Annette Huenke through a public records request discovered that Jefferson Healthcare’s Covid testing protocols may run samples through so many amplifications that the result may be a false positive or otherwise meaningless. We were pleased to publish the results of her inquiries, “Is Jefferson County Health Department Overstating COVID Numbers?”
Huenke has continued to try to nail down the scientific data behind claims made by the Jefferson County Health Department to determine if they are accurate and should be relied upon by policy makers and citizens. Recently, claims about the benefits of double-masking have been asserted. Huenke wanted to know what there was in the way of scientific studies and data to back those claims up. Following is her exchange on the subject with Dr. Thomas Locke, Jefferson County Health Officer.
You may ask, Where does Ms. Huenke get off investigating statements by Dr. Locke? How dare she question “the science”? Isn’t Port Townsend Free Press contributing to unscientific “pandemic denialism” by giving her a forum? After all, she is not “an expert.” Are we not just spreading “disinformation”?
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Those are the sage words of Nobel-winning physicist and philosopher of science, Richard Feynman. He was referring to “science” which determines policies through the weight of expert and political consensus. This is the stuff we get on the evening news and what is being forced upon us by Facebook’s, Twitter’s and YouTube’s–and our local newspapers’–censorship of anything that might cast doubt upon the establishment consensus, even if those doubts are raised by people who happen to be scientists and rigorously employ the scientific method in their research.
Feynman said, “Learn from science that you must doubt the experts.” We return to Feynman at the end of this article, and link one of his famous lectures on the scientific method.
Here follow Ms. Huenke’s efforts to get the empirical science on the political science of double-masking. Much more comes to light than the simple answers she sought.
From: Annette Huenke, 2/8/21, to Jefferson County Board of Health and Dr. Locke
Subject: re: this morning’s BOCC meeting.
Good afternoon, all. This morning Dr. Locke said that “there is a lot of evidence” to support double-masking.
Kindly provide that evidence in a reply to this email at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
Annette Huenke
_______________________________________________
Dr. Locke’s reply, 2/8/21:
The rationale for double masking (spun polypropylene inner mask, two layer cotton outer) is based on an enhanced mechanical filtration effect (extra layers) and an electrostatic charge being generated (triboelectric effect) by dissimilar fabrics. CDC is conducting comparative studies of masking efficacy but this will likely be confined to filtration measures. “Hard data” (epidemiological studies demonstrating decreased transmission and/or acquisition of infection) are much more difficult and raise ethical concerns (re: control groups use of substandard or no PPE). And no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic denialism and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.
Tom Locke, MD, MPH
Jefferson County Health Officer
___________________________
Huenke’s comment for 2/17 Board of County Commissioners meeting:
At last week’s BOCC meeting, Dr. Locke said that “there is a lot of evidence” to support double-masking. I wrote to ask for that evidence. I received a pdf of a 4-page paper and a brief reply that ended with “no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic denialism and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.”
For ten months now a handful of concerned citizen researchers have been highlighting bona fide studies from reputable sources to broaden the perspective of local policy makers. Those sources include the CDC, WHO and top universities and scientists around the globe. Are those premiere virologists, pathologists and epidemiologists pseudoscientists because they’ve arrived at different conclusions than Dr. Locke about the crisis that is consuming us? Are we sociopaths because we consider the research and opinions of those experts?
What Dr. Locke called “a lot of evidence” for double-masking is actually several small mechanistic experiments conducted with manikins, reported in a NIH ‘commentary’ that summarizes studies which clearly support the goals of its funders while ignoring the plethora of research that does not. It was not peer reviewed. It is data-deficient.
During a fireside chat on January 28th, Anthony Fauci said “There’s no data that indicates that that [2 masks] is going to make a difference. And that is why the CDC has not changed their recommendation.” He’d advised double-masking shortly before that, surely aware that this NIH paper was in its final stages.
In a recent interview, Dr. Michael Osterholm, a top health adviser to President Biden, warned that double-masking could be counterproductive and harmful. “If you put more of it on, all it does is it impedes the air coming through and it makes it blow in and out along the sides. The fit becomes even less effective,” he said. “Double masking could be a detriment to your protection.”
Legitimate research we’ve supplied that report known harms from masking has been categorically rejected. There has been scant attention paid to the near-universal improper use and care of masks, which has been proven to increase risk of infection. And now, based on experiments with manikins, we’re being told to wear two masks, which will further reduce our oxygen supply and increase our own carbon dioxide intake.
A true cost/benefit analysis of these extreme masking policies has not yet been conducted. Neither has the rigorous scientific research required to support them.
