New York Times Pressured Scientists To Lie About Masks

The science is clear: masks don't work. It was clear five years ago, when the collective hive mind of experts, media and politicians told the public that masks don't work. Or in Anthony Fauci's case, that masks could make things worse by providing a false sense of security and protection.

By now, we know what changed their minds in early-2020; not new scientific evidence, data, or research. It was a column from Zeynep Tufecki at The New York Times. Tufecki, who is a sociologist, somehow avoided the extreme credentialism that was to become a consistent feature of COVID discourse throughout the pandemic. Tufecki, who has little record of academic publishing in her own field, and only one misinformation-riddled paper on masks co-authored by a software engineer, had outsized influence on science. Because the Times remains highly influential in left-wing political circles. The same circles frequented by employees at the CDC, FDA, and other influential public health institutions.

But in 2023, the Cochrane Library published an updated review of the evidence on masks and found, just as they always have, that there's no scientific evidence demonstrating that masks are effective at preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, including COVID.

READ: New Study Confirms That Masks Likely Don't Work To Stop COVID

Tufecki, using the power of the Times, immediately set about trying to undermine it. Since it made her and her articles look bad.

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 27: (L-R) Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, arrive for a video call with U.S. President Joe Biden, the White House Covid-19 Response team and the National Governors Association in the South Court Auditorium at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on December 27, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

New York Times Tried To Undermine Evidence To Support Their Ideology

Writer Paul Thacker published a story for Unherd exposing how Tufecki immediately set about applying pressure to the Cochrane Library to get their conclusion changed. She published an article in the Times decrying science, saying that the "science is clear that masks work." 

Karla Soares-Weiser, Cochrane's editor-in-chief, issued a virtually unprecedented statement seemingly contradicting her own publication's conclusion. Why? Because Tufecki wanted her to, and she was too scared of upsetting left-wing media.

How do we know? Because Thacker acquired internal emails demonstrating it.

"…the editor of the mask review reminded Cochrane’s leadership that changes were only being considered because of 'intense media coverage and criticism', not because there were any problems in the review’s science," Thacker wrote. "'I had a very challenging meeting with the [governing board] yesterday,' Soares-Weiser wrote a few days afterwards. 'I am holding on, stressed, but OK.'"

That's what happend; Soares-Weiser was "stressed" after receiving criticism from Tufecki and The New York Times, willing to undermine her own publication and scientific evidence to placate left-wing media.

And Tufecki knew exactly what she was doing.

Instead of initially contacting the writers of the evidence review for comment in her inaccurate attack article, Tufecki went straight to the editors. Almost assuredly realizing that putting her weight towards editorial pressure would be more effective than contacting writers who would defend their accurate work. 

Sure enough, one of Cochrane's editors, Michael Brown, put Tufecki in touch with Soares-Weiser, who immediately caved. Soares-Weiser emailed one of her co-workers at Cochrane that she'd been in a "back and forth with NYT about the mask review", then asked for help on how to deal with them. "I’m navigating a difficult situation," she said. 

After Tufecki's article undermining Cochrane was published, Cochrane editors emailed the authors of the review apologizing for misrepresenting their work.

"We hoped to inform you all before publication but have been blindsided by the NYT and have scrabbled to upload our statement," Cochrane wrote in an email. 

Unsurprisingly, this was not received well. As Thacker wrote: 

"'I will not speak for the others but am deeply distressed by this course of events which have occurred without our knowledge,' replied Jon Conly, a professor and former head of the department of medicine at the University of Calgary. He insisted that Cochrane had thrown the review authors under the bus. ‘Very naive to think you and the [editor in chief Soares-Weiser] spoke to the media at NYTs (without informing us) and would trust them and that they would not immediately publish what you said, especially with this woman who is well known as a controversial writer.’"

Conly also told Thacker that Tufecki would never have found an author who agreed with her unsupported conclusion.

"Not sure who Tufekci would have corresponded with to find any of the authors who would have agreed with her," he said.

Cochrane's editorial team was so concerned about blowback from left-wing media outlets that they suggested soliciting public comments on the mask review. Conly told Thacker that it was "unethical" for them to do so: "If the editor-in-chief and ethics officer were colluding to find criticism afterwards," Conly said, "that would appear to be unethical."

Months after Tufecki's hit piece was published, Cochrane's Michael Brown admitted he didn't know how extreme her activism at the Times had been. Per Thacker, he said they'd engaged in "spinning" of his remarks to defend masks. He also admitted that Tufecki had presented herself as an academic researcher herself in her first email. Likely hoping that it would spur Cochrane's editors into thinking she had legitimate credentials to "correct" their work.

"I’m a trusting person," Brown told Thacker. "She’s definitely more of a journalist than a scientist. I didn’t agree with her, the way she then spun it: masks work."

"'She sort of got caught in the crossfire,' Brown said of Soares-Weiser, adding that colleagues pressured her because they didn’t like the conclusions that there is no evidence masks work. ‘Which is really hard for her, for someone in her position as editor-in-chief.’"

So there you have it: a writer at The New York Times pressured an organization dedicated to unbiased scientific review into undermining their own conclusions, because she didn't agree with them. And because most editors and employees of scientific publications are Democrats, who still read and respect the Times, they immediately panicked and rushed to placate her. 

But the review's conclusions stood, and continue to stand: masks don't work. Tufecki just couldn't handle having her work discredited. Which is ironic, considering her remarks in 2020 do that work for her.

In February 2020, along with the rest of her ideological partners, Tufecki wrote "Don’t worry if you cannot find masks."

"For non–health care people, washing your hands often, using alcohol-based hand-sanitizer liberally and learning not to touch your face are the most important clinically-proven interventions there are." 

She even repeated it on Twitter, sharing the article with the caption: "Clinical studies show hand-washing is the crucial step not masks."

Welcome to scientific discourse in the COVID-era: credentials matter, unless the person making unsupported conclusions belongs to the correct ideology. Masks don't work, until we decide they do, based on nothing, then we reject contrary evidence because it's inconvenient. And the media works tirelessly to ensure that their political priorities are promoted as opposed to accurately communicating science.