Concerns about Cochrane

From the planet zog, I suspect.
She must like the way things are.

 

It is about a long-term pattern of behaviour that we say is totally, and utterly, at variance with the principles and governance of the Cochrane Collaboration. This is about integrity, accountability and leadership.

Yes, well, being critical is a pattern of behaviour that tends to go with integrity in this business.
So maybe it is about integrity - but whose?
As for leadership - where does that come in. Honesty has nothing to do with leadership.

 

They say bugger all, except that Gotzsche was 'behaving badly'.

The key bit seems to me to be:

All our staff, and our members, have the right to do their work without harassment and personal attacks.

Sounds familiar. Any criticism of standard of science is a personal attack it seems these days. The whole thing looks to be about complaints from staff about not being agreed with.

They have provided no reason whatever for an onlooker to think they have a justified reason for excluding G. G may be a nutcase for all I know but that is beside the point.

 

The statement from the board is vague and evasive. Not a good sign.

 

Yeah - I've just read it now and while I don't know the facts, just from a PR perspective that statement from Cochrane looked poor.

"The lawyer was asked to work to a deadline of the Board Meeting on Thursday last week, 13th September. And, we did in fact receive his preliminary report in time for that meeting. The report completely exonerated the member of the Senior Management Team but did not exonerate the other individual."

Didn't someone else say that the lawyer was not able to meet the deadline, and that his report did not find for or against the complaints about Gotzsche? The phrasing from Cochrane looks like a poor attempt at manipulation.

 

Yup. It isn't a legal issue anyway, it is a moral one.

 

That statement from the Cochrane board really makes me uneasy. The process isn't finnished, Goetche is still a member and has 7 days for a written respons.

Then the board, any board, don't have any buisness with statements like: "This is about the behaviour of one individual." or commenting about the situation in this much detail, even trying to connect themselfs to MeToo : "We are living in a world where behaviours that cause pain and misery to people, are being ‘called out’. "

Even if Gotzsche behavior maybe, or maybe not, was bad - I'm finding the respons from the remaining board really unprofessional.

 

Am I right in thinking that they still haven't responded to Bob's criticisms? If so, is it worth adding a comment that their reputation is very much under question?

 

I can see why he was thrown out of Cochrane

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dozpAshvtsA

 

Sorry if they have been posted already.

Mass resignation guts board of prestigious Cochrane Collaboration
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06727-0

Cochrane Collaboration Expels Dr Peter Gøtzsche
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/902062

 

A very sane and perspicacious nutcase I think. Certainly not someone to expel from your board if already on it. At least he is up front about his position.

 

The irony is that an organisation that includes people who are prepared to, and allowed to, criticise the output of said organisation in public is exactly the sort of organisation that gathers trust. The expulsion is a PR disaster in exactly the terms they seem to have been trying to promote themselves on. It is a bit like Elon Musk rolling a joint on television.

 

The video is uploaded in 2015, a year or two after his book "Deadly medicines and organised crime" came out - he was elected on the Cochrane governing board in 2017, it's not like his vews was a secret. My impression is this is probably mostly about doing his best to rock the Cochrane boat itself.

He's probably not to happy about this either...

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...cine-group-turmoil-after-expulsion-co-founder

 

https://community.cochrane.org/organizational-info/people/governing-board/governing-board-charter

It seems that the governing boards mandate is 'a commitment to impact' (their words)
https://community.cochrane.org/organizational-info/people/governing-board/governing-board-charter

So the leadership may be holding him to account as lacking integrity if he is valuing other things over impact factors as they see this as the mission of cochrane -- which to me sounds exactly like brand enhancement is what they value most.

 

G has a long track record of highly reasonable, high quality publications.

He is becoming more critical as of late however.

This particular issue (the HPV review), he seems to be supporting a colleague simply because Cochrane is moving away from scientific debate and measuring quality, and moving towards preserving power in current medical institutions, with genuine questioning no longer possible (remind us much of any other Cochrane reviews?). That is why he is talking about "pluralism" in his letter.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1041778001883480064

 

Not in the scientific world (although impact counts, too) - of course depending on the field: in physics quantity was all (chemistry, too, from what I have seen), in maths it was more quality...It's not good in my opinion.

 

It seems Gøtzsche is still leader for the Nordic Cochrane Center.

Ugeskriftet: Magtkampen i Cochrane afgjort - for nu
Google translate The power battle in Cochrane is over - for now

 

Gøtzsche has written several "pharma" critical books.

Edit: Sorry, @inox already posted it.

 

Edit: I'm mistaken about this - read on to @Kalliope s post

----

Because he's not expelled yet. He has a week for responding to the remaining central/main board. Seems like no-one really knows what will happen to the leadership of the Nordic group if the descision is final, it's not just out of the board, but the whole of Cochrane he will expelled from. Is my understanding?