Remember the promises, the lies, the scare mongering, the hysterics? 

Authored by Ian Miller via the Brownstone Institute,

“The Experts™” have repeatedly tried to deflect from the failure of their policies with misdirection.

The reason lockdowns didn’t work in the United States or the United Kingdom is because they weren’t strict enough, according to many in the expert community.

Of course, their excuses have been conveniently ignored as China’s repressive zero COVID lockdowns have continued, with horrific consequences.

Now that mass protests have broken out in the country that “The Experts™” revered for their COVID handling, there’s a massive effort to disregard their own previous advocacy.

This is perhaps best exemplified by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who clearly used authoritarian measures to suppress the protests in his own country, while now supporting Chinese demonstrations.

The bewildering lack of awareness of their own hypocrisy seems to be a feature of COVID-obsessed politicians and public health authorities.

Another similar, oft-repeated assertion is that the failure of universal masking can be explained by the type of masks being used by the public.

Even though the CDC and Dr. Fauci explicitly claimed that wearing anything to cover your face would be effective at preventing transmission, many have now quietly dismissed that messaging.

Fauci specifically said that “cloth coverings work,” not just surgical or N95s. Former Surgeon General Jerome Adams famously suggested that rolling up a t-shirt in front of your face would be effective protection.

Yet public health departments and the media are now highlighting the importance of “high quality,” “well-fitted” masks. 

Their desperation to justify masking has led to remarkably poor studies being released to support their anti-science messaging.

There is new research that has been released showing that masks are ineffective, regardless of type.

And it’s not just new research, it’s high quality research.

Finally, Another RCT on Mask Wearing

The Annals of Internal Medicine just published a randomized controlled trial comparing the ability of medical masks to prevent COVID infection to fit-tested N95s.

Importantly, this trial was conducted on healthcare workers who would be most likely to use masks appropriately.

To determine whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care.

That trial design was also important as it was meant to determine whether or not N95 respirators were superior to “regular” surgical masks.

They examined 29 different health care facilities on multiple continents, from North America to Asia and Africa.

The percentage of healthcare workers testing positive for COVID in each group was tracked to determine how effective or ineffective higher-quality masking was in preventing infection.

Unsurprisingly, the results confirmed that there is essentially zero difference between surgical or N95 respirators when it comes to tests results.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 of 497 (10.46%) participants in the medical mask group versus 47 of 507 (9.27%) in the N95 respirator group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69]). An unplanned subgroup analysis by country found that in the medical mask group versus the N95 respirator group RT-PCR–confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 8 of 131 (6.11%) versus 3 of 135 (2.22%) in Canada (HR, 2.83 [CI, 0.75 to 10.72]), 6 of 17 (35.29%) versus 4 of 17 (23.53%) in Israel (HR, 1.54 [CI, 0.43 to 5.49]), 3 of 92 (3.26%) versus 2 of 94 (2.13%) in Pakistan (HR, 1.50 [CI, 0.25 to 8.98]), and 35 of 257 (13.62%) versus 38 of 261 (14.56%) in Egypt (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.60 to 1.50]). There were 47 (10.8%) adverse events related to the intervention reported in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group.

52 of 497 participants who wore medical masks got COVID-19, and 47 of 507 in the N95 group got COVID-19. 

No matter how “high quality” your mask is, it’s entirely irrelevant.

The researchers also took pains to ensure that the control and treatment groups shared as many similarities as possible.

They excluded workers who could not pass a fit test, had laboratory-confirmed COVID, or “had received 1 or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine with greater than 50% efficacy for the circulating strain.”

Yet none of that mattered; there was no difference in outcomes between the medical and N95 level masks.

The N95s in use were even specifically fit tested and approved respirators, far from the KN95s commonly used by the general public.

“Health care workers randomly assigned to the N95 respirator group were instructed to use a fit-tested National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health–approved N95 respirator when providing routine care to patients with COVID-19 or suspected COVID-19.”

It didn’t matter.

Even more importantly, these disappointing results were from facilities with universal masking policies in place.

Everyone, in each health care facility, “for all activities,” was required to wear masks. 

The intervention included universal masking, which was the policy implemented at each site. This refers to the use of a mask when in the health care facility for all activities, whether patient related or not, including in workrooms, meetings, and treating persons that were not suspected or known to be positive for COVID-19.

It still didn’t work.

They even tracked potential exposure points, whether at home, in the community or in hospital exposures.

There was no difference.

