Message #1: Ryan to Summit County Council & Health Dept Director Rich Bullough
I’m writing to follow up on Glenn’s response to the comment I made to the council during the mask mandate extension discussion.
I will include the entire comment below for reference, but the main points I made were, in order:
- The only health recommendations the council or the health department has offered throughout this crisis have been masks, social distancing, and vaccination.
- Leading vaccine scientists are saying this vaccine is being applied in the worst possible way and will force grave unintended consequences.
- Social distancing (which taken to its extreme also necessitated lockdowns) has put an untold number of businesses out of business.
- A paper in Frontiers of Public Health, reviewing 188 other papers on COVID and VitaminD, found a massive decrease in transmission and mortality from adequate vitamin D levels alone, why has this not been included in the discussion?
- Data on masks have shown mixed, negligible, or even negative results in the literature.
- The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has had at least 1,700 deaths and tens of thousands of adverse reactions attributed to COVID-19 vaccinations.
- A Harvard Medical School study found that less than 1% of all adverse vaccine events get reported to VAERS.
- None of the COVID-19 vaccines are FDA approved, they’re being used under emergency use authorization, and the endpoints of the studies did not include prevention of transmission.
Glenn – immediately after I finished making my comment, you characterized it as “misinformation,” and stated that you or Rich Bullough, our health department director, would like to refute it.
I have not seen any public refutation of these points, if there has been, please direct me to it.
To the council – As these issues are very important to me, and I deeply care about the true health of our community as I have demonstrated to this council in the past, regardless of public opinion or politics, I am providing you with data and science to back each of these points.
My intention here is with this is not to show “I was right,” or prove a point simply for the sake of getting one over on someone, it is to show you the information you clearly have not been shown, to foster a truly open debate around what is actually best for the people of Summit County.
I must say however, I found the general demeanor of the council during the comments on this issue to be one of dismissiveness and/or outright condescension, and overall extremely unbecoming of elected representatives of the people. These issues were clearly very important to a whole lot of people on that call, and you treated many of them with little to no respect.
Moreover, I happen to know that there were many, many people who had their hands raised wanting to speak on this issue on the Zoom call, who were not called upon at all. Would this have happened at an in-person meeting? Is this the new “public process?”
Doug – I’ve found you to be open to listening on other issues. After the comments made on these issues, however, you repeated Glenn’s claim that much of it was “misinformation,” and went on to implore folks to “take the health and welfare of the people who are in your community more seriously than your own prejudices.”
I hope to God, being the reasonable man that you are, that you bear that sentiment in mind as you read through the data I have taken a whole lot of time I don’t have to prepare for you.
Glenn – Again, I have not seen a refutation of the points I made in my comment, that you labeled as misinformation. After reading through this, I expect you to either do so or issue a public retraction to that statement.
To each individual council member, and health department director Rich Bullough – you still have time to stop pushing these policies and save at least some face. As you will see below, the policies you are pushing are a real danger to society. You’re making things worse, not better.
There will also undoubtedly be another variant (the UK and South Africa variants are already being seeded in the news as able to “breakthrough” the current vaccine) that will start the entire lockdown discussion all over again, not to mention necessitate a new vaccine. You will then have the option of making better-informed decisions from the very beginning.
Glenn – can you look through everything I sent and still refer honestly to it as “misinformation?”
To the whole council – was it appropriate for Glenn to so casually dismiss my well-prepared, clearly very well-intentioned comment as misinformation? Was your overall demeanor in responding to a large group of your constituents, who were clearly very passionate about these issues, appropriate as elected representatives?
These are very straightforward questions, to which I would like answers.
Now, I’m going to take more of my time, to structure the rest of this message in the way that would have been honest for you to do in the first place, placing your responses below all the
data I sent, so that it will be abundantly clear for posterity who is providing more actual evidence to support their position. I will then reply to your responses below that:
1. The only health recommendations the council or the health department has offered throughout this crisis have been masks, social distancing, and vaccination.
-This point I feel is fairly self-explanatory and non-controversial given the content of every meeting, the public messaging we’re surrounded with, etc. Hand washing could be added to the list.
Roger: And handwashing., along with quarantine requirements related to positive tests and exposure to individuals testing positive.
Ryan: Yes, I had already added hand washing. Quarantine and social distancing I consider the same general “stay away from people” health recommendations.
2. Leading vaccine scientists are saying this vaccine is being applied in the worst possible way and will force grave unintended consequences.
-This is a link to an interview with Geert Vanden Bossche, previous head of the German Vaccine Development Office and Chief Scientific Officer of Univac, who has also worked in high levels at Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, laying out a very compelling case that the way this vaccine is being applied will simultaneously cause new, stronger variants, AND lessen our immune systems’ ability to respond to them.
-These are links to a video featuring Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Scientist of Pfizer, along with an extensive article written by him, explaining that less than 40% of the population is vulnerable to this virus, that we’ve indeed reached herd immunity and the pandemic is over, and how the testing campaign itself is propagating the notion there is still an epidemic of some kind.
A highlight from the article: “There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from the disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.”
