Comment on Cochrane review Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

Editorial mismanagement has undermined the credibility of Cochrane.

Paul Thacker’s work through a combination of contact with a whistleblower and access to correspondence through Freedom of Information requests has shed considerable light on one of the most disturbing cases of media and lobby-originated distortions of science, and the fragility of the editorial processes.

How the New York Times undermined mask evidence

This morning, I sent the following comment through Cochrane’s editorial system:

“The two editorial statements published respectively in March 2023 and June 2024 mark the zenith of editorial mismanagement of our review. Both contain misleading statements.

The March 2023 statement ostensibly addresses misquotes of our review by third parties. Anyone who has ever published scientific papers of interest to third parties knows that misquotes and selective citations are rife and completely outside the control of authors and editors.

The March 2023 statement was written as a response to outside pressure, both by influencers and lobbyists directly on the Cochrane editorial team. Instead of direc…