well, these are days where you want to be part of the large congregation of corrupted scientists who lend their names to unscientific conclusions in exchange of grants. Cochrane was reaching conclusions that were not liked, though after a rigorous and scientific meta analysis, so the editor in chief was scared of losing her seat at the table of the fashionable new Inquisition
You know you’re dealing with a PR panic dumpster fire when the “Head Of Communications” fires off a hasty email saying he’s “scrabbled” i.e. scrambled(?) to upload a statement.
Considering the stories about recent increases in covid infections and some places reinstituting masking--at least when someone has been infected--a clear, honest assessment of masking is desperately needed.
That's what Cochrane used to provide reliably. Now that it's been mucked up by the editor, NYT writers, and others, a reset is needed.
Starting by dismissing everyone who screwed things up.
1. They pretend that science needs to be re-examined post-March 2020
2. Readers' comments are irrelevant
I wrote a comment on Drs. Jefferson and Heneghan Substack post suggests that there is no point in revisiting the question of masking, knowing that many science articles published after March 2020 are fake. Do you remember the Pfizer/FDA-inspired publications in the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine warning about using hydroxychloroquine to treat infections with the Wuhan virus?
I quoted the definitive publication on that matter by Donald Henderson: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17238820/ Inglesby TV, Nuzzo JB, O'Toole T, Henderson DA. Disease mitigation measures in the control of pandemic influenza. Biosecur Bioterror. 2006;4(4):366-75.
Unfortunately, it seems that Cochrane doesn't take any suggestions from readers.
After all of this time you’d think there would be a few definitive answers. At the start of this shit show, the epidemiologist here in Canada stated that masking was a waste of time. Then sometime later she did a complete reversal. Why is everything about this mess so complicated? It’s like nobody knows what they’re doing.
Tom Jefferson's Substack is killer BTW. Crazy to get the perspective of an actual scientist with real talent who has spent his entire career calling out pharma bullshit.
well, these are days where you want to be part of the large congregation of corrupted scientists who lend their names to unscientific conclusions in exchange of grants. Cochrane was reaching conclusions that were not liked, though after a rigorous and scientific meta analysis, so the editor in chief was scared of losing her seat at the table of the fashionable new Inquisition
It takes $$$ to achieve transparent opacity.
Is Envoy part of The Weber-Shandwick Collective?
You know you’re dealing with a PR panic dumpster fire when the “Head Of Communications” fires off a hasty email saying he’s “scrabbled” i.e. scrambled(?) to upload a statement.
Considering the stories about recent increases in covid infections and some places reinstituting masking--at least when someone has been infected--a clear, honest assessment of masking is desperately needed.
That's what Cochrane used to provide reliably. Now that it's been mucked up by the editor, NYT writers, and others, a reset is needed.
Starting by dismissing everyone who screwed things up.
There are two problems with Cochrane
1. They pretend that science needs to be re-examined post-March 2020
2. Readers' comments are irrelevant
I wrote a comment on Drs. Jefferson and Heneghan Substack post suggests that there is no point in revisiting the question of masking, knowing that many science articles published after March 2020 are fake. Do you remember the Pfizer/FDA-inspired publications in the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine warning about using hydroxychloroquine to treat infections with the Wuhan virus?
I quoted the definitive publication on that matter by Donald Henderson: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17238820/ Inglesby TV, Nuzzo JB, O'Toole T, Henderson DA. Disease mitigation measures in the control of pandemic influenza. Biosecur Bioterror. 2006;4(4):366-75.
Unfortunately, it seems that Cochrane doesn't take any suggestions from readers.
After all of this time you’d think there would be a few definitive answers. At the start of this shit show, the epidemiologist here in Canada stated that masking was a waste of time. Then sometime later she did a complete reversal. Why is everything about this mess so complicated? It’s like nobody knows what they’re doing.
Tom Jefferson's Substack is killer BTW. Crazy to get the perspective of an actual scientist with real talent who has spent his entire career calling out pharma bullshit.
Alas poor Cochrane, we knew thee well. Medical scientific Integrity is but a bony remnant of an idea that was probably mostly always an illusion.
“she is now using her position with the New York Times to harass researchers and win an argument she lost in the academic literature.” 🎯
Cochrane are such a huge disappointment…certainly not all they were cracked up to be…
Re Karla Soares-Weiser and Catherine Marshall, they were copied on this email I sent in March 2018: Call for retraction of Jefferson et al's scientifically unsound review on aluminium and vaccine safety: https://elizabethhart.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/call-for-retraction-of-jefferson-et-als-scientifically-unsound-review-on-aluminium-and-vaccine-safety.pdf
The very important matter I raise in that email has never been addressed.
Because any concerns about vaccination have been suppressed for years…and here we are with the Covid debacle.