HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_7_05 AHuenke COVIDFrom:Annette Huenke
To:Tom Locke
Cc:Board of Health; Glenn Gilbert; doh.secretary@doh.wa.gov; jamila.thomas@gov.wa.gov
Subject:Re: vaccination status
Date:Monday, July 5, 2021 4:57:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution whenopening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dr. Locke, et al:
The intentional omission of natural immunity from the new workplace rules belies the intentof the Governor and whomever he consulted in adoption of them — this is not about
protection, it is about vaccination. Public health messaging does not match the science —vaccines were chosen in advance as the preferred response. This was strongly evidenced by
the suppression of known early treatment regimens.
Natural immunity is proving to be superior to any protection Covid-19 injections provide. ThisNature article from May 2021 concludes “Overall, we show that SARS-CoV-2 infection
induces a robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral response in humans.” This studypublished in October 2020 showed that viral exposure leads to development of T-cell
immunity. The authors note “The observation that many individuals with asymptomatic ormild COVID-19 had highly durable and functionally replete memory T cell responses, not
uncommonly in the absence of detectable humoral [antibody] responses, further suggests thatnatural exposure or infection could prevent recurrent episodes of severe COVID-19.” Here,
the NIH reports “lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19."
This October 2020 paper details how the vaccinated may well be more vulnerable to variantsin the future, due to antibody-dependent enhancement.
Using employers to coerce employees is a devious work-around of the EUA requirement that
this investigational product not be mandated. We are in the midst of rushed clinical trialswhich, even in the ‘warp speed’ rollout, are not due to end until next year for Pfizer, 2023 for
Moderna. Vaccine failure (breakthrough) is so high that the CDC has ceased counting all buthospitalizations and death. Safety data is only beginning to surface, and the signals are
alarming, particularly given news like this, revealed by a FOIA in Canada:
"Recently, there has been speculation regarding potential safety signals
associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Many different unusual, prolonged,
or delayed reactions have been reported, and often these are more pronounced
after the second shot. Women have reported changes in menstruation after
taking mRNA vaccines. Problems with blood clotting (coagulation) – which arealso common during COVID-19 disease – are also reported.
…In the case of the Pfizer COVID mRNA vaccine, these newly revealed
documents raise additional questions about both the genotoxicity and
reproductive toxicity risks of this product. Standard studies designed to assessthese risks were not performed in compliance with accepted empirical research
standards. Furthermore, in key studies designed to test whether the vaccine
remains near the injection site or travels throughout the body, Pfizer did not
even use the commercial vaccine (BNT162b2) but instead relied on a
“surrogate” mRNA producing the luciferase protein.
These new disclosures seem to indicate that the U.S. and other governments
are conducting a massive vaccination program with an incompletely
characterized experimental vaccine."
As you must be aware, the FDA has added a warning to both mRNA fact sheets highlightingincreased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. These conditions are no small thing, presentingpotential for life-long heart problems, and death. Long-term, transparent safety surveillancemust be conducted prior to imposition of coercive measures. That will take years.
Requiring unvaccinated people with natural immunity to wear masks is the opposite ofprotecting public health, and violates the spirit of HIPAA. For them, the risks of the shotscompletely outweigh the benefits. Masks are also currently on EUA, not approved asprotective equipment. Insisting that employees increase CO2 and reduce oxygen intake formany hours a day is medical malpractice.
Finally, a June survey of 700 physicians by the Association of American Physicians andSurgeons revealed cautionary attitudes from the professionals —
• Nearly 60 percent said they were not “fully vaccinated” against COVID.• 54 percent of physician respondents were aware of patients suffering a “significant adversereaction."• Of the unvaccinated physicians, 80 percent said “I believe risk of shots exceeds risk ofdisease.”• 30% said “I already had COVID.”
L&I’s latest instructions to employers should be immediately revoked until such time as all ofthe above is taken into account, and previously infected people are provided the means toshow they already have natural immunity and will not benefit from — in fact, may be harmedby — the unapproved 'vaccines.'
Annette Huenke Port Townsend
On Jul 1, 2021, at 11:30 AM, Tom Locke <tlocke@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote:
Ms. Huenke,
Your question is a legal one and best addressed to legal experts. This issue hasbeen addressed extensively at a national level and I refer you to those references,including 3028 - If my employer requires proof of my COVID-19 vaccination
status, does that violate my rights under HIPAA? |HHS.gov<https://www.hhs.gov/answers/if-my-employer-requires-proof-of-my-covid-19-vaccination-status/index.html> . Only "covered entitites" are bound byHIPAA requirements. Jefferson Healthcare clearly is a covered entity and cannotrelease personal health information without written consent or one of theexemptions to written consent. Employers and business owners, in contrast, arenot covered entities under HIPAA and have a compelling reason to determinevaccination status -- to maintain a safe workplace by protecting unvaccinatedindividuals from infection. Business owners, likewise have a legitimate reason toask for this information but, unlike employers, are not required to do so. Peopleare free to decline COVID vaccination but that decision has consequences --increased risk of infection and of transmitting that infection to others and therequirement that they continue to mask indoors in order to limit transmission ofSARS-CoV-2 to children, unvaccinated adults, and those who areimmunosuppressed.
