Date:

To Whom It May Concern:

I am sending you this notice on behalf of . My findings raise

Forcing the use of a non-FDA approved, Emergency Use Authorized mask, is unwarranted and
illegal. This mandate is in direct conflict with 21 U.S. Code Section 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III), which
requires the wearer to be informed of the option to refuse the wearing of such “device.” (29)
Additionally, misrepresenting the use of a mask as being intended for antimicrobial or antiviral
protection, and/or misrepresenting masks for use as infection prevention or reduction is a deceptive act
or practice in or affecting commerce under 15 U.S. Code Chapter 2, Subsection I, Section 52 (a)(b). (26) It
is clear, there is no waiver of your liability regarding deceptive practices, even under a state of
emergency.

As such, forcing children to wear masks, or similarly forcing the use of any other non-FDA
approved medical product without the child’s (or the child’s parental) consent, is illegal and immoral.
This letter serves as official notice that neither consent to being forced to wear a mask.
Advocates for the aforementioned children will not fail to take the maximum action permissible under
the law against the district if an exemption is not granted. Accordingly, I urge you to comply with Federal
and State law, and advise children they have a right to refuse or wear a mask as a measure to prevent or
reduce infection from COVID-19. Any other course of action is contrary to the law. I am willing to testify
as to the veracity of the contents in this document.

Masks are ineffective, and in many ways they harm.

It’s a myth that masks prevent viruses from spreading. The overall evidence is clear: Standard
cloth and surgical masks offer next to no protection against virus-sized particles or small aerosols. In one
large randomized controlled trial (DANMASK-19 [Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection
Against COVID-19 Infection]) that specifically examined whether masks protect their wearers from the
coronavirus, it was found that mask wearing “did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical
significance, the incidence of Sars-Cov-2-infection.” (3) Additionally, it was found that in states which
mandated mask wearing in public, the average reduction of daily case rate at the 21-day mark following
implementation of the mandate was merely 2%. (1) The size of a virus particle is much too small to be
stopped by a surgical mask, cloth or bandana. A single virion of SARS-CoV-2 is about 60-140 nanometers
or 0.1 microns. (2) The pore size in a surgical mask is 200-1000x that size. Consider that the CDC website
states, “surgical masks do not catch all harmful particles in smoke.” And that the size of smoke particles
in a wildfire are ~0.5 microns which is 5x the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus Wearing a mask to prevent the
spread of SARS-CoV-2, or similarly sized influenza, is like throwing sand at a chain-link fence: it doesn’t
work. Consider also, that the existence of more particles does not mean more virus. Research shows less
virus does not mean less illness. Dr. Kevin Fennelly, a pulmonologist at the National Heart, Lung and
Blood institute debunked the view that larger droplets are responsible for viral transmission. Fennelly
wrote:
“Current infection control policies are based on the premise that most respiratory infections are
transmitted by large respiratory droplets- i.e., larger than 5 [microns] – produced by coughing and
sneezing, ...Unfortunately, that premise is wrong.” (4)

Fennelly referenced a 1953 paper on anthrax that showed a single bacterial spore of about one
micron was significantly more lethal than larger clumps of spores. (5) Exposure to one virus particle is
theoretically enough to cause infection and subsequent disease. This is not an alarming thought - it
simply means what it has always meant, that our immune system protects us continually all our life. (6)
There have been hundreds of mask studies related to influenza transmission done over several decades.
It is a well-established fact that masks do not stop viruses. “Part of that evidence shows that cloth
facemasks actually increase influenza-linked illness.” (7) Bacteria are 50x larger than virus particles. (8)
As such, virus particles can enter through the mask pores, yet bacteria remain trapped inside of the
mask, resulting in the mask-wearer continually exposed to the bacteria. Related to the 1918-1919
influenza pandemic, there was almost universal agreement among experts, that deaths were virtually
never caused by the influenza virus itself but resulted directly from severe secondary pneumonia caused
by well-known bacterial “pneumopathogens” that colonized the upper respiratory tract. (9) Dr. Anthony
S. Fauci and the National Institute of Health studied pandemics and epidemics and concluded, “the vast
majority of influenza deaths resulted from secondary bacterial pneumonia.” (10) All parties mandating
the use of facemasks are not only willfully ignoring established science but are engaging in what
amounts to a whole school clinical experimental trial.

This conclusion is reached by the fact that facemask use and COVID-19 incidence are being
reported in scientific opinion pieces promoted by the CDC and others. (11) The fact is after reviewing
ALL of the studies worldwide, the CDC found “In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in
influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” (12) Additionally, Children have been repeatedly
shown not to be drivers of this contagion, with the AAP estimating that only 14.4% of COVID cases as of
16AUG21 being children. It is also well-accepted that children have a relatively low chance of dying from
COVID. The AAP shows that the mortality rate of children “from” or “with” COVID is less than 1 per 400
cases. (13) Notice that this number includes those who died from other causes, but also tested positive
for COVID. Any intervention, especially one that is prophylactic, must cause fewer harms to the recipient
than the infection. Since children have the lowest death rate from COVID infection, the cost-benefit of
requiring children to wear an investigational face-covering with emerging safety issues is especially
difficult to justify. Wearing respirators come(s) with a host of physiological and psychological burdens.
These can interfere with task performances and reduce work efficiency. These burdens can even be
severe enough to cause life-threatening conditions if not ameliorated. (14) Fifteen years ago, National
Taiwan University Hospital concluded that the use of N-95 masks in healthcare workers caused them to
experience hypoxemia, a low level of oxygen in the blood, and hypercapnia, an elevation in the blood's
carbon dioxide levels. (15) Studies of simple surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen
as well. In one particular study, researchers measured blood oxygenation before and after surgeries in
53 surgeons. Researchers found the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels significantly, and the longer
the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the drop in blood oxygen levels. (16) Moreover, people
with cancer, will be at a further risk from hypoxia, as cancer cells grow best in
a bodily environment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes systemic inflammation
which, in turn, promotes “the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.” (17) Repeated episodes of
low oxygen, known as intermittent hypoxia, also “causes atherosclerosis” and hence increases “all
cardiovascular events” such as heart attacks, as well as adverse cerebral events like stroke. (18)
Furthermore, the mandatory mask in schools is a major threat to a child’s development. It
ignores the essential needs of a growing child. The well-being of children and young people is
highly dependent on the emotional connection with others. Masks create a threatening and unsafe
environment, where emotional connection becomes difficult. (19)

