Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, January 11, 2022

1 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Item 13G, City council agenda, Jan 11 2022 Attachments: what works to increase vaccines.pdf
From: Lyn Greenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 1:41 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 13G, City council agenda, Jan 11 2022

EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich, Council, and Mr. White,
Thank you to Councilmembers Brock and Parra and Mayor Himmelrich for putting this on the council agenda. It is overdue but a definite improvement. I apologize for the length of this email, but I wanted to provide the supporting information that might be useful to you. I am out of town so won't be able to speak at the meeting, but I have reached out to others and understand that you will be hearing from them.

GENERAL SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION. While we hope Omicron will continue to be a milder form of the virus, the contagion and case counts are so high that hospitals are under strain. The scientific data are pretty clear that vaccinated and especially boosted people are far less likely to become seriously ill with Covid‐19, and they are also contagious for a much shorter time and are less likely to spread it. (I can obtain scientific references for you if you wish.) Unvaccinated people indoors for hours, not masked, are driving spread. That's dangerous to customers, restaurant workers, everyone they come in contact with, and all of the vulnerable people who need hospital care.

PLEASE MAKE YOUR ACTION MEANINGFUL AND DURABLE.
 Use CDC's updated definitions. While a vaccine mandate would be a vast improvement over current policy, the CDC has a definition of "up to date vaccination" that would allow our city to keep our policies consistent with current science, such as requiring booster shots if eligible. I have even seen some opponents of mandates argue that they are meaningless because two shots is no longer sufficient to completely defeat Omicron ‐ even though the vast majority of seriously ill people are unvaccinated. CDC's updated definitions can be found here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019‐ ncov/vaccines/stay‐up‐to‐date.html
 Please tighten up the language on religious objections to the vaccine. As currently written, the language in 13G would allow anyone to claim a religious exemption and be allowed to be exempt from the ordinance, such as being indoors without a mask. The virus doesn't care why someone is unvaccinated ‐ unvaccinated people, especially in indoor settings without masks, spread the virus far more than vaccinated and boosted people do. As I'm sure Councilmember Parra knows, Culver City Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 and Los Angeles have much tighter requirements, such that people with religious objections to the vaccine still must eat outdoors or use other restaurant services (take out, etc.) so that they don't spread the virus.

IMPACTS ON THE MEDICAL SYSTEM AND PATIENTS. Elective surgeries, including some cancer surgeries, are already being canceled. Response time for 911 calls is up, because ambulances are waiting at hospitals unable to unload their patients. This means that vaccinated people with other health conditions are more likely to die and suffer disability because they can't get treated promptly. The fact that 85% of city residents are vaccinated is great, but it's not enough if people aren't encouraged to get boosted and we allow unvaccinated people (from here or elsewhere) to create hazards for everyone. In addition, while it is true that a lower percentage of Omicron patients require ICU treatment than has been true for prior variants, the sheer number of cases has resulted in increased hospitalizations and deaths. Moreover, even if the patient is hospitalized for something else initially, more staff, resources and infection control procedures are needed for Covid+ patients, at a time when health care professionals have been quitting in droves (many because they feel unsupported by their communities) and others are out sick with Covid‐19.

MANDATES CAN BE EFFECTIVE IN INCREASING VACCINATION RATES. I am attaching a scientific study on methods for improving vaccination rates. You will note from the highlighted portion that vaccine mandates , including restricting certain activities to vaccinated people, have been shown to be a reliably effective method of increasing vaccine uptake, even when one is unable to change a person's core beliefs about the vaccine. (Please see the attached article.) Improving vaccination and booster rates is critical to keeping schools and businesses open and stopping the development of new variants. Sadly there are people among us, as in all communities, who don't care enough about others to vaccinate for that reason, or have been misled by false information. It's a long road to get some people to agree with vaccination, but even some of those who don't agree will get vaccinated in order to participate in indoor activities or work in certain settings ‐ and that protects everyone.

RESPONSIBLE BUSINESSES, AND THEIR WORKERS, WILL BENEFIT. I would also urge you to resist predictions that this will cause horrible harm to business. The cities around us have been doing it and there have been no major problems. We have long been supporters of the restaurant industry, especially in Santa Monica. We know that in addition to other struggles with the pandemic, they are all suffering with labor shortages. But surveys have also shown that many of the people, especially women, who are staying out of the workforce are making that choice because they are afraid they won't be safe at work. By requiring up‐to‐date vaccination among both employees and customers, everyone will be safer. When our regulations are weaker than those around us, we invite the most irresponsible customers to our city and force vaccinated and boosted people to isolate or patronize businesses outside the city. Some restaurants, like those in the Rustic Canyon group and Socalo, are showing that they are in this fight with us. It's not too much to expect that others do the same.

I have been a proud resident of Santa Monica for over 30 years. The Santa Monica I'm proud to live in is the one that is reaching out to victims of discrimination in housing and development and inviting them to return. Santa Monica has also done a great job in promoting vaccination and making it and testing available. But city leadership has held back for far too long on other issues. Even after the contagion of Omicron was announced, our city was allowed to become a Mecca for the unvaccinated. We will never know how many cases that created. as visitors who came here may well have waited until they got home to test. Please, act like the city I'm proud to live in again. And find yourself some physician advisors ‐ you rely on engineers and architects when you make decisions in their fields. Should you do less in this area? I'm happy to recommend people if you wish, but I'm sure that the infectious disease department of UCLA will be a great place to start.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Thank you for considering this information.

Happy New Year.
‐‐
Lyn Greenberg
Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

PARENTS AND PATIENTS
What Works to Increase Vaccination Uptake
Noel T. Brewer, PhD
From the Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Address correspondence to Noel T. Brewer, PhD, Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, 325 Rosenau Hall CB7440, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Received for publication April 27, 2020; accepted January 29, 2021.

ABSTRACT
Behavioral science offers several ideas about what it takes to get people to vaccinate. Colleagues and I previously reviewed the evidence for these propositions and put forward what has become known as the Increasing Vaccination Model. To make the model more accessible to practitioners, the current paper summarizes the main insights from the earlier work. First, observational studies show clearly that thoughts and feelings are correlated with vaccine uptake. Such constructs include perceived risk of harm from infectious disease and confidence in vaccine safety and efficacy. However, interventions have not generally shown that changing thoughts and feelings increases vaccine uptake. Second, social processes are promising in observational studies. Such constructs include social norms, altruism, and sharing through social media. More research is needed in this promising area before it will be possible to conclude whether social processes are effective intervention targets. Third, interventions that directly change behavior—without trying to change what people think or
feel or their social experience—are reliably effective ways to increase vaccine uptake. Such interventions include
reminders, defaults, and vaccine requirements. Finally, the most potent intervention for increasing vaccine uptake is a health care provider recommendation, but it is still unclear whether such recommendations are effective because they increase confidence, set a social norm, or reflect a direct behavior change technique. The paper ends by describing use of the model by a World Health Organization working group as it considers opportunities to address low vaccination uptake globally.

KEYWORDS: nudges; social networks; vaccination; vaccine confidence
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS 2021;21:S9−S16
WHAT THIS NARRATIVE Review Adds
Our previous review on increasing vaccine uptake has
been widely used, but its complexity has hindered its
use by some practitioners. This brief and accessible
article will allow people to more readily understand
the key findings.

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE OFFERS several ideas about what it
takes to get people to vaccinate. The 3 main propositions are that vaccination results from: 1) what people think and feel; 2) social processes; and 3) direct behavior change (Fig. 1). Colleagues and I previously reviewed the evidence for these propositions and put forward what has become known as the Increasing Vaccination Model.1
That paper generated substantial interest from public
health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, vaccine manufacturers, researchers, and practitioners. However, its length and complexity have
been barriers to the model’s use by some practitioners. To facilitate wider adoption of the model, this paper summarizes the main insights from the earlier work and describes use of the model by a WHO working group as it considers opportunities to address low vaccination uptake globally, especially through effective interventions.

Vaccination is one of the most widely accepted health
behaviors. Globally, 86% of children have received a
measles vaccine, and that percentage is higher in North America and Europe as of 2018.2 Coverage is even higher for the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine. These high rates have caused the incidence of many infectious diseases to plummet in the decades since relevant
vaccines have been introduced. Such successes have led
to calls for complete eradication of polio and regional elimination or control of other diseases through vaccination. Indeed, at the start of this decade, WHO and other organizations designated 2011−20 as the Decade of
Vaccines.

However, by 2019, WHO had declared vaccination hesitancy to be one of the top 10 threats to global public health.2 This threat could have several consequences.

Inadequate coverage is the uptake of vaccination that fails to meet an agreed-on quality marker (eg, 90% coverage).

While global vaccination coverage rates have steadily
drifted upward, they have stalled in some regions and

ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
Copyright © 2021 by Academic Pediatric Association S9
Volume 21, Number 4S
May−June 2021
Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
even slipped backward in a few countries. Delay is getting vaccines after the recommended age or spreading the
doses out over time. Despite clear findings that the current vaccination schedule is safe, parents are increasingly
choosing to spread out or delay vaccines in the mistaken belief that having fewer vaccines at one time will reduce the risk of harm. Instability is variability in coverage over time, most often a sharp drop. Some countries with generally high vaccination coverage have experienced periods of dramatic instability. For example, Japan had achieved 70% coverage for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, yet coverage fell to 7% within a year of an unsubstantiated safety scare. Denmark had a similar issue that it was able to turn around, but only after coverage had fallen by half.3
The model is about what works to increase vaccination
uptake, which results from a series of behaviors by various actors. The family may talk about vaccines with friends, search for information online, schedule an
appointment, travel to a clinic, consent to vaccination, return for any needed follow-up doses, and pay any
related costs, such as an administration fee or travel
expenses. Providers stock vaccines, recommend them,
track their use in medical records, flag who is due and overdue, and manage their vaccine stock. All of this is in a context of a system in which the state funds some vaccinations and, in some countries, private insurance covers other vaccinations. In sum, vaccination uptake results
from a web of interconnected players, resources, and
behaviors, all of which follow predictable patterns.

WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL
The model’s first broad proposition is that what people think and feel motivates vaccination uptake (Fig. 2). On the left side of the figure, disease risk appraisals are thoughts and feelings about potential health problems
caused by infectious agents (perceived risk and fear); vaccine confidence is the attitude that vaccines are good (effective) or bad (unsafe). Risk appraisals and confidence motivate people to vaccinate or not to do so, as shown in the middle. Another term for low motivation to vaccinate What people think and feel
Risk appraisals
Confidence
Motivation, hesitancy
Vaccination uptake
Scheduling appointment
Consent
Delay
Refusal
Social processes
Social norms
Social networks
Altruism
Direct behavior change
Building on existing motivation
Shaping behavior
Figure 1. The Increasing Vaccination Model.1
Disease
risk appraisal
Motivation
(or hesitancy)
Vaccine
confidence
Vaccination
uptake
(or refusal, delay)
Figure 2. What people think and feel. Reprinted with permission from the Association for Psychological Science.

S10 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
is hesitancy. While some people use the terms confidence and hesitancy interchangeably, it is helpful to separate these ideas: low confidence is a cause of low motivation to vaccinate in the model and indeed in research going
back 50 years.4 Finally, motivation to vaccinate leads to vaccination uptake, shown in the right. Getting vaccinated can lower some appraisals of disease risk and increase
vaccine confidence, as shown by the arrows going from
the far right back to the left.5
Findings from observational studies support the
thoughts and feelings proposition. Vaccine uptake is associated with higher disease risk appraisals including thinking infectious diseases are likely, serious, and regrettable.6,7 Similarly, vaccine uptake is associated with higher vaccine confidence, as shown by believing that
vaccines are important, save lives, and have few side
effects. Finally, motivation to vaccinate, also called intention, is one of the strongest predictors of health behaviors, including vaccine uptake.8
However, experimental evidence from randomized trials generally does not support the thoughts and feelings proposition. This stronger body of evidence better
answers the question of whether interventions focused on thoughts and feelings can increase vaccine uptake. Risk communication interventions did not appreciably increase vaccine uptake, according to a recent meta-analysis of 16 studies, although the interventions somewhat increased
the belief that infectious diseases are likely.9 An older meta-analysis, restricted to 5 risk communication interventions that increased risk appraisals, did find increases in vaccine uptake.10
Similarly, interventions to boost vaccine confidence
have generally not increased uptake, and none have shown that increased confidence explains the interventions’
impact. While some intervention studies have increased
vaccine confidence, including beliefs that vaccines are safe and effective,11,12 others have not.13
Finally, interventions to increase motivation to vaccinate have not shown reliably that they can influence hesitant people, despite success at increasing motivation for other behaviors.14 Decision aids have little support in increasing vaccine uptake. Motivational interviewing, while promising, has yet to be shown effective in a randomized trial, although it has been included as one component of several effective multicomponent interventions15 and has shown promise in quasiexperimental studies.16
In sum, while thoughts and feelings motivate people to
get vaccinated, interventions targeting thoughts and feelings have shown little promise for reliably increasing vaccine uptake. Furthermore, there is no apparent logic as to when interventions boost vaccine risk appraisals and confidence, have no effect, or even have pernicious effects. I return later to the question of whether thoughts and feelings interventions might generate support for vaccination policies and programs, an important outcome that is distinct from vaccination uptake.

SOCIAL PROCESSES
The model’s second broad proposition is that social
processes motivate vaccine uptake (Fig. 3). The social
network, the collection of connections among people is
shown in the left side of the figure. These networks have the characteristic of similarity or homophily—birds of a feather flock together. Social networks exert influence through contagion, that is, through the spread of ideas and behaviors. This spread, shown in the middle, establishes social norms, what most people do and or expect others to do, along with social preferences (altruism, vaccinating to protect others, and free riding, not vaccinating because others already have). Finally, social norms and preferences about vaccination lead to vaccination uptake, as shown in the right.

Findings from observational studies reliably support the social processes proposition. Social networks are well
characterized and show robust clustering of people with similar ideas about vaccination in social spaces.17 Social norms are reliably associated with vaccine uptake,18 with somewhat less evidence showing smaller associations for social preferences. Behavioral scientists have generated substantial and convincing experimental evidence on
these questions in the context of vaccination, but almost all of it has nonbehavioral outcomes.

No published randomized trials to date have established that social process interventions increase vaccine uptake, Contagion Vaccination
uptake
(or refusal,
delay)
Social
preferences
Altruism
Free-riding
Social
network
Homophily
Social space Person’s mind
Social norms
Figure 3. Social processes. Reprinted with permission from the Association for Psychological Science.

ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS WHAT WORKS TO INCREASE VACCINATION UPTAKE S11 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
but this is a very promising area for future research. Some quasiexperimental studies suggest that social processes show potential, and several currently unpublished studies may soon fill this gap.

Research on other health behaviors suggests why social
process interventions may succeed where thoughts and
feelings interventions fail. The “one communicator and
one receiver” model of education is the way to change
what people know. However, to change what people do,
information must come from multiple people in the person’s social network.19,20 Such social processes are especially pertinent in an era defined by social media, antivaccine activists, and misinformation. Stories that go viral evoke strong feelings, include rich narrative detail, and offer a simple “gist” or take-home message.21 Scientists and their research rarely offer any of these things. Experts are bringing research papers to a firefight and, in doing so, they have lost before they even started talking. The consequence is that antivaccine
activists were, for a while, dominant on many social
media platforms.

More recently, citizen and scientist activists have
fought back with increasingly effective tools. Examples include the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable which
created videos of people affected by HPV cancers and
their doctors in order to make the consequences of the
diseases more vivid. The WHO created a manual for
addressing vaccine deniers in public.22 Shots Heard
Round the World developed a rapid-response collective
of volunteers to defend health care providers attacked for their vaccine advocacy. Quantifying the impact of antiand provaccine activism and tools is an important area for new research.

DIRECT BEHAVIOR CHANGE
The third broad proposition in the model is that fostering direct behavior change increases vaccine uptake (Fig. 4). The general idea is that one can increase vaccine uptake without ever changing what people think and feel or the social world they encounter. Thus, direct behavior change takes motivation as a given. One can build on
favorable intentions to vaccinate, pouring gas onto a lit fire, by keeping vaccination on people’s minds and reducing barriers to it. Alternatively, one can ignore intentions altogether and shape behavior with incentives, sanction, and requirements—techniques that do not rely on predisposition to vaccinate. These interventions lead to vaccination uptake, shown in the right.

One approach to direct behavior change is to build on
people’s good intentions. That means, first, to identify the people who already intend to vaccinate or are open to it, and then to make it as easy as possible for them to do so.

Interventions include keeping vaccination on people’s
minds with reminders and prompts and reducing barriers
with default appointments, standing orders, and other
logistical and behavioral defaults. Randomized trials generally support the use of building on vaccination intentions to increase uptake. Another approach is to shape behavior with incentives, sanctions, or requirements,
including work and school vaccination mandates. Again,
randomized trials have repeatedly found support for the effectiveness of behavior-shaping interventions. The key shared characteristic of these strategies is that they use policies and practices to increase vaccination without
changing what people think or feel.

Direct behavior change interventions are the most
reliably effective option available, but they do have
limitations. For example, while vaccination reminder/
recall interventions are effective, few clinics effectively implement them. In one randomized trial, less than 1%
of families received a reminder/recall letter or call
when the task was assigned to clinics, but 87% received the notices when the county health department handled
the responsibility.23 Furthermore, notices from a centralized source are more effective when they include the name of the patient’s provider.23 In another example, school requirements (sometimes called mandates) effectively increase uptake of most vaccines24 but do
not raise HPV vaccine uptake among adolescent girls.25
As well, the process of implementing requirements can
create substantial work for immunization programs
and distract their staff from other essential tasks.26 All of that suggests that the right implementation
strategy is critically important for direct behavior
change interventions.

Motivation
(or hesitancy)
Vaccination
uptake
(or refusal, delay)
Build on favorable intentions
Keep vaccination on people’s minds with reminders, prompts, and primes Reduce barriers with logistics and behavioral defaults
Shape behavior
Implement incentives, sanctions, and requirements
Figure 4. Direct behavior change. Reprinted with permission from the Association for Psychological Science.

S12 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
Item 13.G
01/11/21
7 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Several important considerations should guide practitioners and scientists using this model.

PROVIDER RECOMMENDATIONS
By far, the single most potent intervention for increasing vaccine uptake is a provider recommendation.27 However, it is still unclear whether recommendations are effective because they increase confidence, set a social norm, or reflect a direct behavior change technique. Quite possibly, provider recommendations exert influence
through all 3 of the model’s behavioral propositions. The most active aspect of the model from the standpoint of
provider recommendations may be direct behavior
change, given the few barriers present in many clinics: the vaccine is in stock, staff can deliver it, and a state program or private insurance generally covers the cost.

Given that providers have more power than patients in
clinical interactions, injunctive social norms are also likely to play some role. It may even be that providers persuasively shape what people think and feel by
building on their unique relationship with the families they see. Research is needed to elucidate basic questions about what makes provider recommendations most effective.

While most evidence for provider recommendations is
correlational, several trials have focused on the impact of training providers to communicate more effectively about vaccination. In my own research,28 colleagues and I have trained providers to raise the topic of adolescent vaccination using presumptive language29 that we call an “announcement” and then to use a structured communication approach if questions come up. A presumptive announcement might sound like this: “Now that Sophia is 12, she is due for 3 vaccines. Today, she’ll get vaccines against meningitis, HPV cancers, and whooping cough.”
The Announcement Approach Training is a 1-hour, physician-led, in-clinic training, offered with continuing medical education credits (materials are available at hpvIQ. org). The training increased HPV vaccine uptake by 5%
within 3 months28 and has now been delivered to over
1700 providers in the United States and the United Kingdom. This communication approach builds on direct behavior change principles by assuming most parents just need a prompt to vaccinate.

INTERACTIONS AMONG THE PROPOSITIONS
No strong data are available to explain how the 3
parts of the model interact, but I offer my own speculation, based on correlational studies and insights I have gathered from people on the frontlines of vaccination.

First, although interventions to change what people
think and feel may not change behavior directly, they
may provide other indirect benefits. Most of the policies and programs aimed at direct behavior change—by far
the most effective way to increase vaccination uptake—
require public confidence in vaccination. Thus, interventions that increase vaccine confidence may create an environment that supports direct behavior change interventions.

Second, interventions to change social processes may
also change what people think and feel about diseases and vaccination. Although this has not yet been well-documented in the context of vaccination, it is a reasonable speculation based on social network studies in other areas.

Third, implementing direct behavior change interventions almost certainly affects other parts of the model. For example, establishing or removing vaccine recommendations, or imposing requirements for certain vaccines, likely affects confidence in vaccination. Similarly, leaders standing up for existing policies may bolster confidence, while setting the policies aside in the face of public opposition may erode confidence in vaccination.

GLOBAL SETTINGS
Most vaccination intervention studies are from the
United States, and some are from other high-income countries. Only a handful of intervention studies from low- and middle-income countries have examined vaccination
incentives and educational programs. While these have
generally shown the same results as studies in highincome countries, caution is warranted in applying the interventions to global settings until formative work is done within the local communities and perhaps trial-level evaluations are conducted. Such research could be a 2-
way street, with vaccination programs in high-income
countries benefitting from learning what is effective in increasing vaccine uptake in low- and middle-income
countries.

TIMELINESS AND STABILITY
The available evidence primarily examines vaccine
uptake. Because few studies are available on vaccination timeliness and stability, application of the model to these outcomes remains preliminary and warrants additional
study. An area of growing interest is understanding
what leads to and sustains the resilience of vaccination programs.

ADAPTATION OF THE MODEL BY WHO
Following on WHO’s designation of vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global public health, the agency established an expert working group
to identify the behavioral and social drivers of vaccination uptake around the world. The working group has adapted the Increasing Vaccination Model, as
shown in Figure 5, as the basis for its work. The boxes in the model have remained the same over time, even
as the working group has continued to winnow the list
variables in each box.

Among the noteworthy highlights from that adaptation:
The box for what people think and feel does not
include risk appraisals. The working group started
with a childhood vaccine survey, but parents struggled
to think about vaccine-preventable infections without
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS WHAT WORKS TO INCREASE VACCINATION UPTAKE S13 Item 13.G
01/11/21
8 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
specific examples. The group has incorporated risk
appraisals in later surveys on specific vaccines (eg,
coronavirus disease 2019).
Motivation to vaccinate is in its own box, allowing the working group to emphasize the difference between
confidence and hesitancy.
Provider recommendation is in the social process box.

This categorization was not a settled issue in the original paper, but it allowed the working group to keep track of this important variable.
The direct behavior change box is renamed “practical
issues” and drops the distinction between building on
favorable intentions and shaping behavior. Many
working group members had roles in vaccination
programs globally, which led them to see observable
barriers and practical issues as especially important.

They felt that the new name emphasized barriers that
surveys can measure and vaccination programs can
address.

Before using the Increasing Vaccination Model, the
working group had not engaged with the several concepts related to social processes. The model caused a shift in their thinking in that domain, leading the group to
Vaccination
Child receives
recommended
vaccines
Motivation
Intention to
get recommended
vaccines for child
Practical issues
Know where vaccine is available
Ease of access
Affordability
Service quality
Respect from provider
What people
think and feel
Confidence in vaccine benefits
Confidence in vaccine safety
Confidence in provider
Religious beliefs
Social processes
Provider recommendation
Family supports vaccination
Community supports vaccination
Gender equity
Figure 5. Adaptation of the increasing vaccination model by WHO working group.

Table. Impact of Interventions to Increase Vaccination Uptake S14 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
Item 13.G
01/11/21
9 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
consider the roles of families, community leaders, and
gender equity. Based on their adapted model, the WHO
working group has developed a survey on the behavioral
and social drivers of vaccination around the world. The survey is being piloted in 6 low- and middle-income countries and should be available for use globally in 2021.

CONCLUSION
Direct behavior change is clearly the most promising
approach to increasing vaccination uptake and research
supports the use of many different techniques, as shown at the bottom of Table.
1 No single intervention is effective
on its own, however, making it necessary to adopt more
than one. Insofar as each intervention acts on different parts of the system that provides vaccination, their combination may be truly additive or even multiplicative in their effects. It is also possible that the initial intervention activates the “easy” cases to vaccinate, and that additional interventions add little. More information is needed on this topic, but given the high cost of trials, and the difficulty in evaluating the impact of individual factors in multicomponent interventions, such knowledge may be out of reach.

In contrast, interventions to change what people think
and feel are often expensive and hard to sustain, and
they may not be especially effective (as shown at the
top of Table). An important caveat here is that interventions by health care professionals in clinical settings may be influential if they effectively use communication approaches based on information, persuasion, and engaged listening.

Interventions targeting social processes are promising
insofar as they build on multiple nodes of social networks or happen in clinical settings. In this era of social media and vocal vaccine activism, the conversations about vaccination, both in the public sphere and in private settings, have an outsized influence on programs and policies.

What this adds up to remains to be seen, but research is underway that should shed light on the pitfalls and promises of social processes.

