Category: Uncategorized

A Cautionary Tale

Jerry LeClaireAug 23

We are people—and people understand and remember stories far better than they remember (or understand) statistics, however reliable the statistics may be. What follows may serve as an instructive anecdote. 

A friend and his wife, we’ll call them John and Marti, had breakfast at a picnic table outside about two weeks ago with another couple. All four of them were fully vaccinated (two doses) early this year (about six months ago). Husband sat opposite husband and wife opposite wife. The husband of the second couple has trouble hearing, so some of the conversation was carried on fairly close face-to-face between the two men. Five days later the husband of the second couple called John to report that he had just tested positive for Covid-19 on a test performed preventively in anticipation of visiting a vulnerable relative. John and Marti promptly got tested (with a sensitive hospital-based PCR test). John’s test was positive for evidence of Covid-19 virus, Marti’s was negative. John went into quarantine, concerned that he might pass the virus on to someone vulnerable. 

The upshot? Both men (and their test-negative wives) remain entirely asymptomatic, both men have quarantined. Both, were it not for the initial requested test, might have spread Covid-19 to people vulnerable to becoming gravely ill or dying from the disease (unvaccinated people being much more vulnerable). 

Clearly, the virus that causes Covid-19 can be spread under some circumstances, even outdoors, from one fully vaccinated individual to another. But there’s more. John is an retired physician with an inquisitive scientific mind. He had acquired a box of home antibody tests months ago. John and Marti, soon after their second shot early this year, tested themselves for anti-Covid-19 antibodies. Both tests showed that John and Marti had made IgG antibodies in response to vaccination. John and Marti did another antibody test right after they found out their friend had tested positive. Marti’s test still was strongly positive for IgG antibodies to Covid-19; John’s test was only very weakly positive. (Bear this in mind, though: waning IgG does NOT mean that John’s immune system has no memory of vaccination. The immune system typically retains a biochemical memory of the immune response it once mounted and is able to ramp up antibody production much faster than a “virgin” immune system. Immune memory is like having the factory still there, but sitting idle, as opposed to having to build a whole new factory.) 

Like all good scientific data, this story raises more questions. Was John’s immune system just a bit less robust than Marti’s in maintaining IgG expression or had Marti gotten a “booster exposure” of virus since her vaccination to which her immune system ramped up IgG expression? Was John’s relative lack of IgG the reason the virus (presumably transmitted by his breakfast friend) could replicate in John’s nose? (We don’t really know whether or not there was sufficient virus replication in John’s nose to actually transmit the virus to someone else.)

The take home message is clear, however: At least some totally asymptomatic individuals vaccinated more than six months ago can carry and transmit the virus that causes Covid-19 (now most likely the delta variant). If John’s immune system hadn’t been forewarned by vaccination (i.e. his immune system were “virgin” to the virus) this unmasked, outdoor breakfast encounter might have had a grievous result. 

If you’re vaccinated you still need to be careful for the sake of others (and, at a lower statistical likelihood of severe disease, for your own sake). Wear a mask indoors and in selected outdoor settings. If you’re not vaccinated, GET IT DONE. If you think you’ve had or actually had a test-positive Covid infection already, get a vaccination anyway. There are increasing reports that vaccination offers much better protection against the delta variant than does natural infection with one of the earlier strains. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Booster vaccination is a topic for another day.

A Cautionary Tale

Jerry LeClaireAug 23

We are people—and people understand and remember stories far better than they remember (or understand) statistics, however reliable the statistics may be. What follows may serve as an instructive anecdote. 

A friend and his wife, we’ll call them John and Marti, had breakfast at a picnic table outside about two weeks ago with another couple. All four of them were fully vaccinated (two doses) early this year (about six months ago). Husband sat opposite husband and wife opposite wife. The husband of the second couple has trouble hearing, so some of the conversation was carried on fairly close face-to-face between the two men. Five days later the husband of the second couple called John to report that he had just tested positive for Covid-19 on a test performed preventively in anticipation of visiting a vulnerable relative. John and Marti promptly got tested (with a sensitive hospital-based PCR test). John’s test was positive for evidence of Covid-19 virus, Marti’s was negative. John went into quarantine, concerned that he might pass the virus on to someone vulnerable. 

The upshot? Both men (and their test-negative wives) remain entirely asymptomatic, both men have quarantined. Both, were it not for the initial requested test, might have spread Covid-19 to people vulnerable to becoming gravely ill or dying from the disease (unvaccinated people being much more vulnerable). 

Clearly, the virus that causes Covid-19 can be spread under some circumstances, even outdoors, from one fully vaccinated individual to another. But there’s more. John is an retired physician with an inquisitive scientific mind. He had acquired a box of home antibody tests months ago. John and Marti, soon after their second shot early this year, tested themselves for anti-Covid-19 antibodies. Both tests showed that John and Marti had made IgG antibodies in response to vaccination. John and Marti did another antibody test right after they found out their friend had tested positive. Marti’s test still was strongly positive for IgG antibodies to Covid-19; John’s test was only very weakly positive. (Bear this in mind, though: waning IgG does NOT mean that John’s immune system has no memory of vaccination. The immune system typically retains a biochemical memory of the immune response it once mounted and is able to ramp up antibody production much faster than a “virgin” immune system. Immune memory is like having the factory still there, but sitting idle, as opposed to having to build a whole new factory.) 

Like all good scientific data, this story raises more questions. Was John’s immune system just a bit less robust than Marti’s in maintaining IgG expression or had Marti gotten a “booster exposure” of virus since her vaccination to which her immune system ramped up IgG expression? Was John’s relative lack of IgG the reason the virus (presumably transmitted by his breakfast friend) could replicate in John’s nose? (We don’t really know whether or not there was sufficient virus replication in John’s nose to actually transmit the virus to someone else.)

The take home message is clear, however: At least some totally asymptomatic individuals vaccinated more than six months ago can carry and transmit the virus that causes Covid-19 (now most likely the delta variant). If John’s immune system hadn’t been forewarned by vaccination (i.e. his immune system were “virgin” to the virus) this unmasked, outdoor breakfast encounter might have had a grievous result. 

If you’re vaccinated you still need to be careful for the sake of others (and, at a lower statistical likelihood of severe disease, for your own sake). Wear a mask indoors and in selected outdoor settings. If you’re not vaccinated, GET IT DONE. If you think you’ve had or actually had a test-positive Covid infection already, get a vaccination anyway. There are increasing reports that vaccination offers much better protection against the delta variant than does natural infection with one of the earlier strains. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Booster vaccination is a topic for another day.

Who is allowed to Assign Blame?

