Research-based Research Misconduct
​Research-based Research Misconduct
The compound adjective "research-based" ("forskningsbaserte") and its use in the soundbite-slogan "research-based tool" ("forskningsbaserte verktøyet") is the consistently used promotional slogan among Ministry of Health & Care Services, Directorate of Health and NCFM eSnurra Group. It appears NOKC is the only party involved which did not promulgate the soundbite-slogan "research-based tool." It would appear this soundbite-slogan was injected by Sturla H. Eik-Nes into the "Report: Independent Expert Group for Evaluation of Abortions" to identify a slogan-based requirement for the method or "tool" Directorate of Health was assigned by Ministry of Health & Care Services to select, and then present for approval, the Norwegian national method or "tool" to establish gestational age (GA) and estimated day/date of delivery (EDD) for all pregnancies and abortions in Norway. 

The excerpt below is from "3.7 Expert group assessments and recommendations" ("3.7 Ekspertgruppens vurderinger og tilrådinger") of the "Report: Independent expert group for review of abortions" (Rapport: Uavhengig ekspertgruppe for vurdering av svangerskapsavbrudd) (p. 21). This appears to be the original use of the soundbite-slogan "research-based tool" ("forskningsbaserte verktøyet") in the context of ultrasound-based pregnancy dating; a soundbite-slogan which was subsequently adopted by Ministry of Health & Care Services and Directorate of Health as an explicit requirement for the selection of the national method or "tool" to determine estimated date of delivery (EDD), gestational age (GA) and fetal age for all pregnancies and abortions in Norway.
  • "The most precise and research-based tool for assessing the duration and term of pregnancy should be used at all times."
    ("Det mest presise og forskningsbaserte verktøyet for vurdering av svangerskapets varighet og termin bør til enhver tid anvendes.") (Source: "Report: Independent Expert Group for Evaluation of Abortions"  ("Rapport: Uavhengig ekspertgruppe for vurdering av svangerskapsavbrudd") Oslo 8. april 2013, Stein Kinserdal /s/, Leder., p. 21)
The same excerpt from "Report: Independent expert group for review of abortions" was quoted at the bottom of page 2 of Directorate of Health's  13.10.2014 letter to Ministry of Health & Care Services as follows.
  • "The expert group did not conclude in its 2013 report the tool to be used but recommended the following: "The most precise and research-based tool for assessing the duration and term of pregnancy should be used at all times."'
    ("Ekspertgruppen konkluderte ikke i sin rapport fra 2013 med hvilket verktøy som skulle benyttes, men anbefalte følgende: «Det mest presise og forskningsbaserte verktøyet for vurdering av svangerskapets varighet og termin bør til enhver tid anvendes.»")
    (Source: Letter: Helsedirektoratet to Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet, 13.10.2014 Vår ref.: 12/6746-19, Saksbehandler: Cecilie Sommerstad. "Helsedirektoratets anbefalinger til Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet etter oppfølging av rapport fra «Uavhengig ekspertgruppe for vurdering av svangerskapsavbrudd»"; Local English & Norwegian HTML  Version: 13.10.2014 Hdir Letter to HOD); Original Norwegian PDF Version: Health Directorate's 13.10.2014 Recommendations Letter to Ministry of Health and Care Services)

The soundbite-slogan of "research-based tool" is also used on page 1 of Directorate of Health's  13.10.2014 letter to Ministry of Health & Care Services.
  • "Determination of the duration of pregnancy
    The Directorate of Health has been assigned the task of assessing what is currently the most accurate and research-based tool for calculating the duration of pregnancy and how the authorities can ensure that this tool is used in all specialist environments."
    ("Fastsetting av svangerskapets varighet
    Helsedirektoratet har fått i oppdrag å vurdere hva som per dags dato er det mest presise og forskningsbaserte verktøyet for å beregne svangerskapets varighet og hvordan myndighetene kan sikre at dette verktøyet brukes i alle fagmiljøer.") (Source: ibid.)

The 15.11.2013 official request to Knowledge Centre for Health Services in Public Health (NOKC) (Kunnskapssenteret) filed on behalf of Directorate of Health and Ministry of Health and Care Services was submitted by Jens Grøgaard and Cecilie Sommerstad, Senior Advisers, Directorate of Health. This official request included 2 occurrences of the soundbite-slogan.
  • ​"Both methods are research-based and developed respectively at UiB and NTNU. Internationally, both methods well recognized and used in several countries." 
    ("Begge metoder er forskningsbaserte og utviklet i henholdsvis ved UiB og NTNU. Internasjonalt er begge metoder vel anerkjente og brukes i flere land.") (Source: ibid.)

Directorate of Health's 10.12.2014 letter to enact their knowledge-obviated, medically & ethically flawed 2014 Recommendation referred to their mission assignment as it is stated in Ministry of Health's 24.09.2013 letter; an assignment which resulted from the: "Report: Independent experts for evaluation of abortions" ("Rapport: Uavhengig ekspertgruppe for vurdering av svangerskapsavbrudd") dated 08.04.2013, as follows.
  • "... to consider what is the most precise and research-based tool today for calculating the duration of pregnancy and how the authorities can ensure that this tool is used in all professional environments" ("« … å vurdere hva som per dags dato er det mest presise og forskningsbaserte verktøyet for å beregne svangerskapets varighet og hvordan myndighetene kan sikre at dette verktøyet brukes i alle fagmiljøer»)" (Source: Hesediredtoratet letter: "eSnurra som nasjonalt verktøy for å bestemme svangerskapets varighet og fødetermin" Torunn Janbu e.f., Fung. divisjonsdirektør; Jens Grøgaard, seniorrådgiver, v3.1-16.05.2 (hidden); Vår ref.: 12/6746-24; Saksbehandler: Jens Grøgaard; Dato: 10.12.2014; Recipients/Mottaker: Helse Midt-Norge RHF, Helse Nord RHF, Helse Sør-Øst RHF, Helse Vest RHF) 

A 2014 article in Dagens Medisin entitled "Gynekologer raser mot Helsedirektoratet" contained a link to: "Read the statement by Torunn Janbu and the Norwegian Directorate of Health in full here." (Les uttalelsen fra Torunn Janbu og Helsedirektoratet i sin helhet her.) which also used the soundbite-slogan "research-based tool."
  • "The Directorate of Health's mission from the Ministry of Health and Care Services (last autumn) was to present a recommendation on which tool is the most precise and research-based tool."
    ("Helsedirektoratets oppdrag fra Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet (i fjor høst) var å legge frem en anbefaling om hvilket verktøy som er det mest presise og forskningsbaserte verktøyet.")
    (Source: "Gynekologer raser mot Helsedirektoratet" Dagens Medisin SPESIALISTHELSETJENESTE. Anne Grete Storvik. Publisert: 2014-12-08 14.04. Les uttalelsen fra Torunn Janbu og Helsedirektoratet i sin helhet her.)​

Johan Torgersen, Division Director, Directorate of Health, and Torunn Janbu, Deputy Director, Directorate of Health, authored a 2015 article in the "Comment and debate" section of Dagens Medicine. Again, the slogan "research-based tool" was used.
  • "Directorate of Health recommends that eSnurra be selected as a national tool for determining EDD and fetal age. The recommendation is based on evidence of what is currently the most precise and research-based tool."
    ("Helsedirektoratet anbefaler at eSnurra velges som nasjonalt verktøy for å bestemme svangerskapets varighet – fødetermin og fosteralder. Anbefalingen bygger på vitenskapelig dokumentasjon av hva som per dags dato er det mest presise og forskningsbaserte verktøyet.") (Source: "Directorate of Health's Role - and eSnurra" or "Helsedirektoratets rolle – og eSnurra" Johan Torgersen, Division Director in the Directorate of Health, Torunn Janbu, Deputy Director in the Directorate of Health, Comment and debate, Dagens Medicine 07/2015)

Directorate of Health's 13.10.2014 letter recommending the NCFM eSnurra method or "tool" to Ministry of Health further emphasized the soundbite-slogan "research-based tool."
  • Determination of Pregnancy Duration (Fastsetting av svangerskapets varighet)
    "The Directorate of Health has been assigned the task of assessing what is the most current, precise and research-based tool for calculating the duration of pregnancy and how the government can ensure that this tool is used in all professional environments."
    ("Helsedirektoratet har fått i oppdrag å vurdere hva som per dags dato er det mest presise og forskningsbaserte verktøyet for å beregne svangerskapets varighet og hvordan myndighetene kan sikre at dette verktøyet brukes i alle fagmiljøer.") (Source: Hesediredtoratet letter: "Helsedirektoratets anbefalinger til Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet etter oppfølging av rapport fra «Uavhengig ekspertgruppe for vurdering av svangerskapsavbrudd»" Knut-Inge Klepp e.f. divisjonsdirektør, Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet, Postboks 8011 Dep, 0030 OSLO; Cecilie Sommerstad seniorrådgiver, 18.03.2013 [hidden: Vår ref.: 12/6746-19]; Saksbehandler: Cecilie Sommerstad; Dato: 13.10.2014, p. 1-7) 