Thinking more broadly about public support for vaccination, work is needed to understand how to ensure resilience in the face of safety scares. Interventions to boost vaccine confidence may not increase vaccination uptake
directly, but they may have a side benefit of increasing support for effective policies and programs. Interventions through social media—to add supportive stories and information or to limit misinformation—may also increase vaccination support. Other strategies can also be considered, including targeted efforts when new vaccines are launched and to address unsubstantiated vaccine scares; indeed, data are accumulating to support the value of efforts by countries to bolster confidence during such scares.3 As we move into a new decade, it is essential to ensure the resilience of vaccination programs, and the global success story they represent. The Increasing Vaccination Model offers important insights to support such efforts.

Building on the large existing body of evidence can
ensure a steady path forward for vaccination programs
globally.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial disclosure: This article was published as part of a supplement sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I thank Dr Valerie Reyna for commissioning it; my intrepid collaborators, Dr Gretchen Chapman, Dr Alex Rothman, Dr Julie Leask, and Dr Allison Kempe for tolerating 2 years of weekly meetings and 2 multiday retreats; and Dr Jennifer Spencer for her inspired research support during the literature reviews. I thank Dr Bruce Gellin for inspiring it and Karyn Feiden for her expert editing. Finally, I thank Dr Julie Leask and Lisa Menning for championing the model at the World Health Organization and elsewhere.

Financial statement: Funding for writing the current brief overview came from the Aspen Institute and the Sabin Foundation.

Previous presentations: The original article on the Increasing Vaccination Model appeared in Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
1 REFERENCES

1. Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Rothman AJ, et al. Increasing vaccination: putting psychological science into action. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2017;18:149–207.

2. World Health Organization. Global health observatory data: measles-containing-vaccine first-dose (MCV1) immunization coverage among 1-year-olds. 2019. Available at: https://www.who.int/gho/ immunization/measles/en/. Accessed July 2, 2020.

3. Hansen PR, Schmidtblaicher M, Brewer NT. Resilience of HPV vaccine uptake in Denmark: decline and recovery. Vaccine. 2020;38:1842–1848.

4. Sheeran P, Maki A, Montanaro E, et al. The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2016;35:1178.

5. Brewer NT, Weinstein ND, Cuite CL, et al. Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior. Ann Behav Med. 2004;27:125–130.

6. Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, et al. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychol. 2007;26:136.

7. Brewer NT, DeFrank JT, Gilkey MB. Anticipated regret and health behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2016;35:1264.

8. Sheeran P. Intention−behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur Rev Social Psychol. 2002;12:1–36.

9. Parsons JE, Newby KV, French DP. Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Health Psychol. 2018;23:1084–1106.

10. Sheeran P, Harris PR, Epton T. Does heightening risk appraisals change people’s intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Psychol Bull. 2014;140:511.

11. Horne Z, Powell D, Hummel JE, et al. Countering antivaccination attitudes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:10321–10324.

12. Shah PD, Calo WA, Gilkey MB, et al. Questions and concerns about HPV vaccine: a communication experiment. Pediatrics. 2019;143:
e20181872.

13. Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, et al. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2014;133:e835–e842.

14. Webb TL, Sheeran P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence.

Psychol Bull. 2006;132:249.

15. Dempsey AF, Pyrznawoski J, Lockhart S, et al. Effect of a health care professional communication training intervention on adolescent human papillomavirus vaccination: a cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172. e180016-e180016.

ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS WHAT WORKS TO INCREASE VACCINATION UPTAKE S15 Item 13.G
01/11/21
10 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

16. Gagneur A, Lema^ıtre T, Gosselin V, et al. A postpartum vaccination promotion intervention using motivational interviewing techniques improves short-term vaccine coverage: PromoVac study. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:811.

17. Dunn AG, Surian D, Leask J, et al. Mapping information exposure on social media to explain differences in HPV vaccine coverage in the United States. Vaccine. 2017;35:3033–3040.

18. Schmid P, Rauber D, Betsch C, et al. Barriers of influenza vaccination intention and behavior—a systematic review of influenza vaccine hesitancy, 2005−2016. PloS One. 2017;12:e0170550. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170550.

19. Centola D. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science. 2010;329:1194–1197.

20. Centola D. The social origins of networks and diffusion. Am J Sociol. 2015;120:1295–1338.

21. Reyna VF. A new intuitionism: meaning, memory, and development in Fuzzy-Trace theory. Judgm Decis Making. 2012;7:332–359.

22. World Health Organization. How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public. 2016. Available at: https://www.who.int/ immunization/sage/meetings/2016/october/8_Best-practice-guidance-respond-vocal-vaccine-deniers-public.pdf . Accessed July 2,
2020.

23. Kempe A, Saville AW, Dickinson LM, et al. Collaborative centralized reminder/recall notification to increase immunization rates among young children: a comparative effectiveness trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169:365–373.

24. Greyson D, Vriesema-Magnuson C, Bettinger JA. Impact of school vaccination mandates on pediatric vaccination coverage: a systematic review. CMAJ Open. 2019;7:E524.

25. Moss JL, Reiter PL, Truong YK, et al. School entry requirements and coverage of nontargeted adolescent vaccines. Pediatrics. 2016;138:e20161414.

26. Omer SB, Betsch C, Leask J. Mandate Vaccination With Care. Nature. 2019;571:469–472.

27. Newman PA, Logie CH, Lacombe-Duncan A, et al. Parents’ uptake of human papillomavirus vaccines for their children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019206.

28. Brewer NT, Hall ME, Malo TL, et al. Announcements versus conversations to improve HPV vaccination coverage: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2017;139:e20161764.

29. Opel DJ, Heritage J, Taylor JA, et al. The architecture of providerparent vaccine discussions at health supervision visits. Pediatrics. 2013;132:1037–1046.

S16 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
Item 13.G
01/11/21
11 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Santa Monica City Manager's Office
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:38 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: ITEM 13G on January, 11 2022 agenda
From: Steve Greenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:13 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: ITEM 13G on January, 11 2022 agenda

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmembers and Mr. White,
I am writing to express my support for Item 13G on the agenda for the January 11, 2022 meeting, and to request that you strengthen it to reflect current science and to make the ordinance more effective. Although long overdue, this action will take steps toward limiting spread, maximizing uptake of boosters, and reducing stress on our health care system. While we cannot make up for the time, stress on health care workers, or lives lost due to strain on the health care system, it is a good step for us to do the right thing now.

As a hospital‐based physician, I have seen first hand what happens when ambulances are lined up outside hospitals because the emergency room (and, in some cases, inpatient beds) are full and people cannot receive care. While the Omicron variant may well be milder for most people, the ease with which it is spread and the enormous number of cases is still increasing the number of people hospitalized. Elective surgeries ‐ including some cancer surgeries ‐are being canceled at various hospitals in the area. Lifesaving care is often delayed because paramedics are still waiting outside hospitals to drop off their patients. These patients who die may not have Covid‐19, but may instead die of other conditions that would have been treatable if beds were available and health care workers were not so stressed and exhausted. And even when patients were initially hospitalized for something else, the fact that they also have Covid‐19 complicates their recovery from other conditions and places enormous demands on health care staff and resources. We need to do better.

As currently phrased, ITEM 13G may help, but it is written to require only two doses of vaccine which, as I'm sure you know, is not necessarily adequate against Omicron, although it is certainly better than having no vaccine requirement. I would urge the council to be ahead of the game this time, and use instead the CDC's definition of "up to date" vaccination (link below), which includes a booster for those eligible. Disney Hall is already requiring audiences to be boosted!
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019‐ncov/vaccines/stay‐up‐to‐date.html Please also revise or remove the last line in your proposed regulation. As currently written, anyone who claims to have a religious objection to the vaccine could just freely come inside and spread the virus. Such a broad exemption is ripe for abuse. Please instead do what Culver City and Los Angeles are doing ‐ require those with religious exemptions to use outdoor sections of restaurants or take advantage of take out services. The virus doesn't care why someone isn't vaccinated. Allowing anyone to use this excuse to eat indoors will cause more spread.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
12 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 In addition to being a physician, I am a foodie. I have long supported the restaurant industry in Santa Monica. While a few of my favorite restaurants have set an example by requiring vaccination, for the most part I have had to go outside of Santa Monica in order to safely eat at a restaurant. I have always been proud to live here. Lately, I am embarrassed and ashamed.

Many cities around us ‐ Culver City. West Hollywood, Los Angeles, etc. ‐ took the responsible steps while we were still welcoming unvaccinated people to dine indoors. Nothing can change that, but we need to take the right steps now.

Thank you.

Stephen M. Greenberg MD
Item 13.G
01/11/21
13 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Stop the vaccine passport now as it is unconstitutional! From: Liz Reyes <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:04 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Stop the vaccine passport now as it is unconstitutional!

EXTERNAL
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Item 13.G
01/11/21
14 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport vote
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Genevieve Alexander <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:48 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport vote

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am writing to ask that you please do not implement a vaccine passport. We cannot live in a society where we are segregating people based on their vaccination status. It is unAmerican and not the standard we should set for our children.

Thank you,
Genevieve
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
15 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No v passports!
Item 13G
From: Viv <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:02 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: No v passports!

EXTERNAL
Hi there!
Please do not implement this as there are many peeps who can’t get or don’t want these shots injected into themselves and we should not discriminate and bar them from entry into businesses.

Thanks,
Viv Edmondson
Santa Monica resident
Item 13.G
01/11/21
16 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No passports .

Attachments: showmezeepapers.png
From: Eric Pelton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:46 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No passports .

EXTERNAL
what dirt do they have on you ? Whos behind this ? You know this is Illegal right off the bat . Violation of the US constitution and California state Constitution . https://california.public.law/codes/ca_civ_code_section_51.11 Item 13.G
01/11/21
17 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
Item 13.G
01/11/21
18 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Say NO to Santa Monica Vaccine Passport
From: Ellyn Weiss <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:47 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Say NO to Santa Monica Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council:

This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA.

3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
19 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure.

Sincerely,
Ellyn Weiss

Item 13.G
01/11/21
20 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Corona virus passport
From: Zmoney3000 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:18 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Corona virus passport

EXTERNAL
To impose any passports or mandates is beyond your job. Your job is to make the city of Santa Monica a better place for all. If you actually wanted to do your job you can start by fixing the homeless and gang problems stretching from santa Monica to Venice. It is also against this country's constitution for anything like that. In this country we value each person as a individual not as a collective group to put them in and mandate them. Do you job, your real job.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
21 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: today at 5:30 pm
From: Valerie L <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:30 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: today at 5:30 pm

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am writing to you because of the meeting on vaccine passports that will be held today at 5:30 pm. I do not support enacting a vaccine passport. I am a business owner who will not play a police officer and enforce this. We are all suffering financially. It will just push us all out of Santa Monica.

Furthermore, this is an overreach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. It is a known fact that those who are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and spread the virus. This then will create a false sense of security. The policy will also create barriers for residents who are not vaccinated. I am for inclusion; this policy is discriminatory. In addition, it will create a diversion to the real needs of the residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. I hope you will take this into consideration as an elected official to make the best decision for the inclusion of all residents when you vote on this policy.

Best,
Valerie
Item 13.G
01/11/21
22 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Vaccine Passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Louise Salomon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:33 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Government Overeach.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
23 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Opposing Vaccine Passports in Santa Monica From: Nicole Dorfman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:40 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Opposing Vaccine Passports in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing to expresses the strongest opposition to the enactment of a vaccine verification for community access to public and private facilities in Santa Monica. The CDC acknowledges that none of the existing Covid-19 injections can prevent transmission or infection so what is the point of vaccine verification. This measure will create a system of legalized discrimination and place a tremendous burden on small businesses who will be forced to turn away healthy customers for no valid reason.

My family will no longer visit Santa Monica for any reason should this measure pass.

Please do the right thing and oppose vaccine verification in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Nicole Dorfman
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
24 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:48 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: NO VACCINE PASSPORT!!!
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jennifer Goldman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:07 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: NO VACCINE PASSPORT!!!

EXTERNAL
I oppose enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars.

This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a False sense of security.

It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

Jennifer Goldman
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
25 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: OPPOSING THE SANTA MONICA VACCINE PASSPORT From: Mary Donahue <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: OPPOSING THE SANTA MONICA VACCINE PASSPORT

EXTERNAL
I oppose the Santa Monica vaccine passports. This is so unconstitutional.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Item 13.G
01/11/21
26 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine passports
From: Michelle Akda <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:07 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
To, the Santa Monica Council,
I am writing to voice my vehement opposition to vaccines passports! This is unconstitutional, unethical and as we learn more about these vaccines absolutely INSANE!
We, as Americans need, MUST be able to choose for ourselves what we want for our bodies! I do not want an experimental drug manufactured by convicted felons who have ZERO liability to be injected into my body!!!
Please heed this email and DO NOT PASS VACCINE PASSPORTS!!! Concerned citizen,
Michelle Akda
‐‐
MichelleWineFitness.com
MichelleAkda.com
Item 13.G
01/11/21
27 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: URGENT: Objection to Vaccine Passports
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Cole Cooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:21 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: URGENT: Objection to Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a woman and mother living on Santa Monica, California, I strongly object to the implementation of this decisive and discriminatory policy. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica.. You were elected to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

2. This policy requires men, women and children to demonstrate their private medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA.

3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for those that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to real needs and concerns, such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
28 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 The SM Vaccine Passport creates division and sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to men, women and children based on a medical procedure which the biologic comes in a box with an intentionally blank product insert and there is no informed consent.

In closing, I would strongly encourage you to remember Nuremberg and vote no on this discriminatory policy.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
29 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: NO COVID PASSPORTS!!!
From: Pamela Van Ierland <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:51 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: NO COVID PASSPORTS!!!

EXTERNAL
‐‐ This is anti american and I do not support this!
Pamela Van ierland
Pamela Van Ierland
Vacation Rental Malibu
[email protected]
310‐487‐8799
www.vacationrentalmalibu.com
Agent‐ Coldwell Banker
Malibu West Office
BRE License # 02013069
Item 13.G
01/11/21
30 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: I Don't Support Vaccine Passport
From: Mario Mijares <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:00 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: I Don't Support Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
I do not support vaccine passports at all.

People have a right to decide what they feel is right for their bodies despite what the news is saying.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
31 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: I oppose Vaccine Passports in Santa Monica From: Alejandra Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:41 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: I oppose Vaccine Passports in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica City Council,
Happy New year and I hope you are all well.

Please note the below as firm opposition to enacting vaccine passports in the city of Santa Monica for the good of its longtime residents as well as it's millions of visitors every year. Santa Monica has already been hit by so much with it's ever growing population of homeless people, waning tourism, vandalism, etc. Why are you going to put a further burden on SMPD and SM residents?
It's been proven that vaccines neither prevent the contracting or transmission of COVID so why are you going to put up a further barrier to citizens obtaining goods and services and a further obstacle for SM businesses? Please consider blocking this initiative. We have seen that there is no correlation to people going in droves to get vaccinated once vaccine passports are required.

Thank you for your time.

A long time resident of Santa Monica,
Alejandra Rodriguez
Address: 3011 Virginia Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 13.G
01/11/21
32 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Adam Campbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:32 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Having a vaccine passport is an over‐reach of government and a violation of our Constitutional rights. Even though I am not a Santa Monica resident, I am a California resident and highly oppose any vaccine passport as well as any Santa Monica Vaccine Passport.

Adam Campbell
Murrieta, CA.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
33 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No to enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica From: Patricia Rabin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:07 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No to enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

I
don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

Patricia Rabin MA.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
34 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Proposed Vaccine Passports
From: Golden State Lifeguards ‐ Chief Ed Castillo <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:05 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to say that I am opposed to any type of vaccine passport as it is discriminatory and divisive. As we all know, all information regarding the so called virus and subsequent variants is based on faulty and often times fabricated information.

All you are doing is creating an even larger resistance movement (Firefighters4Freedom, LACountyFree, Lifeguards4Freedom and many more groups) and non-compliance will increase exponentially.

If you are willing to sacrifice your political career, then go for it! Golden State Lifeguards
Chief Ed Castillo, Lifeguard Operations
747-444-1035 (Office)
747-241-7803 (Mobile)
E: [email protected]
W: www.goldenstatelifeguards.com
(Please whitelist email to ensure delivery)
21123 ½ Costanso Street, Woodland Hills, CA
Item 13.G
01/11/21
35 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Virus-free. www.avg.com
Item 13.G
01/11/21
36 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: "Vaccine" Passports
From: M J Kelly MD <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:37 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: "Vaccine" Passports

EXTERNAL
As a physician, with expertise in Epidemiology and Molecular Biology, I strongly condemn your initiative for “vaccine” passports for the following reasons:
 First, the so called “vaccines” are not vaccines in the traditional sense of vaccination and are in fact, “genomic modification therapies.” You are trying to mandate Medical Treatment upon the public and this is a violation of the Nuremberg Code of Medical Ethics.  The mRNA platform is a FAILURE. The UK just released data that at least 75% of Covid19 deaths in their December 2021 data banks were in the fully vaccinated.
 The mRNA platform is DANGEROUS. There are over 21,000 DEATHS and OVER 948,000 Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) reported to the CDC’s VAERS website.
 The mRNA inoculations DO NOT WORK to prevent acquiring or transmission and SARS Cov2 or any of its variants.
 “Vaccine” passports do not acknowledge NATURAL IMMUNITY which is far more robust and long‐lasting than the mRNA inoculations.
 This will hurt Santa Monica businesses because as in France, businesses forcing passports have been hurt and many driven out of business.
 When this is all over and the fear porn has lost its bark, government officials such as you will be driven from power.

I am aware of many patients and my medical colleagues who have been injured by this push for widespread mRNA inoculations. Your lack of awareness of this global, Big Pharma driven disaster is not an excuse and will be remembered by the victims (and their lawyers).

Sincerely,
Mark J. Kelly, M.D.

Assistant Professor of Urological Oncology
Item 13.G
01/11/21
37 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 St. John’s Health Center
Item 13.G
01/11/21
38 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: I oppose the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport From: Surfer Oftheweb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:49 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeramy Shirley <[email protected]>
Subject: I oppose the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern,
This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
39 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
7 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA.

Jeramy Shirley
Item 13.G
01/11/21
40 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Stop the vaccine passport mandate
From: Biayna Matevosian <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:56 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Stop the vaccine passport mandate

EXTERNAL
Dear members of Council,

I'd like to let you know that I do not support the vaccine passport mandates for the city of Santa Monica.

I'm really hoping that you'll have the integrity to vote against this inhumane and unscientific mandates.

Thank you in advance and God Bless America.

Sincerely,
Armine Ghazarian
Item 13.G
01/11/21
41 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:55 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passports are Nazi tactics - Are your values freedom or Naziism? From: jeff489 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:17 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Vaccine Passports are Nazi tactics ‐ Are your values freedom or Naziism?

EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Council:
"Vaccine passports" can be thought of as "Nazi passports." Adolph Hitler and the German Nazis tried the same thing in Germany 1937. They declared a public health crisis due to communicable diseases and issues "Health Passports," depriving targeted people of their basic civil rights. In fact, Auschwitz death camp was originally established in 1940, not for the purpose of being a death camp, but for the purposes of being a quarantine facility. This can be verified at the Holocaust Museum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp Anyone who collaborates in taking the U.S. government down the road to Naziism and fascism is an enemy of freedom and an enemy of the Bill of Rights.

There will be a Nuremberg 2.0 to try all those who commit crimes against humanity during the Great Panic of 2022.

Jeff S.

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
42 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Passport
From: Jennifer Sherman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:27 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Passport

EXTERNAL
Good day.

This email is in alignment with voting NO on a vaccine passport for the city. We need to move FORWARD with our lives, not backwards and I humby ask you help us all do that.

Thank you.

Regards,
Jennifer Sherman
Item 13.G
01/11/21
43 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Robyn dunbar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:53 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: New item, 1/7/2022 Vaccine proof indoors Comment

EXTERNAL
I am completely opposed to the city introducing vaccine requirements for indoors and everything in the new proposed recommended item 1/7/2022.

This is a unconstitutional gross display of government overreach and a threat to the citizens of Santa Monica’s basic human rights.

I am not Republican or Democrat, this is a human rights issue, I do not comply. ‐Robyn Adrian Dunbar
Long time Santa Monica citizen.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
Item 13.G
01/11/21
44 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: What is in the "vaccine" PATENTS: NANODISCS, NANOMAGNETS, SINGLE WALLED CARBON NANOTUBUELES Graphene Oxide, NANOSPHERES, QUANTEM DOT, IOT SOCIALISM PLTFORM From: Annie Beck <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:15 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: What is in the "vaccine" PATENTS: NANODISCS, NANOMAGNETS, SINGLE WALLED CARBON NANOTUBUELES Graphene Oxide, NANOSPHERES, QUANTEM DOT, IOT SOCIALISM PLTFORM

EXTERNAL
Links to sample mRNA and COVID-19 vaccine patents:
248 page Moderna patent for the WHO Covid-19 Vaccines:
https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/US10703789.pdf Nanodiscs: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/25/ce/6d/84cb16adb713b2/US20100216804A1.pdf Nanomagnets: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d1/d5/03/2cb5028a1e528c/US20120265001A1.pdf Single-walled carbon nanotubeles (SWNCTs) Graphene oxide:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9e/bc/82/52d2a8e8c97ac2/US20130251618A1.pdf Nanospheres: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fe/a6/eb/8f54ba8800d73b/US20120201859A1.pdf QuantumDot: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e6/9d/c3/787a071bfff162/US20120228565A1.pdf IOT/SocialismPlatform:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e6/9d/c3/787a071bfff162/US20120228565A1.pdf

Item 13.G
01/11/21
45 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport
From: lbr9349 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:16 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am writing to urge you to vote AGAINST the Santa Monica vaccine passport. ‐ This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

‐ The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a False sense of security.

‐ it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the purpose to slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. ‐ these vaccine passports have been implemented in LA County and LA City and the numbers are worse than ever before proving that they passports do not work against CoVid. ‐ this will lead to protests, hardships on businesses and their employees, and active turmoil within the city
‐ businesses will lose patrons and income further putting a burden on the city, tax payer dollars, and the future of our economy
‐ these passports are nothing less than an attempt to discriminate and segregate. The makers of this “vaccine” even admit that they offer little to no protection (see recent interview with Pfizer’s CEO regarding boosters and a “new” vaccine to come). Enforcing a faulty medical treatment currently Item 13.G
01/11/21
46 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 under Emergency Use Authorization and still in clinical trial violates our civil liberties and international law.

I urge you to do what is right for the citizens of Santa Monica and all of the neighboring areas and tourists.
‐‐
Laura Reid
Item 13.G
01/11/21
47 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:00 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: NO on Vax passport
From: Kristin Nugent <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>
Subject: NO on Vax passport

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am writing today to ask that you vote NO
Item 13.G
01/11/21
48 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

Thank you,
Kristin Nugent
Item 13.G
01/11/21
49 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No to Vaccine Passports
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Leslie Colgin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:57 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No to Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
Hello,
We live in Topanga and frequently come to Santa Monica for shopping, doctor visits, dining, etc. Both my husband and three teenage children are frequent visitors. We oppose vaccine passports and think it is an over reach of government to segregate the community based on who is vaccinated and who is not.

The CDC has confirmed that the vaccines do not prevent transmission of COVID‐19 and therefore vaccine passports are ineffective in slowing this virus.

The one thing passports WILL certainly do, however, is convince us to not frequent establishments in Santa Monica and instead head to Calabasas where such passports are not in place.

Respectfully,
Leslie Colgin
Topanga
Item 13.G
01/11/21
50 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No to Vaccine Passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: A. Pero <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No to Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
The vaccine passport is basically an illegal action as it requires checking one's medical records which are private. Anyone can be sued for demanding private medical records they are not privy to.

The vaccine passport creates a false sense of security as even vaccinated people are getting virus.

This is discrimination and it will create undue stress on restaurants and slow business as the businesses will have to provide additional outdoor seating and prevent people from using restaurants in inclement weather.

Sincerely,
Alice Pero
Item 13.G
01/11/21
51 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
8 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: City Council Agenda Item 13.G
From: Ryan Hinds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:55 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Agenda Item 13.G

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to write in opposition to Santa Monica City Council Agenda Item 13.G, which would require proof of vaccination in many Santa Monica businesses. Though I am vaccinated, I disagree with treating those who are not vaccinated as second-class citizens.

My grandparents lived in Nazi Germany and were treated as second class citizens because they were Jewish. Jews were not a threat to other Germans no more than the unvaccinated are a threat to the vaccinated or the boostered, given that all three groups are capable of transmitting the virus.

Not to mention that vaccine passports would create a real headache for people who legitimately cannot take the vaccine for medical or religious reasons. They would be forced to take a PCR test regularly, possibly at their expense, just to perform basic activities like getting a hair cut or going to the gym. I do not see anywhere where the City of Santa Monica is prepared to provide free of charge testing, not to mention that tests have been in short supply recently. This is discrimination, plain and simple, with no scientific basis.

Finally, there is no sunset clause on the proposed ordinance for when COVID-19 becomes endemic like the flu. Are we going to expect the vaccine passport program to continue indefinitely when COVID-19 is no longer deemed a threat to public health? For these reasons, I urge the Santa Monica City Council to vote NO on Agenda Item 13.G.

