☕️ SAFE ☙ Friday, January 12, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Terrific federal order forces CDC to cough up side effect data; Jewish students sue Harvard for discrimination; Trump judges swatted; Middle East war widening; and mainstream headline attacks jabs.

Good morning and Happy Friday, C&C! Lots of legal news in today’s excellent roundup: terrific new decision forces the CDC to cough up jab side effect data; Jewish students sue Harvard and it may take eviscerate the equity movement; Trump judges swatted along with a lot of other folks; Middle East war widens with broad attacks on Yemen; and a remarkable Daily Mail headline signals jabs wall of media protection may be crumbling.

🗞💬 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 💬🗞

🔥 You’re going to love and hate this story — but mostly love. On January 5th, in Freedom Coalition of Doctors for Choice v. Centers for Disease Control, et al, a Texas federal court gave the CDC a twelve-month rolling deadline to cough up all the “free-text” entries from its V-SAFE vaccine side-effect tracking database.

It was surely the most important decision of this year (so far). It may ultimately be ranked among the most important of the pandemic’s court decisions. To start, the Court declined to believe the giga-funded health agency’s sworn affidavit that redacting those side-effect documents would take 59 years.

V-safe is similar to but different from VAERS; it is a smartphone-based app allowing vaccine recipients to enroll and report their (or their child’s) health status after vaccination. Users get a confidential registrant number to protect their privacy, and for 12-months after each shot the system regularly sends texts prompting folks to sign in and report how they’re doing. Each check-in collects two types of data: a series of generic check boxes asking high-level questions about pain at the injection site, chills, headaches, et cetera, and a 250-character free-text field where users can type out any other feedback.

Any other feedback like myocarditis, rashes, blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, or death. The CDC ensured serious adverse events would be limited to the difficult-to-search free text field and not show up in an easy-to-check box.

By the time the CDC suddenly and unexpectedly pulled the plug on the V-safe program last May, it had collected 7.8 million text entries.

Despite initially promising to promptly make the V-safe data public, the CDC has instead been guarding the V-safe data like it is made out of gold. CDC stubbornly refused to release any V-safe data — privacy! — except on a limited basis to a couple friendly teams of CDC-affiliated scientists. It released the ‘check the box’ part of the data in September 2022 to ICAN — but only after a lawsuit and a court order.  In January of last year, the Plaintiff in this case asked the CDC for the free-text entries.

It’s taken a full year.

One of the most remarkable things about last week’s order was how skeptical the judge seemed about nearly everything the CDC said. The public’s loss of trust in the health agency apparently extends to the judicial branch. Judges are part of the public, after all. The order even referenced the disgraceful loss of trust, ironically noting that “While 'Trust the Science’ became something of a national slogan, the American public’s trust in science and scientists are at an all-time low.”

Ouch!

The Plaintiff is a non-profit formed specifically to get the V-safe data and make it available to the public on its website, www.drsforchoice.org. Now that they have an order, the first batch of V-safe entries should be released to the public on February 15th.

Warning signs for the CDC started appearing early in the order. In addition to snarking about the CDC’s loss of public trust, by page 12 (out of 30), the court had also footnoted Francis Collin’s recent mea culpa, where the NIH director loonily admitted that public health people shouldn’t be in charge of important decisions. The Court wrote:

In 2024, American citizens may be more interested in COVID data following Dr. Francis Collins’s statements on the “public-health mindset”: “If you’re a public-health person and you’re trying to make a decision, you have this very narrow view of what the right decision is, and that is something that will save a life. It doesn’t matter what else happens. So you attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach a zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people’s lives, ruins the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never quite recovered from … This is a public-health mindset. And I think a lot of us involved in trying to make those recommendations had that mindset, and that was really unfortunate. It’s another mistake we made. Okay.”

Stop for a second. Those of you who were annoyed when Collins said that but nothing happened to him — this happened. Collins thought his silly statement would make him look good somehow (our fault was we just cared too much!). But his half-baked, half-hearted, half-witted admission is now showing up in crucial court orders.

