Florida Governor Desantis says Florida will begin surveillance into Sudden Deaths of individuals post Covid-19 Vaccination in Florida and Files a Petition with the Florida Supreme Court for a Grand Jury to investigate crimes and wrongdoing committed against Floridians related to the Covid-19 Vaccine. Please Study and Share:
https://www.flgov.com/2022/12/13/govern ... committee/ (Gov. Desantis Petitions the Court)
https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/upload ... -Pager.pdf (Gov. Desantis Public Health Integrity Committee Brochure)
Please find Janet Presson's thorough, well documented, evidence based response to Dr. Jaben, of the Haywood County Health Department, below: Please Read, Study, and Share:
From: Janet <presson@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:56 PM
To: Mark J. Jaben <Mark.Jaben@haywoodcountync.gov>; Sarah Henderson <Sarah.Henderson@haywoodcountync.gov>
Cc: Kevin Ensley <Kevin.Ensley@haywoodcountync.gov>; Brandon C. Rogers <brandon.rogers@haywoodcountync.gov>; Thomas A. Long <Tommy.Long@haywoodcountync.gov>; Terry Ramey <Terry.Ramey@haywoodcountync.gov>; Jennifer Best <Jennifer.Best@haywoodcountync.gov>
Subject: COVID VAX Hearing
Hi Dr. Jaben and Ms Henderson!
As you continue to recommend the Covid vaccines to Haywood County citizens I wanted to make certain you have both seen this week’s hearing conducted by Senator Ron Johnson. He hosted numerous medical experts and whistleblowers along with folks who have been injured by one of these vaccines. Information concerning the lack of safety studies, the failure to recognize and track vaccine injuries and deaths, and the fact that the vaccines neither prevent the virus nor transmission of the virus MUST be considered as you as you continue to recommend and provide these dangerous products. The truth is now being revealed along with the fact that this information has been largely censored and more and more people are now realizing that these vaccines are neither safe nor effective. Many countries around the world are now no longer recommending Covid vaccines and are planning legal action against the pharmaceutical companies who have perpetuated this fraud.
I do not expect you to take my word for any of the above but I do expect you to watch this video. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Janet Presson, R.N., M.Ed.
919-922-4625
https://media.livecast365.com/highwire/ ... 454664.mp4
****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
On Dec 12, 2022, at 11:05 AM, Mark J. Jaben <Mark.Jaben@haywoodcountync.gov> wrote:
Janet,
Thank you for sending along the video of this hearing.
I am curious though. If Senator Johnson was interested in a full view of the issues he raises, why were none of the people who signed this letter included? You would agree they are all eminent clinicians, epidemiologists and scientists, would you not?
https://globalepidemics.org/2020/12/07/ ... -pandemic/
Let’s just assume for the moment that the people Senator Johnson has assembled are credible sources whose analysis rests on all of the available data on the subject. Let’s assume none of them come with a preconceived opinion they are trying to prove. Let’s assume their views are based in research that has been reviewed and verified by other credible researchers as sound- capable of contributing to answering the questions raised. And let’s assume Mr. Johnson has no agenda he’s trying to push, but is committed to finding the 'truth,' as he says.
Even if all these were true (and none seem to be), to be so ‘certain’ as these people are, one would have to dismiss or ignore all the data and information that says otherwise. Even Mr. Johnson at the start says correlation does not prove causation, and then goes on to ignore this. As someone trained in science, you know this is not the way credible sources act. This is not the way science works.
You raise a question about vaccine safety. Let’s look at what has been observed. Concerns raised about possible side affects in 2020 and early 2021 were not unreasonable. However, billions of doses of these vaccines have now been given worldwide. None of the feared affects you and others had a right to be concerned about have panned out to be an issue- not autoimmune diseases, pregnancy and fertility risk, or the myriad of others. The only significant safety signal has been for myocarditis in young men, and even then a person is 5 times more likely to get myocarditis from a Covid infection. So how much safety data do you need to be satisfied something is safe enough?
Your assert that vaccines do not prevent transmission. Forgive me, but that confuses me. Yes there are breakthrough infections- an infection in people previously vaccinated or up to date with boosters. But I'm sure you are aware, for instance, of real world studies of the most recent bivalent booster that show reduced transmission among all age groups- from 20-50% more reduction than the reductions already demonstrated with previous vaccinations and boosters. The real goal of vaccination was to prevent bad outcomes. I’m sure you are aware that the overwhelming majority of deaths now are in those unvaccinated or not up to date. No one ever said vaccines or masks or any of the other interventions was perfect. But we have now observed that these interventions reduce infection, hospitalization and death and have been invaluable in saving lives and reducing suffering.
