Recently, I was called a “non-scientist” because I had the temerity to challenge the CDC’s latest mask study. I had to laugh, since critical thinking is not exclusive to any professional class. One of my first courses in college involved identifying logical fallacies in experimental design, and hence in any resulting “scientific” conclusions.

The idea that “the science is settled” is patently non-scientific. Science advances by robust public debate and by the falsification of hypotheses. In today’s polarized and fear-ridden atmosphere, truth is too often sacrificed on the altar of moral righteousness and political expediency.

It turns out that many so-called scientific studies — and the entire scientific publishing “industry” itself — are deeply flawed. Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said this:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.”

Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the prestigious U.K. medical journal The Lancet, agreed, admitting “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

Given such confessions, shouldn’t we be treating every new study and mandate with vigorous skepticism, especially if it contradicts decades of prior science (e.g., that masking healthy people doesn’t work)?

Another example: on June 4, 2020, The Lancet had to retract a “major study” concluding that hydroxychloroquine had no benefit for treating COVID, despite widespread reports of its effectiveness. The study’s database turned out to be fake; the primary author turned out to work for a hospital conducting trials of Gilead’s Remdesivir. But The New York Times had already broadcast the “facts,” and no buried retraction could unweave the deception spell.

I can cite dozens more examples of COVID-era political and scientific bias and fraud, some of which has resulted in the needless loss of tens, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of lives. However, I would not expect anyone to reach the same conclusions without undertaking their own research odyssey.

Are there pandemic proponents here willing to challenge their own confirmation biases long enough to objectively consider the vast body of censored information produced by “real scientists” — immunologists, virologists, practicing MDs, and many others? If so, I offer my eBook (containing over 600 references) free as a potential starting point: http://tiny.cc/PandemicEbook.

I also encourage everyone to watch this former Pfizer scientist’s urgent plea: https://bit.ly/336CXe5.

The life you save could be your own.

JOHN-MICHAEL DUMAIS

Keene