COVID vaccines, PCR test swabs and masks all fail to rise to general and specific standards that the US Congress and OSHA have had in place for decades.
Dec 19, 2021·edited Dec 19, 2021Liked by Dr. Colleen Huber
ColleenHuberNMD, there are two other highly significant points to make about face coverings. First, if the face covering is not designed, tested, manufactured, packaged, as per OSHA standards, and if the user insert and labeling are not to OSHA standfards, then, these coverings are NOT personal protective equipment. As such, the vast majority of face coverings available to the general public can NOT be required, although these may be permitted, in the workplace. Where you have customers and clients, you likely have a workplace, and those individuals are guests who are also governed by the distinction between required and permitted devices. Even where permitted, the employer, or host, has duties and obligations such as providing the upside and the downside of using face coverings and other devices.
Second point is that the principle of reasonable precaution applies and this entails several important and practical ideas. It is wrong to introduce an unnecessary risk even when mitigating an identified hazard. The mitigations must match the hazard. The hazard must be identified and the correct PPE identified for the match-making to be lawful. When reasonable precaution is invoked, it is a fact claim and as such is subject to fact-finding. If a hazard is not detected, such as a virus, then it has not been measured; however, if the hazard is likely, then, reasonable precautions can be taken to match that likelihood and that hazard. Ordinary human breathing and ordinary human interactions are NOT hazards introduced into the workplace, obviously. The face coverings are supposedly to prevent spred by droplets and yet that is not effective in preventing viral spread. But it is necessary to assess the likelihood of the hazard of viral spread. If the workplace has active screening, then, the supposed hazard would be infectious breathing from someone with no symptoms and no detected infection. Asymptomatic spread of C19 is negligble to nonexistent, WHICH MEANS IT IS UNLIKELY. Also, even if the requirement shifted from permitting face coverings that are not PPE to respirators that are deemed to be PPE under OSHA standards, the PPE must match ther hazard. Use of mismatched PPE can not be required in the workplace. Introducing unnecessary risk with the use of a device is unnacceptable regardless of the status of the device as either permitted or required; the communication of this important warning is the duty and obligation of the employer/host in the workplace.
Now, when it comes to C19, the hazard is not ordianry human breathing nor droplets but infectious virons that can survive the journey from source to recipient, according to the notion that the purpose of face coverings is to protect the other person, rather than the wearer. The active screening for symptoms and infection is the correct 'filter' and even full status PPE is not considered the first line of defence of health and safety in the workplace. In addition to prevention, the structural and engineered solutions are more significant - such as sufficient ventilation and even the use of ultra-violet santization in air ducts and such. If the C19 hazard of asymptomatic spread could be reduced from its already vanishingly low risk, then, perhaps the cost of improved ventialation and santitation might be justified. Most workplaces take the route of required non-PPE face devices which do not even make it into the Hierarchy of Safety Controls in the first place.
And for most workplaces, which are not medical services or health care settings, it is not lawful to require medical devices be worn. As you pointed out, medical treatments can not be coerced. When a threat is issued, such as loss of service or loss of work/income, then, this poisons the opportunity for informed consent. Hence the points about permitted vs required and the duty and obligation of the employer/host to provide the match between protective measures/devices and the actual hazard - detected or imagined based on likelihood. Hence the points about not introducing unnecessary risks. It comes down to voluntary rather than mandated behaviors. The workplace must advocate for health and safety of employees and guests and do so first and foremost rather than as a weakened afterthought of advocating a political agenda instead.
Upshot is that there is no lawful way to require an individual to use non-PPE nor to use PPE that does not match the identified hazard. No health inspector can lawfully order an employer nor an employee to mandate such uses in the workplace. If an investigator were to attempt to make such orders, then, his claim of reasonable precation must be subjected to fact-finding and the inspector, in perfomring his jobs which includes advocacy of health and safety, must already be prepared with those facts. Each presentation of facts is subject to the testing principle of sufficient or insufficient evidence to reach the conclusion asserted that would support or define the claimed reasonable precaution. If the inspector is incapable of presenting these facts and reasoning, then, the inspector acts unlawfully and should be shown the exit door and ordered to not return without the necessary evidence and reasoning that would be sufficient to support the claim/s. Pointing to the sayso of some other sosayer is insufficient. The evidence and its quality are paramount and therefore the inspector must be prepared before attempting to issue an order. To issue an unsubstantiated order, to do so on empty assertion, is a form of harrassment and can be penalized according to the law.
Thank you, ColleenHuberNMD, for your substack and your attention to the OSHA standards.
Another learned and helpful article. Your curve of knowledge has not been flattened by the scam-measures.