Janet, the issue here is that some people have been unable, failed or refused to stay up to date with the latest learnings, have failed to adapt their opinions to reality, but rather hang on to earlier opinions that are no longer supported by what is now known. Opinions are not who a person is; they are just the best thought at the moment. Using them to define one's identity is an obstacle to adapting as more is learned and a barrier to finding the best path forward.
Sadly, some people see themselves as their opinions, and we all suffer because of it.
As is true for those on this panel, you have repeatedly and kindly shared viewpoints and opinions that conform with what you want to believe, dismissing or minimizing facts that don’t conform to that belief. This does not make your opinion wrong; it just does not prove it is accurate, correct, or leads to the best choices at the time.
It’s way past time we ALL acknowledge that science is an evolving challenge. As we learn more, we are better able to refine what we believe to be the best path forward. When people, including those on this video, acknowledge the value in accommodating ALL that is known, not just what they ‘want’ to know, then maybe we as a society can get past the anger, distrust, and rancor and move forward together.
****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
From: Janet <presson@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: COVID VAX Hearing
Date: December 13, 2022 at 11:53:50 PM EST
To: "Mark J. Jaben" <Mark.Jaben@haywoodcountync.gov>
Cc: Sarah Henderson <Sarah.Henderson@haywoodcountync.gov>, Kevin Ensley <Kevin.Ensley@haywoodcountync.gov>, "Brandon C. Rogers" <brandon.rogers@haywoodcountync.gov>, "Thomas A. Long" <Tommy.Long@haywoodcountync.gov>, Terry Ramey <Terry.Ramey@haywoodcountync.gov>, Jennifer Best <Jennifer.Best@haywoodcountync.gov>
Dear Dr. Jaben and County Commissioners:
Thank you for taking the time to write me back and share your thoughts.
Let me start by establishing common ground that I believe scientific evidence matters, not just in a pandemic but in all issues related to public health and medicine. To be an excellent public health professional means to weigh all available evidence to make the proper decisions for the good of the public.
Now for my criticisms of your reasoning. I am disappointed that you seem not to have weighed the evidence from Senator Johnson or his esteemed panel. While epidemiologists and scientists who signed the statement you linked were not present, you overlook the esteemed members of the medical profession who did attend, including the well-published cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, double board-certified Dr. Kirkhoan, former member for the FDA’s senior leadership team Dr. David Gortler, and the formidable Dr. Robert Malone, who heavily contributed to the development of the mRNA technology.
I rightfully suspect you did not watch the video at all, because your responses are cursory and shallow. They do not consider the total weight of evidence in the panel. Let me illustrate what evidence you failed to consider.
First, you mention “correlation is not causation,” but you fail to mention that public health has not held itself to the rigor of evidence-based solid medicine when recommending the vaccine.
No randomized-controlled trials were done to show if the vaccine would prevent infection, transmission, or herd immunity. Yet we were repeatedly told by Dr. Fauci, CDC officials, and even President Biden that the COVID vaccine would protect us from infection and lead to herd immunity.
These statements proved to be false as scores of vaccinated individuals got Omicron, and the pandemic raged on despite multitudes of vaccinated. Public health is not holding itself to its own standards.
Second, you claim “None of the feared effects you and others had a right to be concerned about have panned out to be an issue.”
But you elide over that over 32,000+ deaths and 180,000+ hospitalizations have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System after taking the Covid vaccine shot. The number of deaths is equivalent to 10x the number of people that died in the 9/11 terrorist events.
It appears that these numbers are so far and above the expectation that the only conclusion seems to be that critical safety thresholds have been breached.
The following chart illustrates the problem:
Third, you seem to have forgotten the Bradford-Hill criteria, which lets us assess the weight of epidemiological evidence. The temporality criterion of Bradford-Hill is met – many of the deaths occur on days 0-2 of vaccine receipt.
To dismiss these occurrences as “purely coincidental” given the temporal correlation, especially without investigation nor the ascertainment of another cause, is scientifically embarrassing and unbefitting of a public health professional.
Fourth, you would have to take us for fools to fail to notice that you are comparing the “safe treatment” of the COVID vaccine with the risk of the “dangerous infection” in your assessment of myocarditis.
This is a fallacious argument given that, those receiving the COVID vaccine, are still getting COVID infection. It is not a binary outcome, and it is quite possible that the outcome could be non-linear with more boosters leading to higher rates of myocarditis.
Your purported “safe treatment” has an associated 35,000+ cases of myocarditis reported in VAERS, and the literature has already established the link between these cases and the jab.
