Kellan Baker, executive director of the Whitman-Walker Institute for Health Research and Policy: “It’s a post-hoc justification for a political agenda they wanted to pursue anyway. You don’t do good science in 90 days with a ‘research question’ that’s determined by political fiat.”

Daniel Aaron, a physician and associate professor of law at University of Utah: “The document is marked with the signature of politics, which is antithetical to the way that science is normally conducted."

Gordon Guyatt, a professor of medicine and expert in research methods at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, said while the rating of evidence quality was accurate, the discussion of ethical issues was unbalanced, elaborating that... (1/2)

... "[this] raises the issue of how this report came about, how the team that put together the report was chosen, and the influence that players in the current administration had on the report.” -- Guyatt (2/2)