Can you trust anyone?

[Psyber]

Findings from a recent study are posted below and the full link at the bottom. It appears Pharmaceutical companies are not the only ones wanting to bias reporting. I assume state governments are the ones with most adverse outcomes to hide as they run public health care in general, but some areas [like refugees] are federal issues. Mr Rudd has apparently promised to improve the situation - will it happen?

1 Key results of A survey of suppression of public health information by Australian governments.
A national survey of 302 public health academics at 17 Australian universities was conducted in August 2006.
They reported 142 witnessed suppression events, including 85 separate instances where 64 respondents (21%) had their own research affected.
Suppression took place where a government agency that provided data or commissioned the research put conditions on the release of the results, or where government employees were part of the research team and were restricted in what they could do.
Governments most commonly suppressed research by sanitising the results or by delaying or prohibiting the publication of results (66% of events), but no part of the research process was unaffected.
In 48% of cases, the affected researchers believed their work was targeted for suppression because it drew attention to failings in health services. Another 26% of cases related to the health status of a vulnerable group (such as Indigenous Australians, refugees or people with mental illness), while in a further 11% the research had pointed to an environmental harm.
In 87% of instances, the government agency succeeded, leaving the public uninformed or giving it a false impression.

2 Interventions to safeguard academic integrity when working with governments.
Public awareness of the issue and its importance
Guidelines for managing conflict of interest in the public service
Guidelines for avoiding result-dependent publication in academia
Mandatory statements by authors that works have not been subject to a right of veto by government
Agreements between government and academic bodies that support researcher independence
Independent mechanisms to resolve complaints about suppression of health research
Best-practice models of synergistic partnerships between government and academic bodies
Organisational values that avoid blame and welcome constructive criticism
Inclusion of oversight of government–researcher relations in the role of institutional ethics committees
Publicly reported surveillance systems to monitor suppression events.

Author details
C D’Arcy J Holman, MB BS, PhD, FAFPHM, Professor of Public Health

School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/188 ... 78_fm.html

[stan]

The best policy is No - you cant trust anyone.

[GWW]

Findings from a recent study are posted below and the full link at the bottom. It appears Pharmaceutical companies are not the only ones wanting to bias reporting. I assume state governments are the ones with most adverse outcomes to hide as they run public health care in general, but some areas [like refugees] are federal issues. Mr Rudd has apparently promised to improve the situation - will it happen?

1 Key results of A survey of suppression of public health information by Australian governments.
A national survey of 302 public health academics at 17 Australian universities was conducted in August 2006.
They reported 142 witnessed suppression events, including 85 separate instances where 64 respondents (21%) had their own research affected.
Suppression took place where a government agency that provided data or commissioned the research put conditions on the release of the results, or where government employees were part of the research team and were restricted in what they could do.
Governments most commonly suppressed research by sanitising the results or by delaying or prohibiting the publication of results (66% of events), but no part of the research process was unaffected.
In 48% of cases, the affected researchers believed their work was targeted for suppression because it drew attention to failings in health services. Another 26% of cases related to the health status of a vulnerable group (such as Indigenous Australians, refugees or people with mental illness), while in a further 11% the research had pointed to an environmental harm.
In 87% of instances, the government agency succeeded, leaving the public uninformed or giving it a false impression.

2 Interventions to safeguard academic integrity when working with governments.
Public awareness of the issue and its importance
Guidelines for managing conflict of interest in the public service
Guidelines for avoiding result-dependent publication in academia
Mandatory statements by authors that works have not been subject to a right of veto by government
Agreements between government and academic bodies that support researcher independence
Independent mechanisms to resolve complaints about suppression of health research
Best-practice models of synergistic partnerships between government and academic bodies
Organisational values that avoid blame and welcome constructive criticism
Inclusion of oversight of government–researcher relations in the role of institutional ethics committees
Publicly reported surveillance systems to monitor suppression events.

Author details
C D’Arcy J Holman, MB BS, PhD, FAFPHM, Professor of Public Health

School of Population Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/188 ... 78_fm.html

I dont trust those figures.

[Psyber]

You may be right - they probably depend on memory and perception. But I believe the generality based on my own experience.

[Dog_ger]

Trust.

The only person you can trust is yourself..!

Never forget this..!

and your MUM of course..!

[Psyber]

Trust.
The only person you can trust is yourself..!
Never forget this..!
and your MUM of course..!

I didn't trust my mother. She loved me, and I loved her, but her judgement of how to handle situations was not good and not to be relied on, as I learned while still a child. [She was excessively idealistic.]