Zero board members of the Shore Aquatic Center responded to yesterday's email asking why a program averaging roughly one shower voucher user per day could not be accommodated at facilities already providing shower services, rather than at a public pool primarily serving families and children. Here is today's question sent to the county commissioners and Dr. Berry:
Dear Commissioners and Dr. Berry,
When county officials make definitive scientific claims that are later shown to be incomplete, inaccurate, or not reflective of the broader body of evidence, what process exists to correct the public record and ensure residents receive updated information?
Second, have the commissioners or the Board of Health ever requested a formal presentation of research that challenges or critiques the county's current harm-reduction approach? If not, why not? Given the significant public investment and policy implications involved, it seems important that decision-makers be exposed to both supporting and opposing evidence before reaching conclusions.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Business 101: A cost/benefit analysis showing exactly how much money is being spent on Harm Reduction programs vs. verified success stories of those who have participated in the program, gotten treatment, and remained clean and become functioning, productive members of society. Any CBA must include pro-rated costs of the amount of time Dr. Berry, her staff, and any and all governmental and NGO employees spend on both administrative and actual performance of the program, as well as supplies, vehicle use, etc. Let's see the real numbers; I'll bet they will be staggering. And please, don't cop out by telling me that you cannot put a price on a single person's life. At this point, folks are believing their own eyes, and not the blah-blah from Dr. Berry. And for heaven's sake, no more land transfers to the Jamestown Corporation. Will they ever have enough?
In the 1920s, the scientific community strictly adhered to uniformitarianism—the belief that the Earth's landscapes were shaped by slow, gradual processes over vast stretches of time. Because J Harlen Bretz's catastrophic flood theory regarding the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington and the Columbia River basin sounded too biblical, it faced intense resistance and ridicule. Over the following decades, mounting field evidence vindicated Bretz's claims. He lived long enough to see his catastrophist theory universally accepted. In 1979, at the age of 93, Bretz was awarded the Penrose Medal, the highest honor given by the Geological Society of America.
With a background in geology, I often think of Bretz when someone is ridiculed for questioning rock solid science. There is no such thing.
How many clean needles/syringes does the Health Department give out each week or month and how many do they get back in exchange? Exact counts, not estimates. That should be an easy metric to report. Judging by the pictures from 4PAs cleanups there are a lot of needles/syringes not finding their way back to the Health Department. Clean needles are good for the users but dirty needles left on the ground is bad for the public.
On a different subject, in last Friday's CCWD I read how Tim Wheeler refers to the CCWD and its readers as a cult. This is from an avowed Communist, an ideology that is responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100 million people over the last 100+ years. An ideology that has had to be kept in place by force anywhere it has been tried. This from a man depicted in the one photo with a print or painting of the murderous Che Guevara on the wall behind him. Him calling CCWD and its readers a cult is pretty rich.
"The hallmark of good science is that it is never "rock solid"—it is inherently designed to be questioned, tested, and updated as new evidence emerges.
Why Science is Always EvolvingFalsifiability: For a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be testable. If new observations contradict existing theories, science adapts.
Degrees of Certainty: Some findings (like gravity or evolution) are supported by overwhelming evidence and are considered scientific facts, but the mechanisms behind them are always subject to refinement.
The Scientific Method: It isn't a collection of absolute truths, but a rigorous, ongoing process of observation, experimentation, and revision."
"Rock solid science" can withstand honest questions. Humble, competent leaders would *want* to listen to people who are being hurt by their policies, not respond with endless talking points, deflection, or silence. That's a basic, ethical practice, especially for those whose decisions affect the lives and health of so many others.
The parallels between harm reduction and covid-era policies are hard to miss. They are both ideologically-driven, with a complete unwillingness to examine the "collateral damage," which is tragically measured in human suffering.
I'll limit this comment to two observations about "the science," which you were labeled as "denying" during the covid era if you had the temerity to object to the mistreatment of children, the vax-injured, and people who chose not to take an experimental shot, for which there is no safety net.
#1. It's interesting that the letter about the vaccine mandate for Clallam county restaurants was dated September 2021 because by July 2021, the public health apparatus in WA already knew about "all vaxxed" superspreader events and that it wasn't preventing transmission.
#2. 6-foot "safe" distancing is also referenced in the letter. In 2024, Anthony Fauci admitted before Congress that this "just sort of appeared" and was "not based in science," yet it was used to justify the limiting of school operations and the ability to attend funerals, graduations, and other important life events.
No one could've made all of the right leadership calls in such a time of stress and crisis. But there were opportunities in the moment to listen to suffering people and to pay attention to data that was telling a different story than the talking points. Since then, there's been plenty of time for a "debrief" about what went wrong and how to help those who were impacted, but that hasn't happened either.
It is troubling to see the same people again pushing "the science" and using empathy as a tool of compliance, regardless of the obvious harms to our community.
