by Ana Wolpin | Apr 6, 2021 | General
“Gene based vaccines have never been used on humans before.
So what we’re witnessing now are human experiments… Auto-immune disease can be triggered by these gene-based vaccines… all have rather severe side effects…
You have to be very, very careful that the vaccine is not killing the elderly with pre-existing conditions instead of protecting them.”
Sucharit Bhakdi, MD,
award-winning virologist and most cited microbiologist in German academic history
———————————
In Part One of this series, we looked at the mass casualties occurring where Covid-19 vaccine campaigns are underway—injuries and deaths that are being ignored, downplayed or denied outright in a tightly-controlled narrative.
Since last week, total reports to VAERS of deaths from the experimental injections increased from 2,050 to 2,249. Reports of adverse events increased from 44,606 to 50,861 There has been a 6000% increase in reported vaccine deaths in 1st quarter 2021 as compared to 1st quarter 2020.
What is going on with these experimental shots?
As previously described, debilitating side affects often follow these injections. Common reactions include headaches, body aches and fatigue. Pain and weakness in the legs is a frequent refrain. People tell of muscle and joint pain, dizziness, chills and nausea, and brain fog that impairs their ability to think. Delirium and confusion often accompanies the brain fog.
Impairment is often so severe that a person is unable to function for days, weeks, or even longer. People frequently report that they just haven’t “felt right” since their shots. The clouded thinking or body aches just won’t go away.
Redefining vaccine damage as ‘the vaccine is working’
These reactions are so common, pharma cannot deny them. So now injurious effects are being spun by the media as not only “normal”, but positive. Adverse reactions are proof that the vaccine is “working”.
What is actually taking place? One clue comes from a paper analyzing data from Pfizer’s early vaccine trials. It reveals that in the week following vaccination, lymphocyte counts drop precipitously.
Lymphocytes, or white blood cells, are the body’s defense against unwanted invaders. Without active lymphocytes we cannot mount an immune response to a SARS-CoV-2 virus or any other opportunistic pathogen. As seen in Pfizer’s graph, lymphocytes are nearly wiped out for at least several days following mRNA injection.
According to the study, “Vaccine RNA can be modified by incorporating 1-methylpseudouridine, which dampens innate immune sensing and increases mRNA translation in vivo. The BNT162b1 vaccine candidate that is currently investigated clinically incorporates such nucleoside-modified mRNA.”
Dr. Rob Rennebohm, MD, explains, “This means that the vaccine manufacturers have deliberately added a substance (1-methylpseudouridine) that dampens innate immune sensing. Innate immune sensing is the first line of defense against all types of infection.”
The populations most at risk if they lose immune function are the very groups who were excluded from pharma’s trials, now being urged to get their shots first—the elderly and immune-compromised.
But immune suppression may be a negligible issue when compared to other problems caused by these experimental injections. Serious reactions have included anaphylaxis, Bell’s Palsy, seizures, strokes, transverse myelitis, heart attacks, and as discussed in Part One, miscarriages.
What else may be contributing to these adverse events?
PEG, syncytin-homologous proteins, pathogenic priming
To start with, the mRNA in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s shots are “pegalated”—encapsulated with nanoparticles of polyethylene glycol (PEG). These PEG nanolipids act as a delivery system for the mRNA.
Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice-President and Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer Global R&D, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, former chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Health Committee, warn, “70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.”
It is estimated that as many as 7% of Americans have high enough levels of antibodies to PEG that exposure can cause anaphylactic shock. Indeed, anaphylaxis has occurred so frequently following vaccination, the risk from PEG in these shots has been acknowledged by the FDA.
While the CDC downplays the risk, they advise that:
“COVID-19 vaccination locations should have at least 3 doses [emphasis theirs] of epinephrine available at all times, and the ability to quickly obtain additional doses to replace supplies after epinephrine is administered to a patient. People with a history of anaphylaxis who carry an epinephrine autoinjector could be reminded to bring it to their vaccination appointment.” [source]
VAERS data currently shows 2,578 reports of anaphylaxis immediately following injection. Anaphylaxis is just the immediate, potentially fatal reaction from this delivery system. Pegalated mRNA can also cause serious long-range consequences, says neuroscientist Dr. Chris Shaw:
“The mRNA lipid-coated PEG-construct—by Moderna’s own study—does not stay localized, but spreads throughout the body, including the brain. Found in animal studies in bone marrow, brain, lymph nodes, heart, kidneys, liver, lungs, etc. Doctors are saying that the vaccine does NOT cross the blood-brain barrier, but that is NOT true. …If it reaches the brain there will be an autoimmune response that will cause inflammation. That is characteristic to virtually all neuro-degenerative diseases—Lou Gehrig’s disease, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, etc.” [source]
Next, there is a total absence of data regarding reproductive impacts. Before the vaccines were even granted emergency use authorization, experts expressed concern that the spike proteins the mRNA packages are designed to generate could cause miscarriages and infertility. Not a single study, however, was done on pregnant women.
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg explains that the syncytin-homologous protein produced by the mRNA vaccine can cause antibodies against syncytin-1, the protein essential for the formation of placentas:
“There is one gene which is part of our genome that is regulating the placenta growing in the uterus… This protein is very similar to proteins that have been described in the spike cell of the coronavirus… It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.”
Pfizer and Moderna’s own materials acknowledge that there is zero safety data on pregnant women and on reproductive impacts. Here is how the CDC spins that absence of data:
“There are currently limited data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant people… If you are pregnant, you may choose to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. There is currently no evidence that any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause fertility problems.”
The CDC implies that because no data exists on reproductive issues for this new biotechnology, we can trust it won’t be a problem. Having “no evidence”—because pharma excluded pregnant women from their trials and didn’t do research on infertility—now conveys safety.
The UK government issued guidance that “pregnant women should not routinely have this vaccine… In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.” [emphasis theirs] However, an expectant mother “should be reassured that the vaccine does not contain live SARS-CoV-2 virus and therefore cannot cause COVID-19 infection in her or in her baby.” This reassurance is another red herring. It does not address the spike protein issue experts warned about.
Many miscarriages immediately following the shots, as noted in Part One, are already being reported in the US. And data shows a 366% increase in UK miscarriages in the first six weeks of their rollout.
That pregnant women would choose to be part of this experiment, risking the lives of their unborn babies, is testimony to how effective the propaganda has been.
Will long-term or even permanent infertility also result? That is yet another unknown in this global experiment.
But perhaps the greatest risk of all—an impact yet to come—are phenomena known as Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) and pathogenic priming.
All attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines in the past were unsuccessful because of these phenomena. In animal trials, the vaccines provoked development of antibodies as intended, but when the animals were exposed later to the virus—called a challenge—an exaggerated immune response killed the animals. The body develops hypersensitivity to the virus and mounts an out-of-control systemic autoimmune response, attacking its own cells and organs. In a trial for a SARS-CoV-1 vaccine using ferrets, when the animals were challenged later by the wild virus, every ferret died. This challenge, coming into contact with the wild virus, could happen days, months or years after vaccination.
Scientists, including high-profile vaccinologists, warned about this potentially lethal autoimmune response long before Covid-19 vaccine clinical trials began. In the Warp Speed rush to a #CovidVaccine, pharma claimed that this dilemma which has stopped development of coronavirus vaccines for the last twenty years had now been solved. They offered no proof of that assertion. It was simply announced as fact.
“I was shocked to see that the FDA is rolling this [injection] out with prioritization of people in nursing homes. Absolutely shocked. Because that’s where the highest severe coronavirus disease enhancement and pathogenic priming is going to take place. It’s almost a certainty that we’re going to see mass casualties from this as a result of pathogenic priming.” – Senior Research Scientist Dr. James Lyons-Weiler [source]
Prior to Europe’s vaccine rollout, Dr. Yeadon, along with Dr. Wodarg, filed a petition to halt the Phase III clinical trials of the Pfizer mRNA injection until they were restructured to address these critical safety concerns.
More and more doctors and scientists, all censored by the mainstream, are voicing these kinds of warnings. One of the most recent is Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche.