-This is a link to Hooman Noorchashm, well-respected immunologist and medical doctor, laying out a very compelling case that indiscriminately vaccinating those that have already been exposed to the virus, will lead in many to a serious or even fatal cytokine storm, and this likely was the case when THREE nuns in the Benedictine Sisters of St. Walburg in Kentucky ALL died shortly after receiving the first round of the vaccine.
Roger: I have not seen any leading vaccine scientists saying this. Please share links for me to evaluate. The YouTube link you shared is a single data point without peer review and not persuasive.
Ryan: This was the one point I did not include studies or data sets to back up, because the point did not require them. The point was “there are leading vaccine scientists saying this vaccine is being applied in the worst possible way.”
I sent you videos of two “leading vaccine scientists,” both heads of drug companies and relevant government agencies, saying their piece, along with a leading immunologist. Thus sufficiently proving my point. Yet you are somehow still comfortable making the statement that you haven’t seen ANY.
Your characterization of this submission as “an unconvincing YouTube video,” is therefore a rather obvious attempt to discredit me, rather than actually addressing the point.
These gentlemen have all written extensive articles on their positions as well. I included one of them, and would be happy to find the other two for you, should you start showing the genuine interest in this information you claim to have, if that would be more “convincing” to you. Did you even watch the “unconvincing YouTube videos?”
3. Social distancing (which has necessitated lockdowns) has put an untold number of businesses out of business.
-The American Institute for Economic Recovery put together a thorough report on “The Cost of Lockdowns” back in October, citing well-respected and agreed-upon sources (such as the CDC, WHO, World Bank, etc.
Some highlights from the report include:
“The restaurant industry is set to lose $240 billion in revenue and 8 million employees in 2020,”
“Between March 25 and April 10, 41.5% of non-elderly adults reported having lost jobs, reduced work hours, or less income because of Covid-19”
I IMPLORE all of you to review this report. In addition to economic data, it includes mental health, hunger and poverty, education, healthcare, and crime impacts these measures have caused.
The hunger and poverty section, in particular, is horrifying and deeply saddening, to say the least.
-This is a link to The Great Barrington Declaration, calling for a policy of “focused protection” – protecting the most vulnerable in actual meaningful ways, and letting the rest of the population resume a normal life. At the time I write this, the letter has been signed by 778,525 concerned citizens, 13,985 medical and public health scientists, and 42,529 medical practitioners.
Roger: The data that we have received from the Chamber of Commerce does not support this statement. I would welcome a list of the untold businesses in Summit County that you believe were forced out of business due to social distancing. The guidelines issued kept infections in check, particularly as it relates to employees being able to remain healthy. It also allowed Summit County to remain a safe place that visitors felt comfortable coming to visit supporting our industries. Our economic numbers are down but not nearly as much as anticipated. When the repeal of the mask mandate was announced businesses we’re concerned and we received business requests to reconsider the repeal.
Ryan: Go have a look at the outlet mall, it’s half empty. I had seen a restaurant owner post in the Future Park City Facebook group about her restaurant going under, and she listed off seven or eight others, and this was very early on last year. Townshend’s Tea is closed, Adolf’s (one of the oldest restaurants in Park City) is closing.
The chamber of commerce survey that got sent out was extremely deceptive in the way it asked owners’ opinions on mask mandates, basically forcing the data to show a predetermined conclusion, so I imagine their mindset is in pushing this agenda as well, and would therefore be highly skeptical of their overall economic data as well.
Most of these businesses are very likely only still afloat via PPP and EIDL, both of which will either need to come to an end, or collapse the dollar. Mark my words, there will be a variant that causes the same level of panic we saw last spring and summer in the near future, which WILL wipe out a whole new round of these businesses (except the “essential” businesses like Walmart), to a much greater extent since none of them have even recovered from the first hit, if you take the same approach.
And all that said, to show I’m not just trying to win an argument, at this point in time, in Summit County specifically, “an untold number” is not an appropriate description of the number of businesses that have gone under. Replace that with the more detailed explanation I have provided here.
And also note that if I were to restate this point, it would be more reflective of overall quality of life across the board, not just focusing on businesses going under, as outlined in the cost of lockdowns report I sent within this point.
4. A paper in Frontiers of Public Health, reviewing 188 other papers on COVID and Vitamin D, found a massive decrease in transmission and mortality from adequate vitamin D levels alone, why has this not been included in the discussion?
-This paper and much, much more information on Vitamin D and COVID is reported on in an open letter to public officials at https://vitamindforall.org/letter.html. The letter has been signed by hundreds of health professionals, including a US Surgeon General.
The data and information speaks for itself.
I will echo here the point I made in my initial comment. Most estimates place Vitamin D insufficiency at well over 50% of the population. The elderly, particularly those in care homes, people with darker skin, and people with obesity are at greatest risk for severe deficiency.
If we TRULY care about the lives we’re all claiming to be attempting to protect, why isn’t the fact one could spend twenty dollars a month on a Vitamin D supplement and DRAMATICALLY reduce their risk of infection, and death, being included in the discussion?
