The Washington State Board of Health (BOH) is authorized by law (RCW 28A.210.140) to decide what vaccines children in the state will be required to have for daycare and school entry (preschool-12). They go through a formal rule-making process to create rules related to the RCW and to add new shot requirements to WAC 246-105. The BOH recently formed a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to consider COVID-19 shots for school entry.
This is a meeting intended to develop recommendations for the full Board. Their second meeting has been scheduled for:
Thursday, Feb. 17 from 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. Pacific Time
We encourage everyone who can to attend this meeting. If you will be at work, you can use the Zoom app on your smart phone, or dial in, and attend during your breaks, lunch, or whatever your work schedule allows.
Use your computer or laptop or smart phone (requires registration):
- You may access the meeting and register by clicking the following hyperlink: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_eE3TR0j1TYODyV-zEab0Jg
- You can also dial-in to listen to and observe the meeting using your phone Call in: +1 (253) 215-8782 (not toll-free), Webinar ID: 886 2109 3915 Passcode: 426807
CHD.TV will be streaming the meeting live – https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/wa-board-of-health-tag-holds-second-review-meeting-of-covid-19-shots-for-school
The following day, Friday February 18, please tune in to An Informed Life Radio 1150 AM KKNW or CHD.TV at 3pm Pacific to hear Dr. Henry Ealy (Dr. H) discuss the materials that were presented to the TAG.
The TAG webinar is open to the public but there will be no public comment time. The BOH has 9 Criteria they use to evaluate vaccines they are considering. During this second TAG meeting, they will be considering Criteria items #1, #2, and #4. They will be voting at the end of the meeting on whether they feel COVID shots pass those three criteria.
Informed Choice WA submitted a response to all nine Criteria, available here.
The materials contain false and misleading information from three entities (Seattle Childrens, Kaiser Permanente, and Washington State Department of Health) with intense conflicts of interest with the clear intent to elicit “yes” votes from the TAG members.
Seattle Children’s Hospital: Hospital systems are profit-driven enterprises with systemic insurance and drug company relationships that influence every aspect of their business. One example of conflict: Office of Science-Industry Partnerships.
Kaiser Permanente (KP): while many Americans lost jobs, lost savings, lost loved ones due to being denied effective treatments and being coerced into experimental shots, KP set income records.
While COVID-19-related expenses largely offset a rise in operating revenues, a “sharp increase” in Kaiser Permanente’s investment returns helped the integrated health system record $8.1 billion in net income during 2021.
That safely outpaced the $6.4 billion the health system logged last year.
Kaiser Permanente’s topline financial results for the past year, released Friday evening, also showed a membership increase of nearly 185,000 people, bringing its total to 12.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2021. The organization credited government coverage programs for much of the growth, noting that more than half of the increase was driven by Medicaid.
WA State Department of Health (DOH): Although a government agency, the DOH actively engages in public-private partnerships and associations so systemic, they are actually sanctioned by law in some instances. This is how the corporate capture of public health has increasingly grown over the years.
In addition to any other powers granted the secretary, the secretary may: . . . . (7) Solicit and accept gifts, grants, bequests, devises, or other funds from public and private sources.
Findings—Intent—2001 c 80: “(1) The legislature finds that developing, creating, and maintaining partnerships between the public and private sectors can enhance and augment current public health services. The legislature further finds that the department of health should have the ability to establish such partnerships, and seek out and accept gifts, grants, and other funding to advance worthy public health goals and programs.”
These partnerships are now so systemic, the DOH behaves like the marketing arm of the vaccine industry, and they follow whatever they are advised to do from various Gates Foundation owned/funded organizations such as the Institute for Disease Modeling (IDMOD . org) and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME , who gave a presentation at the first TAG meeting). These entities serve the global goals of their funders, not the health of individuals in WA State.
A nurse with graduate studies in epidemiology, statistics, and pathophysiology, reviewed the materials to be presented to the TAG and concluded they contain misleading and biased information about the necessity, safety, and efficacy of covid shots for tots. The TAG members are not being presented with fair and balanced information from independent experts. The slides lack adequate information about:
- natural immunity
- low risk of covid to children
- high risk of serious adverse effects and deaths in VAERS
- VAERS underreporting factors
- lack of effectiveness of the covid shots against current and emerging variants
- age risk stratification
- unknown long-term adverse effects
- no long-term safety data
- experimental use authorization
- dosing by age not weight
- lack of carcinogenicity or reproductive toxicity studies
- misleading mortality data on hospitalizations/deaths of children WITH covid versus DUE TO covid
- cases do not equal hospitalizations; hospitalizations do not equal deaths
- clinically misleading PCR tests
- mild Omicron variant
- short-term waning immunity of covid shots
- proven alterations in innate immunity due to covid shots
- many other critical issues are not addressed in the meeting materials
Additionally, the presentations provide only the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) from clinical trials, rather than the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR).
“The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy . . .As was also noted in the BMJ Opinion, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which “appears to be less than 1%”
The presentations fail to include that the clinical trials in children were too small study and too short short duration to find serious adverse outcomes in either the short or long term. Pfizer’s report to the FDA for children ages 5-12, said:
“The number of participants in the current clinical development program is too small to detect any potential risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination.”
Pg. 11 https://www.fda.gov/media/153409/download
One deceptive device used by Pfizer in their trials was the elimination of study subjects after the first shot if they experienced severe adverse reactions. Maddie de Garay was twelve when her mother enrolled her in Pfizer’s trial. She was injured by the first shot and is now paralyzed, but her injury is not listed in the clinical trial data.