Jazz fest

Totally failed to meet up with Esther. (GUILT! GUILT! GUILT!) Did see Shtreiml, the klezmer band we'd been planning to see together. I'd probably have enjoyed it more if I hadn't been scanning the crowd for signs of Esther but there you go. The lead singer/harmonica player had his mother come out on stage to perform 2 songs! Awesome! (And the classic line from the set proved to be "All right! Lubovitcher hasidim fans! Give it up!")

Then wandered down to Ste-Catherine and heard Eleni Mandell -- not really jazz, but I thought she was terrific.

And then I went home and collapsed in a heap. But I did get lots more sleep last night than I have been lately. I even think my cold may be passing.

quality of evidence?

"Group think" dynamic led to false intelligence on weapons of mass destruction

Intelligence analysts worked from the assumption that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to make more, as well as trying to revive a nuclear weapons program. Instead, investigations after the Iraq invasion have shown that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons program and no biological weapons, and only small amounts of chemical weapons have been found.

Analysts ignored or discounted conflicting information because of their assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the report said.

"This 'group think' dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs," the report concluded.

Such assumptions also led analysts to inflate snippets of questionable information into broad declarations that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, the report said.

For example, speculation that the presence of one specialized truck could mean an effort to transfer chemical weapons was puffed up into a conclusion that Iraq was actively making chemical weapons, the report said.

Analysts also concluded that Iraq had a mobile biological weapons program based mainly on the since-discredited claims of one Iraqi defector code-named "Curve Ball," it said. American agents did not have direct access to Curve Ball or his debriefers, but the source's information was expanded into the conclusion that Iraq had an advanced and active biological weapons program, the report said.

Really, these people could stand to learn from the way consensus guidelines on treating medical conditions are developed. They vary a little from group to group, but you'll generally see something like the following (taken from the SOGC's consensus guidelines on using hormone replacement therapy after treatment for breast cancer):

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT The quality of evidence reported in these guidelines has been described using the Evaluation of Evidence criteria outlined in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly randomized controlled trial. II-1: Evidence from well-designed controlled trials without randomization. II-2: Evidence from well-designed cohort (prospective or retrospective) or case-control studies, preferably from more than one centre or research group. II-3: Evidence obtained from comparisons between times or places with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled experiments (such as the results of treatment with penicillin in the 1940s) could also be included in this category. III: Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees.

CLASSIFICATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations included in these guidelines have been adapted from the ranking method described in the Classification of Recommendations found in the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. A. There is good evidence to support the recommendation that the condition be specifically considered in a periodic health examination. B. There is fair evidence to support the recommendation that the condition be specifically considered in a periodic health examination. C. There is poor evidence regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the condition in a periodic health examination, but recommendations may be made on other grounds. D. There is fair evidence to support the recommendation that the condition not be considered in a periodic health examination. E. There is good evidence to support the recommendation that the condition be excluded from consideration in a periodic health examination.

Assess the quality of the evidence, and show how strongly you feel about each recommendation. Doesn't seem that complicated, now does it?

guh

It's official: my decongestant has worn off. I can tell because I'm breathing through my mouth, which has dried up.

BLEAGH.

*sigh*

Note to self: CHECK on the writers. CHECK on the writers. CHECK on the writers.

Especially the ones you haven't worked with before.

*sigh*