Jerry LeClaireAug 20

In the last week the news from Afghanistan, site of American’s longest war, has been disturbing, worrisome, and sad. Just last month 73% of Americans polled were in favor of the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. Just two weeks ago I heard a pundit on NPR opine that, although the Taliban held sway in the countryside, the major cities in Afghanistan would be able to withstand the onslaught and that eventually there would be a negotiated settlement among the Afghans. Now news coverage of all types and stripes feeds us again and again the image of desperate Afghans clinging to or running alongside a giant airplane moving slowly down the runway at the Kabul airport, an image that cannot help but evoke the coverage of America’s desperate evacuation of Saigon at the the end of the Vietnam War. Our hearts rightly go out to the people of Afghanistan who believed in what the U.S. told them we to stand for, people who signed onto our effort to convert Afghanistan into a modern democracy, people we are now abandoning. 

Who is to blame? Whose opinion counts? The media, and not just the right wing media, seem united in amplifying only the voices of the hawks, folk who have been wrong again and again in their situation assessments during our twenty-year occupation. Orion Donovan-Smith, writing for The Spokesman, gets assigned a headline, “A Self-Inflicted Wound,” for an article that is essentially an opinion piece by one man, former ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker. Crocker is quoted as if he were the only person with standing to offer an assessment, an assessment he offers as a Monday morning quarterback from his retirement in Spokane Valley. Crocker’s opinion ends critically with:

“I’m left with some grave questions in my mind about his [Biden’s] ability to lead our nation as commander-in-chief.” 

Why is Crocker given standing? Where is Crocker’s pointed criticism of Trump’s deal with the Taliban in which Trump cut out the Afghan government we have expended so much blood and treasure trying to establish? As Judd Legum writes in an article, “The media’s systemic failure on Afghanistan”:

Like Panetta, Crocker also touted the Afghan military and police, saying in a 2012 speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that the security forces represented an “amazing achievement.” He described the group as a “capable” and “multifaceted,” and claimed they were “close to their maximum strength of 352,000.” Like Panetta, Crocker was wrong about their capability and size.

Crocker also touted the “courage and determination” of President Hamid Karzai. But Karzai had “won reelection after cronies stuffed thousands of ballot boxes.” After securing power, Karzai presided over a deeply corrupt and incompetent government. Kabul Bank, the country’s largest bank, nearly collapsed under the “weight of $1 billion in fraudulent loans.” Among the recipients was Karzai’s brother, Mahmoud Karzai. Crocker’s predecessor, Karl Eikenberry, pressed Karzai to take action in response to the Kabul Bank scandal. But when Crocker replaced Eikenberry in 2011 that ended. Crocker’s “attitude was to make the issue go away, bury it as deep as possible, and silence any voices within the embassy that wanted to make this an issue,” according to interviews conducted by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. 

Crocker’s role in covering up the corruption of the Afghan government is not mentioned in Viser’s Washington Post article or the other outlets that quoted him for criticizing the withdrawal — NBC News, The Hill, Axios, and Fox News. 

Are the media engaged in a massive groupthink, an opportunity to be critical without regard for the history of the conflict or the background of the people they quote? Judd Legum weighed in again yesterday, August 19, with “Where are the anti-war voices?,” another article well worth reading. 

Once a society has committed lives and money to a conflict the media and our own pride make it hard to acknowledge to ourselves the false pretenses led us to war. It is hard to admit a mistake after a large investment. Like me, many of my readers are old enough to remember the same delusion that surrounded the Vietnam War. Thom Hartmann reminds us of the history of our immersion in Afghanistan and the false pretenses under which we the people of the United States were drawn in twenty years ago. Elements of the Taliban were sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, but Bin Laden was not a state actor, Bin Laden was a criminal. Avenging the crime of the events of September 11 did not require twenty years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and the collective frenzy fostered by complicit media enmeshed us in another misguided “nation-building” experiment. Much of what followed over the last twenty years was a doubling down on our initial illusion. 

The current media obsession with the last details of a withdrawal poorly initiated by the prior President loses track of our own history and societal delusion.

The media (and we) speak of “The Taliban” as if it were one individual with one voice and one intent. It is the same simplistic shorthand that others use to lump all of us U.S. citizens under the voice of whatever is the current administration. The reality is far, far more complicated both here and in Afghanistan. All the breathless bullshit from military, ambassadorial, and conservative pundits fails to capture the complexity and fluidity of a country in the midst of armed upheaval. Each pundit is like one of the blind men exploring an elephant, each with their own limited input, each with their prior bias, each guessing at the future. We have only to look at Vietnam for proof of how that turns out decades later…

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

We were warned

Jerry LeClaireAug 18

Theodore Geisel, aka Dr. Seuss, died in 1991 at age 87. He left a legacy of more than sixty books, nearly all children’s books, published over more than half a century. 

Doctor Seuss books studded my childhood and the childhoods of more than four generations. They are still a mainstay of the books I read to my granddaughter. None of them stands out quite like The Lorax. Last week marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of this iconic children’s book. Now, as we experience the worst regional drought in human memory, worry about wildfire, and breathe unhealthy, smokey air, the Lorax’s anger at the Once-ler for chopping down the truffula trees and polluting the environment rings clearer than ever, even if few had an inkling of the perils of greenhouse gases and climate change in 1971. 

As Elizabeth Blair of NPR put it in a great four minute listen on Morning Edition on August 12:

Call it fate or an unfortunate coincidence that Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax celebrates its 50th anniversary the same week the United Nations releases an urgent report on the dire consequences of human-induced climate change. The conflict between the industrious, polluting Once-ler and the feisty Lorax, who “speaks for the trees,” feels more prescient than ever.

“Once-ler!” he cried with a cruffulous croak.
“Once-ler! You’re making such smogulous smoke!
My poor Swomee-Swans…why, they can’t sing a note!
No one can sing who has smog in his throat.

“He wanted a book that captured the effects of pollution on ecosystems and I would say it was really ahead of its time,” says anthropologist and evolutionary biologist Nathaniel Dominy, who teaches at Dartmouth. “The different species disappear from the narrative in succession,” he notes. “The Bar-ba-loots leave because they run out of food. The Swomee-Swans leave because the air is polluted. The humming fish leave because the water’s polluted. He’s describing what we would now call a ‘trophic cascade,’ and for me, as a scientist, I just find that genius that he anticipated that concept by a decade or more.”

The temptation to sink into despair over the planet we will leave to our children and grandchildren (to say nothing of what people are already enduring) is real. A recent article in the New York Times, Amid Extreme Weather, a Shift Among Republicans on Climate Change, captures it:

Many Republicans in Congress no longer deny that Earth is heating because of fossil fuel emissions. But they say abandoning oil, gas and coal will harm the economy.