What’s even more impressive about the futility of masking is that outside of Egypt, the observed results occurred before the more contagious Omicron variant emerged.

There were substantial differences in results between countries, which indicates the impact of N95s might have been further muted had it covered the Omicron period.

Canada, which was observed pre-Omicron, showed the biggest “benefit” to N95s, while post-Omicron Egypt was nearly identical. 

It’s possible that the mild difference in Canada could have been erased entirely if subjected to the Omicron era.

On top of being functionally useless, N95s were substantially more likely to result in adverse effects.

According to the results page, there were significantly more reported issues in the respirator group:

“There were 47 (10.8%) adverse events related to the intervention reported in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group.”

This becomes even more noteworthy since compliance with respirator masking was lower.

“Adherence with the assigned medical mask or N95 respirator was self-reported as “always” in 91.2% in the medical mask group versus 80.7% in the N95 respirator group and as “always” or “sometimes” in 97.7% in the medical mask group versus 94.4% in the N95 respirator group.”

While still extremely high, health care workers “always” wore N95s 80.7% of the time instead of 91.2% for medical masks.

This is one of the many issues the “experts” now pushing for (now disproven) “higher-quality” masking should address.

Health care professionals who are trained to use N95s can’t always use them yet experience higher rates of adverse effects.

Imagine how much worse compliance would be among the general public, especially if 13% are suffering significant side effects.

Results Show Expert Incompetence

This is yet another randomized controlled trial to show that masks do not work.

It also confirms the DANMASK study conducted earlier in the pandemic, which proved there was no benefit from masking in COVID prevention.

Even the Bangladeshi study, comparing villages, showed there was no benefit to masking at a population level. They used statistical misdirection and purposeful p-hacking to try and generate a positive result, and still could only get to a ~10% reduction for those over 50.

No matter the quality, no matter the compliance, masks are entirely ineffective at preventing transmission or infection.

The participants in this examination lived and worked in environments where universal masking was a requirement.

It didn’t matter.

This also examined health care workers, who, in theory, would be using and disposing of medical or N95 level masks properly. 

There was no difference. 

Now imagine how much worse the results would look for mask fanatics if it examined the Fauci-approved cloth coverings. 

If “The Experts™” actually cared about following “the science,” or “the evidence,” this would once again be the nail in the coffin for masking.

More like the 40th nail in the coffin.

We have observational evidence through population-level comparisons that masks do not prevent the spread of COVID.

We also now have multiple randomized controlled trials confirming that masks do not prevent the spread of COVID.

And we have extremely well done comparisons of neighboring jurisdictions confirming it.

All the mask fanatics have is politically motivated wishful thinking, desperate advocacy from disproven CDC “studies,” and a commitment to avoiding reality.

Fauci and his health authority allies have lied to the public repeatedly about masking. The obsession with credentialism and appeals to authority within the media has resulted in tremendous, unjustified harm.

You’d hope that results like these would finally end their ridiculous posturing, but it’s abundantly clear they’re too dug in to ever relent.

But thankfully those paying attention now have even more ammunition in the fight for the inarguable scientific reality that masks do not work.

via Free the Words

The US government funded Peter Daszak’s ECO Health Alliance to the tune of $61,491,183 to make new coronaviruses that are infectious to humans.

It also directly or indirectly funds the Wuhan Institute of Virology to the tune of $7.4 million dollars to make new coronaviruses that are infectious to humans.

Meanwhile, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases funded Ralph Baric to the tune of $46,958,414 to make new coronaviruses that are infectious to humans.

This totals more than $114 million in the period from 2000 to 2020 to make new coronaviruses which are infectious to humans.

There is no question that SARS-CoV 2 (causing Covid-19) is man-made. Here’s the evidence…

Washington and Moscow put aside their differences for the greater good

by Edward Slavsquat

By all accounts, the G20 summit in Bali was a smashing success. After tireless multipolar efforts, the famed intergovernmental forum announced the creation of a global health-preserving Pandemic Fund sponsored by the WHO, the World Bank, Bill Gates, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The fund will ensure there is plenty of money for experimental genetic vaccines in the weeks, months, and decades ahead.

In the same spirit of cooperation, Moscow suggested enveloping the whole world in Virus-detecting kiosks—a proposal based on Russia’s own “sanitary shield” program.

But these are mere trifles compared to the forum’s crowning achievement: the adoption of the G20 Bali Leaders’ Declaration.

From page eight of the document:

We acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards and verification methods, under the framework of the IHR (2005), to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognizing digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccinations.
We support continued international dialogue and collaboration on the establishment of trusted global digital health networks as part of the efforts to strengthen prevention and response to future pandemics, that should capitalize and build on the success of the existing standards and digital COVID-19 certificates.

If you want to read the whole thing, you can download the PDF generously hosted on the Kremlin’s official website.

The titillating declaration includes much more than just a pledge to create an international injection Ausweis. Contained within its pages are purple prose about “sustainable development”, “digital transformation”, “interoperability of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) for cross-border payments”, and many other tasty multipolar morsels.

There is even a line about how the conflict in Ukraine is “exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy.”

Read the full article.

G20 Pushes Vaccine Passports For All Future International Travel

by ZeroHedge News

The G20 has issued a formal decree promoting vaccine passports as preparation for any future pandemic response in its final communique. Indonesian Health Minister Budi Gunadi Sadikin, speaking on the matter on behalf of the G20 host country, had earlier in the summit called for a “digital health certificate” using WHO standards.

Sadikin advocated for that he dubbed a “digital health certificate” which shows whether a person has been “vaccinated or tested properly” so that only then “you can move around”. Watch his comments during a G20 Bali panel discussion earlier in the week…

The following is introduced in Article 23:

We acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards and verification methods, under the framework of the IHR (2005), to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognizing digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccinations.
We support continued international dialogue and collaboration on the establishment of trusted global digital health networks as part of the efforts to strengthen prevention and response to future pandemics, that should capitalize and build on the success of the existing standards and digital COVID-19 certificates.

Interestingly, the next paragraph of the formal declaration, article 24, goes on to describe the need to for global institutions to fight against ‘disinformation’.

Article 24 of the final G20 declaration begins, “The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the transformation of the digital ecosystem and digital economy.”

And then leads into to the following statement later in the section: “We acknowledge the importance to counter disinformation campaigns, cyber threats, online abuse, and ensuring security in connectivity infrastructure.”

So as predicted by many early on in the pandemic (who were all dismissed and condemned as “conspiracy theorists”), a future proposed standardized vaccine passport will be accompanied by efforts for greater standardization and policing against ‘disinformation’ – likely to include any speech critical of the type of regimen that G20 leaders wish to enact.

Read the full article at ZeroHedge News.

by Sylvia Shawcross via Off-Guardian.org,

Excerpt

[ . . . ]

Don’t be silly. We know why. We just don’t want to say.

So the Media and their polls have told us that [in Canada] 7 out of 10 people want to keep the masks. And why might that be?

They can hide their crooked teeth. Or their unbrushed teeth. Or their morning-after-the-night-before breath. They don’t have to wear make-up. Or shave. Or wash their faces or their children’s faces.

They can stick their tongue out at people without being caught. They can whisper without lip readers. They can smile and smirk and bite their lips. They can hide their cosmetic surgery in progress.They can hide their chin hairs and warts and zits and leftover food in their moustaches.

They can rob a bank or say whatever they want to strangers because no one knows who they are and even the cameras don’t know.

God only knows what’s going on behind those masks!

But! Those mask-wearing people are free in a weird weird way. Advocates of the new abnormal have found a form of freedom from social norms behind a mask.

How is that possible? Is it possible that masks are freedom? No wonder we’re all mixed up. We don’t even know what freedom is anymore.

Or is it because we lost the freedom to have crooked teeth, no makeup and snarky opinions in the real world due to ever evolving relentless social norms and now have to hide for any sort of freedom…Hmmm…

Seems to be true for a lot of things now doesn’t it?

(Except for anything sexual. You can pretty much proclaim or do anything publicly now. Except child molestation. You can apparently sniff but not anything else. But I’m doing that digression thing again…)

So, let’s get this straight— when we see someone in a mask are they to be feared as nasty snaggle-toothed leprous sneaky sociopaths with sharp tongues and nefarious intentions?

Or are they just victims grasping for what little freedom they can garner in a socially punishing world? Hmmm… It could well be either one… How would we know?

Nevertheless, this is all terribly alarming. WHAT is going on? 7 out of 10 of us!!!

Well, I have a theory. Beyond the usual theories of enforced enslavement, virtue signalling, forced shame, neurosis, herd-like conditioning, continued fear porn, dehumanization/objectification/subjugation/alienation, circumvention of facial-recognition systems, gateway moves to social credit scores, anti-feminist one-step-to-the-forced-wearing-of-shuttlecock-burkas assault and the ultimate theory that this poll is nonsense propaganda from our captured media.

All of these theories are as good as the next as long as science seems to have little to do with mask mandates. I mean, real science by independent researchers.

Beyond these theories is the “we’re in the Dark Ages during the plague years of 1346 or so again” theory of mine which I thought I might as well throw into the mix now that we’re all mixed up about freedom and stuff.

Not that there is a plague or anything really at the moment but because people’s reactions don’t change. Not through all these centuries. We’ve changed NOT at all.

Here’s my theory: People wearing masks are the flagellants of the dark ages during the plague years who would run around whipping themselves publicly for God’s forgiveness and atonement or something.

Now during the plague years we would have asked a priest about all this guilt and fear stuff that drive flagellants to be flagellants but today we ask the psychologists.

This is because many if not all of the first world countries have become atheistic and have abandoned religion. But human nature needs what human nature needs—hence the psychologists for priests e.g. or Fauci as Pope and Schwaub as God and Greta as Mother Mary Marx.

Some people believe either technology, money, or medicine has replaced religion but it is clearly evident that it is the Green movement. If we can accept that religion is something that people participate in every day in a meaningful way, then clearly the Green movement has it all. It has priests, codes of behaviours, dictates and forbidden things.

It has a hell (the world as it is going now) and it has a heaven (sustainable development in utopia) It has worshippers. It has the holy and the damned. It has flagellants. And the people now wearing masks are them.

After thirty or so years of being told humans are responsible for killing the planet and being driven to weeping guilt over spending and frivolity and recycling and plastic and gas and beef-pork pies, humans are despicable.

They know it. [ . . . ]

The Proposed Indictments:

Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 2331 §§ 802 – Acts of Domestic Terrorism resulting in death of American Citizens
Count 2: 18 USC § 2339– Conspiring to Commit Acts of Terrorism
Count 3. 15 U.S.C. §1-3 – Conspiring to criminal commercial activity
Count 4. 18 USC § 175 – Funding and Creating a Biological Weapon
Count 5. 15 U.S.C. §8 – Market manipulation and allocation
Count 6. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 – Lying to Congress
Count 7. 15 U.S.C. § 19 – Interlocking directorates
Count 8. 18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy

https://www.davidmartin.world/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-Criminal-Conspiracy-of-Coronavirus.pdf

Authored by Eva Fu via The Epoch Times,

Former White House COVID-19 adviser Dr. Scott Atlas sees multiple reasons for an investigation into Dr. Anthony Fauci, the outgoing director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Such a probe has been discussed as Republicans inch closer to a House majority that would grant them subpoena powers. Some Republican lawmakers have accused Fauci of playing a role in misleading the public about the origins of COVID-19 and supporting pandemic mandates they describe as draconian.

While Atlas, a vocal critic of the NIAID head, is “very skeptical” that an investigation like this could get away from politics or the perception of it being political, he thinks it’s warranted. Fauci’s changing stance on certain COVID-19 policies needs to be put under the spotlight, Atlas recently said on EpochTV’s “Newsmakers.”

“The real, clear public airing of exactly what happened needs to be done,” said Atlas, a senior fellow in health care policy at the Hoover Institution and contributor to The Epoch Times.

“I personally am very skeptical that a political investigation, no matter who does it, is going to be done without politics, or if it’s going to be perceived as nonpolitical. I don’t trust people in government at all. They don’t deserve to be trusted, to be objective.

“What was the motivation to flip flop multiple times with policy?”

His question was referring to Fauci’s changing stance on pandemic school closures that drew criticism in late 2020.

Scott Atlas (L), a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany arrive ahead of President Donald Trump for a press conference at the White House in Washington on Aug. 12, 2020. (Andrew Harnik/AP Photo, File)

He further questioned if there had been any “cover-up” of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Fauci’s division, citing the awards to the Wuhan Institute of Virology through the New York nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance as an example.

EcoHealth Alliance, which continues to receive millions of dollars in grants from the NIH, was subjected to scrutiny by multiple federal agencies over its partnership with the Wuhan lab. The Office of Investigations of the Department of Health and Human Services in late 2020 briefly opened a probe over alleged “major fraud against the United States.” The probe was closed in January 2021, according to internal documents, which had the reasons for the closure redacted. The allegation states that “the COVID-19 virus was generated in … China with the assistance of an NIH Grant.”

