quote:

Consider the following: you’re waiting for your morning coffee at the local café. While standing with other customers, a healthcare official authorized to administer a covered countermeasure walks in and injects everyone in the coffee shop without asking or otherwise obtaining consent

I know this is conjecture, but speaking personally, anyone trying such a thing would be at great risk of a fatal lead injection.

quote:

speaking personally, anyone trying such a thing would be at great risk of a fatal lead injection.

Yes, as well they should be.
Which is all the more reason that public schools cannot/should not force-vaccinate their (our) children. More parents have to stand up.

quote:

More parents have to stand up.

Not just parents. Entire communities.

Municipal elections that decide these things see a 10-15% turnout of registered voters.

In St. Louis County we got 14% turnout on Tuesday. For the first time ever, our local Republican organization could not recommend a school board candidate. All of them are captured and a rubber stamp for the teachers union. There's no point for a conservative running in such a low turnout election. There is an effort to move the school board elections to November, but the out-state reps like it the way it is and don't see the problem.

The Houston VA has a job opening for medical equipment repair. I was going to apply until I saw that they require both a flu shot and a covid vaccine for employment and I refuse to get either of them.

Who's reading the 500+ page after-action report?

Googling Covid shows all the usual suspects in extreme damage control. They’re narrative is unraveling.

Void his pardon and prosecute that bastard.

Or prosecute Dr. I Am Science under state laws for conspiracy. The Federal Pardon doesn’t apply to state charges.

quote:

The Federal Pardon doesn’t apply to state charges.

Exactly! That's what Louisiana did yesterday, indicting this child killer scumbag, seeking the death penalty, whose federal death sentence was commuted by FJB.

Anthony Fauci’s fortune doubled to $15 million between early 2019 and 2023, watchdog finds: ‘During worst of COVID lockdowns’
By Ryan King
Published April 21, 2025, 3:10 p.m. ET


Dr. Anthony Fauci’s fortune doubled — hitting about $15 million — between early 2019 and the end of 2023 over the course of the pandemic, including “during the worst of the draconian COVID lockdowns,’’ according to records obtained by a watchdog group.

Fauci’s net worth was about $7.6 million in January 2019 before COVID-19 hit and surged to about $15 million by the end of 2023, 141 pages of financial-disclosure forms obtained by watchdog group Open The Books revealed.

The doctor, who previously helmed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, officially left the government at the start of 2023, later than previously known.

His first year of retirement was especially lucrative — when he earned more than $3.5 million alone, the records show.

“Dr. Fauci’s assets soared during the worst of the draconian Covid lockdowns while families and small businesses struggled through school closures and lost income,” Open the Books CEO John Hart said in a statement.

https://nypost.com/2025/04/21/...demic-assets-soared/

^^^ I'd really like to see him rot in prison, but it was enough to buy a "full and unconditional pardon".

I’m still hoping the autopen pardons turn out to be unconstitutional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqH-9kZZcqA

Preposterous!

I remember when a few brave and honest hospital workers were telling us that the covid related death numbers were vastly over exaggerated. They were either attacked or ignored. I hope that someday the scope of this scam becomes so unassailable that the scum that foisted this lie on all of us have no refuge from retribution.

Study reveals new heart health concerns from COVID vaccine


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3Kh99pZnn4

Yesterday, the Boston Globe ran a story headlined, “RFK Jr. will order ‘placebo’ testing for new vaccines, alarming health experts.” What would we do without alarmed health experts? Is there any other kind? Anyway, not only was the Globe’s article another fine example of journalistic malpractice, but for careful readers, it accidentally cut the vaccine industrial complex’s femoral artery.

On some future day, aging medical school doctors will look back on our time, and tell their fresh-faced students how, back in the day, pharma firms used to test vaccines by leaving them out overnight and seeing whether they were still there in the morning. If the wee vaccine fairies didn’t spirit the needles away in the small hours, then Bob’s your uncle: approved.

I exaggerate, but just barely.

Yesterday, Secretary Kennedy and HHS made what could be the simplest but most impactful announcement in American history (if you count in total life-years-saved). From now on, with limited exceptions (like the annual flu shot), the FDA will require all vaccines —including those already on the schedule— to be tested against an inert placebo, like pure saline.

“All new vaccines will undergo safety testing in placebo-controlled trials prior to licensure — a radical departure from past practices,” an HHS spokesperson told The Washington Post.

Haha, you innocent doves are probably naive enough to think that’s already how it works. You were living your lives with aplomb, bing-watching reboots of 1980’s television classics with your loved ones, arguing about the meaning of life with AI chatbots, and generally minding your own business in the blissful ignorance of trust in scientists to use common sense, and believing to the core of your beings that of course they are testing all new medicines against placebos.