On 17.04.2015 there was a"Meeting between the Directorate of Health and the Medical Association about the process behind the recommendation of the tool for term estimation" ("Møte mellom Helsedirektoratet og Legeforeningen om prosessen bak anbefalingen om verktøy for terminfastsettelse") However, the minutes of this meeting were not published until 24.08.2015, which was 129 days later. A delay of this magnitude typically signals disagreement over the content of a meeting's minutes; and, in this case, the text of the minutes contained only 573 words (beginning with the word "Bakgrunn" ("Background")). Ergo, (573 words)/(128 days) = approximately 4.5 words/day, signalling the minutes to this meeting were either very low priority or very highly contested. When Directorate of Health released the minutes to their meeting with NGF 129 days after the meeting, the soundbite-slogan​ "research-based tool" ("forskningsbaserte verktøyet") as included.
  • "In 2013, the Directorate of Health received an assignment from the Ministry of Health and Care Services (HOD) to assess what is currently the most precise and research-based tool for calculating pregnancy duration and how the authorities can ensure that this tool is used in all specialist environments."
    ("Helsedirektoratet fikk i 2013 i oppdrag fra Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet (HOD) å vurdere hva som per dags dato er det mest presise og forskningsbaserte verktøy for å beregne svangerskapets varighet og hvordan myndighetene kan sikre at dette verktøyet brukes i alle fagmiljøer.") (Source: 2015-08-24 Final Minutes of 2015-04-17 meeting between the Directorate of Health and the Norwegian Medical Association (Den Norske Legeforening) "about the process behind the recommendation of the tool for term estimation" 2015-08-24 her - Legeforeningen)
Directorate of Health's website actively (and ignorantly) promotes the NCFM eSnurra "method" as "the best research-based method, and the most precise tool."
  • "eSnurra as a method of calculating pregnancy length and term
    The Directorate of Health recommends using one method, eSnurra, for the calculation of pregnancy length and term (letter of December 2014, PDF). eSnurra is the best research-based method, and the most precise tool for evaluation of the term and duration of pregnancy. When using eSnurra, overtime (294 days) will occur 11 days over the estimated term date.
    ("eSnurra     om metode for beregning av svangerskapslengde og termin
    Helsedirektoratet anbefaler å bruke én metode, eSnurra, for beregning av svangerskapslengde og termin (brev av desember 2014, PDF). eSnurra er den beste forskningsbaserte metoden, og det mest presise av verktøy for vurdering av termin og svangerskapslengde. Ved bruk av eSnurra vil overtid (294 dager) inntreffe 11 dager over beregnet termindato.)

    ​The use of one method nationally ensures abortion-seeking women similarity under the law (avoiding geographical variations), will give a similar assessment of prematurity and unambiguous assessment of overtime pregnancies.
    (Bruk av én metode nasjonalt sikrer abortsøkende kvinner likhet for loven (unngår geografiske variasjoner), vil gi lik vurdering av prematuritet og entydig vurdering av overtidige svangerskap.)

    eSnurra as a national tool is readily available as a plastic wheel, mobile and tablet app and an open available web version (esnurra.no).
    (eSnurra som nasjonalt verktøy er lett tilgjengelig som et plasthjul, app for mobil og nettbrett og en åpen tilgjengelig webversjon (esnurra.no). )

    After making traditional ultrasound measurements of the head and thighbone, the data can be used in all modern ultrasound machines."
    (    Etter å ha gjort tradisjonelle ultralydmålinger av hode og lårbein, kan dataene brukes i alle moderne ultralydmaskiner.")
    (Source: Directorate of Health's website: https://helsedirektoratet.no/folkehelse/graviditet-fodsel-og-barsel/graviditet-og-svangerskap/overtidige-svangerskap [accessed 10.03.2018])

The soundbite-slogan "research-based" was used, consistently, just like a political party, to promote the national method or "tool" selected to estimate day/date of delivery (EDD) and, therefrom, calculate gestational age (GA)  using the equivalent of Naegele's rule, in reverse, for all pregnancies and abortions in Norway. The research-based tool selected by Directorate of Health and approved by Ministry of Health and Care Services was NCFM eSnurra Group's "method" or "tool." 

Research-based Research Misconduct
NCFM eSnurra Group's "method" or "tool" is most definitely "research-based" ("forskningsbaserte") because NCFM eSnurra Group's "research-based tool" ("forskningsbaserte verktøy") is based, entirely, on NCFM eSnurra Group's ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism of Dr. David J. R. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE).
  • Dr. Hutchon's seminal paper, Hutchon 1998, was published 19.07.1998 by OBGYN.net 7-years (2,608-days) before NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 was published on 08.09.2005 and, 9-years (3,246 days) before NCFM eSnurra Group's more significant Gjessing et al. 2007 was published on 08.06.2007.
  • Both NCFM eSnurra Group publications, Eik-Nes et al. 2005 and Gjessing et al. 2007 appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, as NCFM eSnurra Group's own original idea and method; appropriated and plagiarized it to become their own "research-based tool" ("forskningsbaserte verktøy"), from Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998, Dr. Hutchon's website and his other publications.
  • Both of these NCFM eSnurra Group papers were published in the international, academic medical journal Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology (UOG), the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG).
  • Dr. Hutchon's first manuscript of his idea and method of PDEE was published 19.07.1998 in OBGYN.net, Hutchon 1998. Dr. Hutchon's second, more robust manuscript of his idea and method of PDEE was received by Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology (UOG) on 13.07.1999 and coded as: "UOG 99/155 Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery ".
  • Interestingly, Sturla H. Eik-Nes, NCFM eSnurra Group's founder, leader, and 1 of the 3 NCFM eSnurra Group members who claim to be the copyright owners of NCFM eSnurra, was President of ISUOG (1998 – 2002).
Consequently, it is a 23-year old, well-documented fact the original idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) was formulated by Dr. David J. R. Hutchon beginning in 1995 at Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Memorial Hospital, Hollyhurst Road, Darlington, Co. Durham DL3 6HX, U.K. and published, along with a demonstration of his original idea and method of PDEE using datasets of both CRL and BPD in his Hutchon 1998 and his Hutchon.net website, 7-years before NCFM eSnurra Group appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method and claimed it as their own original idea and method in NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005, followed by their more significant, Gjessing et al. 2007, both of which were published by Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, followed by 15+ additional NCFM eSnurra Group publications, all of which are part of the long-term, ongoing appropriation and plagiarisim of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of PDEE. The most recent occurrences are NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2017, published April 2017 by UOG and Gjessing et al 2017b, published October 2017 in Norsk Epidemiologi.

Norwegian Directorate of Health's 13.10.2014 letter to Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services recommended NCFM eSnurra Group's eSnurra "method" (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized, misused Hutchon Method of PDEE) be implemented, exclusively, as Norway's national method or "tool" to estimate date of delivery (EDD) and, therefrom, calculate gestational age (GA) and fetal age using the equivalent of Naegele's rule, in reverse, for all pregnancies and abortions in Norway. Ministry of Health and Care Services approved Directorate of Health's recommendation and, consequently, via their 10.12.2014 letter to Helse Midt-Norge RHF, Helse Nord RHF, Helse Sør-Øst RHF and Helse Vest RHF, Directorate of Health enacted their knowledge-obviated, science-bending, medically and ethically flawed 2014 Recommendation with their exclusive implementation of NCFM eSnurra Group's appropriated, plagiarized, misused eSnurra "method"within a government-mandated protocol of evidence-obviated medicine with respect to obstetric medicine, fetal medicine and obstetric clinical care. Moreover Directorate of Health and Ministry of Health and Care Services ignored the explicit, published warnings of Bergen Group and NGF which stated Directorate of Health's 2014 Recommendation was "medically flawed" and "can be directly dangerous,"  respectively. Nevertheless, Directorate of Health enacted their 2014 Recommendation with conscious disregard of the risks and consequences; risks and consequences for which they had been explicitly informed and warned; consequences proven to cause increased medical risks, critical medical mistakes and grievous medical harms, unnecessarily (including perinatal death); harms endured by Laila and her baby and other women and their fetuses/babies. Directorate of Health,  Ministry of Health and Care Services and NCFM eSnurra Group breached the public trust with conscious disregard of the consequences.

