☕️ PUBLIC HEALTH ISN’T ☙ Saturday, September 27, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

A traveling special edition: it is time to end public health. For good.

Good morning, C&C, it’s Saturday! I’m hotel blogging again, but I must commend this facility for its 24/7 lobby coffee shop, a policy that I heartily endorse— and if I weren’t generally opposed to mandates, I would nominate that policy for urgent consideration. That said, due to some jet lag, friction from hotel blogging, and speaker’s time pressures, today’s post is a tight special edition that argues for ending public health completely.

🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍

🔥🔥🔥

Yesterday, during two speaking appearances, I debuted a new C&C priority, which I hope you’ll share. It sprang into being after Charlie Kirk’s killing. At first, I thought the feeling might just be heartburn, or possibly an allergic reaction to hearing Jasmine Crockett’s whiny voice on a news clip, but when it persisted beyond rational measure, I realized deeper emotional forces were in play. It was, in fact, an effervescence of the terrible, inexpressible grief I felt over Charlie Kirk’s murder, bubbling into a conviction to act, a commitment to strike a blow for an assassinated battlefield comrade.

Today I declare: Let’s end the scourge of public health. We’ll start with the name itself.

“Public Health” is an intellectually insulting fake name for a Trojan Horse designed to smuggle in a corps of communist claptrap. That two-word phrase should never be uttered by serious people, except perhaps as an epithet or the punchline of a sarcastic joke.

Q: What’s everywhere but nowhere at all, intensely painful, insanely expensive, and somehow always your fault?

A: Public health.

🔥 Marxists have two main strategies for advancing their murderous beliefs. First, they lie without shame or remorse, and with the same enthusiasm as they have for stealing everything that isn’t nailed down. In short, communism is the only ideology that succeeds by always pretending to be something else.

Second —building upon the first strategy of dishonesty— they lyingly manipulate language. To paraphrase the classic metaphor: ma’am, there is no bottom turtle of meaning. It’s linguistic trickery all the way down.

Take “social justice,” for example. What, exactly, does that mean? Who knows. Google the phrase ten times, and you’ll find ten different definitions. All we know for sure at this point is that “social justice” is not “justice.”

“Justice” is justice. It is self-explanatory and requires no modifiers. But progressive have given us this:

Indeed, by definition, regular justice is colorblind, class-neutral, and unbiased. Tilting the scales in any way creates something different from justice, something unjust. “Social justice” is a stupid oxymoron, like “definitely maybe,” “seriously funny,” or “unbiased opinion.”

What “social justice” really means is “redistribution,” or taking something that’s not yours without paying for it. In other words: stealing. Including the word “social” to “justice” is an insulting inversion, a rhetorical Trojan Horse that distracts the listener’s brain so that they won’t notice when the Marxist’s hand slips into their pocketbook.

🔥 Or consider the pretty-sounding, confusing, and ultimately dishonest phrase “gender affirming care.” It sounds great. But nothing about the term is true. It’s not care, it’s castration. It’s not affirming, it’s a self-humiliation ritual. It’s not even gender, since the villains who use the phrase consider gender to be a made-up social construct that doesn’t actually exist.

Whenever a positive, morally charged word —like justice, safety, care, or health— mysteriously acquires a modifying adjective —social justice, community safety, transgender care, public health— then the adjective is where the Marxism is hiding out. The positive base word is the armored Trojan Horse— who can oppose ‘justice’?

A dead giveaway is that nobody can ever plainly define these modified phrases without using equally indecipherable buzzwords. So the terms can mean whatever the people using them need at the moment.

Linguistic flexibility is the point. That fuzziness is how the term “public health” can balloon to include anything that affects a group— i.e., essentially everything. The squishy term swallows: bugs as food, gun control, climate change, illegal immigration, taxpayer-funded housing, “misinformation” agencies, digital IDs— everything except literal hammers and sickles.

Public health is so flexible it can even justify seemingly irrational policies, like giving fresh hypodermics to drug addicts, serving whiskey sours to alcoholics, and handing camping tents to homeless vagrants. San Francisco Chronicle, 2019:

The article perplexingly reported both that “the city handed out a record 5.8 million free syringes last year — about 500,000 more than in 2017,” but also said “there are about 24,500 injection drug users in San Francisco — about 8,500 more people than students enrolled in San Francisco Unified School — an increase of about 2,000 serious drug users since 2012.”

So … needles increased, and also drug addicts increased. Ta-da! It’s another public health success! Measured only in terms of the volume of free needles handed out, not in the number of addicts healed or lives restored.

This fundamental irrationality is the hideous trick, the demonic deception. The truth is, they don’t care about the addicts. Individual addicts are as disposable as the needles. The stated “goal” is to drive down community HIV rates, slightly, like by two-tenths of one percent. Nobody ever asks whether that slight improvement in HIV rates outweighs the harms to every single addict who is, injection by injection, pushed further into hopeless addiction.