Annette Huenke
___________________________
Dr. Locke’s reply to Huenke’s BOCC comment, 2/17:
Ms. Huenke,
All science-based information has elements of uncertainty and is subject to challenge and, hopefully, increasing reliability. This is how the scientific method works. I agree it is wrong to pathologize dissent or to marginalize unwelcome voices. Just as there is science, which seeks to establish the true nature of things, there is also pseudoscience, which perverts that process by selectively citing supporting information while ignoring or distorting non-supporting information. It can be difficult for the general public to distinguish between the two. The COVID-19 pandemic is the worst public health crisis that the U.S. has faced in the past 100 years. It’s management has been seriously compromised by those who embraced and promoted “alternative facts” to support their views that non-pharmacological mitigations like masking, distancing, and restricted gatherings are a fundamental violation of human rights. The Great Barrington Declaration and the ongoing pseudoscientific opposition to mask use are examples of this phenomenon and pit individual liberty against public health. The CDC reliably estimates that 59% of SARS-CoV-2 infections are transmitted by asymptomatic cases (35% presymptomatic, 24% never symptomatic). Universal masking is the only viable strategy to interrupt this transmission pathway and has a growing evidentiary base. Attached are some additional links from recent CDC publications. Based on what we currently know, the refusal to wear masks in public settings at times of high COVID-19 prevalence is truly sociopathic — antisocial behavior characterized by the willful disregard of the welfare of others. It is also illegal. I do not think it is not too much to ask to prevent a potentially lethal infection in someone else.
I am sorry that you took personal offense at my statement that “no amount of data will convince people who are consumed by pandemic denialism and wish to rationalize their pseudoscientific, sociopathic beliefs.” In this statement I am referring to the well recognized phenomena of the “unpersuadable” (The Unpersuadables: Adventures with the Enemies of Science by Will Storr (goodreads.com)<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18114379-the-unpersuadables>), those who reject scientific information because it is in conflict with their fundamental, non-rational worldview. No amount of information will change the mind of someone who is unpersuadable. This worldview drives the “anti-vaxxer” movement and has been dramatically amplified by the ubiquity of social media and the ability of people to curate their own reality by selective exposure to only those facts that support their worldview. I am always happy to consider alternative views but have come to recognize the futility of arguing with those who only seek the confirmation of their own beliefs. My prime responsibility as the county health officer is to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in this community and to reduce morbidity and mortality to the greatest extent feasible. This battle is very real and we deal with individuals and families who lives are profoundly disrupted by this pandemic every day. As a nation we have paid a terrible price for pandemic denialism — a very high death rate (currently at 485,000) and a case rate (27 million) far in excess of what a country with our resources and technology could have achieved. These are not just harmless differences of opinion, they have real world consequences.
You cite Dr. Anthony Fauci, a distinguished infectious disease specialist, but you do so out of context. In other public statements he has supported masking, including improved mask design and the benefits of “double masking”. Double masking is not a panacea for the problem of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but is one more option. The takeaway from the CDC information and similar research to date is that people should use high quality masks and use them in situations where asymptomatic transmission can occur. If we fail, once again, to make reasonable personal sacrifices for the common good, it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 variants will spread faster than vaccination efforts can suppress them, necessitating renewed school and business closures.
While your comments to the Boards of Health and County Commissioners are always welcome, I am unable to continue to respond personally to your statements due to time limitations. I regard the CDC as an authoritative source of information, especially under the leadership of the Biden administration and refer you to their various websites and publications for the latest research on the topics you are interested in.
Sincerely,
Tom Locke, MD, MPH
Jefferson County Health Officer
“Science says….”
The Great Barrington Declaration that Dr. Locke dismisses as “unscientific” and “pandemic denialism” is a declaration of concern about Covid policies signed by infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists from around the world. It advocates a “focused protection” approach to those most at risk and seeks to avoid the many serious problems caused by general Covid lockdowns. Dr. Locke’s glib dismissal of this challenge to Covid policies–challenges based on these individuals’ work and learning in their fields of scientific and medical expertise–brings us back to Feynman’s definition of “science” and why we are pleased to give people like Ms. Huenke (and Dr. Rob Rennebohm, Stephen Schumacher and Ana Wolpin) a forum for their questions about prevailing Covid policies and liturgies.
In closing, here’s more from Feynman on why science is “belief in the ignorance of experts”:
Richard Feynman on Scientific Method (1964) – YouTube
Related: CDC on Maximizing Fit for Cloth and Medical Procedure Masks
CDC: The Science of Masking to Control COVID-19
[Ms. Huenke’s 2/14 response to Dr. Locke’s 2/8 letter was omitted inadvertently from the initial publication of this article]
Jim Scarantino was the editor and founder of Port Townsend Free Press. He is happy in his new role as just a contributor writing on topics of concern to him. He spent the first 25 years of his professional life as a trial attorney, then launched an online investigative news website that broke several national stories. He is also the author of three crime novels. He resides in Jefferson County. See our "About" page for more information.
“I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there.”
Richard P Feynman
It is egregious enough that Dr. Locke insults citizens who present legitimate science as delusional and sociopathic. His dismissal of more than 55,000 international medical practitioners and scientists as “pseudoscientists” for signing on to the GREAT BARRINGTON DECLARATION tells us all we need to know about our county public health director.