Thomas Locke, MD, MPH
Jefferson County Health Officer
________________________________From: Annette Huenke <amh@olympus.net>Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 7:03 PMTo: Jay.Inslee@gov.wa.gov; doh.secretary@doh.wa.gov; CivilRights@lni.wa.govCc: jamila.thomas@gov.wa.gov; Board of Health; Tom LockeSubject: vaccination status
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercisecaution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknownsenders.
To all concerned —
I just read the Governor’s statement about reopening the state, and L&I’sRequirements and Guidance for employers. Some months ago, I filed a PublicRecords Request with Jefferson Healthcare in Port Townsend, inquiring as to thevaccination status of an individual said to have died from Covid while in hospitalthere. Here is the response I received:
The information you are requesting is considered to be individually identifiableinformation relating to the past health status of an individual and not a PublicRecord as defined by RCW 42.56. Health information such as whether a patientreceived a Covid 19 vaccine is protected health information because theindividual could be identified from the information and is protected under theHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) patientprivacy laws.
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
HIPAA is in place to protect individual health information. If the vaccinationstatus of a hospital patient is not subject to public disclosure because it is
protected by HIPAA as a legally enforceable matter of individual privacy (RCW42.56), as asserted above by Jefferson Healthcare in Port Townsend, then public
disclosure of every individual’s vaccination status — including businessemployees and customers — is similarly protected.
Pursuant to RCW 42.56.594 (b) Any agency that violates, proposes to violate, or
has violated RCW 42.56.590<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.590> may be enjoined and be subjected to a consumer civil action.
Additionally, "Any waiver of the provisions of RCW42.56.590<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.590> or
42.56.592<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.592> is contraryto public policy, and is void and unenforceable. (RCW
42.56.594<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.594>)
RCW 42.56.590<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.590>Personal information—Notice of security breaches.
(10)(a) For purposes of this section, "personal information" means:
(H) Any information about a consumer's medical history or mental or physicalcondition or about a health care professional's medical diagnosis or treatment of
the consumer;
RCW 42.56.010<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.010>Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the contextclearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Agency" includes all state agencies and all local agencies. "State agency"includes every state office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or
other state agency. "Local agency" includes every county, city, town, municipalcorporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or special purpose district, or any
office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or agency thereof, orother local public agency.
RCW 42.56.594<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.594>
Personal information—Consumer protection.(1) Any waiver of the provisions of RCW
42.56.590<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.590> or42.56.592<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.592> is contrary
to public policy, and is void and unenforceable.(2)(a) Any consumer injured by a violation of RCW
42.56.590<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.590> mayinstitute a civil action to recover damages.
(b) Any agency that violates, proposes to violate, or has violated RCW42.56.590<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.590> may be
enjoined(c) The rights and remedies available under RCW
42.56.590<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.590> arecumulative to each other and to any other rights and remedies available under law.
RCW 42.56.592<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.592>
Personal information—Covered entities.A covered entity under the federal health insurance portability and accountability
act of 1996, Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1320d et seq., [HIPAA] is deemed to havecomplied with the requirements of this chapter with respect to protected health
information if it has complied with section 13402 of the federal healthinformation technology for economic and clinical health act, P.L. 111-5 as it
existed on July 24, 2015. Covered entities shall notify the attorney generalpursuant to RCW 42.56.590<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?
cite=42.56.590>(7) in compliance with the timeliness of notification requirementsof section 13402 of the federal health information technology for economic and
clinical health act, P.L. 111-5 as it existed on July 24, 2015, notwithstanding thetimeline in RCW 42.56.590<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?
cite=42.56.590>(7). [emphasis added]
On what legal basis/theory does the governor’s office via the WA State Dept of
Labor and Industries, any state health agencies, their subsidiaries or county healthdepartments acting pursuant to direction from such offices and state agencies,
claim to waive the provisions of RCW42.56.590<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.590> or
42.56.592<http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.56.592> or to beexempt from court orders orders barring ("enjoined from") such proposals?
I look forward to your reply.
sincerely,
Annette HuenkePort Townsend
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure underRCW 42.56***