Actually driving down HIV rates isn’t even strictly necessary, since the hypodermic programs march on, zombie-like, even as HIV rates increase. That means we must give out MORE needles! Only the intention seems to matter. Nobody ever gets fired. Funding always increases. Addicts become sicker and more addicted. Rinse and repeat.

🔥 Treating “public health” with maximum fairness, it supposedly means healthcare at the community or population level, administered by government agencies instead of by individual doctors treating individual patients. So, in that sense, it represents a vast bureaucracy aimed at providing “government healthcare” to the entire public. Advocates cite examples like pandemic preparedness and nudging citizens toward healthier choices.

But the same advocates will readily concede that public healthcare is completely different from private healthcare. Private —traditional— healthcare presumes that a clinician evaluates each patient’s unique medical situation and prescribes a particularized program to heal them.

On the other hand, public healthcare presumes one-size-fits-all solutions can be liberally applied to everyone, not necessarily resulting in any individual health improvement, but rather an ‘improvement’ in some rarified statistical sense, using some cherry-picked metric. The entire population feels better on average.

So, even using their own definition, “public health” is not actually public, since it’s run by government. It’s not transparent—you can’t see the raw data. It’s not accountable—you can’t sue it for damages. It’s not operated by anyone the public ever got to vote for. And it’s not “health,” since the programs are never evaluated based on whether anyone’s health actually improves.

But private health initiatives are shuttered as soon as it becomes obvious they aren’t working, for fear of lawsuits if for no other reason. Public health initiatives operate more like perpetual motion machines running in a vacuum of unaccountability.

Put simply, public health is not health. It’s social control. Worst of all, this social control is the same kind of banal, bureaucratic evil that embraces the hideous, utilitarian premise that making omelets requires breaking a few eggs. Wake up! We are the eggs!

In private medicine, a single avoidable death is a tragedy and is grounds for malpractice. In public health, deaths and injuries are quietly written off as acceptable collateral damage— so long as the cherry-picked chart can be “adjusted” till it tilts overall in the “right” direction. Obviously, harumph harumph, no vaccine is perfectly safe. Quit complaining.

In other words, the beatings will continue until health improves.

🔥 It is past time to retire “public health.” In the United States, chronic disease has steadily increased right along with steady increases in public resources poured into public health (now approaching 18% of GDP). Meanwhile, nations that have not increased their public health spending have not experienced increased rates of chronic disease like we have.

Until someone comes up with a better explanation, it appears that the more we spend on government social control (aka ‘public health’), the sicker we get. Correlation may not be proof of causation, but it is evidence of causation.

Remember: Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, while expecting a different result.

Finally, the very notion of paternalistic public health is internally inconsistent. On the one hand, the government says you are competent to sit on a jury and decide whether a particular vaccine causes injuries. But on the other hand, you aren’t competent to decide whether that same vaccine goes into your body or not. Make it make sense.

So, let us revive the neglected notion of private health. Call it individual health or even just “health.” Whatever.

But either way, let us now euthanise “public health”— completely, and for good. Shut it down. The age of public health and of grinding citizens down into averages is over.

🔥 Coda: Anticipating critics: I am not arguing against common-sense practices like sanitation. For Heaven’s sake, let’s keep water treatment and garbage collection; I only want to call them what they are: “sanitation.” Ending “public health” isn’t even necessarily anti-vaccine; people can decide for themselves. Return vaccine decisions to the private doctor-patient relationship where they belong, and let vaccine makers absorb liabilities for injuries like any other manufactured product.

🔥🔥🔥

In an interview with Nancy Mace this week, Bill Maher (of all people) made an incredibly insightful point. He pointed out that, for fifteen long years, the media has ignored an actual genocide in Nigeria, where muslim Boko Haram has murdered over 100,000 Christians and burned 18,000 churches. For some reason, corporate media covers attacks against muslims (e.g., in Gaza) with breathless, minute-by-minute reporting.

CLIP: Bill Maher stands up for Nigerian Christians when nobody else on the left will (0:47).

You’d think the virtue-signaling reporters would home in on all ethnic cleansing. But corporate media can’t seem to find much column interest for bigger, longer-running, and more devastating ethnic cleansing when minority Christians are the victims and majority muslims are the villains.

Maher was right. Where are all the skulls full of mush on college campuses protesting the Nigerian genocide, or protesting the murderous rampages against tens or hundreds of thousands of Christians in places like Syria, Congo, Myanmar, or Armenia (just to name a few)?

At some point, one begins to suspect that many folks are not really opposed to genocide, per se, but are just politically motivated poseurs. I’m happy to discuss Gaza, anytime, but I want to discuss muslim genocide, too.

Have a wonderful weekend! Coffee & Covid will be back on Monday, back at HQ, with a regular roundup of essential news and 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