
By Larry Judkins
Glenn County Observer
At its Tuesday, Nov. 3, meeting, the Glenn County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution opposing state-imposed vaccine mandates.
According to an executive summary to the members of the board, on Oct. 19, “the board of supervisors reviewed a draft resolution related to local concerns regarding vaccination mandates. Among the concerns voiced were the impacts that vaccine passport requirements or vaccination mandates would have on children, families, and the local economy.”
During the board’s discussion at the October meeting, staff was directed to return on Nov. 2, “with the draft resolution for possible adoption. This item and the proposed resolution reflect the board’s direction.”
The summary continues, “The board of supervisors, as elected officials, have a sworn oath to support the health and welfare of the people of Glenn County. The COVID-19 pandemic emergency has placed an unprecedented burden on health care systems and the local economy.
“The availability of COVID-19 vaccines is crucial to alleviating the impact of this disease on our local health and well-being. The board has consistently supported the efforts of our local health community, including Glenn County staff, in providing accurate information and access to vaccines.
“However, the public solicited the board to take up a resolution … that states no individual should be forced to be vaccinated against [his or her] wishes. Some feel that vaccine mandates are divisive and will not ultimately achieve the goal of recovery from the impacts ‑ physical, social, and economic ‑ of COVID-19 in our community.”
The summary concludes, “The drafted resolution stresses the importance of individual choice in determining whether to receive a vaccine and would establish the board’s position that vaccination for COVID-19 should not be mandated.”
The resolution reads:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF GLENN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO: 2021-________ RESOLUTION OPPOSING STATE IMPOSED COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATES
WHEREAS, the members of the Board of Supervisors, as elected officials, have solemnly sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California which includes providing for the welfare of the general public; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believes that scientific data overwhelmingly shows that vaccines are safe and effective at preventing diseases and that vaccination is a key component in responding to the significant health and economic effects of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors supports efforts to ensure that every Glenn County citizen who wants a COVID-19 vaccine has access; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes each individual’s right to refuse the vaccination based on their own religious or medical reasons; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors is aware of COVID-19 vaccine mandates imposed by public and private entities throughout the State of California and United States.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors, County of Glenn, State of California, hereby:
1. Formally expresses its disapproval of any State or Federal policy or law that would create a COVID-19 vaccine mandate or seeks to limit or deny due process of law or equal protection of the laws because of an individual’s COVID-19 vaccination status; and
2. Strongly encourages all Glenn County citizens to discuss COVID-19 vaccination with their personal physician; and
3. Continues to support the Glenn County Department of Public Health in its efforts to educate our community on health implications of COVID-19 and effectiveness of vaccinations in preventing severe COVID-19 disease.
Although this and the other “whereas statements” have no binding legal effect, the fourth recital, “the Board of Supervisors recognizes each individual’s right to refuse the vaccination based on [his or her] own religious or medical reasons”, touches upon a difficulty: California is one of six states that do not accept religious exemptions for required medical treatments, the other five being Connecticut, Maine, New York, Mississippi, and West Virginia.
In California, exemptions are permitted only for medical reasons.
The first three recitals are at least implicitly pro-vaccination. The last two, however, suggest an animosity to COVID-19 vaccinations, especially state and federal vaccine mandates.
The first of the three resolved statements, in which the County of Glenn “[formally] expresses its disapproval of any State or Federal policy or law that would create a COVID-19 vaccine mandate or seeks to limit or deny due process of law or equal protection of the laws because of an individual’s COVID-19 vaccination status”, seems potentially problematic.
Medical mandates have a long history in California, so as long as county officials do not go beyond mere expressions of disapproval, the county should be safe from the state taking legal action against it; but, if county officials openly defy the state, it seems there could be serious legal ramifications.
State legislation imposing medical mandates include Division 105 of the California Health and Safety Code, passed by the California legislature in 1995. Chapter 2 of this law states in part that “it is the intent of the Legislature to provide … [a] means for the eventual achievement of total immunization of appropriate age groups against the following childhood diseases …”
These diseases include diphtheria; hepatitis B; haemophilus influenzae type b; measles; mumps; pertussis (whooping cough); poliomyelitis; rubella; tetanus; varicella (chickenpox); and “[any] other disease deemed appropriate by the [California Department of Health Services], taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians” (Glenn County Observer emphasis).
