This Clallam County legal challenge received skewed coverage in local media, clearly intended to diminish its credibility. Based on unsubstantiated assertions about the lawsuit’s basis, and guesses from an uninvolved third party, the Peninsula Daily News discounted the lawsuit’s claims (see below). We will look at the facts, at recent court decisions on other mandate challenges, and at the future implications raised by the lawsuit.
—————————————-
A serious challenge by reputable, diverse businesses, brought by a respected attorney.
Six Clallam County businesses have sued Clallam County and Dr. Allison Berry, Public Health Officer for Clallam and Jefferson Counties, to invalidate her order requiring all persons entering bars and restaurants to provide proof that they are “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19. The order applies to Clallam and Jefferson counties. Restaurants and bars not complying with her order could suffer loss of their operating permit and referral to the Washington State Department of Labor for additional enforcement. “Full vaccination” is defined in Berry’s order as “all the required doses of a vaccine for COVID-19 (e.g., two doses of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.) The definition has not yet been expanded to require proof of booster shots.
The lawsuit (full copy at this link) was filed November 24, 2021 by Sequim attorney William Payne on behalf of Jose’s Famous Salsa, The Oasis Bar & Grill, The Sunshine Grill and Blondies Plate, all of Sequim; Kokopelli Grill/Coyote BBQ Pub of Port Angeles; and The Blackberry Cafe of Joyce. The owners and operators of the restaurants are diverse ethnically and politically. They cannot be branded under one ideological label. Payne is a highly respected attorney, currently serving as Prosecuting Attorney for the Port Gamble* S’Klallam Tribe, formerly as Clallam County Prosecutor and Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney, and Assistant Attorney General for the State of Washington.
The lawsuit challenges Berry’s order on constitutional grounds. It seeks, first, to have the order declared an infringement of a fundamental right, “the freedom to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and therefore a violation of equal protection of the law.” Were the court to conclude that a fundamental right is at issue, the order must then survive “strict scrutiny.” Defendants would have the burden of proving that the order is necessary to serve a compelling state interest, and the least restrictive means possible to serve that compelling state interest. As an alternate cause of action, the suit claims that the order is “arbitrary and capricious.” Lastly, in a claim that implicates both the other arguments, the suit alleges that the order is “not narrowly tailored.”
Jefferson and Clallam Counties stand almost alone in the state of Washington, indeed across the nation, in requiring restaurants and bars to demand patrons produce proof of “full” vaccination in order to obtain service inside. King Countyrequires proof of vaccination, but also permits entry with proof of a negative COVID test. This author, as reported previously, has visited nine states since Berry issued her order and entered bars and restaurants without any requirement of (a) showing proof of vaccination or (b) even being required to wear a face mask. See, “Travels Outside Washington State Should Shake Faith in Mask Mandates.” Florida, which for most of the pandemic has imposed no mask or vaccine mandates, continues to demonstrate the lowest or one of the very lowest per-capita COVID infection rates in the nation. Florida’s per capita rate of 7 is lower than that of Washington state, and ten to fifteen times lower than Jefferson and Clallam Counties, which have per capita rates of 65.2 and 104.2, respectively.
If the court agrees with plaintiffs that the proof-of-vaccine mandate impacts a fundamental right, they are almost certain of winning. Few governmental actions survive strict scrutiny. There is almost always a lesser restrictive alternative. In this author’s opinion, however, it is far from certain that the court will reach this conclusion. Business regulations are usually judged under the “reasonableness” standard.
While it can be demonstrated quite clearly that Dr. Berry’s mandate is arbitrary and capricious, the court is in fairly uncharted territory on this argument. Rarely have the emergency powers of a public health officer been reviewed by Washington courts. The authorizing statutes do not contain an “arbitrary and capricious” or “not narrowly tailored” standard that would invalidate the public health officer’s actions. The cost of litigating that argument thoroughly will involve considerable discovery and scientific and medical expert witness testimony. While many states, large employers, and business and employee trade groups have the resources to fund their frequently successful challenges to federal, state and municipal mandates, the restaurants and bars in this case may not enjoy similar deep pockets. From discussions with two of the businesses, it is clear they have sustained severe economic losses, further weakening their ability to take on county government.
If they can get to discovery, they will be able to force Dr. Berry to defend her order on specific medical and scientific grounds. They will be able to uncover any inaccuracies or exaggerations. They will also have their own experts analyze and rebut Dr. Berry’s opinions.
The federal judges that have struck down vaccine mandates and other COVID restrictions enjoy lifetime tenure. Our local judges are elected. Even if plaintiffs prevail here, the decision could ultimately be in the hands of the Washington Supreme Court. That body was one vote shy of releasing the Green River Killer and other violent men and women in an hysterical overreaction to the early COVID panic.