It’s not like they can go around comparing new shots to injecting people with bleach or arsenic, you probably thought. How else can they determine efficacy and safety?

You trusted that they were doing the work. You gullible dopes actually believed they weren’t just chanting “supercalifragilistic” ten times and hoping for the best.

But no. Here’s the giveaway: despite the article’s main theme was about how testing against placebos alarms experts, the Globe never bothered to explain how vaccines are currently tested. If non-placebo testing is so wonderful, then why didn’t that information come first, right up front? But that bit was conspicuously absent, concealed behind empty technical jargon and meaningless buzzwords like “correlates of protection” and “biological responses.”

Nearly every other drug except for vaccines must succeed against a placebo. But under long-standing FDA regulations, vaccines are excepted. They are not tested against placebos. They are usually tested against other vaccines, or (I am not making this up) against heavy-metal solutions, creating a kind of jabby feedback loop. Old vaccines, already approved, are assumed to be safe and effective. So if your new vaccine’s side effect profile is no worse than the old vaccine you’re testing against, then shazam, you have a winner. It’s safe!

Sometimes, new vaccines are even tested against older versions of the same vaccine, and sometimes the FDA will allow pharma to test a new jab against itself.

Not only that, but they don’t even test for efficacy anymore by measuring whether the drug actually reduces the disease or prevents hospitalizations. They just test whether victims’ immune systems produce certain antibodies. If so, they assume that also means fewer people will be hospitalized for the disease, which is a classic but oddly-named logical fallacy called “begging the question.”

They know it’s circular reasoning, yet they all keep pretending “everything is going to be fine.”

But now it’s all over. Placebos are back! You are probably feeling relieved and thinking, good, at least we have that debate settled, glad we have all behind us now. Sorry! Au contraire, mon ami. We must now deal with the experts.

The experts, you see, do not agree that any of this is common sense. It’s right in the headline: placebo testing policy alarms experts. But why? Why are they so alarmed? Wait till you see this.

“Vaccine and public health experts,” reported the Globe, “said the statement from HHS is misinformation.” So. The experts offered three basic arguments. First, they argued it’s unethical to withhold a “known” vaccine from people who need protection (they always offer kids and measles as their example). Second, placebo-controlled trials are expensive and take longer than antibody trials, potentially slowing vaccines’ time to market. And third, they unironically argued some drugs might not make it.

Michael Osterholm, the University of Minnesota infectious-disease expert on Biden’s transition team, said the change threatened the existence of coronavirus vaccines. I’m not sure Osterholm realized what he was admitting there. If covid jabs can’t survive a placebo-controlled trial, then… they shouldn’t be sold. Again, it’s common sense, doc.

Jab salesman and former FDA advisory board member Dr. Paul Offit viewed improved transparency and higher safety standards as threats. “You are watching the gradual dissolution of the vaccine infrastructure in this country,” Offit said, without any exaggeration whatsoever. But Offit’s quote was another accidental confession. If the entire system collapses under the weight of gold-standard testing, then what we had before wasn’t science to begin with. It was a house of gold-plated cards held up by blind trust in bureaucratic shortcuts.

The Globe and the rest of corporate media studiously ignored a very basic problem with all the experts’ arguments: the simple fact that all other drugs require placebo testing. So any ethics concerns, delays in releasing, additional expense, and ‘risks’ of non-approval are equally applicable to all other medicines. Somehow, for all other drugs except vaccines, placebo testing is considered not just acceptable but de rigueur.

What jab experts need to explain isn’t why placebo trials are ‘too risky’ — it’s why vaccines get a hall pass while new blood thinners, cancer drugs, and antidepressants must run the full gauntlet. If a heart drug that could save millions is required to beat a sugar pill in a fair fight, why not a shot you’re giving to a perfectly healthy infant?

It’s such a basic question that a child could ask it: Why should vaccines get different treatment from every other drug? And yet, not one corporate media outlet reporting on HHS’s new placebo standard dared to touch that critical distinction. Combine that with their complete omission of how vaccines are currently tested — or not tested — and it’s obvious: this wasn’t journalism.

It was institutional propaganda dressed in bylines and pull quotes. As a critical reader, always ask yourself: What obvious issue is the article conveniently overlooking?

The experts aren’t afraid that RFK Jr. is wrong— they’re afraid he’s right. They are terrified the public might start noticing how little scrutiny vaccines have actually received compared to every other drug on the market. If experts were confident in the science, they’d welcome placebo trials as vindication. Fine, go ahead and do your little placebo trials, you’ll see we were right all along. Their panic tells you they’re not afraid of being disproven — they’re afraid of being exposed.

This simple policy change was much more than a first step. It was a seismic move. With only a little luck, it could change everything.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com...rue&utm_medium=email