The Cochrane Editors' Latest Statement About My Mask Study is Misleading and Spin

The Cochrane Editors’ Latest Statement About My Mask Study is Misleading and Spin

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Collaboration (this also took place in 2020 and 2023) is still ongoing, as none of the offending pieces of work have been retracted.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.

5 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Orlando

11 months ago

The editor in chief sounds like a diversity hire.

iconoclast

Reply to Orlando

Perhaps but the rot set in long ago.

The Cochrane Collaboration describes itself as “the reliable source of evidence in health care” and “an international non-profit and independent organization, dedicated to making up-to-date, accurate information about the effects of healthcare readily available world-wide.” It also refers to itself as “a highly devolved organisation that involves more than 10,000 people, in different capacities, worldwide.” Its major product is the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which it describes as “the definitive resource for evidence-based health care.” Since its establishment in 1993 Cochrane has gained an internationally respected reputation, and its reviews are used worldwide.
Cochrane’s ability to appear above commercial conflicts of interest remains dependent on governmental funding and particularly from British governmental sources. By early 2004 significant changes had taken place. British governmental funding was reduced considerably. Faced with potential reductions in productivity and staff redundancies, Cochrane had to consider commercial sources. The changes were described thus by Cochrane author Professor Sir John Grimley Evans:
“Over the next five years, the money to be provided to British Cochrane Groups by the Department of Health, ominously now called “core funding,” will not be enough for survival. We will all therefore be looking for additional money from people or agencies interested in what we do. To put it in terms familiar to the shopkeepers who, as Buonaparte observed, rule this unhappy country, we have to sell our product.”
Cochrane’s policy on financial conflicts of interest concentrates on commercial, not government funding. Never wholly independent of commercial or government funding, Cochrane now appears to be dependent on both.
Concern about Cochrane’s independence existed prior to 2004, as exemplified by its albumin review, funded by the UK Department of Health (DoH). In 2005, Cochrane published a safety review of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR). The review contained conclusions and statements that did not fit well with the evidence cited, but that support the British government’s position on the vaccine.”

……

Sir John Grimley Evans said:
“As the witch-hunt over MMR illustrates, the mob goes for the man, not the ball…. Government research money is now heavily under political influence; it would be a brave academic hoping for future grants who used government funds to conclude that the latest Downing Street-trumpeted health service initiative was garbage.”

SOURCE:
Questions on the Independence and Reliability of Cochrane Reviews, with a Focus on Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine

Over 7% of the UK’s school age boys are autistic. That is one in fourteen. Why? Government and the medical professions claim they don’t know why but they are all certain it is not the myriad vaccines given to children nowadays. The number in boys is so high because 4 in 5 cases are boys. Only one in five is a girl.

And to see the scale of corruption in the medical professions all its glory take a look at:

How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield Was Fixed – In Eight Steps – A 21st Century Medical Controversy

Last edited 11 months ago by iconoclast

Mogwai

Look at those absolute muppets in the picture. Like a herd of zombies from Walking Dead, with about as much going on upstairs too. This is how useful masks were against SARS-CoV-2 ( or flu, if you prefer ). I even saw a young ( Chinese-looking ) woman wearing one outside the other day. Total Mongtard alert;

https://x.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1801662147123933563