Levana Lomma 0

Repeal Mask Rule in Hawaii Charter Schools

388 people have signed this petition. Add your name now!
Levana Lomma 0 Comments
388 people have signed. Add your voice!
Maxine K. signed just now
Adam B. signed just now

We the undersigned do hereby support the following petition and request a hearing to repeal the rule on mask wearing by children attending public charter schools in Hawaii.

Levana Lomma

CEO, For Our Rights

A Non-Profit Civil Rights Organization

P.O. Box 1633 Kapa’a, Hi. 96746


To: Public Charter School Commission, State of Hawai’i

ATTN: Commission Chairperson

1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1100 Honolulu, HI 96813

SUBJECT: Petition to repeal rules promulgated in relation to HIDOE Covid-19 Guidelines for Schools SY 2021-22

Pursuant to §8-503-5 of the Hawai’i Administrative Rules, as a concerned parent of a student learner enrolled in a Hawai’i Public Charter school, and as an agency that advocates for human rights, I hereby petition the commission to repeal all rules related to mandatory mask wearing of students in all public charter schools, for violations to student’s civil liberties in the absence of a compelling interest for such deprivation of rights. Additionally, there is significant scientific and statistical data confirming that such practices carry far more risks than benefits, making this ritualistic practice a form of child abuse and a violation to the children’s constitutionally protected rights.

The specific rule to be repealed is the adoption of the State of Hawai'i, Department of Health Disease Outbreak Control Division COVID-19 Guidance for Schools, which is being used to implement, interpret or prescribe law, policy, organization, procedure, or practice requirements of the commission. Within this Guidance for Schools it is declared that “[c]orrect and consistent mask use is a core essential strategy to help prevent and slow the spread of COVID-19 in schools and the community. When people wear a mask correctly and consistently, they protect others as well as themselves.

• Indoor settings

o Masks must always be worn correctly and consistently by all students and staff when indoors.

o The only exception is for eating and drinking”

Petitioner argues that there is no evidence to suggest that consistent mask wearing has done anything to slow the spread of COVID-19, it bears no relevance on the mortality rate among school aged children, nor is there any scientific proof to suggest that mask wearing protects the child and/or others.

It has become known that the regular use of any type of face mask by healthy individuals carries significant risk of harm to the wearer not just physically, but emotionally and psychologically as well. To deprive a child of oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal.

Oxygen deficiency inhibits brain development and the damage that has taken place as a result CANNOT be reversed. Children need the brain to learn, and the brain needs oxygen to function. We don’t need a clinical study for that. This is simple, indisputable physiology.

We also know that exposure to high levels of carbon dioxide is a dangerous situation that can lead to serious health risks, putting our children in danger, while also limiting their ability to perform their best in school.

According to a study published in JAMA Pediatrics in June of 2021 scientists determined that “there was ample evidence for adverse effects of wearing such masks” and that based on the findings of this study “children should not be forced to wear face masks.” The study is entitled Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children and it reads:

“Many governments have made nose and mouth covering or face masks compulsory for schoolchildren. The evidence base for this is weak. The question whether nose and mouth covering increases carbon dioxide in inhaled air is crucial. A large-scale survey in Germany of adverse effects in parents and children using data of 25,930 children has shown that 68% of the participating children had problems when wearing nose and mouth coverings.

The normal content of carbon dioxide in the open is about 0.04% by volume (ie, 400 ppm). A level of 0.2% by volume or 2000 ppm is the limit for closed rooms according to the German Federal Environmental Office, and everything beyond this level is unacceptable.”

“Most of the complaints reported by children can be understood as consequences of elevated carbon dioxide levels in inhaled air. This is because of the dead-space volume of the masks, which collects exhaled carbon dioxide quickly after a short time. This carbon dioxide mixes with fresh air and elevates the carbon dioxide content of inhaled air under the mask, and this was more pronounced in this study for younger children. This leads in turn to impairments attributable to hypercapnia.”