Zero board members of the Shore Aquatic Center responded to yesterday's email asking why a program averaging roughly one shower voucher user per day could not be accommodated at facilities already providing shower services, rather than at a public pool primarily serving families and children. Here is today's question sent to the county commissioners and Dr. Berry:
Dear Commissioners and Dr. Berry,
When county officials make definitive scientific claims that are later shown to be incomplete, inaccurate, or not reflective of the broader body of evidence, what process exists to correct the public record and ensure residents receive updated information?
Second, have the commissioners or the Board of Health ever requested a formal presentation of research that challenges or critiques the county's current harm-reduction approach? If not, why not? Given the significant public investment and policy implications involved, it seems important that decision-makers be exposed to both supporting and opposing evidence before reaching conclusions.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Business 101: A cost/benefit analysis showing exactly how much money is being spent on Harm Reduction programs vs. verified success stories of those who have participated in the program, gotten treatment, and remained clean and become functioning, productive members of society. Any CBA must include pro-rated costs of the amount of time Dr. Berry, her staff, and any and all governmental and NGO employees spend on both administrative and actual performance of the program, as well as supplies, vehicle use, etc. Let's see the real numbers; I'll bet they will be staggering. And please, don't cop out by telling me that you cannot put a price on a single person's life. At this point, folks are believing their own eyes, and not the blah-blah from Dr. Berry. And for heaven's sake, no more land transfers to the Jamestown Corporation. Will they ever have enough?
In the 1920s, the scientific community strictly adhered to uniformitarianism—the belief that the Earth's landscapes were shaped by slow, gradual processes over vast stretches of time. Because J Harlen Bretz's catastrophic flood theory regarding the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington and the Columbia River basin sounded too biblical, it faced intense resistance and ridicule. Over the following decades, mounting field evidence vindicated Bretz's claims. He lived long enough to see his catastrophist theory universally accepted. In 1979, at the age of 93, Bretz was awarded the Penrose Medal, the highest honor given by the Geological Society of America.
With a background in geology, I often think of Bretz when someone is ridiculed for questioning rock solid science. There is no such thing.
How many clean needles/syringes does the Health Department give out each week or month and how many do they get back in exchange? Exact counts, not estimates. That should be an easy metric to report. Judging by the pictures from 4PAs cleanups there are a lot of needles/syringes not finding their way back to the Health Department. Clean needles are good for the users but dirty needles left on the ground is bad for the public.
On a different subject, in last Friday's CCWD I read how Tim Wheeler refers to the CCWD and its readers as a cult. This is from an avowed Communist, an ideology that is responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100 million people over the last 100+ years. An ideology that has had to be kept in place by force anywhere it has been tried. This from a man depicted in the one photo with a print or painting of the murderous Che Guevara on the wall behind him. Him calling CCWD and its readers a cult is pretty rich.
"The hallmark of good science is that it is never "rock solid"—it is inherently designed to be questioned, tested, and updated as new evidence emerges.
Why Science is Always EvolvingFalsifiability: For a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be testable. If new observations contradict existing theories, science adapts.
Degrees of Certainty: Some findings (like gravity or evolution) are supported by overwhelming evidence and are considered scientific facts, but the mechanisms behind them are always subject to refinement.
The Scientific Method: It isn't a collection of absolute truths, but a rigorous, ongoing process of observation, experimentation, and revision."
Conclusion: Dr. Bury is full of prunes!
I think I posted this before but FAFO is coming for all these people and their Grant grifting enterprises!
https://youtu.be/h52wODvtZG8?is=va7ut4WZewPufb58
A threat because Dr. I know everything Berry is actually wrong.
"Rock solid science" can withstand honest questions. Humble, competent leaders would *want* to listen to people who are being hurt by their policies, not respond with endless talking points, deflection, or silence. That's a basic, ethical practice, especially for those whose decisions affect the lives and health of so many others.
The parallels between harm reduction and covid-era policies are hard to miss. They are both ideologically-driven, with a complete unwillingness to examine the "collateral damage," which is tragically measured in human suffering.
I'll limit this comment to two observations about "the science," which you were labeled as "denying" during the covid era if you had the temerity to object to the mistreatment of children, the vax-injured, and people who chose not to take an experimental shot, for which there is no safety net.
#1. It's interesting that the letter about the vaccine mandate for Clallam county restaurants was dated September 2021 because by July 2021, the public health apparatus in WA already knew about "all vaxxed" superspreader events and that it wasn't preventing transmission.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_229643ae-8bcb-11ed-ace4-37629989c8f7.html
#2. 6-foot "safe" distancing is also referenced in the letter. In 2024, Anthony Fauci admitted before Congress that this "just sort of appeared" and was "not based in science," yet it was used to justify the limiting of school operations and the ability to attend funerals, graduations, and other important life events.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fauci-it-sort-of-just-appeared-that-six-feet-is-going-to-be-the-distance/
No one could've made all of the right leadership calls in such a time of stress and crisis. But there were opportunities in the moment to listen to suffering people and to pay attention to data that was telling a different story than the talking points. Since then, there's been plenty of time for a "debrief" about what went wrong and how to help those who were impacted, but that hasn't happened either.
It is troubling to see the same people again pushing "the science" and using empathy as a tool of compliance, regardless of the obvious harms to our community.