Beginning in 2014, EcoHealth was the recipient of a $3.7 million grant to study bat coronaviruses in China. That grant was renewed through 2019 but suspended in 2020 because of compliance concerns. In August, the NIH ended the funding from the grant for the Wuhan facility after the lab at least twice rejected NIH’s request for lab notebooks and original files from the research.

“We cannot have illegal research being funded outside the country by American science” avoiding or circumventing the rules, Atlas said.

“These leadership positions come with massive responsibility. It’s not a game to be in charge of things. You’re not supposed to use it to circumvent rules. You’re not supposed to set up power, friends in the media to cover for you. No, you need to at least answer the questions in front of the American people.”

By the same token, Atlas also called for the Chinese regime to answer for its coverup of the initial outbreak, as well as its role in possibly causing the pandemic.

Besides a delayed admission of the outbreak’s severity to the world during the pandemic’s early days—behavior that Atlas called “unacceptable”—Beijing had “blocked real investigations” and “destroyed evidence of what happened,” he said.

“Of course they need to be held accountable,” he said.

“It needs to be done, though, by a government and multiple governments that actually have the credibility and ethical focus to do that, and I think that that remains to be seen.”

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the ranking Republican member of the House Oversight Committee, has vowed to summon Fauci in a planned probe of the origins of COVID-19 should the Republicans win the House.

“Why did Dr. Fauci lie for so long about American tax dollars through EcoHealth Alliance going to fund gain-of-function research? Why did he lie about gain-of-function research being done in the Wuhan lab? Why were we even in the Wuhan lab? There are so many questions that the Americans deserve answers to,” Comer recently told the “Capitol Report” program of NTD News, a sister media of The Epoch Times.

“The American people deserve answers and anyone that was involved in any type of cover-up should be held accountable.”

Representatives for NIAID didn’t respond to a query from The Epoch Times by press time.

Authored by Jan Jekielek and Masooma Haq via The Epoch Times

Attorney Bobbie Anne Cox in New York on Nov. 5, 2022. (Justin Chiu/The Epoch Times)

In what she has called a David versus Goliath battle, New York real estate lawyer Bobbie Anne Cox sued Governor Kathleen Hochul for issuing directives mandating quarantine for people exposed to or infected with highly contagious diseases such as COVID-19. The directives, dubbed “quarantine camp regulations,” have been compared to laws that relocated Japanese during World War II without due process. Cox won the lawsuit on the grounds that Hochul’s regulation was unconstitutional.

In a recent interview on Epoch TV’s American Thought Leaders, Cox told host Jan Jekielek that it’s crucial Americans learn about the U.S. Constitution so that they can prevent similar acts by state and federal governments.

“The constitution is not perfect, but it’s brilliant,” Cox said. Schools should require learning about the U.S. Constitution, “from the little kids all the way up through high school, into college. The constitution was written to keep the government in check. The constitution wasn’t written to keep the people in check.”

Our founding fathers came to this continent fleeing tyranny, Cox said. “They wrote the constitution in such a manner that if it’s followed, there wouldn’t be tyranny on these shores, ever. Yet, here we are, 250 years later, and we’re fighting tyranny.”

It is tyrannical for a government to take power to which it is not entitled, Cox explained. During the pandemic, state and federal governments gave themselves powers the constitution did not give them.

State governors are part of the executive branch of government. As such, she said, “they’re supposed to enforce laws, and their agencies beneath them are supposed to help them enforce laws. They’re not supposed to make laws.”

When a governor such as Hochul takes on powers that properly belong to the legislature, “that’s tyranny,” Cox reiterated.

“The attitude is kind of like, ‘Well, we know we can’t do this, but we’re going to do it anyway.’ And then the theory is, ‘Catch me if you can.’”

Incumbent New York governor Kathy Hochul participates in a debate against Republican candidate for governor Lee Zeldin, at Pace University, in New York, on Oct. 25, 2022. (Mary Altaffer/Pool via AP)

Understanding Our Rights

Unconstitutional mandates and regulations have been thrust upon the public, Cox said, because American citizens don’t know their rights. “I think if people understood what their rights are, they would say, ‘Hold on a second, you can’t do that.”

“In the history of mankind, no government has ever taken power from the people, and then just voluntarily given it back.”

Nonetheless, “the people have to demand it back,” Cox said. “The people won’t demand it back unless they know that they have the right to that power. So I think there needs to be an education process in the United States so that people understand, ‘Oh, these are my rights.’”

