William Kaplan, was appointed as an arbitrator to decide a dispute between the Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) and the and the Ontario Nurse’s Association (ONA). The collective bargaining agreement allowed the nurses working in the association hospitals to refuse influenza (flu) vaccination. The HOA imposed a new policy whereby if a nurse refused the influenza vaccine she would have to wear a mask while in the hospital. It was called a vaccine or mask policy (VOM). The ONA brought a complaint that the policy was coercive and thus in violation of the collective bargaining agreement.
The arbitrator conducted 21 hearings spanning three years. He presided over testimony from many expert witnesses, reviewed many volumes of scientific studies, meta-analyses, commentaries, and expert commentaries. The arbitrator found that the VOM was not coercive, but nonetheless struck it down because he determined that it was unreasonable.
In 2018 Kaplan rendered his opinion and determined that the scientific studies and expert testimony established that masks are ineffective in preventing nurses from spreading the flu to others. He further determined that masks are ineffective in protecting nurses from getting the flu. The arbitrator ruled that “[t]here is no persuasive evidence establishing a conclusive relationship between the use of surgical and procedural masks and protection against influenza transmission.” The arbitrator cited one particular scientific study, which concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face-masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” The arbitrator cited the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which stated categorically: “No studies have definitively shown that mask use by either infectious patients or health-care personnel prevents influenza transmission.”
Regarding the asymptomatic tor pre-symptomatic transmission of the flu, the arbitrator stated that “[a]t best, the evidence indicates that asymptomatic transmission is not a significant factor in nosocomial influenza.” The arbiter cited to a credible expert witness who testified that “[t]he evidence that pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic infections contribute substantially to influenza transmission remains scant.”
Often, the flu virus in the vaccine is mismatched with the environmental flu virus and thus the flu vaccine is useless in preventing flu infection. Assuming that the flu virus matches the environmental strain, the arbitrator found that the scientific studies found little or no benefit to the nurses or the patients from nurses obtaining a flu shot. There was insufficient evidence that unvaccinated nurses transmitted the flu. Indeed, in one study where a hospital achieved a 97% influenza vaccination rate, there was no reduction in sick leave, which suggested no reduction in influenza. Another study concluded: “we cannot say for certain whether there was a change due to influenza vaccination.”
It was notable that four of the studies cited by the OHA that supported the thesis that vaccinations prevent the spread of influenza were demonstrated to lack any scientific validity. Indeed, one expert witness, who favored the influenza vaccine, cast serious doubt on the validity of any of those reports. The reports had “impossible results from methodologically flawed studies.” For example, one of the reports came to the astounding conclusion that for every 8 health care workers that were vaccinated, one patient’s life would be saved. One expert called that conclusion “preposterous;” he was able to refute that claim and prove that it was completely unsupported by the study. Even some of the OHA’s own expert witnesses had to admit that the conclusion of that study was merely a “catchy phrase” that was unsupported by any scientific evidence. The Arbitrator found that some of the experts and studies that were put forth to support the proposition in favor of vaccines or wearing masks lacked any real credibility when scrutinized.
In conclusion, the arbitrator found that the flu vaccine is of little or no help in stopping the spread of the flu and wearing a mask is of no help at all in stopping the spread of the flu. Thus, it is unreasonable for a hospital to require its nurses who have not been vaccinated against the flu to wear a face mask in the hospital.
The World Health Organization (WHO) admits that “[a]t present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”
The Annals of Internal Medicine published a study conducted by eleven (11) medical doctors and three (3) PhDs in April 2020 (later retracted under pressure in June 2020) which concluded that “[n]either surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients.”
How then can the world’s governments mandate the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus when all studies have shown that masks are ineffective in protecting the wearer or protecting those who come in contact with the wearer from viruses?
For further information about this issue to read Dr. Russell Blaylock Says That Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy
Assuming that the flu and COVID-19 are both viruses and are spread (as alleged) in the same way, the response to both should be the same. That is particularly the case when one realizes that if COVID-19 is an infectious virus, it is no more dangerous than the ordinary flu.
But the theories that the flu and COVID-19 are both viruses are only just that, theories. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence that what scientists call viruses are actually exosomes that are generated by the body as an immune response. Exosomes are not actually contagious at all and they are not detrimental to health.
It would seem also that the proposed COVID-19 vaccine will be no more effective than has been the influenza vaccine. Indeed, the planned COVID-19 vaccine could be deadly dangerous.