Selection of the review panel The review panel was established by the RSNZ with input from co-chairs. The approach was quoted as: 1. “Project co-chairs and science writer/coordinator to identify high-level headings for the review report and consult with Ministry of Health for their suggestions of issues needing coverage 2. RSNZ to invite experts onto panel in accordance with the identified headings and with the following minimum membership: a. Scientist - Public health Epidemiologist b. Scientist-Publichealth (dentistryspecialty) c. Scientist- Toxicology d. Other relevant scientific experts ... e. Layobserver- arespected member ofthe public” The responses received cannot identify any effort made to ensure the review panel had a balance of positions neutral, for, or against fluoridation on it (as the York and NRC reviews did), and evade the question of whether anyone meeting the expertise criteria, and with views opposing fluoridation, was ever approached. Some of those approached declined to be involved, as follows: On 5 April Prof Skegg wrote to Prof Gluckman: “As you will see below, however, [withheld] is questioning the feasibility of our approach… I can understand why any reputable scientist would be reluctant to put their name to a report if they have not had time to take a first-hand look at the evidence.” On 2 May Prof Skegg wrote (emphasis added): “You will have seen that [withheld] has agreed to join the panel. Unfortunately at the same time as adding a member, we have lost another. Professor [withheld] has just withdrawn: after reading the memorandum again, she felt she had insufficient expertise in the specific area and expressed reservations similar to [withheld].” fluoridefree.org.nz/international-peer-review-critique/
Posted on: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 10:20:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015