What part of the term “existential threat” do these Republicans not understand? Let me get this straight. These particular Republicans, most of them beholden to fossil fuel interests, many of them befogged with Dominionist ideologies informing them that fossil fuels were put on earth by God specifically for man to exploit, now are willing to acknowledge in public, in the face of rising seas, burning forests and grasslands, acrid smoke, and melting glaciers, that the burning of fossil fuels over the last two centuries of industrialization is warming the planet. Whoopee! What a realization! But now they argue that any attempt at cutting back on the burning of fossil fuels is wrong because it might harm “the economy”. How is that not denying the existence of the threat that have just said they acknowledge? One cannot have this both ways. Either you believe we are facing an existential threat and act accordingly or, well, you don’t. There is no, “I’m smart, I understand the threat, and in my wisdom I think we should just put the blinders on and move forward with gas and oil exploration, infrastructure, and use—and the future will take care of itself in some miraculous way.” Our home, the earth, is burning and these Republicans are saying we should keep adding fuel to the fire and everything will be alright. This is brain-melting nonsense. The first rule of stopping a fire is to quit feeding it. 

Republicans in national government aren’t the only ones. In the City of Spokane we are facing Proposition 1 on the November general election ballot, a proposal to amend the city charter to preemptively cut off the City Council’s power to even consider rules that would limit the use (and spread of use) of natural gas:

Shall the Spokane City Charter be amended to adopt the Spokane Cleaner Energy Protection Act – preventing the City from adopting any code, ordinance, or regulation that would prohibit the use of hydroelectric power or natural gas?

This is the “Cleaner Energy Protection Act”? We want to prevent the City from “prohibit[ing] the use of hydroelectric power?” This is the nonsense of a marketing lie. Proposition 1 is the fossil fuel and building industry’s green-washed attempt to preempt any discussion of local action to address the cause of our world’s rising fever. Proposition 1 is the product of the clever, but faulty thinking of climate denialists like our very own McMorris Rodgers. 

Bob Dylan put it clearly in an anthem that still rings in my ears:

Come senators, congressman, please heed the call. Don’t stand in the stairway, don’t block up the hall.

It is time to vote these foot dragging, obfuscating, disingenuous, lying, climate-denying Republicans out of office before it is too late. 

The Lorax warned us. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Jim Camden’s August 14th article in the Spokesman reassured us that there will be zero Washington State-wide initiatives on this November’s ballot—and that none of Tim Eyman’s continued efforts to snow the electorate with disingenuous, Republican-rousing ballot measures gathered enough signatures to quality. (Tim Wyman, one time darling of the extreme right dog and pony show, the Conservative Political Action Conference [CPAC], persists in spite of losing a $2.5 million civil suit over his lining his own pockets with PAC money.) While the lack of state-wide initiatives is a welcome relief from Wyman’s BS, Mr. Camden failed to note the City of Spokane’s Proposition 1, which will now take greater prominence simply by standing alone on the local ballot.

Welcome to the crazy wing of Washington State’s state representatives

Jerry LeClaireAug 16

Reps. Rob Chase and Bob McCaslin both represent Legislative District 4 (Spokane valley north to Mt. Spokane) in the Washington State legislature. Yesterday, Sunday, August 15, they joined three other members of the far right wing of the Republican Party to host “an unofficial public hearing at a Snohomish church, encouraging the public to bring forward evidence of voting fraud or irregularities.” This gang of five is inspired by at least one of the group who just returned from a three day “cyber symposium” put on in South Dakota by the MyPillow Guy, Mike Lindell. Lindell is the leading purveyor of widely debunked conspiracy theories centered on last November’s election (as well as a prominent TV huckster for his pillows). If you have interest and lots of time, you can watch all twenty-nine hours of Lindell and company’s gish gallop about supposed election fraud on YouTube. (The story of this public hearing first appeared in reputable media in an August 13 article in the Seattle Times.) This whole episode is tailor-made to fit an article recently published by Thom Hartmann on “Shared Psychosis.” 

There are two possibilities: 1) McCaslin, Chase, and company are shrewd political operators who believe they can help inflame the false narrative about the election among their militant followers and use this inflammation put Trump back in office and gain electoral advantage or 2) These five are truly so gullible that a) they attended Lindell’s symposium in the first place and b) after listening to twenty-nine hours of haranguing they are so thoroughly convinced that they feel compelled to carry the message to the people themselves. I favor option 2. They are true believers not only in Lindell’s ideas but in a variety of other conspiracy theories as well. 

Chase made news in the Spokesman July 21 on the vaccine front. A post of his was removed from Facebook on the grounds of mis-information. Here it is:

“Why would anyone take a vaccine that is not a vaccine, is not tested, violates the Nuremberg Code, the insert is blank, cannot be sued for damages, was created by Eugenecists (sic) who want a smaller Global population, and there are many natural cures available anyway?”

Kip Hill, author of the Spokesman article goes on:

As for the “eugenicists,” Chase identified George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist tied in conspiracy theories to the functioning of the global economy and progressive politics, as well as Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

It is appalling to think that the voters who put Chase in office might actually know the extent to which he subscribes to far right wing conspiracy theories. On the other hand, given the low level of attention most voters pay to local and state races, the ideological devotion of many Republicans to the Republican Party, and the systematic demonization of Democrats by right wing media, Chase and McCaslin may be in their elected positions because those who vote for them know very little of the extremism of these men. 

It is ironic that Rep. Chase occupies the former seat of Matt Shea, the anti-mask, anti-vaccination, anti-lockdown, pro-”Liberty State” and now a self styled “pastor” who came under pressure for training paramilitaries in “The Biblical Basis for War”. McCaslin Junior, always a follower of Matt Shea, now has another fringe personality to follow in Rob Chase. 

Rob Chase’s Political/Electoral Background. He is a savvy and persistent political climber. Chase is now in his late 60s. He worked as a real estate agent before sensing opportunity in the 2010 election. He leapt into that year’s August top-two primary race as a write-in candidate, probably realizing that as the only challenger to the Democratic incumbent Spokane County Treasurer, D.E. “Skip” Chilberg, he would have a place on the November ballot. Garnering only 1.2% of the votes (and not necessarily with any vetting by the local Republican Party), he gained a “Prefers Republican” slot against Chilberg in November. Chase squeaked by Chilberg in the 2010 November general election Tea Party swell by a margin of just 2 percent. Just two years later in the middle of his first term as Spokane County Treasurer Chase, tried to vault off his name recognition to a position as a Spokane County Commissioner, but fell short in the primary. In his second four year term as Treasurer, still not content, he vied for appointment to an open Commissioner seat in 2017. Because the two remaining County Commissioners, Al French and Josh Kerns, both Republicans, were unable to choose between the leading contenders, Mary Kuney and Rob Chase (who was put forward by Matt Shea and backed by Josh Kerns), the choice went to Democratic Governor Jay Inslee. Inslee quickly chose Kuney, the less extreme Republican. Kuney handily beat Chase in the following year’s special primary and general elections for the Commission seat in which she was then incumbent. 

