Through April 2020, the official recommendation by the Journal
of the American Medical Association was unambiguous.
“Face masks should not be worn by healthy
individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because
there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are
effective in preventing people from becoming ill.”
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762694
Part of that lack of evidence in fact showed that
cloth facemasks actually increased influenza-linked illness.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
In contravention to established science, States,
municipalities and businesses have violated the legal requirements for the
promulgation of medical counter measures during a public health emergency
stating a “belief” that face masks limit the spread of SARS CoV-2. To date, not a single study has confirmed
that a mask prevented the transmission of, or the infection by SARS CoV-2.
All parties mandating the use of facemasks are not
only willfully ignoring established science but are engaging in what amounts to
a whole population clinical trial. This
conclusion is reached by the fact that facemask use and COVID-19 incidence are
being reported in scientific opinion pieces promoted by the United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
Social distancing of up to 6 feet has been promoted as a means of
preventing person-to-person transmission of influenza-like viruses. While one study (Werner E. Bischoff, Katrina Swett, Iris Leng,
Timothy R. Peters, Exposure to Influenza Virus Aerosols During Routine Patient
Care, The Journal of Infectious
Diseases, Volume 207, Issue 7, 1 April 2013, Pages 1037–1046, https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jis773) hypothesized
that infection could happen in a 6 foot range, the study explicitly states that
person-to-person transfer was not tested and viability of the virus at 6
feet was not even a subject of the investigation. That did not stop the misrepresentation of
the study to be used as the basis for an unverified medical counter measure of social
distancing. To date, no study has established
the efficacy of social distancing to modify the transmission of SARS
CoV-2. Public health officials have
referenced:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5907354/#CR43
In contravention to established science, States,
municipalities and businesses have violated the legal requirements for the
promulgation of medical counter measures during a public health emergency
stating a “belief” that social distancing of a healthy population limits the
spread of SARS CoV-2. To date, not a
single study has confirmed that social distancing of any population prevented
the transmission of, or the infection by SARS CoV-2.
It is unlawful under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., to
advertise that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease
unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when
appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims
are true at the time they are made. As a
result, every party promoting the use of face masks is violating the FTC Act.
Further, under 21 CFR § 50.24 et seq., it is unlawful to
conduct medical research (even in the case of emergency) without a series of
steps taken to:
a.
Establish the research with a
duly authorized and independent institutional review board;
b.
Secure informed consent of all
participants including a statement of risks and benefits; and,
c.
Engage in consultation with the
community in which the study is to be conducted.
All of these laws have been broken. All relevant authorities in the United States
must cease and desist the use of face masks until the matters above are
rectified.
Oh, and did I mention that the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Forcing someone to "believe" that a thing might work not based on facts but based on a belief alone is tantamount to a religion and is prohibited without limitation. Not even Jacobson alters this fact.
x
.jpg)
Brilliant as usual, David.
ReplyDeleteSuperb analysis, as ever.
ReplyDeleteThank you. I am curious, have looked into the studies that indicate that the MMR vaccine reduces the severity of covid ssymptoms? That lack of attention to this adds to my suspicion about this "pandemic ". I would be interested in your thoughts about this.
DeleteTerrific analysis, Dr. Martin. However, I cannot find any part of the language "advertising that a product or service can prevent treat or cure human disease. Unless you possess competent reliable scientific evidence including when appropriate, well controlled human clinical studies substantiating that the claims are true at the time they're made" anywhere in USC 15 Section 41 et seq. That law has sections 41-58, and I've been up and down them, searching for keywords in that phrase and cannot find them. When I conduct a browser search, I get a number of hits on letters the FTC sent to "offending" naturopaths (which is one of the points that you made; namely, that the FTC regularly uses this law to shut down alternative medical practitioners), but not the specific language you cited (or variations of it that say the same thing).
ReplyDeleteVery frustrating, because I am considering following your advice and contacting the U.S. attorney in my state or some other legal official, but if I cannot cite the exact part of the USC, I cannot honestly do so. I suppose I could just cite the FTC letters and then demand the respondent apply the same law to the vaccine people, but I don't feel good about doing this. Your help would be appreciated.
1. Section 5 of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 45 gives the Commission broad
Deleteauthority to prohibit “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”
2. Sections 12-15 of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 52-55 prohibits the
dissemination of misleading claims for food, drugs, devices, services or
cosmetics.
Thank you for this information. Where do I start in government so we can get our kids out of face masks in schools?
ReplyDeleteAt the rate we're going we'll be lucky to get them in school at all (with facemasks, plexi-glass, etc.) I'm going to start at the local level. School board meetings, town council.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this information! I am currently being prevented from working, due to an ADA protected disability (PTSD) causing me to be unable to wear a mask for work. I work for a large well known retail company. I've been searching for anything that may help me, as I'm anticipating a potential legal action. I find it extremely concerning that the ADA has been tossed out the window by so many over this. Thank you for providing me with some hope!
ReplyDeleteThank you for this information! I am currently being prevented from working because I am unable to wear a mask due to an ADA protected disability (PTSD). I work for a large, well known retail company. I have been searching for anything that may help me with the possibility of legal action becoming more and more apparent. This seems like something that may help.
ReplyDeleteSomeone please make a form for a violation of rights offense violation of USC #s... One for kids at school, one for people shopping, one for airline travel, etc. where we can write the offenders name, a place for two witnesses and signature for testimony, suggested fine/ suit amount/ sentence,
ReplyDeleteIf it works ... whoever makes this form may be in a position to get a tip or a cut of any suit money paid out by offenders.
... We asked them to stop depriving us of our rights, they say we are just doing a job enforcing the mask mandate, we remind them they have a civic duty as an American to defend and assert their rights and those of others. they say sorry and call for back up/ manager. It’s coercion/ etc.
Prosecute Fauci, Newsom, Gates, Cuomo, Whitmer et al.
ReplyDelete