Category Archives: Education

C&C. Vanderbilt. No-Bluff Putin.

Source: Coffee & Covid ☙ Wednesday, September 21, 2022 ☙ BUILD BACK WORSE


🔥 After Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire broke a terrific story yesterday about his investigation into Vanderbilt University’s appalling but apparently highly profitable medical experiments on children, Governor Bill Lee announced that the state of Tennessee will investigate the hospital.

“The ‘pediatric transgender clinic’ at Vanderbilt University Medical Center raises serious moral, ethical and legal concerns,” Governor Lee said in a statement to The Daily Wire. “We should not allow permanent, life-altering decisions that hurt children or policies that suppress religious liberties, all for the purpose of financial gain. We have to protect Tennessee children, and this warrants a thorough investigation.”

In his exposé, Matt Walsh included two video clips from whistleblowers. In the first clip, you can see and hear Nurse McKaren (“health law expert” Ellen Clayton) scolding Vanderbilt doctors who might consider raising “conscientious objections” to the hospital’s glorious new plan to revolutionize childhood through surgery.

You can do it, Karen warned, but there WILL be consequences. “If you don’t want to do this kind of work, don’t work at Vanderbilt,” she ominously comminated.

You might be wondering, how could this happen? Administrators like McKaren learned how to bully doctors during the covid pandemic. You just threaten them economically and professionally. You can make them do practically anything. You can make them refuse to give dying patients safe, cheap, effective, Nobel-prize winning medication, for one example I picked completely at random.

And now, Vanderbilt is using the same techniques to force unwilling doctors to carve up children.

DOCTORS: WHERE IS THE LINE?? Something weird has happened to their ancient, respected profession, and just recently, too. Doctors used to be understandably arrogant, holding the power of life and death in their hands, having earned their stripes through years of hard work and nearly unbearably long hours. They’d earned respect from everyone, and didn’t take orders from anybody.

But now they sit quietly and take orders from Karen, and they’d better like it. Or else she might have to talk to the manager.

In my mind’s eye, I see that clip playing out completely differently. I see Karen making her threat, “if you raise a conscientious objection, there’ll be consequences!” But then, an attractive, silver-haired doctor in his early 60s, still fit and feisty, jumps up in the back of the room. “Madam,” he says quietly but forcefully, “that was the last threat you ever make to this hospital’s medical team. It’s not WE that will face consequences. YOU will be out of here inside 24 hours.” And then all the doctors walk out of the room.

Doctors! Be like the doctors in my imagination. You’ve earned respect, show it. Don’t be like the cowardly real-life Vanderbilt doctors in that video clip who just sat there and took a heaping helping of abuse, served up by an unattractive cross-dresser (or maybe not, it’s hard to tell).*

But it’s the next clip that I think really offends people. Maybe because it completely demolishes the narrative that trans doctors are just altruistic pioneers, selflessly devoting their lives to courageously advocating for the medical torture of young children, you know, to make them feel better via the power of the scalpel.

The doctor in the clip starts off noting that Obama’s Affordable Care Act requires medical providers to offer trans services. Her audience understands her perfectly; what she means is, there’s someone who will PAY for all these services, without asking questions: insurance companies. Insurance companies are now on the hook for whatever ridiculous nonsense the bureaucrats come up with, and ultimately YOU are paying for it.

Continuing, she tallies up the financial opportunities trans surgeries offer the hospital, citing estimates “just for top surgery” at $40,000 and up, and fingering phalloplasties as “huge moneymakers.” She explains, “They’re labor intensive, they require a lot of followup, they require a lot of O.R. time, and they make money! They make money for the hospital.”

Phalloplasty is the surgery we looked at the other day, which could more accurately be called a forearm-ectomy.

But, demonstrating the power of video over a bland transcript, the clip leaves you with a troubling, and in some ways terrifying, sense of medicine gone wrong. In this clip, it’s not just her words. It’s her sordid and unseemly enthusiasm, her bubbly excitement over the prospect of collecting all that cash, carving up kids.

In a deeply alarming way, the clip might challenge your fundamental paradigm about how you thought hospitals worked. But you shouldn’t be surprised. We already learned this, didn’t we, during covid? Even today, hospitals make hundreds of thousands in incentives and insurance overrides for each covid diagnosis, so long as it ends up with intubation.

In other words, Covid is a huge moneymaker! Just like trans surgeries.

