ICWA Weekly News 1-17-24
Vaccine bill speeding through committees; WMC disciplines Dr. Ryan Cole; Spokane event Jan. 22 with Dr. Reni Moon; Links from radio shows with authors of Warrior Mom & Autism Cost to Society
In this Issue:
Vaccine definition change speeding through legislature
Washington Medical Commission Disciplines Dr. Ryan Cole
Upcoming Events:
“Because I Must Speak Free” with Dr. Renata Moon, Jan. 22, Spokane
CHD Vax/Unvax Bus, April 16-19, various locations
Radio Show Links: Tracy Slepcevic, Mark Blaxill, Cynthia Nevison
Prepare to be Meme’d
In the Next Issue: New & Curious reports of WA VAERS deaths + more
DOH and VAC Request Vaccine Definition Change
Last week, the Washington Department of Health (DOH) and Vaccine Advisory Committee (VAC) met and promoted the companion bills HB 2157 and SB 5982 to update the definition of “vaccine.” The DOH requested the bills and the Washington Vaccine Association (WVA) hired lobbyists Leonard & Kolan to get it done – your tax dollars at work. (more on the WVA in an upcoming article).
Official summary of HB 2157 and SB 5982:
Updating the definition of "vaccine" in RCW 70.290.010 to include all federal food and drug administration-approved immunizations recommended by the centers for disease control and prevention.
That summary masks the circular language in the bills, which is (after removing the deleted words):
"Vaccine" means an immunization approved by the federal food and drug administration as safe and effective and recommended by the advisory committee on immunization practices of the centers for disease control and prevention for administration to children under the age of nineteen years.
So if this passes, “vaccine” will now mean “immunization.” It’s like defining “water” as “wetness.” Immunization is the act of receiving a product intended to produce immunity, it’s not the product. Even the CDC is not ridiculous enough to say otherwise. To make sense, somebody would need to amend the bill and add the word “agent” or “product” or “preparation” after the word “immunization.”
Also last week, Informed Choice WA issued their first Call-to-Action (CTA) of 2024 to ask citizen activists to comment and register con on these two bills scheduled for health committee hearings. If you didn’t receive that CTA, please sign up for our main mailing list.
This charade of changing vaccine definitions began with the rollout of COVID-19 gene therapy shots. Under the subheading “The Vaccine Doesn’t Work, so the Definition Was Changed,” the Epoch Times wrote:
For nearly 15 years, from November 2007 to August 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) working definition of “vaccine” was:
“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from the disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”
But in September 2021, according to Daniels, U.S. public health authorities changed the definition of “vaccine.”
The new definition, which the curious reader can find under the title “Vaccine Basics” on the CDC’s BAM! Body and Mind webpage, a classroom resource for teachers, became: “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”
The CDC had deleted a key part of the definition of vaccines. You will no longer find anywhere on its website the assertion that a vaccine “stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from the disease.” However, a 2015 World Health Organization document (pdf) cites the CDC’s previous vaccine definition.
The COVID-19 vaccines don’t produce immunity protecting people who are vaccinated from getting the illness. This fact should have spurred the CDC and every other health authority in the world to stop the current vaccination program and work overtime to create a better, more effective, and safer vaccine.
But, instead, the CDC is working hard to dupe the American people by claiming that the mission of these vaccines was never to stop the spread of coronavirus in the first place.
Additionally, Peter Doshi, a senior editor at The British Medical Journal told a panel of experts in a November 2022 Senator Ron Johnson roundtable discussion about this change in the dictionary:
I argue these products which everyone calls mRNA vaccines are qualitatively different from standard vaccines, so I found it fascinating to learn that Merriam Webster changed the definition of vaccine early this year.
mRNA products did not meet the definition of vaccine that has been in place for over fifteen years, but the definition was expanded such that mRNA products are now vaccines.
He then argued that just because they’re calling the COVID shot a “vaccine” doesn’t mean “these new products are just like all other childhood vaccines which get mandated.”
