WA has changed the definition of "Vaccine"

What you need to know about SB 5982

*Article by Lisa Templeton,

Informed Choice Washington

. Contact: lisa@informedchoicewa.org

Photo by CDC on Unsplash

The Washington Vaccine Association` (WVA) is a non-profit organization established by Washington State statute in 2010 for the purpose of collecting mandatory assessments from private insurers each time an insured patient under age 19 receives a vaccine on CDC’s pediatric schedule. These are billed at a price set by WVA. WVA remits those funds to the Department of Health (DOH), which then purchases pediatric vaccines directly from the CDC at its wholesale price. The DOH then distributes the products to doctors/providers to give to all their patients, whether insured privately or via Medicare/Medicaid/other public insurance programs. The doctors don’t pay for this inventory, nor do they need to segregate supplies intended for privately-insured patients versus publicly-insured ones.

WVA, through DOH, filed Senate Bill 5982 in January 2024 to change the definition of “vaccine” in its statute to expand it to include new technologies, such as monoclonal antibodies. The Washington State Legislature passed the bill, and it took effect immediately upon Governor Inslee’s signature on March 13, 2024. The pertinent portion of the bill is as follows:

"Vaccine" means ((a preparation of killed or attenuated living microorganisms, or fraction thereof, that upon administration stimulates immunity that protects against disease and is)) an immunization

WVA’s meeting minutes, as well as statements by its chair and other public health officials in other public meetings, indicated that WVA wanted to expand its universal vaccine funding mechanism beyond vaccines to include additional products they call “immunizations,” The proposed change, they declare, was prompted by a new product called Beyfortis (nirsevimab), which is a monoclonal antibody for RSV, the newest (and most expensive) shot on CDC’s pediatric schedule, that the agency recommends for all infants under 8 months entering “their first RSV season.” The change allows WVA to participate in the funding of all products included on the CDC pediatric schedule in the future. Until recently, the CDC schedule included only vaccines, which matched the statutory definition of WVA’s purview, but now the schedule is expanding to include other types of products. WVA expects the CDC-recommended childhood schedule to continue to expand.

However, WVA and public health officials publicly stated that they “found a workaround” to begin funding nirsevimab--in advance of the passage of their definition-changing legislation. They also stated that over 8,500 doses had already been administered before January 11, 2024, and that they had reserved $14.3 million for the product. These activities contravene the statutory authority that WVA had before the bill passed.

A few other facts:

·       Pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program of 1986, manufacturers of all products on the CDC pediatric schedule enjoy legal immunity from lawsuits for injuries and deaths caused by the products; they cannot be sued for damages.

·       According to its financial statements online, WVA’s executive director is paid over $26,000 per month, not including travel, education, and other support costs.

·       To provide context as to the scope of WVA, it collected over $84 million in assessments in the year ending June 2023.

·       WVA records its public meetings and destroys the recordings after minutes are prepared. This is stated on its online meeting packets.

·       mRNA Covid shots, which WVA has included in its scope for many months, does not appear to meet the statute’s definition of “vaccine,” either.

·       WVA’s own meeting minutes and agendas indicate that they received legal counsel that participating in the funding of nirsevimab in advance of the statute change would lie outside its authority.

·       WVA’s minutes and agendas include information from counsel on various options for the funding “workaround” that the chair referenced in a public meeting of another public health agency.

·       Financial records and public statements show that WVA utilized its cash reserves for the purchase of nirsevimab. This means that the organization did not utilize any of the “options” proposed by legal counsel.

In recent WVA meetings, members have discussed the providers who are "non-compliant" in submitting their mandatory assessments. These include school-based health centers, which are increasing in Washington. Given our minor consent laws, many parents are concerned about what medical procedures their children could undergo right in the school, without parental knowledge or consent.

Further information on RSV and nirsevimab from Meryl Nass, MD:

·      

My live blog of yesterday's ACIP meeting on the RSV monoclonal nirsevimab

·      

The RSV scam

·       Additional articles and videos HERE; search “nirsevimab”

Sasha Latypova quoting French pharmacist-biologist Helene Banoun on nirsevimab and RSV:

SASHA LATYPOVA'S clarion call, her cry out (with a French colleague Helene Banoun) to Protect Babies from the Injection of Beyfortus (RSV monoclonal) is word the read! injection of Beyfortus

A few words on the CDC-recommended pediatric vaccine schedule in general

·       The Placebo Pyramid—pediatric vaccines not tested against inert placebo—two different charts on the page: http://coronacases.wiki/index.php/wiki/ican-placebo-foia/

·       The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, established by Congress as part of the 1986 Act pertaining to the vaccines on the CDC-recommended pediatric schedule, has paid out over $5.1 billion as of 2.1.24: “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Data Report,” available here: https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data.

Questions we’d like to ask WVA:

·       If a change in statute was necessary to fund new technologies, why did WVA fund them prior to the passage of SB5982? Conversely, given that WVA funded a monoclonal antibody product before the statutory definition was changed, was a change in statute actually necessary?

·       Considering that mRNA covid vaccine products did not meet WVA’s statutory definition of vaccine prior to the re-definition, was the funding of these products outside the scope of WVA’s purview? If not, how so?

·       Are WVA stakeholders aware of the harms caused by vaccines and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? Do they feel that each of these products is necessary? Do they imagine a point at which there would be enough vaccines and that no more would be needed, given that CDC already recommends more than 70 doses by age 18?

·       In keeping with the spirit of WA’s Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), would it be more transparent and forthcoming if WVA were to retain and post the audio recordings of its meetings rather than destroy them after the minute-taker transcribes them as stated at the top of each of their meeting agendas? Is WVA subject to the OPMA?

·       Why doesn’t WVA prepare minutes of meetings it holds with payers (the insurance companies to whom assessments are charged)?

Please be sure to subscribe to

Informed Choice Washington

to get the latest news and updates on medical freedom, informed consent, scientific integrity in public health policy, and the elimination of vaccine mandates in Washington State.

---

Please consider contributing to Conservative Ladies by making a donation or upgrading to a paid subscription/membership to support our work to defend and advance conservative policy in Washington and beyond. Thank you!