Roger: The overwhelming recommendations and best practices supported by substantial research and studies, doctors, epidemiologists, CSC, and WHO supported masks, social distancing, hand washing, frequent testing, and quarantine, and avoiding large in-person gatherings. Our Health Department followed the science and expert recommendations. Individual physicians and other health practitioners were able to provide additional recommendations appropriate for their patients taking into consideration their particular health profiles, risks, and needs.
Ryan: No, your health department followed the narrative, and a handful of scientists and studies cherry-picked to push it. Show me a health professional who would argue with Vitamin D being a good idea for everyone, especially after reviewing the literature I sent you. Anthony Fauci himself is on record saying he supplements with Vitamin D for these purposes in an interview, which just conveniently doesn’t make its way into what he pushes on everyone else.
You’re comfortable in confidently saying EVERYONE should inject themselves with an experimental, gene-altering therapy that IS killing people (more on that below), but a Vitamin D supplement is going too far?
You mentioned elsewhere in your reply that you’ve reviewed the literature on Vitamin D, so are you saying you’re already well-versed in all the studies summarized in that paper I sent you? If so, I’m not sure how in good conscience, you can recommend/order the experimental injection and the ruining of people’s lives in so many different ways (see the cost of lockdown report above), and not at least include this in your recommendations/orders/things you at least make known publicly that people should be looking into.
5. Data on masks has shown mixed, negligible or even negative results in the literature.
-Here’s a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on 6,000 people in Denmark, half wearing masks and half not, finding masks to be 0.3% (well within margin of error / virtually insignificant) more effective than no masks in preventing transmission:
-Here are a couple of excerpts (I encourage you to read the whole thing with the link below) from a Stanford study published in the National Center for Biotechnological Information (a division of the NIH) entitled: Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis:
“The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks.”
“According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 μm to 440 μm [micrometers (one-millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger.
Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask”
And finally, “chronic mild or moderate hypoxemia and hypercapnia such as from wearing facemasks resulting in shifting to higher contribution of anaerobic energy metabolism, decrease in pH levels and increase in cells and blood acidity, toxicity, oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, immunosuppression and health deterioration.”
-Here is a link to a dropbox folder containing scientific reference after scientific reference showing masks do little to nothing to prevent transmission of respiratory viruses. Just as with the Vitamin D letter, the data speaks for itself, and is far more science than anything we have been provided with in attempts to convince us otherwise:
Editors note: (this file no longer exists)
-Here is a link to a breakdown of the CDC’s recent study on masks, the largest they’ve ever done, which the media used to run headlines about how “masks work.”
However, when you actually go through all the charts, results, etc, the result ends up being that mask mandates led to a 1.8% decrease in COVID case growth rate:
Roger: There is overwhelming research supporting the effectiveness of masks in limiting transmission.
Ryan: This is perhaps the most offensive of all your replies.
I just provided you with an overwhelming amount of research supporting the ineffectiveness of masks. You don’t get to just say “there is overwhelming research supporting the effectiveness of masks” in reply. Please provide me with this research, equal or greater to what I have provided you with.
Just know if you do that I’m probably familiar with it, and will be prepared to effectively point out its flaws/nature of deception (note the last link I sent you, the CDC’s hallmark study to push this narrative, and the best they could actually come up with was a 1.8% decrease in transmission).
6. The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has had at least 1,700 deaths and tens of thousands of adverse reactions attributed to COVID-19 vaccinations.
-Here is a link to an article analyzing current VAERS data, showing 2,342 deaths and 7,971 serious injuries (these are only the most severe) between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 1, 2021.
-I just (April 22, 2021) ran a VAERS report on the deaths to see for myself, and found the current number to be 2,418.
I would STRONGLY encourage you to do the same for yourself, and read through the doctors’ accounts of these deaths. Again, this is the CDC’s own reporting system on vaccine injuries.
The link to do so is as follows (note: the results list was longer than the maximum limit, so I first had to search only for males, then females, and add the two):
Roger: Out of 200million+ vaccines administered. Fee health care treatments are completely without adverse reactions including Vitamin D supplementation. The current data shows that the benefits of vaccination overwhelmingly offsets negative reactions. Given the reports that up to 30% of those infected by COVID-19 experience lasting symptoms – I am one of those after a November infection – the benefits of vaccination are overwhelming.
Ryan: I take it back, THIS is your most offensive reply.
Is “Fee” supposed to be “free?” If so, you’re an adult and should know that nothing is free. Tax money is going to the drug companies, who are shielded from liability from their own product, to pay for these injections.
But that’s beside the point.
Are you seriously brushing off 2,418 DEATHS, 7,971 SEROUS INJURIES (ie. bells palsy, paralysis, etc), and tens of thousands of other cases of “lasting effects” to this extent?
Show me ONE person who has EVER died from Vitamin D supplementation. But you’re comfortable pushing the one with this blatant carnage?
And by the way, in that council meeting, any time any of you (including health department director Rich Bullough who I have now copied) brought up the vaccine, all you said was SAFE and effective. You repeated the word SAFE over and over again.
