by Jim Scarantino | Mar 8, 2021 | General
Three former employees tried taking concerns about irregularities and ethical issues to the trustees and officers of Bayside Housing and Services. They were unsuccessful. Now one of them has taken their concerns to the Washington Attorney General.
Port Townsend Free Press has obtained a whistleblower complaint submitted for investigation to the Attorney General. The whistleblower has legal counsel. I have seen confirmation that a complaint was received and was being assigned. I have also been informed that an AG investigator conducted the office’s first interview on the matters raised in the complaint.
Bayside Housing and Services is a non-profit dedicated to providing transitional housing. It leases rooms in Port Hadlock at the Old Alcohol Plant, which is owned by Inn Properties, LLC., a for-profit corporation. Gary J. Keister owns 67% of and manages Inn Properties. Since July 2019 he has also been the acting managing director of Bayside Housing. His two partners in the Inn Properties are also Trustees of Bayside. Vince Verneuil is the Secretary/Treasurer. Christopher Eagan is a past president.
I wrote about these obvious conflicts of interest last week in “Cherry Street Handover: Red Flags About Bayside Housng.” Those red flags arise against Mr. Keister’s history for bank fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. The article asked whether taxpayers should be concerned about turning over the Cherry Street project to Bayside, which is essentially turning it over to Mr. Keister.
After that article was published I was contacted by another former employee of Mr. Keister’s. This person shared their concerns and knowledge about Mr. Keister’s operations. I learned he is involved in the failed development of the Hastings Building in downtown Port Townsend. I have been informed he serves as business consultant for that project and is a creditor. The address of one of the corporations in that project is the same as that of Mr. Keister’s offices in the Old Alcohol Plant in Port Hadlock.
During the conversation, while I was checking statements by the former employee on my computer, I stumbled across five Nevada corporations formed in 2000 for which Mr. Keister was listed as a director or officer or with which he had some other connection. This is in addition to the approximately 30 corporations mentioned in last week’s article. All those corporations were formed after he got out of prison, except one, Wescom Capital, which may have been started while he was still incarcerated.
This former employee said that Mr. Keister had claimed to have owned a fishing fleet but was put out of business by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. Indeed, in a promotional piece for a reading of his autobiography at Village Books in Bellingham, he says his commercial fishing career was ended by the Exxon Valdez disaster. But, from 1986 to 1988 he was committing bank fraud and money laundering running a construction-hardware wholesaler in Tukwila. 1989 was when that house of cards collapsed and he had to file for bankruptcy. In the course of those proceedings his crimes came to light and he was headed for 41 months in federal prison.
A Cherry Street handover would deliver millions of dollars of assets and more than $300,000 to entities under Mr. Keister’s control. He is already involved in receipt and disbursement of public funds, including a $18,550 grant from Jefferson County and a $169,000 grant from the Washington Department of Commerce, both to Bayside Housing. There are other financial dealings with Jefferson County, including a contract for meals for the homeless/transient camp at the Fairgrounds. The county pays Bayside, but the funds pass through to Inn Properties.
Let’s turn to the allegations (I repeat, allegations) of the whistleblower complaint.
Fraud
In April 2020 Jefferson County awarded $18,550 to Bayside Housing to add an additional ten rooms to their lease with Inn Properties. Those rooms would serve low income individuals who might otherwise be homeless. The whistleblower alleges that all of those rooms paid for by the county were not made available to Bayside clients but were, instead, leased to Inn Properties hotel customers. Nonetheless, Inn Properties continued to charge Bayside for those rooms.
Keister has publicly talked about how Bayside has a waiting list of people needing transitional housing but it lacks the rooms to serve them. The whistleblower alleges that Keister took rooms that should have gone to help those people and instead rented them to higher paying Inn Properties customers. The whistleblower further alleges that Keister kept Bayside case managers and others in the dark about this. Eventually, after a bookkeeper complained about what was going on, he did agree to rebate to Bayside some portion of the lease payments for these rooms but has still overcharged Bayside by tens of thousands of dollars.
It is under Keister’s direction that invoices from Inn Properties are prepared and delivered to Bayside. It is Keister who essentially receives those billings and it is under his direction that Bayside pays Inn Properties.
The whistleblower alleges that Keister is “the only person outside of accounting who sees lease and expense invoices, approves them, and signs checks/transfers money from Bayside to Inn Properties.”
The whistleblower also alleges that Keister has increased the rent charged Bayside by 30% with the approval of Keister’s two partners in Inn Properties who are also trustees of Bayside. As mentioned, one of those men is also Bayside’s secretary/treasurer. Keister’s wife is also a Bayside trustee.
The whistleblower claims that Inn Properties (Keister) opened two accounts at the same financial institution as Bayside, with those accounts having the same online banking profile as Bayside. “Internal online banking transfers could be made between the two entities with no oversight whatsoever, and they were.”
Compromising Bayside’s Tax-Exempt Status and More Conflicts of Interest
Keister saw to it that an employee of Inn Properties was added as a check signer on Bayside’s accounts, according to the whistleblower complaint. “At Gary’s direction, she wrote checks in amounts ranging from $10K to $25K with no invoices to pay against to cover Inn Properties cash shortages.” (This is not likely a permissible transaction for a federal tax-exempt organization–Editor). Lease invoices from Inn Properties to Bayside were used to offset these payments. “The overpayment was so great it took several months of lease invoices to fully apply the overpayments correctly,” according to the complaint.
In December 2020, the whistleblower complaint alleges, the Bayside Board voted to “take over” Inn Properties’ for-profit restaurant and hotel business. (Again, possibly a questionable undertaking for a federal tax-exempt organization whose tax-exempt purpose is not making money in the hospitality industry–Editor).
Possible Abuse of PPP Funding and More Fraud
The Federal Paycheck Protection Program of 2020 loaned funds to businesses to help them keep their employees employed. The amount loaned was determined by the amount spent on payroll, generally speaking. The whistleblower alleges that Bayside stopped covering Inn Properties cash shortages when a PPP loan was obtained. But, the complaint alleges, the Inn Properties application for the PPP loan included employee time reimbursed by Bayside. “Inn Properties received their PPP loan based on the inclusion of reimbursable payroll expenses and continued to bill Bayside for the covered payroll,” according to the complaint.
Where Does This Go From Here?