For its part, Vanderbilt University Hospital is already scrubbing the evidence off its website. But Walsh said he saved everything and has the receipts, so it won’t help. What Vanderbilt NEEDS to do is not to get rid of the evidence. It needs a heart change. It needs to challenge itself, and figure out where it went off the tracks so badly. It needs a new purpose or vision or mission statement or something.

My honest advice to Vanderbilt is to stop trying to hide what it was doing and come clean. Doctors, healing begins with repentance.

In the meantime, Vanderbilt needs to take its bloodstained, money-grubbing hands off our children. Or else, as Nurse McKaren says, there will be consequences.

* Whenever I use the term “unattractive cross-dresser,” I get a little understandable pushback in the comments. Let me be clear. As a Christian, I love these unfortunate people, obviously suffering from an out-of-control but completely treatable mental illness. I don’t fault them; I fault the people around them, the so-called ‘affirmers,’ who are suffering from a willful, strong delusion that playing along with the cross-dresser’s mental illness is somehow helping anybody.

I won’t play along.

The term “unattractive cross-dresser” is accurate and true. It’s loving honesty, like gently telling your wife that, yes, honey, that dress IS a teeny-tiny bit unflattering (I’m not saying, “fat!”). Or like telling your friend that he has a face booger under his nose. Or like telling Nancy Pelosi, “dear, I think it’s time to hang it up; you just sound crazy up there.”

I believe people around these cross-dressers should be having a frank dialogue with them: What you are doing isn’t working. You need help.

More broadly, I intend for the words “unattractive cross-dresser” to rhetorically challenge the paradigm. I refuse to use the new words. I won’t do it. I’m calling this age-old phenomenon what it has accurately been called for my entire lifetime — up until about ten minutes ago. I will not use their new words.

People always gasp when I say ‘cross-dresser,’ which used to be the POLITE term; but that’s not the rule now, apparently. I have questions: WHO is making these new rules? Where are they written down? And who put these people in charge of our vocabulary?

🔥 Whew, there’s a LOT happening in the Trump raid case. Judge Dearie, the newly-appointed special master, is cracking the whip and apparently is trying to get to the bottom line. First, he accelerated the timeline, chopping over a month off the original proposed deadline and suggesting that the whole review could be finished in a couple weeks, by early October — well before midterms, coincidentally — which drew immediate, albeit gentle, objections from the Trump team.

Trumps’ team seems to be trying its best not to get sideways with Judge Dearie, but a confrontation is brewing. Based on a letter that made the rounds yesterday afternoon, Dearie apparently wants the Trump team to provide a sworn affidavit that clearly states whatever Trump says he did — or didn’t do — to declassify documents.

As I’ve explained before, THAT issue is the key, fundamental issue in the case. Dearie sees it too, and he’s trying to cut through all the decorative nonsense and strip the case down to the drywall, or whatever the modern equivalent of brass tacks is.

But disclosure doesn’t seem to be the Trump Team’s strategy just now. Team Trump told Dearie they don’t WANT to say what Trump did to disclose documents, since there could be a criminal indictment, and Trump’s declassification steps would then become a key defense. They explained that, if they have to say what Trump did NOW, then “the Special Master process will have forced the Plaintiff to fully and specifically disclose a defense to the merits of any subsequent indictment without such a requirement being evident in the District Court’s order.”

In other words, “Judge Cannon didn’t say we had to do that.”

Over in the 11th Circuit, where the DOJ is appealing the appointment of a special master in the first place, Team Trump filed a well-drafted 40-page response brief to the DOJ’s appeal at noon yesterday. There were two arguments. The main argument was that “the government has not proven the documents are classified.” Hence, argues Trump’s lawyers, a special master is needed to tell us whether the documents were even actually classified in the first place.

(Now, it seems like Judge Dearie might need to know whether Trump actually declassified the documents in order to determine whether the documents are classified or not, but that’s not today’s issue, I guess.)

Trump’s second argument merely contradicts the government’s position. Trump says “yes he does” own the documents, even if they are marked classified, and even if they were originally created by the government. Both issues were well argued by Trump’s lawyers.

Both cases — special master Dearie and the 11th Circuit appeal — are moving at the legal equivalent of warp speed. I expect further developments soon, maybe today, certainly this week.

Stand by for updates.

🚀 The Telegraph UK ran a story today on its news blog with the headline, “’I’m Not Bluffing on Nuclear Weapons’, Says Putin, as 300,000 Reservists Called Up to Army.”

