What is the California Health Care Foundation? Why Do They Push mRNA Injections on the Elderly and the Sick

By John Jones, JD, PhD

And now for something completely different.

What is the California Health Care Foundation, and why do they push mRNA injections for sick, elderly people?

Advice from California Health Line:  Get the shots … no matter what

On 27 January 2021, Judith Graham was credited with writing an article pushing the experimental Covid vaccines – the mRNA concoctions from both Pfizer and Moderna.

Titled, “If I Have Cancer, Dementia or MS, Should I Get the Covid Vaccine?” the piece is supposedly serious, but reads like a comedy sketch or string of jokes, which expose the ills of allopathic medicine.

Consistent with the title, Ms. Graham crafts the article to encourage people to take the shots – even those who:  (a) are ill with cancer; (b) taking chemotherapy; (c) suffering dementia or other neurodegenerative diseases; or even (d) have an autoimmune disease or multiple sclerosis (which is actually due to a deficiency of vitamin D₃).

And rest assured, throughout her piece, Graham insists that being older and having limited life expectancy is a greater cause to get the shots – now.

Graham begins by telling her readers that mainstream allopaths advocate injecting the elderly with these mRNA experiments.

“[Twenty-eight] States are beginning to offer vaccines [sic] to adults over age 65, 70 or 75, including those with serious underlying medical conditions.”

But what about those who have serious health conditions?  As Graham says:

“a number of readers [sic] have asked me whether older relatives … should be immunized [sic] … and I solicited advice from several [experts].

As the article moves forward, Graham then presents a series of reader/theoretical questions.  Each question and scenario struck me as a list of funny one-liners – and such tickle anyone who knows about health, vaccines, and nutrition.  After posing a question, Graham then informs us as to what her experts say.

Scenario 1 – It’s only cancer

“Q:  My 80-year-old mother has chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).  … her oncologist [said]:  “It won’t work for you, your immune system is too compromised to make antibodies.”  She asked if she can take the vaccine anyway, just in case it might offer a little protection …”

Why would a woman, age 80, with leukemia, be overly concerned with a respiratory infection that is prevented via high doses of vitamin C, selenium, quercetin, and zinc?  According to the American Cancer Society:  “CLL can’t be cured, so doctors aren’t sure if further treatment right away will be helpful.”

At age 80 – already having exceeded life-expectancy at birth, and with CLL, there is little likelihood of extending one’s life.  And there is no evidence that these experimental shots from Pfizer or Moderna would help.  To the contrary, as the Norwegian data shows – elderly people, with comorbidities, who get the shot are likely to take a turn for the worse. 

Apparently, the rising reports of deaths and injuries, in those wise enough to get Pfizered, are a mystery to Graham.  Citing reports generated by Pfizer and Moderna, Graham claims that:

“Older adults, in general, responded extremely well [sic] to the two Covid-19 vaccines …  In large clinical trials, sponsored by drugmakers Pfizer and Moderna, the vaccines [sic] achieved substantial [sic] protection against significant illness, with efficacy [sic] for older adults ranging from 87% to 94%.”

I started laughing after the admission that the data on efficacy came from Pfizer and Moderna.  But what of the claim of substantial protection against significant illness?  Despite what the drug companies say, we know that there is no evidence, established through a true placebo-controlled study, to show that the vaxxed are 6 to 13 times less likely to have significant Covid illness.

And appreciate the claim.  The pharmaceutical companies concede that post-injection you will still get sick, but they want to assure you, just not as much.  How could they know that?

Remember, It’s Risk versus Reward!

Graham conveys that an expert, working at a House of Chemo and Radiation, aka Sloan Kettering in New York, has the answer.

“Dr. Tobias Hohl, chief of the infectious diseases … noted that older adults are the people most likely to become severely ill and perish from Covid [sic], accounting for about 80% of deaths to date — a compelling argument for [sic] vaccination.

Graham pushes further, with an opinion from Dr. Armin Shahrokni, a geriatrician and oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering:

“Regarding safety, there is no evidence, at this time, that cancer patients are more likely to experience side effects from the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines than other people.  … we are confident that these vaccines are safe for [cancer] patients ….”

Dr. Shahrokni is either a good dissembler – using the qualifier more likely; or blind and deaf to reports from the WHO (which writes:  “Further studies are required for the impacts on immune-compromised persons”), and the Norwegian government (mentioned above), American nurses, mainstream news (see Florida doctor dies), etc.

As the Washington Post reported:

“These vaccines have very little [sic] risk, with a small exception for the frailest patients,” [says] Steinar Madsen, medical director with the [Norwegian Medicines] Agency”

To help those with trepidation, Graham throws in a few clarifications:

“Efficacy [sic] is a consideration for patients whose underlying cancer, or treatment, suppresses their immune systems.  Notably, patients with blood and lymph node cancers [might] experience a blunted [sic] response to vaccines, along with patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy.”

Thanks Ms. Graham.  Now I can trust the science, NOT!

