Greens Against Covid Repression ACLU letter
Director, Disability Rights Program
American Civil Liberties Union
December 3rd, 2021
Dear Ms. Mizner,
Greens Against COVID Repression are writing to communicate our unanimous and unequivocal opposition to the points expressed in your August 27th, 2021, email “Masking in schools is a disability rights issue. Period.”
You have it backwards. ACLU should be protecting all children and adults’ right to go to school without a mask. Instead, ACLU is suing South Carolina for banning mask mandates.
Because ACLU postures as the champion of civil rights, and people may be misled to believe that its advocacy of mask mandates is thus protective of liberty, we regard it as important to correct the statements and assumptions in this email.
1. There is no public health emergency. Even if we were to believe the “Covid-19 virus” narrative, according to the CDC, the survival rate of “COVID-19” from ages 0 to 19 is 99.997%1. That means children—including disabled children—have zero risk of harm from COVID. We repeat: zero risk of harm.
There are substantial financial incentives to hospitals to declare illnesses and deaths as due to COVID when, in fact they are due to another cause2. The CDC has impliedly admitted that the real-time PCR assay it has relied on for the past two years to detect COVID is unreliable, at last retiring that test as of December 31st, 2021, with lame excuses for its incredible hyping of the “number of cases.”3 Given that the number of flu cases has plummeted to zero since COVID came on the scene, a strong case can be made that COVID is only flu4. There is no difference in symptoms.
According to traditional Germ Theory, there is no risk of transmission of any virus by a person who is not sick. There is equally no risk of transmission by a person who may be carrying a virus but is asymptomatic. A study of 10 million people in Wuhan, China detected no asymptomatic spread of alleged “SARS-COV2” RNA fragments. Quotes: “There was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts” and “All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.”
1 https://projectwaistline.com/?p=21863. Even for persons over the age of 70 the survival rate is 94.6%.
2. You say (with our emphasis):
South Carolina’s law endangers everyone, but particularly targets students with disabilities that put them at higher risk for severe illness, lingering disabilities, or even death due to COVID-19. As a result, lawmakers have effectively excluded students with disabilities from public schools.
To the contrary, all people are endangered by having to wear a mask. Our bodies need oxygen. Not only does mask-wearing inhibit the flow of oxygen, it causes build-up of both carbon dioxide5,6 and bacterial and fungal growth, which the mask wearer sucks in with each breath. Doctors have reported higher-than-normal rates of bacterial pneumonia7 and dentists higher-than-normal rates of tooth decay due to mask-wearing. See also Point #1, above.
Moreover, both surgical and cotton masks have been found utterly ineffective in preventing dissemination of any virus8. This article9 lists 47 studies claiming that masks are useless in preventing COVID transmission and infection and another 32 confirming how dangerous they are to children—all children.
Thus, your position would “equalize” educational opportunities for disabled children only by making everybody equally sick from masking itself. That is a novel civil right: equal opportunity to get sick!
3. You say (with our emphasis):
When schools are prohibited from taking reasonable steps to protect the health of their students, the parents of children with disabilities are forced to make an impossible choice: their child’s education, or their health.
You imply that masking able-bodied students protects disabled students from infection. There is nothing whatsoever interfering with disabled children’s education or health which mask- wearing by other people can address. Mandating all students to wear masks is not a “reasonable step,” because masks do not protect either the wearer or persons around the wearer.
4. You say (with our emphasis):
SC’s law flies in the face of public health guidelines from the CDC, from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, from the American Association of Pediatrics, from the American Medical Association, as well as advice from hundreds of physicians and educators across the state. All recommend universal masking.
Each of these “experts” whose guidelines you reference is unreliable. CDC and the unethical NIAID director/Chief Medical Advisor to the President, Anthony Fauci, have waffled back and forth on the benefits of masking, to such a degree we regard no citation as necessary. Their conflicts of interest in every aspect of this “pandemic” are stunning and include evidence that the CDC owns the patent on the “SARS-COV2” virus computer sequence.10 The South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control has nothing whatsoever about masking on its website. The American Association of Pediatrics has been accused by different groups over the years11 of putting drug makers’ profits ahead of its professed commitment to children’s health, while the AMA’s journals are top heavy with ads for pharmaceuticals12, so the recommendations of both these organizations are tainted, too. Even though masks are not drugs, the point of the mask propaganda is to instill fear, which ultimately pumps up the demand for vaccines—and now the vaccine mandates we are seeing—which only mean astronomical profits for Pharma. Importantly, in none of the “public health guidelines” we see on these organizations’ websites are the drawbacks of masking ever mentioned, let alone their utter ineffectiveness at filtering viruses. Researchers are even finding graphene oxide in the masks, a toxin which impairs lung function. This lopsided treatment of the dangers of masking puts the lie to “public health guidelines.” They are more aptly called “profit-generating guidelines” for Pharma.
And—just as troubling—we must conclude these same interests are stroking the backside of ACLU.
We will be publishing this letter on our website and opposing your stance in other forums. Seeing from ACLU’s website that it is also endorsing mandates for the extremely dangerous and unnecessary “vaccines” being forced on the populace, vaccines being the main moneymaker for Big Pharma, we will be writing another letter in opposition to your position on that subject, too, which we will also publish.
11 E.g., https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2020/05/following-the-drug-money/ and https:// www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/21/why-does-the-american-academy-of-pediatrics-put-corporate-profits-ahead-of- childrens-health/
We demand that ACLU drop its frivolous lawsuit against the State of South Carolina and quit trying to quash civil liberties under the false claim that your efforts protect “rights of the disabled.”
GREENS AGAINST COVID REPRESSION:
Thomas S. Smith