When we talk about “informed consent,” in light of these numbers, does just repeating the word SAFE over and over again seem appropriate in describing the effects of these injections you’re trying to talk everyone into taking?
We haven’t even addressed how flawed the PCR test is and how it’s been shown to have an immense number of false positives, and moreover it’s intended use in the first place is in the laboratory, not in live humans, and how policies across the board encourage more
“cases,” (hospitals and doctors are told to consider everything possible COVID, test or no test, and are paid tens of thousands of dollars each for all these extra cases with our tax money), and how deaths from and effects / cases of all other diseases (or car accidents and gunshot wounds) are going down because now everything is attributed to COVID, so we have NO WAY of knowing what is and isn’t caused by COVID, or even is or is not an actual case of COVID.
So no, we don’t know what effects COVID does or doesn’t have, although we do know it has, by the CDC’s own numbers, a 99.9% survival rate for most of the population that wouldn’t likely die from the flu or anything else they might happen to catch… but we do have these very black and white numbers of people who have been killed or seriously harmed, immediately after receiving this injection.
And this is what you’re running around telling everyone is safe, while ignoring Vitamin D, or even extremely well studied drugs such as Ivermectin.
I should bring Ivermectin up more here as well, because this information could also save lives, if it were not being withheld (I will repeat, MY INTENT HERE IS TO SAVE LIVES. I have much better things to be doing with my time than just trying to win an argument).
I will give you one more link. This link is to an analysis on Ivermectin for COVID of 52 trials, 426 scientists and 17,557 patients. 27 of these are randomized controlled trials. On average, they show an 85% improvement in prophylaxis (prevention), 81% improvement in early treatment, 43% improvement in late treatment, and 76% improvement in mortality.
This drug has an extremely well studied safety profile, has been around for decades, and is dirt cheap.
Did you know that it’s ILLEGAL to mandate a vaccine for a disease for which an effective treatment exists? Does Ivermectin sound like it just might be an effective treatment to you? Its prevention numbers are even better than the supposed “vaccines.”
I am clearly trying to save lives with this information. You have all now been exposed to it.
You have the choice of joining with me, in AT LEAST honestly looking further into it for yourselves, or do the opposite of that, disregard and/or withhold the information, which would be the OPPOSITE of saving lives.
7. A Harvard Medical School study found that less than 1% of all adverse vaccine events get reported to VAERS.
-Here is a link to that report – Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). On p6: “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”
This makes sense, as VAERS is unadvertised to physicians or the public and is relatively unknown, and given the climate around vaccines, particularly the COVID vaccine, there would be an enormous pressure NOT to report adverse events on the doctors who do know about it.
If this report from Harvard Medical School saying only 1% of adverse events get reported is even close to accurate, doing the math on the 2,342 deaths and 7,971 serious injuries is gravely concerning, to say the least:
Roger: Likely because they are minor.
Ryan: No, Roger, this was referring to ALL EVENTS, including death and serious injury. You would know that if you bothered to read the report I sent you. Here is the full statement for reference:
“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed. Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of clinicians’ usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative.”
You just downplayed 2,418 deaths, 7,971 serious injuries (ie. bells palsy, paralysis, etc), and tens of thousands of other cases of “lasting effects,” are you also going to downplay this is likely a very small percentage of the real number?
8. None of the COVID-19 vaccines are FDA approved, they’re being used under emergency use authorization, and the end points of the studies did not include prevention of transmission.
-Here are links to the Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J (Janssen) COVID-19 vaccine fact sheets, highlights from the three sheets include:
“This vaccine is still unapproved and under investigation”
“As all subjects were observed for only two months, the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccine for any age group is not known.”
“Safety and efficacy data was either not tested or insufficient in children younger than 16 years old.”
“In subjects 65 to 74 years old, the vaccine may be only 53% effective, and in subjects 75 years or older, the vaccine may be 0% effective.”
“Does the vaccine prevent hospitalizations and deaths? Since only two hospitalized cases of COVID-19 were observed, the clinical trial did not have enough statistical power to measure”
“The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine that may prevent COVID-19. There is no FDA-approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19”
“The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA approved or cleared product”
Virtually identical to Moderna.
-And to the point of the endpoints of the studies not even including prevention of transmission, here are links to several news articles, all from different locations, reporting on hundreds of people contracting COVID, AFTER receiving the COVID vaccine. The last link is about a CDC report stating they have data on at least 5,800 of these cases, including 74 deaths:
https://whyy.org/articles/70-fully-vaccinated-delawareans-have-contracted-covid-19-and-one- death/ Editors note: (no longer on website)
Editors note: (above link no longer available)
-Taking it a step further, here’s a study showing vaccinated individuals are eight times more likely to become infected with a variant, than the non-vaccinated:
Roger: But they showed 90+% prevention of infection. Data is also starting to show that even if a vaccinated person transmits the virus, the viral load in the person transmitting it is extremely low resulting in a lower likelihood of infecting others. Of course if we are all vaccinated the risk of infection by such transmission is extremely low.