Excellent, thank you.
ColleenHuberNMD, there are two other highly significant points to make about face coverings. First, if the face covering is not designed, tested, manufactured, packaged, as per OSHA standards, and if the user insert and labeling are not to OSHA standfards, then, these coverings are NOT personal protective equipment. As such, the vast majority of face coverings available to the general public can NOT be required, although these may be permitted, in the workplace. Where you have customers and clients, you likely have a workplace, and those individuals are guests who are also governed by the distinction between required and permitted devices. Even where permitted, the employer, or host, has duties and obligations such as providing the upside and the downside of using face coverings and other devices.
Second point is that the principle of reasonable precaution applies and this entails several important and practical ideas. It is wrong to introduce an unnecessary risk even when mitigating an identified hazard. The mitigations must match the hazard. The hazard must be identified and the correct PPE identified for the match-making to be lawful. When reasonable precaution is invoked, it is a fact claim and as such is subject to fact-finding. If a hazard is not detected, such as a virus, then it has not been measured; however, if the hazard is likely, then, reasonable precautions can be taken to match that likelihood and that hazard. Ordinary human breathing and ordinary human interactions are NOT hazards introduced into the workplace, obviously. The face coverings are supposedly to prevent spred by droplets and yet that is not effective in preventing viral spread. But it is necessary to assess the likelihood of the hazard of viral spread. If the workplace has active screening, then, the supposed hazard would be infectious breathing from someone with no symptoms and no detected infection. Asymptomatic spread of C19 is negligble to nonexistent, WHICH MEANS IT IS UNLIKELY. Also, even if the requirement shifted from permitting face coverings that are not PPE to respirators that are deemed to be PPE under OSHA standards, the PPE must match ther hazard. Use of mismatched PPE can not be required in the workplace. Introducing unnecessary risk with the use of a device is unnacceptable regardless of the status of the device as either permitted or required; the communication of this important warning is the duty and obligation of the employer/host in the workplace.
Now, when it comes to C19, the hazard is not ordianry human breathing nor droplets but infectious virons that can survive the journey from source to recipient, according to the notion that the purpose of face coverings is to protect the other person, rather than the wearer. The active screening for symptoms and infection is the correct 'filter' and even full status PPE is not considered the first line of defence of health and safety in the workplace. In addition to prevention, the structural and engineered solutions are more significant - such as sufficient ventilation and even the use of ultra-violet santization in air ducts and such. If the C19 hazard of asymptomatic spread could be reduced from its already vanishingly low risk, then, perhaps the cost of improved ventialation and santitation might be justified. Most workplaces take the route of required non-PPE face devices which do not even make it into the Hierarchy of Safety Controls in the first place.
And for most workplaces, which are not medical services or health care settings, it is not lawful to require medical devices be worn. As you pointed out, medical treatments can not be coerced. When a threat is issued, such as loss of service or loss of work/income, then, this poisons the opportunity for informed consent. Hence the points about permitted vs required and the duty and obligation of the employer/host to provide the match between protective measures/devices and the actual hazard - detected or imagined based on likelihood. Hence the points about not introducing unnecessary risks. It comes down to voluntary rather than mandated behaviors. The workplace must advocate for health and safety of employees and guests and do so first and foremost rather than as a weakened afterthought of advocating a political agenda instead.
Upshot is that there is no lawful way to require an individual to use non-PPE nor to use PPE that does not match the identified hazard. No health inspector can lawfully order an employer nor an employee to mandate such uses in the workplace. If an investigator were to attempt to make such orders, then, his claim of reasonable precation must be subjected to fact-finding and the inspector, in perfomring his jobs which includes advocacy of health and safety, must already be prepared with those facts. Each presentation of facts is subject to the testing principle of sufficient or insufficient evidence to reach the conclusion asserted that would support or define the claimed reasonable precaution. If the inspector is incapable of presenting these facts and reasoning, then, the inspector acts unlawfully and should be shown the exit door and ordered to not return without the necessary evidence and reasoning that would be sufficient to support the claim/s. Pointing to the sayso of some other sosayer is insufficient. The evidence and its quality are paramount and therefore the inspector must be prepared before attempting to issue an order. To issue an unsubstantiated order, to do so on empty assertion, is a form of harrassment and can be penalized according to the law.
Thank you, ColleenHuberNMD, for your substack and your attention to the OSHA standards.
You'll probably need a lawyer. If you create a legal fund, please let us know.
Thank you
I first heard Robert Barnes discuss the rise and fall of the OSHA mandates. Also truly appreciate your insight here. Thank you.
Thank you for the clarity and ease of understanding that is offered through this article.