ICWA Weekly News 12-13-23 (corrected)
Help for MMR-injured mother; 3 more jab deaths in WA - but they're safe; $100 coercion for kid's flu shots; Texas AG show Bob Ferguson what he's ignored; Vaxxed screening in Port Townsend.
She thought she was doing the right thing.
Before you get into reading our weekly news, we ask that you please support Misty Gehrke and her twelve-year old twin girls this holiday season. A former Early Childhood Educator in Clark County, she was disabled by the MMR vaccine in 2019 when she felt forced to get it in order to return to work, and with the media storm around the Governor’s declared State of Emergency after 25 cases. While she was busy rehabilitating herself, the state legislature passed the bill that now requires child care workers to get the shot. The bill not only removed the personal exemption to the MMR vaccine for kids, but also enacted Washington’s first vaccine mandate for adults, requiring day care workers to show proof of MMR vaccination, proof of immunity, or a medical exemption. [RCW 43.216.690] This law for adults does not allow for religious exemptions explicitly, while parents can claim a religious exemption for their kids.
ICWA fought the two bills (yes, there were actually two) by bringing in Del Bigtree, Mary Holland, Brian Hooker, Toni Bark, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to testify. More than three thousand citizens showed up in a single day to protest. But the other side mounted a measles-fear campaign, utilizing their extensive government and media tentacles, that pressured legislators to vote against common sense, against facts, against the human right to informed consent.
(The above sections were updated from the original email for accuracy and completeness after publishing)
This is a tragic example of the accidental harm that Informed Choice Washington tries to warn about. Read Misty’s page at GiveSendGo for more about her situation. ICWA directors spoke with her a recent national news interview. In the face of this huge setback, she’s a loving, caring woman. Let’s show her and her family that the ICWA family cares.
Now for the news. In this issue:
In the latest jab safety news: Three Washington Deaths after COVID-19 Shots Reported in November
Meanwhile, in Tumwater: The DOH Continues To Push Vaccines for the Holiday Season with pervasive ad campaigns and Molina promotes $100 flu shot incentives directly to children.
Texas Lawsuit against Pfizer Illuminates Washington Government’s Negligence
Spokane video replay of the week: Dr. Steven Palmieri, PhD, DO “Our immune systems are God’s armor”
Upcoming Event: Vaxxed screening in Port Townsend
Links from Radio Show
Meme of the Week
Three Washington Deaths after COVID-19 Shots Reported in November
The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) at the Center’s for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has an additional three Washington death reports following the COVID-19 shots. This raises the total of such deaths in Washington to 225.
As of the November 24th update, VAERS has reports of 36,726 deaths following the COVID-19 shots in the United States and its territories.
The rundown of the three deaths in Washington for November:
VAERS ID: 2714341
A 96-year-old female died on August 22, 2021, but the case was not entered until November 15, 2023. Submitted write-up: About a week after first vaccine developed swelling in her left foot. About a week after the second vaccine, she experienced vaginal bleeding (blood clots). Subsequently was placed in home hospice, given opioids and died.
VAERS ID: 2715729
A 67-year-old female died October 27, 2023. The case was entered on November 20, 2023. She had no current illnesses, and nothing is listed for preexisting conditions. She received her sixth Pfizer shot on October 19, 2023 and died suddenly on October 27, 2023. The submitted write-up says, “PCP wanted to inform in case there was any correlation between the two.”
VAERS ID: 2717050
A 67-year-old male died on October 1, 2023. The case was entered on November 22, 2023. He had no preexisting conditions. The entry says that the onset began 505 days after taking the third dose of Pfizer on October 12, 2021. He then died 213 days after the onset. The submitted write-up reads as follows; Neoplasm. Scarcoma, Picoma rare cancer. Death.