Ryan: No, they did not show a 90+% prevention of infection. The data and math they used to come to that number was extremely deceptive. That’s why you don’t see them throwing those numbers around in the media anymore, they just used them for the initial headlines. That’s why you still see Fauci still out there telling everyone who has been vaccinated, to act like they HAVE NOT been vaccinated.
All of these companies have been convicted of felony level offenses and/or have settled out of court for millions of dollars over damages from their products in dozens of separate instances (yet are shielded by the government from liability for these particular products), and are making billions and billions of dollars from this situatio
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON KNOWINGLY SOLD BABY POWDER LACED WITH ASBESTOS FOR DECADES, causing God knows how many cases of cancer, yet now we’re taking them at their word that the product they have no liability for, is safe and effective?
Particularly given the well known knowledge that the FDA, CDC etc. is a revolving door of pharma execs, so you’ve got a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house?
I can take the time to dig up the explanation on how the initial studies were deceptive, should any of you indicate you take this information seriously.
RYAN’S CLOSING STATEMENT: I repeat, I am clearly very well-intentioned in providing you with this information. I stand to gain nothing from it and am in fact putting myself at risk of backlash from going against popular opinion (within Summit County).
Should you all choose to withhold this information from the public, now that you have been very clearly exposed to it, particularly the information on COVID vaccine injury, death and ineffectiveness, contrasted with Ivermectin and Vitamin D efficacy and safety, you will be directly responsible for the deaths of those you’re claiming to protect.
THE FACT YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO THIS INFORMATION WILL BE MADE PUBLIC IN A VERY, VERY BIG WAY.
I realize it may be politically uncomfortable for any of you to publicly acknowledge this. I welcome any of you to reach out to me privately to discuss further, you have my word I will not repeat anything you don’t want to be repeated to anyone you don’t wish it to be repeated to, and that will be taken heavily into consideration when making this known to the public.
It’s never too late to do the right thing.
Glenn – I have now provided you with far more scientific evidence to you, than you have to the public, in pushing the policies you have.
I again, request that you rise to the standard I have just set for matters as serious as these and refute my points with the same level of evidence, or publicly retract your characterization of my comment as “misinformation.”
To the whole council and health department director Rich Bullough – I realize much of this is information you may not have been previously exposed to, as information has been very selectively presented to you.
Now that you have seen it, however, you have a very serious choice before you. I hope you make the right one.
I would be more than happy to discuss any or all of these issues with you in greater detail individually or as a group.
I have demonstrated my concern for public health to you on issues that were not made to be so polarizing in the past and found you to be very receptive. I hope now that I have taken the time to painstakingly lay this information out in a way such as this, you can come back to that place, and we can have a real conversation.
Sincerely, Ryan Sternagel
This is Roger’s response to Ryan Sternagel’s original email to the council and Rich Bullough. The correspondence is un-edited.
Message Number Two:
See my responses below and thanks for your respectful input. From the beginning of the pandemic, I have carefully researched most of the issues you have raise – including Vitamin D effectiveness. I do not just read mews reports but actually read the scientific studies and abstracts to get first hand information from the researchers. This is a novel situation and data will evolve as time passes.
On Apr 23, 2021, at 7:41 AM, Ryan Sternagel <email@example.com> wrote:
This is Ryan Sternagel’s response to the above email: The correspondence is un-edited as well.
Message Number Three:
Well, Roger, my first message may well deserve to be classified as “respectful input,” but this one is going to have a bit more of a tone to it. Your reply shows the same level of dismissiveness the council did during the discussion itself, and frankly, is an insult.
I recognize and appreciate that you all get a decent amount of email, but I am quite sure 99.9% (hey, that also happens to be the COVID survival rate!) of it is nowhere near as thoughtful and comprehensive as what I took a whole lot of my time to try to educate you with. What I got
back from you is littered with typos and does not address anything I gathered and organized for you.
If you had responded to each point below the mountain of studies I sent for each, it would be painfully obvious your responses are nowhere near what anyone would consider an
appropriate response. I believe you’re well aware of that, and that this was your way of “refuting” this information without having to bother with actually addressing any of it. Which is extremely sad, given this is people’s lives we’re talking about here, I’m clearly very well educated on “the other side” of this equation, and you could learn something from me.
I believe that would actually just be what you signed up for in SERVING as our elected representative, taking information from your constituents into account, yet this response demonstrates the exact opposite of that. You stated you were traveling and unable to look at all the studies I sent you, but you also stated you “do not just read ‘mews’ reports but actually read the scientific studies and abstracts to get first-hand information from the researchers.”
So are you interested in the studies or not? Have you yet had a chance to compare these studies with those you’ve already seen? If you are indeed already familiar with all the studies I sent you, how in the world are you mentally capable of responding the way you did and pushing the policies you have been? Because most people would call saying one thing while you know another to be true, withholding information at best, lying at worst.
And I should note I’m going a little hard on you because again, I sent you mountains of data and you responded with a string of one-liners, but at least you bothered to respond. I would love to hear from Glenn on this, as he is the one who characterized my statement as “misinformation” in the first place.