Ryan Hinds
[email protected]
(805) 796-9528
Item 13.G
01/11/21
52 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine passports
From: Andrea Fonseka <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:55 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
As a resident of this great city, I implore you to allow anyone who visits our city to have the freedom and liberty to partake of all its amenities and services with complete and utter freedom,, regardless of whether or not they have received the COVID-19 shot(s).

To date, we have seen that these shots prevent serious illness from this virus, but they neither prevent contagion nor do they prevent the contraction of this virus.

Latest and numerous studies have shown the effectiveness of increased intake of vitamin D3 (up to 3000iu per day) as being much more beneficial in building immunity to all coronaviruses and a healthy diet far more effective in controlling serious illness-link below.

These shots should remain as a personal choice and allow for varying hesitation to get these ineffective shots due to other medical conditions or health choices that do not align with these as yet unproven shots.

Many people have already caught this virus and have built up a robust natural immunity.

Please, let Santa Monica remain one of the bastions of freedom in our State and vote NO to vaccine passports in order to participate in life-a God given right.

Vitamin D3 for COVID and good health:

Bret Weinstein | DarkHorse Podcast: Vitamin D for Covid, What’s the Catch? - DarkHorse Podcast Gruff Davies and Linda Benskin on Apple Podcasts
Bret Weinstein | DarkHorse Podcast: Vitamin D
for Covid, What’s the Cat...

Item 13.G
01/11/21
53 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Show Bret Weinstein | DarkHorse Podcast, Ep Vitamin D for Covid, What’s the Catch? - DarkHorse Podcast Gruff
Da...

Vitamin D and COVID 19: The Evidence for Prevention and Treatment of Coronavirus (SARS CoV 2) Vitamin D and COVID 19: The Evidence for
Prevention and Treatment of Cor...

Please do not let BIG Pharma rule our lives. Stand up for the people of this city and say, "No, not on my watch" Kind regards,
Andrea Fonseka
Item 13.G
01/11/21
54 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport...DON'T DO IT
From: Robert Ceroke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:00 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport...DON'T DO IT

EXTERNAL
This is a disgusting Nazi-esqe means of controlling and demeaning vaccine-free citizens and absolutley should not be required!
The "vaccines" are a fraud that don't even work and subject the person to significant danger. Just look at the VAERS reports...20k dead, 30k permanently disabled and 1M significantly injured from the vaccine...and these numbers are grossly underreported! DO NOT PASS A VACCINE MANDATE!!!
Robert Ceroke
310-721-7880
Item 13.G
01/11/21
55 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No Vaccine passport!
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:26 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Brenda Ping <[email protected]>
Subject: No Vaccine passport!

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members
I recently read of your efforts to require vaccine passports in Santa Monica.

This confuses me because we already know:
* it is illegal to force people to submit to experimental “vaccines” *the current “vaccines” do not prevent infection nor death *the current “vaccines” do not prevent transmission of Covid‐19.

So I keep asking myself why you would do this? Are you getting money from the vaccine companies? This will come out at your next election. Are you getting extra from Governor Newsome ‐ a man bent on making California a communist/totalitarian state?
Or are you just enjoying what seems like limitless power right now? And why would you pass this before the results of the Supreme Court ruling? You’re trying to beat their ruling so you won’t be stopped? How will that look in the next election? Please rethink your options and your motives. We know now none of this is for our health ‐ it is a move to a totalitarian state where we are your “slaves “.

Thank you
Brenda Ping
Los Angeles
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Item 13.G
01/11/21
56 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Against Vaccine Passport proposal on January 11th From: Eleana Burroughs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:20 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Against Vaccine Passport proposal on January 11th

EXTERNAL
Please do not approve vaccine passport requirements for Santa Monica tomorrow. switched the many various reasons is this is dividing our society, hurting businesses, and causing damage that is far more destructive than this “virus and/or its variants” and apparently it isn’t even effective as getting “vaccinated” only protects the vaccinated which has now shifted to “get vaccinated to protect others & the community.” Everyone can catch it, everyone can spread it, and all this government interference hasn’t done anything to stop it’s spread realistically except control the narrative everywhere we go. Let’s let the doctors go back to treating patients, privately. This has become a politically charged agenda and since their game plan isn’t working, please don’t support it. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. https://www.perk‐group.com/urgent‐action‐la
Item 13.G
01/11/21
57 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Against Covid mandates
From: Cora Hermoso <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:41 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Against Covid mandates

EXTERNAL
Dear Council and Mr David White:

This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars.

This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPAA.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
58 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure.

Please hear our voices!
Thank you
Cora Hermoso
Item 13.G
01/11/21
59 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Do not force people to undergo risk of covid vaccination ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: michael brajkovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:12 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Do not force people to undergo risk of covid vaccination

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Council Members,
Given what we know now about the covid mRNA vaccines particularly that although with previous/earlier variants they lessened the severity of alpha and delta symptoms, per statements from Dr. Fauci and CDC director Walensky, covid vaccines cannot prevent the infection nor transmission of covid. This is especially true now with the omicron variant which recognizes neither previous vaccination nor infection of previous variants.

This fact coupled with the rare though known serious adverse vaccine reactions including cardiac arrest, blood clotting, permanent disability and death, must give us serious and thoughtful pause to expecting people to be vaccinated or further boosted.

Please, do not enforce a vaccine passport onto Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Michael Brajkovich
Item 13.G
01/11/21
60 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Please No Passport
From: SatBir Kaur <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:15 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Please No Passport

EXTERNAL
City Council,
I have been a resident of Santa Monica for nearly 15 years, and love it. I am writing to voice my opinion that I do not support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

I believe in free choice for everyone and would not want to live in a city that segregates or discriminates any portion of the population.

Aside from my ongoing cancer treatment which at the advice of my Dr.'s has prevented me from getting any additional shots, I have many friends who chose not to get it.

I fully support that choice. Nothing is one size fits all, especially medicine. Please take into consideration the chronically ill people that this is supposed to protect will be left out of society, some for the last month of their lives.

I beg you to vote against this passport.

Kind regards, Satbir Kaur
310‐927‐3525
Item 13.G
01/11/21
61 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica
From: missy g <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:48 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: No Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
I am a graduate of UCLA and a longtime Santa Monica resident. I am shocked that you would continue with blatant misuse of power.

Furthermore, the SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
62 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Some questions for you:

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? If so, this diverts the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

DO NOT CONTINUE WITH THIS VACCINE PASSPORT INSANITY!
Item 13.G
01/11/21
63 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Amy Rippee <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:37 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
I vehemently oppose your nazi‐esque attempt of enacting a vaccine passport in Santa Monica. It not only shows your ignorance on the facts pertaining to Covid‐19 but also the facts regarding American citizen’s constitutional rights! You are setting yourselves up for legal action against you. This violates HIPPA laws and Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to name only a few. American citizens, regardless of their medical condition or religious, moral or ethical beliefs, have the right to move freely in society, in businesses, events, restaurants, theaters, etc. without being discriminated against nor harassed nor coerced nor marginalized. Whatever happened to my body, my choice!? This virus is no worse than any other seasonal flu. We now know that more than 99.8 percent of all people groups that get Covid, fully recover. Also only 3% of all deaths with Covid, died from Covid. The rest died from other terminal illnesses with Covid. You ignore the fact that people who get the Covid shot are not immune against Covid nor the variants, can still get very sick AND can transmit it to others. And you ignore the benefits of natural immunity, which is the best defense toward herd immunity and the healthiest option. Stop the nasty political bullying. You are clearly abusing power. You will not get away with this. The Constitution is on our side. We will take you to court.

Very sincerely, Amy Rippee
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
64 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Refuse
From: Michael B <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:20 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Refuse

EXTERNAL
No vaccine passport.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
65 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passports
From: Kathy Ornstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:16 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
Hello
I am not in favor of you passing the bill of vaccine passports. Please do not do so.

Kathy A Ornstein
(310) 657‐5174
Item 13.G
01/11/21
66 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:31 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passports
From: Kathy Ornstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:17 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
This is for the City of Santa Monica. Say no to Vaccine Passports On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:15 AM Kathy Ornstein <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello
I am not in favor of you passing the bill of vaccine passports. Please do not do so.

Kathy A Ornstein
(310) 657‐5174
Item 13.G
01/11/21
67 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: NO to Vaccine Passport in S.M.

From: Robert Butler <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:21 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: NO to Vaccine Passport in S.M.

EXTERNAL
NO to a discriminatory, segregationist, paranoia‐based, over‐reaching, unconstitutional Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

If passed, I will personally boycott the City of Santa Monica, taking my consumer dollars elsewhere, and encourage everyone I know to, as well.

Thank you,
Robert Butler
Item 13.G
01/11/21
68 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: vaccine passports
From: Peggy Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:29 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
I do not support vaccine passports.

Peggy Harris
Item 13.G
01/11/21
69 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine mandates
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Maggi Havas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:52 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine mandates

EXTERNAL
I oppose this.

Sent from Maggi's iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
70 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport
From: Guillermina Rios <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:32 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
I oppose your proposal for a vaccine passport. It is on over reach of your position and and a violation of our constitutional rights.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
71 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: SM-V Passport.

From: James Hopson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:07 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: SM‐V Passport.

EXTERNAL
Good day City Counsel
This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars.

This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

There is no good science that suggests this is a good course of action to require V-passports. If you are doing this because it will save lives then please wake up and get real data. If you are doing this because you will get money from the federal government then shame on you. That is not in service of the people. It has been shown that the vaccines lose effectiveness after 120 days and does not stop the new variants. To keep pushing this issue it appears is not for reasons of public health.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
72 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Do the right thing... vote NO on V-passports for Santa Moncia.

James Hopson
310 773 2323
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
73 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: DO NOT support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica From: Amanda Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:13 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: DO NOT support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Amanda and I am a local RN living and working in Santa Monica.

Enacting a vaccine passport in Santa Monica is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights.

Hi
This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a viol
ation of HIPA.

This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Amanda
‐‐
Amanda C. Miller
Item 13.G
01/11/21
74 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 University of Maryland
Master of Science - Clinical Nurse Leader

The Pennsylvania State University
Bachelor of Science - Environmental Resource Management Marine Sciences
Item 13.G
01/11/21
75 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Do not support vaccine passport system
From: Erica Stanojevic <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:09 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Do not support vaccine passport system

EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Erica Stanojevic and I request that you please do not support a vaccine passport system; the idea exemplifies discrimination.

When I was only 29 years old, more than 10 years ago, I had a mini‐stroke at a time when doctors gave me straight A's for my health. At this time I am fully vibrant, as I use earth based foods and medicines for my health. The current vaccines all have significant risk of blood clots and I am not willing to risk having another stroke. A passport system that denies my ability to make choices for my own body is atrocious.

The whole thing is especially obscene as it is very clear that the vaccines don't work.

As an observation, before the holocaust Jewish people were labeled as dirty and disease‐filled; then they were slowly excluded from society. This is a well‐worn path of history; people have been committing these atrocities in various forms in various societies. Please don't support a passport system that marches along paths with unseen ends.

Blessings,
Erica
Item 13.G
01/11/21
76 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
8 Vernice Hankins
From: Karen Wise <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for Vaccine Mandate - January 11, 2022 Agenda Item 13G

EXTERNAL
Council Members: Thank you for considering a vaccine mandate as described in Agenda Item 13G. It’s well past time to do this.

We Santa Monicans should be able to go to our local businesses confident that they are as safe as is possible.

Also, our city workers should be protected from having to work in physical proximity to unvaccinated persons, especially for things that take more than a few minutes.

I support an indoor vaccine mandate.

Further, I request the permanent extension of online options for as many city services as possible, even when it becomes safe to reopen the in person options for city services. These online options make things so much easier for residents.

Many thanks ‐Karen Wise, Santa Monica resident and voter Karen Wise
[email protected]
Item 13.G
01/11/21
77 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: (No Subject)Vaccine Passports
From: michcasale <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:36 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: (No Subject)Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
Good Morning,
It is my understanding that you are meeting today to discuss requiring vaccine passports in Santa Monica.

Vaccine passports will not stop the spread of covid as many covid vaccinated and boosted people are contracting covid and spreading it to others.

Vaccine passports violate the rights of citizens and are unconstitutional.

I urge you to vote against requiring vaccine passports.

Thank you,
Michele Casale,
United States Citizen
Sent from ProtonMail for iOS
Item 13.G
01/11/21
78 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vote NO on Vaccine mandates and/or Passports From: Alyssa G <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:32 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Vote NO on Vaccine mandates and/or Passports

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council and City Manager,
There is no logical or medical reason to institute a vaccine passport/mandate for public places, especially at this time.

Any impetus to do so displays an ignorance of the facts.

1. Covid vaccines do not supply protection against transmission of Covid‐19. This is an established medical fact, publicized by Rochelle Walensky of the CDC and Barbara Ferrer of LACDPH.

Therefore, there is no public health rationale to exclude unvaccinated people, as they are no more dangerous than the vaccinated.

2. The Omicron variant, now 85% of sequenced samples (and probably soon to be 100%) is mild. Of the 200,000 cases over the past 7 days, only about 1500 cases required hospitalization (45% of the number in the county press releases, as described by Barbara Ferrer regarding people in the hospital with Covid versus because of Covid), and about 100 deaths DURING THOSE 7 DAYS total. The emergency is over.

To institute a vaccine mandate at this time is nonsensical and will create justified public distrust in their elected and appointed officials.

Alyssa Ganezer
Santa Monica
Item 13.G
01/11/21
79 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Santa Monica Vaccine Passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Kristin Glover <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:40 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Kristin Glover <[email protected]>
Subject: Santa Monica Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Dear Mr White and Council Members,
I am writing to urge you not to enforce the draconian measure of a vaccine passport.

First of all, and most importantly, it is becoming commonly known that those who’ve been vaccinated can not only contract the disease but also can spread it!!! Therefore mandating the vaccine doesn’t make scientific sense!! It makes no sense at all!!
There’s also the issue of coercion to take a medical procedure ‐ especially an experimental one ‐ which is forbidden by law. It’s forbidden by the United States Constitution and by the Nuremberg Code.

Are these laws you really want to violate??
Such an ill conceived effort will surely not only ruin many businesses in Santa Monica but will very likely bring lawsuits hailing down on the City of Santa Monica.

Further. since the definition of “fully vaxxed” seems to change constantly, will the citizens of Santa Monica have to get more shots and then more and more to keep their vaccine passports “valid”??? Please don’t fall for this completely false sense of security. It is not the right solution.

With Deep Concern
Kristin Glover
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
80 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Vaccine Passport!
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jasmine Dhanda <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:40 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Oppose Vaccine Passport!

EXTERNAL
Dear Mr White and SM Council members,
I am writing to you as a SM resident that our household strongly objects to the unconstitutional and discriminatory proposal that you are proposing. The Vax passport is an offensive and divisive tool that does nothing to stop the spread of covid!
This proposal is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. I strongly oppose this proposal! This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars.

This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. We already have horrendous crime and lack of action. Do your jobs and stop overreaching! Item 13.G
01/11/21
81 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. I will not allow my medical freedom to be violated and will join and legal action against the council to prevent violation of our civil and medical freedoms.

Please note by objections and those of my household and do your elected job! Jasmine dhanda
Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica
Item 13.G
01/11/21
82 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica
From: FS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:43 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
To Whom it may concern;
As a former Los Angeles resident and a Fan of Santa Monica, I do not support the Vaccine Passport proposal for Santa Monica. Santa Monica is a hub for tourism and a Los Angeles County landmark and with a vaccine passport mandate, you will limit people from visiting and destroy local businesses. Vaccines do not prevent the spread of Covid, you know this. If a person likes to receive the vaccine, then it’s a personal choice for their health and survival. If a person decides against taking the vaccine, then it’s a personal choice for their health and survival.

If you really think longterm and in favor of the survival of your community with health and safety in mind, you will not mandate a covid vaccine passport. Vaccines are a personal choice.

Sincerely,
Franzy Staedter
Item 13.G
01/11/21
83 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passports
From: Westley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:02 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
My family and I are strongly against this.

It violates so many personal ethical, moral and legal issues.

This is AMERICA! Do not cage us in and control us like animals.

There is so much proof of the damage that vaccines cause to many people.