Here are credentials of Dr. Locke as compared to the authors of the GB declaration:
Dr. Thomas Locke—graduated from University of Kansas School of Medicine; General Practice, Public Health & General Preventive Medicine and Underseas Medicine. [from webmd.com]
Authors of the GREAT BARRINGTON DECLARATION:
Dr. Martin Kulldorff—professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
Dr. Sunetra Gupta—professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya—professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
For some of the other distinguished declaration co-signers, see https://gbdeclaration.org/
Who is the “pseudoscientist” here? That someone with the level of hubris exhibited by Dr. Locke is driving the fear and directing policies destroying our community is more than cause for alarm.
Time to read the riot act to the BOCC about their participation in the Inslee / Locke medical dictatorship. They are obviously not qualified to evaluate the alleged science used to justify the increasingly absurd and dangerous recommendations from public health officials.
I’m working on a short list of human rights abuses that have happened on their watch. The purpose is to remind them that it’s just a matter of time before the inhabitants of Leader-land are forced to comprehend the scope of COVID-19 malfeasance including: the misleading PCR test results, suppression of information about inexpensive generic drug options for early treatment and the fact that a person becomes a test subject in a medical experiment when they receive the experimental injectable / “vaccine”.
Does anyone need a reminder to review the Nuremberg code before threatening mandatory experimental injections?
An increase bacterial pneumonia could result from a double mask mandate. Is this pre-meditated murder or just ignorance? If the purpose of a mask is to stop secretions from escaping, then the general population should not have to deal with anything more restrictive than a Level 1 surgical mask.
The best option may be to dissolve the Board of Health and as much of the county public health bureaucracy as possible. Let the Inslee dictatorship take responsibility for their illegal mandates. Most residents will not miss projects like the JeffCo Climate Change or Systemic Racism Public Health Emergencies.
I find Dr.Locke’s response laughable. Mechanistic and computer modeling studies as well as ‘CDC estimates’ of anything are the ultimate in “curating his own reality”. Ignoring the lack of “hard data” studies is ridiculous. (Where were the ethical concerns for any double-blind study ever done? How was the vaccine tested?) “Hard Data” is how you find out if your theories and soft data are wishful thinking – or worse – are causing harm. I see people every day pulling masks up and down with their hands then handling everything from produce to money. The “hard data” studies done that I’ve been able to find and read (on flu viruses) do not support masking effectiveness. In addition, the empirical evidence does not show any support for the idea that mask mandates (or lockdowns) decrease transmission.
Calling The Great Barrington Declaration “pseudoscientific” is a great example of “ignoring or distorting non-supporting information.” Associating concerned citizens asking fair questions with “Anti-vaxxers” is a rhetorical device better suited to corrupt politicians than doctors and scientists.
Stating “I regard the CDC as an authoritative source of information, especially under the leadership of the Biden administration…” does not instill any confidence in me that the CDC is a non-political science-based organization, or that Dr. Locke is a non-political scientist. I remain very skeptical of any government bureaucratic organization reporting on this subject.
As of 2/23/2021 the US has 515,439 reported COVID deaths, China has 4,636. Who is lying or distorting? Perhaps both?
I am writing today to express, once again, my gratitude for PTFP. This platform is effectively serving as an important vehicle for the cultivation and support of the citizens in our community who are determined to speak with intelligence and coherence. These voices are strongly needed in the discussion of these current Covid concerns and other pertinent issues. Their dedication to the exploration, investigation and sharing of facts in these muddy waters of misinformation is appreciated.
Here’s my public comment to the Feb. 16 County Commisioner meeting on double-masking:
At last Monday’s County Commissioner meeting, Dr. Locke called face shields “virtually worthless”. Yet his recent calls for double masking imply that face masks are similarly ineffective, per new media messaging that “a single-layer mask isn’t really effective in blocking aerosols”. So he advocates wearing an outer cloth mask to reduce leakage around an inner surgical mask, which OSHA says is “not designed to seal tightly against the user’s face”.
But this hardly helps because the 600-times-larger pore areas in cloth masks are an open door for viruses, as proven by vape cloud experiments showing 10-times-larger vape particles passing freely through and around all kinds of masks. It’s absurd to mandate face masks while discouraging face shields, since both are good for blocking viruses in spit but not much else.
WHO’s new Dec. 1 guidance concluded there is no solid “scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses”. And New England Journal of Medicine’s Dec. 17 study found marine “recruits consistently wore double layered masks yet there was still spread in the most heavily monitored-for-compliance … military environments”.
The new calls for double masks are tacit admissions that single masks don’t protect from viruses and should never have been mandated. Multiple masks don’t work either, and the more masks, the more oxygen restriction, the more chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other dangers. See my PortTownendFreePress.com mask article for further discussion and references.
Last week I heard a Commissioner say health issues are “out of our wheelhouse”, but as Board of Health members your job is to independently judge health information with an open mind and not blindly follow pied pipers. Thanks for your hardworking efforts on our county’s behalf.
I walked around Port Townsend today noting people wearing 2 masks. So good to read information from people willing to consider all sources of information. Common sense observation is that a “virus” with a 99.+ full recovery rate does not warrant the extreme measures being taken. More people have died in car accidents in Jefferson County during the Covid “pandemic” than have died from “Covid.” Yet no one is insisting that we all drive at 5 miles an hour. Kudos for the efforts being made that shines through the PT Free Press articles and comments.