The chapter further states, “The governing authority [the governing board of each school district or the authority of each other private or public institution responsible for the operation and control of the institution or the principal or administrator of each school or institution] shall not unconditionally admit any person as a pupil of any private or public elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless, prior to his or her first admission to that institution, he or she has been fully immunized.”
Prior to voting on the resolution, Thomas Arnold, Chairman of the Glenn County Board of Supervisors, asked the members of the public in the room, “Does anyone have anything to bring forward?” The first to speak was Andrea (no last name given), a resident of Orland.
Andrea said that the coronavirus pandemic has been “grotesquely politicized.” In what seems to be a self-contradictory claim, she stated, “The proof lies in the legislation bills that were passed in 2019 here in California.
“Those bills have made it possible for unlawful and unconstitutional mandates to sweep our state at the hands of Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Public Health.”
Andrea did not give any additional information regarding these bills passed in 2019. However, if they were “passed” and, as she implies, signed by Governor Newsom, then they cannot be “unlawful” or “unconstitutional” unless a court ruled them to be, and The Observer, in checking California Supreme Court rulings from 2018 to the present, could find no evidence that this ever happened.
Andrea made a number of additional claims. (Note: She consistently refers to the COVID-19 vaccines in the singular. In the United States, there are three separate vaccines that have been approved for emergency use by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC.)
Claim: The COVID-19 vaccine is a “liability-free product.”
This is mostly true. There are very strong limits on the ability to sue manufacturers of emergency products, not just vaccines, thanks to a 2005 law. This legislation was passed in order to not discourage manufacturers from developing emergency products and treatments that may provide protection to the public in the case of, say, a deadly worldwide pandemic.
Claim: The COVID-19 vaccine (or “so-called vaccine,” Andrea would likely prefer to call it) is “an injection [which] by definition is not even a vaccine as it does not provide immunity.”
It is true that the Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines do not provide total immunity. It is false that this means they are not really vaccines. Very few, if any, vaccines provide total, or “sterilized immunity.” In fact, many scientists maintain that sterilized immunity is a scientific myth.
The MMR Vaccine is about 97 percent effective in preventing measles, about 88 percent effective against mumps, about 89 percent for rubella, and 95 percent for chicken pox. Two doses of inactivated polio vaccine are 90 percent effective, while three doses is between 99 and 100 percent effective. The smallpox vaccine, now considered eradicated worldwide, was “only” 95 percent effective. By comparison, two doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are about 95 percent effective, while the J&J vaccine, after its single dose, is about 74 percent effective.
This issue regarding the definition of “vaccine” may be due to a recent change in the definition made by the CDC. Some members of the CDC were of the opinion that the center’s previous definition was outdated due to changes in the technology of manufacturing vaccines and how these new vaccines effect responses in the body. They were also aware that opponents of vaccinations were using the old definition against the advocates of vaccinations. So, the CDC changed the definitions of “vaccine” and “vaccination.”
However, vaccine opponents then began claiming that this change in definitions was part of a conspiracy to hide the “fact” that the new products allegedly aren’t really vaccines. This is like arguing that changing the definition of “automobile” so that it includes electric vehicles like Teslas is part of a conspiracy to hide the “fact” that these new vehicles aren’t really automobiles. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, published in 1972, defines “automobile” as a “[usually] 4-wheeled” vehicle “designed for passenger transportation and propelled by an internal-combustion engine using a volatile fuel.” Today, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary omits the words, “and propelled by an internal-combustion engine using a volatile fuel.” Is this change a part of a conspiracy to deceive the public and discredit opponents of automobiles? No, the change in the definition of “automobile” was done simply in order to reflect the evolution of automobile technology. Likewise, the change in the definition of “vaccine” was done simply in order to reflect the evolution of vaccine technology.
Claim: The COVID-19 vaccine “does not prevent hospitalization nor death.”