The complaint raises other concerns, including questions about relations with local governments. Bayside is becoming increasingly more involved with government funding as, under Keister’s direction, it has expanded its operations beyond providing transitional housing at the Old Alcohol Plant to involvement with homeless camps and tiny homes villages. Keister has stated in a fundraising video released by Bayside that the group is adding permanent housing as one of its focuses. Keister has sought to obtain use of Chimacum Park, the Fairgrounds and other properties in the area.
The AG won’t be talking about its investigation. Keister has stopped responding to our questions.
Perhaps governments that have been paying Bayside will audit those transactions. Perhaps Bayside’s trustees will act. But three of them–Keister’s business partners and his wife–have financial interests in seeing Inn Properties make money off Bayside. Three employees–all of them key people–have already tried and gotten nowhere.
The City of Port Townsend in September 2020 directed its City Manager, John Mauro, to enter exclusive negotiations with Bayside for handover of the Cherry Street Project. He ignored a $1 million cash offer for the project because he had been authorized to talk only with Bayside, which he said was being represented by Gary Keister. The information reported here at Port Townsend Free Press may help inform the city on how to proceed. I emailed Mauro to ask if he had been contacted by the Attorney General’s Office. I also asked if he had been informed of Mr. Keister’s history of conviction for bank fraud and money laundering and how he might be taking that information into account in negotiations. He has not responded.
Bayside is required by the IRS to file an annual return, called a 990. One can study those returns through the Guidestar service. As I wrote in the preceding article, Bayside’s returns showed skyrocketing income that turned out to be a pledge that has never been paid. Yet, that pledge continues to be carried as an asset and makes Bayside look like it is doing much better than it is.
The 990 does report that three of Bayside’s trustees (Verneuil, Eagan and Susan Keister) have financial interests in Inn Properties, though the form does not explain in any way the enmeshed relationship between the for-profit Inn Properties and tax exempt Bayside Housing. The 990 does not disclose the conflict of interest of Bayside’s managing director. It discloses nothing about Gary Keister’s control over Bayside Housing as its “acting” managing director at the same time he is the majority owner and manager of Inn Properties. Bayside’s 990 for the past year should be filed soon, but won’t be publicly available until Guidestar releases it online.
by Jim Scarantino | Mar 3, 2021 | Local Businesses
Should taxpayers have concerns about handing over the failed Cherry Street Project and another $300,000 to Bayside Housing? So far taxpayers are out about $2.33 million dollars on what is now widely recognized as a boondoggle and symbol of government incompetence and waste. Taxpayers got burned with the first group entrusted with the project and public largesse. That group, Homeward Bound Community Land Trust, was incompetent and not altogether honest, and defaulted on its commitments.
In September 2020 City Council directed the City Manager to negotiate a handover of the project to another local non-profit, Bayside Housing and Services. The latest Cherry Street giveaway was going to hit taxpayers harder. Taxpayers would eat all the indebtedness on the project and deliver it debt-free. Bayside would get more than $300,000 in cash unspent by Homeward Bound. Bayside would only be required to complete renovation and build-out of 8 apartments in the 70-year old building barged here form Victoria, B.C. in May 2017. After that, they could do whatever they wanted with the rest of valuable 1.5 acres on a hillside above the golf course.
The City Manager disregarded a $1 million cash offer for the property because he had been instructed to only negotiate with Bayside.
I reported in October 2020 that, despite headlines trumpeting the turnover, this was still “not a done deal.” We have since learned that Bayside and the City have been engaged in negotiations. Bayside has retained legal counsel to assist in the transaction and has been searching for partners to join on the project.
In that report I raised questions about whether, like Homeward Bound, Bayside lacked the resources and qualifications to get the job done. Would taxpayers again be left holding the bag? Bayside had never built anything. It owns no real estate. It had been unable to obtain financing, though its public reports show skyrocketing revenue and assets.
Bayside earned a lot of respect in the community under its first managing director, Aislinn Palmer (now using her married name, Diamante). She grew the fledgling organization from nothing into one of the most highly regarded non-profits in Jefferson County. But Diamante resigned abruptly in July 2019. Bayside made no mention of her departure–not a single public farewell or well wishes for her next venture. Diamante is now running operations at Fort Worden. She won’t tell us why she left. “I can’t talk about that,” she said.
Takeover and Conflicts of Interest
I had suspicions she may have left because things at Bayside were getting out of her control, and not in a good way. In October 2020 I asked Gary J. Keister why she left. Keister has been serving since Diamante’s departure as “acting” managing director. He’s been acting in that capacity for going on two years. Keister also manages the Old Alcohol Plant. This hotel/restaurant business is owned by Inn Properties, LLC. Keister is majority owner along with two other men who are also trustees of Bayside Housing. One has been president. The other is secretary/treasurer. Keister’s wife is also a Bayside trustee.
The Old Alcohol Plant rents rooms to Bayside. Kiester oversees billings to Bayside. He also oversees payments from Bayside to the Old Alcohol Plant. He’s on both sides of what are clearly not arms-length transactions. His business partner in the Old Alcohol Plant who is Bayside’s treasurer and the other trustees with ownership interests in the Old Alcohol Plant are also on both sides of these transactions.
We asked Keister if Palmer/Diamante resigned because of ethical concerns, and whether she had been unsuccessful in getting the trustees to address those concerns. Keister has not responded to our emailed questions.
“Our Wonderful Founders”
Keister is now effectively in control of Bayside Housing. A video released by Bayside in December 2020 is promoted as “Hear from our wonderful founders…” The “founders” in the video are Gary and Susan Keister. The video rewrites history. The Keisters were not the founders. Bayside was incorporated September 10, 2014 by individuals associated with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul of Eastern Jefferson County. Keister’s group of real estate investors were going to be Bayside’s landlord after it had purchased and renovated the Old Alcohol Plant. Bayside’s founders at one point mothballed the organization because Keister had been unable to rent them space when needed. In 2016 Kiester told The Leader he was not in control of the Bayside project.
Bayside’s original founders and trustees are gone, just like Palmer/Diamante. Inn Properties and Bayside have also seen resignations by accounting personnel.
Dodgy Finances, Corporate Shell Games, Money Laundering and Bank Fraud
Port Townsend Free Press has obtained what appears to be a whistleblower complaint against Keister and the way he is directing the finances of Bayside Housing. From the allegations in the complaint (I repeat, allegations) it would appear that the whistleblower has detailed, first-hand knowledge. The Washington Attorney General’s office has acknowledged receiving a complaint. The complaint obtained by PTFP alleges a plethora of conflicts of interest, possible abuse of Bayside’s non-profit status to cover cash flow needs of the Old Alcohol Plant, and specific allegations of fraud in how rooms supposedly for homeless persons are being charged to Bayside when in fact they are being rented to Old Alcohol Plant hotel customers. I will return to the whistleblower complaint in the next article. (You can read that article, published March 8, 2020 at this link.)