How can you go forward in this direction that will exclude so many wonderful people from goods and services in Santa Monica?
This is wrong on so many levels.
~~~
W. Westley
Item 13.G
01/11/21
84 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: I DO NOT support a vaccine mandate in Santa Monica ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Amanda Blakley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:23 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: I DO NOT support a vaccine mandate in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Amanda Blakley
Tourist • Writer • Adventurer
m: 747.249.7620
i. @amandablakley
t: @amanda_blakley
w:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.amandablakley.co__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!57Fupk0iHp09jtmsp8jUXSGzqKRU 0eddVB7fUBX4tAQx4wkfD5o9Rzf7t4aPIrM$
Item 13.G
01/11/21
85 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Pasports
From: joyrburn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:31 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Pasports

EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica City Council,
Regarding the vote today on inoculation medical passports: coercive mandates of shoddily tested medical products and segregationist passports violates international human rights laws. Moreover, viruses do not adhere to these mandates, lockdowns, masking or any other man-made measure. Scientist in Antarctica, all fully inoculated, have succumb to the illness. Section 8.2 of Pfizer and Moderna’s reports to the FDA for their emergence-use authorization request states under UNKNOWN data that their is no evidence that the inoculations stop transmission or infection. DOD’s AI data combing of over 5.6 million Medicare patients revealed over 60% of hospitalizations occurred with the fully inoculated. These medicines have NOT been approved. Continuity is not available on the united States. As a registered democrat, I fully stand by My Body My Choice. With plenty of treatments, with a 99% survival rate, with the virus becoming more transmissible and less virulent, which is what occurs as the disease becomes endemic, and with many virologists and health officials stating Omicron will end the pandemic, any law segregating those who can not, should not or will not due to high health risks associated with the inoculation such as heart inflammation, neurological issues, etc., is purely punitive, coercive, socially unjust, discriminatory, medically unethical, and as stated above, illegal. Wasting tax payer’s money, hurting livelihoods, and destroying children’s education is what a yes vote will bring to Santa Monica along with a false sense of security.

This is not about health. More and more people are waking up to this fact, especially those with three jabs and still getting infected. These drugs are failing all over the world. Please don’t promote pharma over true health which involves more than a virus. It involves social health, the health of the economy, the health of the individual to be responsible for their own health, other health issues that are not being address such as mental illness and suicides.We have had 2 years to expand our health systems and we did nothing We are penalizing society because one sector of the economy, health care, is broken. Instead of fixing it, we are firing nurses and doctors and then blaming them for their logic and upstanding that the shot is not solving the situation. The “one problem, one solution” is myopic and defies the art of medicine.

Stand for all of Los Angeles,
Joy Burnworth-Weiner
https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download
DOD powerpoint-don’t shoot the messenger, Natural News, as Humetrix took down this information that I had bookmarked.
https://www.naturalnews.com/files/Salus_Humetrix_VE_study_2021_09_28.pdf https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf https://www.pandata.org
Item 13.G
01/11/21
86 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 https://adc.bmj.com/content/105/7/618
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-andfirst-see-the-full-data/ Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
87 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: PLEASE
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:39:16 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 6:07 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: PLEASE

EXTERNAL
PLEASE vote NO on the vaccine passport. PLEASE vote no on all restrictive measures. It is unfair, unconstitutional and just plain un-American.

PLEASE follow the true science by allowing exceptions for scientifically proven "natural immunity". PLEASE allow for medical and religious exemptions. These things matter.

We must be fair and reasonable. One day, the rules will change in a way you do not feel will benefit you or your family, you will want someone to do the right thing.

I am asking you as a neighbor and friend, please do the right thing. This is no time for politics. Your vote will be remembered at the next election. Dare to stand out and vote NO.

Thank YouA lifelong Californian that loves personal choice, personal responsibility and most of all freedom...

Item 13.G
01/11/21
88 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine mandates in Santa Monica
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:39:23 AM
From: Chris Lefevre <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 6:43 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine mandates in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please do not enact vaccines mandates in our city.

First of all, the medical evidence is irrefutable. It is time that we all recognize that vaccines do not stop the spread. You need nothing more than a
standard online search to verify this. We are all
getting this new variant and this pandemic is now becoming endemic like it is the flu.

Second of all, the pandemic has already destroyed our businesses, with countless family-owned operations shutting down, and Santa Monica having been rated among top 3 worse cities for small business to be in during the pandemic. Have you had a look at the Promenade lately? Main Street? Have you had a look at the fast dropping numbers of enrollments in our schools? Forcing people to do something has NEVER served anyone for their own good. Please have a look at your history books and consider choosing the right side of history.

You will be remembered for this decision for years to come.

Sincerely,
Chris Lefevre
Santa Monica resident, taxpayer, home-owner, with 4 children born and raised here Item 13.G
01/11/21
89 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Disapproval of mandate
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Elaine Stephanyan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:31 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Disapproval of mandate

EXTERNAL
Dear city council members of Santa Monica,
I strongly disapprove of the vaccine passport to be passed in the city of Santa Monica and in general the greater of all of Los Angeles, CA. This is a violation of not only people’s constitutional rights but it is inadequate on a scientific standpoint too. What are we trying to prevent here? Because those who are fully and not vaccinated at all , collectively transit the virus and handle it either mild or moderately. This will also hurt businesses and create a divide among the community.

Sincerely Elaine Stephanyan
Item 13.G
01/11/21
90 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Agenda item- vaccine passport
From: Shevi Baruch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:40 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda item‐ vaccine passport

EXTERNAL
Hi,
I am not in support of the vaccine passport in Santa Monica. Please as a city resident, and a business owner I do not support this unconstitutional idea! And ask you as the people I voted for the city council to vote NO on that! Shevi Baruch
Committed to your well being,
Shevi Baruch ,
GYROKINESIS® Master Trainer
Item 13.G
01/11/21
91 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine mandate
From: jasrx1 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 6:40 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine mandate

EXTERNAL
This mandate is ill advised and misguided. Since the vaccines don't stop transmission, there is no reason to impose it on struggling business. Definite overreach. Please reconsider. Thankyou for your service.

Sent from my T‐Mobile 4G LTE Device
Item 13.G
01/11/21
92 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: I don't support vaccinne passport.

From: robertmaduro45747 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 6:46 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: I don't support vaccinne passport.

EXTERNAL
Sent from my Galaxy
Item 13.G
01/11/21
93 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:40 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: OPPOSE the Vaccine Passport and Vaccine Mandates From: Brenda Matea <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 6:50 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: OPPOSE the Vaccine Passport and Vaccine Mandates

EXTERNAL
I OPPOSE the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport. I request of Councilmember Brock, Mayor Himmelrich, and Councilmember Parra that the City of Santa Monica NOT IMPLEMENT by executive order or return with an emergency ordinance to require that employees and all persons entering certain indoor facilities be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

As a citizen of Los Angeles, and California I am asking you to vote AGAINST any form of vaccine mandates and passports that require citizens to show proof COVID vaccination to enter indoor spaces or to work. These mandates trample upon businesses and citizens, and is a dangerous path forward that removes the rights and freedoms of all American citizens. Citizens should live freely and should be allowed to choose concerning their health. We deserve to make our own health choices and not have government overreach. We deserve to live privately and not be mandated to share our health information creating segregation of citizens. As a teacher for LAUSD, now isolated at home because of my choice, I remind you, we deserve the opportunity to work publicly and not be isolated because of our choices. A vaccine passport is directly connected to segregation of classes and loss of freedoms and is the precursor to everything I hold dear as a free citizen.

Please, allow citizens a choice and DO NOT mandate vaccines and vaccine passports.

Thank you.

Brenda Matea
LA County/California Citizen
LAUSD Teacher
Item 13.G
01/11/21
94 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Urgent: Vote Against a Vaccine Passport !!! Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:39:05 AM
From: Mischelle Mikulas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:49 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>
Cc: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Urgent: Vote Against a Vaccine Passport !!!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I urge you to take a Stand For Freedom. Please do not vote for a vaccine passport.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation Item 13.G
01/11/21
95 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

I urge you to vote against a vaccine passport.

Sincerely,
Mischelle Mikulas
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” - President Reagan
Item 13.G
01/11/21
96 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest
philosophy.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
97 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: OPPOSE Vaccine Passport
From: Fu Fu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:43 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: OPPOSE Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members:

I strongly oppose the proposal for a vaccine passport in Santa Monica or anywhere in the United States of America. It is un‐American and is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information as well as a violation of our Constitutional rights!
This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of SM as it violates various federal laws and puts the City of SM in a position to be sued. You were elected to be good stewards of our public dollars. With this policy, the City of SM will also lose many tourists (and thus $$) as no free American would want to visit a city with such misguided and authoritarian policies.

Besides violating our Constitutional rights and federal regulations (code 21, section 20.23 and 24 states that it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion), this discriminatory policy does not follow science. It will not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus, thus creating a false sense of security. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

The vaccine mandates and passports make no logical scientific sense and does not belong here in the U.S.A.

Thank you,
Angela Chu
Item 13.G
01/11/21
98 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: URGENT!! Vote No on Vaccine Passport - Must Read Information Before You Vote From: J Petzold <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:40 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: URGENT!! Vote No on Vaccine Passport ‐ Must Read Information Before You Vote

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members
Today I received a notification that the City of Santa Monica’s intends to institute a vaccine passport for all persons desiring to access certain facilities in Santa Monica. This is an extremely dangerous and overreaching attempt of a few elected officials to cast a wide, unprecedented and unconstitutional net of oppression on its constituents and businesses in an alleged attempt to stop the spread of Covid-19, for which there are many cures, but those cures have been suppressed by the powers that be, yet they are available for anyone who does any cursory research. This move of the Santa Monica City Council would openly discriminate against those who are vaccine free and to grant privileges to those who are vaccinated.

Here is a standard cure for Covid 19:
200 mg HydroxyChloroquine 2x daily
500 mg Azithromycin 1x daily
220 mg Zinc Sufate 1x daily
By a New York doctor – I’m your Huckleberry@ RossFairchild He cured 350 patients without hospitalization.

This and many cures have been suppressed, as you probably know.

Here’s a quote from an article entitled “The Covid-19 Genocide of 2020” by Claire Edwards.

Covid-19 was long pre-planned in documents and simulation exercises emanating from the eugenicist Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation. A platform with 200 detailed levels is provided by the World Economic Forum led by Klaus Schwab, a technocrat and promoter of trans-humanism, in order to provide detailed instructions on how the “COVID-19” pandemic is to be used to implement a global monetary reset and digital currency, technocracy and totalitarian government worldwide under the guise of socialism and environmentalism, with China as the model, and enslave humanity through a sinister vaccine conspiracy.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
99 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Here’s a quote from a 1981 book by Bilderberger Jacques Attalli that reveals the mindset behind the creation of Covid plandemic.
“The future will be about finding a way to reduce the population. Of course, we will not be able to execute people or build camps. We get rid of them by making them believe it is for their own good…. We will find or cause something, a pandemic targeting certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus affecting the old or the elderly, it doesn’t matter, the weak and the fearful will succumb to it. The stupid will believe in it and ask to be treated. We will have taken care of having panned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots will therefore be done by itself; they will go to the slaughterhouse alone”
Research also Patent No. 10,130,701 for the Corona Virus. Patent No. 7897744 & 8506968 for SARS, Patent No. 5676977 for Aids, and more.

The SM vaccine passport will not slow down the transmission of the Covid-19 virus. Rather it is a sweeping move for power grab by the Globalists and its agents at the local level. It is anti-American, anti-human, and most of all contrary to our God-given sovereign right to have control of what we put in our bodies and freedom from medical tyranny. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. They are more likely to transmit the variant because of the Spike Proteins in their bodies. Further the mRNa is a code injected into the body to attack the body’s immune system. The vaccination is a crime against humanity and all those involved in pushing this deadly bioweapon will be tried for this crime, sooner or later. Very sad is the pushing of the vaccine on our babies. You all are part of this crime if you vote for the vaccine passport. As you know thousands and thousands of people have died worldwide from the vaccine. The vaccine passport would be a step backwards in our country and will take us down the slippery slope of fascism. Do you want to be a part of that sell out? You were elected to make Santa Monica prosper and thereby enhance the quality of life of your constituents. You are not supposed to stick a wedge and create divide and kill businesses and trample on our freedoms. If you have another interest that you serve, then there is a conflict of interest and those of you with that conflict must recuse yourselves and/or step down now or face being sued personally as an individual as well as a council member, for breach of your fiduciary duty and other causes of action. You were elected to be good stewards and support prosperity and business opportunities in Santa Monica. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies and unconstitutional mandates.

The vaccine passport would require residents to reveal their medical records in order to get access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA and against our sovereign right to protect our bodies from invasive therapies, and our Constitution.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
100 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

PLEASE VOTE DOWN THE VACCINE PASSPORT..

Thank you.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
101 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No Vaccine Passport
From: Margarita M <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:56 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Please do not segregate our society and enrich the pharmaceutical industry to demand any amount of boosters they want for a fast‐tracked experimental products which under normal circumstances would have undergone a decade‐long process involving safety and data.

We are not that kind of society where people should not have choice and pharmaceutical industries can have free reign on what is injected into people's bodies with ZERO liability. IT is absurd and lacks scientific common sense.

You would be giving too much power to the pharmaceutical giants. NO MORE MANDATES Margarita
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by email and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication. Thank you.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
102 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: I do not support vaccine passport in santa monica California ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Barbara <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:23 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: I do not support vaccine passport in santa monica California

EXTERNAL
Thank you
Tax paying citizen
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
103 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Karen Blechman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council meeting January 11th 2022. Agenda item 13G

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
With the rapid spread of the relatively mild but highly contagious Omicron variant locally and around the world, we see that the existing vaccines do not prevent infection even in the fully vaccinated. Insisting that everyone must be vaccinated when it does not prevent the spread of Covid-19 is unscientific. For some employees of local businesses, a mandate would present the cruel choice of either accepting a vaccine that could harm them (as for example in the case of individuals with autoimmune disorders) or losing their employment.

With Omicron having supplanted earlier variants, there is no clear benefit and considerable risk in mandating vaccination for employees and patrons of local businesses. The horse has already left the barn. Shutting the stable door now would be futile. Please do not enact an unnecessary and potentially harmful mandate.

Respectfully,
Karen Blechman
Item 13.G
01/11/21
104 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:50 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

From: Carolin Bakhani <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:33 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

EXTERNAL
We don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

I have refugeed to US for democracy and freedom. This is wrong on so many levels. This actions are far far away from democracy. Please think how this is going to hurt business in Santa Monica more than it is.

Thank you
Item 13.G
01/11/21
105 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine passports
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:13 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
Ladies and Gentlemen:

It has come to my attention that certain members of your city council are proposing a vaccine passport be instigated in the city of Santa Monica! Not only is this discriminatory but it violates multiple National and international laws which give the citizens of the United States the right to choose whether to participate in an experimental Medical procedure or not! Indeed this so‐called vaccine has not been approved officially and is still in clinical trials which makes it completely experimental! It is only approved under the “emergency use authorization” and it is still in third stage clinical trials which makes it experimental! Meanwhile, According to the VAERS reporting system at the CDC this experimental vaccine has killed tens of thousands of Americans and very likely 5 to 10 times that number since reporting of adverse events has been discouraged for this product! This so‐called vaccine is actually a gene modification medication which has killed hundreds of thousands of people worldwide at this stage and injured way over 1 million ! Dr. Robert Malone the inventor of these MRN a vaccine products has now renounced their use As dangerousas dangerous and unnecessary! As political leaders, and under California law you are not exempt from being held personally liable for this coercion of individuals into receiving this dangerous and ineffective vaccine and under title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 you may not discriminate against people for their choice not to be vaccinated! I can promise you as a doctor and medical provider for over 52 years that there can and will be lawsuits initiated against you personally if you choose to pursue this criminal and irresponsible act against your fellow citizens! You need to wake up now and explore why thousands and thousands of doctors and nurses have refused this dangerous medical experiment and back off while you can from this ill‐advised and illegal action.

Very Sincerely
Dr Dennis G Kinnane OMD LAc RPh
Long Beach California
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
106 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: My stance on 13-G vaccine passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Sacha Naschinski <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:02 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: My stance on 13‐G vaccine passport

EXTERNAL
My name is Sacha Naschinski. I’m against vaccine passport to go into businesses. It does nothing, but discriminate and segregate vaccinated and unvaccinated. Vaccine passport is very divisiveness and this has become politicized. This is the reason why I’m not in favor of it
Sacha naschinski
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
107 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No on vaccine passports
From: Anne <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:03 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No on vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
Vaccine passports are unconstitutional! The shots do not stop the spread of the virus, they only stop the severity of the virus at best, so are not technically a vaccine. Many people cannot take the vaccine for specific health or
religious reasons as well.

I am totally against the vaccine passports! I used to shop in Santa Monica a lot but have been avoiding Santa Monica for a year now due to it's strict Covid rules.

Anne Kirkpatrick
Marina Del Rey
Item 13.G
01/11/21
108 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
I support Item 13G. Mandates work.

Patricia Hoffman
Item 13.G
01/11/21
109 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport mandates
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jonathan Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:44 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Vaccine Passport mandates

EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council, David White
I have lived in Southern California my whole life with the exception of 4 years in Northern California for work and college. The idea of segregation in my city (LA) due to vaccine mandates is disgusting and goes against everything California stands for, which is freedom to choose. There is absolutely no peer reviewed studies to date that show clearly that what is being called a covid 19 vaccine prevents the spread of the virus and/or reduces hospitalization or death. If there is would you please send it to me, as I review studies daily and to date there are none. Having said this, it is ANTI scientific to mandate experimental drugs without informed consent and in fact is unconstitutional, as well as violates the Nuremberg code which we as a country fought a war in which one of the positive outcomes of that war was the Nuremberg Code.

I could go on and on with facts to support that these experimental drugs do not work and in fact are illegal to force upon citizens in turn for living freely, but I will not at this time. Instead I will leave you with this, myself, my friends, my family and and anyone that comes into town from outside the LA area to visit me will not come to Santa Monica to spend money again, if indeed you implement vaccine mandates. I am adamantly opposed for so many reasons to vaccine mandates, please do not impose this illegal, unconstitutional mandates on citizens of your city.

Thank You
Jonathan Jones
Item 13.G
01/11/21
110 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: vaccine passports
From: Britt Lind <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:10 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

Coercing people to get vaccinated is against federal code 21, section 500.23 and 24. Forcing people to show their medical records is a violation of HIPA.

The discrimination you plan to legitimize goes against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Voting for vaccine passports makes you liable for legal action.

I certainly hope that you do not decide to take this ill advised step.

Britt Lind
‐‐‐
Britt Lind
President ‐ People for Reason in Science and Medicine
brittlind.com
425‐760‐8902
https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0511169?ref_=hm_nv_usr_prof peopleforreason.org
facebook.com/gotoprism
Twitter ‐ @gotoprism
Instagram ‐ @gotoprism
Item 13.G
01/11/21
111 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Please do not vote for Santa Monica vax passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: David Mackenzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:14 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Please do not vote for Santa Monica vax passport

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
Please may I ask you to not vote for mandating anything more in relation to Covid ‐ including the vaccine passports you are voting about tonight.

Mandatory health measures go against the notion of informed consent which is enshrined into medicine.

They go against all notions of personal responsibility.

They are un‐American in every way.

They are proving across the world to ineffective at preventing Covid spread.

Omicron spread is almost unstoppable as we have seen in the last few weeks. But South Africa and now the U.K. have seen cases drop quickly and hospitalisations down significantly which is a good indicator that things will go this way here too.

Omicron may be the best way to achieve the level of immunity to finally stop this virus. Vaccine Passports will be irrelevant, expensive, bureaucratic and discriminatory.

Like all Covid mandates they will be subject to legal challenge and may ultimately prove embarrassing to those that impose them.

Please do not vote for them.

Regards,
David Mackenzie, Santa Monica Resident
Item 13.G
01/11/21
112 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW:

From: DONNA PEARMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:16 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject:

EXTERNAL
Please vote no on the vaccine passport.Covid can still transmit through the vaccinated.It won't work.Your resturaunts will close down due to not e tough people.Ours in san Fernando Valley are almost empty.Its not right to have people have to take the Covid test.You have to know three days before you go to eat.It separates families.It doesn't transit the virus there.In the mean time people crowd on buses.No social distance.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
113 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: NO to proof of vax requirements
From: Ashley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:23 PM
Subject: NO to proof of vax requirements

EXTERNAL
This email is to firmly oppose the instigation of "proof of vax" in order to enter certain indoor establishments. There is simply no validity to it at all.

People are getting sicker than ever, thanks to the bio weapon injections which provide no immunity to anything. We elected you folks to be good stewards of our public dollars and policy, but instead you are following mainstream media opinion which has an agenda, and is plain wrong.

Your woke policy would remove choice from the equation, whether or not to get the covid injection; we are grown adults. I think we can make our own mind whether we deem a certain "vax" should be taken or not.

And the argument is valid: 'if it's such an effective "vaccine" and you take it, why do you care who else takes it?'. It's insanity to force this on people, and we the people will not stand for it.

There is an obesity epidemic that needs to be addressed, and it isn't because of the erroneous covid narrative. Case numbers are completely meaningless https://roundtablereport.com/?p=6582 [video with PCR Inventor Dr Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize Winner].

Please wake up you guys and stop going along with the New World Order rubbish. I hope you are not being incentivized for this, because that's illegal also. It's called coercion here too.

It's never too late to do the right thing and let people make their own minds up.... most people in hospital right now are the fools who have taken this infection injection.

Warm regards,
Ashley J.
- Ashley Jeffery
Email: [email protected]
Item 13.G
01/11/21
114 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 “If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change” - Wayne Dyer
Item 13.G
01/11/21
115 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Item 13G-Vaccine Mandate
From: Steph Stalker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:28 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 13G‐Vaccine Mandate

EXTERNAL
Hi,
I'm a Santa Monica Resident and homeowner. I have two children who go to SM public elementary school and wanted to write to you to express my support for a citywide vaccine mandate for indoor dining and venues. Both myself and my husband work in the sciences and we are both strong supporters of the vaccine. We have seen the data and understand that vaccines work to minimize transmission of this deadly virus. Both of our children have also received the vaccine on the very first day that CVS opened it up to them.

We are very concerned that Santa Monica whose residents are overwhelmingly vaccinated, seems to have taken a laissez faire approach to vaccine mandates. This loose approach has allowed unvax people in neighboring Los Angeles and tourists to the area to enter our dining and establishments and bring in COVID with them. As we know, despite full vaccination and booster shots, the Omicron variant is able to evade this and spread to others who are not able to protect themselves. At any moment our Teacher's Union could decide to close schools given a severe enough outbreak.

My family has done our part in getting vaccinated and boosted, so now it's the city's turn to do its part to further help prevent the spread. The vaccines are available to all and the city has made available multiple opportunities and locations for which to obtain it but that is evidently not enough for some, so unfortunately this measure must be taken.

Secondly, this mandate needs to apply to all who are able to get vaccinated (ages 5 and up). It is unclear to me why the age of 18 was decided. Anyone aged 5 and up can (and needs to) get this vaccine. I have multiple friends in this city with children under the age of 5 who are not yet eligible, so while we wait for them, it is critical we minimize as much spread as possible.

We are counting on you as our representatives to please do the right thing to keep my kids in school and keep our vulnerable community safe.

Thank you for your time,
Stephanie Stalker
Item 13.G
01/11/21
116 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Please do no enact vax passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Bella <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:03 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Please do no enact vax passport

EXTERNAL
I was shocked to learn that several members of the Santa Monica City Council (Brock, Himmelrich and Parra) that I voted for are proposing a vaccine passport on Jan. 11th, 2022 to start on February 8, 2022. This is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. I’m emailing to the City Council and let them know that I oppose a Santa Monica Vaccine Passport. I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport.

Please respect the laws and our God given freedom.

Santa Monica resident since 2004.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
117 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Please do no enact vax passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Vilma Zenelaj <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:04 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Please do no enact vax passport

Please respect the laws and our God given freedom.

Santa Monica resident since 2004.

Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
118 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: jzhawk13 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: There are hundreds of opposing emails...

EXTERNAL
There are hundreds and hundreds of opposing emails that people sent to [email protected] Which is on your website.

Pull this agenda item G13. This is criminal what is going on.

Sent from ProtonMail mobile
Item 13.G
01/11/21
119 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Please do no enact vax passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Vilma Zenelaj <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:04 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Please do no enact vax passport

Please respect the laws and our God given freedom.

Santa Monica resident since 2004.

Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
120 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Please do no enact vax passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Real Houses <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:04 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Please do no enact vax passport

Please respect the laws and our God given freedom.

Santa Monica resident since 2004.

Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
121 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Covid mandate
From: Maurice Maxwell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:53 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Covid mandate

EXTERNAL
This is extremely terrible....Communism at it best. We're is my Freedom of Choice? My City has become People Public of Santa Monica! Just like Russia, China and North Korea. And you think you're trying to save Lives. And People are still getting sick after getting shot one, shot two and Now the Booster. Please Stop this one sided view stuff!! It's just not Working!!! Straight from a Native of Santa Monica, who roots runs as far back as 1890! My Ancestors are turning in there Graves!!!
