VA Hospital, asked for medical justification for mask policy, consults lawyers

Forum (Articles)

Offer

Partners

Rules

Tips

FAQ

Begin!

Donate

     This article was started by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
     Please interact! To interact with any particular point made here, simply click "edit", then right after that point, type four dashes (to create a horizontal line), hit "enter" to start on the next line typing your response, then close with four tildes which will leave your real name, time etc.; then on the last line, four more dashes.
     To vote, Like, rate, argue, change your past comment, add a section with a heading that appears in the Table of Contents, start a new article, use colors, write in Greek, etc. find suggestions and codes at Begin!

(The images are optional)

First Contact October 29 2022

My first contact with the hospital was October 29, on the hospital website. I asked these questions:

My note to hospitals. To the Veteran's Hospital in Des Moines October 29, 2021: (My answers to multiple choice questions on their contact form: Which category best describes your question? VA health care. Which topic best describes your question? Medical care concerns at VA Medical Facility. Tell us the reason you're contacting us? Service complaint. My inquiry is: a general question. What is your question?)

Why are masks still required to enter your hospital for everyone, all the time, this long after peer reviewed studies find no statistically significant benefit from them, (for example the Netherlands study published last November), while other studies document physical harm they cause - some harm for most people after long use, and significant harm for some people after even a little use?

If your answer is that you know about studies in favor of obsessive masking that I have overlooked, can you refer me to them?

Is there any place in your medical system where the evidence for and against mask and vaccine obsession is compared, so that we may understand the basis of your policy?

If not, can you refer me to any forum in the world where doctors on all sides of the controversy can interact without fear of censorship?

If not, will you consider being the first to create such a resource, which will restore the confidence that your policies are in the best interests of our health, of people like me who read so much evidence from censored world class doctors that masks and vaccines are not beneficial?

In the absence of any such resource anywhere, the policy of any hospital that is so far contrary to science, apparently to appease bureaucrats and politicians with zero medical credentials, raises questions how many other medical decisions are made at your institution so contrary to the best interests of our health.

I have posted just a few of the studies that concern me, at (this http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Application_for_Secular/Religious_Exemption_from_Mask/Vaccine_Mandate_-_Section_Two,_The_Evidence). I assume the information will not fit in your online form.

Second Contact: November 9, 2021

Then on November 9, I met with the hospital’s “Patient Advocate”, Lori Clair. Or Lori Sinclair. (She wrote "Clair" on the business card she gave me, but said "Sinclair" in the phone message she left for me later.] I gave her a print copy of my Application for a Religious Exemption from their mask mandate.

She said she would read my 40 page application and pass it to others. Actually the 40 pages is just the legal and Biblical argument that the issue is religious because mask benefits are a lie. I explained, and my printout said, that Part Two is the medical research showing that mask benefits are a lie. That’s probably another 40 pages; it changes every day. She said the VA doesn’t do its own research on the issue; it trusts the CDC.

Third Contact: November 18, 2021

November 18, I emailed a followup to Lori (Sin)Clair, but it bounced back. The email address on the business card she gave me said "VHACIHOA_PATIENT_ADVOCATES@va.gov", but it bounced back with the message that I was not authorized to email her. Hmmm.

November 20, 2021. (I'm still counting this as the third contact.) Lori left a phone message for me. She said she had talked with the Ethics Board chair, Suzanne Tavor, and the hospital administrator, Lora Williamson, and my application was denied. Later another VA employee was unable to confirm that either name went with those titles.

Fourth Contact: December 11, 2021

I snail-mailed the following "Motion to Reconsider to Lori (Sin)clair, and on the 23rd, to Suzanne Tavor, Infectious Disease Nurse, the title given me by another VA employee.

Dear Lori Clair,

Thank you for processing the Application I submitted November 9 for a Religious Exemption from mask wearing, (following my October 29 entry on your website), for reading it, and for sharing it with your Ethics Board chair, Suzanne Tabor, and your hospital administrator, Lora Williamson. (According to the phone message you left Friday, November 20.)

I have delayed responding to you until I could process recent developments. CATO. On November 8, the day before I met you, the Cato Institute published its own review of mask studies, finding that “The available clinical evidence of facemask efficacy is of low quality and the best available clinical evidence has mostly failed to show efficacy, with fourteen of sixteen identified randomized controlled trials comparing face masks to no mask controls failing to find statistically significant benefit in the intent-to-treat populations. Of sixteen quantitative metaanalyses, eight were equivocal or critical as to whether evidence supports a public recommendation of masks, and the remaining eight supported a public mask intervention on limited evidence primarily on the basis of the precautionary principle.” My summary of the study, with more detail, is enclosed.

BANGLADESH. I had already told you about the Denmark study last November which finds no “statistically significant” Covid reduction from masks. The other major “well done” study was in Bangladesh, Aug. 31, 2021, which I had read about but hadn’t read. I wanted to double check news reports about it by reading it myself. The CATO report increased my curiosity.

