The St. Cloud City Council's big decision

Are Maskers Fellow Travelers with Those Who Support the Theory of a Flat Earth?

John W. Palmer, Ph.D.

The City Council for St. Cloud, MN will be discussing the topic of “Mask Mandate”. The following is the message sent to the City Council. I am writing this message near the end of my second day of treatment, a regime outside the mainstream for treatment, for COVID-19. If this outlier for treatment was not available, no other treatment could be used. The anti-body treatment is being rationed so the only response of the conventional medical community is to be sick in place and come to the hospital if I get sicker.

Now a rush to judgment following the crowd might take away my freedom to make an informed choice on the use of a mask to prevent the spread of the virus when the natural immunity created by being infected is vastly superior to a mask. The sheer number of voices proclaiming what they believe to be the truth is not how science works. The quality of the research design and the insurance that the data being collected meets all the validity standards are the standards to be used.

The flat earth crowd vastly overwhelmed Galileo in number. But the Italian natural philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician was right. His discoveries with the telescope revolutionized astronomy and paved the way for the acceptance of the Copernican heliocentric system, but his advocacy of that system eventually resulted in an inquisition process against him.

The pro maskers of today, like the flat earth crowd of Galileo’s time, dominate the writing on the efficacy of masks in preventing the spread of the COVID virus. Like Galileo, the researchers and doctors that either question the efficacy or come right out and say masks do not prevent the spread of the virus are subject to the modern inquisition where those who do not follow the prevailing narrative are vilified.

My review of the literature yielded two citations worth mentioning. One is and outlier and the other is in the mainstream of today’s narrative. I believe the findings of the university of Louisville because it meets the standard for quality research. I also believe this quotation from Dr. Dunning:

"New findings reported Tuesday in a University of Louisville study challenge what has been the prevailing belief that mask mandates are necessary to slow the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus. The study notes that "80% of US states mandated masks during the COVID-19 pandemic" and while "mandates induced greater mask compliance, [they] did not predict lower growth rates when community spread was low (minima) or high (maxima)." Among other things, the study, conducted using data from the CDC covering multiple seasons, reports that "mask mandates and use are not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 spread among US states."

Dr. Dunning is quoted in this article, too:

"Dr. Dunning explained there are a number of reasons why they can be ineffective. 'Face masks must be worn correctly, changed frequently, removed properly, disposed of safely and used in combination with good universal hygiene behavior in order for them to be effective.'"

If the council is foolish enough to adopt a masking standard that does not acknowledge natural immunity for St. Cloud that standard must address Dr. Dunning’s list of musts. Many adages apply to your decision. Perhaps the “Do No Harm” adage is the best. The harm I refer to is harm to our freedom to make informed choices. Given an unbiased set of data the choice to use or not use a mask can remain with the individual not the collective.