Item 13.G
01/11/21
122 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No Vaccine Passports
From: johnny bao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:54 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: No Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council,
I am a Santa Monica tax payer writing to voice my opinion against vaccine passports in Santa Monica. I am a published scientist and have been reviewing research papers for months.

My reasons may be summarized as follows:

1. Vaccine passports are a significant violation of health privacy.

2. Vaccine passports form the infrastructure to support a vaccine apartheid that pays no attention to natural immunity that is noted in the literature to be as much as 27 times more potent than vaccine conferred immunity. Further, natural immunity is far more durable (typically lasting decades rather than a handful of months).

3.The existing vaccines have no possible long term studies. With each passing week, we hear more about the failings of the vaccine (need for boosters, more side effects, diminishing efficacy against new variants). Further, the manufacturers have yet to disclose their actual short term trial data. They continue to fight against the release of the data. This should be cause for alarm to anyone.

I can provide journal research support for every point raised here (and many more). I am more than glad to discuss further. Make no mistake... the science does not support vaccine passports.

Sincerely
johnny bao
Item 13.G
01/11/21
123 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: NO on Vaccine Passport
From: Andrew Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:53 AM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: NO on Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Hello,
The new variants of this virus are becoming less and less harmful to our country. And with the incredible rise in cases, it is very apparent that the vaccine is not effectively stopping this variant of the virus.

There are other issues that you need to be addressing while the past two years have been focused on stopping a virus.

Finally, please stop dividing our country. Allow people to make a choice on injecting a vaccine into their bodies that has been rushed to market. Especially one that is seemingly not working. There are millions of smart, loving, kind and compassionate Americans that are choosing not to get a vaccine. Stop making us feel like we don’t belong in our own neighborhoods.

Thank you,
Andy
Item 13.G
01/11/21
124 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: please vote NO on Santa Monica Vaccine Passport From: Melissa Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:57 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: please vote NO on Santa Monica Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please vote no on the proposed vaccine passport for Santa Monica. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slowing down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated, in effect creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

Please honor your oath as public servants and work to protect the freedoms of your constituents. There have been numerous adverse side effects from the vaccine. Where there is risk, there must be choice.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Item 13.G
01/11/21
125 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Melissa Smith
Item 13.G
01/11/21
126 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
Item 13.G
01/11/21
127 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: ITEM 13 G- Vaccine Passports
Attachments: SM 1.jpg
From: Paola Coria <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:52 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: ITEM 13 G‐ Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
I will begin by sharing my deep disappointment with the ignorance of City of Santa Monica Board Members.

PLEASE read up on the US Constitution and the Nuremberg laws that SUPERSEDE "mandates". Please have a CONSCIOUS and STOP these ILLEGAL mandates! and STOP KILLING SMALL BUSINESSES!! For starters, all covid shots are STILL UNDER EUA! NONE have been approved‐ therefore, they are STILL AN EXPERIMENT!
In case you haven't heard...these shots DO NOT STOP ANY SPREAD of anything! The viral load is the same in a vaccinated vs non‐vaccinated person. Why FORCE people to take an INEFFECTIVE EXPERIMENTAL drug to dine in restaurants??? Think about it!‐ Vaccine passports make NO SENSE! and cause DISCRIMINATION on one's medical status and KILLS SMALL BUSINESSES!
Please know that a recent study showed vaccinated people infected others at a rate of 25%, while the unvaccinated did it at a rate of 25%‐ not much difference.

In addition, why do you continue to close your eyes with Natural Immunity? As with Polio and chicken pox‐ once you had it you DID NOT NEED A VACCINE! So now should these people be DISCRIMINATED AGAINST for not taking this INEFFECTIVE EXPERIMENTAL drug???
You are mandating a vaccine with a mortality rate 174 times higher than the virus, yet you have the nerve to say you want the well‐being of the community?? What happened to COMMON SENSE?? PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING! masks, testing, covid shot should be OPTIONAL! Ask Orange County how business is booming over there because they have some sort of common sense left! ‐ This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
128 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 - This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

PAOLA CORIA
Item 13.G
01/11/21
129 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No on Vaccine Passports
From: Christina Lindsey Orta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:26 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No on Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
Please do not support vaccine passports. This is a violation of our USA Constitution, segregates people by medical class and discriminated against groups of people without recognizing natural immunity, religious freedoms or the fact that no FDA approved version of the vaccine is actually available in the USA (Pfizer’s FDA approved version isn’t actually distributed in United States).

The last time in history a card had to be used to go certain places and businesses, was Nazi Germany.

Please vote NO on this!
Christina
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
130 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Opposition to the proposed Vaccine Mandate ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: John Siscel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:09 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition to the proposed Vaccine Mandate

EXTERNAL
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Covid‐19 Vaccine Mandate that is currently before the Santa Monica.

This potential mandate, however well‐intentioned it may be, is not something that will be effective or beneficial to the Santa Monica community or the area at large.

There are many reasons why this mandate is a very bad idea such as:

Santa Monica already has a very high vaccination rate (over 80%) among its residents (source:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News‐2021/August‐ 2021/08_02_2021_Santa_Monica_Vaccination_Rate_Tops_80_Percent.html__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!9HsKhvc6H0wma6 rR84HKBtSNvYhsIy8bzTqKuhfNrmYRmGU2gbfQpWJjft1Q50k$ )
The CDC Director has recently stated that being fully vaccinated does not prevent getting or spreading the disease. (source:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.msn.com/en‐us/health/medical/cdc‐director‐covid‐vaccines‐cant‐prevent‐ transmission‐anymore/ar‐
AASDndg__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!9HsKhvc6H0wma6rR84HKBtSNvYhsIy8bzTqKuhfNrmYRmGU2gbfQpWJj2cPPGc0$ ) We are already under a mask mandate and we know that mask wearing works and is effective and stopping the spread.

Any vaccine mandate will only strengthen the resolve of those who are refusing or hesitant to get the vaccine and will play into the hands of the conspiracy theory crowd.

A vaccine mandate will hurt our small businesses, as it will prevent those who opt out of vaccination to spend their dollars in our community, as well prevent tourists from other areas of the country from patronizing our businesses.

Any city mandated vaccine requirement will force these small and medium businesses to enforce the policy which puts those individuals in a law enforcement capacity, which they are not trained for, nor did they sign up for it.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
131 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 And lastly, and most importantly to me, vaccine mandates, like it or not, create two seperate classes of people. As a result, individuals will be denied access to various goods and services because of this.

And that is wrong, no matter what the motivation behind the policy is.

I ask the council to do the right thing and vote down this mandate. I thank you for your time and consideration.

Best,
John Siscel
Item 13.G
01/11/21
132 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Comments on proposed vaccine mandate
From: Eric Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:11 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on proposed vaccine mandate

EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Council members
I am a registered voter in the city of Santa Monica wishing to offer commentary on the proposed city vaccine mandate being debated tonight as covered in today's issue of the Santa Monica daily press.

First, I feel it would be somewhat useful to give you a little background on myself. I'm an academic researcher currently on faculty at UC‐Riverside and before that at the University of Southern California. I obtained my PhD from the University of California, Berkeley and have an extensive background in empirical research, statistical analysis, and interpreting academic research. Based on the proposed mandate in the aforementioned news story I have the following reservations about its adoption. I'll only list them briefly here, but I'm happy to expand if you'd like more detail. I also want to make clear that these points represent my best understanding of the current (and evolving) academic data, and I share them on my own behalf, and not on that of my employer or any other parties. 1) While still preliminary, the current academic evidence indicates that reduction in transmission provided by being vaccinated is significantly worse than for prior variants. If anything, the developing consensus reinforces the point that the main benefit of vaccination is to minimize the negative effects of Covid for the infected person, not significantly reduce community transmission.
2) While the number of positive cases are increasing (partially due to increased testing), the rate of hospitalization and death isn't anywhere near the same rate. Indeed based on the most recent data from the LA county health system, the overall number of patients has stayed relatively flat. This is most likely due to a combination of vaccination, and omnicron being less severe.
3) The proposed mandate is significantly beyond current CDC guidelines.

In sum, I don't believe the current cost‐benefit analysis is in favor of a change to current policies, particularly given that the justification is based on the claim it will reduce transmission significantly. In addition, given the high rates of vaccination in Santa Monica and surrounding communities, as well as current hospitalization trends, the current environment doesn't justify the imposition of a broad set of rules that will impose costs on businesses and their consumers (vaccinated or not).

Finally, on a practical level (and this is the most opinion based , the imposition of these policies have been continually ad hoc and unclear over the course of the pandemic. I don't question that many of them were justified, but to assume that a new regulation is going to make things easier for businesses already fighting with multiple layers of uncertainty and compliance seems very unlikely given recent history.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
133 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Thanks for your consideration.

Eric Allen, PhD
Item 13.G
01/11/21
134 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: I strongly oppose the enacting of Vaccine-passports in Santa Monica! From: Linda "Elinda" Frithiof <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:12 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: I strongly oppose the enacting of Vaccine‐passports in Santa Monica!

EXTERNAL
I strongly oppose the enacting of Vaccine‐passports in Santa Monica!

1. Vaccines do not stop the transmission of the virus (obviously, if you look around and check the numbers in SM right now) so the only incentive that is left is to stop people from ending up in the ICU. Evidence show that the Omicron is not sending people to the ICU in the same extent as the Delta did. Keep in mind that people end up in the ICU for many reasons and the Corona virus is just one of them. If we want to save lives there are more effective ways where the money is better spent.

2. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. The people of Santa Monica elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. Looking at other countries we can see that the Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus.

Instead it creates a false sense of security that could be dangerous to the people who are immunocompromised.

Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise to slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

Best regards,
Linda Frithiof
Rebound Sound Co. Los Angeles
www.reboundsound.la
[email protected]
+1 (310) 461‐9135 USA
Item 13.G
01/11/21
135 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport
From: Nicole Sessions <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:15 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
I am writing in oppostiion of the proposed vaccine passport.

Why would you implement a passport when vaccinated people can contract and transmit COVID. This policy is unsound, discriminatory and will hurt businesses.

Thank you,
Nicole Sessions
"The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart." -The Buddha Nicole Sessions, CD(DONA) http://www.nicolesessions.com
IG: @TheSweetYogini
Yoga *Herbalist * Doula * Hypnobirthing® Practitioner * Breath * Sound * Poetry Item 13.G
01/11/21
136 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
8 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: We vigorously oppose vaccine mandates in Santa Monica!!! From: Marcus Portis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:21 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: We vigorously oppose vaccine mandates in Santa Monica!!!

EXTERNAL
I am an LAFD firefighter who lives in the city of LA. Me and so many others frequent the businesses in the iconic city of Santa Monica! VAX PASSPORTS DO NOT WORK!! Our most recent LAFD firefighter recruit academy was recently shutdown due to a covid outbreak. Every recruit, including the staff was fully VACCINATED!! Please wake up. The only thing you will spread with these passports is a detrimental (possibly fatal) economic virus that cripples local business.

Please honor your duty to serve and protect our God‐given freedoms and liberties. We oppose and object to vaccine passports for Santa Monica!!! God is watching.

Sincerely and Morally, M. Portis
Item 13.G
01/11/21
137 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
9 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Not in Support
From: alexandra lambrakis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:21 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Not in Support

EXTERNAL
As a resident of Los Angeles, I in no way support the vaccine passport for Santa Monica City which is in violation of all kinds of federal laws and allows for the takeover of Santa Monica by lawlessness and agendas that in no way favor the health of the city or its residents. At this juncture in this pandemic there is no defendable reason to be implementing such a plan given that these leaky vaccines have leveled the playing ground with this virus which infects and transmits regardless of this status. Please do not succumb to forces of greed and falsehood and misdirection. We count on your good judgment and good conscience.

Thank you for your service.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
138 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
10 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: We strongly object to vaccine passports in Santa Monica!!! From: makkis blakkis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:23 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: We strongly object to vaccine passports in Santa Monica!!!

Sincerely and Morally, M. Portis
Item 13.G
01/11/21
139 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: NO VACCINE PASSPORT
From: Shelley Cerny <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:05 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: NO VACCINE PASSPORT

EXTERNAL
Period. I do not consent. I'm a healthcare professional. I treat Santa Monica residents every week. This "vaccine" is not tested, it is not a traditional vaccine, it is experimental, the vaccine that has been FDA approved (Comirnaty) is not available and is not what people are being given, it has now harmed and killed more people than Covid, I treat more vaccine injuries than Covid cases. Gates and Fauci have come out and said the vaccine does not work as expected. This is not ok. I do not consent.

Shelley Cerny LAc
1137 2nd St. Suite 119
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 13.G
01/11/21
140 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

From: D <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:06 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

EXTERNAL
I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

Danielle Ezra
4874 South Centinela avenue Los Angeles California 90066 Item 13.G
01/11/21
141 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: ITEM 13G on January, 11 2022 agenda
From: Steve Greenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:13 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: ITEM 13G on January, 11 2022 agenda

Item 13.G
01/11/21
142 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 In addition to being a physician, I am a foodie. I have long supported the restaurant industry in Santa Monica. While a few of my favorite restaurants have set an example by requiring vaccination, for the most part I have had to go outside of Santa Monica in order to safely eat at a restaurant. I have always been proud to live here. Lately, I am embarrassed and ashamed.

Thank you.

Stephen M. Greenberg MD
Item 13.G
01/11/21
143 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passports
From: Al Benoit <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:06 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
Please do not introduce this idea. First of all, our current vaccines for Covid‐19 do not warrant it, since they do little to nothing to prevent infection or transmission. Second, these products are very dangerous compared to typical vaccines.

Visit openvaers.com to see that proof. Third, creating a passport as such amounts to coercion to receive a medical intervention which is against the Nuremburg Codes and US law which follows it in principle. Do you later want to be implicated in crimes against humanity? If you don't, then leave this alone.

Sincerely,
Alfred Benoit
Item 13.G
01/11/21
144 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: oppose vaccination passport
From: Ilana Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:15 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: oppose vaccination passport

EXTERNAL
I oppose implementing any vaccine passport
This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a False sense of security.

1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. there are plenty people that are immune to sickness and have antibodies and have no need for vaccination at all and this is preposterous to demand such things to only create death I know plenty of people that I’ve gotten the vaccination and have had adverse reactions and death. This is a form of discrimination and unconstitutional
Sincerely
US Citizen
Ilana Tay
Item 13.G
01/11/21
145 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Please vote against the vaccine passport for Santa Monica! It's not good for any of us! From: Dorsey Larus Roe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:19 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Please vote against the vaccine passport for Santa Monica! It's not good for any of us!

EXTERNAL
Hello Council Members,
Please vote 'no'.

Forcing people to get a vaccine that may or may not be appropriate for them just so they can participate in daily life is not a good idea.

None of us know the effects of repeated vaccinations and the Omicron variant is much milder.

Many people have it right now and their symptoms are very similar to a cold, the emergency rooms in Santa Monica are not full!
Please vote against the vaccine passport--it is not a good idea for us in Santa Monica.

Thank you!
Dorsey Roe
Item 13.G
01/11/21
146 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
8 Vernice Hankins
From: Gene Oppenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 13G

EXTERNAL
I want to let you know that I strongly support a mask mandate as described in item 13G. This will help reduce the spread of the COVID Virus and help prevent disease, hospitalizations, and deaths.

Thank you,
Gene Oppenheim, MD MPH
Item 13.G
01/11/21
147 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No Vax Passport
From: maran17 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:44 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No Vax Passport

EXTERNAL
Dear council,
I Do Not Support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. This goes against All of our natural rights, our constitution and our free will. It is Unlawful & Unjust.

Santa Monica cannot turn in to 1939 Germany!
Thank you
Jim White
Item 13.G
01/11/21
148 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport
From: sxf225 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:48 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Dear city council,
I am writing to let you know that I do not support the implementation of the vaccine passport as it is a violation of the constitutional right to liberty.

Best,
SF
Item 13.G
01/11/21
149 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No!
From: Carmit Bachar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:54 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No!

EXTERNAL
I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

Carmit Bachar
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
150 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: I do not support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica From: Juanita Lucero <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:55 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: I do not support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars.

This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
151 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Thank you.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
152 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Concerned citizen, voicing my OPPOSITION to enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

From: Tiffany Hume <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:00 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerned citizen, voicing my OPPOSITION to enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

EXTERNAL
To Whom it May Concern;
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen. I am voicing my OPPOSITION to enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,
~Tiffany
Item 13.G
01/11/21
153 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
THE PFIZER INOCULATIONS FOR COVID-19

MORE HARM

THAN GOOD

WHO WE ARE
Our alliance of over 500 independent Canadian
doctors, scientists, and health care practitioners is
committed toprovidingquality, balanced, evidence-based
information to the Canadian public about COVID-19 so that hospitalizations can be reduced, lives saved, and our
country safely restored to normal as quickly as possible.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
155 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

WE SUPPORT
The doctor/patient
relationship andpersonalized
care
Informed consent and
treatmentoptions
Freeandopenscientific
discourse
Safe & effective vaccines
Item 13.G
01/11/21
156 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

FIRST, DO NO HARM
The federal, provincial and municipal governments in Canada have a responsibility to protect the health of Canadians as well as our Charter Rights and Freedoms. Any medical interventions
approved by Health Canada must first be PROVEN SAFE.

Due diligence in research, as well as adherence to established protocols of the doctor/patient relationship, informed consent andscientific inquiry are essentialtocarrying out that responsibility.

Deviating from those practices, causing harm and failing to disclose risks of harm is negligent at best.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
157 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

OVERVIEW
Hierarchy of evidence
Pfizer’s 2 month data report, Dec 31 2020
• ARR vs RRR explained - VIDEO
• EarlyunblindingofPfizer’srandomizedcontrol
trial
Pfizer’s 6 month data report, Sep 15 2021
• Increased risk of illness
• Increasedriskofdeath
The Pfizer Trials - What went wrong
• Pfizer did notfollow established protocols
• Misleading demographics - Wrong age
• Misleadingdemographics - Testedonhealthy,
given to sick
• Inadequate control groups
• Did not track biomarkers
• Wrong clinical endpoints
• Not tested for spread reduction
• Subjectivetesting
• Missing data - Losttofollowupandsuspected,
but unconfirmed
•
Failure to test - Why itmatters
• 12 - 15 trial - All risk, no benefit
• 12 - 15trial - Failure to reportserious adverse
events
• 5 - 11 year olds - Risking their health
• Myocarditis is serious
• The FDA abandons “First, do noharm”
• 5 - 11 year olds - No informed consent
• The BMJ Pfizer trial whistleblower article
A critical eye on the Sep 15 2020 report
• 6 month data manipulation - Mixed cohorts
• ThePfizertrialsdidnotprovesafety - they
proved harm
How this is playing out in the real world
• Rolloutsurveillance - Youdon’tfindwhat you
don’t look for
• Risingincidentsofheartissuesinyoungpeople
(Ontario Public Health Report)
• Thisisnotnormal - High incidencesofdeathsin
athletes (German, Israeli newsarticles)
•
Thisissupposed to be rare - VIDEOof athletes
collapsing
• Pfizer’s post marketing pharmacovigilance
report
Considerable evidence of conflict of interest
• Pfizer is making billions
• The public record of Pfizer’s corporate culture
• Links to articles on Pfizer’s past behaviour
• Conflicts of interest among Pfizer reportauthors
• The CDC has redefined “vaccine”
• The media has been captured - VIDEO
This is no way to manage a supplier
The inoculations should be withdrawn
immediately
Recommended reading & viewing
Item 13.G
01/11/21
158 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

THE HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE
• A randomized control trial is LEVEL 1
Evidence, thehighestform of evidencethere is. Itis
considered the Gold Standard and is the only way
to prove something is true.
• Models are LEVEL 5 or lower as they are
expert opinion/speculation.
•Policy should be determined by the highest
level of evidence available, LEVEL1.

Levels of Scientific Evidence
Item 13.G
01/11/21
159 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
PFIZER’S ORIGINAL TRIAL REPORT
DECEMBER 31 2020
• Published in New England Journal of Medicine
• Showed 2 months worth of safety & efficacy data
• Described starting with 43,548 people divided into:

1. Treatment group (received inoculation)

2. Control group (received saline)
for 2 months to see who developed COVID-19
• The claimwasthatthe inoculations were safe and showed 95% efficacy 7 days after the 2nd dose. But that 95% was actually Relative Risk Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%. Click here to watch a 1 minute video explaining RRR vs ARR.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
160 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION

VS RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION
https://rumble.com/vobcg5-relative-vs-absolute-risk-reduction.html Item 13.G
01/11/21
161 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

EARLY UNBLINDING OF RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL
= NO LONG TERM SAFETY DATA

WHAT WAS SUPPOSEDTOHAPPEN WHAT ACTUALLYHAPPENED

INOCULATED
GROUP

PLACEBO
GROUP

INOCULATED
GROUP

PLACEBO
GROUP
July 27 2020
Phase III Begins
The participants are evenly divided into Inoculated and Placebo groups of about 21,000 each. The study is blind.

Dec 31 2020
Release 2 month data report. The trial is unblinded early.

Crossover Occurs
The participants from the Placebo Group are given the
opportunity to take the inoculation and by early 2021, the majorityofthemhavecrossedovertotheinoculatedgroup.It’s
no longer a randomized control trial, as control group
is gone.

May 2 2023
End of Phase III Clinical Trial
The long term safety data that was supposed to be assessed at this point is no longer possible to ascertain as the placebo group crossed over two years previously.

NO ↓↓ DATA 2023
NO ↓↓ DATA 2022
NO
DATA ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
2021
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
2020
●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● July 27 2020
Phase III Begins
The participants are evenly divided into
Inoculated and Placebo groups of about
21,000 each. The study is blind, so
participants don’t know which group they
are in.
●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● 2020 ●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●
●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● 2021 ↓ ↓
2022 ↓ ↓
2023 ↓ ↓
May 2 2023
End of Phase III Clinical Trial
Thisisthe point where the trial can be
unblinded and the Placebo group
offered the intervention if it’s indicated
and they consent.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
162 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
Th e ne w engl and jour nal of medicine
Safety andEfficacy oftheBNT162b2mRNA
Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months
S.J.Thomas,E.D. Moreira, Jr.,N.Kitchin, J.Absalon, A. Gurtman,S.Lockhart, J.L. Perez,G. PérezMarc, F.P. Polack, C. Zerbini, R. Bailey, K.A. Swanson, X.Xu,S.Roychoudhury,K.Koury,S.Bouguermouh,W.V.Kalina,D.Cooper, R.W. Frenck, Jr., L.L.Hammitt, Ö.Türeci,H.Nell, A. Schaefer,S.Ünal,Q. Yang, P. Liberator, D.B.Tresnan,S.Mather,P.R. Dormitzer, U. Şahin,W.C. Gruber, and K.U. Jansen, for the C4591001 Clinical Trial Group*

ABSTR ACT

BACKGROUND
BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)full-length spike protein.BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and is currently approved, conditionally approved, or authorized for emergency use worldwide. At the time of initial authorization, data beyond 2 months after vaccination were unavailable.

METHODS
In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy trial,werandomly assigned44,165participants 16yearsof age or olderand2264 participants 12 to 15 years of age to receive two 30-µg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 or placebo. The trial end points were vaccine efficacy against laboratoryconfirmed Covid-19 and safety, which were both evaluated through 6 months after vaccination.

RESULTS
BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile. Few participantshadadverse events leading towithdrawalfromthe trial.Vaccineefficacy against Covid-19 was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.0 to 93.2) through 6 months of follow-up among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated. There was a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy.Vaccine efficacy of86to 100%was seenacross countries and in populations with diverse ages, sexes, race or ethnic groups, and risk factors for Covid-19 among participants without evidence of previous infection with SARSCoV-2.Vaccineefficacyagainstseverediseasewas96.7%(95%CI,80.3to99.9).In SouthAfrica,wheretheSARS-CoV-2 variantof concernB.1.351(orbeta)waspredominant, a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI, 53.5 to 100) wasobserved.

CONCLUSIONS
Through 6 monthsoffollow-upanddespite a gradualdecline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19.(FundedbyBioNTechandPfizer;ClinicalTrials.govnumber,NCT04368728.) The authors’ full names, academic degrees, and affiliations are listed in the Appendix. Dr. Dormitzer can be contacted at [email protected] or at Pfizer, 401 N. Middletown Rd., Pearl River,
NY 10965.
*A list of the investigators in the C4591001
Clinical Trial Group is provided in the
Supplementary Appendix, available at
NEJM.org.

ThisarticlewaspublishedonSeptember 15,
2021, atNEJM.org.

N Engl J Med 2021;385:1761-73.

DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2110345
Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.

CME
at NEJM.org
n engl j med 385;19 nejm.org November 4, 2021 1761
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org on November 10, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.

Original Article
PFIZER’S 6 MONTHREPORTDATA
LEVEL 1 EVIDENCE OFHARM
• Pfizer’s most recent report indicates an Efficacy of 91.3%. (Which means a reduction in positive cases compared to
placebo group.)
• But it also showed, compared to the placebo group, an increase in illness and deaths.
•There is no benefit to a reduction in cases if it comesat the cost of increased sickness and death.
10 https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345?articleTools=true Item 13.G
01/11/21
163 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

INCREASED RISK OF

ILLNESS
A significant increase in illness, which the Pfizer
inoculations were supposed to reduce.

ScreencapturefromPfizer 6 MonthSupplementaryAppendix
11 BNT162b2 Placebo Risk Change
Efficacy
(Meaning number ofpeople
diagnosed with COVID-19.)
77 850 -91%
Related Adverse Event
(Meaning an investigator has assessed it as
related to the BNT162b2 injection.)
5,241 1,311 +300%
Any Severe Adverse Event
(Interferes significantly with normalfunction.) 262 150 +75% Any Serious Adverse Event
(Involves visit to ER or hospitalization.) 127 116 +10% Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months - Supplementary Appendix Item 13.G
01/11/21
164 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
Placebo
2 5
BNT162b2
1 9
Total COVID-19 Related Deaths
Deaths Related to Cardiovascular Events

INCREASED RISK OF
DEATH
BNT162b2 Placebo
Deaths before unblinding
(In Table S4 of Supplementary Appendix)
15 14
Deaths after unblinding
(Not in table, but mentioned in text of 6 month report. See quote below.) 5 Total Deaths 20 14
“Afterunblinding”meanswhenthePlaceboparticipantsweregiventheopportunityto“cross over” and take the BNT162b2 inoculation.*
“…3 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 2 in the original placebo group who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died.”
Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months Concerning Causes of Death
12 *A total of 19,525 subjects originally randomized to placebo received at least one dose of BNT162b2 after unblinding (Dose 3 and Dose 4) and before the March 13, 2021 data cutoff.

ScreencapturefromPfizer6MonthSupplementaryAppendix
Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months - Supplementary Appendix Item 13.G
01/11/21
165 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

THE PFIZER TRIALS

WHAT WENT WRONG
Item 13.G
01/11/21
166 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

PHASE III
continues,
but
unblinded
2020 2021
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5

PFIZER DID NOT FOLLOW

ESTABLISHEDPROTOCOLS
NORMALLY, VACCINE DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE THIS, WITH A TIMELINE OF 5 TO 10 YEARS.

RARELY, IT CAN BE DONE IN AS LITTLE AS 5 YEARS.

FOR THE COVID-19 INOCULATIONS, IT WAS DONE IN 1 YEAR.

ROLLOUT BEGINS
• Animaltesting
was skipped
• Phases II/III
were
combined
• After 2 months
of Phase II/III,
Emergency
Use
Authorized
• The trials were
unblinded
• Phase IIItrials
are ongoing
until 2023
Human Trials

PHASE III
Human Trials

PHASE II
Human Trials

PHASE I
In Vitro &
Animal
Models
Human TrialsPHASE III
Safety & efficacy
Human Trials PHASE II
Safety & immuneresponses
Human Trials PHASE I
Safety, dosing, immuneresponses
In Vitro &
Animal Models
Regarding the persistent claim that the COVID-19 inoculation products do not need to be tested, because mRNA technology has already undergone testing: mRNA technology is the delivery mechanism, notthe inoculation. That’slike sayingthatsincewe’ve used syringes safely before, anything injected via syringe is safe. (And in fact,thereare still a lot of unknowns about the effects of the mRNA delivery mechanism.)