Of course, there are other aspects of vaccines besides whether or not they provide sterilized immunity. For example, a vaccine may dramatically reduce the severity of the symptoms of a disease after it is contracted. After the onset of the Delta COVID variant, unvaccinated people were about 30 times more likely to end up in the hospital as vaccinated people who contracted the disease. Deaths among unvaccinated people also far outnumber deaths among vaccinated people.
Claim: The COVID-19 vaccine is a “product that does not prevent transmission.”
While it may not “prevent” transmission, a British study published last month indicates that people who received the Pfizer vaccine but then experienced a “breakthrough case” of COVID-19 were less likely to transmit the disease to others.
The next speaker gave her name as Joyce Davis and stated she is “a resident of Glenn County.” She also said she has a degree in biological science, attended USC, and has a radiology license. She further stated, “I work with advanced medical technology that involves quantum physics.”
Davis claimed, “One of the things that you all may not know is when you have a disease – any kind of disease – if you have treatments, it’s unlawful to develop a vaccine. And what we saw was a censorship and an absolute suppression of the treatments that were out there. And I know this because what I did is I joined America’s Frontline Doctors.”
Davis did not cite the alleged law that prohibits the development of vaccines if a treatment already exists. The Glenn County Observer could not find any such law or even a law that could be misinterpreted as having this meaning, and thinks a law preventing the development of vaccines under such conditions strains all credibility. Consider influenza. Decades (at least) before the first flu vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk in 1938, treatments for the flu existed, including drinking lots of fluids, getting plenty of rest, and eating healthy foods. This, however, did not prevent the Salk vaccine from being developed for Influenza-A, nor did it prevent a vaccine from being developed for all three strains of influenza (A, B, and C) in 1978, nor did this vaccine prevent the live attenuated influenza vaccine from being developed in 2003 ‑ even though a vaccine for all three strains of influenza already existed!
Regarding America’s Frontline Doctors (AFDs), this group is associated with the right-wing groups, the Council for National Policy and the Tea Party Patriots. The name was first used at a Tea Party Patriots event in Washington, D.C., in late July, 2020. Two months earlier, a conference call with members of the Council for National Policy disclosed that a coalition of doctors was being created to push for reopening the economy.
Dr. Simone Gold is the nominal founder and leader of AFDs. In April of 2020, a video of Gold began circulating in which she is shown standing in front of the emergency room entrance of the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles while wearing a white lab coat with the words “Emergency Department” embroidered on it. A viewer of the video could reasonably infer that Gold is or was affiliated with the hospital.
This prompted Cedars-Sinai to issue this statement on July 29, 2020: “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For three weeks in late-2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic.
“Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai,” the statement concludes.
On January 6 of this year, Gold and John Strand, Creative Director of America’s Frontline Doctors, took part in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. They are accused of illegally entering the rotunda of the capitol building, where, standing in front of the statue from Kansas of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gold used a megaphone to promote her ideas regarding COVID-19, its real and imagined treatments, and vaccines. Less than two weeks later, she and Strand were charged with alleged obstruction of an official proceeding; aiding and abetting; entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct in a Capitol building; and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.
Another of America’s Frontline Doctors is Stella Immanuel, from Katy, Texas. She has a clinic in a strip mall, Rehoboth Medical Center, and the church she leads, Fire Power Deliverance Church, is also located in that strip mall. Immanuel was another of the doctors present at the Tea Party Patriots event in Washington, D.C., in July, 2020. President Trump watched a video of the demonstration, and was very impressed with Immanuel. At a press conference a day or two after the Tea Party protest, Trump sang the praises of Immanuel:
“She was on air along with many other doctors. They were big fans of hydroxychloroquine. I thought she was very impressive in the sense that from where she came ‑ I don’t know which country she comes from [Editor’s Note: She was born in Cameroon, in west-central Africa.] ‑ but she said that she’s had tremendous success with hundreds of different patients. I thought her voice was an important voice but I know nothing about her.”
Besides advocating COVID-19 treatments that have been discredited by the vast majority of scientists and doctors, Immanuel has also promoted some truly bizarre ideas. For instance, she maintains that doctors make medicine using DNA from aliens, and that some physical problems, such as ovarian cysts and endometriosis, occur when demons have sex with humans in their dreams. She called cysts “evil deposits from the spirit husband” in a 2013 video. After Trump’s press conference in 2020, she told The Houston Chronicle, “Yes, demons sleep with people. Yes, if you pray for them, they get better.”
