ICWA Weekly News 8-28-24
Chelan-Douglas BoH to decide response to COVID Notice of Liability behind closed doors; McCullough backs our debunking of infection myocarditis; Heat (and pressure) mounts to vaccinate school kids.
In this issue:
Bill Sullivan Contends with Fellow Board of Health Members
Dr. Peter McCullough Helps Debunk Claim that COVID-19 Infection Causes Myocarditis
The Battle to Vaccinate Your Kids Heats Up in Washington
Sept. 18 Vaxxed III: Vancouver and Lakewood screens still need to tip by Sept 4. All locations still have room.
Vancouver Screening 7 PM
Lakewood Screening 7 PM
August 23 Episode of Informed Life Radio - - notes and links
Health hour: Combat Vaccine Injury Denialism
Guest: Kim Mack Rosenberg
Vaccines 2.0: The Careful Parent's Guide to Making Safe Vaccination Choices for Your Family
National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC; Barbara Loe Fisher)
NVIC Ask 8 https://www.nvic.org/vaccination-decisions/downloads
NVIC Know the Risks https://www.nvic.org/vaccination-decisions/know-the-risks
CHD’S Read the Fine Print: Vaccine Package Inserts Reveal Hundreds of Medical Conditions Linked to Vaccines
OpenVaers Vaccine Information
Liberty Hour: Medical Test Dilemma
Guests: Ashley Kramer, Karol Jones
Medical tests fail, often, and yet patients are asked to make life or death decisions on test results. Guests Ashley Cramer and Karol Jones discuss the medical test results, and the terminal option, that Ashley refused to accept when she was pregnant with her daughter, now a healthy, happy toddler.
Oxygen and Cellular Therapy (Informed Life Radio with Ted Fogarty)
Bill Sullivan Contends with Fellow Board of Health Members
At the July 15 Chelan-Douglas Board of Health meeting, seven public commenters read 3-minute portions of a Notice of Liability for the board’s “actions and omissions” that caused much harm and suffering during the declared COVID-19 emergency.
One of the signatories in the complaint was Chelan-Douglas Board of Health Member Bill Sullivan. Perhaps for the first time in Washington state history, a government official was filing a notice of liability against himself. But he had put much time, research, and effort into contributing to this document and felt with enough confidence that his fellow board members would adhere to the following four demands made in the Notice of Liability.
1. Cease and desist from recommending and administering the Covid-19 GMO gene therapy products with immediate effect.
2. Prepare and deliver to every member of the community who received the ‘vaccines,’ whether administered under the Chelan-Douglas Health District or other party within your jurisdiction, a full disclosure statement regarding the potential benefits and risks to their well-being of having received the Covid ‘vaccines’ in compliance with the Nuremberg Code, Hippocratic medical ethics, and the law.
3. Cease and desist from making recommendations against the off-label use of ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment for Covid-19, as this decision should be between the patient and their doctor.
4. In the conduct of your duties as the Board of Health, refrain from further actions involving unscientific, medically unsupported, and any and all other deceptive, false/or fraudulent communication to the people of Chelan and Douglas Counties.
Over the next month, Sullivan, other signatories on this Notice of Liability, and all other medical freedom lovers waited to see whether the Chelan-Douglas Board of Health would address this at its Monday, August 19 meeting.
Well, they did. But not under any public scrutiny. Not even in the presence of their fellow board member Bill Sullivan. One of the board members expressed her fears (Link is to audio recordings on right had side of page) about letting Sullivan sit in on this executive session.
One of the board members is a potential claimant in that litigation, and so it would be my advice from the public research that I have done is to exclude that board member from the discussion during executive session. We have the executive session under the public meetings act there to protect the injured client’s privilege. It would be adverse not only to the rules of professional conduct but could also destroy our privilege. I had a conversation with Mr. Sullivan, and he had declined to voluntarily not be part of the executive session, so I need approval from the board to exclude him from the executive session.
When asked during this board meeting, Bill Sullivan confirmed that he would not voluntarily withdraw from the executive session. In response, one of fellow board members said, “I would make a motion of the attorney-client privilege in an executive environment considering litigation that Mr. Sullivan step out during the executive session and is welcome to return afterward.”