Not content to run again for Spokane County Treasurer at the end of two four year terms in 2018, Chase declined to run for re-election. In 2020 he mounted a primary challenge against McMorris Rodgers (R-CD5, eastern WA) for a seat in U.S. House of Representatives. He later criticized McMorris Rodgers for changing course and not voting to challenge the election after the January 6th Capitol insurrection—marking himself as a Republican extremist. Abandoning his challenge to CMR, Chase instead ran for his present position as Matt Shea’s representative to Olympia from LD4 (Spokane valley to Mt. Spokane). 

Chase and McCaslin showed their colors earlier this year when they and most other Republicans in the legislature from eastern Washington voted against a bill to recognize Juneteenth as a holiday. They take cover under the favorite Republican argument about “the cost,” but who really believes that as their real motivation, given Rob Chase’s links to local white supremacists?

Others in the party, though, have supported Wright and even Allsup’s appearance at the event. Newly elected Rep. Rob Chase, a Liberty Stater from the Matt Shea wing of the party, hired Wright as his legislative assistant and said last week that the criticism was “a hit job” and political correctness run amok.

Chase and McCaslin run in the same circles and support the same causes as the disgraced Matt Shea, the former occupant of Chase’s current seat. They are even following his playbook in this August 15 “the election was stolen” event held in Snohomish, far out of the district they are supposed to represent and out of local media scrutiny. Shea made a political career out of traveling to promote his theocratic Liberty State idea and The American Redoubt, associating with Ammon Bundy’s takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, and preaching to and training paramilitaries at the Marble Community Fellowship’s “God and Country” event in far northern Stevens County. All of that marks him as an agitator for the Christian nationalist far right. None of it has to do with the real work of a legislator elected to represent LD4. Shea is more of a visible leader in conspiracy theory than Chase and McCaslin, demonstrated by his speaking spot at the Red Pill Expo, but the propensity for latching onto bizarre, unsubstantiated theories is alive in all three. 

It is time to spotlight Chase and McCaslin. They represent the extremist wing of the Republican Party. Traditional Republicans and independents need to know more about the background of the folks they’re electing to office when they reflexively mark the “Prefers Republican” box.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Neither the Spokesman nor the Inlander had, as of late Sunday evening, taken note of Chase, McCaslin and company’s Snohomish church “unofficial public hearing” to preach The MyPillow guy’s election lunacy to Washington State. So far, we on this side of the state have to rely on limited access to The Seattle Times and its article for news about the antics of Spokane valley’s true believing “representatives.”

Whom do you trust?

Jerry LeClaireAug 13

There are common themes among the purveyors of vaccine and pandemic mis-information: “Don’t trust them, trust me. I have things interpreted correctly, they don’t. They are members of a cabal solely motivated by money, I’m not. They are badly misguided, I know the truth. It’s us versus them, folks, and in your gut you know that I, solely I, am the real deal.”

Last Tuesday a youtube video of one very fast-talking Dr. Dan Stock confronting members of a school board at a meeting in Mt. Vernon, Indiana, circulated rapidly in anti-vac circles as “proof” of their preconceptions. If you have the stomach for this sort of thing, watch some of the video, but be sure to check out a sampling of the comments to see what actual scientists are up against. 

As this video flashed across people’s screens, an epidemiologist I follow on Substack, Katelyn Jetelina, wrote a rebuttal that pointed me to the writing of a young, extremely bright, Cornell-educated biochemist I had never heard of, Edward Nirenberg. Nirenberg had already written and posted to his blog, Deplatform Disease, a detailed debunking of Dr. Stock’s blather. It is a great read, but quite lengthy. Nirenberg introduced me to a new term that needs to become part of our vocabulary, a “gish gallop,” after the debate technique of Duane Gish, a Young-Earth creationist. (See When People Try to Win Debates by Using Overwhelming Nonsense):

The speech [Dr. Stock’s] is little more than a verbal gish gallop: a tactic used by science denialists wherein they post a bunch of links that they claim to support their points but in reality most of the citations are unsupportive or even unrelated to their claim- but this serves the appearance of evidence. He is doing this but with words- he is making a series of incorrect arguments (that are self-contradictory) and essentially seeking to overwhelm opposition with the volume of arguments he makes. The thing is, as I’ll discuss, he discredits himself very early on, so you don’t have to subject yourself to listening to his vile nonsense because I did it for you. 

If you have any doubt of Nirenberg’s characterization of Dr. Stock’s blather as a gish gallop check out Nirenberg’s detailed point-by-point post. The trouble is that Dr. Stock glibly makes assertions that many in this audience have already encountered and believe—assertions that his audience has neither the desire to check or a clue of how to do so. Besides, Dr. Stock has Dr. in front of his name. Sadly, that should not necessarily inspire confidence. 

The Mt. Vernon, Indiana, School Board isn’t alone. As Jim Allen recounts in a Spokesman article, the Spokane Public Schools school board meeting on Wednesday evening was attended by an obstreperous crowd of anti-maskers trying to push their anti-science, anti-government point. Among the agitated parents was a name that sounded familiar, but which Mr. Allen did not identify beyond the name:

Another parent, Marshall Casey, recalled his family’s decision to home-school their children.

“Fortunately, we have resources, but others don’t have the resources” to pull their students, said Casey, who closed with a rebuke of the current board.

“Over this last year, you have shown yourself not to be trustworthy,” Casey said.

Like other anti-mask speakers, Casey received applause. Two speakers weighed in with pro-mask comments, and were received with derisive words from the crowd.

Marshall Casey is the name of Matt Shea’s (disgraced LD-4 state representative) former law partner and recent unsuccessful candidate for a judgeship in the City of Spokane Court of Appeals. He received a “100%” rating with right wing litmus test of WeBelieveWeVote. His presence and speech at the meeting signals that many of the 200 attendees were summoned through the right wing modern version of a telephone tree. I feel sorry for the folks on the School Board who had to endure this torment. I encourage my readers to email a short note of support (and commiseration?) to the Board at  Schoolboard@spokaneschools.org . I am certain that Casey and his followers are a politically motivated, studiously mis-informed, loud minority of the district’s parents. If I were a member of the School Board I would be happy to know that sensible people who did not attend the meeting “have my back.”