Item 13.G
01/11/21
167 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

MISLEADING DEMOGRAPHICS

WRONG AGE FOR TARGET POPULATION
When designing a trial for the efficacy and safety of a potential treatment, the focusshould be on the target population who could most benefit from that treatment. Instead Pfizerchoseparticipantsfrom younger demographic thatwould be a)lesslikelyto need a vaccine,b)lesslikelytosuffer an adverse eventduring a trial, c)morelikelyto respond welltoa vaccine, as the elderly have comparatively poor immune responses.

COVID-19DeathspercapitabyageintheUnitedStates(asofJun5,2021).Population-basedonU.S.CDCWONDER Bridge-RacePopulation Estimate 2019.Dataobtainedfrom https://wonder.cdc.gov/bridged-race-v2019.html

FACT SHEET FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS ADMINISTERING VACCINE (VACCINATION PROVIDERS) EMERGENCY USEAUTHORIZATION(EUA)OFTHEPFIZER-BIONTECHCOVID-19VACCINETOPREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019(COVID-19)
https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=14471
Pfizer Trial Demographics
Yet 75+ year olds
represent only 4% of
trial subjects.

Actual Risk of Death by Age from COVID-19
58%of the people
most at risk from
COVID-19 are over 75.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
168 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

MISLEADING DEMOGRAPHICS

TESTEDONHEALTHY,GIVENTOSICK

REAL WORLD

CO-MORBIDITIES
95% of people
who have died with
COVID-19 have had at
least 1 co-morbidity
listedas causeofdeath.

The average is 4 comorbidities. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm? fbclid=IwAR3-
wrg3tTKK5-9tOHPGAHWFVO3DfslkJ0KsDEPQpWmPbKtp6EsoVV2Qs1
Q#Comorbidities

PFIZER TRIAL

CO-CONDITIONS
Only 21% had a
co-existing
condition.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?
articleTools=true
Pfizer Trial Protocols - Exclusions

IMPLICATIONS FOR ROLLOUT
• We are told the inoculations are “safe.” Yet many health conditions - in fact a list several pages long - were excluded from the trials, including pregnant or breastfeeding women, people withallergies, with psychiatric conditions, immunocompromised people, people with bleeding disorders, people who had previously tested positive for COVID-19, people who had been prescribed steroids, etc., so there has never been any data tomake safety claims about those people. Yetthey are also not excluded from mandates and vaccine passports. • The vaccines were tested on the healthy, and then immediately given to the frailest members of the society - the elderly with multiple health conditions. Thisis unscientific and unethical.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
169 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

INADEQUATE

CONTROLGROUPS
Pfizer only observed 2 groups:
• UNEXPOSED & INOCULATED
• UNEXPOSED& NOT INOCULATED
Theyshouldhaveincludedtwomore
groups:
• EXPOSED & INOCULATED, people
who had recovered, then got the
inoculation,to see if the inoculation
was safe for them
• EXPOSED & NOT INOCULATED
people who were recovered and not
inoculated to see how theinoculations
stackedup against natural immunity
Experimental Group Placebo Group
Should also have included

UNEXPOSED
+

NOT INOCULATED

UNEXPOSED
+

INOCULATED

EXPOSED
+

NOT INOCULATED

EXPOSED
+

INOCULATED
Item 13.G
01/11/21
170 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
here)

LOW QUALITY SAFETY SCIENCE
DIDN’T TRACK BIOMARKERS
As Kostoff et al. highlighted in a recent paper, “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” (highly recommended), that while the Pfizer trials tested for antibodies and tracked adverse events in terms of symptoms, they didn’t test for adverse events at the subclinical (pre-symptom) level.

This was extremely unsafe, because symptoms/diseases are typically end points of processes that can takemonths, years, or decadestosurface.By the time yougettosymptoms,things can have gone prettywrong.(Thinkdiabetes or high blood pressure,where the disease can be quite advanced before any symptoms occur.) Pfizer should have been tracking biomarkers that would have been early warning indicators for disease caused by the inoculations.

High quality safety science would have meant they should have tested before & after inoculation for:
• d-dimers for evidence of enhanced coagulation/clotting (several of our doctors have noticed increased levels of d-dimers in inoculated patients presenting with stroke like symptoms - video available • C-reactive protein for evidence of enhanced inflammation • troponins for evidence of cardiac damage
• occludin and claudin for evidence of enhanced barrier permeability • blood oxygen levels for evidence of enhanced hypoxia
• amyloid-beta and phosphorylated tau for evidence of increased predisposition to Alzheimer’s disease
• Serum HMGB1, CXCL13, Dickkopf-1 for evidence of an increased disposition to autoimmune disease, etc.

Micro-clots resulting fromtheinoculationthat
were insufficient to cause
observable symptoms
could raise the
baseline for
thrombotic disease.

RONALD N. KOSTOFF A, *, DANIELA CALINA B, DARJA KANDUC C, MICHAEL B.

BRIGGS D, PANAYIOTIS VLACHOYIANNOPOULOS E, ANDREY A. SVISTUNOV F,

ARISTIDIS TSATSAKIS
“WHY ARE WE VACCINATING CHILDREN AGAINST COVID-19?”
Item 13.G
01/11/21
171 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

4. fectiveness(wh er not people contracted C
“Dopeoplewhotakethevaccineshaveless
illness and death than those who don’t?”
“Do people who take the vaccines test positive
for COVID-19 less often?”
NO. (Thetrialsetup
madethisresultunlikely).

YES. Proceedtoworld
wide rollout.

WRONG CLINICAL ENDPOINTS
SHOULD HAVE FOCUSED ON ALL CAUSE MORTALa PI
CRTtesYt + sy&mptoms)

ILLNESS
The fear with COVID-19, was that it was going to a) kill people, b) make them sick.

So any COVID-19vaccineclinicaltrial should setouttoaskthequestion“Do people who take the vaccines have less illness and death than those who don’t?”
Illness + Death should be the CLINICAL ENDPOINTS. And not just illness + death with COVID-19, but any and all illness and death, in order to make sure that the vaccines are not causing harm.

This is well known. It was learned decades ago with cancer drug trials. At first, theyused a clinical endpointof “Didthedrug shrink the cancer?” If it did, they called it effective. But it turned out the drugs were not only killing cancer,they were killing patients. They were forced to change the design of their trials andswitchto“all cause mortality” as the primary endpoint instead and showthatpeople receiving the drug actually live longerthan thosewho don’t. (J.Bart Classen has written an excellentresearch article onthesubject.

Read here.)

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED
(After the proper early safety phases of development were completed.)

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
(Without the proper early safety phases of development having been completed.) NO. Gobacktothe
drawingboard.

YES. Proceedto long
termssafety studies.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
172 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

NOT TESTED FOR SPREAD REDUCTION

VACCINE PASSPORTSUNJUSTIFIED
Althoughvaccinepassportsarenowbeing used to ostensibly prevent orreduce transmission ofCOVID-19,thisoutcomewas never studied in the trial and it is inappropriate to assign that capability to these inoculations. There is no evidence at all that they reduce the spread of disease and transmission was never one of the study’s endpoints.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
173 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

TESTING FAILURES

SUBJECTIVE TESTING
The Pfizer trials DID NOT test all participants for COVID19. Instead,theyinstructedtheirinvestigatorstotest only those with a COVID-19 symptom and left it up to their discretion to decide what those were.

This means that:
◆ Asymptomatic infection would be missed
entirely
◆ A high level ofsubjectivity wasintroduced to the
study - an investigator had the ability to sway
the results
◆ The lack of objective systematic testing makesresults unreliable
All participants should have been tested.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
174 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
PFIZER’S IN OCUL A TIONS F OR C OVID-19 / MORE HARM THAN GOOD

MISSING DATA
◆ LOST TO FOLLOW UP
◆ SUSPECTED, BUT UNCONFIRMED
Confirmed Cases
Dec 31 2020 Report
Lost to Follow Up
Dec 31 2020 Report

INOCULATED
GROUP

PLACEBO
GROUP
ENDPOINT DATA - Confirmed COVID Cases 8 162
Participants Lost to Follow Up 80 86
Suspected, but Unconfirmed Cases 1,594 1,816
ThebasisfortheEmergencyUseAuthorizationwastheConfirmedCOVIDcasesof 8 vs162,which meant a Relative Risk Reduction of 95%. But when dealing with such a small number of cases, any change can impact the results significantly.

Lost to follow up means they lost touch with those subjects and can’t confirm whether they got sick or not.

They don’t know.

Suspected, but unconfirmed means these people were symptomatic for COVID-19, but were never tested. (Discretion for testing was left up to the investigator.) The fact thatthe LosttoFollowUpandSuspectedbutUnconfirmednumbers arehigher - and herethey areeven significantly higher - than the End Point numbers means that this data is unreliable. The study should not have been accepted in thisstate. In normalscientific practice they should have returned to investigate further.

Suspected but Unconfirmed
Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting December 10, 2020 FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine
Item 13.G
01/11/21
175 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
No. of Confirmed Cases Suspected, but not Confirmed Confirmed + Suspected 20%

FAILURE TOTEST

WHY IT MATTERS
If you add theSuspectedtothe
Confirmed Cases, the Relative
Risk Reduction changes to
19%. Less than 50% is
ineligible for EUA.
16%
12%
8%
4%
RRR
95%
1,594
1,816
=
1,602
0%
Inoculation Placebo Inoculation Placebo Inoculation Placebo 23 1,978
162
+

SUSPECTED, NOT CONFIRMED
Symptoms, but no PCR test
CONFIRMED + SUSPECTED
Symptoms, w and w/o PCT test

CONFIRMEDCASES
Symptoms + PCRtest
They had symptoms, butwere
never tested.

The veryhighproportionof
Suspected, but
Unconfirmed participants.
8 19%
RRR
Proportion of Participants
Item 13.G
01/11/21
176 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
12-15ADOLESCENTTRIAL

ALL RISK, NOBENEFIT
• Thisstudy wasseverely underpowered, as a study thissmall will not show up risk.
- Inoculated group - 1,005 (0 tested positive for COVID-19) - Placebo group - 978 (18 tested positive for COVID-19) • Pfizer claimed these were great results, but since adolescents are at statistically 0% risk of death fromCOVID-19, and very low risk ofsevere illness, the inoculation is of little benefit to them. Instead, it presents a very real risk of adverse events.
• ButtheadolescentPfizerstudywasn’tactuallydesignedtofindthose.A serious adverse event, including death, that occurred at a 1/800 rate might not even show up in a sample of 1,005 people. • Butinthis case,itdid. Among the 1,005 adolescents, there WAS at least one serious adverse event - Maddie de Garay.
24 “For childrenwithout a serious medical condition,the danger of severe Covid is so low as to be difficult to quantify.” -COVID AND AGE, Oct 12, 2021, New YorkTimes
Item 13.G
01/11/21
177 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
12 -15 ADOLESCENT TRIAL

FAILURE TO REPORT

SERIOUS ADVERSEEVENTS
Maddie de Garay is a 12 year old trial participant
who developed a serious reaction after her second
dose and was hospitalized within24 hours.

Maddie developed gastroparesis, nausea and
vomiting,erraticbloodpressure,memoryloss,brain
fog, headaches, dizziness, fainting, seizures, verbal
andmotortics,menstrual cycle issues, lostfeeling from
thewaist down, lost bowel and bladder control and
had an nasogastric tube placed because she lost her
ability toeat. Shehas been hospitalizedmany times,
and for the past 10 months she has been
wheelchair bound and fed via tube.

In their report to the FDA, Pfizer described her
injuries as “functional abdominal pain.”
EmergencyUseAuthorizationAmendment
Item 13.G
01/11/21
178 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
PFIZER’S IN OCUL A TIONS F OR C OVID-19 / MORE HARM THAN GOOD 5 - 11 YEAR OLDS

RISKING THEIR HEALTH
Re: the 5 to 11 year old cohort
In this table, Pfizer, using predictive modelling
acknowledges that their inoculations WILL
causemyocarditis, but optimistically claimsthere
will be zero deathsfrom myocarditis in any of their
modelled(speculation,level 5 evidence)scenarios.

But evenifitwere true,thereis no justification
for causing harm to children thisway. FIRST,DO
NO HARM.

Thereis now such a high expectation of heart
problems from the inoculations among children that
Sick Kids is putting out brochures on how
to deal with them.

FDA BRIEFING DOCUMENT
EUA AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE FOR USE IN CHILDREN 5 THROUGH 11 YEARS OF AGE
Low Level (Level 5 Evidence)
SPECULATION - A Predictive Model
Item 13.G
01/11/21
179 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

MYOCARDITIS

IS SERIOUS

MYOCARDITIS
“Myocarditis isaninflammatoryprocessofthemyocardium.
(Heart muscle.) Severe myocarditis weakens your heart so that the rest of your body doesn't get enough blood. Clots can form in your heart, leading to a stroke or heart attack.”

THE US NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY INFORMATION
“The mortality rate is up to 20% at 6.5 years.”
https://jcmr-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1532-429X-13-S1-M7 Item 13.G
01/11/21
180 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

THE FDA ABANDONS

FIRST, DO NO HARM
Medical interventions are supposed to be PROVEN SAFE BEFORE the are rolled out in the population.

Yet Dr. Eric Rubin, one of the 18 members of the FDA advisory panelwhovoted,toapprovetheinoculationsfor children 5 - 11, actually said theopposite, andsuggestedthata populationlevel roll out was an appropriate way to test for adverse
events.

It’sworthnoting thatDr.EricRubin is theeditor-in-chiefofthe New England Journal of Medicine, which publishes the
Pfizer trial reports.
28 “We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes. That’s how we found out about rare complications of other vaccines like the rotavirus vaccine. And I do think we should vote to approve it.”
Dr. Eric Rubin, FDA advisory panel member,
Harvard professor & editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee – 10/26/2021 Item 13.G
01/11/21
181 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 - 11 YEAROLDS

NO INFORMED CONSENT
• Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs is illegal in Canada, yet politiciansfromall levels of government aremarketing inoculations to children, using cartoons andmascots.
• They are proclaiming the inoculations to be safe, yet the data is not theretoback thatup. Inadditiontoadmitting thattheirinoculations can causemyocarditis,Pfizer alsoadmits,rightintheirreport,thattheir long term immune response, efficacy & safety data is limited and that their studies weren’t powered to find “rare” side effects as only1,517 kids got the inoculation.
• How many parentswould take their kidsto get thisshotiftheywere informedofthis? The law of informed consent says they should be, but it’s not happening.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116298
Item 13.G
01/11/21
182 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL

PUBLISHESWHISTLEBLOWERSTORY
OnNovember 2nd, the British Medical Journalreleased an article about their investigation into Ventavia, one of the research companies Pfizer hired to conduct the trials.

It’s quite damning. The whistleblower is a Regional Director who actually reported her company to the FDA for:
• Falsifying data
•Unblinding participants
•Not following up and testing participants who reported symptoms
• Mislabelling specimens
Several other employees backed up her account. Despite all this, neither Pfizer, nor the FDA ever audited or investigated the research company,Pfizernever disclosed the problems in itsEUA application, and in fact, Pfizer has now hired thatsame Researcher, Ventavia, to run four more COVID-19 clinical trials.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
183 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

A CRITICAL EYE BACK ON
THE SEP 15 2021 REPORT
31 RU N N I N G F O O T E R E L E M E N T
Item 13.G
01/11/21
184 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 MONTH DATA MANIPULATION

MIXED COHORTS
Pfizertooktheresultsfromtheiradulttrial,whichstartedJuly27,2020,andthenadded theresultsfrom the 12 - 15 year olds’ trial, despite the fact that the adolescent trial started four months later.

Since it’s well known that the efficacy of the inoculations wanes over time, this gives a false boost to the efficacy numbers. The efficacy for these two cohortsshould have been reported separately, not presented asonecombinedresult.Withoutthisboost,theirefficacynumberwouldlikelyhave fallen.

Jul 27
Adult Trial
(16+)
Begins
Dec
Adolescent
Trial (12 - 15)
Begins
Mar 13
Data Cutoff
Date for
Efficacy
Reported in
6 Month
Study

JULY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
2020 2021
Item 13.G
01/11/21
185 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

PFIZER TRIALS DID NOT PROVE SAFETY

THEY PROVED HARM

ILLNESS DEATHS
These are the results of Pfizer’s own randomized control trial.

LEVEL 1 EVIDENCE OF HARM.

BNT162b2 Placebo
20 14
BNT162b2 Placebo Risk Change
Efficacy
(Meaning number of people diagnosed with
COVID-19.)
77 850 -91%
Related Adverse Event
(Meaninganinvestigatorhasassesseditasrelated
to the BNT162b2injection.)
5,241 1,311 +300%
Any Severe Adverse Event
(Interferes significantlywithnormalfunction.) 262 150 +75% Any Serious Adverse Event
(InvolvesvisittoERorhospitalization.) 127 116 +10%
Item 13.G
01/11/21
186 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

HOW THIS IS PLAYING

OUT IN THE REAL WORLD
Item 13.G
01/11/21
187 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

ROLL OUT

SURVEILLANCE
YOU DON’T FINDWHAT
YOU DON’T LOOKFOR
100

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE OF

TRIAL PARTICIPANTS
100

PASSIVE SURVEILLANCE OF

POPULATION ROLL OUT
There is a dramatic difference between
passive vs active monitoring of adverse
events

1. When participants were activelyfollowed
for adverse events (AEs) in the trials, high
percentages of adverse events were
reported.

2. Once the vaccine was rolled out at the
population level, passive surveillance was
used with Health Canada, VAERS or the
European Yellow Card system.

Whenthat happened, thesignalwas
completely lost.
35 NO V E M B E R 18 2 0 21
75 50
25 0
NCT04368728
BNT162b2 Thomas
NEJM 2021
Solicited
v- safe
Gee MMWR2021
Solicited
NCT04368728
BNT162b2 Thomas
NEJM 2021
Unsolicited
75 50
25 0
VAERS
CDC Wonder
PublicAccess
Health Canada
Public Access
UK Yellow Card
Public Access
30%
5% 2%
71%
78%
Severe AE Rate AE Rate

THE SIGNAL IS LOST

0.29 0.07 2.5
Severe AE Rate AE Rate
VS
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
188 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

RISING INCIDENTS OFHEART

ISSUES IN YOUNGPEOPLE
Ontario PublicHealth iswell awareofthis, astheypublished a reporton it, but they seem inconsistent in their concerns.
• On Sep 29, 2021, Ontario Public Health recommended young men 18-24 not take the Moderna shot, because of a 1 in 5,000 risk of myocarditis. They suggested Pfizer shot instead, which has a 1 in 28,000 risk of myocarditis.
• But as recently as May 8, 2021, Ontario had stopped the Astra Zeneca shot because of a 1 in 60,000 risk of clotting side effects, which was considered too high.
•Their priorities are inconsistent.
36 Item 13.G
01/11/21
189 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
PFIZER’S IN OCUL A TIONS F OR C OVID-19 / MORE HARM THAN GOOD

THIS IS NOT NORMAL
A German newssite put together a list of over 75 known
cases of athletes collapsing - and even dying - in the
last 5 months.
https://report24.news/ab-13-jahren-lange-liste-ploetzlich-verstorbener-oderschwerkranker-sportler/ An Israeli newssite analyzed the number of sudden
deaths “on the pitch” of members ofthe International
Football Association (FIFA) over the past 20 years.

The average number of FIFA sudden deaths
between 2000 - 2020 was 4.2. In 2021, it was 21.
https://www.rtnews.co.il/?view=article&id=49&catid=22
Item 13.G
01/11/21
190 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE RARE
https://rumble.com/vpnxkr-are-these-side-effects-extremely-rare.html Item 13.G
01/11/21
191 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
PFIZER’S POST MARKETING

PHARMACOVIGILANCE REPORT
• On Nov 17, 2021, the FDA released the first batch of what will ultimately be 329,000 pages they were ordered by a court to provide to satisfy a Freedom of Information request by a group called PublicHealth and Medical Professionalsfor Transparencywho want access to the data used by the FDA to approve Pfizer’s COVID-19 inoculations. (The FDA asked in court to have over 50 yearsto release the documents.) • One post marketing pharmacovigilance report submitted to the FDA, where Pfizer trackedrealworld adverse events occurring in the first 2.5months after EmergencyUse Authorization, was particularly disturbing.
◆ Over 1,200 deaths
◆ Over 25,000 nervous system adverse events
◆ Under “Safety concerns” Pfizer listed Anaphylaxis and Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease
•This documentshould be incriminating for any agency who saw it and called these inoculations “safe.”
Item 13.G
01/11/21
192 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

CONSIDERABLE EVIDENCE

OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Item 13.G
01/11/21
193 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

PFIZER IS
MAKING

BILLIONS
$33.5B+ in 2021 alone.

When the incentive is such an
astronomical sum of money, it only
makes sense to ensure rigorous
oversight of the process and to
ensure as many safeguards as
possible are in place.

Their agenda istheir bottom line, not
public health.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
194 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

THE PUBLIC RECORD
OF PFIZER’S CORPORATE CULTURE
42 NO V E M B E R 18 2 0 21
Item 13.G
01/11/21
195 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

LINKS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD
OF PFIZER’S CORPORATE CULTURE
• Pfizer Unit to Settle Charges Of Lying About Heart Valve, Jul 2, 1994 https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/02/business/pfizer-unit-to-settle-charges-of-lyingabout-heart-valve.html • PfizertoPay $430 MillionOver Promoting Drug to Doctors, May14, 2004 https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/business/pfizer-to-pay-430-million-overpromoting-drug-to-doctors.html • $60 Million Deal In Pfizer Suit over Rezulin, July 3, 2004 https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/03/business/60-million-deal-in-pfizer-suit.html • Experts Conclude Pfizer Manipulated Studies, Oct 8, 2008 https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/health/research/08drug.html • Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing, Sep 2, 2009 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraudsettlement-its-history • PfizerAdmitsPaying $35 Millionto Doctors OverLast 6 Months,Apr1,2010https://www.news-medical.net/news/20100401/Pfizer-admits-paying-2435- million-to-doctors-over-last-6-months.aspx
• Pfizer Pays Out to Nigerian Families of Meningitis Drug Trial Victims, Aug 12, 2011 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/11/pfizer-nigeriameningitis-drug-compensation • Pfizer Pays US$60M to Settle Allegations of Bribing Doctors, Aug 7, 2012 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-headlines/pfizer-pays-us-60m-to-settleallegations-of-bribing-doctors-1.906216 • SEC Charges Pfizer with FCPA Violations, Aug 7, 2012https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2012-2012-152htm • US High Court LeavesIntact $142 million Verdict Against Pfizer, Dec 9, 2013 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-pfizer-idUSBRE9B80K020131209 • Pfizer Fined Record £84.2m for Overcharging NHS, Dec 7, 2016https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38233852 • Sonofi, FSK,Pfizer,BoehringerMust FaceZantac Class-Action Lawsuits: Court Oct15,2021https://medicaldialogues.in/news/industry/pharma/sanofi-gskpfizer-boehringer-must-face-zantac-class-action-lawsuits-court-83138 Item 13.G
01/11/21
196 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
Corresponding
Author
Last
Author
BBioioNNTTeecchh
fouFnoduenrdsewrshose
wshtocske vstaolcuke
vailnucereinacsreedasbeyd
$b9yb$i9llBion
Employment + Stock
N. Kitchin
J. Absalon
S. Lockhart
R. Bailey
K.A. Swanson
S. Roychoudhury
K. Koury
W.V.Kalina
D. Cooper,
D.B. Tresnan
S. Mather
P.R. Dormitzer
U. Şahin
W.C. Gruber
K.U. Jansen
Ö. Türeci
Grant/Consultant/
Clinical Trial
R.W. Frenck, Jr.

L.L. Hammitt
S. Ünal
S.J. Thomas
G. Pérez Marc
F.P. Polack
Lead
Author
No Conflict
E.D. Moreira, Jr
H. Nell C.Zerbini
A. Schaefer Q. Yang
No Conflict
16%
Conflicts
84%

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AMONG PFIZER REPORT AUTHORS
6 MONTH REPORT AUTHORS
Employment
A. Gurtman
J.L. Perez
S. Bouguermouh
P. Liberator
X. Xu
Item 13.G
01/11/21
197 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
THE CDC HAS REDEFINED “VACCINE"

TO SUIT POLITICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL INTERESTS
For many years Jul 27, 2021 Aug 18, 2021 Starting Sep 2,2021 CDC Definition of VACCINE
"A product that stimulates a
person’s immune system to
produce immunity to a specific
disease, protecting the person
from that disease."
Head of CDC Rochelle Walensky
went on CNN and admitted the
COVID-19 vaccines do not
provide immunity - they don’tstop
people from catching or
transmitting COVID-19.

Joe Biden announced booster
shots for all Americans.

CDC Definition of VACCINE

CHANGED
"A preparation that is used to
stimulate the body’s immune
response against diseases."
This looks like fraud.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
198 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

THE MEDIA HAS BEEN CAPTURED
https://rumble.com/voz64j-brought-to-you-by-pfizer.html Item 13.G
01/11/21
199 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

THIS IS NO WAY

TO MANAGE A SUPPLIER
Pfizer has been indemnified for damages in case
their inoculations hurt and kill people, and Pfizer
profits to the tune of billions if the trials are
successful.

No reasonable, responsible person would have
given Pfizer carte blanche in such a situation.

Instead, you would engage in rigorous oversight
and hold them to the highest scientific
standards. This was not done.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
200 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

THE INOCULATIONS SHOULDBE

WITHDRAWN IMMEDIATELY
• It’sclearthat Pfizer - and the agencies overseeingtheirtrials - failedtofollow established, high quality safetyand efficacy protocols right from the beginning. • We have presented Level 1 evidence of harm from Pfizer’s own trial data. Any government whichhasapproved these inoculations, much less mandated them, knewor should have known from the available data that harm would be caused to its citizens.
• Any government that approved this medical intervention for its citizens should have ensured that the trial had used the appropriate clinical endpoints and high quality safety science.
• Any government official who possesses this evidence and continues to allow its citizensto be inoculated with a toxic agent is, at the very least, negligent.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
201 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

RECOMMENDED READING/VIEWING

PUBLISHED PAPERS REFUTING PFIZERINOCULATIONS
• Why Are We Vaccinating Children Against COVID-19? https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X • US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity” https://www.scivisionpub.com/ pdfs/us-covid19-vaccines-proven-to-cause-more-harm-than-good-based-onpivotal-clinical-trial-data-analyzed-using-the-proper-scientific--1811.pdf PFIZER’S NEJM PUBLISHED RESULTS
• Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine https:// www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
• FDA Briefing Document, Dec 10, 2020 https://www.fda.gov/media/ 144245/download
• Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345 • The 6 Month Supplementary Appendix https://www.nejm.org/doi/ suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345/suppl_file/
nejmoa2110345_appendix.pdf

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
• Covid-19:Researcherblowsthewhistle on data integrity issuesin Pfizer’s vaccine trial https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

ONTARIO PUBLIC HEALTH EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SUMMARY
• Myocarditis and Pericarditis Following Vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Ontario: December 13, 2020 to September 4, 2021 https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/ covid-19-myocarditis-pericarditis-vaccines-epi.pdf?sc_lang=en

SHORT VIDEOS
• Informed Consent - It’s Your Right (3 minutes) https://rumble.com/ vleq43-informed-consent-its-your-right.html
• Brought to You by Pfizer (1 minute) https://rumble.com/voz64j-broughtto-you-by-pfizer.html • Why Do We Need Vaccine Passports? (2 minutes) https://rumble.com/ vn1zof-why-do-we-need-vaccine-passports.html
• COVID-19 Vaccines and D-Dimer levels (9 minutes) https://rumble.com/ voeisj-dr-rochagn-kilian-blowing-the-whistle-on-covid-19-vaccines-and-ddimer-leve.html • How Reliable Isthe PCR Test? (2 minutes) https://youtu.be/gL7Z5JmRIM4 Item 13.G
01/11/21
202 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

WE NEED YOU

TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE
• This evidence is a tool you can use. Itrepresents a
realopportunitytoholdour leaders accountable as
it is not opinion, or modelling, or real world
evidence that can be dismissed or manipulated,but
LEVEL 1 EVIDENCE from a randomized control
trial. As such, it has high evidentiary value.
• We’re asking that you call your MP and MPP and
that you ask for a 1 hourmeeting. Preferably in
person, but Zoom will work too.
• During the meeting, play them the video and
provide them with the PDF version. Ask them
questions, like whetherornottheywereawareof
all the issues withthePfizer trial. Orwhatthey plan
to do now that they are. Get them to agree to a
follow up meeting where they will provide you with
answers.
• Share this videowith friends and family.Have
groupviewing sessions onZoom and discuss it.
• Share this video and the PDF on social media.

When you do, please use the hashtags#CCCA
and #MoreHarmThanGood
• Please join our mailing list at
www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org and we will
updateyouwith additional evidence as we have it.
• Followusonsocial media. This linktree has all our
social accounts.
• This presentation is available in PDF and video
format on our website at
www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org
Item 13.G
01/11/21
203 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
THE PFIZER INOCULATIONS FOR COVID-19

MORE HARM

THAN GOOD

CONTACT US
[email protected]
WWW.CANADIANCOVIDCAREALLIANCE.ORG
Item 13.G
01/11/21
204 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: vaccine passports
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Annette Bator <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:40 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
I do not support the initiative that there be vaccine passports. This infringes on our basic freedom to choose how to take care of our health. There are many people who for health reasons cannot take a vaccine. This violates the constitutional right to choose our own health care and it will also affect many businesses that will lose many customers because of this proposed mandate. Please keep Santa Monica a forward thinking city that does not impose unfair and fascist type mandates on anyone.

Thank you, thank you for considering the rights of people rather than giving in to the pressures from the pharmaceutical industry. We all want to be safe from covid but this is the wrong way to do that and will alienate and harm people and businesses.

Sent from my iPad
Item 13.G
01/11/21
205 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW:

From: Nikita Motorin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:48 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject:

EXTERNAL
I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
206 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passports
From: Chris Meadows <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:30 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
Hello,
Vaccine passports are a bad idea. Considering a large number of people falling ill is because of the vaccine and the violation of law in imposing such mandates, the City of Santa Monica should NOT consider these passports. Besides being un‐American, it is also a threat to the public health to be vaccinated.

Please see this site for analysis of the dangers of the vaccines: VAERS Analysis – Weekly analysis of the VAERS data Chris Meadows
[email protected]
Item 13.G
01/11/21
207 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No support
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Holly Beth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:09 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No support

EXTERNAL
I do not support vaccine passports. I want everyone to have choice. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
208 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No Vaccine Passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: AprilDudsic <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:12 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Do NOT Vote for Vaccine Passports for Santa Monica. The vaccinated can get and spread Covid19 slightly less than the Unvaccinated. The Vaccinated are catching the Covid19 Variants like Delta and Omicron at a much higher level of 8‐26 times MORE than the Unvaccinated. The Vaccinated are not spreading disease less and in fact may be spreading it more.

A Vaccine Passport makes zero sense for health or safety. A Vaccine Passport only seems to reward the OBEDIENCE of the people to get a shot. It harms businesses and is unconstitutional as it voids « the pursuit of happiness ». It is illegal segregation. It is anti‐American.

Oppose any type of Vaccine Pass, Green Pass, Vaccine Passport, etcetera.

Bests,
April Dudsic
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
209 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: OPPOSITION TO SANTA MONICA VACCINE PASSPORT From: Arlene Kramer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:30 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>
Subject: OPPOSITION TO SANTA MONICA VACCINE PASSPORT

EXTERNAL

I FLATLY OPPOSE A SANTA

MONICA VACCINE PASSPORT
Arguments against the SM-V Passport.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion Item 13.G
01/11/21
210 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section

50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
211 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Proof of Vaccination
From: Sue Opdyke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:56 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Proof of Vaccination

EXTERNAL
Members of the Santa Monica City Council:

It has been brought to our attention that several of you plan to implement by executive order or present for vote an emergency ordinance requiring "proof of vaccination” at tomorrow evening’s City Council Meeting.

Proof of Vaccination smacks of dictatorship, violating personal liberties, various existing laws and regulations, not to mention the United States Constitution, and for some, even their religious beliefs.

As such, the City of Santa Monica would be liable. If suits were brought city funds, garnered from the taxes of all Santa Monica residents, would likely be used to defray legal expenses.

Surely by now our elected City Council Members are cognizant of the fact that even with a majority of the population vaccinated, the virus continues to spread, recreating itself into new variants.

Transmission of Covid‐19 is, in fact, more easily passed from the vaccinated, who are less likely to show signs of the illness, than from the unvaccinated, who, if infected are, far more likely, be in their homes, quarantining! Has there been a study with findings that Los Angeles infectious cases are dropping due to the mandates in that city? Who will be appointed to monitor each person entering a facility that requires proof of vaccination? Who will monitor that monitors?
To act on the intentions of Councilmember Brock, Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmember Parra would indeed be unfair and unwise. Discretion is the better part of valor. Please defeat this proposal if it is brought to a vote.

Very Sincerely,
Suzanne Opdyke
251 14th St.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
212 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Santa Monica, 90402
Item 13.G
01/11/21
213 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine mandate is not justified.

