I'm posting this with a little trepidation, because it will probably make me look like I am defending Walitt or carrying water for NIH. I do think Walitt on the study is problematic, and I don't like that NIH hired him in the first place.
You're in a weird position, granted. If there weren't so many red flags for people--huge ones, not piddly trivial nothings that are made into big deals because people want to be angry or negative or something--I seriously doubt anyone would care if you were actually carrying water for NIH or whatever. But remember, you were downplaying the issue of Walitt since it was discovered--which, again, was after the weird rollout of the protocol 'just to secure an index number' or whatever. That's why the thing with Julie seemed really strange--as in, that's where you chose to direct anger?
There should be no need for patient input on study design--but since there is, does what's happened so far strike you as the work of people acting in good faith? Do you think we really want to act like petulant childish assholes? Come on. They've moved forward in a way that suggests they have zero understanding of the issue they've been given new, special instructions on, since it's been handled so badly in the past. (If we're giving them the benefit of the doubt.) But every time something else turns up that the community at large considers problematic, it points more towards the conclusion that all of this is done on purpose, and they don't care what any of us think.