Efficacy is something to be considered?!   A vaccine response might be blunted?  Blunted must be a new technical term that they teach MDs when they go to those professional training conferences sponsored by Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, etc.

Now we see a suggestion to integrate Covid vaccines with chemotherapy.  Nothing wrong with that, is there?

“One approach might be trying to time Covid vaccination “in between cycles of chemotherapy,” said Dr. Catherine Liu, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.”

Given her blended approach, I imagine that Dr. Liu encourages students and patients alike with that old allopathic maxim:  “better to make yourself sick now, than to risk being healthy later.”

Scenario 2 – diminished capacity?  Step right up!

In the second inquiry, Graham presents – with no sense of irony or moral dilemma – the case of a woman, nearly 100 years old, with impaired mental functioning.

“Q:  Should my 97-year-old mom, in a nursing home with dementia, even get the Covid vaccine?

“[Answer]:  The federal government and all 50 states recommend Covid vaccines for long-term care residents, most of whom have Alzheimer’s disease or other types of cognitive impairment.  This is an effort to stem [sic] the tide of Covid-related illness and death that has swept through nursing homes and assisted living facilities — 37% of all Covid deaths as of mid-January.”

Wow – so many things to say, so many points to critique, so many reasons to see that Covid-crazy is a scam.

Alzheimer’s means Yes

Most people in long-term care have a cognitive impairment?  Most?  Then how can they give informed consent to take part in the experiment with the mRNA injections?

Did Graham, and her bosses at the multi-million dollar non-profit forget that little thing called the Nuremberg Conventions?  Maybe it should come as no surprise that as recently as 2018, some Ivy League medical ethicists held that the Nuremberg Conventions do not apply to American law?

Graham assures us that there are no ethical questions – because a trade group wants you to stick it to Grandma.

“The Alzheimer’s Association also strongly encourages immunization against Covid-19, “both for people [with dementia], living in long-term care, and those living in the community,” said Beth Kallmyer, Vice President of Care and Support.”

Someone from Alzheimer’s Association encourages immunization?  Seems like they are forgetting something.  There is no means to become immune to Covid-19, via injection.

According to Moderna, Pfizer, the CDC (noting that there is no such thing as ‘natural immunity’ against Covid), Fauci (‘no one is sure how long vaccine immunity will last’), the WHO, and more, so-called immunity from any vaccines is not life-long.

Covid syndrome!  Because lockdowns work?

Graham says that old people are dying of Covid-related illness. Does Graham mean some illness other than pneumonia?   (In China, Covid disease is defined as pneumonia and only pneumonia).

And what is sweeping through to care homes?  How is it that a virus (or its latest British, Brazilian, Chinese, or other mutation) finds these old, stationary, and isolated people?  After 6-9 months of lockdown, hand sanitizers, face masks (use two), social distance (no hugs for you), Anthony Fauci baseball games, global international travel cut by 75-80%, suddenly an invisible, never isolated, never proven to cause an illness virus – of a class (corona) – which is associated with the common cold, now THIS is the clear and present danger?

Wait a minute, did Graham just claim that a disproportionate number of Covid deaths occur in the elderly – the very same thing that happens every year with flu and pneumonia?

Despite the restrictions and political decisions to crush the American economy and her social life (no Thanksgiving or Christmas with family), the elderly are still dying?  (I guess lockdowns work, trust the plan).  Why, in all things Cuomo and Newsome, is everyone else in quarantine?

Never too old … to join the experiment

Graham asked Joshua Uy, MD, medical director at a Philadelphia nursing home, and geriatric fellowship director at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, if there is any utility in vaccinating the elderly?  Especially those who are so close to death (like Hank Aaron or Marvin Hagler).

Uy offered the following:

“[People] ask, ‘Will my loved one live long enough to see the benefit of being vaccinated?’

“Potential benefits include not becoming ill or dying from Covid-19; having visits from family or friends; engaging with other residents and taking part in activities.  Since these benefits could start accruing a few weeks after residents in a facility are fully immunized [sic], I would recommend the vaccine for a 97-year-old with significant dementia.”

Did you appreciate the Orwellian Double-Think?  Dr. Uy says that after being injected with an mRNA cocktail, the 97-year-old will not become ill with Covid-19; will not die from Covid-19 … The admitted risk is vaccine-induced illness and death!  Uy knows that it is highly probable for a person of that age, with comorbidities.

As for the alleged benefits of the shot, apparently, neither Dr. Uy nor Ms. Graham has read the headlines and press releases by Bill Gates, the Head of Pfizer, Fauci, and others detailing that post-injection, we will still have to wear masks, maintain distance, and that life will not go back to normal.

Nevertheless, Graham wants you to think of the effects of Covid-19 injections as alleviating the suffering of those in hospice, i.e., on the edge of total organ failure and death.

In urging everyone to get the shot, Dr. Michael Rafii, associate professor of clinical neurology at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine, said, “Minimizing suffering is a key consideration.”  He added:

“My advice is that everyone should get vaccinated, regardless of what stage of dementia they’re in” – that includes dementia patients ‘at the end of their lives in hospice care.’”