Message #4: County Council Member Roger Armstrong to Ryan
Sorry for the typos, my thumbs are incompatible with cell phone key boards. I do not think you and I are likely to agree on the science or lack thereof concerning Summit County’s efforts with respect to COVID-19. The County Council followed the recommendations of the health professionals that advise us and understand those were based in sound science and best practices in the medical community.
I note that apparently the FTC had some questions about your scientific claims as well including as to Vitamin D efficacy against COVID-19. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/warning-letters/ covid-19-letter_to_swro_sternmethod.pdf
Editor’s note: (link above unavailable)
Let us agree to respectfully disagree.
Message #5: Ryan to Summit County Council & Health Dept Director Rich Bullough
All typos forgiven Roger! And thank you for your most comprehensive, and thoughtful message yet. 😉
Just so we’re all on the same page:
1) Yes, as I’ve been stating, there has been a concerted effort to ensure that the only health advice that makes it to the public is to stay away from people and wait for the vaccine. I didn’t think to include this personal example of mine, but it’s a good one.
For context, I have been a health researcher ever since my son was diagnosed with stage four cancer just before his first birthday. We immediately began researching everything we could do to save him and found all sorts of scientifically validated, complementary treatments.
Our journey actually took us to Utah in search of health freedom, and we were able to utilize an integrative, “best of both worlds” approach, to avoid many of the lifelong side effects these kids are left with and give him the best chance at thriving. We found that health freedom here in Utah, and our son is indeed thriving almost seven years later.
Along the way we started documenting the journey and putting everything out there, and it led to the website you so kindly referenced. Right when this whole thing was first jumping off, before there were treatments being politicized, or sides being taken over masks or no masks, there was just all of us scared of catching something really nasty. So I dug around in the literature, summarized other well-respected clinicians’ work, etc, to calm myself and those who follow our work, to show everyone there is plenty we all can do to protect ourselves.
My family implemented many of the things we uncovered, we haven’t been sick the whole time, and there the article sat on our website. Didn’t really think much of it.
Fast forward a couple months, when a health issue somehow became a heated political issue. The FTC crawled the internet for anyone writing anything contrary to the “be afraid of people and wait for the vaccine” advice, and sent out hundreds of versions of the letter you so kindly went and found to illustrate this point.
To my knowledge, this is the first time in history hundreds of websites have been simultaneously asked to remove content pertaining to a virus. The very fact that website owners, authors, content creators, etc. are now being asked to remove content from their websites and social media platforms, or outright being removed from those platforms altogether, pertaining to a whole host of issues, should be highly concerning to all of us, regardless of our stance on any one particular issue.
2) Am I correct in surmising that you didn’t find anything of benefit to the citizens of Summit County in that last message I sent you? You don’t believe the 52 Ivermectin trials showing an
85% improvement in prophylaxis (prevention), 81% improvement in early treatment, 43% improvement in late treatment, and 76% improvement in mortality is noteworthy?
I, personally, am more interesting to look into?
Look, all that said guys (and gal), I get it. I probably came off a little strong with the whole this is going to be made public thing, and the refute my comment or retract yours subject line probably set us off on the wrong foot to begin with.
As you know from when I was trying to keep 5G and small cell wireless facilities out of Summit County, and my backstory, I clearly have a lot of passion for health. Not just for my family, but for all of us.
While no one is perfect, I like to think my heart is in the right place. This past year has been hard on all of us, made us all act in ways we probably wouldn’t have otherwise, and it has been beyond frustrating for me to see so many things that people could be doing for themselves being brushed to the side.
I spent a good deal of time trying to make my comment during the mask discussion as informative and impactful as possible within a three minute limit, and to have Glenn dismiss it as misinformation struck a nerve.
I spent much, much more time gathering and organizing the data on all points mentioned in an attempt to show you data that you probably hadn’t seen before, in an easy to follow manner. To have that data not really addressed whatsoever, struck an even bigger nerve.
Hence the combative tone, etc. Again, all I really want is to know everything I’m presenting is at least being considered, because I care deeply about the health of my community, as I know you do as well.
But, as mentioned before, I know you all get a lot of communication on this, and I can’t expect you to up and do a 180 based on one or two emails, no matter how informative or well laid out they are.
To that end, I also know that in general, no one’s mind is going to be changed overnight about much of anything, particularly something such as this that has gotten people as divided as it has.
How did we get here? How did something that should be a simple health choice, get muddied in the realm of politics and mixed right in with other pre-existing societal divisions?
But I digress. I’ve spent enough time on this for now, and I do hope that you all individually look through all the links I took a lot of time to compile for you. And I do hope that we can proceed forward, in the spirit of friendship and partnership, trying to figure out what’s best for each of us individually and as a community.
Doug – I still really appreciate all the time you spent with me on the 5G issue (sadly even that has now gotten mixed into the division to some extent). I hope we can catch up and talk about all this at some point with the same level of mutual respect.
Glenn – Though still annoyed by your characterization of my comment, I do believe your heart is in the right place, and you’re trying to do what’s best for our community based upon your understanding.
Chris – I had meant to mention through all of this I believe I heard you mention on KCPW that you all may have been a bit short-tempered (or something to that effect, I forget the exact words you used) with some of the commenters on the mask issue. That went a long way and I appreciated that.
