HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.11.24 Board Correspondence - FW_ SACRAMENTO PUBLIC COMMENTS.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Clerk of the Board
To:Blankenship, DeAnne
Cc:Lee, Lewis; Mutony, Heather
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: SACRAMENTO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Date:Thursday, December 19, 2024 4:47:02 PM
Please see Board Correspondence -
From: Julie Threet <julie4butte5@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 8:17 AM
To: shoughtby@tehama.gov; ccarlson@tehama.gov; mhansen@tehama.gov; bmoule@tehama.gov;
pnolen@tehama.gov; jleach@tehama.gov; ahoughtby@tehamaso.org; publichealth@tchsa.net;
tjohns@pcso.net; Kimmelshue, Tod <TKimmelshue@buttecounty.net>; Pickett, Andy
<APickett@buttecounty.net>; Connelly, Bill <BConnelly@buttecounty.net>; Ring, Brian
<bring@buttecounty.net>; Waugh, Melanie <mwaugh@buttecounty.net>; Ritter, Tami
<TRitter@buttecounty.net>; Teeter, Doug <DTeeter@buttecounty.net>; Clerk of the Board
<clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>; Congressman Doug LaMalfa
<CA01DL.Outreach@mail.house.gov>; Stephens, Brad J. <BStephens@buttecounty.net>; Batz,
Michael <MBatz@buttecounty.net>; Evan Tuchinsky <etuchinsky@chicoer.com>;
jhutchison@chicoer.com; Teri DuBose <Teri.DuBose@mail.house.gov>; Canton, David
<DCanton@buttecounty.net>; Blankenship, DeAnne <DBlankenship@buttecounty.net>; Kasey
Pulliam Reynolds <kasey.reynolds@chicoca.gov>; andy.miller@enloe.org; Michael Wolcott
<mwolcott@chicoer.com>; Dr James Wood <jbwoodmd@sbcglobal.net>;
dale.bennett@chicoca.gov; debralucero@countyofplumas.com; supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org;
district1@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org;
Supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; jrosen@dao.sccgov.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org;
ddonnan@chicorec.gov; Senator.Dahle@senate.ca.gov;
Assemblymember.Gallagher@assembly.ca.gov; District Attorney
<District_Attorney@buttecounty.net>; davidhollister@countyofplumas.com;
pcbs@countyofplumas.com; rjohnson@countyofglenn.net; grant.carmon@countyofglenn.net;
mrossman@countyofglenn.net; tom.arnold@countyofglenn.net; jyoder@countyofglenn.net;
complianceofficer@tchsa.net; countyexecutive@saccounty.gov; boardclerk@saccounty.gov;
SupervisorKennedy@saccounty.gov; SupervisorSerna@saccounty.gov;
richdesmond@saccounty.gov; pathume@saccounty.gov; sacdhs@saccounty.gov;
debbie.damoth@dca.ca.gov; boardclerk@countyofcolusa.org; jcorona@countyofcolusa.org;
dkalfsbeeksmith@countyofcolusa.org; kboes@countyofcolusa.org; gevans@countyofcolusa.org;
jbell@countyofcolusa.org; colusacountycounsel@countyofcolusa.org;
elizabeth.kelly@countyofcolusa.org; Abigale.henderson@countyofcolusa.org;
claire.perez@countyofcolusa.org; mbradwell@countyofcolusa.org
Cc: Ronald Owens <ronald@muzzledtruth.com>; Diana Dreiss <lancedreiss@att.net>; Camera Man
<thecameramaniswatching@yahoo.com>; redpillmixedchick@gmail.com
Subject: SACRAMENTO PUBLIC COMMENTS
I am sure the Butte County Board of Supervisors have missed me as I have been visiting other County
Boards over past two months with Ronald F Owens Jr of muzzledtruth.com.
I have over 30 appearances before Butte County giving HOURS of testimony and research. Evidence
of harm from the COVID vaccine. NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE, NOT ONE THING. Hard to believe when
you look at all the comments Diana and I have given.
To Butte County,
Please watch these public comments I made at Sacramento County Board of Supervisor, Tehama
County Board of Supervisor and at California Board of Pharmacy in Sacramento.
https://rumble.com/v5y3v98-sacramento-county-board-of-supervisors-121024-stop-the-shots.html
https://rumble.com/v5y41me-sacramento-county-board-of-supervisors-121024-honoring-sue-
frost.html
https://rumble.com/v5wtht8-california-board-of-pharmacy-12424-i-demand-an-investigation.html
To all other Counties,
I record and post everything on my Rumble channel @ prayinghawk144 and Twitter X
@julie4butte5.
TO ALL RECEIVING THIS EMAIL,
I also post my VAERS Investigation Reports there too. Next one being produced is on vaccine
problems administered by Military for Theresa Long, MD, PHD, FS. Look her up.
Army flight surgeon, aerospace and occupational medicine, specialty trained in Medical
Management of Biological and Chemical casualties.
Here's my VAERS Investigation Report on the problems reported by vaccines administered by a
pharmacy.
Note: Ms. Debbie Damoth of California Board of Pharmacy - please send this to the full 13-member
Board. I will reference this at your January meeting.
https://rumble.com/v5y333w-vaers-investigation-by-julie4butte5-pharmacy-reports-and-
deaths.html
Regards,
Julie Threet
510-358-7520
Lead Investigator
VAERSAware.com
Whistleblower in Butte County
Former Enloe Healthcare Worker & member of Volunteer Services Board of Directors
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024, 6:33 AM Julie Threet <julie4butte5@gmail.com> wrote:
FOR PUBLIC RECORD. I have visited all of your jurisdictions about the dangers of the COVID-19
vaccine. Most recently Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.
Please act and do something. If you are the media, please write the truth.
I will continue to send you all every article until you step up to stop these harmful products.
I recorded a VAERS Investigation for my job as Lead Investigator for VAERSAware.com. This report
shows the injured, dead and administrative errors by vaccines administered by a pharmacy.
President Biden & HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra were derelict in extending the PREP Act yesterday
for five years. Without any public or legislative review.
IF YOU HAVE ACCESS TO VAERS OR OVERSITE TO YOUR PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAVE THEM
RUN THIS INFORMATION FOR YOUR COUNTY.
The public records I use only report at State level. BUT YOUR HEALTH DEPARTMENT CAN RUN BY
COUNTY. Or at very least report to you on the VAERS Reports filed by them in your County. And
should have authority to contact the CDC to get your County data.
START INVESTIGATING.
https://rumble.com/v5y333w-vaers-investigation-by-julie4butte5-pharmacy-reports-and-
deaths.html
Post from Peter A McCullough, MD, MPH today on Twitter:
Outgoing Biden Extends PREP Act Protection Until 2029: What Democratic Process? No Advice or
Consent
Dec. 11, 2024, 6:00 a.m.
Outgoing President Joe Biden, through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has
extended liability protections for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers, healthcare providers, and
other parties involved in administering vaccines and countermeasures until the end of 2029. This
decision is positioned as a proactive step to address the potential for future public health
emergencies related to COVID-19 or other emerging threats. However, given the recent impactful
election the more critically minded suggests an illicit move to protect industry given the prospect
of an incoming Trump with nominated Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy
(RFK) Jr.
Key Actions and Motivations
The liability shield, first enacted during the 2020 public health emergency declaration, protects
manufacturers and providers from lawsuits related to the production and administration of
COVID-19 vaccines and other countermeasures. The protections now extend through December
31, 2029, under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.
What’s Biden’s rationale for the extension?
The HHS emphasized that COVID-19 still poses a "credible risk" of future public health
emergencies, necessitating ongoing preparedness efforts. Yet were there not safe and effective
vaccines? Antivirals are available and the virus is associated with a case fatality rate now equaling
influenza. Could this not be considered a questionable position, keeping the PREP emergency
protections in place just due to a “credible risk”?
According to the outgoing president, the extension aims to incentivize the continued
development and stockpiling of vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics.
And what about compensation programs for vaccine injured?
While the liability protections remain in place, COVID-19 vaccines are not included in the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which covers standard childhood vaccines.
Instead, COVID-19-related claims are handled under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation
Program (CICP), a less robust and less accessible program for individuals who suffer adverse
effects.
As TrialSite has reported, the federal government has awarded less money (under $1 million) than
the non-profit React19, which has a care fund. The CICP is widely known now to represent an
abject failure.
Considerations and Challenges
Assuming outgoing POTUS’ data is correct (that there is a realistic chance for a new COVID-19
emergency), the move is rationalized as public health preparedness.
