Posting this not about the scientific arguments about microclots, which we have discussed in the individual papers, but more about their experiences in interacting with Cochrane. Note the below link from Doug Kell's blog is from a non-secured server (http not https) and the page formatting is not particularly ME-friendly, so will be much easier if you use your browser's reader function. Regardless of our opinions on the validity or otherwise of microclots, I think we would all agree with their views on Cochrane. Relevant passages below — Dealing with clots A lot of Cochrane Just as in the control of the mainstream media by politicians, control of the scientific media by vested interests is both undesirable and commonplace. Editors of scientific journals are very powerful and largely immune from the control of working scientists whose views they do not choose to espouse (nor even understand). Similarly, scientists who are maybe more interested in politics and funding can thereby profit by infiltrating themselves and/or their ex-staff into the agencies that control funding and publication in vanity journals. ... Cochrane reviews have been widely seen as authoritative surveys of areas of medicine and therapy, though recent changes, seemingly to a more ‘commercial’ model, have seen a major decline in their prestige as well as the withdrawal of NICE/NIHR funding. In response to what amounted to an opinion piece by Fox et al. attacking our work while masquerading as a serious review, Prof Resia Pretorius and I submitted the below response on August 3rd, 2023, and received from ‘Eva’ (support@cochrane.org) an acknowledgment of receipt, and on August 10th, 2023 a reply from Christine Schorfheide, Cochrane Evidence Production & Methods Directorate (comments-cdsr@cohrane.org) stating “Thank you for your comment on the Cochrane Review ‘Plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating the post-COVID-19 condition’. Given the sensitive nature of its concerns, we are currently seeking advice from our publisher before posting the comment.” ... Since then, more than three months ago, we have heard precisely nothing despite multiple attempts to email Cochrane at comments-cdsr@cohrane.org. No comments presently appear (November 12th, 2023) on the relevant part of the Cochrane website, although Comments appear on another review related to clotting. ... Dear Dr Soares-Weiser, We are writing to express our deep concern about a recently published paper entitled “Plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) for treating the post‐COVID‐19 condition” by Tilly Fox et al. (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, July 26, 2023) [1]. We do so because, as well as being a transparent and purposive attack on a small subset of our own published findings, it falls so far below acceptable scientific standards that it imperils the reputation of your journal. ... [Rebuttal] ... We are also very concerned that one of the authors (Garner) is a member of your Editorial system (so may have had an influence in allowing this paper to be published), and has a public persona in which he has tried to maintain the entirely discredited psychological theories of diseases such as Long COVID and ME/CFS. Clearly organic findings such as our own show that the psychological explanations are nonsense. ... Sincerely, Resia Pretorius and Douglas B Kell
I haven't read the Cochrane review and I'm in no position to judge the science surrounding microclots. However, Garner's involvement does seem to completely undermine any sense of Chocrane's objectivity - I'd be very surprised if Paul Garner didn't initiate this review as a way to undermine the biomedical literature around Long Covid. That is certainly how he's subsequently used the review - as a way to bash biomedical interpretations of Long Covid and to push a psychosocial standpoint. Which is an incredibly bad look for an organisation that is meant to be the foremost voice on objectively analysing evidence on important and controversial topics. It'd be one thing to have had a set of haematologists picking apart Kell and Pretorius's various studies, but to have someone with such an obvious vested interest in bashing the microclots theory is pretty poor.
It would be nice for a G Monbiot or journo to get in at this stage and follow the bad science for a bit. It feels like this has the right ingredients to Bea story in its own right and a good live example of how BSP poisons the field.
