3 ms·

Supported or not, I don’t think you understand the weight and quality of Cochrane reviews.

• calibas 4y ago
  It's not even a Cochrane review, the newly-created, anonymous account appears to have been lying.
• tptacek 4y ago
  ... can you find one covering Glyphosate? A sibling comment notes that what's linked upthread isn't one.
• colordrops 4y ago
  Do you wish to enlighten us?
  • bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    well, from my googling around it seems Cochrane holds a high position in the health field when discussing research, sort of similar to the ACM or the IEEE, or maybe the CRA. But I think maybe more guarded of their reputation and the reputation of its publications.
    • dekhn 4y ago
      if you're just googling things to participate in an internet argument, what are you adding to the conversation? Cochrane is generally well-trusted. It's not perfect and it has been manipulated. They are better than nothing, though.
    • colordrops 4y ago
      I'm googling around as well, and they seem to be an umbrella for a large number of publications. I just can't believe that every iota of information under their purview is of perfect veracity, regardless of their level of rigor and process. No entity is that perfect.
      • bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        >No entity is that perfect. I think people are suggesting not perfection, but a higher standard and thus increased likelihood of it being correct and requiring a higher standard for proving it incorrect or biased. Do you have an organization that, if they publish something even if it runs counter to your own opinions, you assume that it is fair and likely to be correct?
        • colordrops 4y ago
          Only those that I have immediate experience with do I trust to have the intention of being unbiased. Even then I would be hesitant to assign a label such as "likely correct" to such a complex topic, unless likely here just means > 50%.
          • bryanrasmussen 4y ago
            >Only those that I have immediate experience with do I trust to have the intention of being unbiased. sure, but as you said earlier you have no knowledge of this organization prior to this post. There seems to be two types of people in this post, those who know exactly who Cochrane is and who think knee-jerk accusations of bias are ridiculous and those who don't know who Cochrane is. I'm betting the people who don't know who Cochrane is are not people who need to have lots of access to high quality health research, in other words not experts in any field where one should be expected to know who Cochrane was. If a lawyer came out and told you that the latest ACM study on efficiency of parallel computation was part of a conspiracy by Apple how much weight would you place on their opinion?
            • colordrops 4y ago
              I've worked in multiple fields, and I understand human nature. I would trust an org to have good intentions and generally put out good research, but I know that all humans and organizations are fallible, and including ACM. A bad study can get through any org. It doesn't have to be corruption either, just a miss. I never insisted that it must be corruption.