Keister has not responded to any of our recent questions, though he did confirm by email in January that a huge pledge receivable (upwards of $700,000, according to the whistleblower), has never been collected though it is years later still being reported as an asset. “It remains fully committed,” wrote Keister. The whistleblower alleges that pledge is illusory because it comes from Inn Properties, the corporation behind the Old Alcohol Plant controlled by Keister. The whistleblower says they doubt Inn Properties has that kind of money and that Inn Properties itself is heavily in debt.
What looks to be questionable reporting of assets–booking pledges never received as income and carrying them as assets–may be a red flag. It makes the organization look like it is doing much better than it really is. This could help in getting loans or attracting donations. It deserves a closer look. Playing fast and loose with financial information and sophisticated manipulation of inter-related corporations is what in 1992 landed Gary J. Keister in federal prison for money laundering and bank fraud.
Apparently while still in prison, Keister began assembling a new network of corporations. I have identified almost 30 corporations with Seattle and later Port Townsend and Port Hadlock addresses for which Keister was a governor or registered agent, or one of the corporations he controlled was a governor or registered agent of another corporation.
1239 Water Street, “Suite” A, Port Townsend
The addresses of the corporations in this network eventually became 1239 Water Street, Suite A, Port Townsend. This address is a nondescript door between the dumpster and drive-up window at the U.S. Bank. According to a bank employee, this space has not been rented for years. Keister now runs his corporate networks from his Old Alcohol Plant offices.
Who Is Gary Keister?
One of Kiester’s autobiographical profiles, from his personal blog.
Biographical profiles published by Keister on various websites claim he was the head of several corporations, such as “Hudson Bay Group,” an investment company called Veribus, Inc. and a corporation with fish processing plants around the world. He also claimed that Wescom Capital, operating out of the space by the dumpster behind U.S. Bank, “regularly handles transactions ranging between $5 to $50 million.” He did not respond to questions asking for verification of these claims, nor have I found any information to corroborate those claims. The only information I located on the fish processing company, John Cabot Company, was an expired trademark coming back to an Everett, WA address and mention of the ruins of a fish processing facility in Seldovia, Alaska.
In another autobiographical profile he says that he worked in the Middle East as an advisor to AID contractors, “and upon returning to the US took a position as president for an international food processing company” (which he does not identify).
None of the biographies published by Mr. Keister mention running Augustine Unlimited, a construction-hardware wholesale business in Tukwila, when he was committing bank fraud and money laundering crimes.
In October 2019, after Aislinn Palmer Diamante’s departure, articles of incorporation of a for-profit corporation called Bayside Housing LLC were filed with the Washington Secretary of State. The Governor of this for-profit Bayside Housing was identified as Wescom Capital. The Governor of Wescom Capital is Gary Keister. The stated business purpose of this for-profit Bayside Housing: real estate.
One of the corporations with which Keister got involved after prison was St. Joseph’s Housing Group of Seattle. The purpose of this non-profit corporation, like the non-profit Bayside Housing, was to provide housing and transitional services. It started in 1992. It never filed an IRS 990, an annual report required of nonprofits with annual income exceeding $50,000. In one annual state corporation report, its income was reported as less than $4,000. Keister appeared suddenly in 2005 as Vice-President and Chair. The non-profit began to shed directors. In 2007 it was just Keister as President and Chair and a secretary. On February 2, 2009 the Secretary of State dissolved St. Joseph’s Housing Group for failure to file a list of officers within the time required by law.
Keister, in an interview with The Leader, has claimed he was “associated” with the project in Seattle “where homes owned by Housing and Urban Development were sold at the height of the housing market and used to build 50 units called Monica’s Place.” There is a Monica’s Village Place in Seattle. It is a 53-unit apartment building built in 2011 by Catholic Community Services of Western Washington.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GARY KEISTER
Everybody deserves a second chance. But conviction for multiple counts of bank fraud and money laundering in a sophisticated scheme to bilk $1.2 million dollars out of bank is worth taking into consideration when weighing whether valuable public resources should be entrusted to such a person. Former Bayside Housing and Inn Properties employees who have spoken on condition of confidentiality say they wanted to give Gary Keister the benefit of the doubt, but, to paraphrase one former key employee, began to wonder whether “a leopard could change its spots.”
Keister was the owner of Augustine Unlimited, a Tukwila construction/hardware wholesaler, which he ran from 1986 until 1988 when he sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy. He was accused and convicted of making false statements to First Interstate Bank to obtain loans of $1.2 million. Much of the money was eventually repaid, but the bank still lost between $200,000 and $400,000.
Keister was convicted of one count of conspiracy, four counts of money laundering and 35 counts of bank fraud. He was denied bail upon conviction and sentenced to 41 months in prison. His sentence was “enhanced” by the U.S. District Court judge due to his leadership role and the sophistication of the scheme he orchestrated.
In its 1994 decision upholding Keister’s conviction and sentence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit described Keister’s scheme:
When Keister acquired Augustine in late 1986, he obtained a line of credit from First Interstate Bank of Washington (FIWA). Under the terms of the line of credit agreement, Augustine would submit receivables data daily to FIWA and FIWA would extend credit to Augustine on the basis of Augustine’s receivables. The agreement provided that Augustine was to refrain from engaging in any business not reasonably related to its normal business. The crux of the allegations against Keister were that: (1) he falsified receivables data to increase the availability of funds under Augustine’s line of credit; (2) he funneled money advanced under Augustine’s line of credit through other business entities under his control and then redirected the funds into Augustine as injections of new capital, which the terms of the line of credit agreement required him to make; (3) he used Augustine’s line of credit to provide credit to other business entities under his control in violation of the line-of-credit agreement.
As reported by The Seattle Times, “Rather than invest the money in Augustine Unlimited as intended by the bank, Keister spent the loans on personal debts, homes and other businesses.”
Keister was convicted on or about July 10, 1992. He was sentenced to 41 months. His conviction was upheld January 3, 1994. He began rebuilding his corporate network on May 5, 1995 when he filed articles of incorporation for Wescom Capital, that “regularly” handled “transactions ranging from $5 to $50 million.” One of Keister’s autobiographical profiles says Wescom started business in 1994, when he would still have been in prison.
