As related in yesterday’s post, our local hospital (here in Stratford, Ontario) refuses to allow my wife Nicole to enter the building because she will not wear a face diaper (AKA surgical mask). For over a decade Nicole has been receiving dialysis treatments at Stratford General three times a week. Even during the bad flu season of 2017/18 she was not required to wear a germ collector on her face.

I promptly sent the CEO of the hospital this fact-dense letter which quotes how the Ontario Ministry of Health’s own document confirms that the result of seven randomized trials “demonstrates that wearing a mask… after an illness begins is not effective at preventing secondary respiratory infections.”

I concluded the letter by politely asking: “Unless you can provide evidence (not “expert opinions”) to the contrary, I therefore ask that my wife be allowed to return to her regularly scheduled dialysis sessions immediately, without a mask.”

The CEO’s response arrived 12 days later. The letter offers no evidence that masks are effective in any way. Instead it opens with:

“The Huron Perth Healthcare Alliance’s (HPHA) top priority is keeping our patients, families, caregivers and staff safe during these very challenging times. We have taken a precautionary approach for the control of COVID‐19 that follows the Ministry of Health and the Public Health guidelines for the healthcare sector.”

Included in that well-stuffed envelope were copies of the COVID‐19 Guidance: Acute Care Guidance and COVID‐19 Operational Requirements: Health Sector Restart.

In my follow-up letter I wrote: “I found nothing in what you sent that provides any evidence to support the effectiveness of face mask use. The content merely dictates a policy without any justification. There was nothing to support your statement that forcing masks on your clients is for ‘the safety of our Team and of all we serve…'”

As I cite in my letter, the provincial guidelines Williams claims he is following do not mandate such a draconian approach to masking. Instead, the documents advise: that their approach should be “adaptive and flexible;” that they should “respond to the local COVID-19 situation” (of which there is practically none); and that they should account for the “patient’s circumstances.”

In fact, the guidelines only state that hospitals should “reinforce that public health measures… be followed.” Reinforce, according to the dictionary, means “strengthen or support” not “coerce and manipulate.”

Most glaring, the guidelines also state: “Signage should be posted at the entrance to the office/clinic and at reception areas requiring all patients and any visitors to wear a face covering/non-medical mask (if available and tolerated)…”

If tolerated. Signage, not a checkpoint.

Well, they did post a sign, I’ll give them that. Take a look at this massive piece of masking propaganda by the ER entrance:

How many thousands of dollars did that cost? But hey, what’s money these days when millions of Canadians have lost their jobs and businesses to this type of fear-mongering? “The flood of federal spending in response to the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis will see the deficit soar to $343 billion this year,” reports Global News, “as officials warn the economy might never go back to normal.”

In my letter I end by saying: “…your assertion that you are using an ‘approach for the control of COVID-19 that follows the Ministry of Health and the Public Health guidelines’ is not supported by the guidelines you sent. Therefore, I respectfully request that you permit Nicole to return to dialysis at the Stratford clinic this Tuesday. The long drive to University Hospital, with only an evening shift available, is adding unneeded stress to someone in a critical condition, for which your hospital could be held liable.”

You can read the rest of my letter here. I’ll share with you the CEO’s response in the next post. It offers one glimmer of hope: Mr. Williams stops claiming that masks protect people; instead he makes an even weaker argument for their denial of science and disregard for constitutional rights.