Malena – I don’t know that we’ve had any interaction, but looking at your background on the county website, it’s abundantly clear you care a whole lot about the wellbeing and welfare of others, and have consistently made that your life’s work in one form or another. Thank you for that, the world needs more people like you.
And Roger – Thanks for at least taking the time to respond and facilitate the conversation. I probably would have been banging my head against the wall even harder had you not.
I feel I’ve gotten what I need off my chest, for you to do with as you see fit.
I do hope though, at some point we can civilly discuss some of the issues I’ve raised here, as we’re all trying to do what’s best, viewed through our own lenses, for our fellow humans during this very interesting time in history.
Message #6: County Council Member Roger Armstrong to Ryan
Ryan, thanks again. This is my last exchange, I promise. Out of respect, I reviewed some of Geert Vanden Bossche’s writings about COVID-19 and his ideas about immune escape and actually reviewed each of the links in one of his writings to a variety of studies concerning natural and vaccine immune response. I also reviewed sources that disagree with most of what he suggests, but not all. Nothing I read would lead me to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to override the current scientific and medical recommendations about vaccination.
I also reviewed Dr. Yeadon’s material and, to be frank, in my personal view he is not credible. He diverted from proclaiming that COVID-19 is not going away and celebrating the promise of a vaccine by the end of 2021 and congratulating a former colleague concerning vaccine success, to decrying vaccines. He also has not been particularly prescient about the course of the pandemic, speculating that “it’ll all fade away . . . Just a common garden virus, to which the world overreacted,” that the UK death toll would only reach 40,000 and, in December before the latest surge, that the “pandemic as an event in the UK is essentially complete” and “there is no biological principle that leads us to expect a second wave.”
As for Ivermectin, the WHO concluded that as to COVID-19 it should only be used in clinical trials (recommended by an international group of medical clinical professionals across multiple
specialties) that reviewed 16 studies. As to your reference to its utility as a prophylactic for COVID-19 transmission, they did not review that issue. March 4, 2021, the Journal of the American Medical Association found that a study in Cali, Columbia did not support its use for the treatment of mild COVID-19, but it did state that larger trials may be needed to understand its effects on “other clinically relevant outcomes” beyond resolution of symptoms or for treatment of mild COVID-19. February 11, 2021, NIH published Treatment Guidelines related to Ivermectin and could not recommend for or against its use as a COVID-19 treatment and that “[r]esults from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”
COVID-19 is unprecedented in my lifetime and the choices are difficult and shift as new medical guidance emerges. In the future all choices and treatments will be analyzed and will be used to guide our children’s responses to future challenges.
I admire your efforts as a father to protect your son and I am grateful and pleased that he is thriving. I wish you and your family the best and I do appreciate the input and I wanted to honor it by reviewing your sources.
Please forgive the typos.
Message #7: Ryan to Summit County Council & Health Dept Director Rich Bullough
Heeeeey would you look at that, someone looked into something! My faith in humanity is restored. 😉
Well Roger I do very much appreciate you taking the time, and the kind words.
I too, don’t wish to turn this into a never ending back and forth, but I haven’t been able to get a couple things out of my head since reading this. I’ll try to get them off my chest without diving into the nitty gritty of everything too much.
For one, I feel the need to point out the leading vaccine scientists speaking out against this was one point of many, was more of an aside in my original comment, and that is largely what is being focused on here (although again, I am glad you looked into perhaps what struck the biggest chord with you).
I believe the totality of my points and data presented paint a much more complete picture than focusing on the specifics of what two of the scientists I mentioned said.
I’m not a vaccine scientist nor an immunologist. I don’t know if they’re right. But I do know that their and every other dissenting / questioning voice is being outright suppressed.
Any form of honest and open debate or discussion is not being allowed whatsoever with this thing, no matter how credible, and with something as serious as this, one has to wonder why.
As for Ivermectin and the WHO, the WHO is near the top of this whole “your only options are be scared of other people and get the vaccine” agenda / narrative, so it’s not surprising they would be saying that something even as well studied as Ivermectin is “unsupported.”
This being despite the 52 trials to the contrary, many of them far more extensive both in scope and duration than the joke the vaccine trials were.
Were any of you aware the members of the control group in the vaccine trials have all now already been vaccinated themselves? Now there’s truly no way of having any honest evaluation of long term (or even mid or short term) safety OR efficacy.
Speaking of vaccine safety and efficacy, I noticed you didn’t touch any of those points with a ten foot pole, and I certainly understand why, yet it is more the crux of what I’m trying to get across to all of you.
If we’re going to talk about the credibility of individuals or organizations, first, let’s all bear in mind that this is the same CDC that told us DDT was safe to spray onto anything and everything, including children, and we all know the massacre that turned out to be.
And then there was that time, of course, in the 70’s, when the government & CDC (a private organization) tried to rush a vaccine in response to an overblown pandemic (Swine flu), and pressured as many people as possible to get it, knowing full well it caused Guillain-Barre syndrome, which a whole lot of people indeed got.
