A growing distrust in the most promoted medical and legal authorities has driven me to do my own research on COVID-19 face masks.
Face Mask Mandates Deprive Individuals of Constitutional Freedoms
My references (linked within this article) lead me to conclude that face mask mandates in the United States are more than unjust. They are provably illegal.
The best evidence , without question, fails to support public health policies that force people to wear face masks.
Cooperative arrangements between government agencies, professional journals, and news media have enabled the proliferation of poor-quality (frequently illegitimate) research. High-quality (legitimate) research that should be the benchmark for public health policy making has been misrepresented, censored, or concealed.
Any mask mandate, therefore, compels U. S. residents to follow and advertise the flawed reasoning of poor-quality research that has been wrongly raised to the level of policy-grade evidence. Government leaders engaged in these cooperative arrangements to promote inferior research are suppressing rational, balanced thought that gives rise to good judgment in determining individual health behaviors.
Forced masking compels faulty, incomplete thinking that constrains free expression of individual judgment, which differentiates between legitimate evidence and illegitimate evidence. Forced masking, therefore, compels symbolic speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Businesses or organizations that deny admittance to places of public accommodation or deny services to healthy people (with zero clinical symptoms) for not wearing a face mask are state actors privately enforcing wrongful state decrees under the color of law, which exposes these businesses or organizations to liability under ................ 42 U.S.Code § 1983 -- Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.
Real-World Data Proves Face Mask Mandates Useless
Face mask mandates are acts of authority that literally attempt to force people to think and act in ways that defy physical facts. Data from all over the world proves the absurdity of these mandates. Data analyst, Ian Miller, has written an entire book about it.
Below, I present just four of Miller's many examples from around the globe that plainly illustrate how face mask mandates glaringly fail to reduce COVID-19 cases and deaths:
The chart for South Korea features a bold red line at above 95% mask compliance for the entire country, spanning over two years (2021-2022). During this two-year span, deaths attributed to COVID-19 (indicated by the bold black line) remained very low, for ten months (from Jan 2021 to about Oct 2021), which suggests that face masks were keeping deaths low. But, even with vaccine passports in place on Nov 1 2021, and still with over 95% mask compliance, the number of COVID-19 deaths began to rise, spiking briefly, declining briefly, but then skyrocketing at the beginning of 2022.
With 95% of South Korea using face masks, in addition to there being vaccine passports on top of this, COVID-19 deaths eventually went through the roof anyway. Neither masks alone nor masks in combination with vaccine passports stopped the huge rise in deaths attributed to COVID-19.
Masks never worked to reduce the number of COVID-19 deaths. The mere superficial association of mask use with low death rates for an arbitrary amount of time was never sufficient causal proof of mask effectiveness. Things were never this simple, and assuming that things were this simple was unscientifically naive. The virus was proceeding in its own rhythm, despite efforts to control it, and enough time had to pass to reveal this truth.
The chart for Germany shows a bold, black, irregular line spanning Jan 2020 to March 2022, with peaks and valleys indicating the rise and fall in number of COVID-19 daily new cases over this span. A bold orange line starts to appear near the end of 2020, which indicates the percentage of the entire population fully vaccinated on a given date.
Notice, in April of 2020, a countrywide mask mandate (with fines) was in effect, and, as with South Korea, for about five months afterwards, the number of new COVID-19 cases was low, suggesting mask effectiveness. But then the number of cases started to rise, which drove Germany to institute a medical mask mandate on January 20 2021, as if a better mask would be more effective than previous masks that somehow seemed to magically stop working. Again, the number of cases seemed to decrease, as if the stricter mask mandate was the cause. It was not the cause -- it was yet another result of naive, unscientific reasoning that assigned causation to simple correlation. Just because two things appear related on the surface does not mean that they are. Time always reveals the fallacy of this sort of thinking.
Even as a greater percentage of Germany's total population became fully vaccinated, while the latest medical mask mandate still applied on top of this, the number of COVID-19 cases eventually skyrocketed.
At the peak of Germany's skyrocketing case numbers, nearly 90% of the entire adult population was fully vaccinated, and the medical mask mandate was still in effect. Yet, the simultaneous 90% fully vaccinated rate and medical mask mandate did not stop the virus from progressing in its own rhythm.
Masks never worked to reduce the number of COVID-19 cases.
The chart for Austria is probably the most striking example of mask-mandate failure, since it shows a country that mandated N95 respirators to no avail.
Again, the bold black line with peaks and valleys indicates the rise and fall in number of COVID-19 daily new cases over the period from January 2020 to January 2022. As in the previous two examples, an initial mask mandate gave the superficial appearance of reducing the number of COVID-19 cases, only to be proven ineffective, when the number of COVID-19 cases spiked steeply, months after progressively stricter mandates came into effect, driving Austria's government (like Germany's government) to introduce an even stricter mask mandate, on top of vaccine passports, which did nothing to prevent skyrocketing cases a few months later.