And to keep the procedure as inhumane and emotionally detached as possible, Rafii suggests that the love shot be administered by a mask-wearing stranger:

“someone wearing a mask and carrying a needle can evoke anxiety in dementia patients. “Have the person … explain who they are, what they’re doing and why they’re wearing a mask in clear, simple language.”

Rafii speaks about eldercare akin to the practice of a vet putting down a pet.

Scenario 3.  Comorbidities, auto-immune disease?  You’re in luck!

As I have been observing since December 2019, those people most at risk for respiratory distress and so-called Covid-19 are overweight, have high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, low selenium, low zinc, low D₃, and low vitamin C.

Relative to other countries, America has a higher death rate because:  (a) allopaths refuse to give IV vitamin C, raise D₃ levels, administer zinc, quercetin, or selenium; and (b) patients are taking drugs for diabetes, high blood pressure, statins, and other poisons.

In Africa, India, and other tropical areas, death rates are far lower (yes, even in India).  In those countries, hydroxychloroquine is available over the counter – at a pharmacy, and is cheap.  People get plenty of sunshine are flu/pneumonia is rare.

But who needs to help Pfizer and Moderna?  I guess sick Americans do.

“Q: I’m 80 and I have Type-2 diabetes and an autoimmune disease.  Should I get the vaccine?”

Graham goes straight to the heart of the question:  “Should older adults with comorbidities get Covid vaccines?”

Guess what her allopathic practitioners advocate?  Jab on, Full Warp Speed … to Death!

Dr. Abinash Virk, an infectious diseases specialist [sic] and co-chair of the Mayo Clinic’s Covid-19 vaccine rollout says:

“Absolutely, because they’re at higher risk of becoming seriously ill from Covid.  Pfizer’s and Moderna’s studies specifically looked at people who were older and had comorbidities, and they showed that vaccine response [sic] was similar to [that of] people who were younger.”

There you go.  Pay no attention to the fact that the responses to the mRNA vaccines are so severe that in the feeble and ill such complications induce death.

And do not start nitpicking on details.

“Philippa Marrack, chair of the department of immunology and genomic medicine at National Jewish Health in Denver, said ‘there are no scientifically rigorous data on how patients with autoimmune conditions respond to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.’”

Come again Dr. Marrack, no scientifically rigorous data?  Like I always told my mother, ‘just close your eyes, and you cannot see that my room is messy.’

For those lay people who are not in the professional medicine club, I will explain a secret.  When used in medicine, economics, and other fields using quantitative analysis, the word rigorous is a BS marketing term.  It is just an example of scientism.

We can substitute rigorous with a phrase.  Try this, “really-really-real-enough-to-make-me-believe.”  Thus Dr. Marrack might as well have said, ‘there is no scientifically really-really-real-enough-to-make-be-believe data …’

According to Marrack,

“More than 100,000 people have gotten these vaccines now, including some who probably had autoimmune disease, and there’s been no systematic reporting of problems.”

Oh yes, probably some … and there has been no systematic reporting.  And like I should have told my mother, “there is no systematic reporting that I have not cleaned my room!”

Welcome to the World of Multi-Million Dollar Non-Profits

Graham is not just some blinded do-gooder, seeking to correct the record, in order to save humanity, and as an ancillary matter enrich a few drug companies.  She is part of a larger industry:  non-profit [sic] foundations.

California Healthline is a publication of the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF).  The investment portfolio of CHCF is over $700,000,000. They gave away $20,000,000 in grants in 2020.  They are in the business of drug-dealing, elder care, and siphoning money from those who are duped into following allopathic medicine.

Every mega-corporation has lobbyists, marketing and PR teams.  With agents like Judith Graham, California Healthline is part of a system – designed to sell dreams and cash in on desperation and hope.  As they tell the world:  “California Healthline is part of the [CHCF’s] commitment to important issues affecting health care policy, delivery and financing in California.”

Yes, health care financing.

California Healthline is in the business of ensuring that money flows from the poor, the sick, and from the government, into the pockets of private corporations that would sell chemo and vaccines to people in hospice care…

You have a choice:  You can listen to the people who want to suck the life and money out of you and your family, or you can see through their propaganda and live free.

You have a choice:  You can listen to the people who want to suck the life and money out of you and your family, or see through their propaganda and live free.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Like what you’re reading on Vaxxter.com?

Share this article with your friends. Help us grow.

Join our list here or text DRT to 22828

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John C. Jones received his law degree (2001) and his Ph.D. is in political science (2003) from the University of Iowa. He has over 15 years of research and writing (both academic and journalistic) in fields of public policy and law, criminal and Constitutional law, and philosophy of science and medicine. His additional areas of expertise and specialized knowledge include applied statistics, etymology, political communications/public relations, litigation and court procedure. He has a particular interest in the science and history of vaccines.