Moreover, at the top of page 6 of Directorate of Health's 13.10.2014 letter to Norwegian Ministry of Health & Care Services, Directorate of Health again identified themselves as acting beyond their competence and as colluding, biased sycophants of NCFM eSnurra Group by arrogantly and ignorantly proclaiming that which is provided in the first excerpt below. The second excerpt was published in Dagens Medisin.
  • "Norway is currently at the forefront of Europe in terms of population studies, which provide more accurate results for calculating the duration of pregnancy. It is therefore not considered appropriate to use methods from other countries."
    ("Norge ligger for tiden fremst i Europa hva angår populasjonsstudier, som gir mer  korrekte resultater, for beregning av svangerskapets varighet. Det ansees derfor ikke  hensiktsmessig å benytte metoder fra andre land.")     (Source: Hesediredtoratet letter: "Helsedirektoratets anbefalinger til Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet etter oppfølging av rapport fra «Uavhengig ekspertgruppe for vurdering av svangerskapsavbrudd»" Knut-Inge Klepp e.f. divisjonsdirektør, Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet, Postboks 8011 Dep, 0030 OSLO; Cecilie Sommerstad seniorrådgiver, 18.03.2013 (hidden), Vår ref.: 12/6746-19; Saksbehandler: Cecilie Sommerstad; Dato: 13.10.2014, p. 1-7) 
  • "Norway is currently also at the forefront of Europe in population studies, which provide more accurate results for calculating the duration of pregnancy."
    "Norge ligger for tiden også fremst i Europa hva angår populasjonsstudier, som gir mer korrekte resultater, for beregning av svangerskapets varighet."
    (Source: "Fødselsleger: – Hdir forstår ikke forskjell på termin og alder" Anne Grete Storvik. Dagens Medisin. Published: 2014-10-22 13.19)

Research-based Research Misconduct: A Bitter Pill to Swallow
The 20-year old, well-documented fact of the Hutchon Method of PDEE and the appropriation and plagiarism of the Hutchon Method by NCFM eSnurra Group is likely a bitter, research-based pill for Ministry of Health and Care Services and Directorate of Health to swallow.

Torunn Janbu, Head of the Department of Hospital Services, Norwegian Directorate of Health, wrote a 2016 article in Tidsskr Nor Legeforen which stated:
  • "eSnurra is a population-based model developed at the National Centre for Fetal Medicine at St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway, the Department of Medical Informatics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (1). Stavanger University Hospital, Norway, has been involved in the evaluations (2)." ("eSnurra er en populasjonsbasert metode utviklet ved Nasjonalt senter for fostermedisin ved St. Olavs hospital, Seksjon for medisinsk informatikk ved Universitetet i Oslo og Folkehelseinstituttet (1). Stavanger universitetssjukehus er involvert i evalueringene (2).") (Source: "One Norwegian national tool for estimating date of delivery and fetal age" ("Nasjonalt verktøy for bestemmelseav termin og fosteralder") Torunn Janbu, Tidsskr Nor Legeforen nr. 9, 2016; 136: 790 – 1)
Not surprisingly, what Torunn Janbu claimed in her article and what is reality are not the same. Again, and with respect to the excerpt above, it remains a 20-year old, well-documented fact NCFM eSnurra Group's "method" had been appropriated and plagiarized from another country, the U.K., or, more specifically, Darlington, England. Interestingly, the 4 institutions identified by Torunn Janbu map directly to the 4 NCFM eSnurra Group members and authors as follows:
  • National Centre for Fetal Medicine at St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway: Sturla H. Eik-Nes, (claimed eSnurra copyright owner)
  • Department of Medical Informatics at the University of Oslo, Norway: Per Grøttum (claimed eSnurra copyright owner)
  • Norwegian Institute of Public Health: Håkon K. Gjessing (claimed eSnurra copyright owner)
  • Stavanger University Hospital, Norway: Inger Økland
Interestingly, and contrary to Norway's reputation for government openness and transparency, Torunn Janbu did not disclose the relationships of these 4 NCFM eSnurra Group members with these 4 Norwegian institutions. Nor did Torunn Janbu disclose that these 4 NCFM eSnurra Group members accounted for 16 of the 20 authorship credits of the 4 papers included within Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis, which is Torunn Janbu's citation "(2)" (included below with a link). Again, Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis was based, entirely, on the appropriated, plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE. Moreover, Torunn Janbu's first citation "(1)" (also included below) referenced NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 which had appropriated and plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE.
  • "1.  Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH. A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 19 – 27. [PubMed] [CrossRef]"
  • "2.  Økland I. Biases in second-trimester ultrasound dating related to prediction models and foetal measurements. Doktoravhandling. Trondheim: Norges" [Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis]
In her  2016 article in Tidsskr Nor Legeforen, Torunn Janbu also stated: The "research documentation" referenced by Torunn Janbu (above) had been written by NCFM eSnurra Group, exclusively, to assess the performance of NCFM eSnurra Group's "method" (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE) relative to Bergen Group's method, Terminhjulet or Term wheel and NCFM eSnurra Group's previous NCFM Snurra method. Moreover, Torunn Janbu's citation "(2)," used twice: 1) for the "the evaluation" and 2) for the "research documentation" referenced Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis as independent, academic, research-based evidence to justify Directorate of Health's selection of NCFM eSnurra Group's "method".
  • Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis (not an NTNU PhD thesis as is promoted by Torunn Janbu) included 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers which comprised 20 authorship credits among 8 NCFM eSnurra Group authors.
  • Each of the 4 papers included in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE.
  • Page 3 of Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis states: "Principal Supervisor, Sturla H. Eik-Nes; Co-supervisors Håkon K. Gjessing and Per Grøttum"
  • Sturla H. Eik-Nes, Håkon K. Gjessing and Per Grøttum are coauthors of each of the 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers included in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis.
  • Sturla H. Eik-Nes, Håkon K. Gjessing and Per Grøttum were (and remain) the 3 original members of the NCFM eSnurra Group.
  • Sturla H. Eik-Nes, Håkon K. Gjessing and Per Grøttum coauthored NCFM eSnurra Group's aforementioned Eik-Nes et al. 2005 and Gjessing et al. 2007 publications, the first and second known publications of NCFM eSnurra Group to appropriate and plagiarize the Hutchon Method of PDEE.
  • Jens Grøgaard Senior Adviser, Directorate of Health, was a member of Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. thesis Assessment Committee.
  • Jens Grøgaard Senior Adviser, Directorate of Health, adjudicated the 13.01.2012 public defense of Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis.
  • Jens Grøgaard, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Health, directed NOKC to Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis as the answer NOKC should deliver to Directorate of Health. NOKC complied.
  • Sturla H. Eik-Nes, Håkon K. Gjessing and Per Grøttum claim to be the 3 "copyright owners" of NCFM eSnurra (© 2007 EikNes, Grøttum og Gjessing), as identified on the NCFM eSnurra website, bottom of page.
  • Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis was only publicly available because by law all NTNU doctoral theses must be made publicly available. Again, Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis was the one and only publicly available document Directorate of Health identified and, was the one and only document Directorate of Health disclosed, via references. Consequently, it would appear Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis was the one and only document Directorate of Health used in their closed decision-making process to select NCFM eSnurra Group's "method" (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE). 
It is a stone-cold fact neither Inger Økland, a member of NCFM eSnurra Group, nor her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis were independent. Nevertheless, Økland and her 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis were promoted as independent, NTNU-verified academic evidence to justify the selection of NCFM eSnurra Group's "method" (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized, misused Hutchon Method of PDEE) to estimate date of delivery (EDD) and, therefrom, calculate gestational age (GA) and fetal age using the equivalent of Naegele's rule, in reverse, for all pregnancies and abortions in Norway.

