Charlie Gallagher: Counter, if you can, Rancourt's opinions with scientific response

To The Daily Sun,

I submitted a letter about the evidence against the prophylactic effect of masks to this publication several days ago. The letter included reference to an article written by Denis Rancourt, which cited seven studies on the efficacy of medical and N-95 masks for preventing transmission of respiratory viruses. That article and its appended studies showed ineffectiveness. I invited counter research that would disprove Rancourt’s assertion that science shows masks to be ineffective.

My letter drew three counter letters that did not challenge studies Rancourt included in his piece. Instead, the writers resorted to ad hominem attacks on Rancourt. One letter, without submitting one scientific example of counter research launched into an exhaustive recitation of the virtuous background of Dr. Anthony Fauci head of NIH. A Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Fauci is not in any way a refutation of scientific findings. Further, a review of Fauci’s record of prediction regarding the course of Covid 19 is not enviable. He has made numerous contrary statements related to the disease. Masks should only be worn by medical professionals, to, everyone should wear masks. The disease will kill 2.4-million Americans (he relied on a now discredited British study for that one) to a greatly reduced number around 200k. Those are just two examples of his errors.

Then there is the writer who attacked Rancourt personally for believing that Covid-19 is a biological weapon. I will await the actual science on that, but I note once again, that writer did not challenge the seven papers Rancourt cited in his article questioning the protective usefulness of masks. Once again ad hominem attack is not scientific refutation.

Finally, one critic did at least attempt to counter the cited science, although with no specific reference to particular data or treatise, rather he relied on “recommendations from the government” to refute Rancourt, before he fell into the now familiar character assassination polemic. I wonder if that is the same government that told us breathlessly 12 weeks ago we had to shutter the economy for two weeks in order to “bend the curve down?”

My original letter invited counter scientific response, to which we got precious little in the way of new data or analysis. Instead, we received invective. Socrates sagely observed that “When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.”

Charlie Gallagher

Gilford