After the motion was seconded, it was time for discussion. Bill explained why he refused to voluntarily remove himself from this executive session:
I recommend against the set motion. You will notice that the liability that was submitted is just a written culmination of research that I have done. The notice of liability is for the sake of transparency. What I didn’t want to do is articulate the points I wanted to make without being up front with all of you about it. I stand behind the notice of liability. I think it would be a mistake for the board to exclude my dissenting point of view on these discussions on how to be protective of the board. I remind you that I am also a defendant, and there is not litigation at this time. Not that it matters, but I can’t see myself not being a claimant and a defendant at the same time, so I just ask you to remember I also need representation. I also have an interest in having the board limit its liability. If you choose not to have me in these discussions, then I ask you to let me know back what the notice of liability is—how it is assertive, how it is mandated, and how difficult it would be to meet those demands. Quite frankly, I think they are reasonable demands.
His fellow board members clarified that the executive session would be only about litigation.
Bill contended that this is not a lawsuit:
There are no claimants. I am not a claimant aside from the fact that I am a signatory to the document. The Notice of Liability may or may not be the prelude to a claimant file. At this case, to be honest, there is no understanding of that occurring. This is just putting the board on notice. It is a notification to the board that we are incurring liability. That’s all. I would not advise you to exclude me from these discussions, for I am not a claimant, and I’m not going to be a claimant. Once again, the idea of confidentiality, I would not disclose anything that would take place during the discussions. I’d like to remind everybody that I have been in discussions that have been given high security clearance by the United States government, and that has been quite successful. So, I’m well aware of issues of confidentiality, and so it would be a mistake from the board to exclude me from these discussions.
A fellow board member responded, “Liability in itself necessitates that you need to be excluded from the discussions.”
“I’d like to ask where our liability lies,” Sullivan said. “I would like to know where I stand personally. I’d like to remind everybody that I am also a defendant.”
After a few more heated exchanges, the motion came up for a vote. All the board members except for Bill Sullivan approved it.
After twenty minutes of executive session, a board member said to the public as well as Bill Sullivan, “No action was taken during executive session.”
The rest of the Chelan-Douglas Board of Health meeting consisted of a health district report. The report was filled with backslapping, giggling, and anything else that would fall under the category of goodwill.
But then, at the 51:00 minute mark of the meeting, the subject of the COVID-19 shots suddenly arose.
One of Bill Sullivan’s fellow board members said the following to the representatives from the Chelan-Douglas health district staff.
With our public health officer not being here, there is angst from employees in the health district of acknowledgement of receipt of the health policy with an e-mail that needs to be done this week. The angst is coming from requirements to be employed in the health districts invasive into one’s personal life of the things that we are asking our employees to sign off on. I am uncomfortable requiring this of our employees.
After being asked for clarification from another board member, he read the following health district policy to the board:
“I understand and agree that as a condition of my employment I must comply with this policy.” He then said, “This policy states all this right here. The one I’m having an issue with right now is to take the annual COVID vaccination.”
A health district representative defended this reasoning:
This is something that is covered during the orientation on hire, and this is an update of previous policy that they had to get the initial COVID vaccines. There is a lot of that update since 2022. This is not a new thing. It is not a new policy. We have always had this policy. It’s just updated.
In other words, after seeing its board of health receive a notice of liability on the COVID-19 shots, the Chelan-Douglas health district went ahead and kept its policy on requiring the COVID-19 shots as a condition of employment.
The day after the board meeting, Bill Sullivan said to ICWA, “Either they have a lot of chutzpah or they have a complete lack of self-awareness in the face of being served a Notice of Liability.”
At the board meeting, Sullivan asked in a tone of disbelief, “Is it a condition of employment that you have to be updated on the COVID vaccines?”
The health district rep said, “I don’t have the stuff in front of me on what is the exact language. I’m not prepared for this conversation.”
The board member who broached this issue had plenty of “exact language” in front of him and read plenty of it to the board. “Letter H says ‘annual COVID vaccination,’ ” he said. The board member then read aloud a list of other required vaccinations and screenings.
In a guarded tone, the health district representative tried explaining that the policy wasn’t as harsh as seemed. “The health district has always been willing to provide exemptions and accommodations,” she said. “Our public health officer is not here, but I can say that our health district employees are just meeting standards that are set in the medical field.”
Bill Sullivan then began asking for more specifics.
But why are requiring the COVID vaccines? Let’s look at Joe Biden. He got six vaccines and still got COVID. Anthony Fauci got six vaccines and still got COVID. The next reasonable question is about the safety and efficacy of this vaccine that were compelling our employees to take as a condition of employment, and like to 2020 that there’s exemptions, they need to get a medical or religious exemption. Okay, a medical exemption. Good luck getting that. Those are difficult to find. You have to had an adverse reaction and have doctors sign off on that. Quite frankly, during the pandemic, they were not doing that. The religious exemption should be based solely on your religious beliefs and not on what you think of the vaccines. There should not have to be a religious litmus test. And so what other mechanisms do our employees have if they have the medical or religious exemption? Can they still be exempted from this questionable COVID vaccine?
After a board member said, “I think were getting ahead of ourselves here. I think what we need to do is review the policy,” a health district rep added, “We don’t have the appropriate professionals with us on the team, and so were not prepared to provide an answer.”
The health district reps then provided the following lines of defense:
The religious exemption we have is not narrow, but it very broad. It would apply to any spiritual belief that you would not think of as traditionally religious based.
OSHA and L and I (Washington Department of Labor and Industry) both have required the vaccines to be a healthcare worker. There is a lot of things that have to be considered here, and I don’t know whether the COVID vaccines are still required by OSHA. So I think there are things that we still need to look at.
There are still going to be requirements for Medicare employment conditions.
From all that, a board member said, “My recommendation at this point is for the executive team talk to Dr. Wallace about this.” Dr. James Wallace is the public health officer for the Chelan-Douglas Health District. While wearing a mask in separate conference room, he gave a Chelan-Douglas Health District update on Zoom to the Washington Board of Health (BOH) on October 9, 2023. At the end of his presentation, the BOH gave him a big applause.
Bill Sullivan was not about to put this off so easily:
Part of the problem is how does the exemption problem look. Our policy should indicate that if you are, so to speak, not religious, you can still get the religious exemption. I know of people in our community who applied for religious exemption and did not get it. I want to make sure that this board does not end up in that type of situation. Another is the question of the safety and effectiveness of the COVID so-called vaccines. Those are valid concerns. Those other vaccines have different track records and were approved from processes that were different. The third point is what are the legal requirements. Do we understand those and to what extent are we really compelled to observe all that and how.
A board member said, “Those are questions in which we don’t have the appropriate people in the room to answer today.” She then added that the process should go from the executive committee to the legal team to the public health officer, whom would be the aforementioned Dr. James Wallace.
In a pointed tone, Sullivan asked the health district reps, “Have we had any of our employees apply for religious exemption, and if so what has happened with the adjudication for those exemption requests?”
The health district rep impatiently fired back, “That information is not going to be shared with the board. For privacy reasons, I cannot share those details.”
Bill Sullivan roared. “I am not asking for details. I am asking for statistics. How many exemptions have been submitted and how many have been granted? That would be worth knowing from a policy perspective. Are we really granting exemptions, or our we just saying that it is just a policy of window dressing to protect us from liability.”
“There’s not a lot of numbers that we’re talking about here,” the health district rep said. “We are talking some fifty employees, and we’re only looking at three years since COVID, so you’re not going to have statistics that are significant.”
“Yes, but the turnover has been something like 150 employees over the past three years going in and out of the door,” Sullivan said. “So, that is something that would get us to a number that we should be thinking about. I would be curious about did we have two exemptions and granted one, or did we have sixty exemptions and granted them all. Those things would be worth knowing while not compromising the integrity of the individual.”
The health district rep provided no answer to that. No other responses were given, either. And so the Chelan-Douglas Board of Health meeting came to a quick end.
It should be noted that this Notice of Liability was pushed forward by the Truth and Accountability Project Washington (TAPWA). At the July board meeting, the seventh presenter of this notice from TAPWA told the board, “We seek to bring truth, awareness, and resources to those harmed by the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and the public health pandemic response in our community and beyond.”
TAPWA serves as a valuable resource for action, news, and references for combatting the injustices done by the COVID-19 policies. Next month, the organization will be holding a second session on the harms done by the COVID-19 shots.
The event, supported by ICWA, will be Saturday, September 21, 2024, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Wenatchee Convention Center, 121 N. Wenatchee Ave.
Speakers include Dr. Kelly Victory, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden and many more key activist doctors and providers.
The first TAPWA event was the last Saturday in January 2023. News Radio KPQ 560 wrote the following about that session:
Organizers of what was billed as a listening session to hear information and stories of how people were harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic response and vaccine mandates gathered for over four hours on Saturday at the Wenatchee Convention Center.
Moderator Bill Sullivan who sits on the Chelan Douglas Health District said in his welcoming remarks "People know something is wrong, but they are not being heard. There has been no after-action report on what went wrong" and the listening session would "try to give some voice to getting control over our lives.” The function was not affiliated with the health district.
Dr. Peter McCullough Debunks COVID-19 Causes Myocarditis Claim
The July 3, 2024 issue of ICWA Weekly News covered the Washington Department of Health’s (DOH) claim that one is more likely to get myocarditis from a COVID-19 infection than from the COVID-19 shot.
The claim was done by way of a slick interview with Dr. Sathish Mallenahalli Chikkabyrappa, pediatric cardiologist at Seattle Children’s, and Dr. Anita Chopra, internal medicine physician at UW and its Long COVID clinic.
The question in this mock interview was, “Can COVID-19 infection cause myocarditis?”
Dr. Chopra’s answer was a follows:
Yes, and if you’re unvaccinated, it’s a significant risk. Getting at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine cuts the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection in half.¹
Studies have found that unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 were 16 times more likely to develop myocarditis than patients without COVID-19.
The ICWA article then examined those two claims, asking the question, does the data (as opposed to the authors interpretation of the data) in the August 2022 paper that he cited support the claim that getting at least one dose of a COVID shot cut the risk of myocarditis? The ICWA article then gave ten bullet points on how the study design muddied all the results.
ICWA also called into question the study’s claim of efficacy, for the oft-cited paper cited used the same kind of Relative Risk calculation that Dr. Fauci used when claiming 95% COVID shot efficacy, when Absolute Risk should be used to help people weigh their risk exposure.
The study authors did make one concession, regarding the safety claim for young men:
However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after the second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.
On the same day as Chelan-Douglas August 19 Board of Health meeting (as mentioned in the article above), world renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough added to ICWA’s debunking the DOH’s claim when he published a short article that we quote extensively here:
When the Springer Nature CUREUS Journal of Biomedical Sciences retracted one of the most comprehensive and valid risk-benefit analyses of the COVID-19 vaccines, they probably had no idea the message would be greatly amplified and now fully published in a pair of papers in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.
This manuscript evaluated all of the published data and has completely overturned a false narrative held by government agencies and the American College of Cardiology who erroneously assert that SARS-CoV-2 infection poses a greater risk of heart damage than vaccination. Mead et al importantly conclude the vaccines cause actual adjudicated and oftentimes fatal myocarditis while the infection remains a theoretical risk without adjudicated, autopsy proven cases.(emphasis by ICWA)
Dr. McCullough then provided the following details that the DOH, as well as Doctors Chopra and Chikkabyrappa, should take the time to look at:
The [Mead et al] paper goes into great depth to enumerate harms from the shot along the lines of six domains where observed adverse events greatly outweigh claimed, theoretical benefits:
We then categorize the principal adverse events associated with the modmRNA products with a brief systems-based synopsis of each of the six domains of potential harms: (1) cardiovascular, (2) neurological, (3) hematologic; (4) immunological, (5) oncological, and (6) reproductive. We conclude with a discussion of the primary public health and regulatory issues arising from this evidence-informed synthesis of the literature and reiterate the urgency of imposing a global moratorium on the modmRNA-LNP-based platform.
The final call is clear, the COVID-19 mass, indiscriminate vaccination campaign should come to an end and with it, the four-year long false “safe and effective” narrative from the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex.
The Battle to Vaccinate Your Kids Heats Up in Washington
According to Britannica, National Immunization Awareness Month (NIAM) was recognized for the first time in August 2013. It was established by the National Public Health Information Coalition and later coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control. The observation was intended to educate families on how vaccines can protect their children.
But why did they pick August? Was it because it’s the month before the school year begins? The onslaught of promotions for childhood vaccines for the school year by the Washington Department of Health (DOH) is clear starting evidence that this is the case. Their Power of Providers (POP) initiative sent out an August 20 announcement:
As expected, the POP announcement then referred to August as National Immunization Awareness Month:
National Immunization Awareness Month
August is National Immunization Awareness Month (NIAM), which highlights the importance of vaccinations before students return to school and the fall virus season begins.
As healthcare providers, you are trusted messengers in your community about the importance of vaccines and immunizations. The CDC encourages you to strongly recommend vaccines that your patients need, whether your office stocks them or not. Below are some resources to help prepare you for conversations with your patients about getting routine immunizations back on schedule, during NIAM and throughout the year.
Beyond your family pediatrician, the pharmacies are there to you remind to vaccinate your kids while filling up your cart with school supplies.
Walgreen’s website provides the following vaccine reminder for back-to-school vaccines:
Parents know that back-to-school season means getting everything their kids need for day one: school supplies, new clothes and, yes, immunizations. Every state requires schoolchildren to get vaccinated against certain communicable diseases. Luckily, you can get many of your family’s routine immunizations and catch up on missed immunizations at Walgreens by making an appointment at Walgreens.com/ScheduleVaccine.
Unsure of what vaccines your kids need? From flu and Tdap to meningitis and HPV, here’s an easy guide to help you keep track of which ones your kids may need, when they need them and how to get them.
In case you need lunchbox food for your kids, Safeway is also there to vaccinate your kids for school.
And has anyone else noticed the huge push for flu shots at all Kroger (Fred Meyer) stores? They have cloth banners hung over each cart return stand in the parking lot and signs aplenty.
So what resources can parents find to combat all this vaccine your kids for school hysteria? On the July 30, 2024 episode of Advocacy Lifeline on CHD-TV, the show’s host Dawn Richardson said the following at the 5:02 mark:
“Back to school is right around the corner, and the news is starting to be peppered with misleading articles about how if your kids don’t have every vaccine on the list, they can’t go to school. That’s not accurate. There are vaccine exemptions available from school or statewide mandates from different educational settings in every single state.” She then pointed to the following map from the National Vaccine Information Center.
The National Vaccine Information Center chart is clickable to learn about each state’s school exemptions.
The specific page for here in Washington holds plenty of school law and exemption information, including the following quick facts:
NVIC Note: Loss of personal exemption for MMR effective July 28, 2019. A child shall be exempt in whole or in part from immunization requirements upon the presentation of any one or more of the following certifications on a form prescribed by the department of health: (1) a written certification signed by any parent or legal guardian of the child or any adult in loco parentis to the child that the religious beliefs of the signator are contrary to the required immunization measures, or (2) a written certification signed by any parent or legal guardian of the child or any adult in loco parentis to the child that the signator has either a philosophical or personal objection to the immunization of the child. The form must include a statement to be signed by a health care practitioner stating that he or she provided the signator with information about the benefits and risks of immunization to the child. Any parent or legal guardian of the child or any adult in loco parentis to the child who exempts the child due to religious beliefs is not required to have the form signed by a health care practitioner if the parent or legal guardian demonstrates membership in a religious body or a church in which the religious beliefs or teachings of the church preclude a health care practitioner from providing medical treatment to the child. Medical exemptions are also allowed.
The Stand for Health Freedom website also offers much of the same information on vaccine exemptions here in Washington, including the following questions and answers, some of which link to Informed Choice Washington pages.
What Exemptions does your state offer?
Medical, religious, and philosophical, except in the case of MMR, for which the philosophical exemption is not permitted. Parents assert a religious exemption instead. https://informedchoicewa.org/religious-exemptions-clarified/
What is the process to get a religious exemption in your state?
For the most up to date information, please click here.
(The link will take you to the ICWA website.)
Who can add vaccines to the state's childhood schedule, the department of health or the legislature?
Board of Heath
What health care can minors consent to on their own?
Individuals under age 18 are able to obtain healthcare services without an authorized adult’s consent if married to an adult (RCW 26.28.020), or have legally emancipated from his or her parents (RCW 13.64), or have been determined by a health care provider to be a “mature minor” (definition in THIS CHART), or in some situations if homeless. Children as young as age 13 are able to consent to certain services without use of the “mature minor” doctrine. Please refer to chart.
Watch Friday’s Informed Life Radio Health Hour with Bernadette Pajer and Kim Mack Rosenberg, Esq, acting chief counsel of CHD, for a discussion on how to handle the doctor’s office if you feel the need to vaccinate.
Meme of the Week: A Book Review
Does any other state besides WA have this "Informed Consent" information?
It is so full of info.and we are empowered to know what is going on, to be able to read and share with others.
Thank you sooo much!