Mandatory mask court case decision — “Arbitrator Kaplan accepted this expert evidence. In contrast, he noted the only fair words to describe the hospital’s evidence in support of masking are “insufficient, inadequate and completely unpersuasive.”
This is a quote directly from the Ontario Nursing Associations website discussing the court case they won not once, but twice. Here’s a little more info relating to the decision,
“ONA’s well-regarded expert witnesses, including Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres, and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, testified that there was insufficient evidence to support the St. Michael’s policy and no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals. They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask.”
The website goes onto discuss the decision further:
“Both prior to and after introducing the policy, hospitals continued to experience outbreaks of influenza. He concluded the evidence supported that masks “do not prevent the transmission of the influenza virus,” – September 7th 2018.
Two years prior — to the mandatory mask mandate that has struck most of the world, the Ontario Nursing Association fought and won the mandatory mask argument in the courts. The court decision reads like a manual to today’s mask mandate.
The question to be asked is are masks an effective means of source control for transmission?
The court documents read “This answer to this question was no and the association pointed to the report and evidence of masking expert Professor Lisa Brosseau. In her report, Professor Brosseau canvassed all of the relevant literature and wrote: “It is my opinion that the surgical masks required for un-vaccinated staff at St. Michael’s Hospital will offer no or a very low level of protection from infectious aerosols either for the wearer exposed to nearby patients or for patients exposed to an infected wearer.” Referring specifically to surgical and procedural masks.”
It continues,
“In particular, surgical and procedural masks did not prevent influenza transmission by an infected person: “In addition to having filters that do not perform very well, the fit of these masks on your face will allow a lot of leakage around the side.”
So not only do masks not prevent transmission of Influenza aerosols (COVID particles are smaller), a lot of aerosol leakage happens around the side of the masks pushing any germs you may be “trapping” to areas on your face that are high touch zones like your neck, face, eyes ect.
Suggested Article: Staley: Everything wrong with mandatory masks
As the Ontario Civil Liberties Associations Denis Randcourt points out, there may be additional downsides to mandatory masking in addition to their ineffectiveness at protecting and preventing infection from viral infections.
“Potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands;
1.) Potential self-contamination that can occur if non-medical masks
are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify;
2.) Potential headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used;
3.) Potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours;
4.) Difficulty with communicating clearly;”
No proof and a lot of improper use
Let’s go through the list — 1.) A mask mandate can cause potential self-contamination that can occur if non-medical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. On that note I know many people who have been forced to wear masks at their jobs for eight to 12 hours a day.
My wife complains to me how her mask is wet and soiled in less than 30 minutes on a typical work day. I have also personally witnessed many Ontarian’s pull out crumbled up, weather stained masks only to put them on to “protect” others before entering an establishment.
It would also be unreasonable to expect staff, or the company they work for to provide the necessary number of masks required to prevent masks from becoming soiled and wet. You can’t expect an employee to bring 8 to 12 masks everyday, or for an employer to provide it — its nonsensical.
2.) I can personally confirm stories of people who aren’t fit to wear a mask, but still dawn the mask. Why not just get an exemption you say? The toxic environment that has been created around the mandatory mask has many too afraid to speak out.
They don’t want to seek an exemption they are able to obtain out of fear of the reprobation that will come with exposing their naked face to the masses.
3.) Many personally struggle with a history facial skin issues and this is being made worse under the mandatory mask mandates making their way into all Canadian workplaces. Some will quickly say, ‘then put on a face shield!’
This isn’t easy to do when anything that’s left on your face for an extended period of time causes your skin to break out and you’re left to deal with the associated pain and discomfort.
4.) I recently wrote an article that details some of the difficulties of communicating clearly during the COVID mandatory mask era. Most people simply don’t take the time anymore to engage in small talk with strangers – I attribute this to not being able to read others emotions and reactions while speaking with them. We don’t get to see the micro-expressions on others face’s anymore.
Other Side Effects
Ever heard of mask mouth? This is a new term being coined by dentist to address the litany of new patients coming in with gum disease, receding gum lines, and some very bad breath. All caused by the mandating of a mask with no empirical proof of its effectiveness, as proven in court over two years ago.
Mask mouth is a big problem according to Dr. Rob Ramondi, a Dentist at Manhattan Dental who says “We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever and cavities in people who have never had them before, about 50 per cent of our patients are being impacted by this, [so] we decided to name it ‘mask mouth’ — after ‘meth mouth.’ ”
Focus on the 90 percent
If the Nursing Association of Ontario proved masks don’t protect the patient or the nurse and there are a large list of side effects attached to their prolonged use — why make it mandatory? Why are we focusing so heavily on controlling the group responsible for less than five to 10 per cent of the transmission? This figure comes from Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove who said:
“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing,” she said. “They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare,”
Here’s a quote from the study Dr. Van Kerkhove was referring to:
“Four studies reported data on secondary infection transmission from asymptomatic cases (Table 2). The asymptomatic transmission rates ranged from none to 2.2%, whereas symptomatic cases’ transmission rates ranged between 0.8-15.4%.”
These four studies track the transmission of patients diagnosed with COVID. The study included a total of 7871 patients. It may never be peer reviewed as it throws a huge wrench in the current narrative, but it is worth noting as it was referenced by Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove of the World Health Organization.
Yes I’m aware she “walked back” her statement, but I have not seen evidence countering this narrative that isn’t related to models, predictions, or estimates.
Viruses have always been spread by symptomatic people, not the other way around.
So the question needs to be asked — if we are effectively quarantining sick or symptomatic people – why are we focusing on something that isn’t driving the pandemic?
We can’t use models and predictions to determine our public policy. We must dwell in the realm of what’s known.
Facts and evidence need to drive public policy and debate. We must force our politicians to debate the experts who dissent from the official government narrative.
From what the courts have said – there isn’t sufficient proof that masks help reduce the spread of COVID or protect the wearer.
We know that there are many side effects from mandating the masks including potential psychological harm for children’s , mask mouth and the toxic environment it creates for those who cannot wear a mask.
We know that it creates a powerful image to have an entire populace masked up without sufficient evidence supporting it. We also recognize that this has created an environment of little to no accountability for those writing the rules that impact the lives of Canadians – rules that Canadians were told to follow for just two weeks to “flatten the curve.”
It’s time to have debate.
It’s time to stop propagating fear.
It’s time to talk facts.
End Bill 195 and let’s talk Premier Ford.
@DivergeMediaNews via Facebook
Diverge Media doesn’t get media bailout money like the mainstream media, we work hard in our free-time outside of our regular jobs to tell the other side of the story and produce content like this. If you can spare a few dollars, any amount can be selected by donating below or visit the Donate To Diverge page on our site. Thank you in advance.
You must log in to post a comment.