Following the convenient moves of the FDA and CDC, agenda item five of the January 10 Board of Health (BOH) meeting featured the definition-changing bills which began at least five consecutive days of action to speed the change through legislative committee.
Kelly Cooper, Policy and Legislative Relations Director for the DOH, called HB 2157 and SB 5982 the “Vaccine for Kids” bill at 0:50:12, telling the board:
I know we are all extremely excited about having a new immunization for RSV for infants. The Washington Vaccine Association’s definition in statute does not allow for this new vaccine to be purchased under the Vaccine for Children federal program. And so we are asking for an amendment to the statute that will allow this vaccine to be purchased. I want to make sure that everybody knows that this is not about a mandate. No one would need this vaccine. It’s not for school entry. It’s not for childcare entry. It’s really about what we do to get the best price and how do we get it into provider’s hands to provide to families who want it.
(We don’t think she meant to literally say “No one would need this vaccine” so we won’t pick on that part). A diligent board member could have picked this time to ask “But how did the Washington Vaccine Association already purchase over $14 million worth of RSV monoclonal antibody shots?” But there was no inquiry.
Two presenters later, Jaime Bodden, the managing director of the Washington Association of Local Public Health Officials (WSALPHO), dubbed HB 2157 and SB 5982 the “Vaccine Definition Bill.” She jumped into the bill lobbying game with “We really love the program and would like to see it continue, knowing that vaccine technology is advancing, and we’ll be able to accommodate new technologies and advances in new vaccine technology.”
Ms. Bodden didn’t bother to address the public trust issues brought up in multiple public comments before she expressed adoration for the bills.
Such LOVE for a definition change seems a bit over-the-top. Could prizes have been dangled to incentivize rapid passage? Afterall, the nonsensical new definition opens the door to just about anything a manufacturer decides to call a “vaccine” or ACIP defines as an “immunization” product, and once on the CDC’s pediatric schedule, the product becomes a Golden Goose.
Meanwhile, the commenters expressed growing suspicion of the state supporting new technologies that lack sufficient studies to determine safety or effectiveness. Many are concerned about the unknown long-term adverse effects, and some are rightly upset that purchases of new “immunizations” were made anyway – against existing statute.
ICWA director Lisa Templeton provided such testimony during the earlier public comment period, warning about the open-ended companion bills allowing the purchase of new technology products aimed at children:
Informed Choice WA and several other organizations in the state had already noticed with trepidation HB 2157 and SB 5982, dropped a few days ago at the request of the Department of Health.
These companion bills re-define the term "vaccine" to omit that it is "a preparation of killed or attenuated living microorganisms, or fraction thereof, that upon administration stimulates immunity that protects against diseases." Instead, the bills use the term “vaccine” to simply mean an "immunization," which is not even defined in the pertinent title of the RCW.
The slides state that the purpose of the proposed redefinition is to facilitate WVA’s purchase of “new and innovative technologies” for all Washington children.
This would immediately allow WVA to participate in funding all Washington newborns under eight months in what’s called "their first RSV season" to be given Beyfortis (nirsevimab), which is a *monoclonal antibody* (not a vaccine) injection for RSV.
This would also open the floodgates to any and all future pediatric monoclonal antibodies and other technologies.
There are already dozens and dozens and dozens of shots on the CDC pediatric schedule. The public is already very concerned about traditional vaccines; after all, vibrant health does not come from taking an inadequately tested, liability-free pharmaceutical product. But injecting more “new technologies” into our children is even more concerning.
This newest shot on the CDC schedule is by far the most lucrative one yet, costing $395 to purchase from the CDC, and WVA can collect $495 per shot from private insurers. Many of us fear that with financial stakes this high, the bodies of our little babies are given secondary consideration.
