1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Hunting down the cause of ME/CFS & other challenging disorders - Lipkin in London
In a talk to patients in London on 3rd September, Dr. W. Ian Lipkin described the extraordinary lengths he and his team are prepared to go to in order to track down the source of an illness, with examples ranging from autism to the strange case of Kawasaki disease.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Final say in IOM report

Discussion in 'Institute of Medicine (IOM) Government Contract' started by Andrew, Feb 4, 2014.

  1. Andrew

    Andrew Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes:
    1,229
    Los Angeles, USA
    According to Molly Galvin, Senior Media Officer, Office of News and Public Information, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council

     
  2. SilverbladeTE

    SilverbladeTE Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,141
    Likes:
    1,712
    Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
    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....
     
    Izola, beaker, justinreilly and 3 others like this.
  3. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,441
    Likes:
    11,865
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    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?
     
    Ecoclimber, Valentijn, beaker and 4 others like this.
  4. SilverbladeTE

    SilverbladeTE Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,141
    Likes:
    1,712
    Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
    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
     
    Izola, SickOfSickness and Wildcat like this.
  5. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,441
    Likes:
    11,865
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    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.
     
  6. SilverbladeTE

    SilverbladeTE Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,141
    Likes:
    1,712
    Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
    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....
     
    Izola likes this.
  7. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,061
    Likes:
    5,042
    Sth Australia
    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.
     
    PennyIA and Wildcat like this.
  8. Andrew

    Andrew Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes:
    1,229
    Los Angeles, USA
    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.
     
  9. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,175
    NYC (& RI)
    [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

    [Emphasis added]
     
    Ecoclimber, Ren and Wildcat like this.
  10. Ren

    Ren Primum Non Nocere

    Messages:
    345
    Likes:
    535
    Potemkin Village
    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
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2014
    justinreilly and taniaaust1 like this.
  11. Andrew

    Andrew Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes:
    1,229
    Los Angeles, USA
    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.
     
    WillowJ and alex3619 like this.
  12. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,441
    Likes:
    11,865
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    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.
     
  13. SilverbladeTE

    SilverbladeTE Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,141
    Likes:
    1,712
    Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
    "What have facts got to do with science?"
    said the bureaucrat.... ;)
     
    Izola likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page