See: Bending Science
Back to 2012: the origin of "research-based tool"
In a letter dated 16.05.2012, Ministry of Health and Care Services commissioned Directorate of Health to assemble an "independent expert group" to review Norway's regulations and practices related to late-term abortions. This excerpt (below) was taken from the report created by this "independent expert group": "Report: Independent Expert Group for Evaluation of Abortions" ("Rapport:  Uavhengig ekspertgruppe  for vurdering av  svangerskapsavbrudd").
  • "In Norway, an ultrasound study in full-week 18 is part of pregnancy care. The ultrasound method used systematically for age and term is quality assured against the last menstruation as a method ("Nägeles rule") and generally found better. In Norway, the ultrasound method "Snurra" [4] was introduced in 1984 and soon used throughout the country. The method introduced a review of pregnancy in integers. In 2005, the ultrasound method "The Term Wheel" was published [9]. The population-based method "eSnurra" came in 2007 to improve "Snurra" and "Termin wheel" [6], "eSnurra" has been validated last year on 72000 pregnancies [16-18]."
    ("I Norge er tilbud om en ultralydundersøkelse i fullgått uke 18 en del av svangerskapsomsorgen. Ultralydmetoden brukt systematisk for alder og termin er kvalitetssikret mot den siste menstruasjon som metode (”Nägeles regel”) og funnet generelt bedre. I Norge ble ultralydmetoden ”Snurra” [4] introdusert i 1984 og etter kort tid brukt over hele landet. Metoden innførte omtale av svangerskapet i heltall. I 2005 ble ultralydmetoden ”Terminhjulet” publisert [9]. Den populasjonsbaserte metoden ”eSnurra” kom i 2007 for å forbedre ”Snurra” og ”Terminhjulet” [6], ”eSnurra” er siste år validert på 72000 graviditeter [16-18].")
    (Source: "Report: Independent Expert Group for Evaluation of Abortions"  ("Rapport: avhengig ekspertgruppe for vurdering av svangerskapsavbrudd") Oslo 8. april 2013, Stein Kinserdal /s/, Leder., p. 19)
​While the "Report: Independent Expert Group for Evaluation of Abortions" did not identify report content contributions of individual group members, the excerpt (above) was clearly contributed by Sturla Eik-Nes, founder and leader of NCFM eSnurra Group, identified as a member of the independent expert group (page 8) as follows: "Sturla Eik-Nes, professor/seksjonsoverlege: Nasjonalt senter for fostermedisin, St. Olavs."
It is interesting to note:
  • in this 5-sentence excerpt (above) Sturla Eik-Nes cited 5 publications coauthored by Sturla Eik-Nes as references (citation references included below)
  • of these 5 citations, 4 referenced NCFM eSnurra Group publications (6, 16-18); each of which had appropriated and plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE
  • of these 4 plagiarized publications,  3 of them, citations (16-18), comprised the first 3 papers of the 4 papers included in Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis, all of which had appropriated and plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE
In summary, Sturla Eik-Nes was the principal supervisor ofØkland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis with NCFM eSnurra Group members Gjessing and Grøttum as co-supervisors. So, Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis was supervised by the 3 original members of NCFM eSnurra Group, who were the 3 coauthors of NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 which appropriated and plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE, who claimed (and claim) to be the 3 "copyright owners" of NCFM eSnurra (© 2007 EikNes, Grøttum og Gjessing), as displayed on the NCFM eSnurra website, bottom of page.
  • 4) Eik-Nes SH and Grøttum P. Graviditetskalenderen Snurra. Scan-Med A/S, Drammen, Norway, 1983.
  • 6) Gjessing HK, Grøttum P and Eik-Nes SH. A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 19-27
  • 16) Økland I, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH. Biases of traditional term prediction models: results from different sample-based models evaluated on 41 343 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36: 728–734.
  • 17) Økland I, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eggebø TM, Eik-Nes SH. A new population-based term prediction model vs. two traditional sample-based models: validation on 9046 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 207– 213.
  • 18) Økland I, Nakling J, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH. Advantages of the population-based approach to pregnancy dating demonstrated with results from 23,020 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:563-8.
​Moreover, it is interesting to note Jens Grøgaard, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Health delivered Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis and these 3 papers of the appropriated, plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE (16, 17 & 18, above), separately, via 2 references in his formal request (Forslagsnr: 792, 15.11.2013) to NOKC on behalf of Directorate of Health and Ministry of Health &  Care Services. In his formal request to NOKC, Grøgaard stated:
  • "In a recently published doctorate in 2012 (Inger Økland, SUS) compared both methods. Can KS issue a statement about which method is considered to be the best science and that can be the basis for selecting the method for health authorities?" (Source: Forslagsnr: 792, 15.11.2013) 
Having been on Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis Assessment Committee and having adjudicated Økland's public defense of her thesis, Grøgaard had already known Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis concluded, not surprisingly:
  • NCFM eSnurra Group's models performed better
  • in the NCFM eSnurra Group's designed study
  • of NCFM eSnurra Group's validation
  • of NCFM eSnurra Group's models
  • exclusively by NCFM eSnurra Group members
  • that resulted in 3 papers based, entirely, on the appropriated, plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE
  • comprising 14 total authorship credits among 6 authors
  • of which 12 authorship credits were shared equally among 4 NCFM eSnurra Group members
  • of which 3 members claimed (and claim) to be the "copyright owners" of NCFM eSnurra (© 2007 EikNes, Grøttum og Gjessing)
  • who are the same 3 NCFM eSnurra Group members who had appropriated and plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE in NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005, followed by the more significant Gjessing et al. 2007, both published in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacology (reference 6, above),
  • who packaged the 3-papers of the appropriated, plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE into NCFM eSnurra Group member Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis
  • a thesis which was supervised by the the 3 NCFM eSnurra Group "copyright owners" (© 2007 EikNes, Grøttum og Gjessing)
  • a thesis for which Grøgaard had served as an Assessment Committee member
  • a thesis for which Grøgaard had adjudicated its public defense by NCFM eSnurra Group member Inger Økland on 01.13.2012.
In short, Grøgaard knew Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis quite well. Consequently, when Grøgaard delivered Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis via the references included in his formal request to NOKC on behalf of Ministry of Health & Care Services and Directorate of Health, he was delivering the prepackaged answer Directorate of Health wanted NOKC to deliver back to Directorate of Health as NOKC's answer, which NOKC did without any due diligence into the origin, provenance, dating and publications of NCFM eSnurra Group's eSnurra method (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE). The entire Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process and the Systematic Review process were bypassed by Directorate of Health and NOKC. Also, and not surprisingly, NOKC reported to Directorate of Health at the time, but that changed in January 2016.

Also, the "Summary" of the group of experts report (p. 3-4) and the section "3.7 Expert group assessments and recommendations" ("3.7 Ekspertgruppens vurderinger og tilrådinger") (p. 21) included these 2 contributions from Sturla Eik-Nes (excerpts below). It is again interesting to note the introduction of the phrase "research-based tool" with respect to Sturla Eik-Nes and NCFM eSnurra Group because the NCFM eSnurra Group's method or "tool" was most definitely "research-based" because its research was based on the plagiarized original research, publications and website of Dr. David J. R. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) or the Hutchon Method of PDEE.
  • "The expert group also suggests that the most precise and research-based tool for assessing gestational age and term at any time should be used to achieve the most precise assessment of gestation. (p. 3-4) ("Ekspertgruppen foreslår også at det mest presise og forskningsbaserte verktøyet for vurdering av svangerskapets varighet og termin til enhver tid  bør anvendes for å få en mest mulig presis angivelse av svangerskapets varighet.") (Source: Summary section, "Report: Independent Expert Group for Evaluation of Abortions"  ("Rapport: Uavhengig ekspertgruppe for vurdering av svangerskapsavbrudd") Oslo 8. april 2013, Stein Kinserdal /s/, Leder., p.3-4)
  • "The most precise and research-based tool for assessing gestational age and term should be used at all times." ("Det mest presise og forskningsbaserte verktøyet for vurdering av svangerskapets varighet og termin bør til enhver tid anvendes.") (Source: "Report: Independent Expert Group for Evaluation of Abortions"  (Source:"Rapport: Uavhengig ekspertgruppe for vurdering av svangerskapsavbrudd") Oslo 8. april 2013, Stein Kinserdal /s/, Leder., p. 21)

See: Bending Science

Finally, NCFM eSnurra Group's then 8-years of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism notwithstanding, Sturla Eik-Nes was anything but an independent member of the group with respect to proffering assessments and recommendations regarding criteria for the selection of a "research-based tool" to establish estimated dated of delivery (EDD), gestational age (GA) and fetal age for all pregnancies and abortions in Norway. It is interesting to note Sturla Eik-Nes was (and remains) 1 of the 3 NCFM eSnurra Group members who claimed (and claim) to be the "copyright owners" (© 2007 EikNes, Grøttum og Gjessing) of NCFM eSnurra, as displayed on the NCFM eSnurra website. Again, these 3 NCFM eSnurra "copyright owners" were the supervisors of Inger Økland's 2012DT, which was used and cited, extensively, by Directorate of Health as their independent, academic, research-based evidence (the only evidence publicly available) to justify their selection of NCFM eSnurra Group's eSnurra method (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE) in Directorate of Health's medically and ethically flawed, intentionally reckless and willfully negligent 2014 Recommendation.

