Today I filed a formal complaint in Santa Clara County alleging malfeasance by the public health department

Yesterday, I informed the 5 County Supervisors that their public health department is corrupt citing that they refuse to explain how their own data is consistent with their recommendations.

Executive summary

Today, I filed a formal written complaint with the Board of Supervisors in Santa Clara County about the Public Health Department. Their own data shows the vaccines are making infections and fatalities worse, yet they continue to recommend them. When asked to explain the data, they say, “No comment.” This needs to be investigated and if the Supervisors don’t take action, I will take legal action against the Supervisors.

My speech on Nov 5, 2024 notifying the 5 Santa Clara County Supervisors of my allegations of malfeasance (1 minute)

Text of my speech

There is evidence of malfeasance at the Santa Clara County Public Health Department (SCC PHD). I'll be filing a formal written complaint later today asking for an investigation.

My name is Steve Kirsch.  I am a long-time resident of the county.

The SCC PHD data which is posted on their website and obtained through FOIA shows COVID vaccines are making things worse by increasing infections and the risk of death from COVID.

So why are they recommending them?

The PHD stonewalls anyone who asks for an explanation including Supervisor Simitian’s office and the office of County Executive James Williams.

Why are they unable to explain their own data?

You have a public duty to investigate credible allegations of malfeasance.

I'll be filing a formal complaint later today asking you to do so.

My formal complaint

This is a 24/7 Whistleblower Program complaint filed pursuant to Section 3.5 of the BOS Policy Manual.

There is evidence of malfeasance by the Public Health Department (PHD). Their own data shows their recommendations are harming the public, yet they have not warned the public. They have said nothing. When asked to explain the data by the County Executive’s office, they replied “No comment.”

This is an unacceptable response. They need to either explain how their data shows their recommendations are beneficial or they need to apologize for their error and admit they were wrong and rescind their COVID vaccine and mask recommendations.

My name is Steve Kirsch and I have been a resident of the county for 44 years. I have two science degrees from MIT. I had a successful career as a high tech executive with lifetime earnings of over $100M, the vast majority of which I donated to charity. I was cited on 60 Minutes for my charitable giving. I also received a National Caring Award presented by Hillary Clinton on November 17, 2003 in Washington, D.C. I appeared on 60 Minutes for my work on finding effective treatments for COVID. You can watch a 2 minute clip here.

I have written papers that have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. My latest paper can be found here. My latest pre-print is here. You can find my h-index here.

After I received 2 Moderna COVID vaccines, I started hearing vaccine horror stories from my friends. After seeing too many “black swans,” I decided to investigate and found that the data was consistent with my personal experiences, i.e., that the safe and effective vaccine I was told to take by our health department was neither safe nor effective.

I began writing articles about what I had learned. I have written over 1,500 articles now and have amassed a worldwide audience of over 750,000 subscribers to my work.

I also am the only person in the world to actually put their money where their mouth is with respect to the COVID vaccine which I have thoroughly researched. I bet anyone $1M that the COVID vaccines are causing more harm than good. Only one person accepted the challenge (for $500K only). The contracts have been signed and the $1M is in escrow. The debate starts later this year.

Do you find it odd that there was only one person in the world confident enough in the data to actually risk significant money on their beliefs? After all, if the COVID vaccines are beneficial, everyone should be rushing to be the first to take my money.

This is evidence that people simply have NO confidence that they are being told the truth. This is reflected in the vaccine uptake data in Santa Clara County which dipped into the single digits per Sara Cody’s last presentation.

If the vaccines work, we need to make it clear to everyone that they do. If they don’t work, we need to make that clear. Refusing to engage in the discussion to determine which is true is not in the public interest.

In the course of my investigations, I have examined the data from Santa Clara County as well as from other sources worldwide.

They paint a consistent story: the vaccines were not beneficial and should not have been recommended.

When I notified people at the PHD about the data and I asked how, in light of the data, they could continue to recommend COVID vaccines. They didn’t respond.

I asked Supervisor Simitian’s office (Danielle Christian) to investigate and she was able to get a response which she forwarded to me: “No comment.”

She said they don’t report to the Supervisors and to get an actual response, I’d have to ask their chain of command.

So I then asked the County Executive’s office (Steve Preminger) to investigate and the PHD also told them “No comment” as well.

In both cases, the response was supplied by an unknown person.

Steve Preminger said “No comment” was an acceptable response and there was nothing more that he could do.

There is something very seriously wrong here if that is an acceptable response and there is nothing more that he could do.

The data shows that people who live in the county are being injured or killed by these vaccines recommended by the PHD. They can’t just say “no comment.”

