The willful ear closing going on would seem to mostly rest with the NIH. People like me are listening, but the most we can do is express our concerns. We cannot implement any changes in the study design or process; that ability rests solely with the NIH.
Moreover, addressing issues/concerns is not the same as adequately addressing them, and that is far less than acting on those issues/concerns.
Nath may not be interested in psychology, but it would seem someone at the NIH is, unless a better explanation for Wallit & Friends is coming.
When Nath said he was willing to add more patients if necessary, I believe it was in relation to his shrugging off the implications of non-pwME making it into the cohort - by saying he can identify meaningful subsets regardless of whether non-pwME made it in, and if so he would add patients accordingly.
Facts are facts. One of those is we still have three psych proponents in a patient selection and confirmation process that is on uncertain grounds. If we get the patients wrong, all the high end technology and intellectual prowess and NIH personnel will be for naught. Worse than naught, the misleading results could come back to haunt us.
I am truly puzzled why this is a point of contention. This is obvious. What is not obvious is why the NIH is not acting to offer remedies.
Moreover, addressing issues/concerns is not the same as adequately addressing them, and that is far less than acting on those issues/concerns.
Nath may not be interested in psychology, but it would seem someone at the NIH is, unless a better explanation for Wallit & Friends is coming.
When Nath said he was willing to add more patients if necessary, I believe it was in relation to his shrugging off the implications of non-pwME making it into the cohort - by saying he can identify meaningful subsets regardless of whether non-pwME made it in, and if so he would add patients accordingly.
Facts are facts. One of those is we still have three psych proponents in a patient selection and confirmation process that is on uncertain grounds. If we get the patients wrong, all the high end technology and intellectual prowess and NIH personnel will be for naught. Worse than naught, the misleading results could come back to haunt us.
I am truly puzzled why this is a point of contention. This is obvious. What is not obvious is why the NIH is not acting to offer remedies.