Nielk
Senior Member
- Messages
- 6,970
Jennie Spotila's new blog - IOM Process Check:
http://www.occupycfs.com/2013/11/04/iom-process-check/
http://www.occupycfs.com/2013/11/04/iom-process-check/
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
In stage 2 of the study, the committee is selected and approved. Obviously, the composition of the committee is one of the most significant influences on the final outcome, and so great care must be taken at this stage. Committee members are screened for conflicts of interest, defined as:
"any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of the individual because it could significantly impair the individual’s objectivity or could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. The term “conflict of interest” means something more than individual bias. There must be an interest, ordinarily financial, that could be directly affected by the work of the committee."
It is critically important that we understand this. A point of view or bias is not always a conflict of interest. This is good and bad for us. It’s good because it means that the experts who signed the letter to HHS should not be automatically disqualified for having done so. Their publicly expressed point of view should not, by itself, prevent their appointment to the committee. But it’s bad for us because it means that those who believe ME/CFS is a psychological disorder will also not be automatically disqualified.
'A point of bias is not always a conflict of interest', Jennie states. She says that because of this fact, the 50 experts would not be eliminated.
I read this information differently. They state; any financial or other interest..could significantly impair the individual's objectivity...
How objective regarding other definitions could one be if they have just adopted the CCC over all the rest?
- Point of View is different from Conflict of Interest.A point of view or bias is not necessarily a conflict of interest. Committee members are expected to have points of view, and the National Academies attempt to balance these points of view in a way deemed appropriate for the task. Committee members are asked to consider respectfully the viewpoints of other members, to reflect their own views rather than be a representative of any organization, and to base their scientific findings and conclusions on the evidence. Each committee member has the right to issue a dissenting opinion to the report if he or she disagrees with the consensus of the other members.
At last month's FDA call with stakeholders, when asked about panel selection at the FDA this is what the transcript revealed:
. . . .
So for example, we often find ourselves where we can't get an expert in a
particular disease because that expert, him or herself has been deeply involved
in clinical studies of the disease. And because of that, they are considered by
the rules governing advisory panels in general, to have a conflict of interest.
. . .
Dr. Kweder is saying that they can't get experts in a particular disease to serve on their panel since that would constitute a 'bias'.
Unless they want to disqualify ME/CFS experts, and are actively looking for reasons/excuses to disqualify them, then the letter doesn't really say anything except that the experts have an opinion about their field. If being professionally involved in the field of ME/CFS, and having an opinion about diagnostic criteria, means that the experts will be disqualified, then that would disqualify almost everyone involved in the field. (All experts have opinions.) So I hope the letter won't make a difference, but who knows.If I am wrong on this point, then this is an argument for burying the experts' letter rather than continuing to promote it with HHS, etc. If that is the kind of bias that can get an expert disqualified, then it was a tremendous political mistake for the experts to sign that letter, and a compounded mistake to continue to promote the letter. The counter-argument is that if the experts have conflicted themselves out, then we have to force the cancellation of the contract. But if that effort fails, what then?
The HHS said these decisions are best turned over to people who are not biased. Which implies that they think the experts are biased, and their consensus cannot be trusted. Otherwise they would have put them in the drivers seat, instead of having the IOM run the show. Of course being a non-expert doesn't make one unbiased, so it's all so much smoke anyway.
Of course being a non-expert doesn't make one unbiased, so it's all so much smoke anyway.
non-experts are very likely to be biased for the simple reason that they have been being given biased information, and they have no knowledge to counter it with. It's possible to un-bias a non-expert by explaining things or if they themselves really look at the research, but this first requires that the non-expert be motivated, and motivated people are very hard to come by.
(my bold)The IOM website also states that a point of view or bias is not necessarily a conflict of interest. Here's the direct quote:
If I am wrong on this point, then this is an argument for burying the experts' letter rather than continuing to promote it with HHS, etc. If that is the kind of bias that can get an expert disqualified, then it was a tremendous political mistake for the experts to sign that letter, and a compounded mistake to continue to promote the letter. The counter-argument is that if the experts have conflicted themselves out, then we have to force the cancellation of the contract. But if that effort fails, what then?
The FDA conflict of interest rules for advisory committees are stringent. If a researcher has done research on drug A, and then drug B (a competitor's product) comes up for approval, the researcher working on drug A will be excluded from reviewing drug B. The relationship with a competitor of drug B is enough to create a conflict of interest. That may or may not be the way the IOM looks at conflicts.
But we do have the general problem that they openly state that they try to minimize the number of people who are researching the disease, because they could be swayed by having to apply to NIH for future grants and also IoM wants a broader perspective than can be provided by people in the field. Pretty stupid actually.
. . . I think this was what Jennie was referring to above - and I tried to in my previous post (although I am still confused with 'bias' and 'conflict of interest').
. . . .
I still think I need more details - as I'm not clear in my head what exactly they hope to be recommending, the specific of the recommendation I mean: and what they will be taking into consideration.