Thread by @nico_pretorius

🧵1/ Diving deep into the Cochrane Review. Unraveling where scientific discourse ends and prejudice begins. Join @doctorasadkhan and me as we critique the evaluation of research by @resiapretorius, @dbkell, and team.🔍 #teamclots #LongCovidResearch open.substack.com/pub/nicopretor…

🧵2/ Cochrane's general approach is to evaluate a range of studies on a topic to minimize bias. Why then, was it used solely for early-stage research from one specific group? 🤔#ResearchBias

🧵3/ The choice to conduct a systematic review on early, nascent studies is curious. Is such a methodology the right fit to evaluate these pioneering works? 📚 #ScientificMethod

🧵4/ The review's pronounced focus on microscopy images is puzzling, given that these images were primarily supportive in nature, rather than the central aspect of the papers. Vital findings from Proteomics not even mentioned. 🧪 #ScientificDiscourse

🧵5/ Teams worldwide have replicated the research methods critiqued in the review, achieving identical results. Why was this overlooked? 🌍 #ResearchReproducibility

🧵6/ Despite the review's assertions, data from these studies is accessible via links in the journal articles, or by contacting the authors directly. 📌#DataTransparency

🧵7/ The review points to sample sizes and selection without accounting for the unique challenges posed by the pandemic, and the absence of standardized diagnostic guidelines for Long COVID. 🦠#PandemicResearch

🧵8/ It's alarming how the review misrepresents certain treatments, confusing plasmapheresis with H.E.L.P. apheresis. Details matter. 🔬 #ResearchAccuracy

🧵9/ By sharing their findings early, Pretorius, Kell & team catalyzed further research. Why doesn’t the review recognize this noble strategy, one many researchers have adopted? 🌱#OpenScience

🧵10/ With @PaulGarnerWoof, co-creator of Cochrane and co-author of the review publicly sharing his recovery journey from Long COVID, the potential influence of personal experiences on professional roles shouldn't be dismissed.🧠 #ConflictOfInterest?

🧵11/ Transparency is vital. Potential bias, stemming from affiliations or personal experiences, should be openly disclosed and considered. 🎭 #ScientificIntegrity

🧵12/ The choice of 'independent' peer reviewers and their professional affiliations is a matter of concern. The peer review process should remain untainted to avoid confirmation bias. Can we be certain of true independence in this review? ⚖️#PeerReviewProcess

🧵13/ Is the Cochrane review's ultimate aim to cast doubts on microclot research and the thrombotic nature of the disease, and potentially impede clinical trials? What true value does it add to our understanding and treatment of Long COVID? 🚑 #ScienceOrPrejudice

🧵14/ In our quest for understanding, it's our duty to constantly seek the truth and share it. Einstein said it best, "The right to search for truth also implies a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true." 🔭#TruthInScience