Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Vaccine Claims topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local callers tell Plumas County board they believe COVID‑19 vaccines caused deaths and injuries
Summary
Multiple remote callers used the public comment period to allege widespread harms from COVID‑19 vaccines and urged county investigation; callers named witnesses and researchers but provided no county‑level evidence or counter‑responses from health officials during the meeting.
Multiple remote callers used the public comment period at the Jan. 20 Plumas County Board of Supervisors meeting to claim COVID‑19 vaccines have caused large numbers of injuries and deaths and to urge local investigation.
Ronald F. Owens Jr., who identified himself as a former California Department of Public Health public information officer, told the board he had raised concerns with his management and said in part: “these vaccines are killing people of color, blacks, Latinos, indigenous people at about 2 times the rate of white Americans” and later asserted that “756 Californians died from COVID‑19 vaccines” (caller testimony summarized by Owens). Owens said he previously provided the board with an email and offered to return with subject‑matter experts.
Another remote commenter who identified herself as Julie Threat said she is a member of multiple organizations and called herself a “medical freedom fighter,” asserting she has filed VAERS reports and alleging broad harms including fetal demise and neuropsychiatric conditions related to vaccination. A third caller urged the board and local law enforcement to “listen to our credible whistleblowers” and to treat the issue as an urgent public‑health and public‑safety matter.
The board’s presiding officer thanked the callers and noted that county departments report no active countywide vaccine mandate; staff said the board can agendize policy questions if members want to pursue them. No county public‑health official or other health‑system representative responded during the meeting to accept, refute, or provide data on the callers’ claims.
Why this matters: callers asked the county to act—requesting meetings with experts, law‑enforcement inquiries, and public outreach—but the board did not adopt any new policy or direct staff to open an investigation during the meeting. The remarks were recorded as public comment and remain allegations unless substantiated by evidence reviewed by public‑health officials.
What happens next: Board members suggested agendizing any county‑level authority questions (for example, whether departments require vaccination) for a future meeting if they want formal discussion. The transcript shows no formal follow‑up action taken at this session.
