Changing Their Tune - But Why?

It is a known fact that one must not only listen to what is said, but also to what is not said. Fact-finding depends on doing both well.

Earlier this year, an article came out stating that the wearing of masks does not offer protection from infection. From the article:
"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic."

Just recently, the three doctors tried to put a spin on their statements:

"TO THE EDITOR:

We understand that some people are citing our Perspective article (published on April 1 at NEJM.org)1 as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less. It is apparent that many people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are asymptomatic or presymptomatic yet highly contagious and that these people account for a substantial fraction of all transmissions. Universal masking helps to prevent such people from spreading virus-laden secretions, whether they recognize that they are infected or not."

Let's break this down.

From the first article:

"The extent of marginal benefit of universal masking over and above these foundational measures is debatable."

"There may be additional benefits to broad masking policies that extend beyond their technical contribution to reducing pathogen transmission. Masks are visible reminders of an otherwise invisible yet widely prevalent pathogen and may remind people of the importance of social distancing and other infection-control measures."

"It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19. The potential value of universal masking in giving health care workers the confidence to absorb and implement the more foundational infection-prevention practices described above may be its greatest contribution."

Based on these statements. 

Based on the fact that the only studies cited in the second article were all performed in clinical environments (which is directly in contrast to the gist of the first article). 

Based on growing evidence that many doctors and nurses are being threatened with their licenses or being fired if they do not propagate The Narrative ©

Based on what was not said - namely, the Doctors who "recanted" did not mention in the second article the fact that they advocated for more mask use for the simple purpose of "symbolic roles" in the first article. 

That last part is the most damning. 

I think they were right in their initial assessment. I think they are trying to "recant" so as to maintain their jobs or licensing. And I think the entire second article is bunk, and they don't believe it - because it contradicts the first article. A true scientist would say something along the lines of "when this article was written, it drew certain conclusions based on evidence available at the time. Now, with the introduction of new evidence, the former conclusion must be revisited." 

It's almost as if I have written scientific articles, quoting reviewed source articles. (I have)

And it's almost as if I have a degree in science and experience seeing these things. (I have)