Cochrane Review A122 - attempts to discredit authors and underplay the content.

The mismatch undermining the publication of A122

To summarise the story, the 2006 A122 protocol and the previous versions drew little interest despite being co-published in the BMJ twice. The 2009 BMJ version drew - all of - three comments. 

For the 2020 update, things changed radically: governments released pro-mask-wearing statements and instigated mandates—the point when our A122 came into conflict with politics.

As we have documented, Cochrane grandees delayed the publication, added unprecedented layers of scrutiny, demanded the insertion of unnecessary statements, failed to publicise the review, and undermined its content with an accompanying Editorial and Feature. 

Archie Cochrane’s agenda and the precautionary principle were turned on their respective heads. As a consequence, the approach to evidence was shifted back to the 1970s. Following “the Science” meant ditching an evidence-based approach. As the panic spread, policies had to be justified - enter the models and the laboratory studies that followed in the seven-month gap w…