Putin gave a speech this morning, which was originally scheduled for yesterday but then re-scheduled, leaving war-watchers all atwitter for 24 hours. In today’s speech, Putin announced significant escalations to the “special military operation,” a specific legal term distinguishing the Ukraine conflict from a “real” war, and strictly limiting Putin’s powers.

First, Putin announced that Russia is mobilizing 300,000 reservist troops, which is probably closer to a draft, for the war in Ukraine. That’s a lot of troops. The figure reminded me of the 300,000 troops that NATO said it was mobilizing back in June. A curious coincidence.

It’s the first such mobilization in Russia since World War II, and western corporate media are identifying it, of course, as a sign that the war in Ukraine is going badly for Russia. In a seven-minute televised address to the nation aired this morning, Putin warned the West that he isn’t bluffing over using ANY means at his disposal to protect Russia’s territory, in what pundits interpret to be a veiled reference to Russia’s nuclear weapons capability.

During the two days between the announcement and delivery of the speech, corporate media confidently but wrongly predicted that Putin was going to announce Russia’s unilateral withdrawal from the war in a disgraceful defeat. They were mistaken or lying again. Now, just because I point out how dishonest corporate media was, I’m not supporting Russia. I’m just pointing out that our media continues to lie to us and assume we have a gnat-like attention span.

What all the western reports omit is the fact that Russia’s massive, historic mobilization is happening RIGHT AFTER Putin attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s meeting in Samarkand last week. There, he met with all the major Eastern bloc leaders, including China’s president Xi and India’s president Modi. The very next day he was back in the office — this Monday — the Russians announced Putin would make a “major” speech about the war (which was rescheduled to this morning).

So it’s eminently reasonable to conclude that Putin’s speech resulted from or was affected by his meetings with the leaders of Russia’s allies. Do you think, as I do, Putin might have been getting his support lined up for the upgraded Ukraine operation?

It’s not like there weren’t hints. Corporate media completely ignored widespread online reports in independent media that Serbian president and Putin ally Aleksander Vučić knew what was going to happen, because he predicted full-scale war was coming:

Specifically, Vučić said, “I suppose that from the phase of a special military operation we are approaching a major military conflict, in a month or two, into a big world conflict, which has not been since the Second World War.”

He was 100% right, and 100% ignored by corporate media, who claimed Putin would be announcing defeat and shutting down the war.

How about the Chinese? Their position seems kind of important. Two weeks ago, on Friday, September 9th — the week before the Samarkand meetings — Chinese officials expressed what looks a whole lot like full-throated support for Russia, fingering NATO as the conflict’s provocateur, and confirming the Russians have the moral and ethical right to defend themselves from NATO expansionism.

In the clip, Chairman of the National People’s Congress of China, Li Zhanshu, was shown meeting with representatives of Russia’s “Duma,” or congress. Among other things, Zhanshu said this:

In the Ukraine situation, the US and NATO forced themselves directly to Russia’s doorway, impacted Russia’s national security and that of people’s lives. In such a case, Russia took the action that should be taken.
We see that the United States and its NATO allies are expanding their presence near the Russian borders, seriously threatening national security and the lives of Russian citizens. We fully understand the necessity of all the measures taken by Russia aimed at protecting its key interests, we are providing our assistance.
China understands and supports Russia on issues that represent its vital interests, in particular on the situation in Ukraine.

But corporate media analysts view its allies as pressuring Russia to END the Ukraine conflict, quoting Turkish president Erdoğan as demanding Russia return “invaded territories,” especially Crimea, to the “rightful owners,” which means Turkey, since the Crimean peninsula was an Ottoman Empire protectorate until the Russians annexed the island all the way back in 1783.

So that’s kind of kooky and not super helpful. The New York Times reported that India’s president Modhi told Putin four days ago that “today’s era is not one for war,” and extrapolated from his statement that India plans to stay out of the war:

But at least one Indian social media influencer (700K followers) called the Times’ article out, saying Western journalists were mistranslating Modhi’s comments, originally delivered in Hindi. Meaning, she’s labeling the New York Times report as fake news.

So. Who knows. Do YOU think the New York Times would deliberately mistranslate a foreign leader to support its narrative?

