Vert the ferk???
Scientific American, which dates to 1845 and touts itself as “the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States,” recently ran an article arguing that scientists should prioritize “reality” over scientific “rigor.” What would make a publication with a name like this one set empirical evidence at odds with reality? Masks, of course.
Full article, HERE from the City Journal.
This…is just patently ridiculous, to put it mildly. Especially in the light of what ‘else’ it going on with the so called ‘scientific rigor’ these days…
We have seen the so called climate experts (many of whom have nothing to do with actual climate studies) ‘modify’ actual climate records to ‘fit’ their models that show the predictions they are pushing (hockey stick anyone).
Borepatch (HERE) has been covering this for years, as have many others. I have worked with actual climatologists and have seen what happens when they don’t ‘toe the corporate line’, including being disinvited from major world conferences, haveing abstracts and papers pulled from publications, and being removed from conference programs.
Re the article, I was in to see the dentist to get the old fangs scraped earlier in the week, and we discussed the increases seen in dental ‘issues’ caused by excessive/long term mask wearing, especially in younger children, who’s teeth were still developing. This was even covered by an NIH article on ‘Mask Mouth Syndrome’, HERE.
Funny how that is never mentioned isn’t it…
It’s becoming more and more apparent, at least to this old fart, that we are responsible for our own research and using that to make decisions rather than relying on the so called ‘prestigious’ scientific journals.