Vanden Bossche, a Belgian virologist and vaccine developer who has worked for both GAVI and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, adds another concern into the mix. “The key question”, he says in an interview, is “why does nobody seem to bother about viral immune escape?” He makes the case that this global campaign is a ticking time bomb, warning that “mass vaccination with leaky Covid-19 vaccines in the midst of a pandemic can only breed highly infectious variants,”
What is a “leaky” vaccine?
Efficacy has previously always been measured according to how well a vaccine 1) prevents disease transmission, and 2) prevents infection. These shots do neither. People who get these injections can still get infected and can still transmit the virus to others. That is what is meant by a “leaky” vaccine.
UK Column News, March 19, 2021
Pharma’s minimal safety trials were only designed to demonstrate a lower rate of infection among the vaccinated. As stated by Peter Doshi in the British Medical Journal, as well as NOT preventing infection and NOT stopping transmission, there is also no proof that getting the shot reduces hospitalizations or deaths.
A growing concern is the number of fully vaccinated individuals contracting Covid-19 more than 14 days—and sometimes months—after their second shot. Called “breakthrough cases,” there couldn’t be clearer evidence that this experimental injection is “leaky” and does not prevent infection.
“I was shocked,” said Florida physical therapist Hannah Rewerts when she contracted the virus more than two months after her shots. “I don’t think the public is aware that it [getting the Covid injections] doesn’t mean you’re not getting the virus, and it doesn’t mean you’re not getting sick.” Among dozens in Central Florida who have contracted Covid-19 after being fully vaccinated are three others in Rewerts’ family. “One of my family members actually went to the hospital,” she said. “I mean, that’s pretty severe enough to be concerned about the vaccine.”
The real level of harm from this new, rushed technology won’t be known for years. Not only don’t we know the true safety profile of these injections, the primary criteria for claiming a vaccine is effective have not been met. And despite attempts to censor bad press about adverse reactions, the flood of personal stories on social media has been impossible to contain.
That may be why the catchphrases used to manipulate public perception have quietly shifted. Rather than the traditional “safe and effective” assurance, there’s a new spin:
“The benefits outweigh the risks.”
Do they? What ARE the benefits?
In a March 6 interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, Mexican actor/director/producer Eugenio Derbez asks that very question: “[if] you still can get infected and you can still spread it… what is the main aim of the vaccines?” Dr. Fauci replies, “The main purpose of the vaccine is to prevent you from getting sick, going to the hospital and maybe dying.” He explains that because it does not stop transmission, that is “why we say… that people who were vaccinated should wear a mask when they’re near people who might be vulnerable to infection.”
Promises that once you get your shot you can take off your mask and get back to normal life without fear of infecting others or of contracting Covid yourself—or that some magic percentage of people vaccinated will create herd immunity—are pure disinformation. Social memes such as “I got the #CovidVaccine to protect myself, my family, and my community!” are nothing more than clever propaganda devised by pharma to get shots in arms.
Intentionally suppressing “innate immune sensing” is the opposite of protection, weakening rather than enhancing your immune response. Risking pathogenic priming is playing Russian roulette with a loaded gun. If you only have reduced symptoms when you contract the virus but can still spread it to others, you are a potential agent of infection, not protection. And if the vaccines are driving the creation of new, even more deadly variants—as previously seen with polio mass vaccination programs—the consequences could be catastrophic.
Feel-good memes are a brilliant marketing strategy—they appeal to people’s innate desire to be good citizens and help others. But they do not reflect the actual science. You not only can still be infected following vaccination and spread Covid-19 to your family and your community—if Vanden Bossche is correct you could become a superspreader of ever-more virulent strains.
The one thing this injection might do—reduce severity of symptoms if you contract the virus—can be achieved far more safely by taking supplements like vitamin C, zinc, vitamin D3, and quercetin. Hundreds of studies demonstrating remarkable success with inexpensive and benign treatments have also been systematically suppressed.
Never before has a “vaccine” been sold to the public with so great a risk… so little benefit… and so much pressure.
The fearful are motivated with carrots and intimidated with sticks — we will only be able to open up society after 80% or more are “fully vaccinated”. And then, it’s only those with a vaccine passport who will be able to freely engage in travel, school, concerts and sporting events, hospitality services, traditional retail activities, and work.
Family members who are taken in by the mainstream narrative are issuing ultimatums: get the shot or you can never visit me, your grandkids, your mother/father, or fill-in-the-blank, again. People steeped in the relentless messaging then parrot that propaganda… like the cartoonist in this week’s Port Townsend Leader who is “so ready” to get her shots and concludes, “The real work starts when we have to convince our loved ones to get the vaccine. If we don’t we’ll never hit herd immunity.”
That is fiction from the myth makers. The greater a portion of the public harboring a leaky vaccine, the LESS possible it will be to achieve herd immunity. The only ones in society who will be contributing to herd immunity are people who had the virus and developed natural immunity. Carriers of a leaky vaccine will be unprotected from infection, just experience lesser symptoms, and will still be able to transmit the virus. Worst case, they will also be driving the development of more virulent strains. The more people who get the shot, the LOWER our herd immunity.
But we are being told the inverse. It is the healthy people refusing to submit to this dangerous experiment who are being portrayed as Typhoid Marys, putting lives at risk by simply breathing. The irony is that it’s the vaccinated who are likely to be carrying infections without showing symptoms, spreading the virus, and, according to Vanden Bossche, driving a “tsunami of morbidity and lethality that is now threatening us.”
Sara Beltrán Ponce, the doctor who tragically miscarried days after her second shot (see Part One) enthusiastically trusted that the #CovidVaccine would protect her and her unborn baby. Hashtag slogans and internet memes are part of a comprehensive campaign of social engineering, broadcast by media and the medical-government-pharma complex day in and day out to indoctrinate us.
Had Dr. Ponce looked outside that spin machine—Pfizer’s and Moderna’s own materials acknowledge that there is not a shred of data to establish safety in pregnancy—she would have likely reached the same conclusion as her peers who are refusing the shot.
Global pushback
Over one million citizens from Germany and surrounds rally for health freedom in Berlin, August 1, 2020
As damage mounts, so do calls for an immediate halt to this global experiment.
Demonstrations all over the world are protesting government overreach and top-down medical tyranny, which is demanding compliance with disastrous lockdowns and coercing citizens to accept experimental injections. In the US, those citizens challenging the narrative are being demonized as “Covid deniers”, anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists, selfish granny killers, and even “domestic terrorists”.
As many world governments grow increasingly authoritarian, they use the fear of Covid to eliminate freedoms and criminalize dissent. Citizen pushback is typically ignored, downplayed or vilified by the mainstream press.
The Berlin rally for health freedom pictured above is a classic example. Independent reporting describes a peaceful gathering of “concerned citizens, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, doctors, lawyers, business owners… the official numbers from the police were 800,000 to 1.3 million, with 2-3 million people in the general vicinity.” Mainstream media reported “roughly 17,000 protestors”—”anti-vaccine groups and some far-right and neo-Nazi organizations” dispersed by police.
These mischaracterizations are no surprise. What IS shocking is the censorship and/or discrediting of highly credentialed, distinguished scientists and medical professionals, in a wholesale dismissal of valid scientific inquiry and the refusal to allow respectful open debate.
In December 2020, the petition filed by Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg to stop Covid vaccine trials addressed four concerns: 1) ADE/pathogenic priming; 2) fertility issues from syncytin-homologous proteins; 3) PEG causing allergic, potentially fatal anaphylactic reactions; and 4) lack of long-term data.
In February 2021, an Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns went even further. Doctors for Covid Ethics published a call for adherence to international codes prohibiting human medical experimentation. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi is lead signatory of an international group of 12 prominent experts and 80 endorsers with specialties ranging from immunology and virology to genetics to medical ethics.
The letter questions “whether cardinal issues regarding the safety of the vaccines were adequately addressed prior to their approval” by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). It expresses concerns about what is occurring in care homes, and notes a “wide range of side effects” reported following vaccination of previously healthy younger individuals.
They conclude that “the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, and that the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute ‘human experimentation’, which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code.” They implore EU regulators to halt Covid vaccinations unless significant safety issues are addressed.
In the U.S., physician-scientist Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, has joined the growing list of alarmed professionals, calling out a “clear and present danger.” In a letter to FDA officials, pharma executives and media he says, “it is untenable for you and your colleagues to be ignoring these deaths and vaccine complications without lifting a finger to do anything — simply this: These complications are mounting and CDC and FDA’s surveillance systems are missing the signal.”
The “signal” Noorchashm is speaking of is the death of vaccine recipients—some of them high-profile celebrities—who were vaccinated despite being already infected with Covid-19: “Benjamin Goodman, J. Barton Williams, Kassidi Lyn Kurill, Marvin Hagler, Hank Aaron, Larry King… these are Americans being harmed and ignored … by you and our public health system.”
Is the body’s manufacturing of spike proteins, engineered by the shot, triggering autoimmune attacks? Is this the pathogenic priming phenomenon that killed animals in earlier coronavirus vaccine trials? Many doctors and scientists censored by the mainstream press think so.
“If you are already immune, if you’ve already been infected, your risk goes way up of adverse events and death,” says Dr. Paul Thomas on his weekly podcast Against the Wind: Doctors and Science Under Fire. “It’s the most reckless thing I’ve ever seen in medical history.”
International pioneer in women’s health Dr. Christiane Northrup agrees: “All it does is make people THINK they’re safe… Don’t let yourself get trampled by the lemmings headed for the cliff.”
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche has also published an urgent appeal— Open Letter to the WHO: Immediately Halt All Covid-19 Mass Vaccinations. His March 6th letter asserts that, “We are currently turning vaccine recipients into asymptomatic carriers who are shedding infectious variants….[W]e’ll very soon be confronted with a super-infectious virus that completely resists our most precious defense mechanism: the human immune system.”
Calling this experiment a “colossal blunder,” vaccinologist Vanden Bossche does not mince words: “Immediate cancelation of all ongoing mass Covid-19 vaccination campaigns should now become THE most acute health emergency of international concern.”
These dire warnings are from eminent scientists and doctors so concerned about the gravity of this experiment that they are willing to risk reputations and careers. They know they will be censored and targeted for challenging the narrative. And while their voices rarely make it past the gatekeepers controlling that narrative, half of Americans can still sense that something isn’t right here.
The federal government has now earmarked $1.5 BILLION for an ad campaign to convince “vaccine skeptics” to get their shots. In a major PR blitz, our tax dollars “will use TV, radio, and digital means to target young Americans, people of color, and Republicans who may be more likely to be hesitant or ambivalent about getting vaccinated.”
If those who are speaking out against all odds are correct, the fate of humankind rests not on our compliance, but on our refusal to participate. The most caring choice to protect ourselves, family, friends and community is to just say no.
There is a vast gulf between two camps: those who believe that lockdowns “save lives,” and those aware that these measures have had little if any impact on the spread of Covid and have caused far more death and destruction than the virus… those who believe the shots are our path to freedom, and those who agree with the doctors and scientists saying that this global medical experiment has to stop now.
The former trust mainstream propaganda; the latter do not. The former think that the powerful interests behind the narrative have our well-being at heart, are leading us with science, are telling us the truth. The latter, like CNA James Develon see the mounting wreckage and understand that we are being lied to.
The injection question just may pose the most critical choice of our lifetime.
by Ana Wolpin | Mar 31, 2021 | General
In late February, I received an email from a Port Townsend friend about her 85-year-old aunt’s rapid decline following her first shot of Pfizer’s experimental mRNA vaccine.
“My mom and I have been taking care of my aunt. When she got the shot [on February 15], she had just graduated from physical therapy because she was so strong and able to get up from being seated without using her hands for help, walk with a cane for an hour slowly, feed herself no problem, talk about memories. Since the 15th she has been dramatically declining, especially in the last five days… to where she now cannot walk at all, she can’t really control movement of her torso, cannot feed herself, cannot discern reality from hallucinations, and is incontinent and can get very angry. We had to make the difficult decision to have emts come yesterday morning to take her to the hospital (she had slithered to the floor and we could not get her up) and we insisted they admit her because we cannot care for her safely in this condition.”
A week later, her aunt was dead. What my friend witnessed mirrors reports of devastating injury and death around the world from these injections, particularly among the fragile elderly.
The photo above shows carloads of people lined up outside Jefferson Healthcare to receive experimental vaccines. The picture is different outside Jefferson County. Half of America–including healthcare professionals–is refusing the jabs.
Is my friend’s aunt the first Jefferson County fatality from this global experiment? Or has our county already seen, in a matter of weeks, more death by injection—which you are not hearing about—than the virus itself caused here in more than a year?
Stories like my friend’s are being ignored, downplayed, or denied by the mainstream media. But for anyone who looks beyond the incessant propaganda from the pharma-controlled narrative that the new Covid-19 vaccines are “safe and effective,” a far different story has emerged about this unprecedented medical experiment.
The prevailing narrative tells us that injuries following the jab are exceedingly rare and deaths are coincidental. But thousands of doctors, scientists and other experts have been sounding the alarm about this reckless experiment, often at great personal risk. Despite heavy censorship, vicious attacks, shaming and shunning, truth is increasingly coming to light.
This article will examine the counter-narrative urgently calling for a halt to all mass experimental injections.
Ignored and denied by mainstream media, global death and injury abound.
Just a sampling of reports you will not see on mainstream news:
Experimental vaccine death rate for Israel’s elderly 40 times higher than COVID-19 deaths
“While in January a group of independent doctors concluded that experimental COVID-19 vaccines are ‘not safer‘ than the virus itself, a new analysis of vaccine-related death rates in Israel demonstrates that this may indeed be the case to dramatic levels.” An analysis of data from the Israeli Health Ministry determined that “the mRNA experimental vaccine from Pfizer killed ‘about 40 times more (elderly) people than the disease itself would have killed during a recent five-week vaccination period’, and 260 times more of the young than what the COVID-19 virus would have claimed in the given time frame.”
Whistleblower: 25% of Residents in German Nursing Home Died After Pfizer Vaccine [click on link for video]
Disturbed by a facility-wide vaccination drive with military soldiers present, and the distressing patient deaths that followed, a Berlin nursing home caregiver came forward to provide testimony to attorneys from the German Corona Investigative Committee. The whistleblower describes how rather than peacefully slipping away as was normally seen with elderly patients he cared for, after their first dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, seven of 31 residents with dementia died “as if they were tortured.” An eighth resident was near death at the time of the interview and died a few days later.
The long-time caregiver, sharing footage taken by a co-worker, says that reactions following the shot—“changes in behavior, strong fatigue, weakness, sudden gasping for breath with heart racing”—and the manner of the residents’ deaths were unlike anything he and his colleagues had ever witnessed before.
“Typically death was always peaceful for old people… their breathing was relaxed and their eyes stayed closed. This is very different death. It’s as if they cannot let go… their eyes are open, they are agitated, this strong tremor is changing their breathing. The pallor of their face is quite different. They are highly unsettled with this violent gasping for breath… a constant shaking of the upper body, this creepy, fearful gaze… it’s more of a struggle and it is not dying with dignity.”
When a second shot was forced on the 23 surviving residents just weeks after their first injection, another died and 11 more were seriously injured. (39 minutes, subtitled)
53 Dead in Gibraltar in 10 Days After Experimental Pfizer mRNA COVID Injections Started
Prior to the rollout of the injections, it is reported that over the preceding year only 17 people in total had died from Covid-19 in the small British Colony of Gibraltar (population 32,000). Within 10 days of starting Pfizer mRNA COVID injections, 53 were dead. “Tiny Gibraltar is like a petri dish; in no other place has there been such a brutally clear relationship between vaccine roll-out and increased ‘Covid deaths’.” Local media blamed the deaths on the virus, not the vaccine.
46 Nursing Home Residents in Spain Die Within 1 Month of Getting Pfizer COVID Vaccine
In Andalusia, Spain, 46 of 140 nursing home residents died in the wake of a Pfizer vaccination campaign. As in Gibraltar, their deaths were blamed on a “coincidental” outbreak of the virus, not the shots. In another nursing home in the same province, 22 elderly residents died following injections.
Similar alleged Covid outbreaks and death clusters following vaccination in Norway, Germany, England, Sweden. Scotland, Canada, and the U.S. are described here.
Vaccine injuries and deaths in the United States have followed the same pattern being observed around the world.
Closer to home
Knowing he was risking his career, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) James Develon could not remain silent after watching 14 of the nursing home residents he cared for die within two weeks after receiving the Pfizer experimental mRNA injections:
“They are dropping like flies.” [Click on link for video.]
CNA Develon reports that in 2020 there were “zero deaths” from Covid the entire year at the U.S. nursing home where he works. Following the shots, not only was there a rash of fatalities, but many other residents were near death. He describes the same spiraling loss of function my friend saw her aunt experience:
“People who were once walking are no longer walking. People who were once talking can no longer talk. People who were once able to think, can no longer think properly… delirium, confused.”
The deaths were explained away as resulting from the Covid virus—not the shots—from an unidentified “superspreader”. But that story didn’t add up, Develon said. Residents who had refused the injections were not sick; only the vaccinated were injured and dying. (5 minute clip at above link; full 47-minute video here).
32 Residents die from outbreak at Auburn nursing home.
As described in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr,’s article, Death by Coincidence?, “An Auburn, New York nursing home reported, without any apparent irony, that 32 of 193 residents have died since the facility began administering the Pfizer vaccine on Dec. 21. The company claims that its clients are dying of COVID-19 infections, not the vaccine.”
“Coincidence is turning out to be quite lethal to COVID vaccine recipients,” says Kennedy.
That is true not only among the high-risk elderly following vaccination, but in cases of healthy younger people dying directly after their shots as well.
- Sara Stickles, a 28-year-old healthcare worker from Wisconsin, broke out in rashes immediately after her second Pfizer shot. Five days later, severe headaches led to loss of consciousness, hospitalization, and an initial diagnosis of a ruptured brain aneurysm. A week after her injection she died when all brain activity ceased. [source]
- A 28-year old nurse’s aide in Iowa received a Pfizer vaccine at 11 am. He initially called in to work with a report of headache and dizziness, but decided to come to work anyway. He “was found down in a patient bathroom during his shift in our facility while taking care of a patient,” wrote a co-worker. He was coded, dying that day. [source]
- Most recently, an 18-year-old Illinois teen with no pre-existing conditions experienced headaches, body ache and fatigue the day after receiving a Moderna Covid injection. Two hours after complaining of chest pain on day three, he was found unresponsive and pronounced dead. [source]
Miscarriages are also being reported following these injections. Among scores of reports are:
- a 37-year-old woman in Washington state who lost her baby at 26 weeks the day after receiving her first Moderna shot; [source]
- a 32-year-old New Mexican woman, 22 weeks pregnant, who began having abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding after a second Pfizer shot and miscarried the next day; [source]
- a healthy Wisconsin woman, 29, just four weeks pregnant, who miscarried the same day she had her first Pfizer shot. [source]
None of these nameless statistics made the news. However, the miscarriage of Wisconsin doctor Sara Beltrán Ponce, did. Dr. Ponce’s high-profile tweets exclaiming that at 14 weeks pregnant she was fully vaccinated—and urging everyone else to do their part, get the shot, protect the community—caused a stir on social media: “I got the #CovidVaccine to protect myself, my baby, my family, my patients, and my community! When it’s available to you, I encourage you to do the same!”
Just days later Dr. Ponce tweeted: “it’s with a heavy heart that I tell my #MedTwitter family that I’ve suffered a miscarriage at 14 1/2 weeks. My husband and I are devastated… Rest in Peace, angel… This is truly a sadness I didn’t know was possible to feel.”
Fauci: over 90% vaccine efficacy is “just extraordinary”!
Pharma’s Warp Speed trials prior to being granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)—not approval or licensure—were conducted on generally healthy people and were not transparent. The immune-compromised, those with co-morbidities, pregnant women, and children were excluded from the trials. Older adults and minorities, some of the hardest-hit populations, were significantly underrepresented, leaving many questions unanswered.
Investigators like British Medical Journal (BMJ) senior editor Peter Doshi are still asking for the raw trial data and challenging initial claims of efficacy based on the selective data hyped by the media.
“All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were ‘3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group’.”
Of the 43,448 low-risk trial participants who received injections, Pfizer used the minuscule subset of 170 symptomatic vacinees who were PCR confirmed to generate a media frenzy of headlines trumpeting an “extraordinary” 95% efficacy rate. Other vaccine developers followed their lead. Based on the far larger symptomatic Covid group that was revealed in the FDA report, Doshi calculates that there was an actual “relative risk reduction of 19%—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators.”
He notes, “With 20 times more suspected covid-19 than confirmed covid-19, and trials not designed to assess whether the vaccines can interrupt viral transmission, an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent—namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants—seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines’ real ability to take the edge off the pandemic.”
Pharma’s trials, which were not designed to prove that the vaccines prevent infection, interrupt transmission, or reduce serious outcomes, appear to be an exercise in industry spin. The years of surveillance standard for licensing a vaccine have barely begun. An average approval process for any vaccine or biologic is normally between 7 and 10 years. The global campaigns underway, injecting nanotechnology never before deployed on human populations, are the true trials.
So how is post-vaccination damage from this giant experiment being monitored in the US?
Simple answer: it is not.
VAERS: Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System
In the first days of America’s Covid vaccine rollout, December 14-18, 2020, the CDC conducted “V-safe Active Surveillance for COVID-19 Vaccines.” According to the CDC’s website, V-safe is “a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to… tell CDC about any side effects after getting the COVID-19 vaccine.”
Over those five days, more than 5,000 “Health Impact Events” immediately following injections were identified. On December 18 alone, 2.79% of people who received first dose shots—3,150 out of 112,807—used this smartphone app to report reactions so severe that they were “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, [and/or] required care from a doctor or other health professional.”
More than 60 million Americans do not own smartphones, and roughly half of senior citizens don’t use them. V-safe also excludes 25 million people in the U.S. with limited English proficiency; the app is only in English. Once again, two of the groups inadequately represented in pharma’s trials but being marketed to most aggressively—senior citizens and minorities—are also the most likely to not be able to use this reporting system.
So how many adverse reactions were NOT captured by this app-only surveillance?
Given the CDC’s reliance on a smartphone app for reporting vaccine side effects and injuries, the actual number of severe reactions might have been significantly higher. But the data gap gets even wider.
Despite being assured that this experiment would be closely monitored, our primary source of data since Dec. 18 has not come from V-safe Active Surveillance, but from VAERS—the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.
VAERS is a voluntary passive system, with no regulatory oversight, no requirement or incentive to report vaccine adverse events. The system is so flawed that in 2010, a Harvard study commissioned by Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that less than 1% of vaccine injuries and deaths are captured. Only a small percentage of the public, including those working in health care, even know it exists. And because adverse events are regularly attributed to coincidence or denied outright, even when medical personnel do know about the system, vaccine reactions regularly go unreported. Not only is there no incentive for health professionals to report to VAERS, it is notoriously difficult to use.
With the new, experimental Covid injections, there are further disincentives to attribute death or injury to vaccination and to file reports with VAERS. Families may not be able to collect on life insurance policies if a loved one dies by injection, or use their health insurance if injured. Not only is there complete liability protection from damages for vaccine manufacturers, health departments, hospitals and retail establishments, personnel who administer the shots, and policy makers, but many private insurers exclude coverage of these vaccines as well. Medical insurers have clauses such as “side effects arising from the COVID-19 vaccine are not covered under our exclusion for… experimental treatment.”
Among doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers, there is tremendous pressure to deny any damage from the shot. As described by Bernadette Pajer of Informed Choice Washington, “A lot of the medical community are afraid that if it [an adverse reaction] happened to them, to speak out and report—because they have to be part of the system that pushes the vaccines.” And when Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer questioned CDC Director Robert Redfield during a House Oversight and Reform subcommittee hearing on coronavirus containment, Redfield confirmed there were financial incentives to classify deaths as resulting from the virus, not other causes. Was there a “perverse incentive” monetary gain for hospitals to classify deaths as being coronavirus-related when the virus was not the actual cause of death?, asked Luetkemeyer. Redfield responded, “I think you’re correct in that.”