This high-stakes game we are playing is a game of inches. Be patient.

Next, the Court began using skeptical language suggesting it thinks the CDC lies like a rug, or a dog, or a Pelosi. The Court considered the CDC’s sworn claim that it would take one of its analysts fifty-nine years to review all the 7.8 million text entries for private information, which came to 650,000 pages, and said, yeah, that’s your own fault:

To this lawyer’s eyes, that last comment about overestimating — wholly unnecessary to the order — stuck out like a sore injection site. The Court didn’t just say the CDC overestimated the number of pages; it said the CDC excessively overestimated the number of pages.

That’s how the judge calls you a liar without calling you a liar.

Then the Court began analyzing whether forcing the CDC to cough up the V-safe data was in the public interest, and here is where the order really began to soar. Enjoy these remarkable comments, and contrast this calm, collected judicial reasoning to the media’s position on the vaccines:

Plaintiff argues that release of the data is essential for myriad reasons. Some groups contend they were injured by the vaccine, and without access to the underlying data they cannot meaningfully seek coverage or treatment. Some parents are hesitant to consent — or even believe they are incapable of consenting — for their minor children to receive the vaccine. Production of the source material is essential for independent researchers to evaluate the vaccines and for medical professionals to provide meaningful treatment to their patients.

Rapid vaccination of a huge percentage of the American population is nothing short of astounding, and the endeavor continues. As of May 11, 2023, the CDC reports that more than 81% of Americans have received at least one dose, including nearly 32 million children. Understandably, there is substantial public interest in the data that supported, and continues to support, the government’s promotion of the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.

After describing how important the data was to the public interest, the judge moved on to the CDC’s V-safe “studies,” of which he seemed to take an exceptionally dim view:

Notably, Plaintiff points to several studies published and presented by CDC that rely upon on the V-safe data. All but one of those studies considered only the first seven days after receiving a vaccine, and the only study that looked beyond the first week considered just two weeks. Defendants do not contest this. Rather, Defendants dismiss the limited scope of the published studies as just “the time period that some scientists have chosen to use in their research studies.”

Because Defendants structured V-safe to collect health and symptomatic responses for a full year after a vaccine or booster, reviewing that data is of great importance to the public. If “some scientists” — sponsored or platformed by Defendants — “have chosen to use” only the first week or two of data to report the vaccine is safe and effective, then other scientists should be permitted to access the data to “pierce the veil of administrative secrecy,” “open agency action to the light of public scrutiny,” and “promote the disclosure of information.”

Many of the policies previously addressed were enacted because of guidance from Defendants. With billions of taxpayer dollars expended to develop, distribute, administer, and fund messaging campaigns, Plaintiff assumes a hefty and viable public interest in examining the raw clinical data. Production of the free-text data will permit independent researchers to put the government agencies to their proof by considering all of the available data.

Plaintiff has shown an urgent need to inform the public about “actual or alleged Federal Government activity” — namely, related to the health and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and policies.

The judge continued, suggesting that some of the CDC’s published V-safe studies might actually be misleading:

Plaintiff marshalled evidence that some vaccine studies may be misleading or based upon cherry-picked data. One study reported that only 0.8% to 1.1% of users reported needing medical care according to the check-the-box data. However, when the raw data was released pursuant to separate FOIA litigation, it showed some 7.7% of V-safe users reported needing medical care and an additional 25% missing school or work or unable to perform normal activities. Similarly, Plaintiff alleges the check-the-box data captures only the “symptoms CDC says are normal to occur after vaccination and are actually a sign the vaccine is working.” Thus, collecting that data and then profiling the vaccine as safe and effective was a “pointless” exercise. Any concerning symptoms would necessarily be restricted to only the free-text responses, to date unexamined by independent researchers not sponsored by Defendants.

