3 ms·
I think any reasonable observer can conclude that we have reached a point in the discussion in which it is evident that you are not participating in good faith.
by jMyles 3y ago
I think any reasonable observer can conclude that we have reached a point in the discussion in which it is evident that you are not participating in good faith.
> That sentence is not in question. It doesn't exist anywhere in the review. Please read the review yourself.
Please don't implicitly accuse me of not having read the material. I read it the day it was published, with the counsel of friends who are experts in the field, who, along with most of their colleagues, have objected to this entire charade all along.
It's hard to imagine that you actually believe that this sentence is not the controversial one; it has been the topic of discussion in circles of epidemiology and evidence-based medicine around the world and is the focus of the clarification you've linked. A simple web search will confirm this.
Moreover - and I presume this was a mistake on your part - the PDF you've linked actually still contains the sentence in question (I assume you meant to sneakily link the revised summary and pasted the wrong URL). I hope this reveals the tactics at work here to any discerning reader. (As I write this, the PDF linked in your comment is: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/pdf/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...)
> RCTs are a very useful tool, but they aren't the right tool for every circumstance. This appears to be one of those cases.
Yes of course those cases exist, and no this isn't one of them. And essentially all of the world's top researchers in evidence-based medicine agree on this point (despite having a wide array of opinions on the underlying question).
We're talking about asking one group of people to put something on their face for a while, and another not to, in a variety of circumstances. Nearly all of the world's top experts have asked for this (including the authors of the review and primaries in question, which together represent tenure at all five of the world's top institutions of medicine) and been silenced, while a group of second-stringers willing to toe the line have been propped up to create the appearance of significant debate. I have no doubt based on your knowledge and articulation that you are well aware of this, and I hope that now anyone reading this far is as well.
Given the decreasing apparent veracity of your statements, I'm choosing as my last message in this thread.
I don't want to be adversarial, but it feels impossible and invalidating to engage in discussion when we can't agree that the sky is blue.
All I can ask is that you contemplate whether what you are doing is in the best interests of science.
If anyone in interested in reading further rebuttal, I suggest this piece by Tom Jefferson (author of the review in question) joined by Carl Heneghan (whom you probably already know, but if not, was the editor-in-chief of the BMJ of evidence-based medicine at the time of the publication in question). [0]
edit: I had originally written a response that dissected the dishonest characterization of the text of the review, but replaced it with the Jefferson / Heneghan piece, which goes directly into the substance, which seems more appropriate.
0: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-...
- autoexec 3y ago> Please don't implicitly accuse me of not having read the material. I didn't intend for my invitation to be an accusation. I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer. I'd publish my own revision if I could. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to see for yourself that the text isn't there. I'd hoped to even make it easy for you, but also for anyone else reading who might be working from outdated information on this topic. > It's hard to imagine that you actually believe that this sentence is not the controversial one; i It was a controversial sentence, but mostly because it was poorly/incorrectly worded which is what necessitated it being removed from the text and replaced with something more appropriate. It was exactly because it was misleading so many people that Cochrane has worked so hard to clarify the situation. From revisions, to statements made to the press, to editorials published on their own site, I think they've done everything they reasonably could do to let the public know that the review does not support what was initially said as it was initially phrased. It'd be hard to get more explicit than they have been. "the uncertain findings should not be taken as evidence that these measures are not effective." I don't know what more people want from them. It must be maddening for them to know that for all their efforts what was initially published is still giving people the wrong idea. > Moreover - and I presume this was a mistake on your part - the PDF you've linked actually still contains the sentence in question (I assume you meant to sneakily link the revised summary and pasted the wrong URL). Yes, I did link to an outdated version in error. I apologize for that too. I had (and have) enough tabs and browser windows open that it was all too easy to just grab the wrong one by mistake (it's a wonder firefox hasn't crashed on me yet). I corrected it as soon as I noticed but you were too quick for me. This wasn't "sneaky" or some trick. My intent was very much to post the most current and corrected version. What good is it to argue over something that was later corrected? The most recent version is always best to work from, and that's especially true in cases where you know revisions had to be made and the problems with older versions are leading to misunderstandings and confusion. > Yes of course those cases exist, and no this isn't one of them. Many people, including experts, disagree with you. Experts can disagree, but if someone thinks they can design a RCT that doesn't suffer from the kinds of problems that others see as being highly likely then they are free to design one, make their case for funding, and run it. Evidence is king. We know this review was deeply flawed because of the lack of high quality evidence. If finding that high quality evidence is possible, then let someone do it already and prove everyone else wrong. That's how science works. > All I can ask is that you contemplate whether what you are doing is in the best interests of science. All I'm doing is telling you what Cochrane themselves says of the review they published, and in this case, I happen to agree with them. I'd be happy to change my mind, once someone delivers better evidence. Tom Jefferson and the rest of the review's authors weren't able to do that with this review due to the numerous problems with the evidence they had to work with and the lack of other evidence to draw from. Not a huge deal. Let's see the viable RCTs people come up with and the quality of the evidence they get from them, then we'll see what the review says.