Informed consent is required for investigational medical therapies. Regardless of the lack of
safety and efficacy behind the decision to require a child to wear a mask, it is illegal to mandate EUA
approved investigational medical therapies without informed consent. Mask use for viral transmission
prevention is authorized for Emergency Use only. (20) Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA, means
“the products are investigational and experimental” only. (21) The statute granting the FDA the power
to authorize a medical product of emergency use requires that the person being administered the
unapproved product be advised of his or her right to refuse administration of the product. (22) This
statute further recognizes the well-settled doctrine that medical experiments, or “clinical research,” may
not be performed on human subjects without the express, informed consent of the individual receiving
treatment. (23) The right to avoid the imposition of human experimentation is fundamental, rooted in
the Nuremberg Code of 1947, has been ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and further codified
in the United States Code of Federal Regulations. In addition to the Unites States regarding itself as
bound by these provisions, these principles were adopted by the FDA in its regulations requiring the
informed consent of human subjects for medical research. (24) The law is very clear; It is unlawful to
conduct medical research (even in the case of emergency), unless steps are taken to secure informed
consent of all participants. (25)

Furthermore, by requiring children to wear a mask, you are promoting the idea that the mask
can prevent or treat a disease, which is an illegal deceptive practice. It is unlawful to advertise that a
product or service can prevent disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific Evidence
substantiating that the claims are true. The FDA EUA for surgical and/or cloth masks explicitly states,
“the labeling must not state or imply that the [mask] is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection
or related, or for use such as infection prevention or reduction.” (27)

Illegally mandating an investigational medical therapy generates liability. There are no efficacy
standards on child-sized masks and respirators under OSHA, but there are proven microbial challenges
as well as breathing difficulties that are created and exacerbated by masking children. Requiring children
to wear a mask sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19, and making the
consequences of that infection much more grave in nature. In essence, a mask may very well put
children at an increased risk of infection, and if so, having a far worse outcome. The fact that mask
wearing presents a severe risk of harm to the wearer shows that masks should not be required for
children, particularly given that these children are not ill and have done nothing wrong that would
warrant an infringement of their constitutional rights and bodily autonomy.

Please confirm no further pressure will be exerted to follow this illegal mask mandate, and that the
children mentioned will not face any retaliatory disciplinary action.

Sincerely,

(1) https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

(2) Berenson, A (November 24, 2020). Unreported Truths about Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 3: Masks
(3) https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

(4) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30323-4/fulltext

(5) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30323-4/fulltext

(6) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090313150254.htm

(7) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/

(8) https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/virus-vs-bacteria-difference

(9) The pathology and bacteriology of pneumonia following influenza. Chapter IV, Epidemic respiratory
disease. The pneumonias and other infections of the respiratory tract accompanying influenza and
measles, 1921 St, LouisCV Mosby (p. 107-281)

(10) https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/198/7/962/2192118

(11) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

(12) Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal

(13) https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-
state-level-data-report/

(14) Arthur Johnson, Journal of Biological Engineering (2016).

(15) The Physiological Impact of N95 Masks on Medical Staff, National Taiwan University Hospital (June
2005).

(16) Bader A et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery.
Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126..

(17) Aggarwal BB. Nucler factor-kappaB: The enemy within. Cancer Cell 2004;6:203-208, and Blaylock RL.
Immunoexcitatory mechanisms in glioma proliferation, invasion and occasional metastasis. Surg Neurol
Inter 2013;4:15.

(18) Savransky V et al. Chronic intermittent hypoxia induces atherosclerosis. Am J Resp Crit Care Med
2007;175:1290-1297.

(19) https://www.world-today-news.com/70-doctors-in-open-letter-to-ben-weyts-abolish-mandatory-
mouth-mask-at-school-belgium/

(20) https://www.fda.gov/media/137121/download

(21) https://ca.childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/CDE-Superintendent-Letter0from-
Childrens-Health-Defense-California-Chapter.pdf

(22) 21 U.S.C.§ S360bbb-3 (The FD&C Act)

(23) 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A) (“Section 360bbb-3”)

(25) http://www.invertedalchemy.com/2020/12/belief-is-not-medical-counter-measure.html, 21 C.F.R.

(26) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/52

(27) https://www.fda.gov/media/137121/download

(28) Russell Blaylock, Id. (quoting Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively
regulates Th1 function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376. See also: Westendorf AM et al. Hypoxia
enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity.
Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84. See further: Sceneay J et al. Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression
contributes to the pre-metastatic niche. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355.

(29) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3