What’s clear is Joe Biden’s escalation strategy is “working.” The war is escalating. If you’re going to say it’s all Putin’s fault, that Joe Biden had nothing whatsoever to do with heightening the ominous risk of global thermonuclear destruction, go sell your crazy somewhere else. We’re all stocked up here.

If you want to somehow argue Joe is the victim, or merely a defensive responder, you’re going to have to first discuss how military experts predicted in 2014 that Russia would react to NATO’s expansionism in Ukraine EXACTLY LIKE THIS.

Finally, if this is what Joe’s dumb slogan “Build Back Better” looks like, then I think I’m ready to trying building back WORSE, or whatever’s the reverse opposite of “Build Back Better,” which obviously is NOT working. It might be “making America great again,” but I’d settle for just “making America okay again.”

Have a wonderful Wednesday! I’ll be back tomorrow with more great C&C-style commentary.


C&C is moving the needle and changing minds. If you can, I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope:

Twitter: @jchilders98
Truth Social: @jchilders98
C&C Swag!
Emailed Daily Newsletter:


‘Unethical’ and up to 98 Times Worse Than the Disease: Top Scientists Publish Paradigm-Shifting Study About COVID-19 Vaccines

Source: ‘Unethical’ and up to 98 Times Worse Than the Disease: Top Scientists Publish Paradigm-Shifting Study About COVID-19 Vaccines

BY Jennifer Margulis and Joe Wang TIMESeptember 10, 2022 PRINT

A team of nine experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and other top universities has published paradigm-shifting research about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and why mandating vaccines for college students is unethical.

This 50-page study, which was published on The Social Science Research Network at the end of August, analyzed CDC and industry-sponsored data on vaccine adverse events, and concluded that mandates for COVID-19 boosters for young people may cause 18 to 98 actual serious adverse events for each COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization theoretically prevented.

The paper is co-authored by Dr. Stefan Baral, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University; surgeon Martin Adel Makary, M.D., a professor at Johns Hopkins known for his books exposing medical malfeasance, including “Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Heath Care”; and Dr. Vinayak Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist, who is a professor in the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, as well as the author of over 350 academic and peer-reviewed articles.

But among this team of high-profile international experts who authored this paper, perhaps the most notable is Salmaan Keshavjee, M.D., Ph.D., current Director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery, and professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Keshavjee has also worked extensively with Partners In Health, a Boston-based non-profit co-founded by the late Dr. Paul Farmer, on treating drug-resistant tuberculosis, according to his online biography.

Risking Disenrollment

As the study pointed out, students at universities in America, Canada, and Mexico are being told they must have a third dose of the vaccines against COVID-19 or be disenrolled. Unvaccinated high school students who are just starting college are also being told the COVID-19 vaccines are “mandatory” for attendance.

These mandates are widespread. There are currently 15 states which continue to honor philosophical (personal belief) exemptions, and 44 states and Washington, D.C. allow religious exemptions to vaccines. But even in these states, private universities are telling parents they will not accept state-recognized vaccine exemptions.

Based on personal interviews with some half a dozen families, The Epoch Times has learned that administrators at some colleges and universities are informing students that they have their own university-employed medical teams to scrutinize the medical exemptions submitted by students and signed by private doctors. These doctors, families are being told, will decide whether the health reasons given are medically valid.

5 Ethical Arguments Against Mandated Boosters

Though rarely reported on in the mainstream media, COVID-19 vaccine boosters have been generating a lot of controversy.

While some countries are quietly compensating people for devastating vaccine injuries, and other countries are limiting COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the United States is now recommending children 12 and older get Pfizer-BioNTech’s Omicron-specific booster, and young adults over the age of 18 get Moderna’s updated shot.

At the same time, public health authorities in Canada are suggesting Canadians will need COVID-19 vaccines every 90 days.

Against a backdrop of confusing and often changing public health recommendations and booster fatigue, the authors of this new paper argue that university booster mandates are unethical. They give five specific reasons for this bold claim:

1) Lack of policymaking transparency. The scientists pointed out that no formal and scientifically rigorous risk-benefit analysis of whether boosters are helpful in preventing severe infections and hospitalizations exists for young adults.

2) Expected harm. A look at the currently available data shows that mandates will result in what the authors call a “net expected harm” to young people. This expected harm will exceed the potential benefit from the boosters.

3) Lack of efficacy. The vaccines have not effectively prevented transmission of COVID-19. Given how poorly they work—the authors call this “modest and transient effectiveness”—the expected harms caused by the boosters likely outweigh any benefits to public health.

