I was asked to write a letter to the St. Joseph County Commission (Indiana) ahead of their vote on mask mandate fines for local businesses. This is what I sent them.
Commissioners,
Most of you know who I am. I wanted to send you just a small sample of actual scientific research on masks and their effectiveness on viral spread as well as real-world data ahead of your vote on the mask fine ordinance.
My goal is to present a small sample of the abundant research showing masks aren’t nearly as effective as many suggest. I ask that you set aside any confirmation bias you may already hold and just look at what I’ve included here.
I suppose the first thing is to look at the real-world data.
Experts originally opposed mask requirements because people would inevitably not use them correctly. They would abandon the other, more effective, measures to prevent infection. They would no longer wash their hands or socially distance themselves or stay home. Those warnings have all come true.
In early March, Dr. Anthony Fauci told “60 Minutes” face masks were not necessary for the general population, noting that while masks might make people “feel a little bit better,” they don’t provide the protection folks believe they do and might create “unintended consequences.”
Fauci wasn’t alone. I covered dozens of infectious disease experts at the time who said the same thing. Virologist Dmitry Lvov is another expert to look at. He said in March you can wear them but they don’t provide much protection. I don’t want to provide a list of experts who don’t buy into the mask hype. My point is that there is no scientific consensus on masks being effective.
A great starting point is to look at this study by Dr. Brosseau, a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases and professor (retired), University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Sietsema is also an expert on respiratory protection and an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Masks went from the least important, least effective measure you can take to becoming the primary means of preventing yourself from getting infected. The CDC’s own data shows that the overwhelming number of people who get COVID wear the mask in accordance with mask mandates in the US. If masks worked the way some local health officials have said, the infection rate for mask wearers shouldn’t be so high (over 3/4 of those infected wear masks regularly).
In August, the AP said declining COVID cases in the U.S. were due to mask mandates. Gov. Holcomb said the same about Indiana. Look what’s happened since then. Massive spikes. That shouldn’t be possible according to the mask hype from local health officials. A study showing masks reduced COVID infections was just retracted because the areas used in the study all had spikes after the study was completed.
It’s not just the United States. Mask mandates have been in effect going back to January of 2020 in some countries. All have spikes in COVID infections. Below are the countries having spikes and when their mask mandate went into effect:
Japan has had near 100% mask-wearing from the beginning of the outbreak but have a huge spike now. NYT headline on June 6: Japan’s coronavirus numbers are low, are masks the reason why?
Austria spike – mandate April 6
Venezuela has a massive spike but was one of the first countries to have a mask mandate
Israel spike – mandate April 12 and had some of the strictest quarantine policies in the world.
Spain spike – mandate May 20
Here’s some visual graphs to illustrate the data above. All of which you can confirm with a simple internet search in a few seconds.
In other words, everywhere in the world that mask mandates have been in effect, the virus has continued to spread. Why? Because COVID is airborne. We originally didn’t think it was and focused on droplets. Masks can work on droplets by reducing the distance a droplet travels. No mask, not even N95, work on airborne viruses. The CDC’s website even states that masks don’t filter the COVID virus. They also sent a statement to Tucker Carlson in October saying: “At no time has CDC guidance suggested that masks were intended to protect the wearers.”
During the recent wildfires in California, people were using their COVID masks as protection from the smoke particles. The CDC had to point out cloth masks don’t work on those particles. The size of those particles are .4 to .7 microns in size. COVID is .12 microns in size.
Some recent studies on masks and viral transmission:
Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) – Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.
Cowling, B. et al. (2010) – None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask to prevent spread of influenze, in either HCW or community members in households.
bin-Reza et al. (2012) – “There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”
Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) – “Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
There are others, but you get the idea. Up until this pandemic, the scientific community understood that masks of all kinds do not prevent viral spread or infection. Suddenly, without real evidence, they do now.
There exists no peer-reviewed clinical trial showing masks are effective. Only preliminary lab results, some of which have problematic methodology. Never in history has a preliminary lab result been considered scientifically viable evidence. Until now.
I don’t write to you to debate the efficacy of masks. I write you to point out that, without a doubt, masks have not worked as some had portrayed them to. In Michiana, people are abiding by mask mandates en masse with very few exceptions. Not only is it not based on sound science or the real-world data to enforce mask mandates under penalty of law, but it is counterproductive considering the widespread adherence to the mandates in place now.
