patrick.net

This sounds like a mission for @UveBeenNudged1

^^^

Patrick says

This sounds like a mission for UveBeenNudged1

^^^

I've never used AI (but have lifted the occasional AI backdrop someone else has made). It's pity because what normally takes hours can be done in seconds...
I don't have Abbey Road, so you'll have to make do with these for now :-)

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/black-box-saturday-december-13-2025

Earlier this week we reviewed (in a special edition!) the astonishing Atlantic article admitting babies died from the covid shots— right in the headline. On Thursday, Stanford Medicine News ran a similar but unrelated story headlined, “Stanford Medicine study shows why mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis.”

The study was titled, “Inhibition of CXCL10 and IFN-γ ameliorates myocarditis in preclinical models of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination.” It features a whopping 16 authors, all members of Stanford’s cardiology institute. It was funded, in large part, by the National Institutes of Health.

In other words, this is undeniably “gold standard” science.

Unsurprisingly, the study starts with the regurgitated slogan that must always be included for publication in a respectable journal: “The highly effective SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were essential for limiting the COVID-19 pandemic.” That was the first and last time it praised the jabs.

The dense, technical paper identified a potential and plausible biological pathway between mRNA vaccination and myocarditis. It starts with a potential immune overreaction to the presence of foreign proteins, including in this case the lipid nanoparticles, transfected cells, and the spike protein produced by them.

An immune system overreaction can then damage the heart muscle, sometimes leading to myocarditis, which is a kind of injurious inflammation. Even asymptomatic myocarditis can cause permanent scarring in the heart, which can lead to very serious problems years later.

That’s why some doctors say “there is no such thing as mild myocarditis.” The heart is kind of important. Mild myocarditis is like mild brain damage. After all, what are a few neurons here or there, between pharma friends?

💉 Which brings us to the study’s first major takeaway. The Stanford researchers’ conclusions weren’t limited to spike proteins. The authors were careful, concise, and cautiously stayed in their lane, but the obvious implication was that all mRNA vaccines —not just covid shots— carry the same risk. Since they didn’t test any, we don’t know whether the risk varies between types of mRNA shots; it could be even worse for other types of mRNA vaccines. ...

In other words, this study is bad news for the entire mRNA platform, not just the covid shots. Until now, the “consensus group” believed that the lipid nanoparticles (tiny globs of artificial fat carrying the mRNA payload) were immunologically neutral, and can safely travel around the body without notice or harm. But this study found that the platform itself could trigger an immune response —sometimes a very bad one— independent of the spike protein and even before many cells had been productively transfected.

Even the UK Telegraph picked up on this point, proving that corporate media occasionally stumbles over a truth nugget:

Now Stanford University has found that the immune system
can lock on to the foreign RNA from the vaccine, which
triggers a fierce response and in some cases can inflame
heart cells. It is likely to be a problem with other mRNA
jabs, they warn.

Imagine that. But the next takeaway was even more significant.

💉 From time to time over the last few years, several strong papers have been published in various places finding problems with the jabs. But this one is categorically different, because it comes down from the tippy-top of the credentialed-class mountain. No one can wave away a peer-reviewed Stanford study with 16 institutional authors. So the publication of this study is, like the Atlantic article, more of a permission structure than any revolutionary scientific discovery.

It’s a green light: we can talk about covid jab harms now.

Which is not to say this study failed to break any new ground. As far as I know, it’s the first study to describe all three parts of an identified injury pathway: (1) a concrete mechanism of harm (a cytokine loop), (2) an organ-specific injury (the heart), and (3) confirmation of the mechanism through blockability (using neutralizing antibodies or an anti-inflammatory supplement).

Curiously, all the work described in the study was completed in 2023. That’s a long runway to publication in mid-December 2025. There is no smoking gun, but it appears the publication of this study was delayed until now. Which raises the question: why now?

As I conjectured before, my best guess is the drug cartel has finally given up on pushing the covid shots, and maybe on the whole mRNA platform. But that only shifts the question one step backwards: In other words, what is now making them give up on the shots?

Which brings us to the next remarkable development.

💉 Yesterday, CNN ran an exclusive story headlined, “FDA intends to put its most serious warning on Covid vaccines, sources say.” It’s the dreaded “black box” warning, which the FDA reserves for the most dangerous types of drugs. ...