Fifth, it seems your myocarditis risk assessment is scientifically flawed in that it treats the populace as uniform when we all know this isn’t the case – young people have a greatly reduced risk of death from COVID infection.
A recent British Medical Journal essay “COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities” assessed that COVID vaccines have a net harm for young people.
It states: “To prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation over a 6-month period, we estimate that 31,207–42,836 young adults aged 18–29 years must receive a third mRNA vaccine. Booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including 1.5–4.6 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalisation).”
Sixth, the BMJ paper had an important critique of data of the CDC’s risk-benefit assessment.
The BMJ paper stated: “In a recent CDC publication, which stratified for ages 18–49, a booster dose increased effectiveness against emergency department encounters and hospitalisations among immunocompetent adults during the Omicron wave, but the analysis did not adjust for comorbidities and excluded those with a history of prior infection ‘to reduce the influence of protection from previous infection’”
Your previous assessment seemed unaware of these facts. Science requires us to be critical of studies even done by the CDC. Even local health departments must police the facts of the CDC.
Seventh, I have to fact-check your statement, “I’m sure you are aware that the overwhelming majority of deaths now are in those unvaccinated or not up to date,” as incorrect.
According to news sources, the majority of deaths are now in vaccinated individuals. The Washington Post reports, "Fifty-eight percent of coronavirus deaths in August were people who were vaccinated or boosted… The paper described a ‘troubling trend’ as the share of deaths of people who were vaccinated has been ‘steadily rising’ over the past year.”
This new data also calls into question your premise of “the real goal of vaccination was to prevent bad outcomes.” The vaccines are not effective at stopping these bad outcomes from happening.
Eighth, public health has greatly understated the risk of the COVID vaccine to the public. You claim “no issues with autoimmune diseases, pregnancy, and fertility risk” but, at the same time, you elide over obvious safety gaps.
The Pfizer vaccine trials only lasted three months. The CDC approved the use of the COVID vaccines for pregnant women with insufficient safety data. There were no long-term safety studies done.
Public health claimed that the mRNA material from the COVID vaccines would leave the body. But, as Dr. Malone reported in the panel, there is evidence that the mRNA material stays in the body much longer than we previously thought, citing a study that mRNA material was still detected 60 days after the shot.
Public health also has ignored that the COVID spike protein itself is cytotoxic and cardio-toxic. It did not consider that COVID vaccination could lead to higher spike in protein levels within the body than the infection itself. It failed to consider that the pharmacokinetics of the mRNA material in the body would be different from those of mouse models, and the effects of translocation of mRNA to organs like the heart and the brain.
You do not consider that the efficacy reductions you cite have a biased timeframe and do not consider the whole span of the pandemic. You have a denominator problem.
In summary, I suggest you take your own advice – “the issue here is that some people have been unable, failed or refused to stay up to date with the latest learnings, have failed to adapt their opinions to reality, but rather hang on to earlier opinions that are no longer supported by what is now known. Opinions are not who a person is; they are just the best thought at the moment. Using them to define one's identity is an obstacle to adapting as more is learned and a barrier to finding the best path forward.”
Public health officials (like yourself) can become prone to groupthink. They can fail to consider the latest evidence, and they can fail to look at contrary evidence (recall you did not watch the video). They hang onto early opinions and outdated paradigms about the world. They fail to consider that the public health institutions like the CDC can fall prey to conflicts of interest and corruption.
Even one’s identity as a “doctor” or “public health official” can become a crutch that prevents one from considering the full weight of evidence. It is hard for officials to revisit one’s past decisions as incorrect, or consider that they lead to iatrogenic harm.
I would agree with you on your parting thought, “When people acknowledge the value in accommodating ALL that is known, not just what they ‘want’ to know, then maybe we as a society can get past the anger, distrust, and rancor and move forward together.”
Public health trust is at an all-time low. The claims of “safe and effective” are effectively misinformation, and the public knows that. As Dr. Malone observed, we cannot “substitute hope for data.”
At this point, humbleness, open-acknowledgment of mistakes, and contrition are needed from our public health officials. We need a public health system that treats individuals as equals as opposed to subjects meant to be lorded over.
I am hopeful for the future.
Sincerely,
Janet Presson, R.N., M.Ed.
919-922-4625
Updated Speaker Schedule:
1/19 Julia Boyd Freeman (Town of Waynesville Mayor Pro Tem and Alderman)
1/26 Gary Caldwell (Town of Waynesville Mayor)
2/2 Tom Deweese (President of the American Policy Institute) (Author of the Activist Handbook)
2/9 Available