Plaintiff (has) presented evidence that calls into question the claim that the vaccines are safe and effective — or at least the scope of research supporting that claim.

The Court concluded by ordering the CDC to produce all 7.8 million entries over the next 12 months, starting with 390,000 a month and expanding to 780,000 per month.

Now let’s consider some of the order’s implications.

First of all, we know this must be bad news for the jabs because, had the V-safe data shown the vaccines were safe and effective, the CDC would have already released the data. (We can ignore the CDC’s bogus claims about its alleged 59-year effort to review the data, since the court already dealt with that.) It is vexing that a publicly-funded health bureaucracy used taxpayer money to protect big pharma from the reality of its defective products by dragging out the release of this information for two years.

But the data is finally coming out. Add this order to the list of other eye-popping disclosures last week. It’s starting to look like 2024 could be a lot more productive — and a lot less apocalyptic — than we thought.

🔥 The successful campaign to remove Harvard’s woke, underqualified, diversity-hire president apparently is not the end of the story. Two days ago, a 77-page religious discrimination complaint was filed in Federal Court against the President and Fellows of Harvard College.

The second paragraph — especially its final sentence — neatly summarized the complaint’s allegations:

Harvard’s antisemitism cancer—as a past Harvard president termed it—manifests itself in a double standard invidious to Jews. Harvard selectively enforces its policies to avoid protecting Jewish students from harassment, hires professors who support anti-Jewish violence and spread antisemitic propaganda, and ignores Jewish students’ pleas for protection. Those professors teach and advocate through a binary oppressor-oppressed lens, through which Jews, one of history’s most persecuted peoples, are typically designated “oppressor,” and therefore unworthy of support or sympathy. Harvard permits students and faculty to advocate, without consequence, the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish country in the world. Meanwhile, Harvard requires students to take a training class that warns that they will be disciplined if they engage in sizeism, fatphobia, racism, transphobia, or other disfavored behavior.

Similar to the Francis Collins comment, you may have thought the Ivy League Presidents’ awful Congressional testimony was a dead-end, or at most caused some abrupt employment changes for the participating presidents. But I suspected a larger, anti-woke movement had been awakened by the arrogance and hypocrisy of the woke, virtue-signaling academics, who give more care to a tiny group of entitled transexuals while dismissing a people group that has actually endured historical repression and discrimination.

For a moment, set aside issues of whether or not the modern State of Israel is a force for good in the world, or whether the Mossad ran Jeffrey Epstein, and even darker theories. Jewish Americans are not bombing Gaza, so we don’t need to embroil Israel’s war decisions into this analysis. What almost all of us can agree on is unlike other ‘victim groups,’ the Jews have a real claim to really having been oppressed, and quite badly, at various points in history.

Which is why the double-standard described in this new complaint is not just about anti-semitism but is rapidly dissolving the whole woke infrastructure by proving it was nothing but a mirage. Jews thought they lived safely under the Left’s woke victim umbrella. But once the controversy over the Gaza war appeared on the scene, Jewish Americans quickly found out the hard way they are not victims after all, but are privileged oppressors to the Left.

Some people are upset because it looks to them like Jews are opportunistically changing sides — maybe they are — and because they suspect this woke response against the Academy is just garden-variety Jewish anti-defamation. I disagree; I think what is happening is much bigger than that. The Jews — by necessity — are leading the charge against the Ivory Tower.

This lawsuit may represent another crack in the DEI dam that brings down the entire reprehensible edifice.

🔥 CNBC ran a story yesterday with the awkwardly-worded headline, “Trump fraud trial judge home was swatting target, police say.” Uh oh.

Yesterday morning somebody sent an email to a local paper with a bomb threat against Judge Arthur Engoran, who is the judge prosecuting Trump’s “inflated real estate value” case. The newspaper then reported the threat to the Nassau County Police Department, which sent a SWAT team to Judge Engoran’s house and various forms of excitement ensued.