4) No recourse for vaccine-injured young adults. Forcing vaccination as a prerequisite to attend college is especially problematic because young people injured by these vaccines will likely not be able to receive compensation for these injuries.

5) Harm to society. Mandates, the authors insisted, ostracize unvaccinated young adults, excluding them from education and university employment opportunities. Coerced vaccination entails “major infringements to free choice of occupation and freedom of association,” the scientists wrote, especially when “mandates are not supported by compelling public health justification.”

The consequences of non-compliance include being unenrolled, losing internet privileges, losing access to the gym and other athletic facilities, and being kicked out of campus housing, among other things. These punitive approaches, according to the authors, have resulted in unnecessary psychosocial stress, reputation damage, loss of income, and fear of being deported, to name just a few.

22,000 to 30,000 Previously Unaffected Young Adults Must be Vaccinated to Prevent Just 1 Hospitalization

The lack of effectiveness of the vaccines is a major concern to these researchers. Based on their analysis of the public data provided to the CDC, they estimated that between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected young adults would need to be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just a single hospitalization.

However, this estimate does not take into account the protection conferred by a previous infection. So, the authors insisted, “this should be considered a conservative and optimistic assessment of benefit.”

In other words, the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are essentially useless.

Mandated Booster Shots Cause More Harm Than Good

But the documented lack of efficacy is only part of the problem. The researchers further found that per every one COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in young adults who had not previously been infected with COVID-19, the data show that 18 to 98 “serious adverse events” will be caused by the vaccinations themselves.

These events include up to three times as many booster-associated myocarditis in young men than hospitalizations prevented, and as many as 3,234 cases of other side effects so serious that they interfere with normal daily activities.

At a regional hospital in South Carolina, the desk clerk sported a button that read: “I’m Vaccinated Against COVID-19” with a big black check mark on it.

“What about the boosters?” a hospital visitor asked. “It’s starting to seem like we need too many shots.”

“It does seem like a lot,” the clerk agreed. “It’s hard to know what to do.” But she did have some advice for the visitor: “Just keep reading and educating yourself, so you can make an informed decision.”

This new paper is essential reading for anyone trying to decide if they need more vaccines. The authors concluded their study with a call to action. Policymakers must stop mandates for young adults immediately, be sure that those who have already been injured by these vaccines are compensated for the suffering caused by mandates, and openly conduct and share the results of risk-benefit analyses of the vaccines for various age groups.

These measures are necessary, the authors argued, to “begin what will be a long process of rebuilding trust in public health.”

May the Force Be With Brave Scientists

The two co-first authors, Dr. Kevin Bardosh and Dr. Allison Krug, both thanked their families for supporting them to “publicly debate Covid-19 vaccine mandates” in the acknowledgments section of the paper.

As we wrote in May, an increasing number of scientists and medical doctors are speaking out about the dubious efficacy and disturbing safety issues surrounding theses fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines. They do so fully aware of the personal and professional risks involved. They deserve our encouragement and support.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.


Student-Loan Forgiveness and the National Debt

Source: Student-Loan Forgiveness and the National Debt – WSJ

Illustration: Chad Crowe

The colorful Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes once likened George Romney’s run for the presidency to “a duck trying to [make love to] a football.” I wish he had been around to put a label on the federal student-loan program. In the sad catalog of its failures, the federal government has set a new standard. President Biden’s debt-cancellation announcement represents the final confession of failure for a venture flawed in concept, botched in execution, and draped with duplicity.

The scheme’s flaws have been well chronicled. It’s regressive, rewarding the well-to-do at the expense of the less fortunate. It’s grossly unfair to those who repaid what they borrowed or never went to college. It’s grotesquely expensive, adding hundreds of billions to a federal debt that already threatens our safety-net programs and national security. Like so much of what government does, it’s iatrogenic, inflating college costs as schools continue to pocket the subsidies Uncle Sam showers on them. And it’s profanely contemptuous of the Constitution, which authorizes only Congress to spend money.

When the federal government took over the loan program in 2010, President Obama claimed it would turn a profit of $68 billion and that “we are finally undertaking meaningful reform in our higher education system.” Credit where due: a dead loss of hundreds of billions of dollars and tuition costs that continued to soar can fairly be described as “meaningful.”