The implications of this lawsuit extend far beyond the limits of the current COVID controversies. Can a public health officer, or governor, vest in themselves unlimited and unreviewable powers by declaring an “emergency”? The Jefferson County Board of Health has declared that “systemic racism” is a public health emergency. Could the public health officer begin issuing unreviewable orders under the authority of that declaration, for instance, by requiring everyone to undergo indoctrination in critical race theory? Could she mandate racial preferences in the delivery of public and private services? Berry is inclined to believe in a “climate change” crisis. Could she declare a climate emergency, and ban gasoline-powered transportation or the burning of wood and fossil fuels for heat? Could she close businesses to reduce communities’ “carbon footprint”?
It will all come down to whether the court will accept being a rubberstamp and giving Dr. Berry complete deference in every aspect of her decision-making. But a court that will not jettison its role at mention of the word “emergency” can find good cause for a hard look into the justification for Dr. Berry’s edicts. There are very good reasons why extremely few jurisdictions have gone as far as she has in curtailing personal liberties and economic freedoms.
COVID Mandates Being Halted by Federal Courts
President Biden’s sweeping employer, federal contractor and healthcare worker vaccine mandates have all been blocked by federal courts.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals halted the nationwide vaccine mandate issued by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. The Sixth Circuit dealt a procedural blow to the Biden Administration’s effort to, in lay terms, get around the Fifth Circuit ruling. A U.S. District Court in Georgia issued a nationwide injunction against enforcement of the Administration’s vaccine mandate for federal contractors. A Kentucky U.S. District Court had previously enjoined the mandate in the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio.
“The Court acknowledges the tragic toll that the COVID-19 pandemic has wrought throughout the nation and the globe. However, even in time of crisis this Court must preserve the rule of law and ensure that all branches of government act within the bounds of their constitutionally granted authorities. [The government’s] strong interest in combating the spread of [COVID-19]… does not permit the government to ‘act unlawfully even in the pursuit of desirable ends.’”
– U.S. District Judge R. Stan Baker, Georgia v. Biden
Two decisions delivered since the Clallam suit was filed could help local restaurants and bars. The most significant, perhaps, was the recent ruling in a suit filed by ten states against the vaccination mandate imposed by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) on all healthcare facilities in the country. The injunction by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri was filed November 29, 2021, and blocked the vaccination mandate in the ten states that sought relief: Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota and New Hampshire. This decision was released six days after the restaurants and bars filed their suit. A full copy may be read at this link.
Hot on the heels of a regional defeat for the Biden Administration, in Louisiana v. Becerra, a U.S. District Court in Louisiana issued a nationwide injunction against the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers.
These two district court decisions show that “arbitrary and capricious” COVID-related orders cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Even asserted emergency powers are subject to judicial review and must comply with constitutional and statutory laws. As these courts have pointed out, our nation is always facing some crisis, emergency or profound challenge, and will do so again. Courts have and will always have a critical role in measuring the actions of the government against the legal constraints on the exercise of power.
1. “The mandate is arbitrary and capricious because the record is devoid of particularized evidence regarding risk in the targeted facilities.”
So concluded the Missouri U.S. District Court. The CMS had presented no evidence regarding the impacted facilities specifically. It extrapolated data from long term care facilities. Judge Schelp, in very strong wording, repeated in his opinion, pointed out that using the very worst example to justify reaching other facilities, without providing data specific to those facilities was arbitrary and capricious. Long term care facilities have less than 1% of the U.S. population, but accounted for 35% of all COVID deaths during the first year of the pandemic. Of the approximately 656,000 Americans who died while having a COVID diagnosis (not necessarily the primary or direct cause of death), 30% are estimated to have died during a long term care facility stay. Using these grim stats to justify extending the mandate to all health care facilities was not reasonable.
Dr. Berry’s order contains a paragraph providing some factual basis for the exercise of her extraordinary powers, but it is quite vague and unparticularized: “As of August 21, 2021, 495 outbreaks of COVID-19 have been tied traced [sic] to restaurants, and bars in Washington State. Localized transmission of COIVD-19 outbreaks related to restaurants and bars have been documented in Clallam County. Indoor bars and restaurants are known to pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission as they encourage unmasking of large groups of people indoors.” She did not define “outbreaks.”
Berry’s statement of justification does not state whether documented COVID transmission occurred between patrons and staff, between patrons who dined/drank together, between patrons who were strangers, or among staff. The mandate applies to unvaccinated patrons only, so to be relevant her data should state how many cases were related to unvaccinated patrons transmitting the virus to other patrons and/or staff. If any transmission was caused by vaccinated patrons, she should back those numbers out to avoid any exaggeration. As for restaurants and bars posing a “high risk” of transmission, that assertion is simply laughable. The DOH reports that Washington has seen a total of 780,835 infections or cases. The total number of infections/cases “tied traced” (Berry will have to decide which) is 495, representing a de minimis 0.06% of all infections/cases.
Dr. Allison Berry, Clallam/JeffCo Health Officer
Dr. Berry also does not state how many of those “outbreaks” were symptomatic or resulted in hospitalizations or deaths, if any. She also apparently lumps into her gross number all positive test results. This can be wildly misleading. It all depends on, in lay terms, how many cycles were run on the sample. As explained ably in the articles published here, and the sources cited therein, many of the PCR test results coming back positive are meaningless because of the way the tests were conducted. See Dr. Rob Rennebohm, “The Importance of Knowing the Ct Value at Which SARS-Cov-2 PCR Tests Are Positive,” PTFP, 2/7/21.
Berry’s mandate makes no sense when one thinks about who these patrons are coming to a bar or restaurant. Outside the targeted facility they don’t have to wear a mask. They may have been around each other in a home or other private location and may have driven to the restaurant together in the closed space of a motor vehicle. The whole time they may well have been, and probably were, without face coverings. If there is any transmission risk, it was more serious before they entered the restaurant or bar, and the higher transmission risk resumes once they leave and reenter their vehicle or go to another location together. (This assumes, for the sake of argument, that a mask will prevent transmission). It is arbitrary and capricious to require an eating/drinking establishment to demand proof of full vaccination from individuals who have already been congregating in close quarters without masks and without enforcing a vaccine mandate against each other.
Another huge problem with Berry’s order—one mentioned in the complaint—is that vaccines do not prevent the vaccinated person from transmitting the virus, and do not prevent infection. A vaccinated person can transmit the virus to anyone else.
And, as we know, masks do not prevent transmission or infection.
While the Public Health Officer is entitled to some deference, courts cannot be mere “rubber stamps.” A Public Health Officer’s emergency powers are not intended to be an unchecked, unaccountable, and arbitrary dictatorship.
2. “The mandate is arbitrary and capricious because it rejected alternatives.”
The U.S. District Courts that have found the CMS mandate fatally defective also based their decision on the fact that CMS rejected or ignored the less restrictive, but equally or more effective, alternatives of daily or weekly testing, and also rejected or ignored the scientifically recognized natural immunity of those with a previous COVID infection. “CMS… rejected natural immunity,” Judge Schelp wrote, “despite an intense public debate and a trove of scientific data on the strength and durability of natural immunity from COVID-19—alone and compared to vaccine-induced immunity.”
In his decision, Missouri U.S. District Court Judge Schelp pointed out that the federal government itself has admitted that it “lacks solid evidence” regarding the transmission of COVID by the vaccinated. Relying on Federal data, coming primarily from the Centers for Disease Control, CMS admitted that “the effectiveness of the vaccine[s] to prevent disease transmission by those vaccinated [is] not currently known. This federal agency also admitted that the continued efficacy of the vaccines is “uncertain.”
Berry’s order assumes, without presenting any evidence, that requiring patrons of bars and restaurants to be vaccinated will prevent transmission. But her order offers nothing to justify this critical, fundamental presumption of what is not only an unproven medical fact, but also a presumption contrary to the best medical evidence available. Vaccination does not prevent transmission. As evidence mounts of the vaccinated transmitting COVID, and of the vaccinated themselves becoming infected, the clay feet of her order are becoming more and more exposed to erosion by facts.
3. “The scant evidence shows” that the mandate “placed a rock on one side of the scale and a feather on the other.”
Judge Schelp overturned the federal mandate because it failed to consider countervailing interests and relative harms. The vaccination mandate for all health facilities, he observed, came with substantial and dire consequences for the impacted facilities and patients. The CMS estimated that just in its first year, compliance would cost $1.38 billon, and could result in loss of employees, closing of facilities, and harm to patients denied or delayed treatment and care.
The Clallam County bars and restaurants allege that the arbitrary and capricious and unconstitutional mandate has caused them “irreparable damage and economic harm… including but not limited to lost revenue, lost customers and employees that have resigned due to the mandate.” While their damages must be proven, estimates shared with Port Townsend Free Press start at 20% loss of business just since Berry imposed her proof-of-vaccine mandate.
Berry’s order nowhere addresses the consequence and costs of her mandate. It assumes she has the authority to issue and enforce any order regardless of its economic and other negative impacts, regardless of its de minimis benefits. Weighed against the costs to these restaurants, and possible business failure, is the fact cited by Berry herself, that there have been only 495 instances of COVID “tied traced” or “related” to bars and restaurants since the start of the pandemic. As discussed above, that is an insignificant 0.06% of all infections/cases in the state, and Berry’s own mushy number fails to distinguish between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, staff and patrons, and patrons (vaxxed or not) who were in close, prolonged social contact before entering the establishment.
The legal question will be whether Berry is endowed with absolute, unreasonable and unreviewable power, and whether she can impose orders that cause injury and damage without sufficient justification and weighing of all interests. The statute under which Berry has issued her orders, RCW 70.05.070, states she shall “take such action as is necessary to maintain public health and sanitation; to control and prevent the spread of any dangerous, contagious or infectious diseases, and to take such measures as deemed necessary in order to promote the public health.” Does the latter italicized language mean there are no limits on the actions Berry can take?
Certainly, the state and federal constitutions check Berry’s power. They must, or else a bureaucrat could make herself a dictator under the mantle of protecting public health simply by declaring an emergency. “Emergency” is a legal term that must be defined by a court or else it is an invitation to rampant and unchecked bureaucratic and executive power. The Biden administration attempted to cry “emergency” to escape judicial review and evade the limits on its power. Federal judges have rejected this last resort argument. “Most, if not all laws passed,” Judge Schelp wrote, quoting a 2013 decision from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ‘are designed to eliminate some real or perceived harm.’ But all laws, and all actions by government officials, are reviewable by courts to ensure compliance with constitutional protections and other prohibitions against arbitrary and capricious exercises of power.”
What’s with the Peninsula Daily News?
On December 3, 2021, the Peninsula Daily News ran a story on the lawsuit. The reporter got a quote from someone speculating that the plaintiffs probably had not suffered much from Dr. Berry’s mandate. The source, the executive director of the Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce, admitted he did not know if the restaurants and bars had lost business, but then went on to say that he “sensed” that “they are doing very well.” The rest of his quote was yet another guess about why the plaintiffs had filed the suit.
The PDN reporter apparently never thought to call the plaintiffs or their attorney. We did speak with two of the plaintiffs, and they related that their losses are very substantial, perhaps even crippling to the continued viability of their businesses.
The PDN then took a shot at the lawsuit’s claim about people who have natural immunity because they had undergone a bout of COVID. It stated that people who had previously had COVID are “more than twice as likely to be reinfected,” and provided a link. But the link does not go to any source supporting that assertion. The PDN‘s unsupported claim is directly contradicted by the National Institutes of Health, which has found “lasting immunity” from a previous bout of COVID.
*Correction: The original version misstated the tribe where Payne served as prosecuting attorney.
A common feature at the weekly Monday morning Board of County Commissioner (BOCC) meetings in these Covid times is a number of public comments aimed at the disconnect between public health policies dictated by local authorities and the data coming from independently-funded, non-mainstream scientific and medical sources. Lately, mandated or coerced medical treatments have frequently been the target.
At the last meeting in November, I used my full three minutes to share part of the tragic story of near-fatal adverse events that befell a local resident who, against her instinct, took the jabs to get a job. This previously “healthy as can be” 27-year-old Port Townsend woman we called Laura suffered two heart attacks four days after her second Pfizer jab. She was diagnosed with acute myopericarditis, leaving her young heart functioning at 30% capacity. Six physicians, including one at Jefferson Healthcare, acknowledged the jabs were responsible.
None of the commissioners directly addressed that heartbreaking story, but District 1 Commissioner Kate Dean proffered this oblique reference to it, suggesting most of us should be willing to take one for the team:
“I’m resisting the desire to get defensive. I don’t think that’s helpful. I think we live with a lot of privilege in this community. Many of us come from a lot of privilege and being asked to make small sacrifices for the benefit of public health feels like a minor thing to do.”
Would Dean have been so blithe if the vax had nearly killed one of her own children, destroying their young, healthy heart in the process? Would that have been a “small sacrifice for the benefit of public health?”
————————————-
At the December 6th meeting Commissioner Dean zoomed in from her honeymoon destination in Portugal, seated before a picture window overlooking a hillside brimming with iconic red terracotta roofs vividly contrasted against the light sand-colored structures below them. As charming, inviting and elsewhere-looking as could be. I longed to be there, too.
Board of County Commissioners 12/6 Zoom meeting screen capture
During the comment period, long-time resident Beth O’Neal read excerpts from RFK Jr’s national best-seller, The Real Anthony Fauci. Stephen Schumacher gave some specifics on the new legal complaint leveled against county health officer Allison Berry on behalf of six Clallam restaurateurs, seeking injunctive relief from her no-jab/no-entry edict sprung without warning on bars and restaurants on Sept. 2nd.
Schumacher followed with highlights of numerous recent successful legal challenges (here and here) that may bode badly for county officials over policies they’ve already endorsed, and if they choose to fire non-compliant employees in coming months.
I took the opportunity to remind the commission of the gut wrenching story of vaccine-induced heart failure I’d related to them at the Nov. 22nd meeting. I reminded Dean of her response, which intimated that this young woman’s sacrifice was “small” and for the public good. I voiced umbrage at her use of the woke trope “privileged,” pointing out that it doesn’t take privilege to think critically, to do one’s own research, to listen to the many thousands of experts who challenge the dominant paradigm, to conclude that the government, the pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies who oversee them are so thoroughly corrupt, they cannot be trusted. Certainly not with our health.
My appeal to the board to recognize the life-altering impact the jabs had on this young woman was lost on all but Heidi Eisenhour, who seemed sincerely sad about “these cases” of injury that she hears about. She followed with “It’s a choice to get vaccinated or not, despite the mandates. It’s a choice.” She has previously stated that mandates are a good thing. Greg Brotherton’s comments, in general, don’t bear repeating. You can listen to them if you’re willing.
Far from being stirred to compassion for this woman, Dean launched into full-blown totalitarian goose-step mode, gleeful to find herself in the land of the obedient.
“It is kind of shocking to be in a country that is over 90% vaccinated, and very compliant. Life is very normal here and the economy appears to be thriving as well. It’s just great to see. Everybody just masks up when they go inside a store, there’s no grumbling about it. They have extremely low rates of infection here. Of course they’re worried about Omicron, but you don’t really see that because it’s generally very safe. If you want to go to a bar you have to get tested within 24 hours and have a negative test result to show, and those are available—free—in every plaza in town.
They’ve decided to close down for a week right after New Year’s, just to avoid any potential spread that might come from the holidays, and folks are willing to do that, they’re planning for it, they’re saying, ‘Yeah, well, we’ll take our vacation then.’ It’s sacrifices that allow them to have normalcy the rest of the time. And it is such a relief [laughing] to be here!!! And Omicron is knocking at the door much more here than it is in America, and yet, the anxiety isn’t here because they have such a high rate of compliance and vaccination. And it’s just living proof. And people aren’t being irresponsible, they’re masking up when they go indoors. Don’t get me wrong, you definitely see that COVID is still a concern here, but it doesn’t change the way that people have to behave. It’s just really wonderful to be in a place that has got it under control, and it’s considered the first western country that will be able to respond to it as an endemic instead of a pandemic.”
It’s such a relief to be surrounded by so many other compliant people! Everybody masking up without grumbling. Testing 24 hours in advance to get into a bar (that’s a long time if you’re thirsty), jabbed or not, but no worries—the tests are free! (According to their consulate, US citizens have to pay for their tests. Elected officials may have diplomatic dispensation on that one.) “Omicron is knocking at the door” but they’re not anxious because they’re compliant and jabbed up.
If all this conformity warms your cockles, do put China on your bucket-list.
Perhaps Dean’s assumptions of the coronavirus scene in her host city came from a 2020 summer tourism brochure, or maybe it was the language barrier. According to this Agence France-Pressenews alert from November 18th, here was that nation’s reality a few short weeks ago:
“Portugal on Wednesday said it was considering imposing new coronavirus restrictions after an increase in cases and hospitalizations, despite having one of the world’s best vaccination rates. Portuguese health authorities on Wednesday recorded 2,527 new cases and more than 500 hospitalizations, the highest figures since early September. More than 86 percent of Portugal’s population have been fully vaccinated and authorities are urging the over-65’s to take a third COVID vaccine dose.”
Then came the big news from the U.S. State Department on Monday afternoon—mere hours after Dean delivered her fanciful assessment ofviral threat levels in Lisbon—announcing that the CDC had instituted a new Travel Advisory —
Case counts had breached the 500/100,000 bar. Far from being “living proof” of getting COVID under control, Portugal’s “high rate of compliance and vaccination” has led to higher case rates than ever.
Not far over the border, the “vaccinated” don’t appear to be having much more luck:
“On Dec. 1, 170 staff from a regional hospital in Malaga, Spain, attended a Christmas party held at a local eatery. Just six days later, 68 of the staff, which included intensive care nurses and physicians, all triple jabbed or recently tested for antigens, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2… This incident caught national attention, including prime minister Pedro Sanchez warning Spaniards to be careful. Now Andalucia health officials caution that other staff from hospitals avoid Christmas parties.” [source]
So despite being triple-jabbed, the shots didn’t protect 68 of 170 people. For those who have been tracking the relationship of “vaccination” to case rates, all this comes as no surprise. Research that’s not funded by conflicted sources like pharma or captured government agencies has not shown a causal relationship between increasing vax rates and decreasing case rates.
As we attempt to wrap our minds around the depth of “mass formation” pervading society today, I frequently remind myself to be compassionate.
Months ago, Commissioner Dean admitted that one of her teenage children had an adverse reaction to their jab. Her lack of empathy for Laura is puzzling, if not troubling. Dare she turn to face the possibilities of potential long-term consequences that we’ve been waving our arms about for nearly a year? It may be too much to bear.
“In the very rare occasions where myocarditis occurs as a result of the vaccine, it is most commonly mild and generally resolves without treatment.” – Jefferson County Public Health
“The blood test for heart injury with the vaccine myocarditis elevations is ten to a hundred-fold HIGHER than the troponin we see with natural infection. Vaccine induced myocarditis is a big deal…” – Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough
—————————-
Which statement above is true? How prevalent and how serious is myocarditis (heart inflammation) caused by mRNA injections? What poses a greater risk to your heart—the virus or the shot?
Following our publication of the story of a 27-year-old Port Townsend woman who suffered two heart attacks in the week following her second Pfizer injection, leaving her with acute myopericarditis, Jim Scarantino posed this question on Jefferson County Public Health’s (JCPH) Facebook page:
“What is the Department’s and Public Health Officer’s response to this report of a very severe, very tragic adverse reaction to the Pfizer vaccine? This happened here in Jefferson County. I am not pushing an anti-vax agenda. I have been vaccinated. But this is a true case and deserves a response from officials requiring people to run this sort of risk.”
As discussed in other Free Press articles—and in readers’ comments below them—health institutions, global to local, which the public has long relied upon to protect us are now in lockstep with Big Pharma’s propaganda designed to force experimental injections into every man, woman, and child on earth. The narrative, at all costs, is to keep people terrified by overstating the danger from Covid infections while downplaying risks from the shots.
Our own health department demonstrates this strategy perfectly in its response to Scarantino, a response riddled with deflection, denial and disinformation.
“Because of rules protecting private health information, we at Jefferson County Public Health cannot speak to the veracity of individual reports of possible vaccine associated outcomes for any individual patient. We can confirm that in the entirety of our vaccination effort, there has been one reported case of myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccination in Jefferson County. There have been no cases of long term disability or death associated with a COVID-19 vaccination in our county. 48,600 doses of the COVID-19 vaccines have been delivered in Jefferson County.
Myocarditis is a very rare possible side effect of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, occurring at a rate of approximately 40 cases/1 million doses delivered. Myocarditis is 11 times more likely to occur as a result of COVID-19 infection than after a vaccine, occurring at a rate of 450 cases/1 million diagnosed infections. In the very rare occasions where myocarditis occurs as a result of a vaccine, it is most commonly mild and generally resolves without any treatment. This stands in stark contrast to the myocarditis caused by the COVID-19 virus, which frequently leads to long term disability and even death. Jefferson County Public Health continues to work closely with our local healthcare partners to monitor the vaccine effort and assure the safety and effectiveness of all vaccinations delivered in Jefferson County. Read more about COVID-19 and myocarditis here: https://www.cdc.gov/…/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html”
Let’s take a look at these statements
JCPH:There has been one reported case of myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccination in Jefferson County.
FACT: Not an overt falsehood, this is lying by omission. There is only one reported case of myocarditis here because these injuries are not being reported. Like all agencies under CDC auspices, Jefferson County Public Health’s mission is to promote the safe and effective mantra. Acknowledging damage from these shots undermines that mission. Was Laura’s recent case the one that was reported, or was it another? We are aware of multiple heart issues that were never reported, usually denied to be related to the shots. We know that the acute—not mild—myocarditis diagnosed following Laura’s heart attacks was not reported to VAERS by either Jefferson Healthcare or by the second hospital that she was sent to. Both medical facilities, in violation of CDC requirements, acknowledged her heart damage was caused by the shot but told Laura SHE could report it if she wanted to.
JCPH:There have been no cases of long-term disability or death associated with a COVID-19 vaccination in our county.
FACT: Like injury reports, county deaths following the shots are being covered up, denied, and/or re-labeled. Earlier Free Press articles describe in detail one of these vaccine-induced deaths. A woman with no kidney issues before the Pfizer vax sent her on a death spiral, was labeled on her death certificate by a Jefferson Healthcare doctor as having died of renal failure. In another death following the vax that I was alerted to, “A med provider who lost a patient from injection, was dictated the response required to make.” [See “Death by Injection?” and “The Truth That Must Not Be Spoken.”] The majority of county deaths with COVID-19 have also been deaths with vaccination, at least one a “profoundly immunosuppressed” woman falling ill less than a week after being given an “ineffective” second vaccine.
JCPH:Myocarditis is a very rare possible side effect of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines occurring at a rate of approximately 40 cases/1 million doses. Myocarditis is 11 times more likely to occur as a result of COVID-19 infection than after a vaccine.
FACT: These numbers use data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), acknowledged by a Harvard study to capture less than 1% of actual adverse reactions. Will we ever know what percentage of actual adverse events have been reported by our health department? 1%? 5%? 10%? As discussed above, none of the vaccine-induced deaths or heart injuries we are aware of were reported to VAERS by local health personnel. Our own hospital’s refusal to report adverse events exemplifies the reality of extreme under-reporting.
Numbers aside, how dangerous is heart injury from the vaccine? The health department would have you believe that it is the natural Covid infection you should fear, not the shots. Vaccine-induced myocarditis is “mild”, they say.
JCPH: In the very rare occasions where myocarditis occurs as a result of the vaccine, it is most commonly mild and generally resolves without treatment. This stands in stark contrast to the myocarditis caused by the COVID-19 virus, which frequently leads to long-tern disability and even death.
FACT: This statement goes beyond a misstatement, cover-up or just plain denial of reality. It is a total Orwellian inversion of the truth. Top cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, who has been seeing heart patients throughout this crisis, says there is indeed a stark contrast and it’s just the opposite of JCPH’s claim: damage from vaccine-induced myocarditis is often severe, while that from the virus is generally “inconsequential”:
Dr. Peter McCullough Explains How Myocarditis Differs When Caused by Natural Infection vs Vaccine. Click image above for 1-minute video.
“The myocarditis that occurs with the natural infection is very different than the myocarditis we’re seeing from the vaccines. The myocarditis from Covid-19 is mild, is inconsequential, and is largely a troponin elevation.
“I don’t want anyone thinking that the myocarditis we’re seeing from the natural infections is anything like what we’re seeing from the vaccines. There are pre-clinical studies suggesting that the lipid nanoparticles [in the vaccines] actually go right into the heart. The heart expresses the spike protein, the body attacks the heart. There are dramatic EKG changes, the troponin—the blood test for heart injury—with the vaccine myocarditis elevations is ten to a hundred-fold HIGHER than the troponin we see with natural infection. It’s a totally different syndrome.
“When the kids get myocarditis after the vaccine, 90% have to be hospitalized. They have dramatic EKG changes, chest pain, early heart failure. They need echocardiograms, medications to prevent heart failure. Vaccine induced myocarditis is a big deal, and in children it is way more serious and more prominent than a post-Covid myocarditis.” (video clip above)
Vaccine-caused myocarditis certainly isn’t mild for young Laura, who now has an 80-year-old heart courtesy of Pfizer injections she was pressured to take against her better judgment. Jefferson County Public Health makes sweeping misstatements based on the false pharma/CDC narrative, with no transparency about actual local data.
As Dr. McCullough points out (and as described in my previous article), the vaccine has now been shown to travel directly to the heart where the billions of spike proteins it generates attack heart tissue. We invite any county residents who have myocarditis resulting from a Covid-19 infection to share their story. We would be most interested in comparing their heart damage following a bout with the virus to what Laura and others in Jefferson County have suffered from the shots.
My previous article closed with the recent report presented at the American Heart Association’s annual conference, MRNA COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning. This robust study showed that risk of heart attacks and other severe coronary heart problems more than doubled within the months after Pfizer and Moderna vaccination. British cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra discusses this report and describes additional research confirming the same findings:
Report reveals increase in risk of heart attack following the mRNA COVID vaccine Click image above for interview with UK cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra
“A few days ago, after this was published, somebody from a very prestigious British institution, a cardiology department researcher, contacted me to say that researchers in this department had found something similar, within the coronary arteries, linked to the vaccine—inflammation from imaging studies around the coronary arteries. They had a meeting and these researchers at the moment have decided that they’re not going to publish their findings because they are concerned about losing research money from the drug industry. This person was very upset about it….
“I have a lot of interaction with the cardiology community across the UK and anecdotally I have been getting told by my colleagues that they are seeing younger and younger people coming in with heart attacks.”
The more than 8,000 comments following Malhotra’s 4-minute interview affirm his perspective. How long will YouTube allow this video and its comments to be posted? These are the voices being censored by social media and mainstream news:
A good friend of mine here in Australia 🇦🇺 has told me practically the same information. She also works in a hospital over here for 30 years. It’s affecting our young high school students. A cluster in South Australia, about 15 students from one school.
From the moment I had the vaccine I have felt unwell with cardiac type symptoms. I am 30
Four days after the second shot, my husband died of a sudden heart attack. He was 59.
My sister has a leaky valve in her heart. Symptoms started as soon as she had her first vaccine and was first diagnosed with an inflamed heart. The doctor says it’s not related and she would of had it for years. She’s 45. Ok doctor 👌🏻
The same things happened to heart. I used to be healthy sportsman. The problems started after second dose of vax. Heart arrhythmia
Since I got this effing shot I have had palpations and an increase in my resting heart rate and a dramatic decrease in my exercise tolerance. WTF. Now this!!
10 times more cardiac arrest in the last 10 months than the last 10 years according to some A+E staff.
Four weeks ago I had my first Pfizer vaccine, 6 days later I had a stroke. Previously in good health with no underlying health conditions.
I’m a very fit late 40s male. Since my double Pfizer jab I’ve had issues with breathing and chest pains. Biggest regret of my life was taking this vaccine.
After the first dose: My 40 year old friend had a heart attack and was resuscitated, my neighbour has now blood clots in the brain, my father went into anaphylaxis, another friend has severe palpitations, hypertension and now is being monitored by a cardiologist …I’m just saying, all fit and healthy
Obfuscation is the new standard of care
In response to our health department’s Facebook statements, Jim Scarantino posted this comment:
“Thank you for answering. It is not clear if the woman in the article is the case in your answer. Either way, the permanent damage she has suffered probably far outweighs the minimal risk she faced of a severe COVID infection that would produce the same heart damage. Somebody in her age group and as healthy as she was, emphasize was, never really faced much risk with COVID. At least recognize her sacrifice and loss, which was forced upon her by government coercion. What does she get out of this other than a lifetime, a shortened lifetime, of regret and poor health?”
Their response? Continue to avoid the hard questions, just reiterate misleading data to divert the focus. So Scarantino tried a third time to get a straight answer about Laura’s devastating heart injuries:
“At least acknowledge that forcing people to get vaccinated could result in serious, permanent harm to some. That woman’s injuries are not insignificant, and far worse than the COVID symptoms suffered by most people who were infected, particularly young people.”
JCPH’s response was yet another “clarification” that didn’t address the main issue he raised, completely ignoring concerns about the significant harm to some, “particularly young people,” for no benefit.
In the same Facebook thread, county resident Lea Falkenhagen quoted the conclusion of the report cited above, warning that the mRNA vaccines “dramatically increase inflammation… of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.” In light of all the heart risk being documented, she asked some questions we deserve answers to:
“I am curious how many heart attacks have occurred in Jefferson County since last spring and how many were post vaccination? Who is tracking this information and is it being reported to the public? If not, why? Are people getting handed this info before choosing to be vaccinated? If not, why? Are people with heart conditions being referred to their cardiologists before JCPH recommends they get a jab? If not, why?”
None of these questions have been answered.
How is our health department serving its public? Officials discount tragic local evidence of an experiment gone horribly wrong, refuse to acknowledge the severity of cardiac damage from these shots, and parrot the broken record that Covid vaccines are safe and effective when it is increasingly obvious that neither assertion is true.
Dr. Malhotra joins fellow cardiologist Dr. McCullough and the many thousands of other doctors and scientists worldwide warning about this dangerous push to force these shots on people around the globe.
“I think now it’s high time that policy makers around the world put an end to the mandates—because I think if this signal is strong, and if it’s correct, then history will not be on their side and the public will not forgive them for it.”
How many Lauras will it take before Jefferson County Public Health, Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry, our Board of Health, and our elected Board of County Commissioners heed this warning?
451 children. 213 families. 75 volunteers. 35 businesses. Originating with the efforts of a Chimacum schools bus driver broken-hearted for kids who received no Christmas gifts, Jefferson County’s Christmas for Children now brings joy to more kids and families than ever before.
In 1973 several children told Janice Schauer, a school bus aide, that they had not received any gifts for Christmas. The following Christmas, out of her own pocket, she bought socks and other modest gifts for the small children on her bus route she knew to be in need. This was the start of “Tri-Area Christmas for Children.”
Schauer’s daughter, Laurie Schauer Liske, and her husband Tony then took up the program. They were followed by their son Tony and his wife Kelly, the third generation of the Schauer/Liske family to spearhead this highly organized, very cost-effective, far-reaching and growing outpouring of Christmas spirit.
Assembly of gifts for children from an earlier year
A similar program to serve needy Port Townsend children folded in 2013 and the Tri-Area Christmas for Children group took up the call, nearly tripling in size the number of children reached. Known now as Christmas for Children, it serves families in Port Townsend, Nordland, Chimacum, Port Hadlock-Irondale-Chimacum (the “Tri-Cities”) and Port Ludlow. The numbers, so far: 451 children in 213 families getting loved on, by 75 volunteers and 35 businesses hosting Giving Trees. You can pick up a tag and fulfill some child’s Christmas wish at the businesses on this list.
Kelly Liske says that kids get more than just the gifts on their wish list. “They also receive toothpaste, floss and toothbrushes donated by local dentists, socks, hats and gloves, candy assembled by a local Girl Scout Troop, and stuffed animals. I would say that the community, together with our financial support, is likely spending over $50,000 each year on this project. Our organization works on a budget of less than $10,000 annually…. We could not do this without the support of the community and their generous giving!”
As explained on the group’s website: “By October 1 of each year, applicants who are seeking gifts for their children fill out an application, which is then submitted to program volunteers to generate “tree tags” for the ‘want’ and ‘need’ for each child. Those tree tags are then distributed throughout Jefferson County to approximately 35 “Tree Hosts” to be placed on “Giving Trees”. The local businesses that accept the tags see that their customers or employees take the tags and then purchase the items requested. The purchased gifts are returned to the Tree Host site by a set date to be picked up by our teams.”
Liske encouraged Port Townsend Free Press to hurry up if we wanted photographs of the giving trees. “The tags go fast,” she said. She was right. The Giving Tree we found at Evergreen Fitness (shown in the feature photo with owner Michelle West) had been picked nearly clean, as members took up the children’s requests by plucking tags from the tree.
Christmas for Children depends on generous contributions from the local Rotary, Elks and Kiwanis groups, as well as financial support from local businesses. The Jefferson County Fair Board is a key partner, making its buildings available for storage, assembly and distribution of the Yuletide haul. Christmas for Children has developed a close relationship with the Marine Corps Toys for Tots program and makes deliveries for them. Says Liske, “Toys for Tots can’t supplement any clothing items or anything really other than toys per their mission and guidelines, so the cash donations that come into [Christmas 4 Children] are used to purchase the items that are considered needs rather than toys (socks, hats, gloves, coats, shoes, clothing, diapers, hygiene items, blankets, car seats, etc.).” Donations may be sent to Christmas for Children 1240 W. Sims Way #286, Port Townsend, WA 98368.
The organization doesn’t want any children overlooked. “Teens always get forgotten,” says Liske. “Most people like to buy toys for little kids, so we have an abundance of items typically for the 0-8 year-old group. The 9-16 year-old group are hard to buy for and we typically are short of donations in this area!”
Christmas for Children will be assembling the gifts and other supplies for needy children at the Fairgrounds on December 17 and 18. Families share the outpouring of the community’s generosity and Christmas spirit on December 19. Christmas doesn’t end December 25. “There are often gift tags that are left over from the Giving Trees that our program must try to fill,” the group’s website states. “That is where it is vital that we receive cash donations throughout the year.”