In my friend’s case, “This hospital [Jefferson Healthcare] has no way set up to document concerns and is not too interested from what I can tell.” She made the effort to report her aunt’s vaccine death to VAERS, but says the system was so difficult to navigate, “I couldn’t figure it out.”
She also asked her aunt’s attending doctor to report to VAERS and he said he would. If he did, she has received no follow-up. And it clearly was not reported as a Covid vaccine death—there is no mention of the vaccine as a causative factor on the death certificate or of the shot even being administered prior to her death. Her aunt’s cause of death is listed as “renal failure.” Our hospital and health department have not acknowledged it as a vaccine death, and the CDC has no record of it.… another vaccine casualty attributed to other causes, not captured by the system that we are relying on to assess safety of this new technology.
My friend’s experience is so common that organizations like Children’s Health Defense are offering additional resources to help people document vaccine injuries and deaths.
Even with the many disincentives and obstacles, as of March 19, VAERS data shows 44,606 reports of adverse events following Covid vaccines, including 7,095 serious injuries, and 2,050 deaths.
With 118.3 million vaccines administered, that is a 0.037% adverse event rate. Given that the initial V-safe Active Surveillance showed a “serious adverse reaction” rate nearly 100 times that—almost 3% (and that missed people who didn’t have the smartphone app)—the 1% capture rate found by the Harvard study would appear to be accurate. That would mean that in the past three months there may have been more than 4 million (4,460,600) actual adverse events, 709,500 serious injuries, and 205,000 deaths from Covid injections.
Like the death of my friend’s aunt, the vast majority of fatalities induced by the shot go unreported. They are instead attributed to infections from the Covid virus, or to heart attacks, strokes, or organ failure “coincidentally” following injections.
Likely causes for so much injury and death from this experimental injection will be explored in Part Two…. [which you can now read by clicking here]
by Jim Scarantino | Mar 22, 2021 | General
The Great Reopening! Get Off Your Knees!
The cries of the Worldwide Rally for Freedom were heard in Port Townsend on Saturday, March 20, 2021. About 40 people gathered on the plaza at Tyler and Water Streets without masks, but with musical instruments and songs and greetings on their lips. Others held signs encouraging people to think for themselves and be fully informed about lockdowns, vaccines, and what they say are overstated claims of the lethality of COVID-19.
The gathering was loosely connected to other Rallies for Freedom held in at least 40 countries. See below for links to some of the coverage. A friend from Albuquerque, New Mexico jubilantly informed me that they had over 200 people at their event
“It was fantastic,” said Hannah McFarland, one of the Port Townsend event’s organizers. “This was all word of mouth. We really don’t have an organization. It’s as grassroots as it can get.”
But an organization with the purpose of repeating the Rally for Freedom on a weekly basis is being born. Enough names and contact information were collected that this coming Saturday, March 27, 2021, at 11:30 a.m. the crowd will return to the same location. McFarland is hoping for an even better turnout.
In addition to those rallying on concrete, a Freedom Flotilla was in the waters off shore. One of the mariners came ashore to shake hands.
I participated as one of the musicians. I asked McFarland, a Port Townsend resident for 13 years, “Which is the real Port Townsend? Is it the people jogging by themselves, walking by themselves, biking by themselves and wearing masks, fearful of other human beings? Is it the harsh looks directed at someone walking along Water Street without a mask? Or is it live music performed on the street, with strangers greeting each other, happy to be around other human beings?”
That was a rhetorical question.
“We got multiple, ‘Oh, my gosh, thank yous!” from passerby,” McFarland said. “Or, “‘It’s a relief to see you out here.’ People are just so isolated. [Their] fear of death has been so exploited they stop using their rational mind.”
What are the goals and hopes for weekly Freedom Rallies? “We want to connect with people who have already seen through the misinformation, who have been able to study and learn about the issue for themselves without just accepting the word of big media and the medical establishment. And to others, we want to reach out and share in a loving, kind way what’s really going on. This virus is not as lethal as we’ve been led to believe. Shutdowns and masks are not needed.”
She’s worried the next move will be mandatory vaccine cards that will be required to be in the company of others. In fact, the topic arose at a meeting of the Jefferson County of County Commissioners. “It is extraordinary how people believe all this,” she said.
Port Townsend Free Press has been questioning the lock downs, highlighting the arbitrary and senseless nature of Governor Inslee’s orders–indeed the favoritism evident is many of his decrees, the unnecessary costs imposed on working families, the destruction of small businesses while large companies were never shut down. We’ve reported the good news on mortality rates from the CDC, and published thoughtful, carefully researched articles on the need to know precisely what those “case” numbers mean so we can determine whether infection rates are overstated and consequential fears overblown. We’ve been at it since April 2020. You can find our coverage using this site’s search function.
I will be at this week’s event, again with my guitar, joining other Port Townsend residents in enjoying life, and not being crushed by exaggerated fear. I worry about those gloomy, depressed people walking the Larry Scott Trail alone with masks, or hiking Ft. Worden trails and pulling on a mask when they approach another human at a distance of a quarter mile. Those people who drive alone with windows rolled up and wearing a mask and rubber gloves–I think they embrace the abnormalities of the past year. It gives them an excuse to crawl even deeper inside their own problems. I worry especially about the angry young people who wear their masks like uniforms or badges of conformity. I fear they’re more afraid of the pandemic ending than they are of a virus with a 99.7% survival rate, higher for those very same young people. A Pew study finds the lockdowns have caused “devastating” psychological problems among young people.
Just look at this headline from USA Today: “Why we’re scared for the pandemic to end: It feels strange, the idea of being together in the world again.” People need to see other people being normal. These Freedom Rallies are group therapy for a community that has lost its lighthearted joy, love of freedom and irreverence toward authority. It is past time to remember what it means to challenge the dominant paradigm.
Have we been lied to? Have we not been told the full truth? Has the story kept changing? Have government and “the experts” gotten it wrong? Have people been hurt unnecessarily? Has the suffering not been shared equally, and is there no just reason for those inequities? Are our fundamental freedoms being eroded by the exploitation of fear and acquiescence in authoritarian control? The need to keep asking those questions and seeking answers never ends, except by surrender. So bring on those Rallies for Freedom. We need them desperately.
Here is some of the coverage on Rallies from Freedom around the world. Just click on each highlighted word for the link. Thanks to PTFP contributor Stephen Schumacher for the research, and the photo:
Germany
London
Austrailia
Canada
Texas
Maine
Colorado
by Jim Scarantino | Mar 8, 2021 | General
Three former employees tried taking concerns about irregularities and ethical issues to the trustees and officers of Bayside Housing and Services. They were unsuccessful. Now one of them has taken their concerns to the Washington Attorney General.
Port Townsend Free Press has obtained a whistleblower complaint submitted for investigation to the Attorney General. The whistleblower has legal counsel. I have seen confirmation that a complaint was received and was being assigned. I have also been informed that an AG investigator conducted the office’s first interview on the matters raised in the complaint.
Bayside Housing and Services is a non-profit dedicated to providing transitional housing. It leases rooms in Port Hadlock at the Old Alcohol Plant, which is owned by Inn Properties, LLC., a for-profit corporation. Gary J. Keister owns 67% of and manages Inn Properties. Since July 2019 he has also been the acting managing director of Bayside Housing. His two partners in the Inn Properties are also Trustees of Bayside. Vince Verneuil is the Secretary/Treasurer. Christopher Eagan is a past president.
I wrote about these obvious conflicts of interest last week in “Cherry Street Handover: Red Flags About Bayside Housng.” Those red flags arise against Mr. Keister’s history for bank fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. The article asked whether taxpayers should be concerned about turning over the Cherry Street project to Bayside, which is essentially turning it over to Mr. Keister.
After that article was published I was contacted by another former employee of Mr. Keister’s. This person shared their concerns and knowledge about Mr. Keister’s operations. I learned he is involved in the failed development of the Hastings Building in downtown Port Townsend. I have been informed he serves as business consultant for that project and is a creditor. The address of one of the corporations in that project is the same as that of Mr. Keister’s offices in the Old Alcohol Plant in Port Hadlock.