NEXT: The Whistleblower Complaint and More Red Flags (You can read that article, published March 8, 2020 by clicking here).
by Jim Scarantino | Feb 25, 2021 | General
Banned for encouraging people to never forget 9/11.
Sanctioned for mentioning Jefferson County’s terrible meth problem, chronic unemployment, shrinking job base and high poverty rate.
That’s what I’ve learned about how Jefferson County operates the public forum of it’s official Facebook page. Thanks to the people who sued President Trump and won when he blocked them from his Twitter feed, the law is clear that the First Amendment governs the actions of public officials in how they manage their official social media forums. They cannot engage in content-based discrimination. They cannot retaliate or punish. They cannot suppress speech that does not fall into one of the very limited exceptions of the First Amendment.
Encouraging people to remember the terrorist attacks, deaths and heroism of 9/11….definitely protected speech. Speaking out on our county’s drug and economic problems….definitely protected speech. But it is for expressing those opinions that I was sanctioned by whichever public official made those decisions.
So I sued Jefferson County in federal court for these First Amendment violations.
Thanks to the answer filed by Jefferson County in the case, I saw where I had incorrectly reconstructed what I believed happened on 9/10/20, where I thought this story started. I had believed that a comment about COVID issues had been deleted. I was wrong. The county has the activity log that shows they “hid” my comment that linked to a video about 9/11. That video is a gut-wrenching thing to watch, because what happened on that day was and is forever a nightmare to anyone with an ounce of love for life, liberty and this nation of ours.
Watch it for yourself: https://www.prageru.com/video/9-11-we-must-never-forget/
Why would the Jefferson County government not want people remembering 9/11? What was so objectionable about that video that I was later banned from participating in discussions on this public forum?
What I learned is that the county will make invisible comments it does not want other people to see. The author may see the comment and does not know that it has been made invisible to most everyone else. You could be seeing a comment from someone that has been made invisible to others because you happened to have “friended” that person (though you may not actually know them). You will have no idea that you could be alone in receiving what that person has to say about matters of public concern and county business.
The county says they made my 9/11 video link invisible because it was “off topic.” I am not aware that “off topic” is a recognized ground for government to censor or sanction speech. I know of no case at this time holding that “off topic” is an exception to the First Amendment. But “off topic” is their excuse.
I posted the video about 9/11 on 9/10 for good reason. The county’s Facebook page has published proclamations on other things, such as Earth Day. It had made no mention whatsoever of any commemoration of 9/11. My comment was intended to correct that omission. It was a protest of the county’s failure to honor that day and those who died and an attempt to bring attention to that failure. Protesting and bringing attention to a government’s failure is pure political speech that cannot be censored. The county saying it was “off topic” (it wasn’t) doesn’t outrank the First Amendment. The City of Port Townsend at the time was embroiled in a growing controversy because it had cancelled the annual ringing of the old fire bell at the hour the first plane hit the Twin Towers. The county was not indicating it would honor that day. It was silent about 9/11. So I posted that “Never Forget 9/11” video. This is pure political speech protected by the First Amendment.
The next day, 9/11, came and went without any mention by the county of the events of that day in 2001. Courthouse bells rang, but without any explanation by the county.
Sometime after that I was banned from participating in the public forum the county created with its official Facebook page that allows comments (except those it disagrees with). I could not comment. I could not even “like” or “dislike” a pronouncement or news development published by the county.
I had received no notice that I had been sanctioned or why. That is something else I’ve discovered since I filed suit: the county sanctions people–deleting or “hiding” their comments, banning them from commenting–without any notice or explanation. As I mentioned, if you receive the sanction of your speech being “hidden” you have no idea that has happened. You have to sit down with someone who is not a Facebook friend and ask them if they can see on their computer what you wrote. If they cannot, then you just learned you have received the official sanction of having your speech censored.
There is no appeal process. You can sue, though you shouldn’t have to.
After my lawsuit was served on the county, they seem to have lifted (without notice to me) the sanction that prevented me from expressing opinions and sharing information to others viewing their Facebook public forum.
Then they again sanctioned me without notice, without explanation. I discovered that a comment I made in January 2021 about the county’s terrible meth problem, chronic poverty, shrinking job base and severe poverty resulted in the county sanction of making the comment invisible. The sanction was curious, because I was responding to a comment by another person about some of the same problems, particularly the drug problem right now at the County Fairgrounds where a young woman, a meth user, was found dead, lying face down on the ground in the open where in happier times children have played and people have enjoyed rides and 4-H animal exhibits.
I don’t know if my comment about our terrible meth problem was made invisible by county officials before or after the campground manager came across this poor woman’s stone-cold body and called police.
The county says it prohibits profanity, but now that I’ve examined the entire history of comments I see an F-bomb and other profanity. The county says it prohibits promotion of business and political candidates, but I’ve found examples of that. The county says it prohibits insults and personal attacks, but I’ve found plenty of those. The county says it prohibits comments that embed images from external sources or that contain copyrighted material. I’ve also found plenty of examples where they don’t enforce that rule, either. But the county sure is good at prohibiting my speech when it disagrees with the narrative they want enforced in that public forum.
I intend to amend my complaint to include these facts and others I’ve learned since our initial pleading. There will be a bit of a delay. My attorney suffered a health crisis requiring emergency surgery. The county’s attorney has graciously agreed to push things back 90 days. I also still hope we can settle this.
Given the pesky First Amendment, running an official government social media site is fraught with problems. Every decision the county makes about its Facebook page is state action triggering First Amendment review. As I’ve learned, it also triggers rights of due process. I hope my attorney and I in cooperation with the county can find a solution that cures the currently unconstitutional and illegal manner in which the county is managing this public forum.
A curious thing occurred recently. In response to publication of a proclamation by the Board of County Commissioners in January about the Port Townsend Women’s March, I posted in a comment the same “Never Forget 9/11” video that got me banned after I posted it on 9/10/20. Nothing happened. The comment was not made invisible and my First Amendment rights to participate in the public forum were not taken from me.
Like I said, one shouldn’t have to file a federal lawsuit to prevent the government from censoring his political speech. But apparently going to court does improve how a citizen gets treated.
by Jim Scarantino | Feb 23, 2021 | General
Annette Huenke through a public records request discovered that Jefferson Healthcare’s Covid testing protocols may run samples through so many amplifications that the result may be a false positive or otherwise meaningless. We were pleased to publish the results of her inquiries, “Is Jefferson County Health Department Overstating COVID Numbers?”