From: Felix Sahig <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:57 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine mandate is not justified.

EXTERNAL
The IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) for COVID is, at most, 1.4%. There is no justification whatsoever for a vaccine mandate in any jurisdiction when the IFR is so low.

Felix Sahig
Email: [email protected]
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Item 13.G
01/11/21
214 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No to vaccine passports
From: jessica alpern <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:02 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No to vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars.

This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be Item 13.G
01/11/21
215 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
7 focusing on improving public safety.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
216 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
8 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Kymberly Ponegalek <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:03 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine passport

EXTERNAL
No vaccine passports!
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
217 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Jon Katz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete
Subject: Item 13G - Support

EXTERNAL
Thank you so much, Councilmember Brock, Mayor Himmelrich, and Councilmember Parra, for your leadership in bringing forward this item to require up‐to‐date vaccinations at certain indoor facilities. I fully support this item and urge the Council to vote yes.

The scientific data is in and it's unambigious: vaccinated people are less likely to catch, spread, or become seriously ill from Covid‐19. This pandemic is being driven by unvaccinated people, unmasked and indoors, spreading omicron and other variants to their friends, neighbors, customers, and workers.

The same data also points to another crucial factor which will help bring an end to this pandemic: vaccine mandates increase vaccination rates. I can confirm first‐hand that the vaccine skeptical people in my own life all eventually came around and opted into getting their vaccine when they realized it would allow them to safely re‐enter society, participate in indoor activities, and see the family members they'd been away from for years.

All of us have the same goal ‐ to end this horrible pandemic and return to our lives. Enacting this indoor vaccine requirement is the best way we can be proactive in minimizing infection rates, ending the burden on small businesses, and returning to our precious in‐person communities.

Thank you,
‐‐
Jon Katz | President, Santa Monica Democratic Club
[email protected]
cell: (215) 962‐4357
Item 13.G
01/11/21
218 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No vax passports
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Paul Ruffman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:48 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No vax passports

EXTERNAL
No vax psaaports
Item 13.G
01/11/21
219 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No vax passports
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Beth Anon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:48 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No vax passports

EXTERNAL
No vax passports
Item 13.G
01/11/21
220 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Arguments against the SM-V Passport.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:49 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Arguments against the SM‐V Passport.

EXTERNAL
Dear David White, and City Council,

This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica.

We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they have not been vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Please do consider your proceeding such a heinous step as the thin end of the wedge.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
221 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Yous truly,
Delilah Mc Sheandai

Item 13.G
01/11/21
222 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Opposition to Santa Monica vaccine mandate ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Hannah Bliss <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:50 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition to Santa Monica vaccine mandate

EXTERNAL
I am writing to state my opposition to the proposed covid 19 vaccine mandate for the city of Santa Monica.

Anybody can contract and transmit covid 19, regardless of vaccine status, so what purpose would a mandate serve? It would give people a false sense of security, that because they are vaccinated they are able to go to bars, restaurants and gyms etc, regardless of whether they feel unwell (they will likely have lesser symptoms). They will not need to test to check if they are positive or negative, but instead will be welcomed in to these businesses. If anyone should test it could be argued that vaccinated people should be the ones testing ( if the vaccine is working to reduce symptoms, they are less likely to know they are sick, therefore more likely to feel ok while sick and spread the virus; a sick vaccinated person, and unvaccinated will carry the same viral load). How is a vaccine passport helpful here. It only appears coercive.

If this mandate is to ensure more public safety, ALL people should be required to test before entering any public establishment. If this is not realistic, then no one should be required.

Where does natural immunity count in all of this? Those with natural immunity may have fewer antibodies, but they are more robust, and decline much more slowly than those that have vaccine induced immunity. If a vaccine passport is put in while ignoring natural immunity, this seems to be about compliance rather than acknowledging any sort of science.

Recent research shows that covid enters into fat cells, and as a result, obese individuals will carry a higher viral load, and will be more likely to enter the hospital as a result. Will we also implement a BMI passport? Where do we draw the line? In short, the vaccine passport will give the illusion of safety, but really is only used to coerce individuals into doing something they do not want to do, feel comfortable doing, or may be unable to do because of medical reasons.

Thank you,
Hannah Bliss
Item 13.G
01/11/21
223 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No to vaccine passports
From: Amy Chen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:25 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No to vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
Vote no on vaccine passports.

Amy Chen
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
224 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Against Vaccine passports
From: Marina <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:38 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Against Vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern:

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Thank you for your time,
Marina Letu
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
225 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No Vaccine Passport
From: Peggy Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:38 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: No Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
To the Santa Monica City Council, including Council Members Brock, Himmelrich and Parra, I do not support implementing a vaccine passport. It is illegal. It is coercion. Your policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents and customers that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents and customers to get vaccinated thereby using a system of coercion. This is illegal under 8 felony statutes.

Are you truly interested in creating a civil violation of the law; namely, 21 code of federal regulations section

50.23 and 24, and 18 US Code section 2331 ?
Under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, it states it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

Through US Law, the Nuremberg Code is thus embraced. Defined under 18 US Code section 2331 and subsection 802, domestic terrorism is when a ciitizen or government is forced to do something. Forcing a citizen or government to do something is not only coercion but also domestic terrorism. It is illegal to coerce the population, it is a felony that bears a 99 year prison term and up to $100 million fine for an institution, which you would be liable for upon implementing such a passport. Should you neglect to re-examine this path, to my knowledge, there are 8 felony statutes associated with such a liability.

Sincerely,
Peggy Fisher
Item 13.G
01/11/21
226 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Arguments against the SM-V Passport.

From: Valentina Landa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:36 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Arguments against the SM‐V Passport.

EXTERNAL
To Whom it may concern:

Arguments against the SM-V Passport.

This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars.

This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
227 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure.

Thank you
Valentina
Item 13.G
01/11/21
228 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Vaccine passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Leila Feinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:36 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Vaccine passport

EXTERNAL
I vehemently disagree with the Vaccine Passport . It is unconstitutional and I will sue .

Do not pass!!
An upset voter ,
Leila Feinstein
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
229 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: New Study of 145 Countries shows COVID vaccines makes cases and deaths worse From: Lynn Komlenic <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:14 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: New Study of 145 Countries shows COVID vaccines makes cases and deaths worse

EXTERNAL
Do you want your legacy to be subjecting the great people of Santa Monica to more illness and death? You can read about it here: https://vector‐news.github.io/editorials/CausalAnalysisReport_html.html The abstract says:

The statistically significant and overwhelmingly positive causal impact after vaccine deployment on the dependent variables total deaths and total cases per million should be highly worrisome for policy makers. They indicate a marked increase in both COVID‐19 related cases and death due directly to a vaccine deployment that was originally sold to the public as the “key to gain back our freedoms.” The effect of vaccines on total cases per million and its low positive association with total vaccinations per hundred signifies a limited impact of vaccines on lowering COVID‐19 associated cases. These results should encourage local policy makers to make policy decisions based on data, not narrative, and based on local conditions, not global or national mandates. These results should also encourage policy makers to begin looking for other avenues out of the pandemic aside from mass vaccination campaigns.

Please seek better ways to meet your needs. Please educate yourselves on the deleterious nature of these technologies.

If you pass a vaccine mandate, you are surely killing people. Is this your intention? From: Lynn Komlenic [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:03 PM
To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: I urge you to say NO to vaccine passports
To Santa Monica City Council,
I am vehemently opposed to vaccine passports and urge you to consider the deeply negative and destructive effects to individuals, families, business, the state and our nation of enacting this policy.

First, it is FACT that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slowing transmission is not based on science and only works to create and sanction a discriminatory policy that hurts people, children, businesses—essentially all constituents of SM.

Secondly, this policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy; this is a violation of HIPA.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
230 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Third, this policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated, by creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Furthermore, a policy of this nature refuses to honor religious exemption, which is a human right.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery, and housing.

I urge you to not take this illegal, unlawful, life‐depleting action. I further urge Council members to avail themselves of credible information from qualified professionals. Here are links to just a few:

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons: https://aapsonline.org/?s=mccullough Dr. Peter McCullough: https://www.truthforhealth.org/the‐mccullough‐report/ and https://aapsonline.org/?s=mccullough
Dr. Pierre Kory: https://covid19criticalcare.com/team/pierre‐kory‐m‐d‐m‐p‐a/ Sincerely,
Lynn Komlenic
Item 13.G
01/11/21
231 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Beth Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:19 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Hello!
I strongly oppose a vaccine passport in Santa Monica. Are you being paid to implement this OBVIOUS GOVERNMENT OVERREACH?
If so, how do you sleep at night? Please find justice and love in your heart and vote AGAINST THIS INSANITY.

THE “VACCINES” DON’T WORK. We will be required to get boosters every 5 months for an injection that has miserably FAILED.

Thank you for your time ~ Beth Smith
Item 13.G
01/11/21
232 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: vaccine passport
From: Bonnie Johnstone <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:24 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: vaccine passport

EXTERNAL
And to add, please trust your constituents to do the right thing..

Thanks.

Bonnie Johnstone
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 7:03 PM Bonnie Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello, I am concerned about health & safety
However a vaccine passport presents potential for many unhappy problems such as : Discrimination, Isolation, Denial of needed services; Violation of civil rights, Waste of money & time for enforcement for the city , businesses‐ taking away from the jobs they need to perform.

Please, No vote on vaccine passport!
Thank you.

Sincerely, Bonnie Johnstonew
Item 13.G
01/11/21
233 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: NO TO VACCINE PASSORTS!!!
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Janine Barris <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:32 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>
Cc: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: NO TO VACCINE PASSORTS!!!

EXTERNAL
To David and City Counsel Members,
I do not support a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion! It is also a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise to slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to create discrimination.

The Santa Monica Vaccine Passport would create division among residents and essentially a second ‐ class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure.

Thank you,
Janine
Item 13.G
01/11/21
234 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: NO VACCINE PASSPORTS FOR Santa Monica!
From: Gail McManus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:29 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: NO VACCINE PASSPORTS FOR Santa Monica!

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Representatives,
I am a resident of Santa Monica. I just learned of the proposal for vaccine passports in Santa Monica in order to access many services. This is a violation of human rights and certainly violates federal laws.

I believe that the proposed mandate intends to coerce residents to take the vaccination or face severe limitations regarding access to important venues.

Residents of Santa Monica have the right to choice based on sound medical evidence against vaccination.

It is my hope that the City Council will not support vaccine passports in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Gail McManus
‐‐
www.gailmcmanus.com
[email protected]
518 653‐2957
Item 13.G
01/11/21
235 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Mandates for a non dangerous virus From: Charles Donahue <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:28 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Mandates for a non dangerous virus

EXTERNAL
Prepare to be voted out if you try and pass a vaccine mandate. You are showing how stupid you are. Over 90% of all deaths with SARS‐CoV‐2 (not necessarily from COVID‐19) are in the population of people with multiple comorbidities Item 13.G
01/11/21
236 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
8 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passports
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Keeley Kaukimoce <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:08 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
Hi,
I am writing to you today to let you know that I adamantly oppose Vaccine passports being imposed on Santa Monica Facilities and businesses.  At this point the science is EXETREMELY clear that you can get covid, and pass it on to others While being vaccinated.  It literally makes zero difference in terms of transmission.   There is no logical reason to keep Unvaccinated patrons out of businesses as they pose zero threat to anyone.  The vaccinated are actually more of a threat to the
Public because they are more likely to be asymptomatic and  a lot of the time not subject to testing.   This is becoming more clear that
This has absolutely nothing to do with health, logic or science.  This vaccine program has caused deaths and injuries to many many people And to force tax payers to inject themselves with a medication just to be able to live normal life  is unconstitutional and actually it's completely illegal.

This will not help solve the pandemic in anyway at all. This is obvious as there have been more deaths in 2021 then there were in 2020 before there was a vax. It will however strengthen the pocketbooks of many politicians.

Please protect the people of Santa Monica by fighting for their right to bodily autonomy and by protecting their constitutional rights.

Thank you,
Keeley
Item 13.G
01/11/21
237 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Judy Barnett <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please mandate proof of Vaccines!

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
238 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: I urge you to say NO to vaccine passports
From: Lynn Komlenic <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:03 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: I urge you to say NO to vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Council,
I am vehemently opposed to vaccine passports and urge you to consider the deeply negative and destructive effects to individuals, families, business, the state and our nation of enacting this policy.

First, it is FACT that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

Third, this policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated, by creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Furthermore, a policy of this nature refuses to honor religious exemption, which is a human right.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery, and housing.

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons: https://aapsonline.org/?s=mccullough Dr. Peter McCullough: https://www.truthforhealth.org/the‐mccullough‐report/ and https://aapsonline.org/?s=mccullough
Dr. Pierre Kory: https://covid19criticalcare.com/team/pierre‐kory‐m‐d‐m‐p‐a/ Sincerely,
Lynn Komlenic
Item 13.G
01/11/21
239 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: NO VACCINE PASSPORT in SANTA MONICA
From: Amy Fraz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:04 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: NO VACCINE PASSPORT in SANTA MONICA

EXTERNAL
The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COV from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is s not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to th Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPAA.

3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated wit and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an e coercion.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they sho public safety.

2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair t the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPAA.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that san denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. --
This city has already been destroyed by ruining small businesses, out of control homelessness and devastati education. You will nail the coffin completely shut by passing this unlawful ordinance.

A very concerned 22 year citizen...

Item 13.G
01/11/21
240 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: no vaxx passports
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Angela DiGaetano <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:52 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>
Subject: no vaxx passports

EXTERNAL
Good evening.

As a resident homeowner and tax payer with children in the public schools, i would like to plead with you to support and speak for your constituents. We elected you to speak for us. Please hear us.

I am ferociously against the proposal of a vaccine passport for many reasons. Something of this nature does not represent the diversity and inclusion that santa monica prides itself on. Please read below:

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
241 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure.

I ask you to remember we are a community of inclusion and freedom of choice.

Thank you
Angela DiGaetano
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
242 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Opposed to Vaccine Mandates, Passports for Santa Monica ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Christopher Toussaint <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:54 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: David White <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposed to Vaccine Mandates, Passports for Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Ladies and gentlemen,
I am wholeheartedly opposed to the imposition of a vaccine passport citywide.

This is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights.

Any SM Vaccine Passport would not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine this is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

4. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

5. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

6. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA.

Christopher Toussaint
Item 13.G
01/11/21
243 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:58 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passports
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Aileen Leijten <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:58 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passports

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I don not support enacting the vaccine passport in Santa Monica.

Aileen Leijten
Item 13.G
01/11/21
244 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: VOTE NO on vaccine passports
From: Elise Lininger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:50 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: VOTE NO on vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
Hello!
I’m emailing to register my opposition to vaccine passports! Don’t ruin our community with fascist mandates and policies. It’s a known fact that the cv vaccine does not stop on individual from transmitting the virus to others, nor does it lessen the severity of illness.

Is the city receiving federal dollars to carry this out? Just like the schools? So much corruption.

Database on all things related to CV19. Get up to speed and save our community! https://lcaction.org/vaccine
Sincerely
Elise Lininger
Item 13.G
01/11/21
245 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW:

From: DONNA PEARMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:56 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject:

EXTERNAL
Have you asked the resturaunts what they think.The don't gain anything by complying.Less people go in.Its violation of people's rights.Its more work for employees.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
246 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: NO to Vax Passport
From: aki sasagawa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:27 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; aki sasagawa <[email protected]> Subject: NO to Vax Passport

EXTERNAL
Hello,
Simply, I do NOT agree or support Vaccine Passport.

Warmly,
aki Energy Healer
424‐346‐4466
aki Energy Healer
Certified Hypnotherapist

HEAL & HEALED
Healing is your birthright
424-387-9011
[email protected]
energyhealeraki.com
PO Box 1044, Torrance, CA 90505
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ‐ UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION IS PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW. [Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701‐ 2702] The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
247 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Tullin Valdez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:31 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Vaccine passport

EXTERNAL
I am writing to oppose the concept of a vaccine passport. It’s Un‐American and discrimination at its core. Nobody should be require to show their papers to participate in society. This concept is a slippery slope. Where will this stop? When will it end? Everyone deserves equal and fair access to all things in our society. To mandate or legislate a system that codified segregation and discrimination has no place anywhere in this great country. Please refrain from applying this concept in any form. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.

Thank you Tullin Valdez
Item 13.G
01/11/21
248 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine passport
From: Mark Elliot <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:34 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine passport

EXTERNAL
Dear Council person, I Mark Elliot am opposed to a Vaccine passport for the city of Santa Monica.

This is a very bad idea and I urge you not to support it. Thanks for your time. Mark Item 13.G
01/11/21
249 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Opposing the SM-Vaccine Passport
From: Nazra Peterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:35 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Opposing the SM‐Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
To Whom it Concerns:

I do *NOT* support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

My arguments against the SM‐V Passport are as follows:

This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars.

This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The vaccine and Vaccine Passport does *not* slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

Myself and others have experienced adverse effects of this mandate, as well as previous flu shots throughout the course of mine and my families lives.

The Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure.

Regards
Item 13.G
01/11/21
250 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Nazra Peterson
Item 13.G
01/11/21
251 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Heather Faye <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:36 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
I do not support the vaccine mandate!! Especially since the vaccine Does not prevent transmission or stop one from getting COVID‐19!!
Heather Faye
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
252 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vac passport
From: ROVdrone Pilot in training <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:40 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vac passport

EXTERNAL
Oppose vac passport
The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

[email protected]
: Remote Operated Vehicles
/Drone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
253 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
8 Item 13.G
01/11/21
254 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
9 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Please Oppose Vaccine Passsports
From: sdegerer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:49 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Oppose Vaccine Passsports

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in opposition to ANY measures to "show papers" and "proof" of vaccination status in the city of LA. Requiring citizens to display their private medical records to merit access to goods and services will result in a two-tiered social system. A society of haves and have nots, or, more specifically, those who have liberty without access or those who have access without liberty.

Vaccine verification violates Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation SEC. 202: “All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.”
The Constitution of the United States was designed to protect the people from inhumane and unjust acts being committed against them by their government. It is our duty to maintain those same standards of protocol in our local government. As requiring vaccination verification is prohibited by federal and state laws, then it stands to reason that it should not be permitted by our cities.

To deny one access to education, goods and services if individuals do not display vaccination verification amounts to coercion and results in segregation.

The SARS-COV-2 virus has rattled us all, but we must not barter our liberties to assuage our fears.

Such shortsighted actions made in haste are far harder to unravel than if their consequences were initially weighed rationally and with respect to legal and historical precedence in addition to common decency and fairness.

Sincerely,
Sara Semmes
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
255 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
10 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No vaccine passport
From: Gwendoline pere‐lahaille <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:50 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No vaccine passport

EXTERNAL
I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica.

Sincerely, Gwendoline Pere-Lahaille
Item 13.G
01/11/21
256 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
11 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vote no for city vaccine mandates
From: sister Rose tulacz <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:51 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote no for city vaccine mandates

EXTERNAL
SM-V Passport.

This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars.

This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
257 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
12 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry.

Mary C. Tulacz
Item 13.G
01/11/21
258 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michelle Johnston <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:20 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Passport

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Member,
I am very concerned about your current vaccine passport being considered.

This is absolutely discriminatory and unjustified. Those who are vaccinated are just as capable of spreading Covid‐19 as those that are unvaxed. There are also people who have had the virus and thus they are not carriers but are unvaxed for that reason as well.

This will cause more harm than good. I currently will not frequent any establishment in Los Angeles that is requiring any sort of vaccine passport. You will end up losing patrons and tourists that will boycott your city.

Please do the right thing. If you follow the actual science then you will see how unjustified this is. It is unconstitutional and wrong.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Johnston
Concerned Citizen
Educator
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
259 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport?
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:17 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport?

EXTERNAL
I want to tell you that I certainly don't support instituting the recently proposed COVID vaccine mandate in Santa Monica ‐‐ especially when the so‐called "Vaccines" are so ineffective at stopping transmission.

David Adams,Ph.D.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
260 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport
From: Lawrence Green <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:23 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a long time Santa Monica resident, I strongly oppose the proposed VACCINE PASSPORT. To restrict services to anyone over personal medical choices is outrageous and likely grossly illegal. To coerce anyone into taking any drug is immoral.

Santa Monica used to be a haven for those that seek an alternative healthy lifestyle. People often chose homeopathic, eastern or alternative medical choices. Yoga studios everywhere. Vegan & Vegetarian restaurants. We went to the Coop & the Farmers Market to get our ORGANIC veggies. Many in Santa Monica still believe that a healthy lifestyle is likely better medicine than the Western Medicine/pharmaceutical choice.

Non‐vaccinated people are not sick people. In fact non‐vaccinated who have had the virus likely have a better & long lasting immunity. So why is the city proposing restricting healthy people from participating in society? It doesn’t make sense.

If people feel safer getting a vaccine, they have that choice. Assuming the vaccines work, then they shouldn’t fear any person, vaccinated or not.

Please do the right thing – NO VACCINE PASSPORT.

Lawrence Green
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 13.G
01/11/21
261 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine passports
From: jim bender <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:24 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
I just wanted to let you know that I am not in agreement with vaccine passports. It is illegal and discriminatory.

Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
Item 13.G
01/11/21
262 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: I am a resident in Santa Minica and I oppose any vaccine mandate.

From: LaVonne Col <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:27 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: LaVonne Col <[email protected]>
Subject: I am a resident in Santa Minica and I oppose any vaccine mandate.

EXTERNAL
It is government over‐ reach. As a Healthcare Registered Nurse, I strongly feel that medical issues should be between a patient and their doctor. Do you realize what financial impact this can have on your income from the puer??? I oppose this. Pls vote against it. Sincerely, LaVonne Collette Item 13.G
01/11/21
263 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: City Council Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport From: Ingrid Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:17 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: City Council Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
264 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
2 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Kind Regards,

Ingrid Thompson
Item 13.G
01/11/21
265 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
3 Vernice Hankins
From: Shevi Baruch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public comments

EXTERNAL
I am
A resident of Santa Monica, and own a business in Santa Monica. Both over 12 years.

I am not in support of the vaccine passport.

I ask you, the city council member which I voted for each and every one of you, to vote No on this passport.

It is unconstitutional to ask for medical
Status!
Shevi Baruch
Committed to your well being,
Shevi Baruch ,
GYROKINESIS® Master Trainer
Item 13.G
01/11/21
266 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
4 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose Vaccine PAssport
From: Tracee Gluhaich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:08 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Vaccine PAssport

EXTERNAL
The fact that the Santa Monica City Council is proposing a vaccine mandate is absurd.

It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

How about teaching people to boost their immune system instead? Exercise, Sleep, Drink Water, De-Stress, Supplements (Vit D, zinc, quercetin, and Vit C at a minimum) Nobody talks about prevention of all disease.

Do not support this absurdity.

In health,
Tracee Gluhaich
Have you joined my cool Facebook Group?

