I find it staggering that the Cochrane researchers even came up with the idea that the question of long-term benefit could possibly be addressed by looking at short-term studies specifically designed to look at a different question.

In our first group of patients, there was only one, who asked (and got) his medications without the added expense of individual testing. I worryed about that for 2 weeks until he called up and said:

"Hey Doc, you don't have to worry about these medications"

I said "How's that?"

He said, "It used to be after a morning on the tools I'd have to take a nanna nap"

[He was a bricklayer and could only manage a morning's work before he had to have a sleep] (Translation from Australian slang)

Then he said, "Now I can go all day. It's like I'm 20 years younger. One of the young fellas even came up to me and asked 'Hey boss, what are you taking, can I get the connection?' I told him 'Not those kinda drugs mate'"

So while there are some patients who don't see fantastic improvements, and there are some patients that get side effects, in my experience the results of treatment are so clear cut you read the Cochrane thing and go "WTF are you guys smoking?"

And then there is this, www.aidsmap.com/Hepatitis-C-virus-reinfe...h-DAAs/page/3139853/ by research scientists, undermining the Cochrane review.....maybe the Cochrane review could investigate good barbecue recipes, I am curious what is effective.

The Guardian have at least had the decency to publish several contrary letters:

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/...-drugs-are-effective

Professor Ed Gane chimes in:

www.nzdoctor.co.nz/news/2017/june-2017/1...0%99-a-misnomer.aspx

Prof Ed Gane is reported here

medicalhealthnews.net/cochrane-comes-dow...-39cure39-a-misnomer

As a scientist you're not allowed to say excatly what you mean, which could probably be contructed from the following words

ass
from
you
your
elbow
don't
know