A black box warning is the FDA’s nuclear option. It’s the strongest safety label the agency can place on any drug or vaccine, reserved for risks that are serious, potentially irreversible, or life-threatening. The warning is literally boxed in black ink at the top of the drug label so it cannot be overlooked, skimmed, or buried down in the fine print.

Black box warnings are not suggestions, footnotes, or talking points. They are how the FDA formally announces: this risk matters. Black boxes are rare, reputationally toxic, and legally consequential. Once applied, they signal to doctors, hospitals, insurers, and courts that the risk is “material” as a matter of law, not opinion.

Once a black box exists, the ground rules permanently change. Even the most enthusiastic, guideline-faithful physician cannot realistically ignore it without stepping into legal quicksand. The warning must be disclosed to patients as part of informed consent; failing to do so is no longer a judgment call but a liability problem. “Following APA guidance” stops working as a shield, because FDA labeling outranks press releases and reassurance campaigns.

Hospitals’ risk management officers will mandate documentation, insurers will demand compliance, software systems will prompt patient disclosures, and plaintiffs’ lawyers will staple the warning onto every complaint. Doctors may still recommend— but they can’t minimize, pressure, or pretend there’s nothing serious to discuss. A black box doesn’t ban a product; it forces patients to face true risks.

And once that bell has rung, it never unrings.

💉 It’s not a done deal. The story was based on “two people familiar with the agency’s plans,” which could be a couple of psychics, for all we know. And, even assuming they were legit FDA leakers, CNN said, “the plan has not been finalized and may still change.” ...

But diabolical jab doctor, former vaccine committee member, and pharma shill Paul Offit told a podcast host this week that “myocarditis was a very small price to pay. People need to have realistic expectations; you’re going to learn as you go.” Behold the grandfatherly banality of evil.

CLIP: Dr. Paul Offit confirms war criminal status (1:02).

https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1999441792350192002

How about that warm-spirited, scientific nuance? “We’ll learn about the risks together, as we go!” Now they tell us. Back when they were coercing people to take the shots —jab or job!— they weren’t nearly so nuanced. And, “it was a small price to pay,” Offit quite generously declared. Yes, but who paid the price? Do the people who paid the piper also agree how small the price was?

Easy for him to say.

One thing we know for sure is that Paul Offit didn’t pay the price. It’s not his heart. Just the opposite. It’s well known that Paul made millions off his rotavirus vaccine, which he sold to Merck. He currently hogs a Merck-endowed chair at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (ironically, ‘CHOP’), runs the school’s endowed Vaccine Education Center, and mints more money with grants related to vaccine development.

It’s pretty rich that he’s talking about the “price” that everyday people who aren’t compensated for injuries have to pay.

If the FDA does black-box the covid shots (as it should), even pharma shills like Dr. Offit will have to tread very carefully. The FDA establishes the standard of care, and if doctors like Offit advise patients to defy it, the docs can become personally liable. (Which, by the way, is the same reason so few good doctors defied CDC/FDA guidelines during the pandemic.)

Here’s the thing: as CNN’s article showed, the FDA leaks like a rusty sieve. Assuming pharma also has its sources inside the FDA, which seems pretty safe to assume, then they all know what’s coming. Maybe that’s why they’ve suddenly become so much more forthcoming about the shots. By the time the FDA finally does something— it will be ‘old news.’

All in all, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Democrats’ long, failed experiment in coercive public health is finally, at long last, reaching a shuddering stop. As we’ve previously discussed, once the public finally grasps the horrifying extent of the fraud that was perpetrated upon us, it will crush into powder the last remaining shards of trust in the institutions. There’s no going back now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/11/15/government-withholding-data-covid-jab-link-excess-deaths/

Government ‘withholding data that may link Covid jab to excess deaths’

UKHSA argued that releasing figures would lead to ‘distress’ of bereaved relatives if connection were discovered

The public health watchdog has been accused of a “cover-up” after refusing to publish data that could link the Covid vaccine to excess deaths. ...

UsForThem, a campaign group, requested that UKHSA release the data under freedom of information laws. But the agency refused, making a number of different arguments including that publishing the data “could lead to misinformation” that would “have an adverse impact on vaccine uptake” in the public.

https://tdefender.substack.com/p/john-campbell-demands-release-uk-data-covid-vaccine-deaths

According to The Telegraph, UKHSA argued that disclosing vaccine dates and corresponding dates of death could cause “distress” to bereaved families and fuel “misinformation.”

Campbell said the agency’s logic defies belief.

