The forum committee received a reply today,
posted on the letters thread and copied below so members can discuss it.
________________
Thank you for your email.
The 2019 version of the review has undergone thorough editorial scrutiny and the matter is closed.
For any new concerns about this topic, the process is to pass them to the Independent Advisory Group to inform their work. Please could you confirm if you are happy for us to share this correspondence with them so they can take your requests into consideration?
The Independent Advisory Group is seeking to address questions beyond the scope of the 2019 review, and we hope to share a progress update from them in the coming weeks.
Cochrane does not have the resource to hire project managers for individual reviews. A former member of staff helped to set up the Independent Advisory Group, which is now self-managing.
Kind regards,
Office of the Editor in Chief
____________________
One aspect of the manner in which the author of this letter from Cochrane addresses us here is that it seems the author cannot afford the ordinary pleasantries of written correspondence.
On the one hand I think this may be taken as a mask off moment. Look at who we really are and see that you and yours are no match for me and mine. See our might and tremble.
Do not think that your type can exceed your station. Your attempt to medal in your superiors business is intolerable. Your ilk are not to be afforded the conventions of polite address. We do not owe you a single drop of respect.
Cochrane dismiss, via written word or unbroken silence the subjects of their work. Year upon year.
By this history and by this latest much belated letter from the Cochrane administration, might we guess that they are insulted?
How after all these years do we still have the temerity to question their establishments actions and inaction?
What right do we have to seek authority over our own lives?
Who do we think we are?
Who do we think they are?
Perhaps this petulant and inadequate missive is intended to remind us, to reinforce the establishment view on these questions.
Perhaps in the face of a wider issue of reputation decline and economic uncertainty on the future of Cochrane the attitude struck in this communication with us their subjects, is intended along with its attempt to issue a final act of dismissal “
the matter is closed” to offer themselves reassurance, that they do actually still possess their self granted authority to make such a decree. A display of naked dominance.
I’ve become aware that in a society such as this one the ability to compromise is important. Well, along with the unspoken yet unmistakable presence of a caveat. One that informs us all that this is to apply to the underdog and the underdog only.
So, as the underdog in this scenario let me take a moment to acknowledge that yes between us, so far, they really are the dominant entity here. I with agree them in this assessment. I therefore understand the rationale of their decision to speak to us in a manner of which they would not speak to those that they consider their own equals. Certainly they surely would not reply to a question from an interviewer for a promotion to sort after professional position in such a tone.
Indeed Cochrane has been mauling us in this pit, for years, to fatal effect. We have lost many. We continue to fall to the ravages of their dominance. They have authority over our existence.
Cochrane maintain, for the moment, access to the institutional keyboard, with which they have chosen to deny us reprieve.
I hope this acknowledgement from below offers Cochrane a little of reassurance they seek.
To conclude we have established ability as expert compromisers, permit us to elucidate upon other aspects of our position, as long standing members of the underdog or subject class. The matter remains open while your jaws clamp our necks and beyond, our decision.
