Final say in IOM report

[Andrew]

According to Molly Galvin, Senior Media Officer, Office of News and Public Information, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council

The review process is rigorous and careful. Ultimately the chair of the report review committee has the final say in the rare cases where there are still concerns raised by the monitor after the committee has responded to reviewer comments. The report is not considered an Institute of Medicine/National Academies report until the report gets sign-off from the report review committee.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

You all do realize the odds are high this committee was bought and paid for from Day 1, right?
The casino always wins as it sets the percentage....

 

[alex3619]

They don't have to buy off a committee if the terms of reference, infrastructure, and methodology are stacked. No paper trail, no legal ramifications, no provable culpability even with whistleblowers, but somehow the results are the same. I do wonder though, how many times with the IOM be asked to do something like this until the HHS is happy? How many tries with GWI? Five?

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Exactly, doesn't require direct corruption, hence as I noted, the casino always win as it sets the percentage
hence folk like Wessely etc do what the government etc want regardless of what the truth is, you don't need "bent" researchers or bureaucrats just pick the ones who say what you want to hear

 

[alex3619]

Exactly, doesn't require direct corruption, hence as I noted, the casino always win as it sets the percentage
hence folk like Wessely etc do what the government etc want regardless of what the truth is, you don't need "bent" researchers or bureaucrats just pick the ones who say what you want to hear

Yes, this is why I keep going on about Zombie science, but in reality its zombie politics, zombie economics etc as well as zombie science. Fund what is in your interest, and bad ideas take root and are very hard to eradicate.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Alex yeah when you read how the cigarette, nuclear and other interests worked...hey,
F. U. D.
fear uncertainty doubt
and other acronyms and "dirty pool"
hate them can't stand it, science has to be absolutely neutral, I've tried getting folk to see in other stuff, like vaccines, that no, you cannot trust ANYTHING, because everything in science relies on the integrity of base evidentiary and from that, honest theory.
But in case of vaccines, the vested interests are horrific and wouldnt' be tolerated elsewhere, but have been hammered into the Public as vaccines are "god beings not to be questioned"...gah! they're only pharmaceutical products, potentially the best...or most dangerous.
too much weight is given to them, venerated...that is dangerous as heck.
should just be treated neutrally as they should.

I also bloody dislike "skeptics", note spelling, UK it's "sceptics" folk should be sceptical, that is rational but go too far, and you are just as bloody bad as the dogmatic twerps, hence "skeptics"
When James Randi to prove his skeptic point against parapsychology, proved he could dupe and interfere with research on one hand, he did a small service showing it could be done, but damn few including him got the other point of:
it opened the door for others to see you COULD do that.
holy CRAP, that egotism screwed the pooch :/

industrial espionage is *huge* nowadays, the NSA and "phone hacking" stuff proves this
so, how do you know any research is valid, hm?
I'm not saying most of it isn't, but they opened a Pandora's box
and look at the fraud so big in Pharma that many are now calling for all such research to be banned, or extremely scrutinized for publication etc

there's a principle in law "fruit of the poisoned tree", if primary evidence is potentially unsound, stolen, altered, obtained illegally etc, none of it can be used.
these damn idiots, in their lust for control, that's what it is all about, have taken a chisel and hammered it into the bedrock of Science :/

I do not know, I cannot know whether Andrew Wakefield is a despicable fraud, or a brave physician and activist.
You can't. Anyone who takes either extreme position absolutely is fooling themselves.
Sigh. long time ago, a lad from working class background trying to tell folk that you know, Science needs a legally binding Hippocratic style oath and actual laws...they didn't want to know

Science is the foundation for our modern civilizations' physical reality, screwing with that, in so many ways is madness. You know in "Metropolis" the actions of a few near bring the city to ruin....

 

[taniaaust1]

I'd read something on this early in the piece and its one of the reasons of many why I think the whole thing will be rigged. Really if they want the results to go a certain way, they can make it do so, they have nothing to loose by doing the OMI if they want ME/CFS buried more.

There doesnt have to be any fairness to us at all in all this.

 

[Andrew]

This is actually a bigger failure than I first thought. Not only did the panel fail to do science based research, but the review board and/or the monitor failed to correct this.

 

[justinreilly]

According to Molly Galvin, Senior Media Officer, Office of News and Public Information, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council:
"The review process is rigorous and careful. Ultimately the chair of the report review committee has the final say in the rare cases where there are still concerns raised by the monitor after the committee has responded to reviewer comments. The report is not considered an Institute of Medicine/National Academies report until the report gets sign-off from the report review committee."

[Emphasis added]

What she said is contradicted by the brochure that Dr. Mundaca-Shah sent me. Neither one is very clear. I bolded the parts I thought were pertinent. What a mess.

I emailed Dr. Mundaca-Shah and will post here when I hear back.

http://www.nas.edu/xpedio/groups/nasite/documents/webpage/na_069618.pdf

STAGE 4. Report Review

As a final check on the quality and objectivity of the study, all National Academies reports—whether products of studies, summaries of workshop proceedings, or other documents—must undergo a rigorous, independent external review by experts whose comments are provided anonymously to the committee members. The National Academies recruit independent experts with a range of views and perspectives to review and comment on the draft report prepared by the committee.

The review process is structured to ensure that each report addresses its approved study charge and does not go beyond it, that the findings are supported by the scientific evidence and arguments presented, that the exposition and organization are effective, and that the report is impartial and objective.

Each committee must respond to, but need not agree with, reviewer comments in a detailed “response to review” that is examined by one or two independent report review “monitors” responsible for ensuring that the report review criteria have been satisfied. After all committee members and appropriate National Academies officials have signed off on the final report, it is transmitted to the sponsor of the study and is released to the public.

[Emphasis added]

 

[Ren]

It seems that several brochures exist: http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/na_067075.html

And for consensus reports, specifically: http://www.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/nasite/documents/webpage/na_067076.pdf

(Should it be helpful, there's also a brief, vague something about Reviewers in the front matter of the most-recent GW text (pR7). I don't know what other such info other GW texts contain and/or if it's all the same.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13539&page=R7)

--------------------

As a side note - though it's likely to have been mentioned elsewhere:

"National Academies committees strive for consensus, but on rare occasion--despite extensive deliberations--one or more committee members may not concur with the views of the majority. Matters of disagreement should be addressed forthrightly in the report. As a final recourse, a committee member may choose to prepare a brief dissent (no more than 5,000 words) succinctly describing the issues of contention and the arguments in support of the minority view. This statement should be included as an appendix…." - from the consensus brochure above

 

[Andrew]

In my letters to people, I think I made a mistake when I started speculating on why the IOM process failed. It takes away from the bottom line, which is that the entire IOM process is supposed to make sure it's science based, and it failed.

 

[alex3619]

In my letters to people, I think I made a mistake when I started speculating on why the IOM process failed. It takes away from the bottom line, which is that the entire IOM process is supposed to make sure it's science based, and it failed.

That is the message I keep trying to send out. Speculation gets dismissed. There is enough wrong with these kinds of things that we can stick to the facts and hammer it home. The facts are much stronger than speculation.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

"What have facts got to do with science?"
said the bureaucrat....