“They argued that release of data would lead to distress of bereaved relatives if a link … was discovered,” he said. “‘So the reason we’re not telling you why your mom died is because it might upset you.’”

Campbell said the public is being denied the most fundamental data required to assess vaccine safety. He noted that only two simple data points are needed to conduct a basic correlation analysis: vaccine dose dates and dates of death.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/more-miracles-monday-december-15

The story was cast as an interview with Dr. Retsef Levi, an applied mathematician who specializes in health systems management. He has a PhD from Cornell, and has been a prominent faculty member at MIT’s Sloan School of Management since 2006. During the pandemic, like many of us, Levi was initially optimistic about the vaccines and willingly took the first two jabs.

But between 2021-2023, Levi became alarmed by the data. He began to shift toward what he called “mounting evidence” of safety problems, including myocarditis as well as broader signals of other serious adverse events. In a now-famous 2023 video, he called for an immediate halt to the jabs, arguing that surveillance data showed an “unprecedented” level of harm in younger people than any traditional vaccine.

This year, RFK appointed Dr. Levi to the CDC’s new ACIP vaccine committee, causing consensus scientists to experience an anxious, woozy feeling very similar to incipient myocarditis. ...

Realizing Politico was actually letting Dr. Levi speak was shocking. Based on the usual corporate media playbook, I had expected to just see a series of quotes from critics, interspersed with a few of Levi’s short, out-of-context comments to make him sound crazy.

But instead, the article’s structure gave Dr. Levi adequate room to present his counter-narrative, from questioning Hep‑B birth-dose safety, alleging undisclosed myocarditis deaths, and denying the “anti-vaxxer” label, to calling for a broader, outcome‑based safety redesign of vaccine surveillance in general.

Another vaxicide?

https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/censored-study-linking-mrna-shots

Doctors and nurses know that that shit is dangerous and defective. They personally have seen the results.

https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/2025-the-year-the-narrative-changed

Last year, COVID vaccines were still officially deemed safe as mother’s milk and the health establishment was pushing boosters on everyone with a pulse.

But this year the FDA now officially admits that an unknown number of children have been killed by those vaccines and a comprehensive review of the entire childhood vaccination schedule has been ordered for the first time ever.

https://substack.com/@stopthoseshots/note/c-191787033

Can vaccines be considered 'flu complications'?

With sanctioned hits, the Freemason Industrial Complex (police, judges etc.) table the investigations forever. No massive teams working day and night to solve the murder like they show on propaganda TV.

https://tdefender.substack.com/p/covid-vaccines-linked-several-cancer-types-new-review

‘Tip of a Very Damaging Iceberg’: COVID Vaccines Linked to Several Cancer Types in New Review

A systematic review of 69 studies identified safety signals for leukemia, lymphoma, breast and lung cancer. The paper identified mechanisms, including the spike protein and DNA contamination.

A systematic review of 69 studies and reports on COVID-19 and cancer identified a possible safety signal linking COVID-19 vaccines and SARS-CoV-2 to certain types of cancer.

The study identified safety signals for leukemia, lymphoma, breast and lung cancer.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15440249/cancer-Covid-vaccination-journal-cyberattack.html

Shocking study linking covid jabs and cancer 'censored' by mysterious cyberattack

A global review examining reported cases of cancer following Covid vaccination was published earlier this month, just as the medical journal hosting it was hit by a cyberattack that has since taken the site offline.

The study appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Oncotarget on January 3 and was authored by cancer researchers from Tufts University in Boston and Brown University in Rhode Island.

In the review, researchers analyzed 69 previously published studies and case reports from around the world, identifying 333 instances in which cancer was newly diagnosed or rapidly worsened within a few weeks following Covid vaccination.

The review covered studies from 2020 to 2025 and included reports from 27 countries, including the US, Japan, China, Italy, Spain, and South Korea. No single country dominated, suggesting the observed patterns were reported globally.

The authors emphasized that the review highlights patterns observed in existing reports, but does not establish a direct causal link between vaccination and cancer.

Days after publication, Oncotarget's website became inaccessible, displaying a 'bad gateway' error that the journal attributed to an ongoing cyberattack.

The journal reported the incident to the FBI, noting disruptions to its online operations.

In social media posts, one of the paper's authors, Dr Wafik El-Deiry of Brown University, expressed concern that the attack disrupted access to newly published research.