During the conversation, while I was checking statements by the former employee on my computer, I stumbled across five Nevada corporations formed in 2000 for which Mr. Keister was listed as a director or officer or with which he had some other connection. This is in addition to the approximately 30 corporations mentioned in last week’s article. All those corporations were formed after he got out of prison, except one, Wescom Capital, which may have been started while he was still incarcerated.
This former employee said that Mr. Keister had claimed to have owned a fishing fleet but was put out of business by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. Indeed, in a promotional piece for a reading of his autobiography at Village Books in Bellingham, he says his commercial fishing career was ended by the Exxon Valdez disaster. But, from 1986 to 1988 he was committing bank fraud and money laundering running a construction-hardware wholesaler in Tukwila. 1989 was when that house of cards collapsed and he had to file for bankruptcy. In the course of those proceedings his crimes came to light and he was headed for 41 months in federal prison.
A Cherry Street handover would deliver millions of dollars of assets and more than $300,000 to entities under Mr. Keister’s control. He is already involved in receipt and disbursement of public funds, including a $18,550 grant from Jefferson County and a $169,000 grant from the Washington Department of Commerce, both to Bayside Housing. There are other financial dealings with Jefferson County, including a contract for meals for the homeless/transient camp at the Fairgrounds. The county pays Bayside, but the funds pass through to Inn Properties.
Let’s turn to the allegations (I repeat, allegations) of the whistleblower complaint.
Fraud
In April 2020 Jefferson County awarded $18,550 to Bayside Housing to add an additional ten rooms to their lease with Inn Properties. Those rooms would serve low income individuals who might otherwise be homeless. The whistleblower alleges that all of those rooms paid for by the county were not made available to Bayside clients but were, instead, leased to Inn Properties hotel customers. Nonetheless, Inn Properties continued to charge Bayside for those rooms.
Keister has publicly talked about how Bayside has a waiting list of people needing transitional housing but it lacks the rooms to serve them. The whistleblower alleges that Keister took rooms that should have gone to help those people and instead rented them to higher paying Inn Properties customers. The whistleblower further alleges that Keister kept Bayside case managers and others in the dark about this. Eventually, after a bookkeeper complained about what was going on, he did agree to rebate to Bayside some portion of the lease payments for these rooms but has still overcharged Bayside by tens of thousands of dollars.
It is under Keister’s direction that invoices from Inn Properties are prepared and delivered to Bayside. It is Keister who essentially receives those billings and it is under his direction that Bayside pays Inn Properties.
The whistleblower alleges that Keister is “the only person outside of accounting who sees lease and expense invoices, approves them, and signs checks/transfers money from Bayside to Inn Properties.”
The whistleblower also alleges that Keister has increased the rent charged Bayside by 30% with the approval of Keister’s two partners in Inn Properties who are also trustees of Bayside. As mentioned, one of those men is also Bayside’s secretary/treasurer. Keister’s wife is also a Bayside trustee.
The whistleblower claims that Inn Properties (Keister) opened two accounts at the same financial institution as Bayside, with those accounts having the same online banking profile as Bayside. “Internal online banking transfers could be made between the two entities with no oversight whatsoever, and they were.”
Compromising Bayside’s Tax-Exempt Status and More Conflicts of Interest
Keister saw to it that an employee of Inn Properties was added as a check signer on Bayside’s accounts, according to the whistleblower complaint. “At Gary’s direction, she wrote checks in amounts ranging from $10K to $25K with no invoices to pay against to cover Inn Properties cash shortages.” (This is not likely a permissible transaction for a federal tax-exempt organization–Editor). Lease invoices from Inn Properties to Bayside were used to offset these payments. “The overpayment was so great it took several months of lease invoices to fully apply the overpayments correctly,” according to the complaint.
In December 2020, the whistleblower complaint alleges, the Bayside Board voted to “take over” Inn Properties’ for-profit restaurant and hotel business. (Again, possibly a questionable undertaking for a federal tax-exempt organization whose tax-exempt purpose is not making money in the hospitality industry–Editor).
Possible Abuse of PPP Funding and More Fraud
The Federal Paycheck Protection Program of 2020 loaned funds to businesses to help them keep their employees employed. The amount loaned was determined by the amount spent on payroll, generally speaking. The whistleblower alleges that Bayside stopped covering Inn Properties cash shortages when a PPP loan was obtained. But, the complaint alleges, the Inn Properties application for the PPP loan included employee time reimbursed by Bayside. “Inn Properties received their PPP loan based on the inclusion of reimbursable payroll expenses and continued to bill Bayside for the covered payroll,” according to the complaint.
Where Does This Go From Here?
The complaint raises other concerns, including questions about relations with local governments. Bayside is becoming increasingly more involved with government funding as, under Keister’s direction, it has expanded its operations beyond providing transitional housing at the Old Alcohol Plant to involvement with homeless camps and tiny homes villages. Keister has stated in a fundraising video released by Bayside that the group is adding permanent housing as one of its focuses. Keister has sought to obtain use of Chimacum Park, the Fairgrounds and other properties in the area.
The AG won’t be talking about its investigation. Keister has stopped responding to our questions.
Perhaps governments that have been paying Bayside will audit those transactions. Perhaps Bayside’s trustees will act. But three of them–Keister’s business partners and his wife–have financial interests in seeing Inn Properties make money off Bayside. Three employees–all of them key people–have already tried and gotten nowhere.
The City of Port Townsend in September 2020 directed its City Manager, John Mauro, to enter exclusive negotiations with Bayside for handover of the Cherry Street Project. He ignored a $1 million cash offer for the project because he had been authorized to talk only with Bayside, which he said was being represented by Gary Keister. The information reported here at Port Townsend Free Press may help inform the city on how to proceed. I emailed Mauro to ask if he had been contacted by the Attorney General’s Office. I also asked if he had been informed of Mr. Keister’s history of conviction for bank fraud and money laundering and how he might be taking that information into account in negotiations. He has not responded.
Bayside is required by the IRS to file an annual return, called a 990. One can study those returns through the Guidestar service. As I wrote in the preceding article, Bayside’s returns showed skyrocketing income that turned out to be a pledge that has never been paid. Yet, that pledge continues to be carried as an asset and makes Bayside look like it is doing much better than it is.
The 990 does report that three of Bayside’s trustees (Verneuil, Eagan and Susan Keister) have financial interests in Inn Properties, though the form does not explain in any way the enmeshed relationship between the for-profit Inn Properties and tax exempt Bayside Housing. The 990 does not disclose the conflict of interest of Bayside’s managing director. It discloses nothing about Gary Keister’s control over Bayside Housing as its “acting” managing director at the same time he is the majority owner and manager of Inn Properties. Bayside’s 990 for the past year should be filed soon, but won’t be publicly available until Guidestar releases it online.
by Jim Scarantino | Feb 25, 2021 | General
Banned for encouraging people to never forget 9/11.
Sanctioned for mentioning Jefferson County’s terrible meth problem, chronic unemployment, shrinking job base and high poverty rate.
That’s what I’ve learned about how Jefferson County operates the public forum of it’s official Facebook page. Thanks to the people who sued President Trump and won when he blocked them from his Twitter feed, the law is clear that the First Amendment governs the actions of public officials in how they manage their official social media forums. They cannot engage in content-based discrimination. They cannot retaliate or punish. They cannot suppress speech that does not fall into one of the very limited exceptions of the First Amendment.
Encouraging people to remember the terrorist attacks, deaths and heroism of 9/11….definitely protected speech. Speaking out on our county’s drug and economic problems….definitely protected speech. But it is for expressing those opinions that I was sanctioned by whichever public official made those decisions.
So I sued Jefferson County in federal court for these First Amendment violations.
Thanks to the answer filed by Jefferson County in the case, I saw where I had incorrectly reconstructed what I believed happened on 9/10/20, where I thought this story started. I had believed that a comment about COVID issues had been deleted. I was wrong. The county has the activity log that shows they “hid” my comment that linked to a video about 9/11. That video is a gut-wrenching thing to watch, because what happened on that day was and is forever a nightmare to anyone with an ounce of love for life, liberty and this nation of ours.