Interestingly, Inger Økland is now in her second year of employment at Directorate of Health, working with Torunn Janbu, Jens Grøgaard et al. to overcome strong opposition in the larger cities to Directorate of Health's knowledge-obviated, medically & ethically flawed, willfully & grossly negligent 2014 Recommendation.

​The following provides a summary of the relevant information and events that address the issues of independence and conflicts of interest, which are covered in detail elsewhere in this document.
  1. Torunn Janbu, Head of the Department of Hospital Services, Norwegian Directorate of Health referenced a Doctoral Thesis as independent, academic, research-based justification for their selection of NCFM eSnurra as the exclusive implementation vehicle for Directorate of Health's medically and ethically flawed 2014 Recommendation. The Doctoral Thesis Janbu referenced was that of Inger Økland. Økland was a member of NCFM eSnurra Group, having coauthored no fewer than 5 publications with Sturla Eik-Ness beginning in 2007 and no few than 4 publications with Håkon K. Gjessing and Per Grøttum between 2010 and 2012. Økland was anything but independent, and Janbu was anything but transparent about this.
  2. Torunn Janbu intentionally misrepresented Økland's 2012DT as being an NTNU PhD Doctoral Thesis instead of an NTNU dr.philos Doctoral Thesis. Specifically, "Section 1 Objectives" of NTNU's (dr.philos.) regulations state: "Dr.philos. is a completely independent study where you are not entitled to supervision, organized academic training, a work place or other assistance from the university. Writing a dr.philos.-thesis is usually completed on your own time and you only get in touch with NTNU once the thesis is finished and ready to be handed in." An NTNU PhD Doctoral Thesis is a fully supervised, rigorous academic undertaking. Økland's NTNU dr.philos. Doctoral Thesis and degree were not an NTNU PhD Thesis and degree.
  3. Økland's 2012DT included 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers as "joint works" with a total of 20 authorship credits with 16 author credits (or 80%) shared equally among the 4 core members of NCFM eSnurra Group: Økland, Gjessing, Grøttum & Eik-Nes, with each of the 4 papers exclusively based on the plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE.
  4. Økland, the most junior member, the least experienced member, the only member who had not been conferred a PhD degree was credited as lead author of all 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers. If one assumes each of the 20 total authorship credits contributed equally to the 4 papers, then Økland's 20% share of total authorship credits for the 4 papers equals 0.8 papers, not even 1 paper.
  5. Interestingly, 2 of the 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers included within Økland's 2012DT cited and referenced Dr. Hutchon's 2001 letter to the editor of British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG) regarding "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal" in which Dr. Hutchon presented his original idea and the Hutchon Method of PDEE and its benefits along with 2 citations to his seminal Hutchon 1998 for which the reference included a URL link. NCFM eSnurra Group cited Dr. Hutchon's 2001 letter to the editor of BJOG in the 2 NCFM eSnurra Group papers, but only for specific references related to LMP usage and potential selection bias in the traditional method of estimating gestational age. Consequently, NCFM eSnurra Group were well aware of the Hutchon Method of PDEE published in 1998 with a demonstration of his method using a dataset of both CRL and BPD. Moreover, these 2 NCFM eSnurra Group papers were entirely based on the Hutchon Method of PDEE which NCFM eSnurra Group had appropriated, which was, and remains, research misconduct via plagiarism. Moreover, these 2 NCFM eSnurra Group papers were entirely based on the Hutchon Method of PDEE; the method appropriated by NCFM eSnurra Group which was, and remains, research misconduct via plagiarism. NCFM eSnurra Group has never once cited nor otherwise acknowledged Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of PDEE published in 1998.
  6. Økland's 2012DT cited and referenced Hutchon & Ahmed 2001, a letter to the editor of British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG) regarding Baskett & Nagele 2000: "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal," and Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998: "'Back to the Future' for Hermanni Boerhaave or 'A rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery'" for a combined total of 11 times; however, and again, only for specific references related to LMP usage and potential selection bias in the traditional method (Campbell 1969) of estimating gestational age. Consequently, Økland and the other members of NCFM eSnurra Group were well aware of the Hutchon Method of PDEE published in 1998 with a demonstration of his method using a dataset of both CRL and BPD. Moreover, Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis was entirely based on the Hutchon Method of PDEE; the method appropriated by NCFM eSnurra Group which was, and remains, research misconduct via plagiarism. Again, NCFM eSnurra Group has never once cited, nor otherwise acknowledged, Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of PDEE first published in 1998, Hutchon 1998.
  7. Økland's 2012DT did not comply with NTNU's published regulations for an NTNU dr.philos. Thesis and degree. Specifically, "Section 3 Thesis" of NTNU's (dr.philos.) regulations stated: "A thesis containing pieces of work written by more than one author is to include a signed declaration that describes the contribution by the candidate and the co-author(s) of each piece of work, and the consent of the co-author(s). It must be possible to identify the candidate’s independent contribution in the work." Specifically, a signed declaration was required for each of the 4 joint works, the 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers, with a total of 20 authorship credits, all of which were included in Økland's 2012DT. However, the signed declarations for each of the 4 joint works with a total of 20 authorship credits required in NTNU's published regulations were not included in Økland's 2012DT, nor is it possible to identify Økland's "independent contribution in the work" in any of the 4 papers. In short, the published NTNU dr.philos thesis and degree regulations had been grossly and intentionally violated by Økland and NCFM eSnurra Group.Which begs the question: How did this happen and who at NTNU allowed this to happen?
  8. Økland's 2012DT states (p. 3) that her 2012DT had been supervised as follows: Principal Supervisor, Sturla H. Eik-Nes; Co-supervisors Håkon K. Gjessing and Per Grøttum, the 3 original members of the NCFM eSnurra Group, the 3 authors of the NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 and Gjessing et al. 2007 (their first research misconduct via plagiarism paper) and the 3 NCFM eSnurra "copyright owners" (© 2007 EikNes, Grøttum og Gjessing), as identified on the NCFM eSnurra website. Again, according to the published NTNU (dr.philos.) regulations, "Section 1 Objectives," a dr.philos. "is a completely independent study where you are not entitled to supervision, organized academic training, a work place or other assistance from the university."
  9. Økland's 2012DT Assessment Committee included Jens Grøgaard, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Health. It is most unlikely Grøgaard was randomly assigned to Økland's 2012DT Assessment Committee. (item 13 below picks up on this).
  10. Økland's 2012DT Assessment Committee included Zarko Alfirevic, MD, Professor of Fetal and Maternal Medicine Women's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool. Alfirevic had known the 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers included in Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. thesis were the result of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism because Dr. Hutchon had sent Alfirevic an email dated 13.02.2009 informing him that NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 had appropriated his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, and that Gjessing et al. had refused to reply to his 26.07.2007 letter; a letter Gjessing communicated he had received to Dr. Reynir Geirsson, MD, PhD, FRCOG, former Chief Editor, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica (AOGS) (Reykjavík, Iceland).
  11. Subsequently, and out of the blue to Dr. Hutchon, Geirsson emailed Dr. Hutchon on 02.05.2017  stating Gjessing had confirmed receipt of Dr. Hutchon's 26.07.2007, the one and only letter Dr. Hutchon has sent to any member of NCFM eSnurra Group. In short, Alfirevic had known about NCFM eSnurra Group's ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism, and knowing this Alfirevic made the decision to remain silent and to actively participate in further ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism by participating as a member of Økland's 2012DT Assessment Committee.
  12. Økland's 2012DT Assessment Committee also included Liv Bente Romundstad, MD, PhD, Gynecologist with Spiren Fertilitetsklinikkand and post-doc at the Department of Community Medicine, NTNU. Romundstad was the third member of Økland's 3-member Assessment Committee.
  13. Okland's 2012DT was, and remains, well outside of the boundaries of the ethos of scholarship, academic integrity and independence, including multiple acts of plagiarism, which is covered in detail elsewhere in this document.
  14. Økland's 2012DT's public defense was adjudicated by Jens Grogard, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Health and Zarko Alfirevic of the U.K. Again, Alfirevic had know about the ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism from Dr. Hutchon's email dated 13.02.2009.
  15. Strangely and conspicuously, "Doktoravhandlinger" Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening, Nr. 3, 7. februar 2012 published Inger Økland had been conferred a PhD degree by NTNU, not her actual NTNU dr.philos. degree. Neither a correction nor a retraction was ever issued.
  16. Jens Grøgaard, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Health referenced Økland's 2012DT twice in his official request on behalf of Directorate of Heath and Ministry of Health for NOKC to review and approve Økland's 2012DT back to Directorate of Health as the official NOKC assessent in order for Økland's 2012DT to be presented as independent academic, research-based justification that NCFM eSnurra should be selected as the implementation vehicle for Directorate of Health's medially and ethically flawed 2014 Recommendation.
  17. Økland's 2012DT was referenced by Torunn Janbu, then Acting Division Director, Directorate of Health and Jens Grøgaard, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Health in the Directorate's 10.12.2014 letter distributed to Helse Midt-Norge RHF, Helse Nord RHF, Helse Sør-Øst RHF and Helse Vest RHF to enact the Directorate of Health's medically and ethically flawed 2014 Recommendation with their NCFM eSnurra implementation of evidence-obviated medicine. In that letter Økland's 2012DT was the one and only document discussed in that letter; the one and only document cited and footnoted in that letter; and the one and only document that was presented as independent, academic and research-based justification for the Directorate's selection of NCFM eSnurra as the exclusive implementation vehicle of Directorate of Health's medically and ethically flawed 2104 Recommendation.
  18. At no time ever had Directorate of Health identified that Økland was not an independent academic author, and that she was a member of NCFM eSnurra Group, and that Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis had been supervised by NCFM eSnurra Group, and that Jens Grøgaard, Senior Adviser, Directorate of Health had been 1 of 3 members of Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis Assessment Committee, and that Grøgaard had adjudicated Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis public defense, and that it was Grøgaard who had directed NOKC to Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis for NOKC to approve and return to Directorate of Health as NOKC's official assessment. So much for the ethos of transparency in Norway's Directorate of Health.
Objective Research & the Public Trust in Medicine
The 3 excerpts below serve to make the point that drug companies and NCFM eSnurra Group have much in common when it comes to writing papers that are "then passed off as the work of independent academic authors." Inger Økland was a member of the NCFM eSnurra Group; consequently, Økland was not an independent academic author, as presented by Directorate of Health. Økland's 2012DT states (p. 3) that her 2012DT had been supervised as follows: Principal Supervisor, Sturla H. Eik-Nes; Co-supervisors, Håkon K. Gjessing and Per Grøttum, the 3 original members of the NCFM eSnurra Group, the 3 authors of the NCFM eSnurrag Group Gjessing et al. 2007 paper (the fist published study based on research misconduct via plagiarism) and the 3 NCFM eSnurra "copyright owners" (© 2007 EikNes, Grøttum og Gjessing), as identified on the NCFM eSnurra website.  Ergo, Økland's 2012DT was not the work of an independent academic author. The 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers included in Økland's 2012DT contained 20 authorship credits, of which 16 (or 80%) were equally split among 4 NCMF eSnurra Group members; consequently, the papers included in Økland's 2012DT were not independent, nor were these 4 papers independent when referenced outside of Økland's 2012DT, individually or collectively. Moreover, Inger Økland was the most junior member of NCFM eSnurra Group, the least experienced member, the only member who had not been conferred a PhD degree, the only member under supposed academic supervision yet, she was credited as lead author on all 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers, thus straining credulity.

"The scientific integrity of medical research has been clouded in recent years by articles that were drafted by drug company-sponsored ghostwriters and then passed off as the work of independent academic authors." (Source: Medical Editors Push for Ghostwriting Crackdown, By NATASHA SINGER and DUFF WILSON, SEPT. 17, 2009 Business Day, New York Times, A version of this article appears in print on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Unmasking the Ghosts.)
  • “Objective research is really at the heart of public trust in medicine,” Mr. Grassley wrote in an e-mail message to a reporter last Friday." (Source: ibid)
"The scientific integrity of medical research has been clouded over the last 12 years by publications that were drafted by NCFM eSnurra Group by engaging in ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism, then presented as the work of an independent, academic author by including 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers, comprising 20 authorship credits among 8 authors, into Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis. Moreover, Økland was the most junior, least experienced member of NCFM eSnurra Group, the only member who had not been conferred a doctoral degree and, nevertheless, had been credited as lead author of all 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers included in her thesis.

Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis is more akin to an agenda-focused , competitive marketing document, with Økland acting like an agent for NCFM eSnurra Group, than a document of original, independent scholarship of academic integrity. Also, Økland's 2012DT is actually identified as something of a competitive marketing document in the very first sentence of the NCFM eSnurra Group webpage: Publications about eSnurra as follows: "...and doctoral that tests how the methodology stands against competing methods." Seriously, "stands against competing methods" instead of the customary scientific and academic phrase of: performs relative to other methods. And, at the bottom of this same NCFM eSnurra Group webpage is the following promotional piece: "Inger Økland's works are featured in the Norwegian Association of Ultrasound Diagnostics' magazine Flaggermusen –https://www.thieme-connect.de/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/s-0032-1318928.pdf." "Inger Økland's works" were all NCFM eSnurra Group's works which were published in Flaggermusen magazine with Økland presented as an independent, academic author delivering agent-like marketing and promotional messages about NCFM eSnurra Group's self-reported benefits of NCFM eSnurra. Also, this same article is available via the following URL: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-0032-1318928. Note the word "products" as a directory name in this URL.

NOKC Due Diligence & Assessment
Given the consistently communicated importance for a research-based tool or method by Ministry of Health & Care Services and Directorate of Health, and given the fact the research-based tool or method Directorate of Health selected, NCFM eSnurra Group's "method" (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized, misused Hutchon Method of PDEE) would be implemented as the national method or "tool" to estimate the date of delivery (EDD) and, therefrom, calculate gestational age (GA) and fetal age using the equivalent of Naegele's rule, in reverse, for all pregnancies and abortions in Norway, one would think it should have been fundamentally important, if not critical, to research the origin, provenance, dating and publications of the research-based tool or method Directorate of Health had selected for the national implementation, before NCFM eSnurra Group's "method" had been selected. In short, NOKC failed to do their job on behalf of the public trust. The following responsibilities were ignored by Directorate of Health and NOKC. 
  • "The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services produces systematic reviews to support well informed health policy making, clinical practice guidelines-development, and to contribute to evidence-based practices. The methods are described in the handbook ”Slik oppsummerer vi forskning” [“This is how we summarise research”], which is available online." (Source: "Systematic reviews on the effect of interventions" ("Systematiske oversikter om effekt av tiltak"), Gro Jamtvedt, Avdeling for kunnskapsoppsummering, Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten. G. Nor J Epidemiol 2013; 23 (2): 119-124. p. 119.  Also see: Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) (Folkehelseinstituttet):  "Slik oppsummerer vi forskning")
Unfortunately, that which is described above was not the case. The official reply from NOKC to the official request (Forslagsnr: 792, 15.11.2013) made to NOKC on behalf of Directorate of Health and Ministry of Health and Care Services by Jens Grøgaard and Cecilie Sommerstad, both Senior Advisers, Directorate of Health, stated:
  • "It is possible to conduct a systematic search for such studies, but it is unlikely that such a search will lead to relevant findings." ("Det er mulig å gjennomføre et systematisk søk etter slike studier, men det er lite trolig at et slikt søk vil lede til relevante funn.") (Source: Knowledge Centre for Health Services in Public Health, Assessment of the most accurate and research-based tools of gestation and term, Jens Grøgaard, Cecilie (Sommerstad, Forslagsnr: 792, 15.11.2013)
The excerpt above begs the question: On what basis was it decided that it is "unlikely that such a search will lead to relevant findings;"  And

Clearly, establishing that the origin, provenance, dating and publications of the idea and method selected by Directorate of Health was the original idea and method of Dr. David J. R. Hutchon of the U. K. which had been appropriated and plagiarized by NCFM eSnurra Group from would have been "relevant findings" and would have tied in nicely with the 2006 article in the British Medical Journal:  "Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak" (BMJ 2006;333:594) by Iain Chalmers  (director of the first Cochrane Centre). Consequently, a decision had to have been made that the origin, provenance, dating and publications of the research-based tools or methods under consideration for national implementation by Directorate of Health were somehow not important or, "relevant findings" (relevante funn) about the plagiarism were already known, as even a modicum of due diligence effort would have discovered "relevant findings" that proved Dr. Hutchon had formulated and published his original idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), along with a demonstration of his method using a dataset of both CRL and BPD, in his Hutchon 1998, other publications and website 10-years before his original idea and method had been appropriated and plagiarized in NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 and Gjessing et al. 2007; "relevant findings" that would have exposed NCFM eSnurra Group's 13-years of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism; findings which would have been inconvenient, embarrassing an devestating to Directorate of Health, Ministry of Health & Care Services, and NCFM eSnurra Group.

