Scientific American Gets It Wrong

Years ago I was a devoted subscriber to Scientific American, an excellent magazine that delved into science of all kinds and made it understandable to the average person. However, in the 1990’s the publication became less about actual science and more about political correctness. These days it seems about the only relation to science it has these days is the word ‘science’ in its name. Lysenkoism and ‘woke’ that has replaced the science that was the raison d'être of the magazine.

How bad has the decline of a once great publication become?

This bad: It accepted and published an article that dismisses scientific rigor, specifically when it comes to the efficacy of face masks in preventing the spread of diseases like Covid.

In response, [Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor of the history of science] claimed that “[t]he Cochrane finding was not that masking didn’t work but that scientists lacked sufficient evidence of sufficient quality to conclude that they worked.” She continues, “Jefferson erased that distinction, in effect arguing that because the authors couldn’t prove that masks did work, one could say that they didn’t work. That’s just wrong.” But Jefferson didn’t simply say that masks don’t work; he said there’s “no evidence” they work. The burden of proof should be on the side of those advocating a medical intervention. Without remotely having met that burden, Oreskes asserts that masks do work. Cochrane, she writes, “gave the false impression that masking didn’t help.”

In fact, 16 RCTs have tested whether masks effectively reduce the spread of viruses. Not one has found compelling evidence that they do. Two have found statistically significant evidence that masks are counterproductive—that they increase the spread of viruses—probably because masks are frequently moist or dirty, and people often touch them. As for non-RCT evidence, check out this chart by Ian Miller, which shows that mask-mandate and mask-free states registered almost identical Covid-19 case rates.

Surgical masks were designed to protect patients from having open wounds infected by medical personnel, not to prevent the spread of viruses. N95 masks were designed to protect workers from breathing in fumes, smoke, or dust. When N95s were worn in hospitals pre-Covid, it was usually to protect against the spread of tuberculosis bacteria, not to stop the spread of viruses. As an article on the National Institutes of Health website puts it, “Viruses are tiny. . . . Billions can fit on the head of a pin.” Bacteria are huge by comparison: “Bacteria are 10 to 100 times larger than viruses.” Trying to block a virus with a mask is like trying to keep mosquitos out of your yard with a chain-link fence.

Many of the health professionals I know, including my ex-wife, told me over and over again that the disposable ‘procedure masks’ were not effective, particularly against viruses. They were never made to do that. They were made to be used for the duration of a procedure – generally 20 to 30 minutes – and then disposed of. However, during the height of the Covid panic, people would wear these masks for hours, some times for day after day before replacing them. Respiratory illnesses other than Covid became rampant. Yet without one jot of evidence that masks work against Covid, mask mandates were issued. I have to think it was more of some kind of “We’re all in this together” move by the local, state, and federal governments even though masks wouldn’t make a difference.

All the ‘experts’ said masks, social distancing, and hand washing were the only way to prevent the spread. They were right on two out of three. (Don’t even get me started on the experimental mRNA vaccines that were less effective than claimed, not to mention the side effects which seem to be worse than the disease they were supposed to protect against.)

And so it goes.