> Cochrane didn't revise their review, neither did the author so I'm not sure where you imagined that. That would have been the part where the editor in chief

> Cochrane didn't revise their review, neither did the author so I'm not sure where you imagined that. That would have been the part where the editor in chief of the Cochrane Library said that they would, and then did. To quote (again): She said that “this wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize,” and that Cochrane would revise the summary. > If people are so confident masks work, do an RCT. That is how science is supposed to work, right? No it isn't. There are zero RCTs done for all kinds of things that we're confident work. There are many reason RTCs aren't always done. Reasons like "well understood physics" and "ethics" and "unfavorable signal to noise ratios" that would make doing them pointless at best, and harmful in the worst cases. RCTs are only a tool, and like all tools, they aren't appropriate or necessary in all circumstances.