Huenke has continued to try to nail down the scientific data behind claims made by the Jefferson County Health Department to determine if they are accurate and should be relied upon by policy makers and citizens. Recently, claims about the benefits of double-masking have been asserted. Huenke wanted to know what there was in the way of scientific studies and data to back those claims up. Following is her exchange on the subject with Dr. Thomas Locke, Jefferson County Health Officer.
You may ask, Where does Ms. Huenke get off investigating statements by Dr. Locke? How dare she question “the science”? Isn’t Port Townsend Free Press contributing to unscientific “pandemic denialism” by giving her a forum? After all, she is not “an expert.” Are we not just spreading “disinformation”?
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Those are the sage words of Nobel-winning physicist and philosopher of science, Richard Feynman. He was referring to “science” which determines policies through the weight of expert and political consensus. This is the stuff we get on the evening news and what is being forced upon us by Facebook’s, Twitter’s and YouTube’s–and our local newspapers’–censorship of anything that might cast doubt upon the establishment consensus, even if those doubts are raised by people who happen to be scientists and rigorously employ the scientific method in their research.
Feynman said, “Learn from science that you must doubt the experts.” We return to Feynman at the end of this article, and link one of his famous lectures on the scientific method.
Here follow Ms. Huenke’s efforts to get the empirical science on the political science of double-masking. Much more comes to light than the simple answers she sought.
From: Annette Huenke, 2/8/21, to Jefferson County Board of Health and Dr. Locke
Subject: re: this morning’s BOCC meeting.
Good afternoon, all. This morning Dr. Locke said that “there is a lot of evidence” to support double-masking.
Kindly provide that evidence in a reply to this email at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
Annette Huenke
_______________________________________________
Dr. Locke’s reply, 2/8/21:
The rationale for double masking (spun polypropylene inner mask, two layer cotton outer) is based on an enhanced mechanical filtration effect (extra layers) and an electrostatic charge being generated (triboelectric effect) by dissimilar fabrics. CDC is conducting comparative studies of masking efficacy but this will likely be confined to filtration measures. “Hard data” (epidemiological studies demonstrating decreased transmission and/or acquisition of infection) are much more difficult and raise ethical concerns (re: control groups use of substandard or no PPE). And no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic denialism and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.
Tom Locke, MD, MPH
Jefferson County Health Officer
Huenke’s 2/14 response to Locke’s 2/8 letter:
Ad hominem attacks are unbecoming a man in your position, Dr. Locke, and says a lot more about you than it does about those you are eager to insult. Pathologizing dissent is not a new tactic for marginalizing unwelcome voices. So-called ‘witches’ were similarly outed in their communities and burned at the stake for such digressions. The strategy was perhaps perfected by the Soviets in the mid-twentieth century, deployed against anyone who deviated from the official narrative.
For ten months now a handful of concerned citizen researchers have been highlighting bona fide studies from reputable sources to broaden the perspective of local policy makers. Those sources include the CDC, WHO and top scientists and universities around the globe.
Last Monday you stated publicly that “there is a lot of evidence” to support double-masking. ‘A lot of evidence’ turns out to be a NIH ‘commentary’ that purports to “summarize the evidence on face masks for Covid-19 from both the infectious diseases and physical science viewpoints.” Similar to the ‘evidence review’ you provided the board on May 21st last year, this one manages to summarize evidence that supports the goals of its funders while ignoring the plethora of research that does not. It is a text book example of cherry-picking.
“A lot of evidence” for double-masking is actually several small mechanistic experiments conducted with manikins. Manikins don’t breathe. Employing the tired “it would be unethical” trope, in this case to deny proper PPE to a control group, rings hollow when we know full well that there is a sizable portion of the population that can’t or won’t wear masks.
In an
AFT Fireside Chat on January 28th, just over two weeks ago, Anthony Fauci said “There’s no evidence that indicates that that [2 masks] is going to make a difference. And that is why the CDC has not changed their recommendation.” He’d advised double-masking shortly before that, surely aware that this ‘commentary’ was soon to be released.
You have steadfastly rejected the research we’ve supplied that demonstrates known harms from masking. You haven’t expressed real concern about improper use and care of the masks you relentlessly promote. Sadly, you’re now encouraging people to further reduce their oxygen supply and increase their own carbon dioxide intake.
You and your colleagues do not have a corner on valid science. You are not all-knowing, all-seeing, infallible. Thousands of experts with credentials that exceed yours, John Wiesman’s and Anthony Fauci’s disagree with you. That they are being censored and you are not is the reveal. Censorship is employed by authorities to conceal the truth.
I offer you a table turned — “no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic” propaganda “and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.”
Annette Huenke
___________________________
Huenke’s comment for 2/17 Board of County Commissioners meeting:
At last week’s BOCC meeting, Dr. Locke said that “there is a lot of evidence” to support double-masking. I wrote to ask for that evidence. I received a pdf of a 4-page paper and a brief reply that ended with “no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic denialism and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.”
For ten months now a handful of concerned citizen researchers have been highlighting bona fide studies from reputable sources to broaden the perspective of local policy makers. Those sources include the CDC, WHO and top universities and scientists around the globe. Are those premiere virologists, pathologists and epidemiologists pseudoscientists because they’ve arrived at different conclusions than Dr. Locke about the crisis that is consuming us? Are we sociopaths because we consider the research and opinions of those experts?
What Dr. Locke called “a lot of evidence” for double-masking is actually several small mechanistic experiments conducted with manikins, reported in a NIH ‘commentary’ that summarizes studies which clearly support the goals of its funders while ignoring the plethora of research that does not. It was not peer reviewed. It is data-deficient.
During a fireside chat on January 28th, Anthony Fauci said “There’s no data that indicates that that [2 masks] is going to make a difference. And that is why the CDC has not changed their recommendation.” He’d advised double-masking shortly before that, surely aware that this NIH paper was in its final stages.
In a recent interview, Dr. Michael Osterholm, a top health adviser to President Biden, warned that double-masking could be counterproductive and harmful. “If you put more of it on, all it does is it impedes the air coming through and it makes it blow in and out along the sides. The fit becomes even less effective,” he said. “Double masking could be a detriment to your protection.”
Legitimate research we’ve supplied that report known harms from masking has been categorically rejected. There has been scant attention paid to the near-universal improper use and care of masks, which has been proven to increase risk of infection. And now, based on experiments with manikins, we’re being told to wear two masks, which will further reduce our oxygen supply and increase our own carbon dioxide intake.
A true cost/benefit analysis of these extreme masking policies has not yet been conducted. Neither has the rigorous scientific research required to support them.