Item 13.G
01/11/21
267 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
5 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No to vaccine passports! They are unethical! No segregation! ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Susan Andaloro <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:10 PM
Subject: No to vaccine passports! They are unethical! No segregation!

EXTERNAL
Dear folks,
The adverse reactions with these vaccines are horrific. To make ppl get them and prove it with these evil passports is a crime against humanity. Pls be on the ride side of history, as the lawsuits are piling up on this issue.

Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
268 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
6 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Please vote NO on Vaccine Passport
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Nicholas Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:14 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Please vote NO on Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Dear Mr. White and whom it may concern, I am writing to urge you to please vote no on the vaccine passport tomorrow.

The passport system would be a massive overreach of governmental power; the vaccines are shown to be only marginally effective and would thus give a false sense of security; and would lead to countless lawsuits in coming years as side effects become manifest in those who would vaccinate as a result of this policy.

Thank you,
Nicholas Young
Item 13.G
01/11/21
269 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
7 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport!
From: Jim Robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:14 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport!

EXTERNAL
Stop acting like DICTATORS!! Drop this insane vaccine passport agenda, or be voted OUT OF OFFICE in a hurry! Stop standing for Big Pharma and friends and start standing for the people! Jim
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.aboriginalskills.com
Phone: (310)395‐0943
Item 13.G
01/11/21
270 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
8 Vernice Hankins
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No Vaccine Passports!
From: Cole Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:14 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: No Vaccine Passports!

EXTERNAL
NO VACCINE PASSPORTS; No Medical Coercion! No Mandates! This is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights.

Vaccine mandates are a violation of the U.S. Constitution and of the Nuremberg Code! WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT if you take this course of action! ‐‐
In gratitude,
Cole
Item 13.G
01/11/21
271 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: 13g. Santa Monica vaccine passport
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:19 PM
From: Aya Pi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:08 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Subject: 13g. Santa Monica vaccine passport

EXTERNAL
Hello David White,
As global data continues to flood in regarding current hospitalizations and cases in the fullyvaccinated overwhelming the numbers of unvaccinated on both metrics, this is a foolhardy enactment of segregation which would very negatively affect Santa Monica businesses and communities. In addition, the potential fir vaccine injuries, both long and short term, can no longer be ignored. As was published in the Lancet recently, there is no medical or health policy justification to continue with bulk vaccination, not segregation of those who wish not to inoculate themselves with the current vaccine options.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02243-1/fulltext “ This proportion is increasing week by week and was 58.9 percent on 27. October 2021 (Figure 1) providing clear evidence of the increasing relevance of the fully vaccinated as a possible source of transmission. A similar situation was described for the UK. Between week 39 and 42, a total of 100,160 COVID-19 cases were reported among citizens of 60 years or older. 89,821 occurred among the fully vaccinated (89.7 percent), 3395 among the unvaccinated (3.4 percent) [[3]]. https://principia-scientific.com/lancet-89-of-new-uk-covidcases-among-fully-vaxxed/ Additionally, this policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private Item 13.G
01/11/21
272 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

I urge you to do the right thing for the overall health and well-being of our community, and dismiss this legislation which clearly, as is currently being seen in Israel, creating immune-erosion caused by vaccination, augmenting illness, sickness and death in individuals needlessly against a muchweakened variant, and will decimate struggling businesses. Unite, don’t segregate when the efficacy of vaccination is increasingly shown to be dubious and unjustified from a medical standpoint.

Thank you.

Warmly,
Aya
Item 13.G
01/11/21
273 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: 13g. Santa Monica vaccine passport
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:19 PM
From: Aya Pi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:08 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Subject: 13g. Santa Monica vaccine passport

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private Item 13.G
01/11/21
274 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Thank you.

Warmly,
Aya
Item 13.G
01/11/21
275 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW:

Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:39 PM
From: lisa klein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:06 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Subject:

EXTERNAL
I do not support enacting a vaccine passport in Santa Monica.

Lisa Klein, M.S., CCC-SLP, COM™
Recognized by Apraxia Kids for Advanced Training and Expertise in Childhood Apraxia of Speech
Certified Orofacial Myologist
PROMPT trained level II bridging
Autism, Down Syndrome
Aphasia, Traumatic brain injury, Dysphagia
(310) 739-9337
Lisakleinspeech.com

DISCLAIMER

PERSONAL, PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
The information in this email, and any attached files, is private, privileged and/or confidential. It is intended only for the use of the persons named. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution, copying or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. Kindly delete this message and notify the sender via reply e-mail as soon as possible. Any misdirection or other error in the transmission of this information is not and shall not be considered a waiver of any applicable privileges.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
276 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: STRONGLY OPPOSE
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:27 PM
From: Angel Hagalez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:08 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Subject: STRONGLY OPPOSE

EXTERNAL
To all council members:

I STRONGLY OPPOSE this policy that creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slowing down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose of “incentivizing and forcing” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

Item 13.G
01/11/21
277 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery, and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing residents’ medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE any notion of any vaccine passports and URGE YOU to uphold the legal and constitutional obligations you have to our City's citizens.

REspectfully,
Angel Hagalez
Item 13.G
01/11/21
278 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: passport on agenda
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:57 PM
From: Shirley Vernale <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:00 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Subject: passport on agenda

EXTERNAL
To everyone in the Santa Monica City Council,
I DO NOT support a vaxsean passport at all ever. I worked for this wonderful city for 20 years serving the community to all persons regardless of race, creed, gender and social status at the Santa Monica Public Library. As you know by now, the vaxsean does not stop transmission of a this cold virus. The passport is only a way to take away the freedoms of persons visiting and living in Santa Monica, it is not for our health care. Please vote to keep us free from this intrusion into our own health care, and do not start discriminating. Please vote NO. Thank you Shirley Vernale
Item 13.G
01/11/21
279 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:47 PM
From: Barbara Thurman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:08 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
I do not support the vaccine passport
It goes against our constitutional rights and personal health privacy. You are over stepping your bounds.

NO VACCINE PASSPORT
Item 13.G
01/11/21
280 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Please do not allow a vaccine passport to be instituted Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04:06 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Lauren Over <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:55 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: Please do not allow a vaccine passport to be instituted

EXTERNAL
Dear David White and City Council,
I am a Santa Monica resident of 7 years and a city of Santa Monica employee in the Cultural Affairs department.

I’m grateful for your consideration of my views on the matter of a vaccine passport.

I am not anti-vaccine, but I strongly feel the mandate of any medical intervention violates our basic human rights and constitutional rights. Please trust the people to make up their own hearts and minds regarding this most important matter.

Here are some further reasons not to go in this direction:
“This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. “ Thank you again for your service and guidance, Lauren B. Over Item 13.G
01/11/21
281 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
Item 13.G
01/11/21
282 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: NO Vaccine Passports!
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04:13 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: lance dreiss <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:00 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: NO Vaccine Passports!

EXTERNAL
Sent from my iPad
Item 13.G
01/11/21
283 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Opposes arbitrary vaccine passports
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04:21 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Lynz Pela <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:04 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposes arbitrary vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
I was surprised one year ago when such measures were being discussed. Today, I find it completely baffling.

There is an abundance of evidence that vaccines do not stop the spread of Covid-19. This winter we have seen Navy and cruise ships that host 100% fully vaccinated crews and passengers endure break-through outbreaks. Numerous fully vaccinated persons, even boostered, are contracting and transmitting Covid-19.

Vaccinated individuals are not safe people to be around. They are as likely, and some studies suggest because of their higher viral loads are more likely, to spread the virus as the unvaccinated.

Is the point of vaccine passports simply to punish individuals who don’t conform to the status quo? Is that the kind of city Santa Monica aims to be? A city that completely disregards science, data, research and completely public, unarguable evidence that vaccines do not stop or slow the spread of Covid—19? That is such a disappointment.

Please consider ALL the evidence very carefully and make an I formed and logical decision for the people who trusted you and gave you the opportunity to represent them.

Sincerely,
Lindsay Pelascini
Item 13.G
01/11/21
284 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Oppose city vaccine passports
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:05:57 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Gloria Neria <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:49 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose city vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
I oppose this measure and the city WILL lose a lot of money. This will discriminate and is a horrible for businesses and the community!
Thank you,
Gloria Neria
Item 13.G
01/11/21
285 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No vaccine passport
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:05:50 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Catherine Hammers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:53 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No vaccine passport

EXTERNAL
I’m not in favor of any vaccine passport in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Catherine Hammers
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
286 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: time for stronger covid controls
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:05:09 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2022-01-11 at 1.52.15 PM.png
From: Diana Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: time for stronger covid controls

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers and School Board Members,
[this has been sitting in my draft folder since January 6...I'm glad I saw today's SMDP article about tonight's Council Meeting Agenda so that I could be reminded to finish it.] In the summer of 2019 we moved from Los Feliz to Santa Monica, buying a house near Douglas Park.

We've been very happy, all things considered, but I'm finding the city's covid guidelines to be an embarrassment. I have been SCANDALIZED by the fact that the city has yet to implement an indoor vaccine mandate as the city of Los Angeles has done. Currently, Santa Monica is effectively holding itself out as a haven for anti-vaxxers.

I was reminded of Santa Monica's weak approach to Covid when my daughter was recently invited to a private screening of Encanto at the Laemmle Santa Monica. Investigating the covid protocols of the theater, I was disappointed to see the following:

Item 13.G
01/11/21
287 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
Needless to say, we did not feel comfortable attending the event. We have not entered a Santa Monica business other than the doctor and dentist office since March 2020 and I doubt we will do so any time soon unless the city institutes tighter controls.

It is also a scandal that SMMUSD reopened schools without first requiring/offering negative PCR tests. We moved in part to be closer to Mirman, my 9 year old daughter's current elementary school.

But coming from a family of public school educators and as a proud graduate of (midwestern) public schools myself, I have very much wanted her to have the option of switching to SMMUSD. But the SMMUSD's flaccid covid policies (compared with both Mirman AND LAUSD) are giving me serious pause.

Mirman held an outdoor PCR testing clinic 2 days before the start of school and required all students/faculty/staff to obtain a negative PCR test within 36 hours of the start of school. They have instituted a covid vaccine mandate for all students 5+ and a booster mandate for all adults who enter the campus, along with indoor and outdoor KN95 mask mandate. I want very much to support the local public schools and recognize that it's a privilege to be able to afford to send my child to a private school, but all other things being equal, there is simply no comparison when it comes to covid safety. If LAUSD can do it, SMMUSD certainly should.

Sincerely,
Diana Williams
Item 13.G
01/11/21
288 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: OPPOSE Council"s PROPOSAL
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04:49 PM
From: Arantxa Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Subject: OPPOSE Council's PROPOSAL

EXTERNAL
I am writing to express my opposition to The Santa Monica City Council proposal to institute VACCINE PASSPORTS.

This is an over-reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights.

Vaccine Passports do not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus.

Fully vaccinated and boosted individuals can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Have you not noticed all the businesses and hospitals that are unstaffed because their vaccinated workers are down with COVID?
Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slowing down the transmission is NOT based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.

This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated by creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion.

Vaccines do cause injuries and, like any other medication or treatment, carry risks. As such, it should be up to each individual to weigh the risks and benefits of any treatment.

The SM Vaccine Passport
creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. I write to you as someone who has been vaccine injured personally and who have witnessed serious vaccine injury and death in my personal and professional life as a health care provider.

Vaccine Passports create division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that Item 13.G
01/11/21
289 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. This is like going back to the segregated south where blacks had to drink from separate fountains and move to the back of the bus. I have recently heard Holocaust survivors describing how the Holocaust started in this very manner, with Jews being denied access to certain places or only allowed to buy groceries at certain times.

Please reconsider your proposal and stand up for equality and actual science.

Arantxa Lopez
Item 13.G
01/11/21
290 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No to 13g
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04:36 PM
From: jzhawk13 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:02 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Subject: No to 13g

EXTERNAL
I do not agree with vaccine passports.
1st of all the vaccine has to work for the person using it. The vaccine does not stop transmission, it does not stop a person from getting it, and a vaccinated person has the same viral load as unvaccinated. This information is from the CDC. Why would we want to segregate and discriminate here in this town.

Other States are living their lives and for some reason Santa Monica wants to control people's lives.

This is called totalitarian. What is the purpose of this....control? This virus has a 99.99 percent survival rate. Why does does our government feel like they want to the control the people?
we just want to live our lives and stop this government overreach Jill Hawkins
SM
Item 13.G
01/11/21
291 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: vaccine passport
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04:30 PM
From: Bonnie Johnstone <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:03 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: vaccine passport

EXTERNAL
Hello, I am concerned about health & safety
However a vaccine passport presents potential for many unhappy problems such as :

Discrimination, Isolation, Denial of needed services; Violation of civil rights, Waste of money & time for enforcement for the city , businesses-taking away from the jobs they need to perform.

Please, No vote on vaccine passport!
Thank you.

Sincerely, Bonnie Johnstonew
Item 13.G
01/11/21
292 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccines in Santa Monica
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:06:58 PM
From: diana hinek <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 5:49 PM
To: David White <[email protected]>; Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccines in Santa Monica

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
Please do not enact vaccines mandates in our city.

First of all it is time that you all recognize that vaccines do not stop the spread. We are all getting this new variant and this pandemic is now becoming endemic like it is the flu.

Second of all, the pandemic has already destroyed our businesses. Have you had a look at the Promenade lately? Main Street?
Have you had a look at the fast dropping numbers of enrollments in our schools? Forcing people to do something has NEVER served anyone for their own good. Please have a look at your history books and consider choosing the right side of history.

You will be remembered for this decision for years to come.

Sincerely,
Diana Hinek - Santa Monica resident for 15 years- Santa Monica property owner- business owner and mother of 4
--
Birth Doula and Photographer
www.dearbirth.com
www.facebook.com/dearbirth
https://www.instagram.com/dearbirth
Item 13.G
01/11/21
293 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:06:50 PM
From: Karen Bloomfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:29 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica Council,
I am a registered nurse and a 10-year resident of Santa Monica. I strongly oppose a vaccine passport mandate in our city. A vaccine passport is government overreach and a violation of our constitutional rights. Please do not support a mandate for this useless “vaccine.” Thanks,
Karen Bloomfield
Item 13.G
01/11/21
294 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Passport
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:06:34 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Melissa Ward <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:39 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
I’m writing to oppose this idea.

It’s ridiculous to divide the community this way. It’s becoming clear that whether vaxed or unvaxed, all are vulnerable to contracting this virus. See the CDC guidelines that state “whether vaccinated or not”. The vaccines don’t stop transmission.

M. Ward
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
295 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: say "NO" to vaccine passports
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:06:25 PM
From: Dave S <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:43 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Subject: say "NO" to vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
Vaccine passports will only create a 2-tier society, and will crumble the social and economic backbone of the entire Southern California and Santa Monica community. Nothing good can come from Vaccine Passports, especially since the survival rate for the Omicron variant is 100%, and the survival rate for Covid in general is close to 99.9% for most age groups. Vaccine passports do not make any sense. Potential multiple lawsuits can and will most likely be filed against the businesses who will in turn be forced to comply with the Vaccine Passports.

Please vote "NO" to Vaccine Passports!!
David
Item 13.G
01/11/21
296 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: No vaccine passports
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:06:15 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Catherine Hammers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:52 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: No vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
I’m not in favor of any vaccine passport in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Catherine Hammers
Sent from my iPhone
Item 13.G
01/11/21
297 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: opposing vaccine passports
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:06:06 PM
From: Kathleen Lilley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:51 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]>
Subject: opposing vaccine passports

EXTERNAL
Hello!
I am writing to oppose vaccine passports. I'm not really sure why they are being considered in the first place...does anyone really want to live in this world that you're trying to create? Do you really think you'll be exempt from them in the near or long term? What's next...proof of 20 shots to buy food? I mean come on. I am sure you are fooling some but not most people. We're all sick of it.

Please stop the nonsense.

Thank you,
Kathleen Lilly
Item 13.G
01/11/21
298 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Issues with Vaccine Passport
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:07:51 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Dicki Fliszar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 4:57 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Issues with Vaccine Passport

EXTERNAL
Dear council members,
The proposed vaccine passport policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies.

The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security.

The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.

1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.

Thank you,
Dicki Fliszar
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.dickifliszar.com__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!8STBM2STg3z4UUuqDZt8iPORchpg5wLJdcZjK7K2pCjieinMhYulZOBhOO6ZLmY$ https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.privatemusiclessonsla.com__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!8STBM2STg3z4UUuqDZt8iPORchpg5wLJdcZjK7K2pCjieinMhYulZOBhgeK6rOw$ Item 13.G
01/11/21
299 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: city Council Meeting 1/11/22, item 13 G.

Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:07:11 PM
From: sally <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 3:07 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: city Council Meeting 1/11/22, item 13 G.

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am opposed to the city of Santa Monica requiring Covid- 19 vaccine mandates for entering city establishments. People who have take the Covid- 19 vaccine still get and transmit this virus. In addition , there are side effects to these vaccines and both the long term and short term safely profiles are unknown. Please vote no on 13G. I have been a resident of Santa Monica in the past for many years. I now live in Los Angeles, but I frequent Santa Monica businesses often.

Thank you,
Sally Maslon
Los Angeles
Item 13.G
01/11/21
300 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
January 10, 2022
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
It’s come to our attention that you’re reconsidering the city’s stance on requiring proof of fullvaccination or a negative COVID-19 test taken within 72 hours for indoor dining and frequenting other areas of business. We’d love to take a moment to share our thoughts as one of the largest, independent restaurant groups in Santa Monica.

As mentioned in correspondence from myself and our Director of Communications Elise Freimuth back in October to City Council, our group has been requiring this of guests since August 2021 when the Delta variant was beginning to emerge and local COVID-19 cases were rising. We implemented a mandatory vaccination policy for our employees in March 2021, so eventually requiring it for guests when dining indoors made the most sense for our business and helped us better ensure everyone’s safety in an environment where people are eating and removing masks.

While we’ve had our share of detractors and upset customers, they’ve been in the minority. The response to our policy has been overwhelmingly positive, especially now with the Omricon variant spreading so quickly. Plus, we allow for reasonable accommodations with outdoor dining and takeout for anyone who isn’t vaccinated. Guests feel more comfortable dining at our restaurants and our employees feel a lot safer working in them, especially after nearly two years of putting themselves on the frontlines to feed others.

Considering the cities of Los Angeles, West Hollywood and Culver City have a vaccination/testing policy for indoor dining, it’s extremely confusing for locals and visitors to know that once they cross into neighboring Santa Monica, there are entirely different guidelines to follow. By now, people are used to showing proof of vaccination or regularly getting tested when traveling, going to a concert or sporting event, dining in a restaurant and more. Santa Monica has always been the first to lead in LA County when it comes to the health and wellbeing of its citizens, whether it was by implementing a ban on plastic bags and plastic straws, zero emissions initiatives or raising the minimum wage. Now is the time for the City of Santa Monica to align with Los Angeles, ensure everyone’s health and support business owners like us who, are trying to survive amidst an ongoing pandemic.

Warm regards,
Joel Dixon
President, Rustic Canyon Family
Item 13.G
01/11/21
301 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
From: Council Mailbox
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Vaccine Mandates
Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:09:13 PM
From: Megen Metzger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:44 AM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Subject: Vaccine Mandates

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica Council members,
I am writing to you in support of the implementation of proof of vaccine mandate for restaurants, spas, bars, etc. that mirror those of Los Angeles.

I have been to many businesses in LA and had no problem with entry and it appeared to be a minimum effort for the businesses. I have recently asked some of the local restaurants about their policies and they shared that they would appreciate your implementing this kind of regulation.

I think this is a great way to minimize health risks and keep our businesses open and thriving.

Thank you
--
Megen Rubin Metzger
Item 13.G
01/11/21
302 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

Received for publication April 27, 2020; accepted January 29, 2021.

However, by 2019, WHO had declared vaccination hesitancy to be one of the top 10 threats to global public health.2 This threat could have several consequences.

Inadequate coverage is the uptake of vaccination that fails to meet an agreed-on quality marker (eg, 90% coverage).

While global vaccination coverage rates have steadily
drifted upward, they have stalled in some regions and

ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
Copyright © 2021 by Academic Pediatric Association S9
Volume 21, Number 4S
May−June 2021
Item 13.G
01/11/21
303 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
even slipped backward in a few countries. Delay is getting vaccines after the recommended age or spreading the
doses out over time. Despite clear findings that the current vaccination schedule is safe, parents are increasingly
choosing to spread out or delay vaccines in the mistaken belief that having fewer vaccines at one time will reduce the risk of harm. Instability is variability in coverage over time, most often a sharp drop. Some countries with generally high vaccination coverage have experienced periods of dramatic instability. For example, Japan had achieved 70% coverage for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, yet coverage fell to 7% within a year of an unsubstantiated safety scare. Denmark had a similar issue that it was able to turn around, but only after coverage had fallen by half.3
The model is about what works to increase vaccination
uptake, which results from a series of behaviors by various actors. The family may talk about vaccines with friends, search for information online, schedule an
appointment, travel to a clinic, consent to vaccination, return for any needed follow-up doses, and pay any
related costs, such as an administration fee or travel
expenses. Providers stock vaccines, recommend them,
track their use in medical records, flag who is due and overdue, and manage their vaccine stock. All of this is in a context of a system in which the state funds some vaccinations and, in some countries, private insurance covers other vaccinations. In sum, vaccination uptake results
from a web of interconnected players, resources, and
behaviors, all of which follow predictable patterns.

S10 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
Item 13.G
01/11/21
304 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
is hesitancy. While some people use the terms confidence and hesitancy interchangeably, it is helpful to separate these ideas: low confidence is a cause of low motivation to vaccinate in the model and indeed in research going
back 50 years.4 Finally, motivation to vaccinate leads to vaccination uptake, shown in the right. Getting vaccinated can lower some appraisals of disease risk and increase
vaccine confidence, as shown by the arrows going from
the far right back to the left.5
Findings from observational studies support the
thoughts and feelings proposition. Vaccine uptake is associated with higher disease risk appraisals including thinking infectious diseases are likely, serious, and regrettable.6,7 Similarly, vaccine uptake is associated with higher vaccine confidence, as shown by believing that
vaccines are important, save lives, and have few side
effects. Finally, motivation to vaccinate, also called intention, is one of the strongest predictors of health behaviors, including vaccine uptake.8
However, experimental evidence from randomized trials generally does not support the thoughts and feelings proposition. This stronger body of evidence better
answers the question of whether interventions focused on thoughts and feelings can increase vaccine uptake. Risk communication interventions did not appreciably increase vaccine uptake, according to a recent meta-analysis of 16 studies, although the interventions somewhat increased
the belief that infectious diseases are likely.9 An older meta-analysis, restricted to 5 risk communication interventions that increased risk appraisals, did find increases in vaccine uptake.10
Similarly, interventions to boost vaccine confidence
have generally not increased uptake, and none have shown that increased confidence explains the interventions’
impact. While some intervention studies have increased
vaccine confidence, including beliefs that vaccines are safe and effective,11,12 others have not.13
Finally, interventions to increase motivation to vaccinate have not shown reliably that they can influence hesitant people, despite success at increasing motivation for other behaviors.14 Decision aids have little support in increasing vaccine uptake. Motivational interviewing, while promising, has yet to be shown effective in a randomized trial, although it has been included as one component of several effective multicomponent interventions15 and has shown promise in quasiexperimental studies.16
In sum, while thoughts and feelings motivate people to
get vaccinated, interventions targeting thoughts and feelings have shown little promise for reliably increasing vaccine uptake. Furthermore, there is no apparent logic as to when interventions boost vaccine risk appraisals and confidence, have no effect, or even have pernicious effects. I return later to the question of whether thoughts and feelings interventions might generate support for vaccination policies and programs, an important outcome that is distinct from vaccination uptake.

ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS WHAT WORKS TO INCREASE VACCINATION UPTAKE S11 Item 13.G
01/11/21
305 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
but this is a very promising area for future research. Some quasiexperimental studies suggest that social processes show potential, and several currently unpublished studies may soon fill this gap.

S12 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
Item 13.G
01/11/21
306 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Several important considerations should guide practitioners and scientists using this model.

Among the noteworthy highlights from that adaptation:
The box for what people think and feel does not
include risk appraisals. The working group started
with a childhood vaccine survey, but parents struggled
to think about vaccine-preventable infections without
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS WHAT WORKS TO INCREASE VACCINATION UPTAKE S13 Item 13.G
01/11/21
307 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
specific examples. The group has incorporated risk
appraisals in later surveys on specific vaccines (eg,
coronavirus disease 2019).
Motivation to vaccinate is in its own box, allowing the working group to emphasize the difference between
confidence and hesitancy.
Provider recommendation is in the social process box.

They felt that the new name emphasized barriers that
surveys can measure and vaccination programs can
address.

Table. Impact of Interventions to Increase Vaccination Uptake S14 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
Item 13.G
01/11/21
308 of 421 Item 13.G
01/11/21
consider the roles of families, community leaders, and
gender equity. Based on their adapted model, the WHO
working group has developed a survey on the behavioral
and social drivers of vaccination around the world. The survey is being piloted in 6 low- and middle-income countries and should be available for use globally in 2021.