The Cochrane Collaboration publishes systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions. I was one of the founders but was expelled 25 years later, in September 2018, becoming the only person ever to be expelled.
Cochrane’s actions were widely condemned in top journals, e.g. in Science, Nature, the Lancet, and in the BMJ1 whose Editor-in-Chief wrote that Cochrane should be committed to holding industry and academia to account, and that my expulsion reflected “a deep seated difference of opinion about how close to industry is too close.”2
The world’s most cited medical researcher, Professor John Ioannidis from Stanford, published a scathing criticism of Cochrane’s “character assassination” of me, wondering if Cochrane had silenced “a giant with major positive contributions to evidence‐based medicine” because it had been hijacked.3
I published two books about the affair4,5 and a book review noted:6 “This book carefully recounts this dark period in medical science where a once trusted institution carried out one of the worst show trials ever conducted in academia. The CEO and his collaborators went about their task in a manner that mirrors how the drug industry operates.”
Cochrane’s downfall started in 2012, when British journalist Mark Wilson became the CEO. To the dismay of the Cochrane pioneers,4,5 he directed the prestigious Cochrane Titanic towards the iceberg that would sink us all,7 in the same way as he seems to have destroyed also his former workplace, Panos in London.5
I tried to prevent this and was elected to the Governing Board in January 2017 with the most votes, even though I was the only one of the 11 candidates who criticised the leadership in my election statement.8
When I became a threat to Wilson, he plotted my demise. He was in total control of the Governing Board, and in a Kafkaesque process, he and the board’s two co-chairs, Martin Burton and Marguerite Koster, broke all the essential rules for charities and for Cochrane and lied to defend their actions.4,5 Burton, who, like so many others, was afraid of Wilson, who was his boss, was the executioner.4,5
Wilson’s plot involved that Burton should compile a report to a lawyer hired by Cochrane, a so-called Counsel, about my alleged wrongdoings during my 25 years with Cochrane, and that the board should use Counsel’s report to expel me.
But there was a problem. Counsel’s report exonerated me.9 He saw no reason to discipline me, which is remarkable because Burton, in his report to Counsel, had lied blatantly. He even called it an “allegation” that several board members witnessed that Wilson totally lost his temper during a board meeting and became physically aggressive toward a board member.4,5
The Secret Show Trial
I was given only 5 minutes to defend myself before I was asked to leave the board room. I was therefore unable to correct misunderstandings and falsehoods raised against me during the rest of the day.
However, I had ensured, according to our rules, that the meeting – which was planned to be top secret and unrecorded – was recorded, and a board member gave me a copy of his recordings, even though Wilson had asked everyone to delete them. They revealed that Burton and Koster had lied maliciously to convince the board to expel me.4,5
Burton talked about long-term disruptive, outrageous, and wrong behaviour, failure to abide by the rules and behave collaboratively, and breaches of the Collaboration Agreement, all of which were untrue. He also hinted that I had harassed Cochrane staff sexually: “To carry on the Me-Too analogy…” and claimed that my “allegations,” which were proven facts,10 about his own and Wilson’s mismanagement of Cochrane had been demonstrated to be wrong.
Burton used “evidence” he had planted himself,4,5 – letters of complaint about me that curiously all arrived just after I had submitted my report to Counsel10 documenting Burton’s maladministration of Cochrane and how he and a previous co-chair, Lisa Bero, had tampered with meeting minutes to protect Wilson and attack me.
Burton and Koster said I had bullied Wilson and his staff and had grinded them down but the truth was that I was the victim of many years of bullying on Wilson’s orders and that his staff had left in large numbers because of his brutal management style.4,5 Wilson had also tampered with meeting minutes and he had lied repeatedly.
A 2015 independent assessment of Wilson’s performance during his first three years in office was a devastating criticism of his leadership.4,5 When I showed his incredible, pumped-up CV11 to a colleague, he dryly remarked: “He forgot to say when he was on the Moon.”5
Cochrane’s pretence for expelling me was seriously bad behaviour, but they never explained what this was, and Counsel didn’t point out such behaviour in his report.9 However, Wilson had abused his power by giving the board the ultimatum that their choice was between him and me even though the board meeting was not about him but about whether I should be sanctioned. Four board members resigned in protest over the process and my expulsion.
I was one of the greatest contributors to Cochrane.12 I established the biggest Cochrane centre in the world, the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, and affiliated centres in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, and Russia; took over software development from Oxford and spent over 30 million Danish crowns on this, which I had no obligation to do; assisted in developing Cochrane’s review methodology; advocated incessantly for transparency, academic freedom, and independence; struggled harder than anyone else to get industry money out of Cochrane;12,13 and opened the archives of clinical study reports at the European Medicines Agency,14 a major breakthrough for public health.
I authored 19 Cochrane reviews, in widely different areas. Several of my systematic reviews, e.g. of mammography screening, general health checks, antifungal agents, the placebo effect, psychiatric drugs, and the HPV vaccines, provoked international debate and challenged entrenched medical orthodoxies.12
Malicious Lies at the Annual General Meeting in 2018
At the AGM, Burton tried to explain why I had been expelled.15 Having nothing to offer, he insinuated that I had harassed Cochrane staff sexually. Someone wrote to Cochrane headquarters that it sounded as if I had raped somebody.5 Others wrote that “Martin is a scary person” and that “the #metoo insinuation is bent in neon.”
There were tributes to prominent people who had died since the last colloquium and one was biostatistician Douglas Altman, an intellectual giant. I have published more papers with Doug than with anyone else, but Burton was ice cold. It was all about getting the audience’s sympathy for his “capital punishment,” as a board member called it.4,5 Burton did not acknowledge any of my achievements but ensured I left Cochrane in disgrace.
During the AGM and afterwards, e.g. in letters to the board, people asked why I had been expelled from the board and Cochrane. They got no reply but an excuse about legal reasons and protecting privacy,5 which suggested that the privacy was related to the “victims” of my “bad behaviour.” But I was the only victim. And as there were no sexually harassed women, the only privacy issue was in relation to me.
Burton referred to “a lengthy investigation into repeated bad behaviour over many years,” but as the investigation was not lengthy and was produced in a haste, Counsel considered his report preliminary.9
Burton said that “The independent review did not exonerate the individual,”16 which is highly manipulative, as it suggests guilt on my part. The only time Counsel thought I might have done anything wrong (“I respectfully think”), it was he who was wrong because he had not understood what centres were allowed to do.4,5 Despite his misconception, he concluded that “I am not sure it be would fair to censure PG.”9
Burton showed a slide during his presentation with four statements that were all false:
- This Board decision is not about freedom of speech.
- It is not about scientific debate.
- It is not about tolerance of dissent.
- It is not about someone being unable to criticize a Cochrane Review.
At a Cochrane online webinar three weeks later,5 where the co-chairs tried to explain why I had been expelled, they called it bad behaviour and not in Cochrane’s best interests that I had criticised the Cochrane HPV vaccine review in a medical journal.17 And the secret board meeting revealed that my criticism played an important role for my expulsion: “HPV” appears 48 times in the transcript.5
Also at the webinar, Burton and Koster lied maliciously about the reasons for my expulsion: They claimed I had seriously breached the Trustees’ Code of Conduct; had repeatedly placed my own interests above those of Cochrane; had represented personal views as if they were those of Cochrane; and had abused my Centre’s letterhead for non-Cochrane matters, which they claimed had undermined the credibility of Cochrane.
Counsel’s report provided no support for these allegations.9 And a slide claiming that the board followed due process during its investigation, was also blatantly false. The crucial documents arrived so late that the board didn’t have sufficient time to study the issues before they decided to expel me. Counsel’s report arrived 12 hours before the meeting, and other documents 1.5 days before. The length of the documents corresponded to three books, and the board members didn’t know what they contained, as they accepted several arguments during the show trial that the documents had proven false.5
Subsequently, the Cochrane co-chairs continued propagating malicious lies about why I had been expelled, e.g. in letters to people complaining about my expulsion, and in a journal interview with Koster.5,18,19
My Request to Cochrane in 2025
I put it all behind me but in February 2025, I became curious what my legacy was and searched on “Cochrane Gøtzsche” on Google. Everything on the first pages was about my expulsion. I had no idea that Cochrane’s abuse would leave such profound tracks seven years later.
Instead of writing about my achievements, the journalists referred to a defamatory statement Cochrane published on its website in 2018 that referred to an “ongoing, consistent pattern of disruptive and inappropriate behaviours…detrimental to the charity’s work, reputation and members.”20
A week earlier, Cochrane had published an even more defamatory statement, which was the text of the hate speech Burton held at the AGM four days after my expulsion, uploaded on YouTube.15
I wrote to Cochrane’s CEO requesting Cochrane to correct, remove, or document its published claims about me.21 I asked what my bad behaviour was about and what the basis was for Cochrane’s conclusion that my actions undermined the Cochrane culture and were detrimental to the charity’s work, reputation, and members. As many observers had said that my contributions to Cochrane, its culture, work, and reputation had by far exceeded any negative aspects of my work, I asked if Cochrane thought I had contributed anything during my 25 years with the organisation.
I noted that victims of abuse always appreciate getting an apology, which could also be helpful for Cochrane if it wanted to try to recoup some of the good reputation it had before 2018. I suggested an unconditional apology, to be promoted in a press release, published on the Cochrane website, and communicated to all members of Cochrane in an email about the defamatory and mendacious statements made about me at the AGM and subsequently and about the lack of fair process, just like all Cochrane members had received Burton’s defamatory speech at the AGM in an email.
I also asked Cochrane to apologise that Wilson had lied to the Danish Ministry of Health and regret that this cost me my job, as a professor and chief physician at my hospital. Wilson had claimed that I had not lived up to my obligations according to the Memorandum of Understanding, an agreement between him and my Cochrane centre. Several board members had pointed out during the show trial that his argument was false. It was Wilson who had violated our agreement, e.g. by changing our website behind my back and by publishing one of the defamatory statements about me5 on the front page.
Wilson also lied when he told the Ministry that I could not continue working at the Nordic Cochrane Centre.5 I could have handed over the directorship to my deputy and continued as a researcher and chief physician at the centre. But because of this lie, the Danish government felt it had no other option than to fire me even though over 9,000 people, including Cochrane’s founder, Sir Iain Chalmers, and several politicians in parliament, tried to prevent this.4,5
I noted that Cochrane’s references to the “#MeToo” movement4,5,16 had consequences for me including loss of income. When lawyer Michael Baum from Los Angeles wanted to hire me as an expert witness in a lawsuit against Merck,22 he asked one of my colleagues what my “bad behaviour” was about. My colleague replied: “There is no serious bad behaviour – it’s just a case of PG not singing from the same hymn sheet as the CEO of Cochrane who seems to be widely regarded as an anal asshole.”5 He explained that “It will leave a lot of people thinking Peter is a Harvey Weinstein” and that many people would simply remove me from their lists of people to consider for media, legal, clinical, or research work on the basis of this slur.
I asked if Cochrane would provide me with economic compensation for its misdeeds and my loss of income. I noted that I had published an interview I did with Ioannidis about why Cochrane expelled me23 and that it would become incorporated in a documentary film with the working title, “The honest professor and the fall of the Cochrane empire.”24
Cochrane’s Responses
“Cochrane Complaints” replied:25
We have considered the contents of the Letter carefully. We continue to be of the view that the decision to remove you from the Cochrane Board of Trustees in 2018, and all associated actions, were taken with full consideration of all relevant facts and were appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. However, as a gesture of good will, without any admission on our part and without prejudice to our position, we agree to take down from our website the statement of the Board dated 26th of September 2018. We hope this is a satisfactory outcome to you which will lead to a swift closure of this matter.
The two blank spaces, before “without any admission,” suggest that this sentence was inserted by Cochrane’s lawyers.
If one considers “all relevant facts,” it is impossible to conclude that “all associated actions” against me were “appropriate and proportionate.”
I required in a second letter26 that Cochrane should also take down the far more defamatory statement16 and Burton’s hate speech about me on YouTube15 and respond to my questions.
Cochrane reused their first reply but removed the other statement and the whole YouTube video of the AGM, one and a half hours, which was about a lot else than Burton’s hate speech. This unprecedented destruction of the historical record in a charity suggests that Cochrane knew it was in deep trouble, as its statements and strong insinuations could not be substantiated, and that they ran a risk of being sued for defamation and my loss of income.
In August 2025, I interviewed Martin Kulldorff, who holds a top job in the US Department of Health and Human Services,27 for our film and interview channel, Broken Medical Science. When I showed him Cochrane’s letter, he remarked that it seemed to have been written by a lawyer; that they were clearly embarrassed about what they had done but didn’t want to mend fences and acknowledge that it was wrong; and that any reasonable observer would interpret the letter as an admission of guilt even though their lawyer told them they must not admit guilt.
Martin also said that Cochrane had done a lot of destructive things for themselves since 2018; that the trust in the Cochrane Collaboration had collapsed; that they must know deep inside that they messed up really badly both for science and for Cochrane; that it’s very difficult to acknowledge such self-destructive behaviour; and that abusers don’t apologise.
I Proposed an Amicable Agreement in Cochrane’s Own Interest
Cochrane considered the matter closed, but as they had not responded to my questions, I sent a third, detailed letter attempting to wake Cochrane up to the gravity of the situation they had created for themselves. I asked Cochrane to ensure that my letter came to the attention of Cochrane’s CEO and Governing Board, which I considered highly important.28
I noted that Cochrane owed the public an explanation because tens of thousands of people who wondered why I was expelled from Cochrane would now wonder why the defamatory statements had been removed.
I suggested what the apology should address and said that if Cochrane didn’t admit that Burton misrepresented Counsel’s report during the board meeting and that I was subjected to gross injustice, this would tell the world that Cochrane’s moral meltdown in 2018 still characterises Cochrane and that Cochrane is therefore beyond repair.
I noted that “The case is far bigger than me. I was convicted of a crime I don’t know what is, and which Cochrane never defined. What is clear is that I became the scapegoat for a failed direction of travel introduced by Cochrane’s then CEO, Mark Wilson, who destroyed much of what the Cochrane pioneers had built up during the twenty years before he arrived…The apology should say something about my contributions to Cochrane and invite me to join Cochrane again as a member, should I wish to do so.”
Cochrane’s Response to my Proposal for an Amicable Agreement
Like in 2018, Cochrane chose the worst possible option. They didn’t respond. “Cochrane Complaints” merely repeated their earlier letters and said that if I “believe anything has changed in this time, or if there is something new to add, please do follow the official complaints process.”29
Using the complaints form on Cochrane’s website, I noted that Cochrane had only responded to one of my 17 questions and asked Cochrane once again to ensure that my letter came to the attention of Cochrane’s CEO and Governing Board. I also asked if my earlier letter had been seen by them.
Cochrane assigned my complaint “to the most relevant member of Cochrane central staff” who would assess my complaint and decide what level of investigation would take place.
There was no investigation: “After looking internally, we refer to the contents of our previous response.”30
Cochrane’s arrogance, contempt for justice, and moral meltdown cannot be overlooked. It is not the “open and transparent communication and decision-making” contained in its first key principle but is a clandestine organisation. Even though I was a founding father, a member of the Governing Board, and a Cochrane director, Cochrane didn’t have the courtesy to tell me if my letters had been seen by my peers. And I cannot write directly to the CEO or the board members, as their email addresses are secret.
For the historical record, I have uploaded Burton’s hate speech.15 The way he behaved, his gestures and intonations are telling for the massive fraud Cochrane committed.
What is Cochrane Today?
In the middle of April 2021, Mark Wilson suddenly left Cochrane, with no farewell notice. Cochrane never explained why he left,4,5 but lauded him for “eight years of outstanding service,”31 as they called his systematic destruction of Cochrane.
Wilson left a week before Cochrane’s main funder, the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), announced that a major budget cut was likely. The funder criticised Cochrane for much the same reasons as I had done; emphasised that Cochrane authors should be iconoclastic; said the writing had been on the wall for eight years, which was exactly the period when Wilson ruled the organisation; and talked about a failing scientific integrity noting that “This is a point raised by people in the Collaboration to ensure that garbage does not go into the reviews; otherwise, your reviews will be garbage.”5
People in evidence-based circles have told me that the damage Wilson and Burton caused is irreparable.
In August 2021, the NIHR declared it would cease its funding in March 2023,5 a loss of around £5.3 million annually.32 Cochrane was in big disarray, and the questions and answers on Cochrane’s website told a story of considerable confusion.12,33 Professor Emeritus John H. Noble wrote on an email list that nothing would change unless the recommendations of previous critiques were implemented; to continue “flogging the Cochrane Review dead horse” won’t make it run.
In March 2025, I found out that the Cochrane website about the major funders was erroneous:12,34 “NIHR is the largest single funder of Cochrane, and currently supports 21 Cochrane Review Groups based in England.” None of the UK review groups had core funding and most of them had been closed for this reason.
Ironically, it is entirely due to me that the Danish Government is now the only institution in the world that contributes over £1 million annually to Cochrane. But when I alerted Cochrane to the false information about their funders, their response was to remove all information about who their funders are. This is inappropriate for a charity considered by outsiders to be too close to the drug industry.2
Today, the background sections in Cochrane reviews of drugs look like propaganda pamphlets from the drug industry,35 making Cochrane’s motto “Trusted evidence” look like a bad joke. I believe Denmark should follow the British example and stop all core funding of Cochrane activities. It is no longer worth it.
Cochrane embarked on its suicide mission already in 2001 when they refused to let me and my co-author publish the major harms of mammography screening, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment in our Cochrane review.36 Cochrane created another scandal in 2025 when they refused to publish our most recent update, with more mortality data, for no reason other than political expediency.35
I have explained in articles and books why Cochrane will disappear in oblivion because of excessive bureaucracy, mismanagement, power abuse, protection of personal, guild and financial interests, inefficiency, incompetence, scientific censorship, suppression of freedom of speech, and secrecy.4,5,12,35-37 It no longer matters if what Cochrane publishes is correct and helpful, only that it pleases those at the top of the power pyramid.
References
1 Vogel G. Fresh fights roil evidence-based medicine group. Science 2018;362:735; Vesper I. Mass resignation guts board of prestigious Cochrane Collaboration. Nature 2018; Sept 17; Enserink M. Evidence-based medicine group in turmoil after expulsion of co-founder. Science 2018; Sept 16; Hawkes N. Cochrane director’s expulsion results in four board members resigning. BMJ 2018;17 Sept,362:k3945; Burki T. The Cochrane board votes to expel Peter Gøtzsche. Lancet 2018;392:1103-4; Hawkes N. Cochrane director says his sacking was flawed and came after “show trial”. BMJ 2018;20 Sept,362:k4008.
2 Godlee F. Reinvigorating Cochrane. BMJ 2018;362:k3966.
3 Ioannidis JPA. Cochrane crisis: secrecy, intolerance, and evidence-based values. Eur J Clin Invest 2018;Dec 5.
4 Gøtzsche PC. Death of a whistleblower and Cochrane’s moral collapse. Copenhagen: People’s Press; 2019.
5 Gøtzsche PC. The decline and fall of the Cochrane empire. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom; 2022 (freely available).
6 Timimi S. Death of a whistleblower and Cochrane’s moral collapse. Psychosis 2020;12:99-100 (freely available here).
7 Demasi M. Cochrane – A sinking ship? BMJ blog 2018;Sept 16.
8 Election of new internal members of the Cochrane Governing Board. Statement from Peter C. Gøtzsche, Professor and Director, the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Cochrane website 2016;Dec (also available on my website).
9 Grant T. Preliminary report on certain complaints/issues. Institute for Scientific Freedom 2025;Sept 12.
10 30 August. Gøtzsche’s 66-page report submitted to Cochrane’s law firm 30 August. Deadlymedicines.dk 2018;Aug 30.
11 Mark Wilson’s CV from 21 June 2012. Deadlymedicines.dk.
12 Gøtzsche PC. Whistleblower in healthcare. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom 2025;April 8 (freely available autobiography).
13 Gøtzsche PC. A Giant in Medicine: Tribute to Drummond Rennie. Brownstone Journal 2025; Oct 2.
14 Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen AW. Opening up data at the European Medicines Agency. BMJ 2011;342:d2686.
15 Burton’s hate speech during the Annual General Meeting on 17 Sept 2018. The video of the whole meeting was taken down from YouTube by Cochrane in April 2025 after I had complained about Cochrane’s defamation of me and its malicious lies, but I have uploaded it for the historical record.
16 Gøtzsche PC. Statement from the Cochrane Governing Board about alleged bad behaviour of “one individual.” Deadlymedicines.dk 2018;Sept 19. This statement was taken down by Cochrane in April 2025 after I had complained about Cochrane’s defamation of me and its malicious lies. I have inserted my comments.
17 Jørgensen L, Gøtzsche PC, Jefferson T. The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2018; July 27.
18 Oransky I, Marcus A. Cochrane ousted researcher over improper use of letterhead, board co-chair says. STAT 2018; Sept 28.
19 Gøtzsche PC. 10 October A. Cochrane leadership in moral meltdown: miscarriage of justice and lies about the evidence in journal article. Deadlymedicines.dk 2018 ;Oct 10.
20 26 September B. Gøtzsche’s comments on Statement from Cochrane’s Governing Board about why his appeal was rejected. Deadlymedicines.dk 2018; Sept 26.
21 Gøtzsche PC. Letter to Cochrane’s CEO Catherine Spencer. Institute for Scientific Freedom 2025; Feb 25.
22 Gøtzsche PC. How Merck and drug regulators hid serious harms of the HPV vaccines. New York: Skyhorse; 2025.
23 Why did Cochrane expel Peter Gøtzsche? Interview with John Ioannidis. Broken Medical Science 2025; Feb 9.
24 Film about the lack of scientific freedom. GoFundMe 2022; May 31.
25 Cochrane’s reply. Email from 2025; March 18. Institute for Scientific Freedom website.
26 Gøtzsche PC. Follow-up of Cochrane’s defamation of me. Institute for Scientific Freedom 2025; Mar 26.
27 Renowned Epidemiologist and Biostatistician Martin Kulldorff Appointed to Senior HHS Role. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2025; Dec 1.
28 Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane’s defamation of me: Proposal for an amicable agreement. Institute for Scientific Freedom 2025; April 23.
29 Owens S. New reply for your query (ticket #CSO00209542). Cochrane Support 2025; June 11.
30 Message from Cochrane Complaints. Email from 2025; July 11.
31 A message from Cochrane’s Governing Board. Cochrane 2021; April 20.
32 Jefferson T, Heneghan C. Standing by Archie Cochrane’s agenda. Substack 2024; Sept 13.
33 Web.archive.org from 8 Dec 2021.
34 Web.archive.org from 28 March 2025.
35 Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane on a suicide mission. Brownstone Journal 2025; June 20.
36 Gøtzsche PC. Mammography screening: truth, lies and controversy. London: Radcliffe Publishing; 2012.
37 Gøtzsche PC. Requiem for the Cochrane Collaboration. Brownstone Journal 2025; July 18; Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane recommends antidepressants for anxiety in a garbage in, garbage out review. Mad in America 2025; July 29; Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane censorship and editorial misconduct: intravenous alpha-1 antitrypsin and other issues. Institute for Scientific Freedom 2025; Mar 1; Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane review of intercessory prayer: a pillar of shame for Cochrane. Institute for Scientific Freedom 2024; Oct 14; Gøtzsche PC. BMJ and Cochrane Hype the HPV Vaccines in the Extreme. Brownstone Journal 2025; Dec 8.
Join the conversation:
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.
