☕️ OH, HARVARD ☙ Wednesday, May 28, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Trump nukes Harvard’s contracts; liberals howl; ethics prof fakes honesty study; morgue director sells body parts; oceans go dark—and yes, there’s a Harvard link to that too. Plus more.

Good morning, C&C, it’s Wednesday! Today’s hard-hitting (hitting Harvard) includes: Trump Administration escalates war with the Ivy-League behemoth by canceling its federal contracts and liberals cry foul; Harvard forced to fire (sort of) ethics researcher accused of faking results in a study about -honesty-; the return of nudging (or did it ever leave?); Harvard’s body-snatching medical-school morgue director pleads guilty; and catastrophe hits the oceans as the light of life is dying—and you aren’t going to believe the Harvard connection.

🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍

🔥🔥🔥

Yesterday, Trump schooled the nation’s wokest university, and the NYT ran the story below the headline, “Trump Intends to Cancel All Federal Funds Directed at Harvard.” The sub-headline explained, “A letter to federal agencies will instruct them to end contracts, totaling about $100 million. It is meant to sever the government’s remaining ties with Harvard.”

“The Trump administration,” the Times reported, “is determined to bring Harvard — arguably the country’s most elite and culturally dominant university — to its knees, by undermining its financial health and global influence.”

In the last 30 days, the Administration has frozen $3.1 billion in grants and revoked Harvard’s permission to enroll foreign students — both stayed (for now) by federal judges. The House’s budget bill, now in the Senate, included a provision increasing taxes on university endowments (Harvard—$53 billion). Yesterday, Trump’s team dispatched its latest weaponized letter, this time not to Harvard but to all federal agencies. The letter recommended canceling all contracts with Harvard and refraining from signing any new ones.

Let’s discuss this cleverly worded move during the brief moment before some federal judge enjoins it— an even deeper judicial invasion of Executive Branch authority.

First, the reaction. The bluehairs at BlueSky immediately began projectile vomiting outrage. Harvard is the nation’s leading research institution! Trump is kneecapping America’s best brains!

The best examples of potentially canceled contracts the Times could muster included a $49,858 NIH contract to investigate the effects of coffee drinking (ahem) and a $25,800 Homeland Security contract for senior executive training. I did not make those up.

Now, I’m just a lawyer, but I’m willing to underbid Harvard here. For a mere $24,999 —half price!— I will personally investigate the effects of coffee drinking — extensively and repeatedly — and I’ll even throw in a bonus inquiry into whether donuts pair better with dark roast or medium blend.

As for the $25,800 executive training gig? I’m free next Thursday. We’ll start with a PowerPoint titled, “How to Not Get Schooled by a Reality TV President.” BYO tissues.

Just like with foreign student enrollment, the power of the federal purse — especially purchasing power — resides squarely in the Executive Branch. Not the Ivy League. Judges have no business micromanaging that discretion. Trump’s latest letter didn’t just pull the plug — it weaponized the process. It strongly recommends agencies terminate existing contracts and requires a contract-by-contract review, turning every Harvard connection into a potential liability.

And let us never forget: not a single judge was brave enough — or fast enough — to enjoin Biden’s sweeping executive order that canceled contracts for every federal contractor who refused to enforce jab mandates. Entire industries were turned inside out overnight. But now? Harvard catches a cold, and suddenly judges are tripping over their robes in their rush to provide triage care.

Apparently, executive discretion is only sacred when it’s used to coerce citizens’ compliance— not when it cuts off cash to the hallowed Cathedral.

Any sane judge would make Harvard challenge each cancelled contract individually — after the fact, when there is an actual injury. But of course, some robe-wrapped resister will probably try to enjoin even the letter’s recommendation. That injunction will rest on judicial ice so thin you could hear it cracking from Thayer Dorm.

🔥 In more news from the vaunted Cathedral, yesterday the Times ran a remarkable story headlined, “Harvard Professor Who Studied Honesty Loses Tenure Amid Accusations of Falsifying Data.”

A professor studying honesty. What do you want to bet it was one of the contracts subject to Trump Administration review?