Annette Huenke
___________________________
Dr. Locke’s reply to Huenke’s BOCC comment, 2/17:
Ms. Huenke,
All science-based information has elements of uncertainty and is subject to challenge and, hopefully, increasing reliability. This is how the scientific method works. I agree it is wrong to pathologize dissent or to marginalize unwelcome voices. Just as there is science, which seeks to establish the true nature of things, there is also pseudoscience, which perverts that process by selectively citing supporting information while ignoring or distorting non-supporting information. It can be difficult for the general public to distinguish between the two. The COVID-19 pandemic is the worst public health crisis that the U.S. has faced in the past 100 years. It’s management has been seriously compromised by those who embraced and promoted “alternative facts” to support their views that non-pharmacological mitigations like masking, distancing, and restricted gatherings are a fundamental violation of human rights. The Great Barrington Declaration and the ongoing pseudoscientific opposition to mask use are examples of this phenomenon and pit individual liberty against public health. The CDC reliably estimates that 59% of SARS-CoV-2 infections are transmitted by asymptomatic cases (35% presymptomatic, 24% never symptomatic). Universal masking is the only viable strategy to interrupt this transmission pathway and has a growing evidentiary base. Attached are some additional links from recent CDC publications. Based on what we currently know, the refusal to wear masks in public settings at times of high COVID-19 prevalence is truly sociopathic — antisocial behavior characterized by the willful disregard of the welfare of others. It is also illegal. I do not think it is not too much to ask to prevent a potentially lethal infection in someone else.
I am sorry that you took personal offense at my statement that “no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic denialism and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.” In this statement I am referring to the well recognized phenomena of the “unpersuadable” (The Unpersuadables: Adventures with the Enemies of Science by Will Storr (goodreads.com)<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18114379-the-unpersuadables>), those who reject scientific information because it is in conflict with their fundamental, non-rational worldview. No amount of information will change the mind of someone who is unpersuadable. This worldview drives the “anti-vaxxer” movement and has been dramatically amplified by the ubiquity of social media and the ability of people to curate their own reality by selective exposure to only those facts that support their worldview. I am always happy to consider alternative views but have come to recognize the futility of arguing with those who only seek the confirmation of their own beliefs. My prime responsibility as the county health officer is to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in this community and to reduce morbidity and mortality to the greatest extent feasible. This battle is very real and we deal with individuals and families who lives are profoundly disrupted by this pandemic every day. As a nation we have paid a terrible price for pandemic denialism — a very high death rate (currently at 485,000) and a case rate (27 million) far in excess of what a country with our resources and technology could have achieved. These are not just harmless differences of opinion, they have real world consequences.
You cite Dr. Anthony Fauci, a distinguished infectious disease specialist, but you do so out of context. In other public statements he has supported masking, including improved mask design and the benefits of “double masking”. Double masking is not a panacea for the problem of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but is one more option. The takeaway from the CDC information and similar research to date is that people should use high quality masks and use them in situations where asymptomatic transmission can occur. If we fail, once again, to make reasonable personal sacrifices for the common good, it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 variants will spread faster than vaccination efforts can suppress them, necessitating renewed school and business closures.
While your comments to the Boards of Health and County Commissioners are always welcome, I am unable to continue to respond personally to your statements due to time limitations. I regard the CDC as an authoritative source of information, especially under the leadership of the Biden administration and refer you to their various websites and publications for the latest research on the topics you are interested in.
Sincerely,
Tom Locke, MD, MPH
Jefferson County Health Officer
“Science says….”
The Great Barrington Declaration that Dr. Locke dismisses as “unscientific” and “pandemic denialism” is a declaration of concern about Covid policies signed by infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists from around the world. It advocates a “focused protection” approach to those most at risk and seeks to avoid the many serious problems caused by general Covid lockdowns. Dr. Locke’s glib dismissal of this challenge to Covid policies–challenges based on these individuals’ work and learning in their fields of scientific and medical expertise–brings us back to Feynman’s definition of “science” and why we are pleased to give people like Ms. Huenke (and Dr. Rob Rennebohm, Stephen Schumacher and Ana Wolpin) a forum for their questions about prevailing Covid policies and liturgies.
In closing, here’s more from Feynman on why science is “belief in the ignorance of experts”:
When someone says, “Science teaches such and such”, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, “Science has shown such and such”, you might ask, “How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?” It should not be “science has shown” but “this experiment, this effect, has shown”. And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at…The experts who are leading you may be wrong…I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television-words, books, and so on-are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science…Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation.
Richard Feynman on Scientific Method (1964) – YouTube
Related: CDC on Maximizing Fit for Cloth and Medical Procedure Masks
CDC: The Science of Masking to Control COVID-19
[Ms. Huenke’s 2/14 response to Dr. Locke’s 2/8 letter was omitted inadvertently from the initial publication of this article]
by Jim Scarantino | Feb 6, 2021 | General
The public has a right to know whether they can trust the COVID test results being used to destroy businesses and jobs, to curtail educational, community and religious activities and to exacerbate many of our already serious social ills, including substance abuse, domestic abuse, crime and suicides. An arrogant, “Because I say so,” is no longer acceptable. We are seeing public health officials and county commissioners finally speak against Governor Inslee’s arbitrary and unscientific dictates.
Citizens have the right to know how solid or flimsy is the testing data being used to extend lockdown orders now recognized as unfair and not based on sound science.
As explained in an article here by Annette Huenke, Jefferson Healthcare is using testing protocols that can return, in lay terms, practically meaningless positive COVID test results. We are not being told how many cycles were run on each reported positive “case.” Anything above 32-33 cycles or so is recognized as producing meaningless results (again, in lay terminology). Jefferson Healthcare employs a protocol that can run as many as 45 cycles on a sample until it gets a result or the cycles are completely run through, raising unanswered questions about how many of our “cases” were little more than meaningless test results.
It matters because people with only trace (again in lay terms–read the article for more precision) evidence of COVID, and with no symptoms or risk of transmission are being added to our numbers, Each additional “case” is used as justification to continue to inflict injury on our community and individuals with a senseless extension of the Governor’s ever-changing-but-never-expiring lock down order.
Private citizens have the right to ask these question. Disclosure of this information is routine in some states. It is mandatory in Florida. Stephen Schumacher is well qualified as an investigator of what should be a matter of public record. He understands data and knows the questions to ask. He graduated with honors in Mathematics from Harvard College and programmed funds transfer systems between Wall Street banks and the Federal Reserve before moving to Port Townsend in 1983. He has served as an officer for various community organizations such as the Food Co-op, Jefferson Land Trust, and the Northwest Nutritional Foods Association. He co-created The Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader’s original online newspaper and programs shipboard stability software used by naval architects. He is a careful, rigorous researcher.