I would be happy to meet with the PHD so they can explain how their data is consistent with their recommendations to resolve the matter in an expeditious manner. Unfortunately, based on their past unwillingness to respond to my questions, I am not optimistic this will happen. I don’t think they’ll meet with anyone who understands the data. For example, will they meet with one of the top epidemiologists in the country to explain the data?

Here are three examples of their data showing the vaccines are causing harm:

1. I have the COVID testing data from a FOIA request. The data was prepared by Santa Clara County epidemiologist II Julieta Saluzzo. The data showed that the vaccinated people were more likely to have a COVID infection (consistent with several studies published in the scientific peer-reviewed literature such as the Cleveland Clinic studies and other studies referred to by that paper). When I asked Ms. Saluzzo she claimed not to understand the data (which is bizarre since any epidemiologist would be able to interpret this data easily) but would have someone get back to me. On April 2, I received a call from an unidentified person giving me the number of the media relations department. When I told Ms. Saluzzo that giving me that number was pointless because I’d reached out to them and they didn’t return any calls, she stopped responding to me. If there is an explanation, why are they avoiding answering a simple question? I wrote this up in detail in this article. You can view the FOIA response data here.

2. The PHD publishes the wastewater concentration of the N Gene on their website. What they don’t show you is the national wastewater data. So I wrote an article comparing the two graphs. In heavily vaccinated Santa Clara, the peak COVID infections have progressively been increasing over time whereas in the national data the infections are decreasing. If the vaccine is reducing cases, then this makes no sense; Santa Clara should have lower cases over time if the vaccines worked. How do they explain why the cases went up? How can we be certain that the vaccine isn’t making things worse? I wish I knew, but they won’t say anything. I called their new media relations person, Sean Woodland, and he said he’d get back to me. He didn’t get back to me or return any of my subsequent calls. All I want is an explanation. I have to assume that I’m not getting one because they can’t explain it. Their data is consistent with the Cleveland Clinic study showing vaccination makes infections worse.

3. The PHD publishes data on cases and deaths in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). This is an important demographic because most of the COVID deaths were in these facilities. I decided to take the time to calculate the case fatality rate to see if it got better after the vaccines rolled out. It didn’t get better. It got worse. The case fatality rate (CFR) increased by 3X compared to pre-vaccine rates. See my article which goes over the data in detail.

Finally, the PHD has brought back masking in Santa Clara County, but the data doesn’t support it. They don’t have any data. They are relying on data from others. But the most definitive study done on masks and COVID was the Cochrane review which found that there was no benefit. The lead author was quoted in the New York Times, “There is just no evidence that they make any difference.” So what we’d all like to know is why the SCC PHD is so confident that the Cochrane Review got it wrong? More importantly, why are they keeping it a secret? If they believe the Cochrane Review got it wrong, they should be writing an LTE to inform the world of the mistake so others can benefit.

I would like to resolve this expeditiously.

The simplest way to do that is with a short meeting where the PHD explains their position and I can ask questions.

It should be very troubling to the County that the PHD is unwilling to have me or anyone else ask questions about their data.

Their own data show they are not protecting public health.

I am not alone in my beliefs. I polled 853 of my readers and 98% of them interpreted the mortality data the same way I did: that the vaccines made things worse. There is simply no other way to explain the data.

Santa Clara County is hardly alone in having data showing the vaccines caused harm.

For example, in heavily vaccinated New Zealand, this article (“Staggering New Data From Health New Zealand and Others”) reported official Health NZ data obtained via an OIA, documenting a 10X increase in admissions to A&E among individuals under 40, rising from 2,000 per year to over 20,000 per year. That’s a Z-score of 400 which is absurdly high. It means there is no statistical doubt that this was caused by something but nobody can figure it out (because they aren’t allowed to blame the vaccine which can easily explain it). Secondly “Breaking: 188% Rise in Mortality Risk Among New Zealand Teens Following Covid-19 Vaccination” reported official Health NZ data released under OIA showing that teens and people in their twenties had a disproportionately elevated risk of death in the 90 days following a Covid vaccination.

One of us is interpreting the data incorrectly. If it is me, the PHD would be doing a great public service in showing me how I got it wrong so I don’t mislead my 750,000 readers, many of whom are in Santa Clara. If it is the PHD, then they need to rescind their recommendations and apologize for their mistakes so the harm can be mitigated.

Leaving this issue unresolved will not benefit anyone.

Misinformation costs lives. The best way to resolve differences is through civil dialog.

Summary

They have a public duty to investigate my complaint. I’ll let you know what happens.