A Letter of the Law

There was an announcement this past week from the CDC that the commonly used RT-PCR tests are unable to differentiate between COVID-19 and the regular flu. This has been known for some months (see this FDA announcement).That would explain why flu cases dropped so dramatically—almost to zero—this past year, while everything was attributed to COVID. A comment I read online (so, anecdotal only) said his wife worked in a pharmacy, and they had distributed only one prescription for Tamiflu in a year. This may mean that a lot of people suffered a worse flu than necessary, because they were misdiagnosed as having COVID.

In contradiction to this new information, based on more positive tests—which are admittedly now inaccurate—we have jurisdictions alarmed about this spike in cases. Which might not be cases. Which aren’t causing higher death rates. Which aren’t significantly increasing hospitalizations. So alarmed that they are threatening mask mandates—for everyone, even those who are fully vaccinated (which is supposed to mean they are safe from contracting or spreading the disease) and those who have natural antibodies from surviving the disease (who cannot contract or spread the disease). So there's science, if you can find it, and there's something else altogether that you might hear from those claiming to be citing the science.

 

Bringing Suit

image found here

A couple of days ago, attorney Robert Barnes shared something on his Locals.com account that was both amusing and helpful—in case you’re considering a particular type of lawsuit. This info just came to him—well, here’s how he says it: 

This letter just came to me in a bottle, and I have no idea who might have penned it, nor can I possibly vouch for it, and what you fine folks do with it is entirely in your own hands, as the Gentlemen of the Bar remind me I can proffer no general legal advice in the matter, and must officially disclaim proffering any such advice here.

“The letter” is sort of legal-type information related to forced vaccinations. He suggests going ahead and editing and/or using the info as you see fit (such as for your personal lawsuit against an employer, or maybe even some other entity, that attempts to coerce you to take this experimental intervention). So I’ll share a good chunk of it.

“The letter” starts by saying, “Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine.”

“The letter” notes that Kaiser Foundation legal team has put out such a liability warning, among other hedging of bets.

Then come three “key concerns,” and added information related to each:

1.      While the vaccine remains unapproved by the CDC and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947.

o   Subsectionbbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the "option to accept or refuse administration" of the Covid-19 vaccine.

o   This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).

2.      The Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS-related cases of decades ago fully attest.

o   demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business.

§  If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate.

3.      International law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.

o   Conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.

That third one brings to mind Typhoid Mary, who was a vector for the spreading of that Typhoid fever back in the day. It turned out she, herself, just working in establishments, spread the illness. But they had to prove that before they could deprive her of making her living.

It would be hard to prove that one unvaccinated employee would/could spread this illness to vaccinated co-workers—unless you admit that the vaccine doesn’t prevent the spread of the virus, in which case there’s no compelling interest for the company to require it, since it’s ineffective anyway.

Somewhere in the body of “The letter,” it offers a bit of basic logic:

At the outset, consider the "problem" being "solved" by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren't they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare."

I’ve puzzled through this basic logic following an exchange I had with someone recently. This person said my refusal to get a vaccine would put at risk her loved ones. I pointed out that, so far, I haven’t spread a single COVID-19 germ to anyone, since I’ve managed not to get it. She encouraged me to continue my hygiene efforts. But I’m wondering how, if her loved ones got a vaccine (probably at her urging), could my not getting it affect them? Unless it’s not effective. In which case, why should I risk my health by taking a vaccine that’s not even effective? Or were her loved ones unable to take the vaccine for some reason, such as the likelihood they would have a bad reaction? And if so, why would I not get that consideration? I’m supposed to ignore that danger to me so that I don’t spread something to her loved ones that I'm not even encountering? I’m somehow disqualified from being such a loved one to someone?

This whole uproar about our duty to society is a logical fallacy.

Anyway, you can’t simultaneously believe this medical intervention stops people from getting the disease and also that the unvaccinated can spread it to the vaccinated.

After the additional information on each of the 3 key points, “the letter” adds an additional point:

Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others."

If push comes to shove, I may need this letter.

 

Mask Mandates

One more thing about what is being mandated, about masks. There’s a good visualization of what the relative sizes of particulates, mostly invisible to the naked eye.

infographic by Visual Capitalist, found here

 

Note that wildfire smoke particulates are up to four times larger than coronavirus particulates. So here’s a test: if you can smell wildfire smoke while wearing your mask, it’s not stopping coronavirus particulates.

I haven’t done this test with mine, which has been stuffed in a pocket of my purse for about a month now, left unworn but handy in case I end up somewhere with a requirement. But I know that I have smelled perfume and other odors through it. The doctors—and there are many—who say wearing a mask is like wearing a chain link fence to keep mosquitoes out, are in fact being accurate. In other words, most masks do no good against a virus. What are you accomplishing by wearing a mask? Avoiding spreading larger particulates, such as from pollen or white blood cells (not sure how you’d be breathing or sneezing those out, exactly).

A HEPA filter works on particulates that are .3 microns and larger. Coronaviruses can be up to .5 microns, or as small as .1 microns. So even a HEPA filter only partially helps filter coronaviruses.