Engoran wasn’t the only one. On Sunday night, police and fire trucks responded to a false report of a shooting at the Washington, D.C., the home of U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is handling one of the Trump election-insurrection cases. On Christmas Day, DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith also became an attempted swatting victim. Smith is prosecuting Trump in the D.C. case that Chutkan is handling, as well as the Florida classified documents case.

It’s not just Trump judges though. Over the last year, a whole bunch of Republicans have been swatted, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, who’s been swatted at least three times now.  It’s not just politicians, either. BET reported that rapper Cardi B was swatted in August last year. And of course, every single day, regular folks get swatted, as 11-Alive Georgia reported yesterday about a Fulton County woman.

President Trump made part of his own closing argument yesterday, even though Judge Engoran initially ruled against it. (The judge must have decided he didn’t want to give Trump an argument for an appeal.) After the trial, President Trump gave a press conference, and accurately said all the litigation against him was Biden’s “new form of cheating.”

CLIP: Trump says all the cases were setup by democrats as their new form of cheating (0:21).

CLIP: Here’s a longer version of Trump’s post-trial press conference (10:24).

Judge Engoran already found Trump was guilty of “fraud” earlier in the case, so the trial that wrapped up yesterday was only about Trump’s punishment. The appeals court will be the next stop for the case.

🚀 The Middle East war spread a little wider yesterday. Reuters ran the story under the headline, “US and Britain strike Yemen in retaliation for Houthi attacks on shipping.” It wasn’t a small strike, either. Reuters said U.S. and British warplanes, ships and submarines launched a total of 73 air strikes across Yemen last night.

Air Force Lieutenant-General Alex Grynkewich said 60 targets at 16 separate locations were hit using more than 100 precision-guided munitions. The strikes responded to various Yemenese Houthi attacks on commercial ships. Those attacks have closed shipping lines, forcing shippers to send their cargo vessels on a longer, more expensive route around Africa. This raises fears of more inflation and more supply chain disruption that could derail the “global economic recovery.”

Corporate media widely reported that Republicans backed Biden’s decision to strike Yemen, or whoever made it, since Biden is a mental flatline and Lloyd Austin is … where is Lloyd Austin? Anyway, for example, from Fox:

Fox mainly quoted only Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell for backing Biden, hence it was only “top Republicans.” But the non-corporate media reported the exact opposite, that Republicans and Democrats were upset about the strikes. For example, from the Intercept:

The Intercept article quoted a long string of Democrat Congresspeople claiming Biden exceeded his Constitutional authority. (The legal issue seems more complicated; Biden obviously may respond to attacks on US assets, for example.) The Democrat objections may be less about the Constitution and more about their objections to the Gaza war, since the Houthis are Gazan allies. To evidence this, the first democrat mentioned in the article complaining about Biden was Rashida Talib.

But several Republicans were equally nonplussed. Marjorie Taylor Greene also showed up in the list, for instance:

Where is the Secretary of Defense? It’s been 12 days since Lloyd Austin went into the hospital. Four days ago they said he was doing well and was recovering. Is he home yet? Or is he still in the hospital? If so, why? Why haven’t we seen or heard from the Secretary himself?

I hate to be the one to ask this, but: Is Lloyd Austin still alive?

Things are kind of dicey out there in the world right now. We sort of need some stability at the top of the military. Can we maybe get a proof-of-life video? Or how about a forecast of when Austin will be back at the helm?

🔥 Finally, the UK Daily Mail shattered the vaccine shield Wednesday with this astounding headline, which was so fascinating I’m giving you the screen shot:

How about that? The headline’s a two-fer, mentioning both vaccine injury and censorship. If they’re not careful, this kind of thing might give people the impression that vaccine injuries are more common than they’re letting on and even make some folks hesitant.

The second week of January is turning out to be just as interesting as was the first week.

Have a fantastic Friday! Unlike Defense Secretary Austin, Coffee & Covid will be right back again tomorrow morning with more news and commentary.

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 🦠

Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com