I was one of the three people who wrote the protocol for Cochrane Review A122, ‘Physical Interventions to Interrupt or Reduce the Spread of Respiratory Viruses‘ in 2006, and I have worked on all five updates. I will try to summarise what is a very confusing situation.
There are two issues here:
- Cochrane editorial mission control throwing us under the bus because of ‘pressure’ (let’s call it gross editorial mismanagement). This happened twice: in 2020 (fourth update) and 2023 (fifth update).
- Cochrane editorial mission control’s infringement of four founding principles of what was then the Cochrane Collaboration (this also took place in 2020 and 2023) is still ongoing, as none of the offending pieces of work have been retracted.
These are linked but equally serious issues.
We have told the story in a series of Trust the Evidence posts dating back two years and will continue to do so as it is far from finished, and there’s lots more to come.
The latest post is ‘Follow the narrative, not the evidence‘, about Cochrane’s race to the bottom of the evidence quality pyramid during the wokery surrounding the Covid pandemic.
And Tuesday’s ‘After Throwing Scientists Under the Bus for a Media Smearing, Cochrane Backtracks on Mask Review Statement‘, reporting how editorial mismanagement made us targets for the lobbying mob.
To add to the saga the Editors posted an update on June 6th.
This latest update adds to the confusion, as the last Cochrane Editors’ statement is misleading and spun.
The term “engagement” belies the fact that the Editor-in-Chief refused to meet with all 12 co-authors, insisted on the involvement of a mediator interacting with a single author (nominated by all the authors), and has still not explained her conduct.
The text gives the impression that the text of the review, which was approved by the editorial mission control, has been explained by interacting with the many who commented (if they are real people). This introduces two false concepts. First, that science is democratic; it can be conducted by a show of hands. The ‘Ayes’ have it. Second, that there was something to correct in the text in the first place (though curiously only in the shop windows, abstract and plain-language summary).
The Cochrane editorial bumbling opened the door to the influence of activists and overnight experts, so it’s no wonder some of you are confused.
Dr. Tom Jefferson is an epidemiologist based in Rome and lead author of the latest update to the Cochrane review of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. This article was first published on Trust The Evidence, which you can subscribe to here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
She’s not wrong, just being dishonest about her true motives. Do you think she would be making the same arguments if left-wing speech and speakers were being cancelled from academia?
Ts ts … how nasty of you to claim her opinions were political. They’re obviously not! It’s about protecting Jewish students from spiritual genocide so that some remain for friends of Hamas to slaughter. Just what the greater good of mankind objectively dictates.
I am apparently very nasty – just as well there are so many nice people to counterbalance my malign influence
One of the many things not in the King’s Speech. There is more to come. Fancy calling legislation defending free speech as ‘burdensome’!
In the end, then, all roads it seems will lead us, rather than to what was meant to be a newly beefed-up Office for Students, to court.
This obviously implies no redress for students which is presumably the main motivation of Phillipson. Forced political indoctrination would become really burdensome if it was ok to be ok with being white.
Special interests vs. Special interests.
Wouldn’t it be good if free speech protection was consistent for everyone or better still, we recognise we may hear things we don’t like and may disagree with the opinions of others. Are campuses a bastion of truth, reason and sensibility that should get special treatment?
I suspect a significant driver in this is the amount of income that comes from overseas students, especially China, which is not a beacon of freedom and tolerance to criticism.
Visiting academics or speakers who might be prone to talking about Uighur slaves and environmental destruction, both of which have been well documented, are problematic.