Item 142: $327,000 to study honesty in workplace communication. Grantee: Harvard. Status: pending misconduct review. Recommendation: Cancel and replace with a mirror.

Oh, it gets so much worse. Harvard hasn’t stripped tenure from anyone for any reason since the 1940s. Not even former President Claudia Gay, who resigned in shame after being caught plagiarizing for her incomprehensible papers on structural racism. The last guy who got canned back in the ’40’s probably got caught endorsing President Eisenhower too loudly or something.

One suspects that Harvard’s historic and unprecedented disciplinary zeal — finally stripping tenure for the first time since before the moon landing — might just coincidentally align with the Trump Administration’s contract scalpel hovering over their $100 million federal pipeline. Funny how fast the gears of accountability grind into action when the checkbook’s in jeopardy. Harvard’s sudden rediscovery of consequences seems about as spontaneous as a North Korean election.

But you have to give “prominent behavioral scientist” Francesca Gino credit. If you’re going to manipulate data, at least do it on a study about manipulation. At least it’s thematic integrity.

I was most interested in the description of Ms. Gino’s field of study. She has published a number of peer-reviewed articles about “how small changes can influence behavior.” Behavior modification. The Times reported that “the studies in which Dr. Gino has been a co-author are, for example, included one showing that counting to 10 before deciding what to eat can lead to choosing healthier food.

In other words, she’s a nudger.

Nudging — the behavioral economics strategy of subtly guiding choices without the victims’ awareness — played a starring but curiously unexamined role during the pandemic. Born of the unholy conviction that small psychological tweaks — especially fear — can trigger massive shifts in behavior, nudges were deployed everywhere: floor arrows directing human traffic like livestock, automatic vaccine appointments, social norm messaging (“9 out of 10 people in your area wear their masks”), commercials featuring intubated children, and emotionally manipulative signage warning shoppers to save grandma from the ventilator.

Like vampires, nudgers operate in the shadows — manipulating behavior through suggestion, framing, and defaults, all while preserving the illusion of free will. During the pandemic, governments leaned hard into these tactics, often without disclosure or debate, raising thorny — and conveniently ignored — ethical questions about consent, manipulation, and where exactly the boundary lies between guidance, coercion, and control.

Now we discover a “prominent,” peer-reviewed nudger, crusted deep into Harvard itself, lying her nudging butt off — a behavioral scientist caught behaving badly, and in a perfectly ironic twist, in a study about honesty. If that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about the kinds of people who were running pandemic policy, you might just need a little more nudging yourself.

Next up: trust researchers caught embezzling, and transparency experts applying for FOIA exemptions.

Maybe Trump is on to something? But wait, there’s more.

🔥 Last week, the Boston Globe ran a follow-up story headlined, “Former Harvard morgue manager pleads guilty to selling stolen body parts across state lines.”

Bald, shaped like a bowling pin, and radiating the smug defiance of a man who names his own horror franchise, Harvard’s former morgue manager Cedric Lodge proudly drove a Subaru with the vanity plate “GRIM-R.” His wife, Denise — also in on the fun — rolled with “DKSHDWS,” an homage to the 1960s gothic-horror show Dark Shadows. You might call those red flags. Harvard apparently called them parking passes.

It’s fair to ask why Harvard needs a morgue. It’s for the medical school. Witless and overtrusting alum donate their bodies to Harvard for science, making them feel like they are donating the last full measure of gullibility to the sacred pursuit of knowledge. What they didn’t know was that Harvard was quietly running a side hustle out of the anatomical gift shop — carving up their donated corpses and flipping them to macabre freaks and cannibals with PayPal accounts and Etsy storefronts.

They weren’t even hiding it very carefully, strongly suggesting that Cedric felt untouchable — a tenured ghoul in Harvard’s cathedral crypt. The paper trail was practically gift-wrapped. Investigators found 39 online payments from one Pennsylvania ‘collector,’ Joshua Taylor, totaling $37,000 — averaging $950 per body part in Harvard’s unaccredited human Etsy store. The memo lines were as subtle as a shallow grave, like “head number 7,” or “braiiiiiins” (only $200).