Watch it for yourself: https://www.prageru.com/video/9-11-we-must-never-forget/
Why would the Jefferson County government not want people remembering 9/11? What was so objectionable about that video that I was later banned from participating in discussions on this public forum?
What I learned is that the county will make invisible comments it does not want other people to see. The author may see the comment and does not know that it has been made invisible to most everyone else. You could be seeing a comment from someone that has been made invisible to others because you happened to have “friended” that person (though you may not actually know them). You will have no idea that you could be alone in receiving what that person has to say about matters of public concern and county business.
The county says they made my 9/11 video link invisible because it was “off topic.” I am not aware that “off topic” is a recognized ground for government to censor or sanction speech. I know of no case at this time holding that “off topic” is an exception to the First Amendment. But “off topic” is their excuse.
I posted the video about 9/11 on 9/10 for good reason. The county’s Facebook page has published proclamations on other things, such as Earth Day. It had made no mention whatsoever of any commemoration of 9/11. My comment was intended to correct that omission. It was a protest of the county’s failure to honor that day and those who died and an attempt to bring attention to that failure. Protesting and bringing attention to a government’s failure is pure political speech that cannot be censored. The county saying it was “off topic” (it wasn’t) doesn’t outrank the First Amendment. The City of Port Townsend at the time was embroiled in a growing controversy because it had cancelled the annual ringing of the old fire bell at the hour the first plane hit the Twin Towers. The county was not indicating it would honor that day. It was silent about 9/11. So I posted that “Never Forget 9/11” video. This is pure political speech protected by the First Amendment.
The next day, 9/11, came and went without any mention by the county of the events of that day in 2001. Courthouse bells rang, but without any explanation by the county.
Sometime after that I was banned from participating in the public forum the county created with its official Facebook page that allows comments (except those it disagrees with). I could not comment. I could not even “like” or “dislike” a pronouncement or news development published by the county.
I had received no notice that I had been sanctioned or why. That is something else I’ve discovered since I filed suit: the county sanctions people–deleting or “hiding” their comments, banning them from commenting–without any notice or explanation. As I mentioned, if you receive the sanction of your speech being “hidden” you have no idea that has happened. You have to sit down with someone who is not a Facebook friend and ask them if they can see on their computer what you wrote. If they cannot, then you just learned you have received the official sanction of having your speech censored.
There is no appeal process. You can sue, though you shouldn’t have to.
After my lawsuit was served on the county, they seem to have lifted (without notice to me) the sanction that prevented me from expressing opinions and sharing information to others viewing their Facebook public forum.
Then they again sanctioned me without notice, without explanation. I discovered that a comment I made in January 2021 about the county’s terrible meth problem, chronic poverty, shrinking job base and severe poverty resulted in the county sanction of making the comment invisible. The sanction was curious, because I was responding to a comment by another person about some of the same problems, particularly the drug problem right now at the County Fairgrounds where a young woman, a meth user, was found dead, lying face down on the ground in the open where in happier times children have played and people have enjoyed rides and 4-H animal exhibits.
I don’t know if my comment about our terrible meth problem was made invisible by county officials before or after the campground manager came across this poor woman’s stone-cold body and called police.
The county says it prohibits profanity, but now that I’ve examined the entire history of comments I see an F-bomb and other profanity. The county says it prohibits promotion of business and political candidates, but I’ve found examples of that. The county says it prohibits insults and personal attacks, but I’ve found plenty of those. The county says it prohibits comments that embed images from external sources or that contain copyrighted material. I’ve also found plenty of examples where they don’t enforce that rule, either. But the county sure is good at prohibiting my speech when it disagrees with the narrative they want enforced in that public forum.
I intend to amend my complaint to include these facts and others I’ve learned since our initial pleading. There will be a bit of a delay. My attorney suffered a health crisis requiring emergency surgery. The county’s attorney has graciously agreed to push things back 90 days. I also still hope we can settle this.
Given the pesky First Amendment, running an official government social media site is fraught with problems. Every decision the county makes about its Facebook page is state action triggering First Amendment review. As I’ve learned, it also triggers rights of due process. I hope my attorney and I in cooperation with the county can find a solution that cures the currently unconstitutional and illegal manner in which the county is managing this public forum.
A curious thing occurred recently. In response to publication of a proclamation by the Board of County Commissioners in January about the Port Townsend Women’s March, I posted in a comment the same “Never Forget 9/11” video that got me banned after I posted it on 9/10/20. Nothing happened. The comment was not made invisible and my First Amendment rights to participate in the public forum were not taken from me.
Like I said, one shouldn’t have to file a federal lawsuit to prevent the government from censoring his political speech. But apparently going to court does improve how a citizen gets treated.
by Jim Scarantino | Feb 23, 2021 | General
Annette Huenke through a public records request discovered that Jefferson Healthcare’s Covid testing protocols may run samples through so many amplifications that the result may be a false positive or otherwise meaningless. We were pleased to publish the results of her inquiries, “Is Jefferson County Health Department Overstating COVID Numbers?”
Huenke has continued to try to nail down the scientific data behind claims made by the Jefferson County Health Department to determine if they are accurate and should be relied upon by policy makers and citizens. Recently, claims about the benefits of double-masking have been asserted. Huenke wanted to know what there was in the way of scientific studies and data to back those claims up. Following is her exchange on the subject with Dr. Thomas Locke, Jefferson County Health Officer.
You may ask, Where does Ms. Huenke get off investigating statements by Dr. Locke? How dare she question “the science”? Isn’t Port Townsend Free Press contributing to unscientific “pandemic denialism” by giving her a forum? After all, she is not “an expert.” Are we not just spreading “disinformation”?
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Those are the sage words of Nobel-winning physicist and philosopher of science, Richard Feynman. He was referring to “science” which determines policies through the weight of expert and political consensus. This is the stuff we get on the evening news and what is being forced upon us by Facebook’s, Twitter’s and YouTube’s–and our local newspapers’–censorship of anything that might cast doubt upon the establishment consensus, even if those doubts are raised by people who happen to be scientists and rigorously employ the scientific method in their research.
Feynman said, “Learn from science that you must doubt the experts.” We return to Feynman at the end of this article, and link one of his famous lectures on the scientific method.
Here follow Ms. Huenke’s efforts to get the empirical science on the political science of double-masking. Much more comes to light than the simple answers she sought.
From: Annette Huenke, 2/8/21, to Jefferson County Board of Health and Dr. Locke
Subject: re: this morning’s BOCC meeting.
Good afternoon, all. This morning Dr. Locke said that “there is a lot of evidence” to support double-masking.
Kindly provide that evidence in a reply to this email at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
Annette Huenke
_______________________________________________
Dr. Locke’s reply, 2/8/21:
The rationale for double masking (spun polypropylene inner mask, two layer cotton outer) is based on an enhanced mechanical filtration effect (extra layers) and an electrostatic charge being generated (triboelectric effect) by dissimilar fabrics. CDC is conducting comparative studies of masking efficacy but this will likely be confined to filtration measures. “Hard data” (epidemiological studies demonstrating decreased transmission and/or acquisition of infection) are much more difficult and raise ethical concerns (re: control groups use of substandard or no PPE). And no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic denialism and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.
Tom Locke, MD, MPH
Jefferson County Health Officer
Huenke’s 2/14 response to Locke’s 2/8 letter:
Ad hominem attacks are unbecoming a man in your position, Dr. Locke, and says a lot more about you than it does about those you are eager to insult. Pathologizing dissent is not a new tactic for marginalizing unwelcome voices. So-called ‘witches’ were similarly outed in their communities and burned at the stake for such digressions. The strategy was perhaps perfected by the Soviets in the mid-twentieth century, deployed against anyone who deviated from the official narrative.
For ten months now a handful of concerned citizen researchers have been highlighting bona fide studies from reputable sources to broaden the perspective of local policy makers. Those sources include the CDC, WHO and top scientists and universities around the globe.
Last Monday you stated publicly that “there is a lot of evidence” to support double-masking. ‘A lot of evidence’ turns out to be a NIH ‘commentary’ that purports to “summarize the evidence on face masks for Covid-19 from both the infectious diseases and physical science viewpoints.” Similar to the ‘evidence review’ you provided the board on May 21st last year, this one manages to summarize evidence that supports the goals of its funders while ignoring the plethora of research that does not. It is a text book example of cherry-picking.
