Cochrane: "Trusted information needs to be protected on social media as much as misinformation needs to be challenged"

[Andy]

"Recent removal of Cochrane’s Instagram post and shadowban highlight the realities of Cochrane’s call against misinformation

Cochrane’s health evidence syntheses are recognised as the international gold standard for high quality, trusted information. Our reviews are used to support global and national health guidelines and policy. We advocate for evidence-informed healthcare and make our trusted evidence accessible and available to all. One way we do this is using social media to reach different audiences.

In recent days, Cochrane has again been the subject of an Instagram misinformation blunder, with a post about a Cochrane Review on Ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 being removed from the platform. Also Cochrane’s Instagram account has been denied the verification blue check mark several times. We are aware that other research publishers, such as the BMJ, have also experienced similar issues."

https://www.cochrane.org/news/trust...media-much-misinformation-needs-be-challenged

 

[chrisb]

Cochrane’s health evidence syntheses are recognised as the international gold standard for high quality, trusted information

Are they? All of them? By whom? What is their evidence to support this claim?

 

[Andy]

A few claims by them in the quoted tweet might raise a few eyebrows here.

 

[rvallee]

Are they? All of them? By whom? What is their evidence to support this claim?

Literally them, Cochrane. They assure us we can trust them.

I did have a laugh at Cochrane and "trusted information" being in the same sentence. So at least there's a comedy element to this tragedy.

Imagine saying that while one of their co-founders is going around promoting The Secret as medical treatment and ranting about astrology-level nonsense, insulting millions of sick people and promoting an MLM scam.

Oh, yeah, we sure can trust that and their policy that there is no need to retract misleading clinical advice if it makes the people who wrote it sad.

 

[Snowdrop]

IMO just based on the fact that Cochrane do mata-analysis reviews I'd have to question that standard. From what I understand of these reviews it's garbage in - garbage out and no one really checks individual studies for the real world* validity of their findings.

To name but one potential caveat.

*I use that because within the system validity can be easily accomplished with inane check boxes that have nothing to do with results outside the research setting.