Intrepid Insight is proud to present the below statistical review performed at the request of Dr. James Enstrom with the Scientific Integrity Institute:
The report contains both a review of the competing claims and several meta-analysis calculations. As we state throughout the report, Intrepid Insight takes no position on the underlying political debate surrounding PM 2.5 regulations. The Excel workbook with formulas and calculations underlying the meta-analyses is available here:
One of the key statements is a unanimous endorsement of data transparency by Intrepid Insight’s directors and contributors. below is an excerpt from the report detailing this endorsement:
“Because so much rests on the release of the source data, I have asked all nine of Intrepid Insight’s directors and contributors to vote on whether to support data transparency as a principle (in this case and in all others). The vote was unanimously in favor.
Because the Pope 1995 paper is used to support public policies, there is an even greater justification for releasing the underlying data. Whether a person supports or opposes greater particulate matter regulations, one can still stand for reproducibility and transparency. These principles are in line with the same transparency we demand from the press and from politicians. Indeed, they seem like a natural extension of American democratic values to the world of public policy research.
There are many options for how the data could be released: it can be deidentified and completely open source, or it can be left in a secured portal with a vetting process for users. Both of these methods are used by government, nonprofit and corporate entities alike.”