Wikipedia states Tony Fauci was at the “forefront” of the Swine flu effort, by the way.
Interestingly, Tony had also been directing “gain of function” research (how do we make this virus more virulent?) on bat coronaviruses here in the US up until a few years ago when too much negative attention was drawn to it. Instead of stopping the research, he shifted funding for it to… Wuhan.
We’ve got everyone blindly following what the WHO. But who leads it?
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. A man who has been involved in three scandals pertaining to coverups of cholera outbreaks as health minister of Ethiopia.
How did he get to be the health minister of Ethiopia? By being a high ranking member of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front – the violent, communist revolutionary organization that took control of the country through outright terror and crimes against hunmanity.
This man is not even a doctor.
Who is both the largest funder of the WHO and one of the top funders of the CDC by the way? Bill Gates, who is on record stating his ten billion dollar investment into vaccines is one of the best business decisions he ever made, and has seen a 20 to 1 “return on investment.”
Gates was also seen, rightly so, by the public as more of a robber baron monopolist, until he poured tons of money into rebranding himself and starting the foundation that would go on to make him all this new money in the first place.
This man, also, is not a doctor, and has received no medical training whatsoever.
Yet we’ve got local health departments and their governments all over the world taking Gates’ and Ghebreyesus’ words for gospel.
These are the men, telling you to tell everyone else, that these things are safe and effective. For your own liability if nothing else, do you really want to keep repeating this mantra they’re telling you to, after all the information I gave you in previous messages?
Is it that hard to believe that rich and powerful men with nefarious, or at least entirely self- interested intentions have risen to take the reins of control? When we look back throughout human history, has there ever been a time when this has NOT happened?
I’m begging all of you to run a VAERS report for yourself and spend some time with it, with the knowledge what you see is likely a small percentage of the real numbers.
But mostly, after taking the time to lay out all that information for you, I have a few primary messages.
For one, stop with the continuous government messaging on a health treatment issue. Leave that between people and their doctors.
If people want to get this thing and turn themselves into genetically modified, virus spike protein producing organisms, they can go right ahead.
I do wish they’d visually identify themselves in some way, so I can be sure my family and I keep our distance, as there’s a whole lot of interesting reading to be found on post vaccination virus shedding…
but, as segregation, different treatment for different people, etc. is the kind of thing we’re pushing against the hardest, then we will trust our immune systems against this threat just as we have all others.
Either way, it’s not your place to be telling people they “should” get a medical therapy. Let those who want it, get it.
For those on the fence, again, look at the VAERS data and everything else I sent you on safety and efficacy in the last message, and ask yourselves if you really want to be the ones pressuring them to get it. Again, for your own protection and theirs.
And for those of us who are quite sure our families will NEVER, under any circumstances, be receiving this experimental injection, a couple things.
Please understand there are many, many more of us than you might think. I am personally aware of over 300 households in Summit Country that share all the same concerns I’ve been writing you about.
If I know of 300 households, just by word of mouth over a few months, then the real number conservatively, has to be well over 2,000, and likely much greater than that.
This is not some fringe element of society. It’s in fact a very substantial portion of your constituency.
I can tell you definitively that we don’t want to be “reached.” And when words like “compliance” get thrown around in regards to this experimental procedure, it’s highly concerning to us, to say the least.
And ultimately, we would like to know your thoughts on the concept of a vaccine passport. This is clearly the end goal of all of this, to effectively segregate those of us that do not wish to receive this experimental medical procedure.
If it were just the masks, we’d still be pushing against it, as the mountain of data I sent you do suggest they are more about comfort for the public than anything.
But in light of this agenda to get the entire population vaccinated, masks are very clearly a gateway to the vaccine passport. It might not end up being called that, but it will consist of of the outright segregation of those of us that do not wish to go along with this.
What will your position then be? Will you be requiring vaccines in all government facilities, and “doing everything you can to support the businesses” who wish to require vaccines of their employees and customers, as you are now with masks?
Will you say it’s right to have a single mother be coerced into getting an experimental medical procedure so she can buy groceries for her kids?
This system is already fully in place in Isreal, and you can see the US testing for it as we speak in New York. It is where the conversation is headed nationwide, so we need to get ahead of it here in Summit County.
We’re not asking you to make some sort of law prohibiting it, but for now, we would like to know where you stand on the concept.
One would hope, it will be an easy answer for you to say that something like this would obviously be morally reprehensible, and not at all something the county would support in any way.
Keep in mind here, whereas at first it was just “get the shot,” now as soon as a decent number of people have received it, we’re hearing that regular boosters will be required as well.
My family has already seen what it looks like to have the government forcing and/or coercing us into medical treatments we knew were not best for us. That was bad enough at an individual level, and I can assure you it would be horrifying at a mass scale.
Anyway, I do thank you for your time Roger and council (and Rich… I know someday I’ll hear back from you 😉 ).
I am indeed aware this is a new situation for all of us, and as you said, let’s all think (for ourselves) long and hard about what we’re doing, before we go down a road we can’t come back from, for the sake of our children, and all future generations to come.