Cochrane: Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses, 2023, Jefferson et al

So they're basically admitting that they don't check stuff. If a study author misrepresented their results, what is even the point of Cochrane if they don't catch it? And the journals don't either? And somehow, not their fault, the overwhelming message, with headlines all over the world, misinterpreted the findings?

Even though they obviously didn't. It was plainly and condescendingly explained by EBM cheerleaders that this means the real world is different from labs. Something they don't extend to anything else, however. They still wear their seatbelts and ride cars and planes tested in lab conditions. As dishonorable as the whole "we never said chemical imbalance, even though people said so all the time".

The damage is done, though. They injected more poison in the discussion and they're only backtracking because of the hit on their reputation, because of the bad publicity. The private influencers club only cares about its influence. They're handling this as a PR problem. And that's why they're ignoring everything about us, it doesn't lead to bad publicity.

 

Merged thread
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/...JJ4JQg6FeReV21HcKclmTP4oyka2mA&smid=url-share

Cochrane review with one apparent bad apple.

 

From Zeynep in comments:

“The lead author is also affiliated with institutions that regularly house absurd antivaxxer content, and for a long time, even denied this was even a pandemic! He and one of his co-authors, also on this review, argued it was just seasonal illness, just a little late in the season! Sometimes, academic positions are held by people who just happen to have them before the pandemic, when there was much less scrutiny.”

 

Most reactions I'm seeing from professionals are actually praising Cochrane for doing the right thing. If anyone is wondering whether they will change their behavior in the future. Why would they even bother, when they can fail miserably and get praise for it?

Maybe that whole failing upward is actually the standard? Would explain a lot.

 

I will assume that the authors agreed to the corrections, right? Or the same if there's a retraction. Because this is the standard.

It would be mightily hypocritical to make such an arbitrary exemption to this new zero-tolerance rule given it is the only excuse given to us for 7 years about the awful exercise review. Because they're all about the rules and everything.

Haha. I'm so funny I should be a comedian. As if.

 

No note or warning on the review yet, not that I can see.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

 

There is now a statement. Edit to add: by Karla Soares-Weiser, Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library.

https://www.cochrane.org/news/state...t-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review

So they are at least adresseing the misleading plain language summary.

But - no mention of the authors misrepresenting several of the included studies, and themselfs presenting the review as evidence that masks don’t work.

At some point Cochrane need to face that they are a perfect organisation for people with motives to withwash whatever opinion they have, and create ‘evidence’ with a trusted Cochrane stamp on.

If they don’t, the trust will eventually crumble. This was probably a big hit, as the chief was prompted to make a statement, and try to save some face.

Objective science with measuring airflow tell you high quality masks work well. This review was an embarassment, with tons of scientists arguing against it.

 

As we know, it is very difficult for them, a publishing company, to do basic stuff like adding a note on a publication.

At least that's the excuse they had for us. It's a terrible excuse that amounts to rank incompetence, but still, it is the cheap excuse they gave us. Clearly, admission of total incompetence isn't even a problem here, this is evidence-based medicine after all.

 

Apologies not able to post more about that myself at the moment -- but I think having a look at David Nunan's twitter account on that topic could be worthwhile for another reason.

(starting ~ 2023-03-05)


Nunan is a member of the authors team doing the 'full update' (or how it's called) of the Cochrane review on exercise interventions in ME/CFS.

His view on the masks issue / Cochrane review worries me.

If anyone felt up to post the relevant tweets here I think that would be helpful.

If I understood correctly he defends the 'masks etc.' review.

Edited to add:
I agree that it's necessary to consider compliance with interventions. I think you need to clearly address that as one variable though and it seems to me that the included studies didn't provide data on that variable.

So Nunan's rebuttal of the criticism on the Cochrane 'physical interventions/ masks etc.' review seems to me to even add to the review authors' misrepresentation of the findings.

 

Not sure if this is what you meant:

Edit to add this:

 

Thanks @CRG for providing some context -- as it seems to me what Nunan says in individual tweets isn't necessarily wrong per se, just weird what he's referring to -- e.g. he's criticizing articles that rebut the review's conclusions but skipping the review's actual weaknesses/ misrepresentations.... he seems to contradict himself?

Sorry still not able to write more clearly, so just adding some tweets:


David Nunan on Twitter: "I respect Tim. But this piece by @KelseyTuoc is guilty of most, if not all, journalistic pieces on this review have done - failed to understand & convey the necessary details of proper evidence appraisal It’s another push for me to write a piece that shows exactly what I mean“ / Twitter

https://twitter.com/user/status/1628489289968369667



David Nunan on Twitter : "Another day, another example of a popular press article that does nothing to inform readers what good evidence appraisal (and thus being evidence-informed) actually looks like #referencebasedmedicine The author themselves doesn't know Serious upskilling needed @SMC_London“ / Twitter

https://twitter.com/user/status/1630616058343174145



David Nunan on Twitter replying to (endorsing?) Vinay Prasad :

"Makes at least 5 articles from popular media outlets all with the same weakness = reference-based medicine. Eg. “A study by….” (then simply cite any study with findings that support the main narrative). Is this really the best health science journalists/Ed’s have got?“

https://twitter.com/user/status/1632293744002187265



And somewhat related:


David Nunan on Twitter: "Real World Evidence” will definitely be a beneficial tool… …for pharma/tech/academic careers …but not for actual health/patient care“ / Twitter

https://twitter.com/user/status/1624324612979929089

 

Blog: Evidence-based medicine”: does it lead to people turning off their brains?

quotes David Gorski (Science Based Medicine) article: The Cochrane mask fiasco: Does EBM predispose to COVID contrarianism?

 

What Went Wrong with a Highly Publicized COVID Mask Analysis?

"In fairness to the Cochrane Library, the report did make clear that its conclusions were about the quality and capaciousness of available evidence, which the authors felt were insufficient to prove that masking was effective. It was “uncertain whether wearing [surgical] masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.” Still, the authors were also uncertain about that uncertainty, stating that their confidence in their conclusion was “low to moderate.” You can see why the average person could be confused.

This was not just a failure to communicate. Problems with Cochrane's approach to these reviews run much deeper."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...with-a-highly-publicized-covid-mask-analysis/

 

I've gotten sick with respiratory viruses a lot this year (not covid, that I know of) though I routinely wear an N95 whenever I go indoors. A few exceptions though (friends or neighbors I let inside without mask, or me unmasked).

I may have used the same N95 too many times for the effectiveness to be what it should. Maybe I will write the date on it and decide when to discard.

The alcohol gel that I use after visiting the small but crowded grocery store, will destroy viruses that have an envelope covering them, but not the ones that don't have an envelope. For those, you need to wash your hands vigorously with soap and water.

But that's for the fomite route (touching physical objects then your nose's or eye's mucus membranes and inoculating yourself w/virus). This is the droplet transmission route.

Some viruses, I assume from my careful behavior, are hanging around when I go mask-less to the sheltered area where the personal mail boxes are.

Or the people I've talked to without a mask on because it's outside, and they may speak loudly and the virus particles come into my breathing space on currents of air.

Some viruses are so potent, they are carried in the air...the same mechanism of smelling cigarette smoke outside---you can smell it from nearly a block away. That's how persistent, pervasive the virus is in the air. This is the airborne transmission route.

If our particular herd of humans has a high rate of some respiratory infection, well, it's very easily transmitted..