Defend your medical freedom ... while you still can

We, the undersigned do proudly rise for the cause of medical freedom, and for practical purposes, the larger cause of liberty for all.

At issue is whether an ear, nose and throat doctor in Texas named Eric Hensen may choose whether or not to wear a face mask in his private practice and whether he should have the freedom to allow his staff and patients the option. We would strongly submit that he does.

To communicate our position and passion, we can do no better than the wisdom of U. S. District Judge William S. Stickman, who recently came to the rescue of irate and frustrated citizens of Pennsylvania:

"...even in an emergency, the authority of the government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms -- in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble. There is no question that this Country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a 'new normal' where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Action taken by Defendants [Governor Wolf] crossed those lines. It is the duty of the Court to declare those actions unconstitutional. Thus, consistent with the reasons set forth above, the Court will enter judgement in favor of Plaintiffs.”

Not that anything further need be said, we quote from a major case recently filed by attorney Thomas Renz on behalf of plaintiffs injured in Ohio:

"In recent months, entire states have been imprisoned without due process and with the clear threat to impose such lockdowns again, interstate travel has been severely restricted, privacy rights have been devastated, numerous business takings without compensation, and many regulations under the guise of a health emergency that is roughly as dangerous as a seasonal influenza outbreak. The plaintiffs in this case have all been injured in various capacities by these unconstitutional actions, and without action by the Court, will be left without redress. More terrifying, without action by the Court, the Court will be setting future precedent that will allow the states to withhold fundamental Constitutional rights, in violation of Supreme Court precedent, circumventing the various levels of scrutiny applied to such rights, and justifying such actions under public health emergency orders without subjecting those orders to any real review … just trust the bureaucrats because they are the experts. We humbly ask the Court in this case to recognize that the political process and operative orders are invalid if based on false or misleading information … and recognize the criticality that all future emergency orders be based on clear, honest facts, particularly when such orders are infringing on Constitutional rights.”

The false and/or misleading information surrounding Covid 19 is still forthcoming, but we have learned enough to know that much of what we have been given to believe is simply wrong. From the same Ohio case:

“According to recent data from the Ohio Covid-19 Dashboard, we can see that the ’spike’ in cases is actually just a spike in testing. The State went from just a few thousand tests per day to 25,000 tests plus per day. The positivity rate for Covid-19 has remained fairly steady, but there have been more tests. When the Emergency was declared, we heard a daily drumbeat about the danger and deaths related to Covid-19. Now that the case fatality rate has been shown to be roughly the same as the yearly flu, the numbers are simply not scary to the public. As a result, the State sees no impact from talking about fatalities and has instead begun testing more so they could tell us there are more cases.”

Regarding the diagnosis of Covid-19, few things are more false or misleading than the PCR test itself, which the inventor of the test himself stated, “… was not well suited to and never designed to diagnose disease.” Considering the well known false positive rate for the test, the fact that there is not even a true standard for testing (numerous vendors with numerous tests), and the lack of any pure isolates to test against (per documentation from the FDA), the draconian measures taken by governments are quite simply without scientific justification.

Regarding the wearing of masks for the prevention of viral disease, there is also little, if any, scientific merit. Renowned neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D. had this to say:

“As for the scientific support for the use of face masks, a recent, careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that, ’None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection’. Keep in mind, no studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on the transmission of the Covid-19 virus. Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission. The fact is, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission.”

And since influenza viruses are much larger than coronaviruses, common sense will tell us that masks are even less likely to be effective in blocking the transmission of Covid-19. By using the standard surgical mask, we may gain some perspective. The apertures (holes) in these can be on average 3 microns in diameter. The diameter of the coronaviruses is in the range of 0.125 microns. That means that 24 coronaviruses could fly side by side through every single hole in a surgical mask. Bandannas, handkerchiefs and other swaths of cloths being used obviously have gigantic apertures by comparison.

Speaking of cloth masks, a large study which followed 1,607 health care workers in a high risk hospital setting in Viet Nam for four weeks found no evidence that these prevented influenza like illness. In fact, the researchers concluded that cloth masks might even be making things worse by concentrating and retaining pathogens, not to mention the well documented hypoxia and hypercapnia that results (decreased oxygen and increased carbon dioxide levels are known to increase susceptibility to infection … yes even Covid-19).

Based on the information currently available, we think it is safe to assert that masks are ineffective against viruses and in all likelihood are actually harmful and/or dangerous. The bad news is that this may not even be the worst of it, as the act of masking is giving some a false sense of security, thus making them more susceptible. Even worse is that masks are robbing us of our humanity … those beautiful little things that make life worth living … like smiles.

In short, Dr. Hensen and every other human being should have the freedom to decide voluntarily whether or not to practice masking, anti-social distancing, lockdowns or any other unproven method of infection control. It really has much more to do with the founding principles of individuality and liberty than with any micro-organism ever will.