It’s one thing to run a black-market organ operation; it’s another to do it with PayPal and cheeky zombie jokes.

It’s hard to imagine how Harvard somehow never noticed. Cedric’s customers advertised openly, all over the Internet:

Cedric, now 57, has good lawyers, and they pleaded him down to one count of corpse trafficking. Thank Heavens, he still faces up to ten years.

So let’s recap. At the self-anointed high altar of American intellect: the nudger-in-chief of behavioral compliance was faking data about honesty, the morgue manager was trafficking human remains with horror-movie license plates, and the school itself is now facing an existential reckoning from the one man they’ve spent years undermining and calling apostate—Donald Trump.

This isn’t just irony. It’s institutional poetry. Veritas may still be etched in stone on Harvard’s seal, but the place operates more like a zombified cathedral now—haunted by the long-evicted ghost of its Christian moral roots, and re-animated by prestige, power, and whatever’s left of donor cadavers they weren’t shipped out in Cedric’s Subaru.

If these stories represent the moral compass of the expert class, no wonder Trump went to war with them. He’s not smashing sacred idols. He’s flipping the breaker on a rotting pagan temple lit by lies and liturgical technocrats. It’s animated by the slowly decaying shreds of its historical prestige, but the institution is long dead inside.

If Harvard needs a federally funded study to understand why people drink coffee, maybe it’s to stay awake through the stench of its own rotting credibility. Veritas.

Now. When can I start work? I have my first cup of extra-strong java right here. And unlike certain researchers in Cambridge, ahem, I didn’t make it up.

🔥🔥🔥

For our final Harvard tie-in: it’s Bad News! The Guardian ran an astonishing story yesterday that should get about a million times more attention than it did, except for its narrative inconvenience. The article’s headline advised, “Planet’s darkening oceans pose threat to marine life, scientists say.” Oh boy. Now what?

“Satellite data and numerical modeling,” the Guardian informed readers, “revealed that more than a fifth of the global ocean darkened between 2003 and 2022, reducing the band of water that life reliant on sunlight and moonlight can thrive.”

In simpler words, over 19 years, more than a fifth of the ocean’s living space has been squeezed into an ever-shrinking strip — because sunlight can’t reach it anymore. Remember that: less sunlight.

The article was curiously unconcerned with the knock-on effects. But it is potentially catastrophic. Phytoplankton rely on sunlight for photosynthesis. If the ‘photic zone’ shrinks, phytoplankton habitats shrink. Less phytoplankton means less food for zooplankton. That means less global oxygen production, since phytoplankton make ~50% of Earth’s oxygen.

I’ll say it again: The photic zone — the sunlit top ~200 meters of the ocean — is where 90% of marine life exists and where phytoplankton produce half of the world’s oxygen. It’s kind of a big deal if it keeps getting smaller.

Species that depend on specific light levels, temperature gradients, or stable food chains may go extinct locally or globally. Beloved coral reefs are vulnerable. Genetic diversity could shrink as specialist species lose their ecological niches. Fish stocks may decline due to bottom-up food chain collapse. Whales, seabirds, and larger predators could suffer secondary losses.

In other words, it is exactly the kind of brooding ecological disaster that is the corporate media’s bread and butter. Usually.

But this ecological catastrophe? Media is strangely muted. There were no fiery New York Times op-eds, no scolding Greta on a yacht, no emergency UN summit featuring Bono, drone light shows, and holograms. You’d think that “a fifth of the ocean going dim” would be good for at least a TikTok explainer or a climate anxiety segment on NPR.

The problem, you see, is this particular crisis isn’t photogenic. There’s no smokestack villain. No SUV to shame. And worst of all — it whispers an awkward, unwelcome question: what’s blocking the sunlight?

Some of you probably know where I’m headed.

“And the second angel sounded … and the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died.

— Revelation 8:8-9.

🔥 For years, Bill Gates has funded ‘global warming research’ through, wait for it, Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program. The long-standing project proposes using calcium carbonate or sulfate aerosols to reflect solar radiation. The controversial program has been paused several times, due to public opposition, logistical concerns, indigenous groups, and increasingly rare ‘real’ environmentalists.

