Discussion in 'Institute of Medicine (IOM) Government Contract' started by Bob, Feb 28, 2015.
Quoted from another thread...
I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion, Rusty? I believe that the opposite is the case. i.e. the IOM report clearly spells out the physical evidence for ME, in great detail, and perhaps in unprecedented detail.
You are right Bob. I have been mixing up P2P with IOM. I still stand by my thoughts on whether or not the IOM should have included Lipkins study.
Oh, I see, thanks for clarifying, Rusty.
We have been hearing (in public) bits and pieces about the study results for close to a year.
The IOM committee included two of the Hornig/Lipkin study authors (Klimas and Bateman). Given that unpublished results from the CDC multi-site study were made available to the IOM committee (meaning that unpublished material was allowed, I assume that Klimas and Bateman would have discussed the results of the Hornig/Lipkin study during their meetings.
Why that material was not included in the IOM review I do not know.
For the AHRQ evidence review for P2P there was the opportunity to submit unpublished material for the review. Public notice was given and advocates and others submitted material in July 2014.
I do not know if material from this study was submitted for the evidence review.
For P2P Hornig gave a presentation at the P2P meeting and discussed some of these findings.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.