The Sara Cody deposition transcripts

Source:

Sara Cody is the public health officer for Santa Clara County. She doesn't know the size of SARS-CoV-2 particle. She believes masks work because she misinterpreted the Bangladesh mask study.

Steve Kirsch

Sep 21

Santa Clara County could have dropped their lawsuit against Calvary Chapel and the embarrassing deposition of their public health officer would have been confidential. But they didn’t. So now it’s part of court filing and is public record. You now get to see the whole deposition for the first time. It shows clearly that she relied on a study showing masks are ineffective for her mask mandate.

Executive Summary

Santa Clara County wants Calvary Chapel to pay $3M to the County because the church didn’t require masks like Sara Cody ordered.

The lawsuit was the first opportunity to question a public health official and actually force them to answer the questions.

We finally learn in the deposition that Sara Cody’s mask mandate was based on the Bangladesh mask study. However, it is obvious to any thinking person that the study actually proved that the “benefit” of wearing a mask was too tiny to measure (i.e., zero).

Furthermore, when Science was formally asked to retract the study, they refused to acknowledge the request showing the journals are compromised as well. However, it is clear from the data collected in the study that masks do nothing.

Santa Clara County should never have required anyone to adopt a completely useless masking policy.

However, that won’t stop the lawsuit. They have their pride at stake. They want to show businesses that they can make ridiculous demands of people for no benefit, and then extract millions of dollars for non-compliance with nonsensical health directives.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Here are the depositions

Mariah Gondeiro, Esq. CA Bar No. 323683 deposed Sara Cody. Here are the depositions and key parts are highlighted in yellow. Happy reading.

1. Notice of Depo

2. Sara H. Cody, M.D. (part 1, part 2)

3. Sarah Rudman, M.D.

You can find the Bangladesh study on page 73 of Part 1 and also she admits that she believed the study showed masks worked.

The problem: that study showed no such thing.

Now that we know this, she will be skewered in court over this.

Basically, the County Health Officer completely misinterprets a study showing masks don’t work as the basis for her County-wide mandate. And then they go after the Church for $3M for non-compliance of a ridiculous mandate.

Here is the graph for purple clot masks vs. controls. See any difference? There isn’t one. If masks worked, there would be a difference.

Purple cloth masks vs. Controls in the Bangladesh study. Does this look like masks made a difference? Of course not!

For further reading

You can watch the video of the first author of the paper being unable to defend the paper’s conclusion. You can watch the 2-hour video here or if you are short on time, just read all the comments.

You can also watch a video of an independent expert on statistics explaining the study. Watch my interview with Mike.

Or read about the retraction requested by UK Professor Norman Fenton.

Summary

Why is Santa Clara County pursuing a lawsuit against a Church for violating a health order that is based on a scientific study which actually proved that masks did not make any measurable difference whatsoever. That’s what I’d like to know.

Just because Sara Cody thinks masks work is not a good basis for public policy. She should apologize to the public for her error. If she doesn’t, she should be fired.

This whole situation could have been avoided if public officials were forced to attend an open forum where they can be challenged by qualified experts who disagree with the officials. Does that exist anywhere? How would that result in worse outcomes?