I have been reading scientific literature (specifically medical literature) all of my professional life. This literature is full of jargon and abbreviations that is often hard to decipher, but it is not impenetrable. Scientific truth is not established by one study, but by the weight and quality of the evidence presented in the reports of many investigations. Each study report must be read while keeping in mind whether it offers a statistically valid and significant result or simply an interesting scientific anecdote upon which to base further investigation. The gish gallops of Dr. Stock and the anti-maskers are assembled by cherry-picking only those studies that (at a stretch) might support their preconceived notions. That’s not how science works. Shame on the medical school and the state licensing board that graduated and licensed a Dr. Stock. His diatribe discredits his title. 

Email the Spokane Public Schools School Board, and

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. This morning a physician friend sent me an article out of the science journal Nature that might serve to illustrate my point about the scientific literature. Here’s the link:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03777-9

What’s the take-home? In a nutshell, the study looks at the defenses against a delta variant Covid-19 virus present in one man. It demonstrates that this particular virus sample, analyzed in vitro, that is, in a laboratory setting, is more susceptible to the antibodies the immune system makes in response to two doses of Pfizer vaccine than it is to the antibodies made after one dose of Pfizer vaccine or after a natural infection with a prior Covid-19 variant. Interesting, but put it in context: This is not in vivo, i.e. this is not a test of the immune system acting out in the complex setting of a human body. It is secondary evidence suggesting what might be happen in a human. 

In other words, all this laboratory effort hints, but does not prove, that two doses of Pfizer vaccine might be more effective against the delta variant than one dose of Pfizer vaccine or natural immunity to an earlier strain. 

Always, more studies are needed to confirm this result and its significance in the real world. Welcome to the accrual process of scientific truth—always subject to further study.

Whom do you trust?

Jerry LeClaireAug 13

There are common themes among the purveyors of vaccine and pandemic mis-information: “Don’t trust them, trust me. I have things interpreted correctly, they don’t. They are members of a cabal solely motivated by money, I’m not. They are badly misguided, I know the truth. It’s us versus them, folks, and in your gut you know that I, solely I, am the real deal.”

Last Tuesday a youtube video of one very fast-talking Dr. Dan Stock confronting members of a school board at a meeting in Mt. Vernon, Indiana, circulated rapidly in anti-vac circles as “proof” of their preconceptions. If you have the stomach for this sort of thing, watch some of the video, but be sure to check out a sampling of the comments to see what actual scientists are up against. 

As this video flashed across people’s screens, an epidemiologist I follow on Substack, Katelyn Jetelina, wrote a rebuttal that pointed me to the writing of a young, extremely bright, Cornell-educated biochemist I had never heard of, Edward Nirenberg. Nirenberg had already written and posted to his blog, Deplatform Disease, a detailed debunking of Dr. Stock’s blather. It is a great read, but quite lengthy. Nirenberg introduced me to a new term that needs to become part of our vocabulary, a “gish gallop,” after the debate technique of Duane Gish, a Young-Earth creationist. (See When People Try to Win Debates by Using Overwhelming Nonsense):

The speech [Dr. Stock’s] is little more than a verbal gish gallop: a tactic used by science denialists wherein they post a bunch of links that they claim to support their points but in reality most of the citations are unsupportive or even unrelated to their claim- but this serves the appearance of evidence. He is doing this but with words- he is making a series of incorrect arguments (that are self-contradictory) and essentially seeking to overwhelm opposition with the volume of arguments he makes. The thing is, as I’ll discuss, he discredits himself very early on, so you don’t have to subject yourself to listening to his vile nonsense because I did it for you. 

If you have any doubt of Nirenberg’s characterization of Dr. Stock’s blather as a gish gallop check out Nirenberg’s detailed point-by-point post. The trouble is that Dr. Stock glibly makes assertions that many in this audience have already encountered and believe—assertions that his audience has neither the desire to check or a clue of how to do so. Besides, Dr. Stock has Dr. in front of his name. Sadly, that should not necessarily inspire confidence. 

The Mt. Vernon, Indiana, School Board isn’t alone. As Jim Allen recounts in a Spokesman article, the Spokane Public Schools school board meeting on Wednesday evening was attended by an obstreperous crowd of anti-maskers trying to push their anti-science, anti-government point. Among the agitated parents was a name that sounded familiar, but which Mr. Allen did not identify beyond the name:

Another parent, Marshall Casey, recalled his family’s decision to home-school their children.

“Fortunately, we have resources, but others don’t have the resources” to pull their students, said Casey, who closed with a rebuke of the current board.

“Over this last year, you have shown yourself not to be trustworthy,” Casey said.

Like other anti-mask speakers, Casey received applause. Two speakers weighed in with pro-mask comments, and were received with derisive words from the crowd.

Marshall Casey is the name of Matt Shea’s (disgraced LD-4 state representative) former law partner and recent unsuccessful candidate for a judgeship in the City of Spokane Court of Appeals. He received a “100%” rating with right wing litmus test of WeBelieveWeVote. His presence and speech at the meeting signals that many of the 200 attendees were summoned through the right wing modern version of a telephone tree. I feel sorry for the folks on the School Board who had to endure this torment. I encourage my readers to email a short note of support (and commiseration?) to the Board at  Schoolboard@spokaneschools.org . I am certain that Casey and his followers are a politically motivated, studiously mis-informed, loud minority of the district’s parents. If I were a member of the School Board I would be happy to know that sensible people who did not attend the meeting “have my back.”

I have been reading scientific literature (specifically medical literature) all of my professional life. This literature is full of jargon and abbreviations that is often hard to decipher, but it is not impenetrable. Scientific truth is not established by one study, but by the weight and quality of the evidence presented in the reports of many investigations. Each study report must be read while keeping in mind whether it offers a statistically valid and significant result or simply an interesting scientific anecdote upon which to base further investigation. The gish gallops of Dr. Stock and the anti-maskers are assembled by cherry-picking only those studies that (at a stretch) might support their preconceived notions. That’s not how science works. Shame on the medical school and the state licensing board that graduated and licensed a Dr. Stock. His diatribe discredits his title. 

Email the Spokane Public Schools School Board, and

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. This morning a physician friend sent me an article out of the science journal Nature that might serve to illustrate my point about the scientific literature. Here’s the link:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03777-9

What’s the take-home? In a nutshell, the study looks at the defenses against a delta variant Covid-19 virus present in one man. It demonstrates that this particular virus sample, analyzed in vitro, that is, in a laboratory setting, is more susceptible to the antibodies the immune system makes in response to two doses of Pfizer vaccine than it is to the antibodies made after one dose of Pfizer vaccine or after a natural infection with a prior Covid-19 variant. Interesting, but put it in context: This is not in vivo, i.e. this is not a test of the immune system acting out in the complex setting of a human body. It is secondary evidence suggesting what might be happen in a human. 