There was more bill promotion during the Vaccine Advisory Committee (VAC) meeting just the day after the Board of Health met. Dr. John Dunn, a VAC member representing “managed care” and coincidently also the chairman of the board of directors of the Washington Vaccine Association, explained that RSV antibody shots had in fact been provided to clinics already:
You'll recall at our last meeting on October 12, we discussed challenges that we were having with Washington Vaccine Association funding of nirsevimab RSV monoclonal antibodies for children. The primary problem was that when the Washington Vaccine Association was established, the enabling statute for back in 2009 used what is today outdated language to describe immunizations, and a close reading of it revealed to us that that language did not include passive immunizations, such as the nirsevimab RSV.
The Washington Vaccine Association and, I think, we discussed last time that I did figure out a funding mechanism for this year. So we have in fact been providing it to practices around the state. However, that's really is a one-year fix, and that's not something we'll be able to continue doing in the future.
For that reason, as was mentioned on a couple of occasions, there are two bills before the legislature right now being debated tomorrow—SB 5982 / HB 2157. They are very narrow bills. They are specifically to fix the outdated language in the portion of the statute that defines the products that WVA can fund. And it's, I believe, a less than a sentence change in the entire document.
This should hopefully be fairly straightforward. However as you even heard earlier, there's, I think, a bunch of misapprehension and misunderstanding about what this involves. It does not involve enabling the Washington Vaccine Association to fund any and every sort of pediatric medication. It's only for ACIP approved vaccination products.
VAC Chair Dr. Tao Sheng Kwan-Gett followed up Dr. Dunn: “I just wanted to thank many of you who will be involved and the organizations you represent who will be involved in testimony for some of the bills tomorrow.”
So, on Day 2 of action during the public comment period of the VAC, public commenters like ICWA’s Lisa Templeton and Be Brave Washington’s Natalie Chavez were able to voice their opposition to counter the narrative around the bills that innocently claimed to just be a wording update. Changing her comments a bit from the day before, Lisa made more key points about the definition change:
Initially, this would immediately allow WVA to participate in funding all Washington newborns under 8 months in what’s called "their first RSV season" to be given the lucrative nirsevimab, which is a monoclonal antibody, not a vaccine. Mass-scale administration of monoclonal antibodies to babies has never been done.
There are already dozens and dozens and dozens of vaccine doses on the CDC pediatric schedule—far more than you and I were given as we grew up. The public is becoming increasingly concerned about traditional vaccines; after all, vibrant health does not come from taking an inadequately tested, liability-free pharmaceutical product. But injecting “new technologies” into our children is even more concerning.
Some people have expressed excitement about this prospect, but the exercise of the precautionary principle is absolutely critical.
If this legislation passes, what can you do as a committee to ensure that these injections have been safety tested long term—and in conjunction with the other vaccine products on the schedule--before they are given indiscriminately to thousands of Washington’s most vulnerable citizens?
Moving on to day number three of action around these bills, Friday January 12 was the first day that legislators would consider HB 2157 and SB 8962 in the respective House and Senate health committees. Interestingly, each bill was scheduled in concurrent committees as agenda item number 4, making it difficult for individuals to fight on both fronts. Coincidence? The Conservative Ladies of Washington efficiently split up duties, assigning different representatives to calmly and effectively voice opposition to the bills. ICWA director Bob Runnells was able to juggle the committee times and give testimony in both. Here are portions of his comments to the members of the House Committee on Health Care & Wellness:
What is nirsevimab? It's a monoclonal antibody often grown in genetically-humanized mice. That blood serum is concentrated into a solution that is injected into infants.
Are these safe?
Use of monoclonal antibody shots for infants is unprecedented yet ongoing. By definition, there are no long-term studies. In France, there has been a large increase in excess infant mortality in concert with the rollout of Beyfortus. Bronchiolitis, anaphylaxis, and huge immune system reactions like cytokine release syndrome have been seen. Deaths of Beyfortus-injected infants have been reported.
Are these effective?
Viruses mutate and immune responses can have escapes – which simply used to just be called vaccine failure. A 2022 paper by Beach et al (See Attachment 1) studied another monoclonal antibody for RSV that plainly showed RSV mutational resistance. They summarized, "Monoclonal antibodies are increasingly used for the prevention and/or treatment of viral infections. One caveat of their use is the ability of viruses to evolve resistance to antibody binding and neutralization... Six of the eight variants showed increased resistance to neutralization by motavizumab." [Another RSV product]
Are they needed?
While we do empathize with those who've had complications, RSV issues are relatively rare. There were on average only 17 deaths per year over the last 12 years. Hospitalization is well under 1%.
The highly-published Dr. Peter McCullough says of monoclonal antibodies "As a clinician, it makes more sense to me to reserve monoclonal antibodies for acute treatment in high-risk cases where mechanical ventilation and death are potential consequences such as children with severe lung disease at baseline. With widespread use of monoclonal antibodies on the first day of life, it is very likely RSV resistance will emerge and babies will have been unnecessarily injected with a novel product having no assurances on long-term safety. All the more reason to curtail this new, mass indiscriminate program for newborns before the entire population is put at risk."
It is this doctor's opinion that this product is not fit for the programs for which the WVA is chartered.
As we've seen with COVID, the CDC plays fast and loose with emergency use authorizations and rushed approvals. In prior times, this bill might easily pass. But after COVID, many more do not trust our public health agencies and are skeptical of related changes to RCW or WAC.
Why this bill now? A diligent committee member would ask to amend the title to 'Updating the definition of vaccine to cover the illegal purchase by the WVA of RSV monoclonal antibody shots.' They've admitted monoclonals aren't allowed by statute. Yet they already found a workaround..."
Please oppose SB 5982 because it's not needed by the masses.
Mr. Runnells testimony was largely supported by data and quotations found in this timely January 2 article in The Defender Titled: French Researchers Identify ‘Improbably High Rate of Deaths’ in Newborns Who Received New RSV Shot
Day four of action on Tuesday January 16 at eight A.M.: the Senate Health committee passed SB 5982 with a unanimous voice vote. Nary a question about the legality of previous purchases or a doubt about the safety or effectiveness of the first shots to be legally purchased under the proposed change.
Day five of action is today, Wednesday January 17 at 1:30 PM: the House will consider HB 2157 in the Executive Session portion of the Health Committee meeting. The public does not comment during Executive Session and you can watch it live and it’s recording playback on TVW.org.
The next stop for the bills is floor debate in what seems to be a race to be the first bill to reach the Governor’s desk in this short legislative session. And we know how much the Governor likes (to use) public health.
Washington Medical Commission Disciplines Dr. Ryan Cole
On page forty-two in the meeting packet for last week’s Washington Board of Health (BOH) meeting, a written public comment praised the work of Dr. Ryan Cole:
To the board: I am writing on behalf of Dr. Ryan Cole and Dr. Michael Turner. These two doctors are the BEST and at seventy-two and unvaxxed, they kept me healthy, and never did I get COVID. They are brilliant and know medicine, unlike most out there who have been spouting anti-science on the plandemic. They treat patients and save lives. Do nothing to stop their practice. We NEED more like these two docs.
Thank you,
KM (Concerned Citizen)
Vancouver, Washington
Even with ongoing praise, the Washington Medical Commission (WMC) this past week went on to discipline Dr. Ryan Cole by restricting his license.
The last part of the disciplinary action directs Dr. Cole to write a paper addressing “professionalism, truthfulness, and honesty in the practice of medicine.” Well, last May 3, 2023, Dr. Cole was one of the honored thirty-nine invitees to speak to the European Parliament about the COVID-19 shots. If the WMC wants a true look at professionalism, truthfulness, and honesty in the practice of medicine, all they have to do is take a serious look at Dr. Cole’s testimony when he made the following points:
I want to thank the organizers who have been brave enough to stand for the truth around the world in spite of the slings and arrows that have attacked our licenses, our free speech. And we are in the middle of something that is not about a virus but about free speech.
We now have countries passing laws preventing people, preventing scientists from speaking the truth, preventing the opportunity to engage in dialogue. We have seen the loss and the death of informed consent around the world. How many people were told of all the harms to the brain, the heart, the reproductive organs prior to getting these injections? I would posit that none have, and I think that’s the problem we’re facing.
Before starting his slide presentation, Dr. Cole said the following about the healthcare system:
We’ve seen the death of public health. Vitamin D was ignored. We have a Vitamin D deficiency pandemic right now around the world that could have allayed and prevented much of the harms that we did see. We have an obesity pandemic around the world. Probably the biggest death we have seen around the world the past three years is the death of curiosity and the death of critical thinking.
Before starting his main comments, he showed a slide of a man holding a protest sign that read, “Of course, all scientists agree when you censor the scientists who don’t.”
Following that idea, he asked the crowd:
How many people in this room know about the Trusted News Initiative? Please raise your hand. That’s about half the room. That’s more than most audiences. The reason you haven’t heard most of the things that you have heard today is because the media is in collusion with whatever the powers that be to prevent you from getting that information.
Dr. Cole then addressed the big monster in the room: Spike-cancer mechanism potentials. “How many people in this room after the rollout of the injections have a friend, colleague, patient who had an unexpected cancer after a regressive cancer?” he asked. “Please, a show of hands. Wow. Let the record show for those who can’t see the room that that’s more than half of the room.”
Dr. Cole then referred to his expertise as a pathologist:
The pathologist is most important doctor that you never meet whom you hope is right. And I’m honored to be here with my esteemed colleagues. We are the quality control of medicine. We are the ones who if we see something, you say something. Whether it’s convenient or not. And why does it matter? Because it’s life or death between our eyeballs. That’s what we do everyday. All good science begins with observation. My colleagues here, and I want to thank Dr. Arne Burkhardt and his group for first pointing out the harms from these COVID-19 shots. I was in a meeting just two days ago in Texas and more pathologists were there, as well as another recently, and pathologists are seeing this but are afraid to say something because of loss of profession or job. Clinical observation: the cancer rates are off the charts and growing, and that’s unfortunate. Insurance data sets in Germany are showing increases in unexpected cancers.
The disciplinary action taken against Dr. Cole stems from the WMC’s Misinformation Position Statement, which not only shows the actions it would take, but also reveals how they lazily defer to another government bureaucracy.
The WMC will scrutinize any complaints received about practitioners granting exemptions to vaccination or masks that are not based in established science or verifiable fact. A practitioner who grants a mask or other exemption without conducting an appropriate prior exam and without a finding of a legitimate medical reason supporting such an exemption within the standard of care, may be subjecting their license to disciplinary action.
The WMC bases masking and vaccination safety on expert recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Washington State Department of Health (DOH).
The WMC relies on the U.S Food and Drug Administration approval of medications to treat COVID-19 to be the standard of care. While not an exhaustive list, the public and practitioners should take note:
• Ivermectin is not FDA approved for use in treating or preventing COVID-19
• Hydroxychloroquine (Chloroquine) is not FDA approved for use in treating or preventing COVID-19
Recently, the legality of the WMC’s position statements have been falling under question. For example, these specific constraints on the practice of medicine should have been properly put in place with due process, and the commission should not be trying to enforce the policy retroactively. And if they now intend to forbid the off-label use of any licensed product, then they must swiftly ban the practice of giving flu vaccines to pregnant women. There is not a single flu vaccine on the market claiming safety during pregnancy. For instance, the FLUAD QUADRIVALENT insert states: “There are insufficient human data to establish whether there is a vaccine-associated risk with use of FLUAD QUADRIVALENT in pregnancy.”
In related news, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) lawyers sued the Medical Board of California on January 2, challenging the board’s ability to discipline doctors for allegedly spreading “misinformation.”
