An observation and a plea

Dear SciAm, You're a great science journal most of the time, as you are when you give insightful reports like the ones on galaxy formation and cancer formation in the January '21 issue. That's why I have for a long time been a subscriber of yours. There are times, though, when you let politics, your own politics, cloud the issues you try to focus on. An example: in your latest publication (January '21) you take issue with a claim President Trump made sometime last year that called into question the reported number of deaths due to Covid-19. He reportedly claimed that only 6% of these deaths were caused primarily by Covid. You use an entire article trying to show him wrong. In my view you largely fail in your attempt, and you do so for the simple reason that you let your anti-Trump bias get in the way of your objectivity, as in your discussion on comorbidities. Your take, in effect, is that if a person who has comorbidities like heart disease in addition to Covid, and dies, it doesn't mean that he dies from the pre-existing conditions—he dies from Covid. You go on to suggest that in such cases it is fair to place the cause of death on Covid for the simple reason that had the person not had Covid he might have gone on to live for another ten years or so. What you DON’T pause to consider is this: that the opposite is also true, that is, that had the person not had the pre-existing conditions, Covid might, at worst, have made him sick, just as the flue makes you sick, but might not have killed him at all, as indeed was the case with Trump himself when he quickly recovered from the disease. This second possibility you don't consider at all, and—it seems clear—all because you are too hell bent on trashing President Trump to be able to think clearly and fairly. Which is too bad. Sci-Am deserves better. Here, by the way, is a suggestion for what should be a truly valuable study for your journal to undertake: to what extent do the political biases or ideologies of the Scientific American contributors affect their thinking, and ultimately their scientific objectivity? Ermes Culos Ashcroft, BC 2504539519 (Ps. As a Canadian I am probably much less passionately biased about some of the current American obsessions than some of you folks are.)