The extension is consistent with the government's need to ensure a rapid response to future
outbreaks. The liability shield is intended to reduce hesitancy among manufacturers and providers
to participate in emergency countermeasure development and deployment. But should that not
be the purview of incoming elected President Donald Trump and the new White House
apparatus?
Yes, critics are questioning whether the ongoing focus on COVID-19 diverts resources and
attention from broader public health concerns. A major concern are the vaccine. While as of
November 1, 2024, there are 14,096 claims, 10,098 remain “pending review or in review.” Out of
the total, only 48 claims have been compensated. 3,893 have been denied. See the link for the
data.
TrialSite has chronicled over 100 studies involving vaccine injury around the world. Based on our
internal estimate, which is not based on a scientific investigation, anywhere from 400,000 to 2
million people have been materially impacted by the COVID-19 countermeasures. Most people
that are injured struggle in obscurity. TrialSite’s founder Daniel O’Connor serves on React19’s
Board pointing out that “non-profits like React19 have stepped in where the government was
supposed to be the safety net. Hundreds of billions of dollars in the aggregate of public dollars
were spent on the countermeasures yet any negative externalities are passed on to the public.
Those people most injured often with few financial resources in some cases become some of the
nation’s most vulnerable people. Frankly, what Biden has just done raises profound questions
about the ethics and morals of the outgoing regime.”
Indeed, advocates and various experts for vaccine injury victims argue that the CICP is insufficient
at best, compared to the VICP, citing its limited payouts and challenging eligibility requirements.
Extending liability protections without transferring COVID-19 vaccines to the VICP may leave
injured parties totally behind, more than inadequately supported and heighten mistrust in
government policies. The action could be considered profoundly undemocratic given at least one
reason Harris lost the election was her association with Biden and pandemic era policies, from
government overreach to the mRNA COVID-19 mandate.
Then there is the perception of industry protection. The liability shield already is seen as
disproportionately favoring the pharmaceutical industry by removing avenues for litigation while
maintaining public reliance on these companies for life-saving countermeasures.
Critics could interpret this as prioritizing corporate interests over individuals, particularly those
adversely affected by vaccines or other treatments. And given the election dynamics, the likely
confirmation of RFK Jr., and the recent election results, a case can be made that the move was
absolutely antithetical to democratic interests.
Does This Protect the Pharmaceutical Industry?
The liability protections undeniably benefit the pharmaceutical industry by shielding it from
potentially costly lawsuits. However, in keeping as objective as possible, this move could also be
interpreted to align with broader public health objectives to ensure the uninterrupted production
and availability of vaccines and treatments during emergencies.
The absence of COVID-19 vaccine coverage under the VICP could indicate a reluctance to impose
additional financial or legal burdens on manufacturers, but it also reflects a policy choice to
handle pandemic-related injuries through a different mechanism.
Critical Analysis
Outgoing Biden’s move will be interpreted based on the particular point of view, interests and
hence biases of the individual. From one point of view, President Biden's decision reflects a
pragmatic approach to ensuring pandemic preparedness while balancing the interests of public
health and private industry. However, the reliance on the CICP over the VICP raises questions
about equity and fairness for individuals impacted by vaccine-related injuries. Given the mild
nature of Omicron strain of SARS-CoV-2 (case fatality rate approaches influenza), the fact that we
already have “safe and effective” vaccines as well as antivirals, plus the reality that a national
election just rejected Biden policies, the move can be considered highly questionable, if not
undemocratic.
While the policy provides security to pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers, it
leaves room for criticism that it prioritizes institutional protection over individual compensation
and transparency. This leads to all sorts of unintended public policy problems, such as mistrust in
government and industry.
Conclusion
The extension of liability protections through 2029 is a calculated decision aimed at maintaining
U.S. preparedness for potential future pandemics at the expense of possibly up to 2 million
injured Americans.
While it supports the development and distribution of essential medical countermeasures, the
lack of inclusion in the VICP highlights potential shortcomings in addressing public concerns and
compensating those who may suffer adverse effects. This policy underscores the complexities of
balancing public health priorities with accountability and individual rights. Also, elements such as
the decisive Harris lost, the incoming Trump priorities (e.g. RFK Jr.) raise additional questions
about the ethics and morals, if not the legality of the Biden move.
Source: Bloomberg
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/outgoing-biden-extends-prep-act-protection-until-2029-what-
democratic-process-e137c165