no way Hunter was entitled — as a lawyer — to keep Ho’s money, even if Ho was arrested or was a Chinese spy or whatever. But I would bet Klaus Schwab’s newest leather spacesuit that Ho’s money never touched an attorney’s trust account but rather vanished, poof!, within two business days, tentacled off into the Biden financial octopus.
And if, as I suppose, Hunter never returned Ho’s money, then he should be disbarred for stealing client funds. Hunter’s D.C. law license went ‘inactive’ in 2014. So he should also be disbarred for practicing law without a valid license — lawyers can’t go around holding themselves out as million-dollar superstars with an inactive license. The Committee should promptly refer Hunter’s case to the D.C. Bar Association.
It’s not just vindictiveness. I mean, Hunter’s still out there. If he’s not disbarred, who knows how many other gullible enemy spies Hunter might trick into giving him giant retainers for future legal services that he’ll never provide? The mind boggles.
The Committee could probably also think of a few other things to jam onto the bar referral, like Hunter’s hookers and crack habit and fake board positions and unpaid income taxes and million-dollar business advances to start energy companies that never actually start, but I digress.
Anyway, the Committee just gifted democrats with some more Biden Bribery evidence. But somehow I don’t think the democrats will be grateful to have their holiday evidence wishes answered.
As they say in China: Ho, Ho, Ho.
💉 Pfizer must feel like it’s been one damned thing after another these days. In a year packed with horrible news for the jabs (not to mention poor jab recipients), yesterday saw a critical new discovery of jab problems, possibly the worst and most damning yet. How bad was it? It was so bad that, even though I almost never make predictions anymore, I will predict this: The FDA will be forced to withdraw the mRNA covid shots because of this study.
I’m not even joking about that.
Our investigation begins with yesterday’s Telegraph article about a new study headlined, “One in four who had Moderna or Pfizer Covid jabs experienced unintended immune response.”
The explosive, new, peer-reviewed, gold-standard study is already making news even though it was only published yesterday, December 6th. And it published in the well—respected Journal Nature, featuring the multisyllabic, incomprehensible title, “N1-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting.”
This study has twenty authors. There is safety in numbers.
Don’t let the mind-numbing title fool you. If Kevin McKernan’s SV40 monkey-virus discovery tossed a hand-grenade into Pfizer’s machine-gun bunker, this carefully-written study dropped a tactical nuke on Pfizer’s Pacific Fleet anchoring at Hawaii. The study’s implications are vast.
Since the science is a little thick — no, it’s very thick — I’ll start by telling you the end first.
Here’s how the Telegraph’s article defensively described the study’s results. Keep in mind, they were down-playing the results, as much as they possibly could:
No adverse effects were created by the error, data show, but Cambridge scientists found such vaccines were not perfect and sometimes led to nonsense proteins being made instead of the desired Covid “spike”, which mimics infection and leads to antibody production (and) an immune system flare-up.
The new study, published in Nature, found this occurred in around 25-30 per cent of people.
Hahaha! The vaccines were “not perfect!!” Omygosh! Please, stop! Hahahaha! It hurts to laugh! Whew. Alright, I’m okay now. Onwards.
Here’s the simple version: the researchers discovered that a necessary ingredient in the mRNA vaccines (1-methylpseudouridine) has an unfortunate side-effect: it messes up RNA translation one-third of the time by slipping a gear every so often. Instead of making the intended spike protein, these tiny mistranslational slip-ups create … other things. Other kinds of proteins. New ones.
And there’s no way at all to predict what kind of protein it will create. It’s stochastic (completely random).
The ‘vaccine’ creates stochastic proteins one third of the time. In one-third of cells, not people, like the Telegraph again mis-reported. There are trillions of mRNA packages in each shot. So — unless I’m missing something — what the study is saying, without actually saying it, is that this is happening inside every single jab recipient.
And it’s happening a lot.
Now, you know I hate to sound negative, but I’m guessing there would have been a lot more vaccine hesitancy had people known that trillions of their cells would soon randomly be creating bizarre, novel proteins, and for an indeterminate and possibly long time.
That sounds a lot like Russian roulette.
Nobody could possibly know what kinds of problems this kind of thing might cause. Mostly because they’ve never tested anything like this before, except maybe down in the lowest level of the secret dungeons under Dr. Mengele’s laboratory.
Do not let them get away with it when the citizen volunteers will inevitably argue, “hey, they were new vaccines, of course we’re going to learn some unexpected things about them. Nobody expected them to be perfect.”
Um, NO. They called it “misinformation” when we said the shots were “experimental.” They said the shots were the best-tested, safest vaccines in human history. They said we learned all the long-term side effects within the first 90 days — and guess what? There were none. No long term side effects.
Honestly, sometimes it’s infuriating how stupid our experts are.
Continuing on, the Telegraph first claimed ‘no adverse effects’ were caused by the ‘nonsense proteins,’ but then turned right around and said they cause an unintended immune system flare-up. That is an adverse effect, morons. But second, they are just slapping the old “no evidence” gag around. In this case, the Telegraph’s “no evidence” argument is an archaic, tired-out, well-known logical fallacy called the “Argument from Ignorance.”
