The Cochrane Story Continued...
Study authors stand firm against editor-in-chief's attempts at retrospectively altering their results and the study objective.
Last Friday, the same day Facebook slapped a disinformation stamp on references to the widely distributed Cochrane mask review, Cochrane editor-in-chief issued a statement downplaying the results, to the point of making an incorrect claim about the objective of the report. The same day report lead author Dr. Tom Jefferson was attacked in a New York Times opinion piece, which claimed that despite the evidence, masks reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.
I published a critical review of the piece referred to in the Facebook fact-check last Sunday, which was republished by the Daily Sceptic and Brownstone Institute the day after. In short, it was my conclusion that this so-called “fact-check” was totally worthless, both factually, logically and ethically.
Today, Tom Jefferson sent a complaint to the New York Times pointing out a potential conflict of interest of the author of the opinion piece.
Maryanne Demasi, who interviewed Jefferson shortly after the publication of the review, provides further detail on the matter today. She explains, quoting Jefferson, how the authors were given only a short notice before the editor-in-chief published her statement, and no information on its contents.
Demasi says the authors have already convened and will complain to the leadership of Cochrane. Quoting her article:
“We are the copyright holders of the review, so we decide what goes in or out of the review. We do not change our reviews on the basis of what the media wants,” said Jefferson on behalf of the authors.
In her article, Demasi provides further detail on the background, a prior example of a similar chain of events, and on the current financial uncertainties Cochrane now deals with.
MSM: "Trust the science!"
Scientists: "Here's a systematic literature review that summarizes the science, published by a well known organization that specializes in literature reviews."
MSM: "No, not that science!"
Hopefully this is the end of scientism. Sociologists like Harry Collins have been writing for decades about the social aspects of science, including peer review. The simple truth is that the research and publication process is riddled with human factors, including perverse financial incentives, fraud, ethnocentrism, gaming by elite institutions, political correctness, etc. There's a massive problem with replication like medicine and psychology for the precise reason that it is relatively easy to fudge data. One should assume that most research in those fields is junk.
Great to see the push back. The only science being shown to the public these days are exercises in political science = trust the narrative. Really. We are looking more like the movie Idiocracy. We might as well bring on the dancing nurses. (If the haven't succumbed to the vaccine side effects)