There are, and long have been, better ways. Colleges should always have been at some risk for any non-repayments by graduates. One can view such defaults as a breach of warranty, as degrees could be thought to imply that their bearers were prepared to be productive citizens, with the market value and personal character to live up to their freely chosen obligations.

Even a modest percentage of shared liability for non-repayments would have significantly affected schools’ behavior. The financial exposure and potential embarrassment would have driven material changes in the rigor of teaching and the amounts they charged and encouraged students to borrow. Such a system would have amounted to a fair request that institutions stand behind their product.

Of course, much of this unpaid debt would never have been accrued if colleges hadn’t raised their prices at the highest rates of any category in the economy. Thanks to the subsidy gusher, that was easy to do. But it wasn’t right or necessary.

I have been asked countless times about Purdue’s record of holding tuition and fees flat since 2012 while lowering room, board and book costs. It is less expensive to attend our university, in nominal dollars and for all students, in-state or out, than it was a decade ago.

I’d like to claim that this was a triumph of managerial brilliance, but I can’t. We simply asked ourselves each year, “Can we solve the equation for zero?”—meaning what would it take to avoid a fee increase? Placing top priority on containing student costs has driven lower ratios of administrators to faculty, less gold-plating on new buildings, modernized and consumer-driven health plans, and other simple changes. Meanwhile, not coincidentally, enrollment and revenues have surged.

Ten years on, more than 60% of our students graduate debt-free. Debt per student has been cut in half, to just over $3,000. Had Purdue raised tuition at the national average, students’ families would have sent us more than $1 billion more than they have.

Along with marketable knowledge and skills, Purdue aspires to foster character in its students. Watching each year as more than 99% of our graduates honor their student-debt obligations, we take pride in them. But I’m uncertain what to say to them as they see their less-responsible contemporaries bailed out—with, adding insult to injury, a portion of the tab handed to them as taxpayers.

When, not if, our national debt forces a traumatic reckoning, asset sales will likely be part of the emergency plan to preserve safety-net payments and some vestige of discretionary government. Along with surplus federal land and structures, it will make sense to sell whatever remains of the student-loan portfolio. That will be a fitting end to a bankrupt lending system born of bankrupt policy choices.

Mr. Daniels is president of Purdue University. He served as governor of Indiana, 2005-13.



The first YouTube video is worth the price of admission. Thank God for this Brit, now naturalized citizen. mrossol

Source: Coffee & Covid ☙ Saturday, July 23, 2022 ☙ DODGEY



🔥 Several parents sued the Pennsbury School Board last year after board members cut off their microphones and ordered them removed from a public meeting. Last week, the school board voted to settle the case for $300,000.00. So.

Karen, I mean Christine Toy-Dragoni, Pennsbury’s school board president, had sent an unconstitutional letter to parents explaining that one speaker’s public comments “contained micro-aggressions as well as explicitly-racist ideas that connected the black community to several commonly-held, stereotypical beliefs that are harmful.” Tellingly, and very helpfully for the lawsuit, Toy-Dragoni (what a mouthful) apologized to the parents for not shutting the speaker down soon enough.

Here’s one of the spicy speakers that the school board snowflakes apparently had a problem with, who also illustrates some nifty techniques for addressing school boards, for all you podium warriors out there:

🔥 Birx is back, this time in a Fox News interview. Fauci must not want to go there or something. What she said will make you want to stick vaccine needles into a Deborah Birx voodoo doll.

NEIL CAVUTO: The 20% or so of Americans who have not been vaccinated are going to look at [Biden’s infection] and say, why bother?

BIRX: If you’re in the middle of this wave, what’s going to save you is Paxlovid … I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection and I think we overplayed the vaccines… [so get vaccinated anyways because it’ll prevent hospitalization and death] … but let’s be very clear, 50% of the people who died from the Omicron surge were older and vaccinated.”

Wait, what?

First of all, she said she “knew” the vaccines weren’t going to stop infection. She KNEW. So … why didn’t you SAY ANYTHING, Deborah?

Second, you “overplayed the vaccines”? Does that bother you?

Third, she says Paxlovid will “save you” in this wave. Why not other waves? Why won’t the jabs save you in this wave, if you’re uninfected? I thought you took Paxlovid AFTER infection?