The authors of the study glow with praise for the covid reduction achieved by masks in their research. They found a whopping 1% greater chance of infection without a mask! That’s according to biased self-reporting of symptoms. When self-reporting was double checked by testing blood samples, that whopping 1% benefit dropped to only a 0.09% greater chance of infection without a mask. Less than a tenth of a percent benefit! Does that degree of benefit justify, in your mind, mask mandates for all your patients? Or any mask mandate anywhere outside an operating room or dusty work environment? My notes on the Bangladesh study are enclosed.

GERMANY. I also learned, a week ago, about a German study published April 20, 2021, that reviewed 42 studies that documented specific medical harms, from mild to fatal, from mask wearing, especially long term masking. Most of those serious consequences have been paid too little attention to to put numbers on the likelihood of suffering them, but the buildup of carbon dioxide and lowering of oxygen saturation, which is universally accepted as contributing to them, is suffered by everybody.

Everybody.

You included.

My notes on that report are also enclosed. Don’t remain ignorant of that study, if you care about your own health.

The Bible is obsessed with Truth. It is at war with superstition and its false gods. Blind faith in a ritual that does no more for you than bowing down to a carved tree, enforced by censorship of strong evidence and marginalization of those who follow it, and validated by a New Morality that treats disagreement like blasphemy, meets every reasonable definition of a False God. It makes nations ignorant, Isaiah 30. It blinds science and medicine. It pauses the centuries of progress under our Christian ancestors.

Empowered by today’s tracking technology, this surrender of individual scrutiny to whatever some anointed expert dreams up is a vote for the greatest tyranny ever to exist on this planet, this Footstool of God.

Give your patients a reason to trust your medical judgment. Don’t require, or even accept, blind faith in you. Inform your patients. Don’t surrender your own policies to blind faith in a bureaucrat. Don’t just tell me you follow the CDC and the Mayo Clinic, without telling me where, among their resources, they seriously address these studies. If you look, you will find they do not, unless you can get a lot more out of their search engines than I could.

Don’t be irritated when your patients want to be well informed. Inform them. If you think you follow the research better than your patients, don’t keep that knowledge to yourself. Direct us to your evidence that masks significantly help and do not significantly harm. And if you don’t follow the research, trusting the CDC to do all your studying for you, stop! Change course! Medicine did not advance as it has by doctors ignoring research!

You told me the VA Hospital relies on the CDC for research, and does no research of its own. That’s what you told me November 9, but on the phone message you left for me November 20 you threw in the Mayo Clinic website. Did you think those two institutions address the best research? I can’t imagine how anyone could feel their position well informed who does not address the Denmark, Bangladesh, and German studies. Yet my following attempts to find them addressed on either site came up dry: Mayo Clinic

RE Germany: No relevant results for “April 20, 2021”. No results at all for “Germany, masks”. “Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose” gets a couple of results that warn, “Faculty must wear approved masks properly covering the mouth and nose.”

RE Denmark: No return for “Danish Mask Wearers”. Nothing relevant for :November 18, 2021”. Or “Denmark, masks”.

RE Bangladesh: No results for "Bangladesh masks". “August 30, 2021 Bangladesh” or "Impact of Community Masking".

“Mask Research” gets “How well do face masks protect against coronavirus?” which doesn’t cite a single study. Its authority, the CDC. August 24, 2021. It is presented the way a parent presents duties to children, omitting evidence which experience confirms children either can’t understand anyway or don’t want to think so hard about anyway. Mayo Clinic research.

It lists 25 “references” which include neither the German nor the Denmark study. Nor was it updated to include the Bangladesh study which was published 6 days later. 6 references were to CDC posts, one to the WHO, one to the FDA.

A large number of returns come up for “mask research”, but only the first one seems relevant to mask research.

CDC searches: results Mayo search results

RE Germany: No relevant results for “April 20, 2021 Germany” or for “Germany, masks”. “Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose”, searching for the exact phrase, gets three results which do not include the German study.

RE Denmark: Four irrelevant returns for “Danish Mask Wearers”. Nothing relevant for “November 18, 2021 Denmark”. For “Denmark, masks”, the closest to an article relevant to the Denmark mask study was “If you must travel to Denmark, make sure you are fully vaccinated before travel.”

RE Bangladesh: No relevant results for "Bangladesh masks". “August 30, 2021 Bangladesh” only got two “travel health notices”. "Impact of Community Masking" + Bangladesh, zero returns.

“Mask Research” gets a lot of “guidance” of what to do, but I didn’t spot anything that looked like it included any evidence that any of its guidance was good. The first return was “Improve How Your Mask Protects You” Updated Apr. 6, 2021. It didn’t even list any references or footnotes.

Although I couldn’t find the studies addressed at all by searching, there was another time when I happened upon a paragraph in a CDC post that dismissed the Denmark study as “inconclusive”, when its finding of no “statistically significant” benefit was definite, and as “small”, though it followed nearly 6,000 participants for two months. I address that paragraph at Section Two of my Application.

