Thread by @DrNancyOlivieri

💯 @BRAINCURES
True w/ other forms of ’investigations’ of academic #misconduct; I've never seen it go any other way: institutions attack or protect, depending on loyalties.
As I draft this (long) chapter of my book, thinking about institutional #accountability, a thread ...
1/6

https://twitter.com/BRAINCURES/status/1370760262677114880

At @uoftmedicine, carefully selected "consultants”, paid to “review” #Pharma-related scandal, gathered “information" from selected senior academics who lied, yet were believed. The “review" resulted in yrs of adverse actions against my colleagues & me: jme.bmj.com/content/30/1/8
2/6

As a result, @CAUT_ACPPU recognized the need for a truly independent report, the (unpaid) conclusions of which were very different from @uoftmedicine's "review":
From: jme.bmj.com/content/30/1/8

After @CAUT_ACPPU report, the Dean @uoftmedicine issued a familiar message (+ title!) "move on.” (Institutions like to “move on.”)
But two months later, the Dean sued us after our public criticism of him, so maybe he hadn't moved on all that far.
cmaj.ca/content/166/4/…
4/6

At @CMAJ, the Dean's friends sought to discredit @CAUT_ACPPU's report, suggesting its use as a "doormat”: cmaj.ca/content/166/4/…
The composition of the CMAJ Board members of that era is ...revealing. Writing more about the CMAJ in my book.
#ConflictsOfInterest
5/6

So yes, institutions with deep pockets can (and will) hire “reviewers” to reach certain conclusions.
Journal Boards with "interests" can (and will) defend the indefensible.
All part of how academic #whistleblowers are punished, and why more don’t stand up: thelancet.com/journals/eclin…