The Defender article covers the Medical Board of California’s disciplining of doctors for giving “false” information even though the law from SB 2098 that might have been cited has since been repealed.
However, according to the suit filed Tuesday, California’s medical board is still targeting “COVID misinformation,” and physicians are still being intimidated and threatened by disciplinary action.
If you think the WMC is acting outside the law and harassing a doctor you want to support, let them know. And if you are being bullied about vaccination or denied proper treatment of an illness, let them know that, too. The WMC meets regularly and remotely as an open public meeting, accepting comments from the public. The next WMC Business Meeting is this Friday, January 19 from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Register to join and/or provide verbal comment.
In the meeting packet already available, ICWA activist Lynn Bergeron wrote the following public comment to the WMC:
To the Washington Medical Commission, I request this letter be read into the record at your next meeting of your Policy Committee.
I am angered by what you’re up to. First, your witch hunt for health practitioners who do not tow the party line is appalling. With the ever-increasing toxic load we’re all exposed to, we desperately need these doctors and the alternative options they offer (not force on) us. We’re not a bunch of dummies that need mommy and daddy government to protect us. We can make our own health care choices. If I choose a practitioner that aligns with my beliefs, that means I’ve already rejected the medicine you want to limit us to.
Second, you are an unelected and unaccountable body; part of the monstrous administrative state and the cancerous growth of government. We have no way to oust you on election day should we not like how you’re spending taxpayer monies. Sweet for you; no recourse for us.
Third… you’re wrong. You are condemning good doctors based on outdated dictates from so-called authorities (also part of the administrative state) you claim to take your marching orders from, not to mention bad science and manipulated data. You don’t even seem to know what the CDC and FDA are currently saying. They’re singing a different tune than two and three years ago.
I doubt you can be ignorant of the truth at this point in the game. I think you know what you’re doing, choosing to act in service to the deep state. You’re certainly not helping the people you’re supposed to serve. Or, perhaps you have been brainwashed, bribed, or blackmailed – all possibilities – in which case, if you can’t do the right thing, you should simply resign… before you find yourselves on the wrong side of history at the eventual reckoning that will come.
Upcoming Events
Because I Must Speak Free with Renata Moon
Monday, January 22, 2024, 7:00 pm - 8:45 pm, The Multi-purpose Room at Hutton Elementary School, 908 E 24th Ave, Spokane, WA 99203
Vax/Unvax Bus Events with Children’s Health Defense
April 16 – Olympia (tentative; noontime stop)
April 17 - Seattle
April 19 – Spokane
January 12 Episode of Informed Life Radio - Notes and Links
Health Hour Guest: Tracy Slepcevic
Warrior Mom, A Mother's Journey in Healing Her Son with Autism
Autism Health Summit - A Journey to Wellness, Feb. 2-3, San Antonio, TX Live event ($295+) and virtual ($49) tickets available.
Some of the Speakers: Dr. Peter McCullough, Del Bigtree, Micki Willis, Judy Mikovits, Dr. Lyons-Weiler, Dr. Neuenschwander, Dr. Hooker, Robert Scott Bell, (Andy Wakefield might be there too).
Liberty Hour Guests: Mark Blaxvill, Cynthia Nevison
Article by Brenda Baletti on CHD: ‘Autism Tsunami’: Society’s Cost to Care for Expanding, Aging Autism Population Will Hit $5.54 Trillion by 2060
Journal Article: Autism Tsunami: The Impact of Rising Prevalence on the Societal Cost of Autism in the United States. Blaxill, M, T. Rogers, and C. Nevison. 2023. Science, Public Health Policy & the Law 4:227-256.
Autism Tsunami is also published here.
Memes o’ the Week (boomers might pronounce it me-mes):
and recently from the awesome brains at Babylon Bee:
Thank you for compiling this news from Washington State. It helps to know that there is push-back happening!
I would love to receive info on bills in a more timely manner. Many I might have commented on are past the date for comment. Or am I missing something?