These ideas were apparently too much even for America’s Frontline Doctors. Immanuel, if she can be found at all on AFDs’ website, is no longer the shining star that she once was.
Davis claimed, “Fauci, our modern-day [Josef] Megele [the Nazi SS officer and physician at the Auschwitz death camp who performed deadly experiments on prisoners, selected victims to be killed in the gas chambers, and sometimes personally administered the gas], has a 51 percent share in Moderna.”
It is false that Fauci has a 51 percent share in Moderna. This notion seems to have evolved from a 2020 allegation from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Fauci “owns half the patent for the Moderna vaccine and will get royalties on it.”
In April of 2020, PolitiFact stated that “there is no publicly available evidence that Fauci personally stands to profit from a vaccine.” In June of that same year, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) explained that it was seeking patents related to the vaccine because its scientists created the “stabilized coronavirus spike proteins for the development of vaccines against coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2,” but that means that the agency would have a stake in the Moderna vaccine, not Fauci personally. (Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, one of the institutes of the NIH.)
Davis also referred to Dr. Robert Malone as the inventor of mRNA technology – as does Malone himself. This is inaccurate, however. In reality, he is just one of many researchers who contributed to the development of this technology.
Regarding mRNA, Davis claimed that “every animal, from a mouse to a chimpanzee, on which this has been tried, has died.” This is also false. It seems to be derived from a Facebook post alleging that all animals used in COVID-19 vaccine trials died months later from immune disorders, sepsis and/or cardiac failure. The study upon which this claim is actually based is one from 2012 and involved SARS, not COVID-19. There have been many advances in mRNA technology in the past decade, and animals are not dropping like flies after mRNA-based vaccines are administered to them. Furthermore, chimpanzees have not been used in any mRNA COVID-19 trials. As for mice, they are routinely euthanized after such trials; they have not died from immune disorders, sepsis and/or cardiac failure.
After dropping the names of several doctors who are against COVID-19 vaccines, Davis started to say, “My colleagues at UCLA tested …”, but she was interrupted by Board Chairman Thomas Arnold, who asked her to wrap it up. She did so a few minutes later.
Greg Michael of Willows was much more brief in his remarks to the board: “Thank you, guys. A couple of months ago, I said there was a storm coming. It’s here. People are waking up. I hope you do your job.”
The last speaker was Kortni Shockley of Orland. She explained that her youngest son has heart condition. After consulting with his medical team at Stanford, including his cardiologist, “they agreed with the choice not to get the vaccine.”
She continued, “We aren’t anti-vaccine. We are pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro-body-autonomy, pro-America. I believe in everyone’s right to choose and make the best medical decision for themselves and their children.
“We hope that the board votes today to support Glenn County residents in their freedom of choice. COVID vaccines do not make you immune to COVID. You can still catch it, still spread it, still be hospitalized, and still die as a fully vaccinated person. So why are businesses and schools requiring [un]vaccinated staff and students to be tested, but not the vaccinated? It makes zero sense and sounds a lot like discrimination and segregation to me….”
She further stated, “My entire family has had COVID, including my grandparents, my four children, including my son with his heart condition, and my fully vaccinated aunts. We all got through it, we all took proactive measures, and inexpensive and effective drugs such as Ivermectin. And we all survived. Yes, my fully vaccinated family members also tested positive and had just as severe symptoms as the rest of my family.”
She then touched upon conspiracy theory, saying, “I know we are very fortunate but I also think this plandemic [sic] and its members have been extremely manipulated and politicized. All of us are tired of being caught up in the B.S. We believe those who want the vaccine should have it and those who don’t shouldn’t have to….”
She concluded, “So, I just want to encourage this board and thank you guys because I know you guys have taken a lot of time and energy and listened to us all over the last few meetings and I hope you guys vote yes and stand with us and I appreciate you guys for coming and fighting with us and for our kids. Thank you.”
The motion to adopt the resolution was made by Supervisor Grant Carmon and seconded by Supervisor Kenneth Hahn. A vote was then taken and the resolution was passed unanimously.
The room erupted in applause.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly




