you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

They regularly find that an intervention isn't supported or isn't as good as another.

So they're not shilling for pharma.

Who are they shilling for?

And what do you be this claim on?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I used to try to edit wikipedia, stupid I know, didn't realize how shilled it was. For all medical articles on wikipedia they use cochrane. So therefore it can't be trusted.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

For all medical articles on wikipedia they use cochrane.

Sensible. Cochrane are often the best authority on any particular treatment, because they go and get all the data from all the studies on the treatment.

So therefore it can't be trusted.

I think you're missing a step in the logic here. How did you get from they are cited often by wikipedia to they cannot be trusted?