Moreover, it appears no Norwegian government Ministry, Directorate, national knowledge center, national fetal medical center, institute of public health or Norwegian university ever investigated the origin, provenance, dating and publications of the idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE); the method appropriated and plagiarized by NCFM eSnurra Group. Nor, did any Norwegian government institution or government representative or government employee ever contact Dr. David J. R. Hutchon.

Dr. David J. R. Hutchon is Easy to Find
Even today, after 20-years, it is decidedly easy to find Dr. David J. R. Hutchon and his seminal Hutchon 1998, his other publications and his website. In fact, the entire discussion of Dr. Hutchon and his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) is the direct result of an investigation into the origin, provenance, dating and publications of the idea and method of PDEE; an investigation that identified Dr. Hutchon's website: hutchon.net, his seminal Hutchon 1998, his other publications and his email address within 10-minutes of using nothing other than Google Search, via a keyboard. Seriously, from the idea to the method to the website with his software, to his publications, to his email address and then to Dr. Hutchon himself, within 10-minutes. However, and to be fair, several additional hours were required with Google Search and other search tools and medical literature databases to become confident no prior publications nor implementations of PDEE were to be found. Again, finding Dr. Hutchon, along with his publications and his website, was easy. See: Ethics & Plagiarism > Hutchon Timeline.

Dr. Hutchon Cautioned about Misuse of the Hutchon Method of PDEE
Also inconvenient to NCFM eSnurra Group was Dr. Hutchon's published, straight forward identification of the capabilities and limitations of the Hutchon Method of PDEE and his published support for evidence-based medicine that considers all available information when establishing fetal age and GA for a pregnancy. Specifically, Dr. Hutchon made 2 key, factual, cautionary statements about a key limitation of his original idea and method in his seminal Hutchon 1998.
  • "By adopting this approach we do not need to concern ourselves about the length of the cycle nor the certainty of the dates. Provided the fetus can be assessed as normal using other criteria, this chart can be used to provide the best estimate of the date of delivery (EDD)." (Source: "'Back to the Future' for Hermanni Boerhaave' or 'A rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery'" Hutchon DJR, ObGyn Ultrasound, Obgyn.net 1998:  http://www.obgyn.net/obgyn-ultrasound/back-future-hermanni-boerhaave-or-rational-way-generate-ultrasound-scan-charts-estimating-date [Note: URL updated from published original by ObGyn.net])
  • "Just as Boerhaave was not actually measuring the length of pregnancy, and the word "gestation" is used to describe the measurement of time from the last menstrual period to reflect this, so also there is no pretence that this method is determining fetal age." (Source: ibid.)
Interestingly, Bergen Group made the same statements as Dr. Hutchon, separately and independently, 17 years later in 2015  (excerpts below) in reference to NCFM eSnurra Group's "method" (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized, misused Hutchon Method of PDEE).
  • "However, the issue at stake is not the accuracy of the predicted date of a normal delivery, it is the accuracy of the fetal age, which is an essential factor in clinical situations throughout the pregnancy." (Source: ibid.)
    ​
  • "Fetal age, fetal size, length of pregnancy and date of delivery are obviously all related data. However, it is impossible to deduce fetal age routinely from the predicted date of delivery. Only 4 per cent of women give birth at their estimated due date; in order to determine gestational age, it is clearly necessary to take account of the time of conception. The Directorate of Health have demonstrated their lack of understanding of these differences, and they have failed to appreciate that the Trondheim Group [NCFM eSnurra Group] looked only at term prediction (3)." (Source: ibid.)
Using all available information in conjunction with ultrasound data to establish GA for optimal obstetric and fetal awareness and management was, and remains, obvious to Dr. Hutchon.

In fact, Dr. Hutchon wrote a paper that called for an 'expert' system to combine all available information, with precision, to arrive at the best possible estimates of EDD & GA (excerpt below).
  • "Statistical analysis using similar methods as in other published studies showed that the `expert’ system correlated with the actual date of the onset of spontaneous labour at least as well as scan dates alone. Menstrual data should not be rejected in favour of ultrasonic biometry in all cases and a computer system using a precise day rule should be a valuable addition to computerised maternity databases and ultrasound machines." (Source: "`Expert’ analysis of menstrual and ultrasound data in pregnancy-gestational dating" D. J. R. HUTCHON, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (1998) Vol. 18, No. 5, 435-438)
 Contrast Dr. Hutchon's 1998 approach to using all available information with that of NCFM eSnurra Group who obviate all key pregnancy dates (i.e., LMPD, OTPD, SCID and other key dates) at the scheduling of the "routine" 18wUSE, without the pregnant woman's prior, informed, voluntary consent, in accordance with Directorate of Health's 2014 Recommendation with their NCFM eSnurra implementation of evidence-obviated medicine.
​
Dr. Hutchon: LMPD & Ultrasound for Best EDD
Dr. Hutchon's paper "Menstrual and Ultrasound data - Which EDD" was published in the July 1996 issue of Darlington Postgraduate Journal (now Darlington and County Durham Medical Journal) while Dr. Hutchon was conducting his original research study of the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation at Memorial Hospital, Darlignton, England. It is important to note that while the Hutchon Method of PDEE neither depends on a woman's LMPD nor a fixed gestation time, Dr. Hutchon recognized, and continues to recognize, the importance of Direct GA Estimation and of including all available information when GA and fetal age are assessed in accordance with the practice of evidence-based medicine.
  • "There has certainly been a tendency to a circular argument by some authors who compile normal standards from the study of pregnancies in women who present with certain menstrual dates and then advocate the use of these measurements to all pregnancies including those in whom the menstrual data is stated as sure. By definition, therefore, 90% of women who have a certain date for the LMP will have a dating scan measurement which falls within the normal range. It would seem illogical to reallocate those women another date for their delivery. There is no evidence that women participating in a series to compile ultrasound biometric charts are any “surer” of their dates than the average woman. Clearly there will be within any population a small number of women who are quite mistaken about the “date of their proper “LMP “or who have “ovulated well after mid-cycle, but “these women should be quite exceptional if their scan measurements are within the normal range. We would argue, therefore, that the practice [using both LMP and ultrasound data] of the majority of practising obstetricians and midwives be continued until evidence for adopting the use of scan data alone is presented in a conclusive manner." (Source: Darlington Postgraduate Journal, July 1996. Renamed in 2007 to: Darlington and County Durham Medical Journal in 2007)
Dr. Hutchon's 1998 paper "'Expert’ analysis of menstrual and ultrasound data in pregnancy-gestational dating" published in Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology concluded that a computer-based algorithm that includes ultrasound scan data, LMPD and menstrual history data was feasible "to provide the best EDD." Table 1 from this publication is included below.
  • "We recommend that a combination of menstrual and ultrasound dating continues to be used clinically, and this corresponds with the original generation of the charts which we have used in this study. The use of a computer system to provide the best EDD is a feasible solution within a computerised maternity databases or the software within ultrasound machines." (Source: "`Expert’ analysis of menstrual and ultrasound data in pregnancy-gestational dating" D. J. R. HUTCHON, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Volume 18, 1998 - Issue 5, 435±438, p. 438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443619866732)
Dr. Hutchon further made this point while pointing out the rationale for using the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation to determine EDD in his November 1998 correspondence published in British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG), 4 months after his Hutchon 1998 had been published, introducing the Hutchon Method of PDEE.
  • "What exactly are we doing when we date a pregnancy by ultrasound? Clearly if no reliable menstrual data are available, there is no alternative to ultrasound dating. However, when apparently reliable menstrual data are available, it is not expected that the scan size should always fall precisely on the mean for that gestation. Nor does the way the ultrasound charts are generated support this expectation. It would be nonsense to suggest that all fetuses with a BPD of, say 35 mm, are all at precisely the same gestational age. If ultrasound dating is more accurate, then we are essentially proposing that the interval to delivery from the ultrasound scan of some specific value (e.g. 35mm) is less variable than the last menstrual period to delivery interval. Fetal size is being used as the predictor of the delivery interval. If using ultrasound size is the most accurate way to predict the date of delivery, then the ultrasound charts should be generated using these same principles." (Source:  CORRESPONDENCE Re: "Routine ultrasound is the method of choice for dating pregnancy" David J. R. Hutchon, 11 November 1998, Br J Obstet Gynuecol 106, 610-616, p 616)
Contrast Dr. Hutchon's adherence to the practice of evidence-based medicine with that which was used to formulate Norwegian Directorate of Health's medically & ethically flawed 2014 Recommendation with their exclusive implementation of NCFM eSnurra Group's method (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized, misused Hutchon Method of PDEE) within a government-mandated protocol of evidence-obviated medicine. NCFM eSnurra Group misused the Hutchon Method of PDEE with respect to obviating key pregnancy dates (i.e., LMPD/OTPD/SCID etc.) and by claiming to estimated GA  and fetal age.