Even the N95 mandate, on top of vaccine passports, on top of locking down the unvaccinated, never stopped steeper skyrocketing COVID-19 case numbers in January 2022, two months after all these harsh measures were in place simultaneously.
New York County USA (Manhattan)
My final example, the chart for New York County (like the previous charts) shows three categories of data, spanning October 2021 to February 2022. The black curve shows daily new COVID-19 cases per hundred thousand people. The red curve shows the percentage of the population wearing masks, and the orange line shows the percentage of the population fully vaccinated.
Notice that 80% to 90% of the entire population used face masks the whole time, while, simultaneously, over 80% of the entire population was fully vaccinated. From October 2021 to about December of 2021 (two months where both these measures were in force), COVID-19 daily new cases were very low, which a naive person might attribute to masks and vaccines. As in previous examples, however, such an attribution would be wrong, because, under these same measures, daily new COVID-19 cases skyrocketed from December 2021to January 2022. This large spike happened when face mask compliance and vaccination compliance were reaching their highest percentages.
Notice, again under these same measures, how daily new COVID-19 cases dropped as fast as they had spiked, as if masking and vaccination had zero effect. In other words, these measures, even in combination, failed to prevent a spike in cases. The low cases before the spike, the high cases during the spike, and the low cases after the spike occurred while mask compliance and vaccine compliance were at or above 80% for the entire population for the entire time under consideration.
As in the previous three examples, face masks never worked to reduce daily new COVID-19 cases.
Tip of the Iceberg
These examples reveal only the tip of the iceberg. Numerous other charts show the same trends everywhere, at the international, national, state, and regional levels. Face masks have made no difference in reducing COVID-19 cases or deaths.
Why, then, have government leaders continued to insist on using them?
A rational person can only conclude that some other purpose besides public health is driving mask mandates, since the physical facts are plainly available, where people in leadership positions have access to these facts and should reasonably be informed of these facts.
The Strict Scrutiny Standard of Judicial Review
Determining the legality of mask mandates requires strict scrutiny as to whether they serve a compelling government interest. Mask mandates plainly fail to satisfy this standard of legal scrutiny.
Healthy individuals with zero clinical symptoms of illness are not clinically infected and pose negligible (arguably no) risk of spreading the SARS-CoV-2 virus that allegedly causes COVID-19. Yet, mask mandates apply to both healthy and symptomatic individuals without regard for risk and effectiveness.
The government interest in enacting face mask mandates is to protect public health. In the context of COVID-19, this means that mask mandates would reduce the number of cases and deaths attributed to COVID-19. As the previously discussed data shows, however, mask mandates fail to show reduction in the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Consequently, mask mandates fail to serve the government interest in enacting them.
The government's interest in ending the epidemic is simply not advanced by forcing widespread use of ineffective masks to address negligible risks. Face mask mandates, therefore, are properly judged as illegal.
The Fatal Misreading of 42 U. S. Code § 264(a)
None of the statutes or regulations being cited for authority to declare mask mandates authorize the CDC or anyone to make or enforce regulations that amount to a blanket preventative measure against people who may or may not be carrying an infectious disease.
Any claim of authority to impose mask mandates under 42 U. S. Code § 264(a)
fails to interpret the language of the statue properly. Nothing in the statute's language describing the types of allowed measures relates to enacting measures for people whose infection status is unknown. The statute applies to situations where a person can reasonably be known to be infected. Not knowing a person's infection status and treating the person as infected anyway is unreasonable. Treating a person who shows zero clinical symptoms of any disease as a disease threat is, again, unreasonable.
There would be no question about the absurdity of treating a person feared to be a murderer as a murderer in fact, when the person had committed zero acts of murder. There would be no question about the absurdity of treating a person as a child molester, when there was zero manifestation of the behavior of a child molester in the person. Treating a person as as a disease threat, when the person manifests zero symptoms of disease is equally absurd. Day to day life in a shared society does not operate on the basis of what might or might not be (fear) -- it operates on trust in what we can actually know in the moment (reasonable faith).
Treating healthy people as threats of disease does not follow from the language of
42 U.S.C. § 264(a). Only a gross misreading of the statute (or a gross exaggeration of parts of the statute's wording that are vague) could result in such an erroneous interpretation. Furthermore, asserting and upholding a disease control measure that real-world data unquestionably falsifies is indefensible.
Allowing face mask mandates of any kind to continue, therefore, amounts to catastrophic degradation of the legal system and a constitutional death blow.
Here is a pdf version of this article.