'Censorship is alive and well in the US, and it has come into medicine in a big, awful way,' El-Deiry wrote in a post on X. ...

The paper also uncovered sudden flare-ups of slow-growing cancers that had been stable before receiving the Covid jab, and incidents where the vaccine appeared to 'wake up' certain viruses that can lead to cancer, like human herpesvirus 8.

Major study populations, including one review of 300,000 people in Italy and one examining 8.4million people in South Korea, uncovered higher cancer rates of thyroid, colon, lung, breast, and prostate cancers among vaccinated individuals.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/the-hard-way-saturday-january-10

We’ve been waiting impatiently for five years now for someone with authority to say the obvious. But it’s done. Check it off the agenda paper. They’ve mapped it out in the careful language of the academy, and the Censorship Creature is on a rampage, doing whatever it can to stop the truth about the jabs from coming out. I’ll go out on a limb, and argue the only reasonable suspect for these ceaseless cyberattacks on an obscure cancer journal —attacks that began right after it published a damning study linking the covid jabs to a wide array of tumors— is Big Pharma.

In other words, I doubt very much it is Romanian scammers. Or for that matter, Democrats, since they are still trying to figure out Instagram.

The hackers have made no demands. They haven’t replaced the home page banner with a penis joke. They’re just trying to block eyeballs and, more importantly, search engine access to the site.

💉 The newly published (January 3rd), peer-reviewed study in Oncotarget does something that was functionally forbidden for four years: it systematically catalogs cancer cases temporally associated with covid vaccination and covid infection, then asks —carefully, explicitly— whether mRNA might plausibly connect the dots.

There are two reasons why Big Pharma woke up and chose digital violence, in addition to deploying the usual defamation army to undermine and isolate the study’s conclusions.

The first reason is that the study’s authors aren’t fringe figures or Twitter gadflies. Dr. Charlotte Kuperwasser is a senior cancer biologist at Tufts University whose work focuses on tumor microenvironments, metastasis, and immune–cancer interactions. Dr. Wafik S. El-Deiry is a longtime oncologist and molecular cancer researcher at Brown University, former president of the American Association for Cancer Research, and a leading authority on p53 signaling and cancer therapeutics.

In other words, these are scientists whose day jobs are spotting early cancer signals— not making them up for clicks. And they know the game. The paper took a year to traverse peer review and be published— including 5 months of silence following acceptance.

The second, and perhaps bigger reason, is that the two researchers didn’t conduct a new experiment that could be sliced and diced by Big Pharma’s stable of pet critics. Instead, they reviewed 69 other peer-reviewed publications from 27 different countries, covering 333 patients, plus several large population-level datasets, and proved recurring patterns that simply cannot be waved away:

unusually rapid cancer progression,
reactivation of previously controlled disease,
odd tumor clusters near injection sites or draining lymph nodes, and
a striking overrepresentation of lymphomas, leukemias, aggressive solid tumors, and virus-associated cancers.

In other words, to criticize this peer-reviewed paper, Big Pharma’s slander team would have to criticize the 69 previous peer-reviewed papers, too. A project like that would look a lot like outright persecution and not Science™. Hence, the DDOS attacks and ad-hominem assaults.

💉 The two scientists were very careful in their paper. They meticulously and repeatedly admitted what they did not seek to prove. They offered no risk estimates, they made no direct causal claims. But they were equally clear about what their results did show: this is no longer anecdote, rumor, or Twitter lore.

Beyond that, they included what might be the best explanation I’ve yet seen of the long-term risks posed by the mRNA vaccines —really, any of the mRNA vaccines— for a wide variety of potential downstream injuries:

In addition, the COVID mRNA vaccines work by instructing the target cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This occurs by introducing a synthetic, modified mRNA (mod-mRNA) which incorporates non-natural pseudouridine into its coding region to prolong the stability of the mRNA beyond that of natural mRNA.
Introduction of the mod-RNA is accomplished using lipid-based transfection in the form of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). The result is highly efficient transfection of the mod-mRNA into target cells with biochemical and pharmacological behavior different from naturally occurring mRNA. Consequently, the mod-RNA is transcribed into the foreign spike protein (as well as other frameshifted protein products), which elicits a robust immune response.
Given the stability of pseudouridine modified mRNA, along with the residual
DNA in the mRNA vaccine formulations, the mRNA vaccines are delivering exogenous genetic material (DNA and RNA (in the form of engineered nucleic acids)) into a patient’s cells. The COVID19 mRNA vaccines produce Spike protein that is encoded by a stable mRNA and has been found to be long-lived in the human body. These nucleic acid elements have been reported to contribute to Post-Covid Vaccine Syndrome (PCVS/PVS).
Thus, these vaccines fit the definition of gene therapy.