Finally, and most worst, she explicitly admits “50%” of people dying are jabbed. We could quibble about that percentage, since U.S. hospitals are using funny numbers, but never mind. Let’s say “at least” HALF. Which leads us to the most significant unanswered question: if jabs prevent “serious injury and death” — if we know that for a FACT — then HOW MUCH do the jabs prevent “serious injury and death?”

I mean, EXACTLY how much? It the number predictable, repeatable? Is it consistent between countries? And, how did you figure it out? Where are the studies? Please tell me it’s not just based on the awful raw numbers that the hospitals and blue states are reporting — like where they count “unknown” jab status as “unvaccinated” — but please tell me that you did some kind of controlled clinical study before you started organizing our entire society over that particular statistic.

💉 Paging Dr. Birx! Manitoba, Canada’s May 2022 data doesn’t look too good for the jabs:


(The jab-happy will argue that admissions and deaths are weighted toward jabbed because there are MORE jabbed than unjabbed. But note the chart compares RATES not gross numbers.)

In all three scenarios, the combined rates of jabbed admissions and deaths exceed the rate for unvaccinated. In the case of regular hospitalization, and DEATH, the added vaxxed rates FAR exceed the unvaccinated rate. Like in the case of death — which we can all agree is a poor outcome — in this data, jabbed Manitobans were THREE TIMES as likely to die from covid as the unvaxxed.


💉 On Thursday, Time Magazine ran a mushy-headed article with the headline, “Why You’ll Need to Get COVID-19 Boosters Again and Again.”

No, thanks!

The writers — “covid experts” — sum up their rationale like this: “people don’t complain about having to get their 60th dose of the influenza vaccine [so] We should think of COVID-19 vaccines the same way.”

Um, just speaking for myself, I WOULD complain if I had to get 60 doses of flu vaccine, and I sure hope the writers haven’t done that.

Why so many boosters? Is it because the vaccines don’t work well or at all? No, silly! The writers dumb it down for us. The first two shots, they explain, are like HIGH SCHOOL. It’s pretty good, but you’ll miss out on the “college experience.” If you want your immune system to go to college, then you’ll have to take more classes, which are the booster shots. Then, the college graduates need to take continuing education refresher classes to stay current, which are, you guessed it, MORE boosters.


Except it doesn’t really. In this analogy, every booster shot is exactly the same as the first two shots. So it’s less like going to college and more like taking ‘introduction to algebra’ sixty times in a row. True, practice makes perfect, but after a while, the kid isn’t paying attention anymore. And he isn’t getting any better at math.

The most hilarious thing is, you can see they DESPERATELY want to compare covid directly to flu — they’re practically begging in between the lines — because it would be so perfect — what with the annual shots and everything — but they can’t, dammit. All they can do is sort of hint, because — ha ha — that’s not part of the narrative! You can NEVER say covid is like the flu!

The article’s most ominous section was the conclusion, which the writers start by saying, “Researchers and industry are furiously working on developing next-generation vaccines.” The bare notion of “better” covid vaccines makes my blood freeze to ice in my veins.

Hard pass.

🔥 According to internet reports, FOUR doctors in Toronto and Mississauga, Canada, including three from a single healthcare chain, all died, suddenly and unexpectedly, within a few days of each other:

  • Dr. Paul Hannam, died July 16, 2022, while running.
  • Dr. Lorne Segall, died July 17, 2022.
  • Dr. Stephen McKenzie, died July 18, 2022.
  • Dr. Jakub Sawicki, died on or before July 21, 2022.

I confirmed Dr. Hannam’s death:

I couldn’t find any official information on the other three doctors. One independent researcher confirmed — by calling their practices — Dr. Segall is out on extended medical leave due to an illness, and Dr. McKenzie’s practice is permanently closed because, according to the recorded message “he is seriously ill.” The researcher played both recordings in a video clip:

All four doctors appear to have been young and healthy in their staff pictures, although information is difficult to obtain. So weird, and so sad. I mean, so SADS.

🔬 A new study published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine titled, “Monkeypox Virus Infection in Humans across 16 Countries — April–June 2022.” The researchers compiled lots of interesting statistics.

They reviewed 528 confirmed infections from 43 clinics in 16 different countries. 98% of the infected were gay, 75% were white, 41% also had HIV, they averaged 38 years old, and transmission occurred through sexual contact in almost all (95%) of the cases.

Almost all (95%) of the patients presented with a rash, most (64%) had fewer than 10 lesions, most (73%) had anal/genital lesions, about half (41%) had mucosal lesions, and about 10% only had a single genital lesion. The study mentioned that single lesions can be easily confused with STI’s.

