The Vermont Legislature will convene next week in Special Session to discuss legislation allowing municipalities to mandate masks in indoor public areas. The letter below was sent to Vermont legislators and municipal boards. The author, founder of Health Choice Vermont, has a B.Sc. cum laude in microbiology, and professional experience in infectious disease diagnostics, development and global marketing. She has also trained for many years in the practice of classical homeopathy. – Editor

To: Honorable, Vermont-Elected Representative and Senators, and Honorable, Elected Members of VT Town Select Boards and City Councils:
RE: Testimony AGAINST Enabling Mask Mandates

Dear Fellow Vermont Resident,

I have been actively advocating for choice and researching public health communicable disease policies at the Vermont Legislature since 2012 and have a degree in microbiology with experience in infectious disease diagnostics and prevention. In this light, I hope you might accept the following information as preliminary testimony to consider against any vote that might enable future medical mandates. This includes masks.

Background:
As you may know today in Vermont only the Legislature has the authority to create mandates. This ensures a deliberative process and equal protections under the law when it comes to public health police powers and emergency powers. In addition any Health Orders are also prescribed by statute to be carried out seeking voluntary compliance. And of course, informed consent applies to all medical procedures.
18 V.S.A. § 124
Voluntary compliance
(a) When appropriate, the health officer shall make all practicable efforts to secure voluntary compliance. This requirement shall not restrict the health officer’s authority to use any enforcement powers authorized by this title or the common law.
(b) Means of securing voluntary compliance may include the following:
(1) encouraging voluntary cooperation by persons and affected groups to achieve the purposes of this title;
(2) encouraging local units of government to handle violation problems within their respective jurisdiction by compact on a cooperative basis, and providing technical and consultative assistance therefor;
(3) advising, consulting, contacting, and cooperating with other agencies of the State, local governments, industries, other states, interstate or interlocal agencies, and the federal government, and with interested persons or groups; and
(4) encouraging voluntary compliance through warning, conference, or any other similar means. (Added 1985, No. 267 (Adj. Sess.), § 8.)
(a) When appropriate, the health officer shall make all practicable efforts to secure voluntary compliance. This requirement shall not restrict the health officer’s authority to use any enforcement powers authorized by this title or the common law.

The foundational doctrine is one of prior, free and voluntary, informed consent for any and all medical procedures, emergency or not. 

18 V.S.A. § 9701
Informed Consent
wherein “Informed consent” means the consent given voluntarily by an individual with capacity, on his or her own behalf or on behalf of another in the role of an agent, guardian, or surrogate, after being fully informed of the nature, benefits, risks, and consequences of the proposed health care, alternative health care, and no health care.

Now, more specifically: Why might anyone refuse to wear a “safe and effective” mask?

1. For starters – legally, EUA Products (Masks, Tests, Injections) Cannot Be Mandated – and the masks are “EUA”.

·      Federal Law 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3 et seq requires that people be able to accept or refuse administration of Emergency Use Only (“EUA”) products. 

·      State law cannot supersede federal law related to medical devices under 21 U.S.C. 360(k) or the U.S. Constitution.

·      Federal precedent (Doe v. Rumsfeld) establishes that an EUA product cannot be mandated. Even members of the U.S. military may not be coerced to accept EUA products.
For more information, see emergency motion and appendix, as referenced here.

2. Contrary to the prevailing opinions being widely promoted, Mask-Wearing is Neither “Healthy”, Nor “Safe”

Face masks create oxygen deficiency. This can result in the following effects:

·      Irregular breathing

·      Accelerated heartbeat

·      Impaired attention and thinking

·      Impaired coordination

·      Rapid fatigue that may lead to permanent heart damage

Face masks create difficulty expelling carbon dioxide. (see 3 minute video testimony from NH). This can result in the following effects:

·      Headache

·      Increased pressure inside the skull

·      Nervous system changes

·      Increased “work of breathing”, which is result of breathing through a filter medium

·      Cardiovascular effects

·      Fatigue

3. Face masks as commonly worn, do not stop viral transmission.

4. Studies demonstrate evidence of harm*.
For more information, please see the full science based mask fact sheet and poster on CO2/O2, attached.

Based on this testimony, I hope it is evident that each and every one of your constituents is counting on you to preserve their right to voluntary consent, and to vote NO on any mandate-enabling legislation when it comes to masks. Thank you very much for your serious deliberation and to you commitment in upholding your Oath of Office, and for serving the people of Vermont.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Stella, Waitsfield
Health Choice Vermont (co-director, volunteer)
(802) 917 3230

*Additional Information:

·      Vermont Mask Survey: VTMaskSurvey.com

·      Health Choice Vermont: HealthChoiceVT.com