An N-95 respirator mask filters to .3 microns, so that covers bacteria (at 1-3 microns) and respiratory droplets (at 5-10 microns), and even some coronavirus (those at .3 to .5 microns), but not all. There’s a note about who should not wear N-95 masks, which includes children, those restricted for medical reasons (such as breathing difficulties), and “patients and visitors.”

Oh, and N-95 masks and others don’t protect the eyes or skin, through which particulates may enter. And men with beards or stubble—they can’t get a tight enough seal. And people should receive proper training—which the regular populace out here has not.

from Frequently Asked Questions Regarding N-95 Respirators 
from Ims Learning from HHH

If your mask doesn’t filter as well as an N-95 respirator, you’re probably mopping up some respiratory droplets and maybe some bacteria, but likely not viruses. They just go through—easier than smoke particulates.

This probably explains why areas with mask mandates and draconian shutdowns had about the same results or worse than those areas that maintained freedom to choose those things.

But now that we have a sudden rise in cases—using the testing that has been declared faulty—we are threatened with returns to mask mandates. Nancy Pelosi is threatening to arrest anyone not following her mandate at the capitol—where they’ve already required vaccines and/or natural antibodies. (Until someone discovers that she never had authority to jail someone over her personal rule.)

And there’s a possible travel ban on airlines for those who don’t have proof of vaccination—regardless of whether they have natural antibodies or should be granted an exemption for health reasons. This is even though airlines use HEPA air filtration. Last time I flew (last fall) masks were required except while eating, but I don’t know whether that had been lifted recently. But today Biden announced that, although I won’t be allowed to fly, he’s lifting the vaccine proof requirement for illegal aliens—because it’s hard for them to get the paperwork. Note that it’s especially hard if they get their immunity by sharing the illness among one another—and everyone else they come in contact with.

In sum, none of this makes sense—except to the tyrants trying to impose control over the masses.

 

Charting the Data

It has been a couple of months since the last time I charted the data for Texas, Harris County, and my zip code. If you’ve been concerned that the sudden super rise in cases means we’re repeating the spikes of last August and January, maybe the data will settle your mind somewhat.

This is the 7-day rolling average of deaths per day in Texas. The two colors represent two sources. I started by getting data daily from the Houston Chronicle, which got data from the Texas and Harris County health sites. Then there came a day when I just went to those official sites myself. The data wasn’t the same, but eventually I noticed that the state was merely a day earlier than the paper, so there’s really just a slight echo. But about a month ago the Chronicle stopped showing data, so I have only the official data now. I guess at some point I’ll redo my file to show just one column. Anyway, it’s the overall shape you’ll look at.

 

This is the 7-day rolling average of deaths per day in Harris County. Again, I track deaths because the count is more accurate than cases, generally. I’ve waited a couple of weeks since the case count started rising to see if the death rate would show up as a lagging indicator. So far it has not.

 

While I don’t measure case counts, the county does provide what they call an epi-curve graph of cases. It’s a pretty good picture of the trend over time. Right now you can see that, while there has been a rise, it was from a pretty low number to a higher but still pretty low number. It’s not exactly alarming enough to return to shutdowns and mandates.

chart from here

In my zip code I measure cases. The numbers are easier to grasp in terms of who I’ll run into at the Kroger down the street. Here I’ve measured the daily new cases and the change in daily active cases—both 7-day rolling averages.

I also look at deaths in my zip code. There has been a total of 25, in a population of 34,885. Up until the last time I shared my charts, we were averaging 1 death every 15 days. We have been at the same count now since May 20—that’s 79 days as of July 28. Earlier this month there was a drop to 24 total deaths for a couple of weeks. And then there were a couple of days down to 23. Now, I’m assuming patients didn’t turn out to be alive after all; I’m assuming someone was numbered in our zip code when they should have been counted in another. Or, it’s also possible a death was attributed to COVID that shouldn’t have been and a correction happened. Or maybe it was just someone making a typo. Then it went back up to 25 this week. I think this is a correction in recording, rather than a sudden new couple of deaths. But either way, we reached 25 deaths on May 20. 

I’ve been looking at another data source that shows changes from the week previous, updated daily. I collect it but haven’t charted it yet. They do things like show a 200% rise in cases, which looks dire. But then you look and find out it was an increase from one new case to three new cases in a small county. So, it seems useful if you’re trying to get an emotional reaction, but not really that informative. Anyway, one of these days I may chart that one too, just to test my guesses.

Anyway, case counts are up—using testing that is verified inaccurate and will be replaced completely by the end of the year. The claim is that this is a new variant. Word from Israel is, the Pfizer vaccine is only about 39% effective against this variant.

Individually, COVID-19 could still be a scary challenge for any individual who actually gets the disease. But I would look to natural and long-time safe medications first—if you know you actually have it (loss of smell seems to be a consistent indicator). Chances for recovery are extremely high, regardless of your age, if you follow early at-home treatment protocols. Chances of avoiding the illness by taking the jab? Not so much.

You don’t have to take my recommendations, of course. And I shouldn’t be coerced to take yours.