As alarming as these death numbers are following the COVID-19 shots, Washington’s Department of Health (DOH) Chief Science Officer Tao Shen Kwan-Gett still believes that the VAERS data shows that these shots are safe. He said as much during the November 8 Board of Health meeting:
VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System, and it’s deliberately designed to catch a very big net, for we encourage health care providers to report anything that can remotely possibly be related to vaccine, and then it’s up to the epidemiologist to do the careful work of determining of this large bucket of reported events which ones really are related to vaccine. And so when we do that careful work, it’s been shown that the COVID-19 vaccine is very safe, and studies have shown that all-cause mortality for those who are vaccinated is lower than expected. So, I think VAERS is very important to be able to detect adverse events and describe them. And for me personally, the VAERS data and the analysis of the VAERS data just bring home the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine to where I made sure that my parents got the updated COVID-19 vaccine now, because I had the confidence that the VAERS data showed that the vaccine is safe.
Kwan-Gett’s statement flies in the face of hard data and evidence that shows the exact opposite. The vast majority of vaccine injuries are not reported: hospitals and clinics discourage reporting; the CDC is not doing “careful work” unless you count the work they are doing to ignore and obfuscate the devastating data; and the excess all-cause mortality of the vaccinated around the globe is astounding.
Recording of November 8 State Board of Health Meeting - Zoom [Comment starts at approximately 1:42:24]
Washington Department of Health Continues To Push Vaccines for the Seasonal Respiratory Infection Season
In addition to ignoring the adverse events of the COVID-19 shots, the Washington Department of Health (DOH) continued to recommend that it is okay to administer the COVID-19 shots with flu and RSV jabs in a December 6 release on its web site. With the innocuous title of the DOH wishes everyone a safe and healthy holiday season, they wrote “Vaccines provide the best protection against serious illness from COVID-19, flu, and RSV, and all three vaccines can be given during the same visit.”
Granted, clinics and pharmacies are equipped to give all three shots during a same office visit. But the DOH has never provided a specific study to show that it is safe to do so. The November 21 issue of ICWA Weekly News detailed the DOH’s persistent inability to backup the claim that co-administration is safe.
We had to look it up ourselves. We’re trying to help here! We showed that the closest support for the safety of this claim comes from a September 2023 Israeli vaccine study using the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 product and seasonal influenza vaccines (SIVs). Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of Coadministration of COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccines.
The article ‘suggests’ that co-administration of two shots is feasible, that it will help vaccine uptake, but that further studies are needed to shed light on the repercussions:
Although this may not be generalizable to other COVID-19 vaccines, and further studies on vaccine efficacy could likely shed more light on the repercussions of this practice, we believe that our results suggest that the co-administration of this COVID-19 vaccine along with SIV is a feasible and harmless tactic to increase vaccine uptake.
The government subsidized healthcare programs (Medicaid, Apple Health) are further promoting vaccines by offering sizable financial incentives. Possibly taking full advantage of the state’s minor consent permissions, the following texts can be sent directly to children enrollees at Molina Health -- without an equivalent notification sent to the parent:
If Molina has a child’s contact information, youth might receive these messages directly.
Can you imagine how a $100 gift card sounds to kids? Hypothetically, this is how the conversation will go after your child learns from a friend how to get all that candy money.
Child: “Mom, I’m not feeling well, can you please take me to the doctor?”
Mom: “OK, but you’re not getting that flu shot.”
Many children, especially girls, are regularly asked by their providers to spend one-on-one time during office visits. This is to build a trusted relationship and talk on issues they may feel uncomfortable about. During these moments, children can consent to routine medical procedures without parental consent. This is allowed in Washington under the Mature Minor Doctrine where a provider can decide if a youngster is capable of understanding the consequences of a medical procedure.
Child: “Thanks for the shot. It didn’t hurt too much. But it was worth it. Can I use this $100 anywhere?”
Have you supported Misty Gehrke yet? Please help the family celebrate Christmas.
Texas Lawsuit against Pfizer Illuminates Washington Government’s Negligence
On November 30, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Pfizer for unlawfully misrepresenting the effectiveness of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine and attempting to censor public discussion of the product. Experts claim the suit may succeed in sidestepping the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act’s liability shield.
On Epoch TV’s December 1 episode of “Facts Matter,” journalist Roman Balmakov highlighted a claim in the court filing that Pfizer, “Engaged in false, misleading, and deceptive acts and practices by making unsupported claims regarding the company’s COVID-19 in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.”
Balmakov interpreted this as: Pfizer “lied about these shots to get more people to take them.”
Balmakov then detailed four major claims in the lawsuit, the first being Pfizer’s misrepresentation of efficacy.
The pharmaceutical company’s widespread representation that its vaccine possessed 95 percent efficacy against infection was highly misleading. That metric represented a calculation of the so-called ‘relative risk reduction’ for vaccinated individuals in Pfizer’s initial two month-clinical trial results…FDA publications indicate ‘relative risk reduction’ is a misleading statistic that unduly influences consumer choice.
Balmakov pointed out the attorney general’s basis for the complaint was an FDA guidebook called “Communicating Risks and Benefits.” Chapter seven on “Quantitative Information,” says manufacturers should “Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks,” explaining that “Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach. This can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.”
Balmakov commented, “Whereas the relative benefit was 95 percent, the absolute risk benefit was only 0.86 percent, and this second number for some reason was never presented to the public.”
On the second legal claim, Balmakov discussed Pfizer’s reliance on just two months of clinical data and quoted from the court filing:
Of 17,000 placebo recipients, only 162 acquired COVID-19 during this two-month period. Based on those numbers, vaccination status had a negligible impact on whether a trial participant contracted COVID-19 … The risk of acquiring COVID-19 was so small in the first instance during this short window that Pfizer’s vaccine only fractionally improved a person’s risk of infection. And the vaccine recipient’s absolute risk reduction—the FDA’s preferred efficacy metric—showed that the vaccine was merely 0.85 percent effective.
Digging into the third legal claim, Balmakov covered Pfizer’s intimidation and censorship of public discussion as asserted in the court filing:
How did Pfizer respond when it became apparent that its vaccine was failing, and the viability of its cash cow was not threatened? By intimidating those spreading the truth, and by conspiring to censor its critics. Pfizer labeled as ‘criminals’ those who spread facts about the vaccine. It accused them of spreading ‘misinformation.’ And it coerced social medial platforms to silence prominent truth-tellers.
On the fourth claim, Balmakov highlighted Pfizer’s creating of a false impression for the public concerning the prevention of transmission:
Pfizer was also put on notice at that time that vaccine protection could not accurately be predicted beyond two months. Nevertheless, Pfizer fostered a misleading impression that vaccine protection was durable and withheld from the public information that undermined its claims about the duration of protection. And, despite the fact that its clinical trial failed to measure whether the vaccine protects against transmission, Pfizer embarked on a campaign to intimidate the public into getting the vaccine as a necessary measure to protect their loved ones.
Even though the shots could not prevent transmission, “This campaign took on the form of protecting your grandparents. Any young people who were reluctant to take the shot for themselves were shamed by being told that they were being selfish, for the shot isn’t for you but getting it transmitted to others, including Grandma.”
Balmakov then showed a meme used to promote the shot in this campaign:
Balmakov reminded us of the October 2022 testimony given by Janine Small of Pfizer, as the president of developing international markets, when the European Parliament asked her whether the shots were ever tested for preventing transmission, and she replied, “No, we were moving at the speed of science.”
Balmakov did not touch on the following key points in the attorney general’s court filing about the misrepresentation of the COVID-19 shots preventing viral transmission, so we’ll recap them here.
On transmission: FDA warned Pfizer that it “needed” additional information to determine whether the vaccine protected against “transmission” of COVID-19 between persons. But Pfizer instead engaged in a fear-mongering campaign, exploiting intense public fears over the year-long pandemic by insinuating that vaccination was necessary for Americans to protect their loved ones from contracting COVID-19. (Top of page three)
Similarly, in a March 31, 2021 press release, Pfizer emphasized in conjunction with State of Texas v. Pfizer, Inc. Plaintiff’s Original Petition Page 25 of 26 new results on vaccine efficacy in adolescents that “[i]t is very important to enable [adolescents] to get back to everyday school life and to meet friends and family while protecting them and their loved ones.” However, just like Pfizer’s main Phase 2/3 trial, Pfizer’s clinical trial in adolescents did not evaluate transmission. Similarly, it was highly misleading to convey to the public that adolescent vaccine uptake was important for adolescents to “protect . . . their loved ones.” (Pages 24 and 25)
Pfizer misrepresented that vaccination against COVID-19 prevented “transmission” between persons, see supra ¶¶ 66-72, including from vaccinated persons with symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, when in fact FDA previously made clear to Pfizer that more information was needed to make transmission-related claims. (Point 161 on page 51)
Pfizer created this false impression by exploiting the heightened fear and uncertainty amongst the public, insinuating that vaccination constituted an imperative to protect loved ones. (Point 163 on page 52)
The Epoch Times “Facts Matter” piece also did not mention the December 10, 2020 Federal Drug and Administration (FDA) briefing document for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. During the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting, the following was revealed under section 8.2 on page 48:
Vaccine effectiveness against transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.
An FDA news release on December 11, 2020 for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot affirmed this uncertainty, where the last sentence under the “FDA Evaluation of Available Effectiveness Data” heading reads as follows:
At this time, data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.
The above statement comes from the end of the paragraph under the FDA Evaluation of Available Effectiveness Data subheading.
So, how was it that the Texas attorney general was able to unearth Pfizer’s misrepresentation that the COVID-19 shots prevented transmission, but this was never done by the Inslee administration? Maybe Attorney General Bob Ferguson would have done a little more reading before his office promulgated the shots in an October 14, 2021 e-mail:
Bob was the first elected official in the state to propose a vaccine mandate policy to ensure that we have a safe and healthy work environment for all of his employees — and now 94% of his 1,500+ employees across 13 offices around the state are fully vaccinated.
The end of a Courthouse News article on October 15, 2021 called out Bob Ferguson following a federal’s judge’s declining to block the COVID-19 shot mandate for state employees:
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson celebrated the victory on social media, as covered by My Northwest.
“We have successfully defended the governor’s orders against forty-two legal challenges," he said in a tweet. "Our office remains undefeated in these challenges to the governor’s public health measures."
Indeed, Governor Jay Inslee’s mandates show how he followed Pfizer’s misrepresentation about preventing transmission, knowingly or not, when 127 state patrol employees were terminated.
It is the mission of public servants and those providing health care to serve our fellow Washingtonians. These workers live in every community in our state, working together and with the public every day to deliver services,” Inslee said at the time. “We have a duty to protect them from the virus, they have the right to be protected, and the communities they serve and live in deserve protection as well.
It didn’t stop with the State Patrol: nearly 1,900 of the Washington’s 63,291 employees were fired or quit.
Some of those state employees suffered the consequences of complying, such as John Sienkiewicz. In a letter submitted to Washington Representative Cyndy Jacobsen of the twenty-fifth district, John stated, that after taking the COVID-19 shot, he developed the following symptoms that he still deals with: peripheral neuropathy; tinnitus; body tremors; internal vibrations, various paresthesias; involuntary muscle pressure in my head, neck, and face; loss of sensation in my head, hands, and feet; a loss of motor function, and severe immune system dysregulation. Before the jab, he had no health issues, hiked three times a week, and never had a broken bone. He is now disabled, has trouble walking, and can’t drive, anymore.
I am forced to use a career’s worth of leave to keep my job and medical insurance to try and get well from the side effects of a mandated vaccine I was told would protect me and others,” he wrote to Jacobsen. “I have seen over twenty doctors in the last sixteen months and have been to the emergency room four times. I’m told the nerve damage from the vaccine is permanent, and I can’t help but wonder about my other symptoms as I have not found any relief.
With top-down direction from Governor Inslee, the Office of Financial Management assigned Brandy Chinn, the rules and legislative relations manager, to continue carrying out the shot mandate. This employment rule change would apply to over 40,000 Executive Branch employees while still based on the idea that the shots prevented transmission.
Although the emergency proclamation is expiring, COVID-19 and the effects of its risk of person-to-person transmission continue to impact the life and health of all Washingtonians and the economy of Washington State. COVID-19 vaccines are effective in reducing infection and serious disease, and widespread vaccination is the primary means we have as a state to protect the health and safety of our workforce. As an employer, there is an obligation to maintain a safe and healthy work environment for all state employees.
(With luck and patience, this general employment requirement was quietly removed on May 10, 2023).
Pfizer’s misrepresentation permeated to Local Health Officers. For example, Clallam County Public Health Officer Allison Berry mandated in early September 2021 that, under the pretense of preventing transmission, all restaurants on the Olympic Peninsula shall require patrons to show proof of having COVID-19 shots to eat inside their establishments, and threatening their business licenses.
Hundreds gather at Clallam Courthouse, seeking health officer | Sequim Gazette
Six restaurant owners complained to the Washington State Board of Health (BOH) around this time, with complaints such as this:
On September 2, 2021, the Clallam County public health officer issued a public health order (hereinafter referred to as the “vaccine mandate order”) restricting the entry of all people (except those under the age of twelve) in restaurants and bars located in Clallam County unless that person provided proof that they were vaccinated against COVID-19. The vaccine order mandate (exhibit A on page 3) purports to have been issued by the public health officer under the authority of RCW 70.05.070. The public health officer, however, violated RCW 70.05.070 by issuing the vaccine mandate order without receiving direction of the Clallam County Board of Health.
Not wanting to take on the Governor or admit their own wrong-doing, on October 13, 2021, the BOH unanimously dismissed the complaint.
Employee firings based on Pfizer’s transmission prevention lie even oozed down to the city level, where the Kirkland City Council and the city manager, Kurt Triplett, terminated twelve firefighters, as evidenced by this letter from Mayor Penny Sweet:
Every policy decision we have made with management has been to assure the safest and most science driven outcomes that we possibly can. The decision, moving forward with separating from the unvaccinated firefighters is one of those.
The Kirkland firefighters then appealed their case to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On September 27, 2022, the terminated Kirkland firefighters received a determination from Isabel Jeremiah, who investigated the case for the Seattle Field Office of the EEOC. Her premise for denying their appeal was the same as those from the Kirkland mayor and city manager, which was to protect others in the workforce:
Costs to be considered include not only direct monetary costs, but also the burden on the conduct of the employer’s business—including, in this instance, the risk of the spread of COVID-19 to other employees or to the public.
From the top-down, the instances above are just a fragment of the damage done by those Washington government officials who blindly followed Pfizer’s propaganda blitz that the shots prevented transmission. In doing so, they betrayed the people of Washington.
ICWA Video replay of the week:
Dr. Steven Palmieri, PhD, DO “Our immune systems are God’s armor” for us. [31 minutes]
Spokane, Nov. 11, 2023
Upcoming Events:
Port Townsend Public Library will screen "Vaxxed" on Wednesday, Dec 27, at 2pm.
1220 Lawrence Street, Port Townsend, WA
This is the 2016 movie that basically started it all (for many) when it was revealed by a CDC whistleblower that lies and corruption had been happening for years in regard to the impact of childhood vaccines and the injuries they could cause. Please contact Sue at 714-337-4331 for more information and to RSVP.
December 8 Episode of An Informed Life Radio - Links
Health Hour 1: Medicalized Food
Guest: David Brownstein M.D.
Liberty Hour 2: Has “Food as Medicine” being Co-opted by globalists?
With your ICWA hosts Bernadette & Bob
‘Food as Medicine’ is more than just a catchy, common phrase. From the Rockefeller Foundation to the HHS, Walmart, Amazon and more — everyone wants to claim this concept as if it is a creed. But rather than using food to prevent and treat medical problems, the establishment and its minions seem to have something darker in mind.
A “Food Is Medicine” Approach to Disease Prevention: Limitations and Alternatives | JAMA Network
Food as Medicine: A Project to Unify and Advance Collective Action | health.gov
Food is medicine. And now Blue Cross NC has the data to prove it. | Blue Cross NC
Nutritious food could cure the world's major health problems | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)
Leadership and Governance | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)
Great job if you read this far. Here’s our Meme of the Week as your reward: Something to think about.
It’s not too late: support Misty Gehrke. Please help the family celebrate Christmas and bridge the gap to their disability case settlement next year.
I love "We had to look it up ourselves. We’re trying to help here!" Thanks for all your work in compiling this information for us, even though much of it is disturbing.