He has been asking important questions of Dr. Thomas Locke, Jefferson County Health Officer, for months, with no response at all. Recently, after publication of several articles here, Dr. Locke communicated with Mr. Schumacher, but still is not answering these questions. For that matter, neither is the Washington Department of Health. What we are getting is deflection and, at times, ad hominem jabs. This happened last year when Gov. Inslee was confronted with evidence that COVID death statistics included instances where people clearly died from other causes, such as being murdered. He deflected questions about these facts and insulted the research foundation that had uncovered this information in the DOH’s own records.
We are publishing the full exchange thus far of correspondence between Dr. Locke and Mr. Schumacher. The Board of County Commissioners has sometimes been in the middle of this exchange. The Clallam County Health Department has also been receiving the correspondence.
To fully grasp the importance of the details being discussed, we suggest reading Ms. Huenke’s article and Mr. Schumacher’s article published by Port Townsend Free Press, and the sources linked in each of those articles.
Mr. Schumacher to the Board of County Commissioners, a response and critique of Dr. Locke, 2/6/2021
Dear Jefferson County Commissioners,
I received the following emails from Dr. Locke responding to my
questions to you about PCR tests with high Cycle Thresholds.
Dr. Locke says the county doesn’t set “standards for what is
considered a positive PCR test” so “if you have an issue with Ct
values you should take it up with Washington DoH or the FDA.”
This passes the buck while ignoring things the county CAN do, such as
(1) direct Jefferson Healthcare to look for a PCR test with Ct cutoff
below 35 cycles instead of 45; (2) obtain the Ct value for each
positive test through PCR labs’ customer support when Ct is not
routinely reported as Florida DoH requires; (3) include Ct values
with case statistic reports, so our county can know how many cases
occurred at each Ct level.
Dr. Locke says Cts “add little of value to … the diagnosis of
active SARS-CoV-2 infection [since] they are more reflective of
specimen quality, viral load, and variations of lab technology.”
But “viral load” is directly relevant to infection diagnosis! The
hundred million virus copies per microliter at low Ct are far more
indicative of a true positive diagnosis than the trace viral debris
identified at Ct of 45. Even if the negligible quantity was due to
“specimen quality”, high Ct indicates a re-test is needed before
counting a positive test result as a COVID case.
Dr. Locke says “false positive tests … appear to be quite
infrequent with PCR testing, especially when a person has a
COVID-like illness”.
This may be true when Ct is low, but consider that “in three sets of
testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in
Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90% of people testing
positive carried barely any virus… from 85 to 90% of people who
tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been
deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles”.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
Dr. Locke says false positives are infrequent because “we focus PCR
testing on people who are symptomatic”. But where is the data
showing most of our nearly 18,000 tests to date were on people having
relevant symptoms? Many asymptomatic county residents have sought
tests out of fear, and every hospital patient is required to be
tested even if their issues are not COVID-related.
It may also be that our county case count is as high as it is because
routine testing of many asymptomatic people has led to many high Ct
positive tests. The only way to know for sure is by reporting the
percentage of cases exhibiting symptoms and the Ct associated with
positive tests.
Though the estimate of viral load provided by Ct may be imperfect, it
is far more helpful than a bare positive or negative test
result! How could getting no information about viral load (or a wild
guess) be better than the rough estimate (or educated guess) provided
by a Ct value interpreted cautiously in a clinical context? People
have a right to know and should be trusted to know.
Yours truly,
Stephen Schumacher
Dr. Locke’s immediately preceding correspondence to Mr. Schumacher, copied to BOCC and others, 2/2/2021
Mr. Schumacher,
Hopefully, the bulk of your concerns were addressed in my response to
your long list of questions yesterday. Your notion that Jefferson
County case rates might somehow be reduced by applying a new
definition to PCR positivity is fanciful, at best, and delusional, at
worst. CT values are only one of many factors used to interpret PCR
test results. CT is merely a measure of the degree of amplification
of the viral genetic material present in the clinical specimen. As
previously mentioned, many factors can affect the amount of virus on a
swab. Additionally, labs vary in terms of protocols and testing
equipment and CT values can vary from lab to lab, even on identical
specimens. Far more important, from a standpoint of separating “true
positives” from “false positives” is the pretest probability of
infection. Most diagnostic tests will yield false positive if done on
people with very low risk of having the condition being tested for
(low pretest probability). The converse is true as well, if performed
on people with high pretest probability of infection, the positive
predictive value of a positive test result is much higher. This is
why we focus PCR testing on people who are symptomatic with COVID-like
illness and/or have close contact exposure to known cases of
infection. These are the Jefferson County cases you are speculating
might be erased by redefining CT thresholds — people who are acutally
symptomatic for COVID-19 or are household/workplace contacts of active cases.
The group that is more likely to have false positive results are those
who are being screened prior to surgical procedures or travel. This
is especially true if the person is asymptomatic and has no exposure
risk factors. Since 20-40% of COVID infection can be asymptomatic and
infection can be spread in the presymptomatic phase of illness,
preprocedure testing has its values but it does run the risk of
generating false positive results. This is completely independent of
the CT value you seem very interested in. When we suspect a false
positive result, we generally need to do two additional negative tests
to establish that diagnosis.
Your apparent belief that there is an epidemic of false positive COVID
tests is not supported by the facts. If anything, confirmed tests
dramatically underestimate the true COVID disease burden in a
community (by a factor of 5 to 10X in most studies). The reason that
CT values are not routinely reported by labs is that they add little
of value to the purpose of the test — the diagnosis of active
SARS-CoV-2 infection. They are more reflective of specimen quality,
viral load, and variations in lab technology. If you would like the
Washington State Department of Health or the FDA to revise their PCR
testing protocols you should take that up with them. Jefferson
County Public Health cannot serve as your intermediary in this
process. We have far more urgent duties to perform.