In other words, all this laboratory effort hints, but does not prove, that two doses of Pfizer vaccine might be more effective against the delta variant than one dose of Pfizer vaccine or natural immunity to an earlier strain. 

Always, more studies are needed to confirm this result and its significance in the real world. Welcome to the accrual process of scientific truth—always subject to further study.

What are the numbers and risks?

Jerry LeClaireAug 11

Among humans the only event that is statistically 100% is eventual death (and, as some point out, taxes). Vaccines are not 100%—and the current vaccines against Covid-19 were never advertised that way. Moreover, they were tested and approved (under an EUA, an emergency use authorization) against the original genetic version of SARS-CoV-2. The Pfizer vaccine was found 95% percent effective: In a study population of nearly 22,000 unvaccinated people and 22,000 people 7 days after their second shot, people out in the community, 170 study subjects developed test positive, symptomatic Covid-19, one hundred sixty-two in the unvaccinated group and eight in the vaccinated group. 162/170=0.95 or 95%. That’s where the 95% number came from. It was never advertised as 100%. The study was exhaustive, clear science, not speculation or anecdote. It was a triumph—but it was not 100%—and it was tested only against the original virus. 

People like simple statements, “If you are vaccinated you are totally protected and you can toss caution to the wind,” but nothing in life is 100%. There are always people who, by reason of their genetics, the state of their immune system, or some other factor do not develop immunity to a disease against which they were vaccinated. Protection for those people depends on a sufficiently high rate of vaccination in the community that the target virus cannot gain a foothold and spread. People who got the vaccination but for whom it didn’t “take” or the few who, for one reason or another, were not vaccinated depend on the statistical immunity of the “herd” to protect them from the disease. 

Notice that the Pfizer study, even with the original virus, had eight cases, “breakthrough cases”, if you will. Also notice that the original study did not conclusively tell us whether Covid-19 could be carried and transferred by completely asymptomatic vaccinated individuals. (Although, I believe, subsequent studies suggested that such carriage and transmission was rare, at least with the original virus.)

Now we are dealing with the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 (aka B.1.617.2), a variant with a naturally selected genetic ability to evade some of the immune defenses even of vaccinated people. “Breakthrough cases” are more common with the delta variant. Carriage and transmission of Covid-19 by asymptomatic vaccinated individuals is also more common with this variant. The original 95% number was not wrong—not then—but if that huge study were repeated today in the U.S. population where the delta variant now makes up around 85% of the Covid-19 cases, the efficacy % of the Pfizer vaccine would be lower.

Is it still worthwhile to be vaccinated? Yes, as illustrated by the following graph:

Fully vaccinated individuals are less likely to develop any symptoms of Covid-19 by a factor of 1 to 8, less likely to wind up in the hospital if they do develop symptoms by 1 to 25, and less likely die if they do wind up in the hospital also by a factor of 1 to 25. 

Furthermore there is some good early evidence from Singapore that although infected vaccinated individuals carry similar loads of virus initially to the viral load of an infected unvaccinated individual, the vaccinated people shed virus on average for a shorter time, nine compared to sixteen days. Presumably this represents the faster ramp up of immunity among the vaccinated as compared to the unvaccinated. 

What we do not know with any certainty is the prevalence of asymptomatic delta variant carriage among vaccinated people, nor do we know how often asymptomatic vaccinated people transmit the delta variant to others. That lack of clarity, combined with the knowledge that some asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic vaccinated people can and have spread the disease to others is the reason for the recommendation to return to mask wear indoors. 

Data on vaccination rates and rate of Covid-19 hospitalization among the states is pretty striking and certainly demonstrates a correlation between higher vaccination rates and a lower the level of spread of the virus, hospitalization, and death.

So what is the outlook for eastern Washington and Idaho? The data I cite here comes from the New York Times database and the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Tracker. Overall, as noted above, 70% of Washingtonians are vaccinated, but eastern Washington is distinct: 49% of Spokane County residents are vaccinated and the percentage drops to 30 and 31% in Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties north of here, some of the lowest numbers in the state. Idaho overall hovers around 40%, but our neighbors in all the northern Idaho counties are closer to 30%. Eastern Washington and northern Idaho have vaccination rates lower than the southern states that are now struggling with the delta variant. 

The test positivity rate (TPR) offers a hint of our future. The higher the percentage of tests for Covid-19 that come back positive the greater the likely reservoir of untested, infected individuals in the community. States with high vaccination rates are showing test positivity rates under 5%. What is Idaho’s overall TPR? It rates third with 35.9% of Covid-19 tests coming back positive. Only Oklahoma and Mississippi are higher. Most of the southern states in which the virus is rampant have TPRs in the teens and twenties.

Viruses don’t respect land borders. We in eastern Washington are more akin to Idaho than Seattle, and Idaho is quite likely to be facing a tsunami of delta variant Covid-19. Anyone who is not vaccinated ought to understand the risk they are taking. Full immunity from vaccination takes five or six weeks from the first shot. A wait-and-see approach is foolhardy. Those of us already vaccinated ought to be taking precautions, first and foremost wearing masks indoors and the unvaccinated need to heed the science.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Should you get vaccinated if you have had (or think you have had) Covid? Read this: “‘Natural’ immunity protection and variants”. Also, a recent study published on the CDC website.

What are the numbers and risks?

Jerry LeClaireAug 11

Among humans the only event that is statistically 100% is eventual death (and, as some point out, taxes). Vaccines are not 100%—and the current vaccines against Covid-19 were never advertised that way. Moreover, they were tested and approved (under an EUA, an emergency use authorization) against the original genetic version of SARS-CoV-2. The Pfizer vaccine was found 95% percent effective: In a study population of nearly 22,000 unvaccinated people and 22,000 people 7 days after their second shot, people out in the community, 170 study subjects developed test positive, symptomatic Covid-19, one hundred sixty-two in the unvaccinated group and eight in the vaccinated group. 162/170=0.95 or 95%. That’s where the 95% number came from. It was never advertised as 100%. The study was exhaustive, clear science, not speculation or anecdote. It was a triumph—but it was not 100%—and it was tested only against the original virus. 

People like simple statements, “If you are vaccinated you are totally protected and you can toss caution to the wind,” but nothing in life is 100%. There are always people who, by reason of their genetics, the state of their immune system, or some other factor do not develop immunity to a disease against which they were vaccinated. Protection for those people depends on a sufficiently high rate of vaccination in the community that the target virus cannot gain a foothold and spread. People who got the vaccination but for whom it didn’t “take” or the few who, for one reason or another, were not vaccinated depend on the statistical immunity of the “herd” to protect them from the disease. 