Furthermore, violating a business’s property rights to require them to be an enforcer of these mandates under penalty of fines would be a gross abuse of power. Encroaching on their rights in this fashion would always be problematic, but to do so knowing the ordinance is enforcing, with penalties, mandates that have proven beyond the shadow of the doubt to be ineffective would be a dereliction of duty.
I understand the immense pressure government and public health officials are under to make it seem like they are trying to fight this virus and protect citizens. I understand it is easier to just go along to get along so you can say at least you tried at election time. However, to allow such government abuse over a mandate that isn’t working under the false guise that it would somehow magically start working now because there are penalties would be a violation of your oath of office. Surely, there is another way without setting the government up to abuse citizens just to appease the mob that has produced no evidence this would work to begin with.
Sincerely,
Casey Hendrickson
Radio Talk Show Host – 95.3 MNC
UPDATE: Corrected some grammatical errors since I was rushing to get this letter sent before my show.
UPDATE 2: Added context of why I wrote this letter to the top of the post.
Neither the Hague Convention of 1899, or the Protocol Addition to the Geneva Convention of 1949 forbid al-Awlaki’s killing by international law. Right off the get go, proponents of this argument are off to a bad start. In fact, the international law community has often taken the stance that killing an adversary can often fall within the confines of international law.
The clauses that traditionally have been construed as prohibiting “targeted killings” are far from clear prohibitions. In the Hague Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (29 July 1899), Article 23b states that it is prohibited “to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army.” Treachery is not explicitly defined, and it can be argued that using missiles to attack a car in which a target is traveling, while brutal and having a high probability of injuring bystanders, does not fall within the purview of treachery. Similarly, targeted killings can be argued to fall outside the Protocol I Article 37 prohibition on killing, injuring, or capturing “an adversary by resort to perfidy”—described as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence.” Article 37 gives examples of perfidy including “the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or surrender” and “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status.”
Basically, you can’t ‘assassinate’ under false-flag circumstances. No such circumstance existed with the al-Awlaki killing. It should be noted that this provision addresses someone belonging to a hostile nation OR army. While al-Awlaki did not belong to a hostile nation, he did belong to a hostile army. This is important later when I argue the relevance of his US citizenship.
In addition to this international law, the US has NO LAW forbidding foreign assassinations. We do, however, have a policy of not undertaking assassinations. Policy does not equal law.
The second component to this operation is that Yemen fully approved, and supported the killing of al-Awlaki. So no argument can be made that we violated the sovereignty of a foreign nation.
The other argument making its way around is that al-Awlaki’s killing was illegal because he was a US citizen. As such, an assassination order by the President of the United States would violate his constitutional right of due process. It should also be noted that al-Awlaki was not the only American killed in the attack.
Al-Awlaki’s ties to terrorism are not in dispute, his actual influence is. So can the president order his killing, or not?
8 U.S.C. § 1481 addresses the issue of US citizenship in situations like this.
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention ofrelinquishing United States nationality –
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
The law also addresses taking up arms against the United States in section 7. Considering al-Awlaki’s Yemeni citizenship, which does not recognize dual-citizenship, and his taking up arms against the US, it would appear that he renounced his US citizenship long ago.
Section 7 automatically revokes his citizenship because of his terrorist activities, but requires capture and tribunal. Since he was in Yemen, we revert to international law which permits his killing in order to prevent a further loss of life. More relevant is local Yemen law. Again, they assisted in the killing of al-Awlaki.
Is his killing a gray area? Only in the perpetually unrefined laws of US citizenship. Laws that most Americans agree need to be revamped, but the law nonetheless.
The only component missing to classify al-Awlaki as a non-citizen appears to be a mere formality of choreographed theater that would only serve to satisfy the selfish needs of third party citizens, not the parties directly involved. It’s pretty clear that al-Awlaki, the US, and Yemen were all on the same page.
Both al-Alwaki and Yemen agree that he is a citizen of Yemen. The US agrees that he revoked his citizenship. Who are you to swoop in and negate those facts?
The only sources of outcry appear to come from the ignorant, and those with a vested interest in ideological pacifism. Not from a position of morality or legality.
Ultimately, this is a debate that will fall upon opinion. If you think al-Awlaki’s killing was illegal, you’ll likely never change your mind. Same goes for those who think it was legally justified. Each individual will have to decide for themselves if international law, US law, or Yemeni law should reign supreme.
