A County health officer was asked by a Sacramento Supervisor to explain why the COVID data showed the vaccine made things worse

Supervisor Sue Frost asked some important questions of her County health official. Here's the response she got.

Executive summary

Sacramento Board of Supervisors member Sue Frost asked Sacramento County Health Officer Olivia Kasirye, MD, MS why, if the vaccines were so beneficial, why the data showed it wasn’t.

With the help of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), Dr. Kasirye replied.

So now we finally, after all this time, get to see what happened after a health official is asked to explain the unexplainable.

The question and answer

Supervisor Frost shared the email she sent and the response.

You can download it from my Github.

My reaction

Dr. Kasirye took only 7 days to respond and she provided a comprehensive response.

She should be commended for her efforts.

When Supervisors in Santa Clara County ask similar questions of the Public Health Department (PHD), the PHD basically says “No comment” and the Supervisor are happy with the explanation.

Because Dr. Kasirye replied responsibly, we can now start a dialog to resolve our differences.

In short, I didn’t find her answers to be convincing, but at least now I understand how she has been misled by the authorities. The explanation for the Cleveland Clinic study results was novel: I hadn’t seen that before. It was a hand-waving argument not backed up by actual data, but it was creative!

Rather than go through the arguments in detail, let me sum up the most important points:

1. It is impossible for the COVID vaccines to prevent infection because there is no medical mechanism of action that has been identified for it to do so. A prior infection can create immunity because it stimulates IgA, but not an injected antigen (which does not). This is precisely what the Cleveland Clinic study found: natural infection was protective but prior vaccination was not. So trying to attack the study with a hand-waving argument with no data is not convincing.

2. The chart in her letter, supplied by CDPH from the chart on their website, showed, with crystal clarity, that the case fatality rate went up after the vaccines rolled out and stayed flat for 1 year until the variant changed.But it was dropping dramatically before the vaccines rolled out. They all missed this obvious point. Wow. Hiding in plain sight. It doesn’t get more obvious than this folks. It really doesn’t.

You can examine that graph for yourself on the CDPH site.

I didn’t even have to do the plot. The CDPH did it for me.

If the vaccine reduced deaths, the slope between the bars should have gone down, not remained flat.

Summary

The data is so clear.

But the public health authorities can’t acknowledge the obvious, no matter how obvious it is. They just don’t see a problem.

It’s like the Alexis Lorenze case. She’s perfectly normal until getting 3 “safe” vaccines. Minutes after the shots, very severe side effects start happening. Yet only one doctor in the entire hospital will admit out loud that she was injured by the vaccine. One doctor!

There are some academic researchers who absolutely know that vaccines kill people. But their universities require them not to publish their research because the schools get more funding from HHS than from tuition. The school simply can’t risk losing that funding. So that is how “science” works.

You just can’t publish anything that goes against the narrative. Look at what they did to Mark Skidmore for just doing a survey that got the “wrong” answer (not supporting the narrative). Not only did his paper get unethically retracted, but the university tried to fire him.