Notice that the Pfizer study, even with the original virus, had eight cases, “breakthrough cases”, if you will. Also notice that the original study did not conclusively tell us whether Covid-19 could be carried and transferred by completely asymptomatic vaccinated individuals. (Although, I believe, subsequent studies suggested that such carriage and transmission was rare, at least with the original virus.)

Now we are dealing with the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 (aka B.1.617.2), a variant with a naturally selected genetic ability to evade some of the immune defenses even of vaccinated people. “Breakthrough cases” are more common with the delta variant. Carriage and transmission of Covid-19 by asymptomatic vaccinated individuals is also more common with this variant. The original 95% number was not wrong—not then—but if that huge study were repeated today in the U.S. population where the delta variant now makes up around 85% of the Covid-19 cases, the efficacy % of the Pfizer vaccine would be lower.

Is it still worthwhile to be vaccinated? Yes, as illustrated by the following graph:

Fully vaccinated individuals are less likely to develop any symptoms of Covid-19 by a factor of 1 to 8, less likely to wind up in the hospital if they do develop symptoms by 1 to 25, and less likely die if they do wind up in the hospital also by a factor of 1 to 25. 

Furthermore there is some good early evidence from Singapore that although infected vaccinated individuals carry similar loads of virus initially to the viral load of an infected unvaccinated individual, the vaccinated people shed virus on average for a shorter time, nine compared to sixteen days. Presumably this represents the faster ramp up of immunity among the vaccinated as compared to the unvaccinated. 

What we do not know with any certainty is the prevalence of asymptomatic delta variant carriage among vaccinated people, nor do we know how often asymptomatic vaccinated people transmit the delta variant to others. That lack of clarity, combined with the knowledge that some asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic vaccinated people can and have spread the disease to others is the reason for the recommendation to return to mask wear indoors. 

Data on vaccination rates and rate of Covid-19 hospitalization among the states is pretty striking and certainly demonstrates a correlation between higher vaccination rates and a lower the level of spread of the virus, hospitalization, and death.

So what is the outlook for eastern Washington and Idaho? The data I cite here comes from the New York Times database and the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Tracker. Overall, as noted above, 70% of Washingtonians are vaccinated, but eastern Washington is distinct: 49% of Spokane County residents are vaccinated and the percentage drops to 30 and 31% in Stevens and Pend Oreille Counties north of here, some of the lowest numbers in the state. Idaho overall hovers around 40%, but our neighbors in all the northern Idaho counties are closer to 30%. Eastern Washington and northern Idaho have vaccination rates lower than the southern states that are now struggling with the delta variant. 

The test positivity rate (TPR) offers a hint of our future. The higher the percentage of tests for Covid-19 that come back positive the greater the likely reservoir of untested, infected individuals in the community. States with high vaccination rates are showing test positivity rates under 5%. What is Idaho’s overall TPR? It rates third with 35.9% of Covid-19 tests coming back positive. Only Oklahoma and Mississippi are higher. Most of the southern states in which the virus is rampant have TPRs in the teens and twenties.

Viruses don’t respect land borders. We in eastern Washington are more akin to Idaho than Seattle, and Idaho is quite likely to be facing a tsunami of delta variant Covid-19. Anyone who is not vaccinated ought to understand the risk they are taking. Full immunity from vaccination takes five or six weeks from the first shot. A wait-and-see approach is foolhardy. Those of us already vaccinated ought to be taking precautions, first and foremost wearing masks indoors and the unvaccinated need to heed the science.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Should you get vaccinated if you have had (or think you have had) Covid? Read this: “‘Natural’ immunity protection and variants”. Also, a recent study published on the CDC website.

What is Wrong with Us?

Jerry LeClaireAug 9

Ethan Murray’s life was ended behind the Mirabeau Apartments in Spokane Valley on Saturday, May 4, 2019, at about 5:30PM. Five rounds fired by Spokane County Sheriff’s Deputy Joseph Wallace’s service pistol snuffed out Ethan’s twenty-five year existence. His crime was being mentally ill with schizophrenia, being shirtless, dirty, and acting strangely around people unfamiliar with him. On May 4th and the day before, five other encounters with the police, two documented with body cameras, had ended peacefully. Each time the officers concluded that Ethan made people uncomfortable but “wasn’t threatening”. Since he “wasn’t threatening”, the officers lacked grounds to take Ethan into custody and commit him to a psych ward for observation and treatment. Ethan’s sixth encounter with law enforcement in those two days ended his life. 

This is close to personal. I have a peripheral connection to Ethan’s mother, Justine Murray. I know Ethan’s sister. I visited the Mirabeau Apartment complex off Pines Road in Spokane Valley shortly after Ethan was killed to absorb the geographic setting. I attended Ethan’s memorial. My partner knew Ethan and his mother before Ethan descended into schizophrenia. She was aware of Justine’s herculean efforts to get help for her son—and of the legal challenges to obtaining help for a mentally ill loved one who lacks a clear grasp of the need for help precisely because of their mental illness.

Sheriff Knezovich, a Republican, and the same man who approved Lt. Col. Grossman’s “Killology” training for his County Sheriff’s department deputies, now says “that the system puts officers in impossible situations and lets people like Ethan Murray down” and adds, “We have starved our statewide system of funding and resources…and the local systems simply do not have the resources to deal with it.” That is a fine statement for a stalwart Republican whose Party is relentlessly opposed to changes in taxes and tax structure and spending money for social (in this case. mental health) programs.

In a humane world Ethan would have gotten the help he needed. Society failed him. We voters are at fault along with the sheriff’s deputy who took Ethan’s life. We are at fault for not assembling a majority that demands changes in the mental health system, the legal constructs, and the funding, and, yes, the tax system, that set Ethan up for this tragic end.

Where were the Trump Republican Evangelical Christians when these verses were read in church? They still ring in my ears a half century later… 

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ Matthew 25:37-40

On July 29th Ethan’s story re-surfaced in the news. Ethan’s parents, Justine Murray and Mark Jentsch, filed a lawsuit with the United States Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of Ethan’s estate against Joseph Wallace (the deputy who shot Ethan) and the Spokane County Sheriff’s Department. 

Emma Epperly, writing for the Spokesman, covered the lawsuit filing in and article dated July 30, “Family of mentally ill man alleges ‘warrior mindset’ training at Spokane sheriff’s office contributed to son’s death”. 

Shawn Vestal recounted the story and the suit in his article in the Spokesman on July 31, “Police were called six times in two days on mentally ill man; the sixth proved fatal.” This article is well worth reading in its entirety. Mr. Vestal notes that:

Justine Murray hopes that the case will bring attention to the issues involved with policing, mental illness and accountability.

