It’s gotten to the point that it’s worse than useless, and has become an active shield against actual scientific inquiry:
…according to you, the NAS committee was right to ignore these official documents because they were not “peer reviewed.” What does it even mean to “peer review” official EPA documents?
You have similarly dismissed the evidence presented of clear and present conflicts of interest between EPA and the NAS board (BEST) that sponsored and organized the review. What does it mean to have evidence of conflicts of interest “peer reviewed”?
Is it a “violation of [NAS] policy” to consider official EPA documents and other documented evidence of potential NAS/EPA wrongdoing in a review of a controversy borne out of acknowledged EPA wrongdoing?
The other chief witnesses (Drs. John Dunn & Stan Young) at the August 24, 2016 public hearing (which was held for the specific purpose of taking our testimony) cited specific EPA documents and peer-reviewed literature in their testimony.
The other two commenters at the hearing (Dr. James Enstrom and Albert Donnay) also cited peer-reviewed literature.
But the NAS committee inexplicably ignored everything we presented. And now you have as well.
Although the NAS has a conflict of interest policy, you have not even bothered to consider my request in the context of this policy. So why have the policy if it will not be applied?
The entire federally funded scientific establishment seems to be rotting at the core.
[Update late morning]
The saga continues.
[Friday morning update]
The obfuscation continues in round three.
[Bumped]