LETTER: Mask policies are not about the science

To the editor:

Why is anyplace still requiring masks?

Studies that show facemasks are effective have one or more of four flaws:

• They only look at N95 or better, not surgical or cloth.

• They look at clinical, not community settings.

• They don’t look at wearing them for hours at a time.

• They’re so badly designed any data accumulated by them is suspect.

Studies that are free of these flaws consistently come to one of two conclusions: Facemasks make no statistical difference, and facemasks increase infections.

Dr. Jeremey Henrichs, a physician for the University of Illinois Athletic Department, is not the only physician in America to oppose mask mandates enacted by (not medically licensed) state governors, but he is one of the few to also be a “public official” due to being an elected member of the Mahomet-Seymour school board.

The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation took issue with his stance, demanding in an Aug. 11 letter that he provide a “detailed statement on your opinion about masks, and whether you support and will enforce a mask mandate based on your elected position as a school board member,” warning that his actions fell under the unprofessional-conduct part of the Medical Practice Act.

“I have considered authoritative medical evidence that questions the necessity of mandatory masking in our schools. As a result, the IDPFR has threatened my medical licensure unless I expressly support and enforce a mask mandate for all students. The IDPFR had commanded me to ‘toe the line’ or suffer personal and professional consequences,” Henrichs said in a statement.

The IDPFR backed down after Henrichs’ lawyer pointed out that threatening his medical license could be considered as an attempt to “coerce or intimidate a public official in the performance of his public duties,” which is a violation of Illinois State Law.

Get this straight: he was able to express his educated, professional opinion about facemask usage not because he was a licensed medical doctor, but because he was an elected official.

Doctors without the protection of a political hat to wear along with their cadeuceus are under the thumb of their professional boards, some of whom threated with the vaguely-defined “misinformation” (like Federation of State Medical Boards) and others (like Canada’s College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) prohibit comments that counter the official narrative, specifically including “anti-masking” statements.

Does this sound like “settled science,” or science silenced?

Wendy Goerl, Shawano