To summarise the story, the 2006 protocol for the Cochrane review on ‘Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses‘ – known formally as A122 – 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 while A122 was delayed.
The rapid review topics were duplicates of the interventions A122 had assessed since its inception in 2006. So far, there has been no collaboration (in fact, completely the opposite), no science and sizeable duplication of effort.
The situation further escalated when the 2023 version was published. Six weeks after publication, the Editor in Chief, “blindsided” by an op-ed, undermined the credibility of the Cochrane review.
Without any consultation with the twelve authors of A122, an apology for the review findings was issued to the world, stating that the shop window of the A122 review had been badly written and effectively took responsibility for other people’s misquotes of the text. Here is the text of the communiqué as a reminder.
Read More: Cochrane Scandal: We Found No Evidence Masks Worked