The Executive Branch Cannot Legislate

At the beginning of the pandemic lockdowns, former Governor Andrew Cuomo was given emergency powers by the New York legislature to implement “directives.” Those emergency powers, according to Cox, essentially gave him legislative powers.

“The legislative branch can’t delegate their lawmaking power to another branch of government, but they did, and for a whole year, Cuomo had this power … He then passed it on to his commissioner of health,” said Cox.

After Cuomo stepped down in August 2021 and Hochul became interim governor, she continued the regulations despite criticism that she was sidestepping the legislature. When Cox learned about this, she was impelled to sue in order to stop the government overreach.

Andrew Cuomo, then New York Governor, speaks during a news conference in New York, on May 10, 2021. (Mary Altaffer-Pool/Getty Images)

Quarantine Regulation Based on Rejected Bill

Cox sees this type of control by the governor as tyrannical and “wholly unconstitutional” for many reasons, including the fact that the New York legislature rejected the quarantine rule in a bill years before.

“It’s the story of a tyrannical governor and her department of health, doing something that they want to do, but the people don’t want them to do it. And the people’s representatives in the New York state senate and the assembly don’t want them to do it.”

The quarantine camp regulation was based on a bill that was proposed in 2015 by New York state assemblyman Nick Perry (D-Brooklyn) during the Ebola outbreak. The regulation was rejected by the state legislature and withdrawn from consideration, said Cox.

After Cuomo resigned, through a simple vote, Hochul and her advisors issued the directive that ultimately gave the governor and the New York Department of Health the power to lock up anyone they deemed contagious.

“They could have locked you up in your home, or they could have removed you from your home and locked you into a facility of their choosing,” said Cox. There was no restriction on age, proof of sickness or exposure, or time limit to the quarantine.

“There was nothing in the regulation that would allow you to try to negotiate your way out of this,” added Cox, and the regulation does not follow either state or U.S. constitutions because it does not lay out the rights of the person forced into quarantine.

“In the judge’s decision, he actually said [that] this regulation gives lip service to due process,” said Cox. “‘You mention it, but you don’t actually have any due process built in there.’”

“Involuntary detention is a severe deprivation of individual liberty, far more egregious than other health safety measures, such as requiring mask wearing at certain venues,” the court’s opinion read. “Involuntary quarantine may have far-reaching consequences such as loss of income [or employment] and isolation from family.”

The governor’s regulation also conflicted with section 2120 of New York’s public health law, a longstanding regulation. “That tells you how you quarantine somebody if they’re a public health threat,” Cox said. However, the existing law contains multiple due process protections, beginning with a requirement to prove that the individual in question has the disease.

People walk in Brooklyn, with lower Manhattan looming in the background, on March 28, 2020. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

From Real Estate to Constitutional Law

Having worked with clients in property cases against local and state governments, Cox recognized that the government’s mandates were illegal. She said she knew that two weeks of lockdown would not end there.

“I also said to myself, this is completely unconstitutional. He can’t do this. He can’t force people to shut their businesses and stay home,” Cox said.

She immediately started speaking out about the illegitimacy of the lockdowns. She was bombarded by business owners and landlords asking her if the forced closures and rent moratorium were legal, and what they could do to fight back.

“We were seeing small businesses, landlords, people who were just getting decimated by the government.”

Cox started a YouTube channel explaining the rights that the Constitution ensures, but the platform removed her videos. She then moved the channel to Rumble.

Before moving forward with her lawsuit against Hochul, Cox wrestled with the decision to put her business and livelihood on hold. She took the case, convinced that the type of governmental overreach it hoped to stop would spread like “cancer” if not checked.

Getting Ahead of Hochul’s Regulation

Cox did not want to wait until the regulation went into effect and the public was injured by it, so she thought creatively about how to sue and prove the regulation was unconstitutional, she said.

Cox considers herself a Democrat but worked with Republican lawmakers because she believes government overreach is not a partisan issue.

“I’m actually a Democrat … In my mind, this is not a political thing. This is a human rights issue. This is a constitutional issue … This is about being an American, and something people have really forgotten. It’s not people’s fault. I think it’s because we just really don’t teach this in school anymore.”

She asked Senator George Borrello, Assemblyman Chris Tague, and Assemblyman Mike Lawler to join the suit. “They said, ‘Absolutely. We believe in this; we’re going to do it.’”

Ultimately, Cox proved the unconstitutionality of the quarantine camp regulation, but there were many challenges along the way.

Read more here…

via  Toby Rogers