All they are really saying is, we don’t know what the adverse effects might be.
I don’t want to quibble, but saying “There ARE NO adverse effects” is a rather different thing from saying “we DON’T KNOW what kind of adverse effects this might cause.”
For an idea of just how mendacious the Telegraph’s article was, here is the precise sentence from the study that the Telegraph used when it falsely reported that “No adverse effects were created by the error, data show”:
Although there is no evidence that frameshifted products in humans generated from BNT162b2 vaccination are associated with adverse outcomes, for future use of mRNA technology it is important that mRNA sequence design is modified to reduce ribosome frameshifting events, as this may limit its future use for applications that require higher doses or more frequent dosing, such as the in vivo production of hormones.
See? There was not any ‘data’ proving that the vaccines were safe, as the Telegraph claimed. The study only said there was “no evidence of an association with adverse events.” Which certainly could be just because nobody’s looked for an association with adverse events yet.
The study, which is so technical it can be barely understood by lay readers (if at all), was marvelously written. At first, a reader mistakenly concludes the study is a giant apologia for the jabs. Every chance they got, the twenty authors optimistically described the bright future of mRNA technology — once, that is, this one teensy, awkward little (unfixable) wrinkle has been ironed out of the formula. That’s how the study passed peer review and got published.
The scientists are learning how to play the game.
Now, remember. This study — and all the news reports about it — constantly reassures pharma bigwigs and depressed jab-takers that there’s no evidence of adverse effects from the random ‘nonsense proteins,’ the randomized proteins that 25% of their transfected cells are now making. Nothing to worry about!
But check out this very telling quote from one of the study authors, Anne Willis, who is a very upbeat kind of lady. She found that the problem just creates a very exciting opportunity for jab makers to fix it:
(Professor Anne Willis, Director of the MRC Toxicology Unit) adds it is very exciting that there is a way to fix the issue, which “massively de-risks this platform going forward”.
Screech! Hold on, wait just a minute! Slam on the brakes for a second. If fixing the issue “massively de-risks the (mRNA) platform” … that means … there are massive risks to be fixed. And that quote, ladies and gentlemen, gave away the entire game, right there, and showed us what the study authors are really thinking.
They are appalled, just like we are. And they got the message out the only way they could, smuggled across the peer-reviewed border in a hollowed-out teddy bear of exciting opportunities.
The offending ingredient, 1-methylpseudouridine, is a type of pseudouridine used in the jabs to stabilize the mRNA payload. We’ve discussed this chemical before. Its first unintended side-effect was making the mRNA too stable, which we think is why the pseudouridine-enhanced mRNA lasts for months (or longer), instead of disappearing within a few hours, like natural mRNA does, and like the FDA mendaciously claimed it would when they were first pushing the jabs.
Ironically, they just gave the Nobel prize to the two scientists who figured out how to make artificially long-lasting mRNA using 1-methylpseudouridine. But yesterday’s peer-reviewed study — written long before the Nobel prize was awarded — concluded there is a fatal flaw with using 1-methylpseudouridine. The authors’ suggestion to fix it? Use natural mRNA.
But since natural mRNA won’t work, as it is metabolized too quickly, the real message from the study is: mRNA technology is inherently unsafe, and poses massive unknown risks. Who knows what are the risks of millions or trillions of cells creating random proteins all day long? Remember the old “infinite number of monkeys” argument? It goes: Given enough monkeys and typewriters, some chimp somewhere will randomly type up Hamlet before you even got around to handing out bananas for lunch.
Who wants to roll the dice that trillions of ‘random proteins’ never ever come up with something harmful? Or is it even more likely the whole unexpected process is all harmful? Random results in a drug should be unacceptable, even if they only create conditions for autoimmunity.
Thus, the FDA must pull these drugs.
💉 Let’s recap the four major jab low-lights — all from just this year:
In February, Kevin McKernan brilliantly discovered unexpected DNA plasmid contamination in the mRNA shots.
Kevin equally-brilliantly discovered something hiding in plain sight that apparently every other scientist on the planet — including the FDA — somehow missed: the mRNA shots unexpectedly include parts of an oncogenic simian virus (associated with cancer).
In August, I reported on a study showing the way spike protein (and thus the shots) cause autoimmune problems by unexpectedly binding to C4 immune cells, in my post titled, ☕️ JACKPOT ☙ Tuesday, August 8, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠.
Then yesterday, in this newest study, we learned about the fourth major, unexpected problem with the jabs, which goes to their very design: random protein production.
So, you tell me: how long can the FDA realistically keep this charade going? There will be more explosions at the next meeting of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee than there were at Pearl Harbor.
We are now sprinting towards the finish line.
(I had to cut four great stories because of how long the study segment ran, but I think it was worth it. )
Have a tremendous Thursday! We have a lot to cover tomorrow, so come on back for a jam-packed and otherwise fantastic Friday roundup.
We can’t do it without you. Consider joining with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