I had hoped that with a rejection of my application, you would have given some rationale for your decision. Like, some evidence that masks accomplish anything, to counter the highest quality studies which show they don’t. I had hoped that the reputation of your hospital would mean enough to you that you would defend it (I am snailing a response because the email address on the business card you gave me responds with “VHACIHOA_PATIENT_ADVOCATES@va.gov. Your message couldn't be delivered because delivery to this group is restricted to authenticated senders.”.)

I move to update my application with a recent review of all previous mask studies which was unavailable when I met with you, published by the Cato Institute. The study was published the day before I talked to you but I only learned of it later. In light of this new evidence, I submit this Motion to Reconsider.

From the abstract:

The Cato abstract states: "...evidence of facemask efficacy is based primarily on observational studies that are subject to confounding [To cause to become confused or perplexed; To fail to distinguish; mix up] and on mechanistic studies [mechanical measurements by various contraptions] that rely on surrogate endpoints [substitute things measured, other than actual infection rates with or without masks] (such as droplet dispersion) as proxies for disease transmission. The available clinical evidence of facemask efficacy is of low quality and the best available clinical evidence has mostly failed to show efficacy, with fourteen of sixteen identified randomized controlled trials comparing face masks to no mask controls failing to find statistically significant benefit in the intent-to-treat populations. Of sixteen quantitative metaanalyses, eight were equivocal or critical as to whether evidence supports a public recommendation of masks, and the remaining eight supported a public mask intervention on limited evidence primarily on the basis of the precautionary principle.”

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, senior scientific director of the Brownstone Institute, summarized the Cato study:

“The truth is that there have been only two randomized trials of masks for COVID. One was in Denmark, which showed that they might be slightly beneficial, they might be slightly harmful, we don’t really know—the confidence interval kind of crossed zero,” he said. “And then there was another study from Bangladesh where they randomized villagers to masks or no masks. And the efficacy of the masks was for reduction of COVID was something between zero and 18 percent. So either no effect or very minuscule effect.”

I searched the CDC website for some acknowledgment of the Denmark study. All I found was a very strange half paragraph six months later. The CDC denigrated the study as “inconclusive” when its finding of no statistically significant benefit was quite conclusive. It called the study “too small”, which is a strange way to describe a study of 6,000 subjects over two months. Here is my analysis of it. If my analysis is wrong I will appreciate correction.

You told me the VA hospital doesn’t do its own research in support of policies like mask wearing, but trusts the CDC. Later you added, the Mayo Clinic. Don’t most of your doctors follow a lot of research? Isn’t research what doctors rely on to advice patients about the risks they face with all manner of treatments and operations? Aren’t your doctors a huge pool of knowledge about every kind of research? On a matter affecting all your patients, like masks, wouldn’t it be an easy thing for you to ask your doctors for volunteers to assemble some responses to studies like those I cite, to make available to any patient who asks about the evidence for your policy? And not just for the benefit of patients, inquiring about your mandate for masks, but for your doctors and nurses, when your mandate stretches to the deadly covid vaccines? When that seemingly inevitable day arrives, will you doggedly fire them for “resisting”, yet still without addressing the research that alarms them?

I am curious: are VA hospitals legally bound by CDC guidelines?

If so, I want to learn what laws govern. This would be a more serious problem than I thought, because if medical errors by a government bureaucracy can only be corrected by an act of Congress or a Constitutional Amendment, before doctors are allowed to exercise their best judgment for their patients, the healing of modern medicine will take far more work than I was hoping. Are you not legally allowed to do your own research? Or to publicly interact with the CDC in reviewing evidence?

If not – if CDC statements are non-binding guidelines, then you have important reasons to do your own research, address alternative views, and publish it in language accessible to lawmakers and voters. Not only to assure patients that your policies are in our best interests, and to build public confidence in your grasp of medical facts, but to keep your doctors and nurses from quitting when your mandate stretches to covid vaccines, as is already happening.

Which assures me that it is not just my medical ignorance that supports my concern, nor can the resistance of doctors be accounted for by profits from serving the ignorance industry, since way too many medical professionals are forsaking everything and gaining nothing. The CDC has obviously not earned their respect.

Why should it? Was I wrong when I told you the CDC doesn’t seriously address evidence that doesn’t support its guidelines? Is it not true that vaccine manufacturers “contribute” significantly to the CDC foundation? Could this help explain why a significant number of doctors and nurses are leaving medicine rather than take “the jab”? (Even a 1% quit rate is overwhelming, when that many are ready to take such a costly step.)

As my application makes clear, standing for truth, and exposing lies, is a fundamental Christian duty. And when mandates are supported not by evidence or science but by censorship, and with moral outrage over noncompliance as indignant as ancient responses to blasphemy, we are dealing with a state established religion. The Bible is pretty clear how readily we should bow down to a false god.