Out of 377 patients who were also tested for STI’s, in 109 cases additional infections besides monkeypox were found. 29 out of 32 patients whose semen was tested using PCR showed positive for monkeypox.

The authors don’t know whether semen is an agent of transmission or not. But it seems like you might want to assume that it is, at least for the time being.

The study includes some helpful images that are too gross to include in a family-friendly blog. I warned you.

One of the problems with an outbreak of this type is that the people most likely to be infected are already people who are comfortable with high-risk activities, and might even seek out high-risk activities on purpose, BECAUSE they enjoy the thrill of the risk.

The experts are performing just as poorly with monkeypox as they did for covid; it’s just that they are failing in the exact opposite way. But both times, the experts gave the worst possible advice, almost like it was designed to spread the diseases rather than actually contain them.

Utterly useless.

🔥 Yesterday, ZeroHedge ran a story headlined, “Germans Taking Fewer Showers In Response To Cost Of Living Crisis.” It should have read, “Germans Take Fewer Showers as Sacrifice for Elite’s Russia Sanctions.”

A Bild newspaper poll found the majority of Germans are getting smellier by the minute: 62% of respondents said they’d recently reduced their time in the shower, and are also showering less often. Almost half of the respondents (45%) said they were preparing for a difficult winter, like stocking up on firewood, or buying wood-burning stoves and generators.

Earlier this month, Hamburg’s environmental minister warned Germans about mandates if they don’t get their energy usage down voluntarily: hot water could be rationed, and maximum room temperatures could be set by the government. Another minister said Germans should just try turning off the heat and wearing sweaters.

Frans Timmermans, European Commission vice-president, recently suggested EU citizens should “support Ukraine” and help Russia sanctions by taking fewer showers, by not driving their cars, and by airing their clothes out instead of washing them. I’m not making that up.

Remember, Germany is in the midst of a heat wave.

It’s a very sweaty time in Germany right now. No showers? Just “air out” clothes? It must be a European thing.

Earlier this month, Summit News ran a related story headlined, “Germany’s Largest Residential Landlord to Impose Heating Rationing For Tenants.”

That would be illegal in the United States. Just saying.

The article says Germany’s largest residential landlord — which owns a half-million properties — has notified tenants it will impose energy rationing this winter, which will automatically cut tenants’ heating at night, because of falling gas imports from Russia.

Heater temperatures will be strictly limited to a maximum of 62 degrees.

So. No showers, no heating. These Ukraine sanctions are really teaching the Germans a lesson they won’t forget!

🔥 In a fascinating development, the US military opposed a proposed Nancy Pelosi trip to Taiwan this week following Chinese threats of some kind of retaliation. A Wall Street Journal article yesterday reporting on the story carried the headline, “Nancy Pelosi’s Possible Trip to Taiwan Unsettles China—and the White House.”

On Tuesday, the Financial Times cited six sources saying Pelosi planned to lead a new delegation to visit Taiwan next month. Then Wednesday the AP reported that, when reporters asked him to comment on Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan, Biden said, “Well, I think that the military thinks it’s not a good idea right now.”

Then on Thursday, at her weekly press conference, a reporter asked Pelosi to respond to Biden’s comment, and she said, “I think what the president was saying is maybe the military was afraid our plane would get shot down, or something like that, by the Chinese.”

Shot down. And she still wants to go.

You might recall that Pelosi had planned a trip to Taiwan back in April, but, amidst criticism over the trip, was forced to cancel after she allegedly got covid.

The Speaker sure is trying hard to get over there, without a very clear explanation of the point of the trip. I wonder if she has to pick something up. Like a check or a bag of cash or something.

Anyway there’s some kind of disagreement between the branches about the trip and it’s spilling out into the papers. Should be fun to see how it plays out. Hopefully it won’t play out into a kinetic military experience!

It’s weird how Nancy Pelosi’s decision to go or not to go to Taiwan could determine whether a world war starts. Could you possibly imagine a worse person to hold that kind of power? I can’t. If YOU can, tell me in the comments.

Have a terrific weekend, and I’ll see you back here on Monday to jump start the new week.


If you can, help me get the truth out and spread optimism and hope:

Twitter: @jchilders98
Truth Social: @jchilders98
C&C Swag!
Emailed Daily Newsletter: