Suffer the Little Children

Suffer the Little Children

by | Nov 11, 2021 | General

At the October 4th meeting of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, Department of Emergency Management Director Willie Bence provided the following update:

“We’re unlikely to do any more large clinics for the Pfizer booster dose population. Our next priority beginning the end of this month is going to be five to eleven-year-olds. So we’re eagerly awaiting that approval, so we’ll be ready for that at the end of this month through November…”

How did EM Director Bence know that this poorly-tested product was going to be approved, when less than a week before, the headline from this CNN report read “Pfizer submits data on Covid-19 vaccine for kids ages 5 to 11 to FDA, not seeking EUA yet.” In fact, it wasn’t until October 7th that Pfizer announced its formal request to the FDA for EUA—three days after Bence made his prescient announcement.

Willlie Bence, Jefferson County Emergency Management Director

What sort of crystal ball are they gazing into there in the Emergency Management office? I’ve filed a Public Records Request to find out, and I’ll share with PTFP readers what I learn.

The Nov. 4th edition of The Leader carried the water for the Jefferson/Clallam County Public Health officer, braying, “In other good news, Berry noted the potential approval of a COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11. ‘We’re very excited about that,’ she said.”

In the article “Pfizer COVID Vaccine Fails Risk-Benefit Analysis in Children 5 to 11,” Toby Rogers, PhD, explains the critical metric NNTV—it’s the “number needed to vaccinate” in order to prevent a single case, hospitalization, ICU admission or death. The best study to date determined that:

“…the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9,000 and 100,000 (95% confidence interval)… injecting all 28,384,878 children ages 5 to 11 with two doses of Pfizer, which is what the Biden administration wants to do, would save, at most, 45 lives… So then the NNTV to prevent a single fatality in this age group is 28,384,878 / 45 = 630,775. But it’s a two-dose regimen, so if one wants to calculate the NNTV per injection the number doubles to 1,261,550. It’s literally the worst NNTV in the history of vaccination.”

”Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford (2021) estimate the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System undercounts fatal reactions by a factor of 41, which would put the total fatal side effects in this age-range at 5,248. Kirsch et al. represent a conservative estimate because others have put the underreporting factor at 100… Simply put, the Biden administration plan would kill 5,248 children via Pfizer mRNA shots in order to save 45 children from dying of coronavirus.“

Why is Willie Bence so “eager” and Allison Berry so “very excited” to inject this dangerous experimental gene therapy into our kids?

It would be comical were it not so diabolical. The first “pop-up” clinic for these young kids is at Blue Heron Middle School this Saturday, Nov. 13th from 9am to noon. The following weekend, Nov. 20th, the injection wagon rolls up to Chimacum Junior/Senior High School.

Pfizer’s Superhero theme is parroted by state and local health authorities on their social media pages, illustrating pharma’s complete capture of the agencies meant to oversee them.

Why are we vaccinating children?

It was predicted by many that the highly profitable injections would eventually be aimed at the children, regardless of this age group’s negligibly low risk of severe or fatal outcomes, and despite the low transmission rates in schools and from the young to the old in household settings. With an eye on profit alone, career criminal outfit Pfizer sought EUA approval from the FDA for use of its mRNA jabs for this young cohort.

On October 26th, the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) supported Pfizer’s pitch, voting 17-0 (1 abstention).  Most of the committee have histories of deep commercial bonds with industry; eleven of them were “temporary” members. Committee member and apparent psychopath Dr. Eric Rubin, an infectious disease physician and editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, said without a trace of irony,

“We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes. That’s how we found out about rare complications of other vaccines.”

Risks of myocarditis and pericarditis were acknowledged, but ultimately discounted. By the drug company’s own admission, the trial population size “was too small to detect any potential risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination.” The safety data provided by Pfizer showed that the two study cohort groups were followed for irresponsibly short periods of time—one for just two months, the other just two-and-a-half weeks. Throwing caution to the winds, they are experimenting on our children.

Aaron Siri, lead attorney at Siri & Glimstad, has won multiple lawsuits against Health and Human Services and its subordinate agencies. On behalf of the Informed Choice Action Network (ICAN), his firm is enlisting the aid of Congress members who care about civil liberties. He writes:

“The legal authority for the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to issue an EUA for children for this product is lacking, including because there is no medical emergency for children and the vaccinated still become infected with and transmit the virus. (Infra § I.) It is also improper to issue an EUA for children when the data does not demonstrate that the known benefits outweigh the known risks, the trial was underpowered, and there are serious concerns regarding how they were conducted. (Infra § II.) The foregoing issues are compounded by the fact that federal health authorities have given financial immunity to Pfizer for injuries caused by this product, including if it engages in willful misconduct, despite a history of such conduct by Pfizer. (Infra § III.)”

There’s one more important fact that mainstream media isn’t reporting. On page 14 of the FDA fact sheet, it says “To provide a vaccine with an improved stability profile, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 for use in children 5-11 years of age uses tromethamine (Tris) buffer instead of the phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) as used in the previous formulation and excludes sodium chloride and potassium chloride.” Tromethamine is a blood acid reducer often used to stabilize people with heart attacks. Curiously, less than 5 months ago, the FDA approved Pradaxa, “the first oral blood thinning medication for children.”

Think they’re anticipating problems? Pradaxa is for patient populations “3 months to less than 12 years old with venous thromboembolism (a condition where blood clots form in the veins).” The press release casually adds, “The most common side effects of Pradaxa include digestive system symptoms and bleeding. Pradaxa can cause serious and fatal bleeding.”

Brought to you by…

With the yoke of liability off their neck, Pfizer is set to win the house with this gamble. News site Axios reported on Nov. 2nd that Pfizer’s jab “has quickly become the highest-selling drug in the world” adding that the pharma behemoth “forecasts revenue from the COVID-19 vaccine it developed with BioNTech will now reach $36 billion this year, up 7.5% from its previous estimate of $33.5 billion.”  The billions that would surely be paid out in civil courts for injuries and death from these therapies is being funneled directly into undue influence of the media, academia and clinical research. Market analyst site statista says “Pfizer spent around 11.6 billion U.S. dollars on selling, informational and administrative expenses in 2020.”  Advertising is included in that budget.

Ana Wolpin reported on the life-altering injuries sustained by Pfizer clinical trial participant, 12-year-old Maddie de Garay, in her Oct. 30th in-depth article on this site. The Vaccine Safety Research Association created a 30-second ad highlighting Maddie’s adverse events—severe damage Pfizer denied for months, eventually reporting to the FDA that she had a “stomach ache”—in advance of the VRBPAC meeting. Comcast initially agreed to broadcast the advert during episodes of “Saturday Night Live” and “Meet the Press.” The day before it was scheduled to air, Comcast officials pulled it.

 

Maddie De Garay, now 13, was severely injured after receiving the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine as a trial participant. Comcast agreed to run this 30-second ad, then pulled it.
Click to watch what Comcast censored.

Normalizing the abnormal

In the “new normal” characterized by inversion, life as we understood it no longer applies. “Vaccines” that are not really vaccines are “safe and effective” even though they cause injury and death and do not prevent transmission, infection, hospitalization or death. Influenza, the seasonal respiratory illness that typically kills over half a million people a year, magically disappears for 18 months, but now we’re told by these Svengalis that it will definitely return this winter.  Anaphylaxis, arrhythmia and fainting are commonplace. Top athletes regularly drop dead on the field, school mates die in zoom classes and strokes are to be expected in kids.

KIDS HAVE STROKES TOO – pharma’s New Normal

A nurse friend who left the employ of Jefferson Healthcare hospital this past spring related to me her shock and dismay at the constant refrain sung to co-workers who were out of commission for days post-injection with debilitating headaches and flu-like symptoms — “That means it’s working!”

Where are the adults in the room?

Port Ludlow residents Madison and Michael Clevenger, parents of three children aged 8 to 14, became concerned about state overreach while following SB-5889, which passed in March 2019. They were alarmed to learn of the concept of “protected individuals” which includes “A minor who may obtain health care without the consent of a parent or legal guardian, pursuant to state or federal law.” When Madison took their 14-year-old daughter to her sports physical this year, she was stunned when:

“…the doctor’s office would not email me a copy to turn in to the school because our daughter had not signed the waiver giving me access. The doctor’s office was able, however, to fax a copy to the school district without needing her signature.

“We could see that this experimental gene therapy would be pushed on our children in an environment where other adults can influence or pressure kids into major medical decisions without the consent of a parent. It was a very difficult decision to homeschool our children, but now that we are doing it, our kids are thriving and we all wish that we had started doing it years ago. It feels like a weight has been lifted. Every day that they would come home from school over the last couple years, they were stressed and there was hardly any joy left in what should be a happy childhood.”

They recounted another chilling experience of abrogation of parental rights:

“They [Chimacum School District] tested our daughter [the Covid swab test] without our consent, and that raises a lot of concern about other things the school district could ask a child to do without the consent of a parent or guardian.”

Pfizer is doing their very best to stealth a workaround of mindful parents like Madison and Michael, delivering the message directly to the kids with the best propaganda campaigns dirty money can buy.

Truthful information about vaccine risks like those Maddie experienced is censored, while pharma’s control of the global narrative is absolute. As seen earlier in the promo for vaccine clinics in Port Townsend and Chimacum schools, our health department repeats Pfizer’s insidious “Superhero” messaging to manipulate and brainwash our kids, with local schools marching in lockstep.

Just prior to publication, a reader of the Free Press shared a Port Townsend School District alert received on his phone as “Parent News.” The rather lengthy update was titled “Information on Covid-19 Vaccinations for Students,” with a sub-head reading “Positive Impacts of Vaccination Status.”

This parent highlighted the upshot, which he considered to be the height of audacity and overreach:

*The school district will be participating in a program called Test to Stay, where unvaccinated students may still attend classes, but cannot participate in extracurricular or after-school or social activities, are expected to quarantine when not at school, must submit to COVID testing three days per week at school, must stay six feet away from others when traveling to and from school, and must eat outdoors (or stay six or more feet away from others when eating indoors). Individuals who don’t want to comply with this option will be placed in the seven day at-home quarantine.  NOTE: Students who are siblings in the same household with a COVID infected individual do not qualify for Test to Stay, due to the high rate of transmission within the immediate family.

*As the weather becomes cooler and we have to opt for more indoor activities, the different requirements for vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated may become more obvious. Indoor athletics and activities may be restricted for some students – as an example a positive COVID case on an indoor athletic team would require an unvaccinated basketball player to quarantine, whereas a vaccinated player (as long as he or she is asymptomatic) will continue to participate in the basketball program.

*Please know that the school district is not the decision maker for student vaccination mandates. Decisions on vaccination requirements are made at the federal and state levels. We don’t know when such decisions will be made by our governmental health entities, but do know that we, like other public schools, are required to comply with all state mandates.

If the last two years have taught us anything, we must expect that these draconian measures will soon be applied to the five to eleven-year-olds. Homeschooling is sounding better by the day. This Yale epidemiologist agrees—I’d Pull a Healthy Kid From School Before Giving Them the COVID Vaccine.

Is Jefferson County Health Department Overstating COVID Case Numbers?

by | Jan 25, 2021 | General

Huge breaking news!  Jefferson Healthcare’s response to a Public Records Request just revealed jaw-dropping information: It is using a PCR assay with an absurdly high cycle threshold of 45, calling into question ALL of Jefferson County’s reported COVID-19 cases!  

To understand what this means and why it’s so important requires a deep dive into the world of PCR testing.  Establishment media outlets don’t go there. Instead they rush to trumpet the following sort of claims without investigating details:

“Port Townsend woman tests positive for COVID-19.” That’s  the headline of a January 21, 2021 article in The Port Townsend Leader. “The number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Jefferson County,” the Leader reports, “rose to 274 Wednesday as Jefferson County public health officials reported a Port Townsend woman in her 40’s had tested positive for the disease.”

What exactly does it mean if someone tests positive? What do these numbers really tell us?

As early as last spring, several concerned Jefferson County citizens began warning the county commissioners and Board of Health that authoritative research was proving PCR test results to be plagued with a high percentage of false positives.  That warning was echoed by Canadian pathologist Dr. Roger Hodkinson [linked here] whose company sells a COVID-19 PCR test.  Oxford University scientist Dr. Tom Jefferson sounded the alarm again in a Daily Mail article, as did a review by the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.  Just last week, these concerns were affirmed in new guidance from the World Health Organization.

As Dr. Tom Jefferson explains, these PCR tests “are telling people they have Covid-19 when they do not. In some cases, for example, viral RNA might be present in such very low quantities that an individual is not at all infectious and poses zero danger. In other cases, the swabs might pick up RNA which is so old it is completely dead, as people continue shedding material from the virus up to 80 days after the initial infection.”

Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is a laboratory technique used to detect the presence of ribonucleic acid (RNA) purportedly unique to SARS-CoV-2.  It does this through amplification of molecular material in what are called cycles, with the top numerical end of those cycles known as the threshold (Ct).

In an August 29, 2020 article in the New York Times titled “Your Coronavirus Test is Positive.  Maybe it shouldn’t be,”  the author writes  “Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.” According to Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk— akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left. “Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive,” agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside.  “I’m shocked that people would think 40 could represent a positive,” she said. A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added.  Dr. Mina says he would “set the figure at 30, or even less.”

The article continues: “The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles.”

Dr. Mina posted this chart on October 26, 2020, demonstrating evidence for low probability of transmissible virus with high Ct values, in other words, how running more than 32 cycles can produce a practically meaningless positive test result.  He wrote, “The readout of future positivity (able to detect viable virus by growing on cells) approaches zero once at Ct (nucleocapsid RNA) >32.  Consistent with numerous studies.”

In a July 16, 2020 interview on This Week in Virology, Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication competent are minuscule.  You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle.  So I think if someone does come in with a 37, 38, even 36, ya gotta say, ya know, just dead nucleotides.  Period.”

Last November a Portuguese court ruled that the PCR test was too unreliable to use it in justifying quarantines.  The ruling relied upon a number of scientific studies, including one by Jaafar et. al, which found that, “when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more, the accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives.” The ruling concluded that, based on the current state of science examined by the court, any PCR test using over 25 cycles is totally unreliable.

Yet another reputable study, by La Scola, et. al, published in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, similarly found that the reliability of these tests drops significantly at 24-25 cycles, and, like the Mina graph, flat-lines at 34 cycles. “[P]atients,” according to the study, “with Ct values above 34 do not excrete infectious viral particles.”

Jefferson County’s Health Officer, Dr. Thomas Locke, has been tight-lipped about the cycle thresholds behind the positive COVID cases his department has been reporting. That is why I submitted my public records request to Jefferson Healthcare to uncover their protocols. They disclosed to me that they are using a PCR assay with a 45-cycle threshold, well beyond the outer limits of reliability.

Someone testing positive in Jefferson County using a 45-cycle threshold that has near-zero accuracy may be labeled a “case” by our health department. A healthy person with no respiratory illness whatsoever can be called a COVID “case”. If a person seeks medical care at Jefferson Healthcare for a stroke or heart attack and then tests positive with this unreliable test, they may be erroneously put in the hospital’s COVID ward and added to county “case” numbers.

The assay being used in this county has been designed to terminate the cycling automatically if the viral load is high.  If it truly functions as intended, one can reasonably assume that not all 274 “cases” cycled up to the 45 Ct.  But we have no idea how many cycles have been repeated on each “case” for the positive test results. 

What’s needed by our Public Health Officer is to report the cycle count for every positive case so it can be individually evaluated, as the Florida Health Department has mandated. Then an overall false positive rate for the county could be more reliably estimated.

“Case” numbers are being used to justify authoritarian policies here and around the globe.  This is institutional fraud on a scale without precedent.  These numbers are being used to terrorize the public into viewing one another as an imminent, potentially deadly, threat.  Our local businesses are being crushed, children’s education throttled, our social engagement eviscerated and futures of young families jeopardized for this colossal mirage of “cases.”  There is a very real possibility that the young generation will never again feel safe in the presence of strangers.

Public health bureaucrats have effectively been given police powers. Censorship has been weaponized by a technocratic elite to the degree that anyone who challenges the official narrative can expect a backlash of demonization, deplatforming and purging from social media and other public forums.  Our own local print media is censoring letters to the editor, even paid advertisements that contain factual data from incontestable sources, if the information differs from that promoted by local authorities. The local radio station is regurgitating those same authorities’ pronouncements as though their veracity is holy and above examination.

Claims of escalating numbers of “cases” are central to maintaining the fear locomotion that demands masking, distancing, quarantines, lockdowns and now, a population-wide clinical trial of an experimental vaccine.

It is past time to hit the pause button, to stop and ask the question— what is going on here?