 |
 |
Hi Vasya. Thank you for your note. I have been wondering in recent years whether Cochrane is still necessary but I simply don’t believe there is a Cochrane conspiracy. As I suggested, let’s focus on the science not conspiracy theories. Cheers Rod * * * * * * * * sent from my phone On 8/12/2018, at 09:39, Vasiliy Vlassov <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Dear Rod, I tend to believe that what Juan is attracting our attention for is very important problem. I agree with Juan and John. The editorial John wrote is accurate and you may find in it the explanation that 'bad behaviour' is a nonsense, and the action was inappropriate and entertained to silence the critique. Common sense is not enough. I myself involved in the Cochrane collaboration activities now for 22 years (not as deep as I want to), and have experience of the clash with hard driving CPG myself, and I know that people like him created, minted the CC, and all the subject area this list is about. When people like K. Dickersin, Zbys Fedorovich leave the CC - it is a trouble of the very important organization. And it is trouble for the science we are with here. Vasya On 2018-12-07 23:15, Rod Jackson wrote: Dear Juan. I’m not involved with Cochrane in any way, but it is common knowledge that the ‘bad behaviour’ you acknowledge was real and not a one-off incident, nor limited to the ex-member’s interactions with Cochrane. I don’t believe any team should have to put up with unacceptable behaviour from members. I don’t in the teams I’m involved in. So I am concerned that you may be confusing the appropriate response by a team to the unacceptable behaviour of a member with ‘silencing science.’ I have remained silent throughout this whole discussion, but after reading your latest communication, I finally decided to respond. There may be a Cochrane crisis but please can we focus specifically on the science and move on from how Cochrane managed the ‘bad behaviour’ of a member. It seems very unlikely that this was a conspiracy to stifle scientific debate. While critical contrarian voices are essential to scientific debate, ‘extreme voices’ have a tendency to inhibit rather than facilitate debate. Cheers Rod Jackson * * * * * * * * sent from my phone On 8/12/2018, at 06:52, Juan Gérvas <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: -Ioannidis: Cochrane crisis: secrecy, intolerance, and evidence-based values. -Despite the statement of the Board that what has happened is not about freedom of speech, scientific debate, tolerance, dissent, or criticism, it is precisely these issues that unavoidably surface in this clash, regardless of whether any “bad behavior” is also implicated or not. One may claim that Cochrane needs to protect its reputation for balanced, unbiased, disinterested assessments and that extreme voices harm this reputation. However, one may conversely argue that unbiasedness is indeed a hard-won strength of Cochrane and critical contrarian voices are essential contributors to this legacy. Anyone can and will unavoidably wonder: under its recent CEO leadership, is Cochrane silencing scientists? Is it being subverted by commercialization? Is it paralyzed? Has it been hijacked? @DaHammerstein @PGtzsche1 @cochranecollab @nogracias_eu https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/eci.13058 -just in case, ask me the PDF Spanish version \/.\/.\/. Vasiliy V. Vlassov, MD President, Society for Evidence Based Medicine, osdm.org<http://osdm.org> Professor, National Research University Higher School of Economics e-mail: vlassov[a t]cochrane.ru<http://cochrane.ru> Web page https://www.hse.ru/en/org/persons/14527416 snail mail: P.O.Box 13 Moscow 109451 Russia Phone Russia +7(965)2511021 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1