Even as they were cautious about identifying a biological mechanism of injury or making direct claims about causality, they painstakingly catalogued a Devil’s inventory of case reports (and a few small series studies) of cancers linked to jabs— including lymphomas, leukemia, sarcoma, carcinoma (pancreatic, prostate, lung, colon, breast, etc.), melanoma (eye and skin cancer), glioblastoma (brain cancer), and the catchall, other.

It is devilishly hard to pick, but possibly the most unsettling part wasn’t the hypotheses about immune dysregulation, spike protein persistence, or DNA contaminants— it was the authors’ blunt admission that covid vaccines were never evaluated for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or multi-dose long-term effects at all.

In other words, you’ll find out what’s in the shots once they’ve been in your body for a few years. The researchers conclusion was simple and stark: “The collective world-wide evidence from 2020–2025 underscores a biologically plausible connection between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer.”

This paper posed the implied question of why no one was allowed to ask about cancer risk in the first place.

💉 The reason this study is so dangerous is that it summarizes and recapitulates a large body of existing literature, which until now has been kept broken in piecemeal and scattered to the winds. This study isn’t new; it’s an inflection point. This study brings together into one place all the existing theories, the proven problems with the jabs, and evidences all of it with direct citations to 69 other peer-reviewed publications.

Here’s a local link to the study from my Dropbox, since, because of the ongoing DDOS attacks, it remains nearly impossible to access online. You might want to archive a local copy. Just saying.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8kktdyzucf87ybi5wr29b/oncotarget-v0i0-28824-C19-C19-vaccine-and-cancer-published-plus-supp-1-3-2026.pdf?rlkey=vr98uftqaj4ms7sjck0c7r7r5&e=2&st=ps6tsta1&dl=0

This study offers many reasons to be optimistic, despite the dark subject matter. First, the DDOS attacks may have backfired, by drawing more attention to the study than otherwise. Next, astonishingly, the Daily Mail ran the story straight, without the obligatory template text about how many millions of lives the shots saved and blah-blah-blah. The study is largely immune to criticism, because it is grounded in prior peer-reviewed work. And Pharma is increasingly wounded (albeit still dangerous) and stands on shifting sands.

We approach a tipping point. When we get there, I say we should nuke Big Vaccines from orbit and start over. It’s the only way to be sure.

The real question, though, is he actually grateful to be dead.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/golden-geese-tuesday-january-13-2026

You’ll recall that the paper —a roundup of 69 peer-reviewed studies linking the mRNA shots to cancer— was so radioactive that the online journal hosting it was knocked offline for weeks by sustained denial-of-service attacks. Because nothing says “trust the science” quite like hiring East German hackers to vaporize a scientific journal.




While we were defeating the early effort to smother the study in the crib, Big Pharma kept brainstorming. According to the study’s lead researcher, Brown University professor Wafik El-Deiry, MD, PhD, FACP, on January 5th, a senior recruiter from Pfizer dangled before him the kingdoms of the earth:




... Kudos to Dr. El-Deiry. He might not have helped his career much, but he saved his soul.

And here’s the best part, the most delicious irony: the offer itself proves all his critics wrong. Dr. El-Deiry isn’t a crank. He isn’t deluded. He isn’t a bad scientist. Because if he were, Pfizer wouldn’t have tried to hire him, would they?

https://x.com/toobaffled/status/2011205332627022033

Patrick says

" https://x.com/toobaffled/status/2011205332627022033 "
Bob Weir, a founding member of the Grateful Dead, consistently supported COVID-19 vaccination efforts throughout the pandemic.

In other words the vaccine killed Bob Weir.

More and more, it seems like the mass formation psychosis behind the clot shot campaign boiled down to a variation on lemming behavior. "As long as we all go down together . . . "

I'm trying really hard not to orgasm from schadenfreude every time I hear that another sanctimonious twat has keeled over dead.

The fuckers wished the unvaxxed a winter of illness and death. Instead, the wishers will now have a (much shorter) lifetime of illness before death.

I have that same problem.

I find it hard to feel sorry for the masses of Karens who DEMANDED that I inject poison and would not listen to any counter-arguments at all.