Yes, that one. From the "We need scientific dissidents" article this thread is about:
When Tom Jefferson and his group published a report saying “We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed,” the editor in chief of Cochrane apologized for the wording, even though subsequent surveys showed the language was standard for Cochrane given the nature of the evidence.
The incoherent attempt at walking back the study findings by Cochrane administration is the type of problem the article is discussing. It came after a pressure campaign by a social media influencer [1] and the New York Times [2], not due to any actual problem with the review (which AFAIK remains unaltered).
The actual study authors stand by their conclusions. But consider something else: the statement on their website is nonsensical, asserting that it's wrong to accept the null hypothesis in this case despite a large multi-study failure to find significant results. But that's not how science works. You start by assuming the null (community masking/mandates don't work), and then try to disprove it. If you can't then you stick with the initial belief that there's nothing there, you don't assert that anything failing to find what you want is "inconclusive" - that's starting from a conclusion and working backwards.
The thing is people elide the correct conclusion of that study to "masks don't work" which is not what the study says, and it is actually a hypothesis that has been roundly disproven... there are numerous studies showing the efficacy of mask wearing for preventing the spread of infectious diseases. They apologized for the wording for a good reason, which is that people took it out of context to suggest something that is not only not what the study said but contradicts a variety of other research.
When Tom Jefferson and his group published a report saying “We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed,” the editor in chief of Cochrane apologized for the wording, even though subsequent surveys showed the language was standard for Cochrane given the nature of the evidence.
The incoherent attempt at walking back the study findings by Cochrane administration is the type of problem the article is discussing. It came after a pressure campaign by a social media influencer [1] and the New York Times [2], not due to any actual problem with the review (which AFAIK remains unaltered).
The actual study authors stand by their conclusions. But consider something else: the statement on their website is nonsensical, asserting that it's wrong to accept the null hypothesis in this case despite a large multi-study failure to find significant results. But that's not how science works. You start by assuming the null (community masking/mandates don't work), and then try to disprove it. If you can't then you stick with the initial belief that there's nothing there, you don't assert that anything failing to find what you want is "inconclusive" - that's starting from a conclusion and working backwards.
[1] https://twitter.com/thackerpd/status/1644306405942255617?s=2...
[2] https://dailysceptic.org/2023/04/13/the-new-york-times-is-su...