An investigation into the possible risks associated with mask wearing was conducted by a team of doctors in Germany and their findings concluded that “the advocacy of an extended mask requirement remains predominantly theoretical” and they were “able to demonstrate a statistically significant correlation of the observed adverse effect of hypoxia and the symptom of fatigue with p < 0.05 in the quantitative evaluation of the primary studies.” The article goes on to state:

“Extended mask-wearing would have the potential, according to the facts and correlations we have found, to cause a chronic sympathetic stress response induced by blood gas modifications and controlled by brain centers. This in turn induces and triggers immune suppression and metabolic syndrome with cardiovascular and neurological diseases.”

There is no immediate threat of severe COVID-19 in the majority of children and adolescents. The survival rate for this age group is 99.9% putting children at ZERO percent statistical chance of dying from COVID-19. It has also been scientifically confirmed that children are not significant vectors for transmission of COVID-19.

It is quite clear that we are placing our children in great danger with continued mask mandates and it is the responsibility of those implementing such policies to conduct a risk/benefit analysis to ensure the health and safety of the students whom their policies affect.

Although scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. It has been hypothesized that facemasks have a compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use.

A group of parents in Gainesville, FL, concerned about potential harms from masks, submitted six face masks to a lab for analysis. The resulting report found that five masks were contaminated with bacteria, parasites, and fungi, including three with dangerous pathogenic and pneumonia-causing bacteria. No viruses were detected on the masks, although the test is capable of detecting viruses.

The analysis detected the following 11 alarmingly dangerous pathogens on the masks:

• Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonia)

• Mycobacterium tuberculosis (tuberculosis)

• Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis, sepsis)

• Acanthamoeba polyphaga (keratitis and granulomatous amebic encephalitis)

• Acinetobacter baumanni (pneumonia, bloodstream infections, meningitis, UTIs— resistant to antibiotics)

• Escherichia coli (food poisoning)

• Borrelia burgdorferi (causes Lyme disease)

• Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria)

• Legionella pneumophila (Legionnaires' disease)

• Staphylococcus pyogenes serotype M3 (severe infections—high morbidity rates)

• Staphylococcus aureus (meningitis, sepsis)

Half of the masks were contaminated with one or more strains of pneumonia-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with one or more strains of meningitis-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens. In addition, less dangerous pathogens were identified, including pathogens that can cause fever, ulcers, acne, yeast infections, strep throat, periodontal disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and more.

It has been known for a number of years that surgical masks and cloth masks are incapable of preventing the escape of aerosols and that their use cannot be found to reduce the spread of any influenza like illness. There are numerous studies to support this claim.

  1. A May 2020 meta-study on pandemic influenza published by the CDC found that face masks had no effect, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.
  2. A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020, found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting.
  3. A large randomized controlled trial with close to 8000 participants, published in October 2020 in PLOS One, found that face masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.”
  4. A February 2021 review by the European CDC found no high-quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of non-medical and medical face masks in the community. Furthermore, the European CDC advised against the use of FFP2/N95 masks by the general public.
  5. A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks against virus infection or transmission.
  6. A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers.
  7. An April 2020 review by two US professors in respiratory and infectious disease from the University of Illinois concluded that face masks have no effect in everyday life, neither as self-protection nor to protect third parties (so-called source control).
  8. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from May 2020 came to the conclusion that face masks offer little to no protection in everyday life.
  9. A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use.
  10. An August 2020 review by a German professor in virology, epidemiology and hygiene found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks and that the improper daily use of masks by the public may in fact lead to an increase in infections.

Forced masking is not only detrimental to the health and safety of my child, it also violates her first amendment rights by infringing upon free speech and expression while also violating religious rights in that it forces the adoption of a cult-like ritual. Removing a child’s ability to interact with other children and teachers through facial expression while also violating their rights to bodily integrity are unconstitutional acts that are prohibited under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

I have clearly stated the concise nature of my interests in the subject matter, provided valid corresponding reasons for seeking a repeal to rules on face masks along with the facts, views, arguments and data deemed relevant. Having fulfilled all requirements, I hereby request this petition be added to the docket to become a matter of public record to initiate public rulemaking proceedings as set forth in sections 8-503-1 to 8-503-4 of the Administrative Rules.

Every statement contained in this instrument is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and it is submitted for the purposes of initiating rulemaking proceedings in the interest of the public.



Levana Lomma

Share for Success