Justine Murray struggled from the beginning of Ethan’s illness in 2012 to obtain for him the help he needed, but she was met roadblocks at every turn. In addition to the lawsuit with which she hopes to raise awareness, she and her partner Matt have established the Ethan Murray Fund, a non-profit that hopes to raise $50,000 to offer financial support for mental health, homeless and addiction services in North Idaho. 

For more on Justine’s and Ethan’s struggles see Josh Kelety’s article from May 23, 2019, in The Inlander.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. I presume the lawsuit is in federal court, rather than a Washington state or county court because Ethan Murray’s Estate and his parents who are bringing the suit reside in the State of Idaho. A few other things worthy of note: 1) “Deputies do not wear body cameras. The lawsuit alleges Wallace didn’t file a statement on the incident until nearly a month later, and only after reviewing dispatch records and audio recording of the incident.” If that is true, then there is something very wrong with this picture. 2) “The prosecutor’s office determined Wallace was justified in shooting Murray because the law takes into account that he could reasonably believe Murray posed a threat of serious bodily harm, according to a news release.” The Spokane County Prosecutor, Larry Haskell, is notorious for his staunch lock-’em-up attitude when it comes to civilians, not so much with law enforcement. The same 2019 Spokesman article notes that “Wallace has since returned to work in the sheriff’s office patrol division.” Sheriff Knezovich must have figured the storm had blown over.

P.P.S. With some regret I note that I do not have the personal contacts with the families of other victims of law enforcement excess, but this is a family I know. What happened to Ethan sheds light on other events that I might at one time have dismissed as “policing is a hard job” or “well, he should have been more cooperative”. I laud the deputies who dealt properly with Ethan in the day before his death (apart from the fact that the system blocked efforts they might have made to connect him with treatment), but I am now also a firm believer that law enforcement culture needs to change. It makes me angry when I read of eastern Washington sheriffs and police chiefs calling a press conference to make a political statement about the laws meant to adjust that culture.

Ethan Murray’s life was ended behind the Mirabeau Apartments in Spokane Valley on Saturday, May 4, 2019, at about 5:30PM. Five rounds fired by Spokane County Sheriff’s Deputy Joseph Wallace’s service pistol snuffed out Ethan’s twenty-five year existence. His crime was being mentally ill with schizophrenia, being shirtless, dirty, and acting strangely around people unfamiliar with him. On May 4th and the day before, five other encounters with the police, two documented with body cameras, had ended peacefully. Each time the officers concluded that Ethan made people uncomfortable but “wasn’t threatening”. Since he “wasn’t threatening”, the officers lacked grounds to take Ethan into custody and commit him to a psych ward for observation and treatment. Ethan’s sixth encounter with law enforcement in those two days ended his life. 

This is close to personal. I have a peripheral connection to Ethan’s mother, Justine Murray. I know Ethan’s sister. I visited the Mirabeau Apartment complex off Pines Road in Spokane Valley shortly after Ethan was killed to absorb the geographic setting. I attended Ethan’s memorial. My partner knew Ethan and his mother before Ethan descended into schizophrenia. She was aware of Justine’s herculean efforts to get help for her son—and of the legal challenges to obtaining help for a mentally ill loved one who lacks a clear grasp of the need for help precisely because of their mental illness.

Sheriff Knezovich, a Republican, and the same man who approved Lt. Col. Grossman’s “Killology” training for his County Sheriff’s department deputies, now says “that the system puts officers in impossible situations and lets people like Ethan Murray down” and adds, “We have starved our statewide system of funding and resources…and the local systems simply do not have the resources to deal with it.” That is a fine statement for a stalwart Republican whose Party is relentlessly opposed to changes in taxes and tax structure and spending money for social (in this case. mental health) programs.

In a humane world Ethan would have gotten the help he needed. Society failed him. We voters are at fault along with the sheriff’s deputy who took Ethan’s life. We are at fault for not assembling a majority that demands changes in the mental health system, the legal constructs, and the funding, and, yes, the tax system, that set Ethan up for this tragic end.

Where were the Trump Republican Evangelical Christians when these verses were read in church? They still ring in my ears a half century later… 

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’ Matthew 25:37-40

On July 29th Ethan’s story re-surfaced in the news. Ethan’s parents, Justine Murray and Mark Jentsch, filed a lawsuit with the United States Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of Ethan’s estate against Joseph Wallace (the deputy who shot Ethan) and the Spokane County Sheriff’s Department. 

Emma Epperly, writing for the Spokesman, covered the lawsuit filing in and article dated July 30, “Family of mentally ill man alleges ‘warrior mindset’ training at Spokane sheriff’s office contributed to son’s death”. 

Shawn Vestal recounted the story and the suit in his article in the Spokesman on July 31, “Police were called six times in two days on mentally ill man; the sixth proved fatal.” This article is well worth reading in its entirety. Mr. Vestal notes that:

Justine Murray hopes that the case will bring attention to the issues involved with policing, mental illness and accountability.

Justine Murray struggled from the beginning of Ethan’s illness in 2012 to obtain for him the help he needed, but she was met roadblocks at every turn. In addition to the lawsuit with which she hopes to raise awareness, she and her partner Matt have established the Ethan Murray Fund, a non-profit that hopes to raise $50,000 to offer financial support for mental health, homeless and addiction services in North Idaho. 

For more on Justine’s and Ethan’s struggles see Josh Kelety’s article from May 23, 2019, in The Inlander.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. I presume the lawsuit is in federal court, rather than a Washington state or county court because Ethan Murray’s Estate and his parents who are bringing the suit reside in the State of Idaho. A few other things worthy of note: 1) “Deputies do not wear body cameras. The lawsuit alleges Wallace didn’t file a statement on the incident until nearly a month later, and only after reviewing dispatch records and audio recording of the incident.” If that is true, then there is something very wrong with this picture. 2) “The prosecutor’s office determined Wallace was justified in shooting Murray because the law takes into account that he could reasonably believe Murray posed a threat of serious bodily harm, according to a news release.” The Spokane County Prosecutor, Larry Haskell, is notorious for his staunch lock-’em-up attitude when it comes to civilians, not so much with law enforcement. The same 2019 Spokesman article notes that “Wallace has since returned to work in the sheriff’s office patrol division.” Sheriff Knezovich must have figured the storm had blown over.

P.P.S. With some regret I note that I do not have the personal contacts with the families of other victims of law enforcement excess, but this is a family I know. What happened to Ethan sheds light on other events that I might at one time have dismissed as “policing is a hard job” or “well, he should have been more cooperative”. I laud the deputies who dealt properly with Ethan in the day before his death (apart from the fact that the system blocked efforts they might have made to connect him with treatment), but I am now also a firm believer that law enforcement culture needs to change. It makes me angry when I read of eastern Washington sheriffs and police chiefs calling a press conference to make a political statement about the laws meant to adjust that culture.