“A lot of evidence” for double-masking is actually several small mechanistic experiments conducted with manikins. Manikins don’t breathe. Employing the tired “it would be unethical” trope, in this case to deny proper PPE to a control group, rings hollow when we know full well that there is a sizable portion of the population that can’t or won’t wear masks.
In an
AFT Fireside Chat on January 28th, just over two weeks ago, Anthony Fauci said “There’s no evidence that indicates that that [2 masks] is going to make a difference. And that is why the CDC has not changed their recommendation.” He’d advised double-masking shortly before that, surely aware that this ‘commentary’ was soon to be released.
You have steadfastly rejected the research we’ve supplied that demonstrates known harms from masking. You haven’t expressed real concern about improper use and care of the masks you relentlessly promote. Sadly, you’re now encouraging people to further reduce their oxygen supply and increase their own carbon dioxide intake.
You and your colleagues do not have a corner on valid science. You are not all-knowing, all-seeing, infallible. Thousands of experts with credentials that exceed yours, John Wiesman’s and Anthony Fauci’s disagree with you. That they are being censored and you are not is the reveal. Censorship is employed by authorities to conceal the truth.
I offer you a table turned — “no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic” propaganda “and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.”
Annette Huenke
___________________________
Huenke’s comment for 2/17 Board of County Commissioners meeting:
At last week’s BOCC meeting, Dr. Locke said that “there is a lot of evidence” to support double-masking. I wrote to ask for that evidence. I received a pdf of a 4-page paper and a brief reply that ended with “no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic denialism and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.”
For ten months now a handful of concerned citizen researchers have been highlighting bona fide studies from reputable sources to broaden the perspective of local policy makers. Those sources include the CDC, WHO and top universities and scientists around the globe. Are those premiere virologists, pathologists and epidemiologists pseudoscientists because they’ve arrived at different conclusions than Dr. Locke about the crisis that is consuming us? Are we sociopaths because we consider the research and opinions of those experts?
What Dr. Locke called “a lot of evidence” for double-masking is actually several small mechanistic experiments conducted with manikins, reported in a NIH ‘commentary’ that summarizes studies which clearly support the goals of its funders while ignoring the plethora of research that does not. It was not peer reviewed. It is data-deficient.
During a fireside chat on January 28th, Anthony Fauci said “There’s no data that indicates that that [2 masks] is going to make a difference. And that is why the CDC has not changed their recommendation.” He’d advised double-masking shortly before that, surely aware that this NIH paper was in its final stages.
In a recent interview, Dr. Michael Osterholm, a top health adviser to President Biden, warned that double-masking could be counterproductive and harmful. “If you put more of it on, all it does is it impedes the air coming through and it makes it blow in and out along the sides. The fit becomes even less effective,” he said. “Double masking could be a detriment to your protection.”
Legitimate research we’ve supplied that report known harms from masking has been categorically rejected. There has been scant attention paid to the near-universal improper use and care of masks, which has been proven to increase risk of infection. And now, based on experiments with manikins, we’re being told to wear two masks, which will further reduce our oxygen supply and increase our own carbon dioxide intake.
A true cost/benefit analysis of these extreme masking policies has not yet been conducted. Neither has the rigorous scientific research required to support them.
Annette Huenke
___________________________
Dr. Locke’s reply to Huenke’s BOCC comment, 2/17:
Ms. Huenke,
All science-based information has elements of uncertainty and is subject to challenge and, hopefully, increasing reliability. This is how the scientific method works. I agree it is wrong to pathologize dissent or to marginalize unwelcome voices. Just as there is science, which seeks to establish the true nature of things, there is also pseudoscience, which perverts that process by selectively citing supporting information while ignoring or distorting non-supporting information. It can be difficult for the general public to distinguish between the two. The COVID-19 pandemic is the worst public health crisis that the U.S. has faced in the past 100 years. It’s management has been seriously compromised by those who embraced and promoted “alternative facts” to support their views that non-pharmacological mitigations like masking, distancing, and restricted gatherings are a fundamental violation of human rights. The Great Barrington Declaration and the ongoing pseudoscientific opposition to mask use are examples of this phenomenon and pit individual liberty against public health. The CDC reliably estimates that 59% of SARS-CoV-2 infections are transmitted by asymptomatic cases (35% presymptomatic, 24% never symptomatic). Universal masking is the only viable strategy to interrupt this transmission pathway and has a growing evidentiary base. Attached are some additional links from recent CDC publications. Based on what we currently know, the refusal to wear masks in public settings at times of high COVID-19 prevalence is truly sociopathic — antisocial behavior characterized by the willful disregard of the welfare of others. It is also illegal. I do not think it is not too much to ask to prevent a potentially lethal infection in someone else.
I am sorry that you took personal offense at my statement that “no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic denialism and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.” In this statement I am referring to the well recognized phenomena of the “unpersuadable” (The Unpersuadables: Adventures with the Enemies of Science by Will Storr (goodreads.com)<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18114379-the-unpersuadables>), those who reject scientific information because it is in conflict with their fundamental, non-rational worldview. No amount of information will change the mind of someone who is unpersuadable. This worldview drives the “anti-vaxxer” movement and has been dramatically amplified by the ubiquity of social media and the ability of people to curate their own reality by selective exposure to only those facts that support their worldview. I am always happy to consider alternative views but have come to recognize the futility of arguing with those who only seek the confirmation of their own beliefs. My prime responsibility as the county health officer is to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in this community and to reduce morbidity and mortality to the greatest extent feasible. This battle is very real and we deal with individuals and families who lives are profoundly disrupted by this pandemic every day. As a nation we have paid a terrible price for pandemic denialism — a very high death rate (currently at 485,000) and a case rate (27 million) far in excess of what a country with our resources and technology could have achieved. These are not just harmless differences of opinion, they have real world consequences.
You cite Dr. Anthony Fauci, a distinguished infectious disease specialist, but you do so out of context. In other public statements he has supported masking, including improved mask design and the benefits of “double masking”. Double masking is not a panacea for the problem of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but is one more option. The takeaway from the CDC information and similar research to date is that people should use high quality masks and use them in situations where asymptomatic transmission can occur. If we fail, once again, to make reasonable personal sacrifices for the common good, it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 variants will spread faster than vaccination efforts can suppress them, necessitating renewed school and business closures.
While your comments to the Boards of Health and County Commissioners are always welcome, I am unable to continue to respond personally to your statements due to time limitations. I regard the CDC as an authoritative source of information, especially under the leadership of the Biden administration and refer you to their various websites and publications for the latest research on the topics you are interested in.
Sincerely,
Tom Locke, MD, MPH
Jefferson County Health Officer
“Science says….”
The Great Barrington Declaration that Dr. Locke dismisses as “unscientific” and “pandemic denialism” is a declaration of concern about Covid policies signed by infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists from around the world. It advocates a “focused protection” approach to those most at risk and seeks to avoid the many serious problems caused by general Covid lockdowns. Dr. Locke’s glib dismissal of this challenge to Covid policies–challenges based on these individuals’ work and learning in their fields of scientific and medical expertise–brings us back to Feynman’s definition of “science” and why we are pleased to give people like Ms. Huenke (and Dr. Rob Rennebohm, Stephen Schumacher and Ana Wolpin) a forum for their questions about prevailing Covid policies and liturgies.
In closing, here’s more from Feynman on why science is “belief in the ignorance of experts”:
When someone says, “Science teaches such and such”, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, “Science has shown such and such”, you might ask, “How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?” It should not be “science has shown” but “this experiment, this effect, has shown”. And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at…The experts who are leading you may be wrong…I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television-words, books, and so on-are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science…Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation.
Richard Feynman on Scientific Method (1964) – YouTube
Related: CDC on Maximizing Fit for Cloth and Medical Procedure Masks
CDC: The Science of Masking to Control COVID-19
[Ms. Huenke’s 2/14 response to Dr. Locke’s 2/8 letter was omitted inadvertently from the initial publication of this article]