Sincerely,
Thomas Locke, MD, MPH
Jefferson County Health Officer
Dr. Locke’s Correspondence to Mr. Schumacher, copied to BOCC and others, 2/1/2021
Mr. Schumacher,
Cycle threshold values on PCR tests performed to detect SARS-CoV-2 are
not routinely reported by laboratories to health departments or the
person ordering the test. The Washington State Department of Health
establishes standards for what is considered a positive PCR test and
is reportable as a notifiable condition. The local health officer has
nothing to do with establishing CT parameters or any other diagnostic
lab parameter. If you have an issue with CT values you should take it
up with Washington DOH or the FDA. Jefferson County Public Health
does case investigations and contact tracing of all positive tests
reported to Washington State and available to us through a
confidential on-line registry known as WEDSS.
The fact that a thermal cycler can perform up to 45 amplification
cycles does not mean that ALL tests are amplified to that degree.
Samples are cycled until a signal is detected or they have undergone
the maximum amplification of the testing protocol. Samples can have
high CT values for many reasons — poor sample quality, degradation of
the sample during transport, low viral levels in the person being
tested, and testing late in illness when fragments of non-replicating
virus can be detected. And it is certainly true that high CT values
correlate with lower transmission risk (assuming adequate sample
collection and specimen transport). Setting standards for FDA
approved diagnostic tests is a federal regulatory function. States
set standards for notifiable conditions such as SARS-CoV-2 infection.
County health officers, local boards of health, county boards of
commissioners, and public hospital district commissioners have nothing
to do with these decisions.
Again, if you have grave concerns that the Washington State Department
of Health is using scientifically indefensible criteria for
determining which COVID-19 PCR tests are positive, please share your
expertise and concerns with them. These criteria are not set by
county health officers or local hospital districts. Nor do we
manufacture or license the PCR machines that are used to test
diagnostic specimens for SARS-CoV-2. We rely on these tools along
with our case investigations (looking at exposure risk, symptom onset,
and other risk factors) in assessing cases. False positive tests can
occur with any diagnostic technology. They appear to be quite
infrequent with PCR testing, especially when a person has a COVID-like
illness or a recent exposure to a confirmed case. If your goal is to
support the pandemic denialism that Ms. Huenke promotes in the “Port
Townsend Free Press” article you reference, I could not disagree more.
With the spread of more transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, the
social cost of pandemic denialism is increasing. If sizeable numbers
of people indulge in the wishful thinking that attempts to control
COVID-19 transmission are unnecessary, it is only a matter of time
before variant strains become predominant. We still have time to
avert this future or at least slow it enough to allow widespread
vaccine deployment. I urge you to join the community fight against
COVID-19 and stop attacking those who are working long hours trying to
protect their community from the worst public health emergency in the
last 100 years.
Sincerely,
Thomas Locke, MD, MPH
Jefferson County Health Officer
Stephen Schumacher to BOCC, 2/1/2021
Cc: Board of Health; Tom Locke; Allison Berry, Clallam County Health Officer
Subject: New hope for “negative cases” before Feb. 14
Dear Jefferson County Commissioners,
Watching the Zoom of this morning’s BoCC meeting, I noted that Dr.
Locke did not answer or even address any of my questions at bottom,
so they are all still on the table. I’m mystified by his
mischaracterization of well-documented concerns over 90% false
positive rates at high cycle counts as “nitpicky” and his
easily-refuted opinion that PCR tests are “highly accurate”.
Philip Morley observed that Jefferson Healthcare handles only a small
percentage of our county’s PCR testing, with most conducted by UW and
others. If so, that raises the additional question:
7) What Cycle Threshold is used by each organization performing PCR
testing in our county, and approximately what percentage of testing
is done by each organization?
Because of the critical importance of the cycle count in evaluating
the significance of a positive PCR test result, both pieces of
information need to be reported to individuals as well as in overall
county statistics.
Dr. Locke’s report began by warning about a tripling of cases with 26
new ones last week if I heard correctly. But what are the cycle
counts of these new cases? It makes a huge difference whether they
were found positive after 20 amplification cycles or after 45 cycles.
My interest is getting at the truth, not politics. But today’s
meeting seemed concerned about county cases showing percentage
improvements before a Feb. 14 deadline One way to achieve that in a
hurry might be to re-examine recent cases and reclassify any that
were incorrectly counted due to amplification cycles higher than 33,
then continue using that rule for new cases. Not only would that be
the right thing to do, it might achieve the “negative cases”
[Commissioner] Greg [Brotherton] ruefully joked are needed!
Yours truly,
Stephen Schumacher
Stephen Schumacher to BOCC, 1/31/2021
Cc: Board of Health; Tom Locke; Allison Berry, Clallam County Health
Officer; news@ptleader.com; PT Free Press
Subject: Accountability for Jeffco’s 45-Cycle Threshold PCR Test
Dear Jefferson County Commissioners,
On September 2, 2020, I sent the following Public Comment to the
Jefferson County Board of Health and Health Officer Dr. Tom Locke:
“Per the August 29 New York Times report [of 90% false positives at
40-cycle threshold], I’m concerned about the criteria used to
determine confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Jefferson County. Do all
these cases exhibit symptoms, or are “cases” being equated to
positive test results? If the latter, what percentage of cases
exhibit symptoms? Are positive test results being recorded using PCR
tests, and if so, what is the Cycle Threshold value used for these tests?”
I never received any answers to these questions nor have seen them
addressed by Dr. Locke in the press.
Last week the Port Townsend Free Press reported that Jefferson
Healthcare is “using a PCR assay with a 45-cycle threshold, well
beyond the outer limits of reliability.”
https://www.porttownsendfreepress.com/2021/01/25/is-jefferson-county-h
ealth-department-overstating-covid-case-numbers/
This revelation raises various accountability issues, including:
1) Why did our county have to wait nearly 4 months to learn about its
45-cycle threshold from a fortuitous Public Records Request?
2) Since Dr. Locke was also Clallam Health Officer until recently, is
this same unreliable 45 Ct test also in use throughout Clallam County?
3) Was the choice to use this 45 Ct test ever discussed and approved
by the Jefferson County Board of Health or County Commissioners? If
not, was it ever even reported and its significance explained to them?
4) Does Dr. Locke or anybody else keep statistical track of
cumulative cycle counts for positive tests and resulting cases in our
county, or is this info unavailable or being ignored? Could this
information be regularly published in the media, or at least be made
available upon request?
5) Does our county always order a second test following a positive
PCR result, and if not, how often and on what basis? Are all
positive tests treated as COVID-19 cases regardless of symptoms, and
if not, how often has high cycle count been used to discard extremely
weak positive test results?
6) How many county residents have been reported as cases,
quarantined, and contact-traced based on cycle counts above 33, when
the CDC shows “it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in
a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles”?
Yours truly,
Stephen Schumacher
