In public health policy the issue of mandates by an agency has, in view, been settles since 1980. That was when the US Supreme Court ruled (Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum InstituteNo. 78-911) that if the Occupational Safety ad Health Administration (OSHA) wanted to impose a new standard on a workplace they had to make a threshold determination that the new standard would reduce the adverse health effects caused from the substance to which workers were being exposed in their workplace. There were no exceptions to this finding.
The 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act charges OSHA to "set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity." (OSHAct Article 6(b)(5)
How does this relate to COVID and the creation of mandates by the government and private entities like Rutgers University? It relates to COVID mandates because it is a public health legal precedent that is now 43 years old. It requires administrative bodies to prove that their new “standard” will actually reduce injury and illness. In the case of COVID and mask use there is no such data. In fact, the only data that exists proves that masks are effective in stopping the spread of a virus.
The mandate for mRNA inoculations is similarly based on flawed data presented by three government administrative rule making organizations; NIH, FDA, and OSHA and with “guidelines” created based on equally flawed data by CDC.
The mandates for mRNA inoculations are particularly disturbing because the data again is clear: rather than reducing the COVID it is alleged to only reduce symptoms so does aspirin, high does of Vitamin D3, and Ivermectin. Even the FDA, Pfizer, and CDC have publicly stated that the mRNA concoction does not stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
Period. That’s it.
Union, Kentucky
24 August 2023
"In fact, the only data that exists proves that masks are effective in stopping the spread of a virus."
Did you mean to say "ineffective"?