In other words, they just needed to find some compliant third-world countries where conducting these types of experiments is … easier. No international treaty bans SRM testing. A 2010 UN moratorium was non-binding, and even that was hollowed out with exceptions for “small-scale scientific research.” There’s nobody to intervene if someone fogs the sky over Uganda under the guise of “solar light scattering analytics.”

It’s not like Harvard or Gates put their names on it. NGOs, university grants, foundations, and fly-by-night “climate research” firms can do all the dirty work.

Harvard euphemistically describes the idea of spraying reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to dim the sun (cool the Earth) as Solar Radiation Management (SRM). Imagine the incomprehensible hubris of thinking they can manage the Sun.

Not that they noticed, but the timeline cited in the Guardian’s study (2003–2022) overlaps almost perfectly with increased SRM research and “small scale” field trials. The media pretends not to notice because no one wants to say it out loud. The implications would blow a volcano-sized hole in the climate intervention narrative and ignite regulatory hellfire.

🔥 Meanwhile, reports of atmospheric haze, reflective sky phenomena, and “milky” sun halos have cropped up globally in the past decade, especially post-2015. Aluminum, barium, and strontium — all known candidates for aerosol geoengineering — have turned up in rainwater sampling and soil studies.

And, of course, the chemtrails. Skywatchers constantly complain about increased aviation patterns at high altitudes during “non-traffic” periods, and about bizarre, persistent contrail patterns that slowly expand into a thin grey morass that smears the sky instead of evaporating.

Chemtrails are practically mainstream now. They’re not even denying it anymore. Two days ago, Phys.org ran a story headlined, “Florida bill would ban 'chemtrails' and 'geoengineering.' But what are they?”

“Geoengineering—also known as climate engineering—refers to large-scale efforts to combat climate change,” the article explained, “including proposals to fire small reflective aluminum particles into the air to act as mirrors and deflect the sun's rays away from Earth.”

The story quoted Stanford atmospheric scientist Mark Jacobson — no backwoods tinfoil hat wearer — who called solar geoengineering a “horrible idea,” warning that “reducing sunlight reduces photosynthesis,” which could lead to mass crop failure and global starvation. But so what? Climate change!

🔥 They don’t always call it SRM. That’s Harvard’s preferred label. Governments and defense agencies have a long, Orwellian history of using dual-purpose research and thesaurus-heavy relabeling programs, like “atmospheric opacity studies,” “solar albedo field experiments,” and “high-altitude particulate distribution models.”

The Guardian tells us that 21% of the global ocean has darkened since 2003 — compressing the photic zone where 90% of marine life lives and where phytoplankton churn out oxygen and food like an unseen but absolutely essential factory.

So … if even small-scale atmospheric dimming — like from volcanic eruptions — can lower the amount of light reaching the surface, what happens when high-altitude planes release solar-reflective particles directly into the stratosphere? The answer is: they don’t know. That’s why they are testing it, dummy. Here’s NOAA’s helpful diagram:

So let’s put a bow on it. This week, Harvard gave us the full syllabus of civilizational rot: a tenured professor of honesty caught falsifying honesty data; a morgue manager shipping faces and hands to gothic craft stores; and now, a planet whose oceans are going dark from lack of sunlight — possibly from geoengineering experiments cooked up by the same technocratic priesthood that once taught ethics from behind ivy-covered walls.

The truth is, the same elite institutions trafficking in nudges and necromancy now want to manage the Sun itself with aerosol mirrors and solar behavioral compliance. Harvard used to illuminate minds; now it’s blocking the literal sunlight — literally and figuratively. A once-Christian university, it now runs occult rituals in lab coats, darkening both the heavens and the seas in the name of science. It’s not just a decline. It’s a descent — an institutional Fall, wrapped in prestige, powered by grant money, and hurtling toward Revelation not with trumpets, but with budgets.

I’m sorry to say it, but Harvard’s destruction couldn’t come a moment too soon.

Have a wonderful Wednesday! We’ll be back tomorrow, with good news, punchy metaphors, and essential snarky commentary.

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