Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Manuel's avatar

John. I am curious about your numbers regarding the masks. You compare a virion (150 nm) with a ping pong ball (40 mm), so roughly 266,000 times bigger. In order for the fibers to be one mile apart, it would mean that they are separated around 6 mm. That doesn't sound right.

I don't think masks work. But you might want to revise your numbers. Also, this proves that working with very big or very small numbers is difficult.

I personally use the analogy of trying to capture sand with a tennis racket. You can get a few grains, but most of the sand will simply go away.

I believe it is more accurate and it is also easier to understand for everybody.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith's avatar

Great article once again you Barsoom war hero!

It is encouraging that 'ordinary' people are doing their own research. As you say, and well know, we need to be alert to the fact that most studies these days come predetermined with certain agendas to maintain or attract funding for more of the same. In the fantastically subjective world of the 'social sciences' this is ubiquitous, and of course in biology the biases and straight up propaganda are there too. Not sure about the hard sciences but I guess there's a bit of the same going on.

I spoke in 2020 with some German scientists in immunology and virology who had a paper pulled from a high-end journal with little good reason - they were, of course, debunking some propaganda about the immune system and gene therapy - When I asked them for the reason why their paper was retracted from the journal they said it was political, nothing to do with their results or the robustness of their study. They had been in the game for many years and had not encountered anything like this before (which seems surprising now). So when we do our research and use libraries such as PubMed we have to know that these journals are thoroughly curated, not just for good scientific method and significance, but for being on the right side of the narrative. I've been on a peer-review panel - if it doesn't fit the reviewers (or the chief editor's) paradigm the authors are told to go back and try again or it simply doesn't go through. It then takes more detective work to find the smaller parties doing honest work, probably not getting published by top-tier journals but can be found on Researchgate or their own relatively ignored blog. Consensus by the 'experts' or being published in Nature doesn't mean it's the truth, yet the majority of the population would say it does.

Expand full comment
41 more comments...

No posts