"Is Cybermedicine Killing You?" - Cochrane Collaboration Needs to Restore Confidence

I sat there agog reading your well-written, balanced, restrained, and devastating editorial on the "Cochrane disaster" [1]. I come away with the feeling that something is very wrong at Cochrane, and I'm extremely curious as to what it might be. Cochrane seems like such a good idea — so dignified, honorable, and professional — how could people get so sloppy and cavalier? If their false conclusions were of political value (defending a war, a contract, a questionable appointment) one would feel certain of having come across another outrageous conspiracy. But I can't imagine what cabal would substantially profit from finding that educating patients degrades their medical outcome. Was this just initial negligence, inattention, and then a sudden steamroller effect when a surprising finding reported by a bumbling research assistant seemed so novel and newsworthy that it attracted a misguided enthusiasm and loyalty that blinded all the participants to reality, with a perfunctory referee ritual proving inadequate to catch the errors? I've been expressing skepticism about evidence-based medical practice at our departmental meetings but was gradually being won over by that approach, but now...whose evidence? Meta-analyzed by whom? I'm not competent to understand meta-analyses and sort of took them on faith. Fie on that.