Since Dr. Hutchon formulated the idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, he was the first to understand and communicate its capabilities, benefits, limitations and applicable uses. Consequently, it is not surprising Dr. Hutchon explicitly communicated his concerns in his Hutchon 1998 and his other publications about how the Hutchon Method should, and should not, be used, but especially his concerns about using the Hutchon Method to establish GA and fetal age, and the problem of excluding a reliable LMPD. The Norwegian government's mandated protocol of obviating a woman's LMPD/OTPD/SCID, and all other key pregnancy dates, at the scheduling of the R18wUSE without a woman's prior, informed, voluntary consent is the government-mandated practice of evidence-obviated medicine with respect to obstetric medicine and obstetric clinical care. It is a proven fact that this Norwegian government-mandated practice of evidence-obviated medicine increases medical risks and causes grievous harms to some of Norway's women and their fetuses/babies, avoidably and unnecessarily. Among other women and their babies, Laila and her baby are the fact-based evidence, the acceptable collateral damage of Directorate of Health's medically and ethically flawed, intentionally reckless and willfully negligent 2014 Recommendation with their NCFM eSnurra implementation of government-mandated evidence-obviated medicine.

Moreover, when it comes to EDD, a woman has, at best, a 4% chance of actually delivering on her EDD. Furthermore, studies increasingly show (excerpt below) that the gestational time of pregnancy varies, naturally, by as much as 5-weeks when controlled for ovulation variance; ovulation variance cannot be incorporated into the Hutchon Method of PDEE because all time for a pregnancy begins with the Hutchon Method of PDEE on the date of the ultrasound exam, which is NCFM eSnurra Group's highly promoted "routine" 18wUSE, when all of a pregnant woman's key pregnancy dates (i.e., LMPD, OTPD, SCID, etc.) are obviated, without the pregnant woman's prior, informed, voluntary consent; obviated from medical evidence and from consideration of evidence-based medicine.  It should be obvious that the basis for determining GA and fetal age is not the end of the pregnancy, but its beginning. Unfortunately, and to harm-causing effect, this important obstetric medicine and fetal medicine truism was lost on Directorate of Health, along with other important points, not the least of which included the published warnings from Norway's obstetric and fetal medicine experts, medical researchers and practitioners explicitly stating Directorate of Health's 2014 Recommendation was "medically flawed" and "can be directly dangerous."

One can only wonder why Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC) did not spend at least 10-minutes with Google Search to investigate the origin, provenance, dating and publications of the idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) as part of their due diligence and "comprehensive assessment" ("helhetsvurdering virker") of Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis. and all 4 of the NCFM eSnurra Group papers included therein as "joint works" with a total of 20 authorship credits.  Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis and all 4 NCFM eSnurra Group papers contained therein were based, entirely, on the appropriated, plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE. Moreover, Directorate of Health reported NOKC experts had recommended (excerpt below) Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis as justification for the selection of NCFM eSnurra Group's eSnurra method (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE) as the exclusive implementation vehicle for Directorate of Health's medically and ethically flawed 2014 Recommendation.
  • "Directorate of Health's conclusion is based on several years of dialogue with parts of specialist institutions and Knowledge Center's assessment and experts." (Source: 2015-08-24 Final Minutes of 2015-04-17 April 2015 meeting between the Directorate of Health and the Norwegian Medical Association (Den Norske Legeforening) "about the process behind the recommendation tools for term estimation" 2015-08-24 her - Legeforeningen)
Directorate of Health has never publicly disclosed the "parts of specialist institutions" with which they claimed to have had "several years of dialogue." However, one can reasonably hypothesize these institutions were likely limited to those "parts of specialist institutions" where NCFM eSnurra Group members were employed. "Specialist institutions" and their NCFM eSnurra Group members are identified below.
  • National Center for Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St Olav’s University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway (Sturla H. Eik-Nes, MD, PhD)
  • Department of Laboratory Medicine, Children’s and Women’s Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway (Sturla H. Eik-Nes, MD, PhD)
  • Section of Medical Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway (Per Grøttum, MD, PhD)
  • Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway (Håkon K. Gjessing, PhD)
  • Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway (Håkon K. Gjessing, PhD)
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway (Inger Økland, MD, dr.philos.)
With respect to the excerpt below, it is a documented fact it was NCFM eSnurra Group's "validation strategy" which Jens Grøgaard and Cecilie Sommerstad, both Senior Advisers, Directorate of Health, "pointed out" to NOKC when they explicitly "pointed out" the references to Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis, twice, in their official request (Forslagsnr: 792, 15.11.2013) to NOKC on behalf of Directorate of Health and Ministry of Health & Care Services, as explicitly stated in the official request to NOKC.
  • "The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services pointed out that one possible validation strategy to assess different term prediction models consists in comparing the characteristics of the methods in question through measurements within one and the same population. This was done in a PhD thesis in 2012 (2), and the work has been presented in three international publications (7 – 9). The PhD thesis undertook validation studies of three different term prediction models: Snurra (phased out in 2007), Terminhjulet and eSnurra." (Source: "One Norwegian national tool for estimating date of delivery and fetal age" or "Nasjonalt verktøy for bestemmelseav termin og fosteralder" Torunn Janbu (born 1954), MD, PhD, specialist in general and orthopaedic surgery, head of the Department of Hospital Services, Norwegian Directorate of Health. The author has completed the ICMJE form and declares no conflicts of interest. Tidsskr Nor Legeforen nr. 9, 2016; 136: 790 – 1, p. 790.)
Also, Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis and the 3 NCFM eSnurra Group papers which were "pointed out" by Grøgaard & Sommerstad, Senior Advisers, Directorate of Health were the only references Grøgaard & Sommerstad included in their official request (Forslagsnr: 792, 15.11.2013) to NOKC. In short, Grøgaard & Sommerstad gave NOKC nothing other than NCFM eSnurra Group publications all of which were based, entirely, on the appropriated, plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE, for NOKC to consider in their official assessment. This was not only bias, this was engineered, managed, targeted bias, all controlled from within Directorate of Health, which is euphemistically termed "the fix" in the U.S. Nevertheless, Torunn Janbu, Head of the Department of Hospital Services, Norwegian Directorate of Health told a very different story (excerpt above) in her article published in Tidsskr Nor Legeforen. In her article, Torunn Janbu stated NOKC had "pointed out" this "validating strategy" to Directorate of Health when, again, it is a documented fact that it was Directorate of Health, via Grøgaard & Sommerstad, who had "pointed out" this "validating strategy" to NOKC, for NOKC to "point out" to Directorate of Health in NOKC's official assessment of 02.07.2014. The process was completely circular, but since Directorate of Health appeared to control of the circle (i.e., "the fix") it was difficult but not impossible to establish where things began and ended. However, the fact: These facts may have had something to do with Janbu's use of alternative facts regarding who "pointed out" what to whom regarding Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis. What was not pointed out by Torunn Janbu or anyone else at Directorate of Health were the obvious conflicts of interest and complete lack of transparency that biased and corrupted Directorate of Health's closed decision-making process. In the vernacular of Chicago, "the fix was in."

It stains credulity NOKC did not investigate the origin, provenance dating and publications of the idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation as part of their due diligence assessment given that Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis was based, entirely, on Population-based Direct EDD Estimation; the same idea and method Directorate of Health claimed NOKC experts had recommended to Directorate of Health to then be recommend to Ministry of Health and Care Services for approval. However, it is possible, maybe even likely, NOKC had become aware of NCFM eSnurra Group's Norwegian government-funded, albeit unwittingly, appropriation and ongoing plagiarism of the Hutchon Method of PDEE and were, possibly, advised or ordered to remain silent. One need only read a few of NOKC's other work products to understand the significance of NOKC's anomalous breach of due diligence regarding the origin, provenance, dating and publications of the idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation in their official 02.07.2014 assessment, not to mention the obvious breaches of the ethos of scholarship, academic integrity, and research misconduct via plagiarism within Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis (covered in detail elsewhere). To say Directorate of Health's decision-making process and decision had been biased and corrupted and that "the fix was in" for the NCFM eSnurra Group's "method" would be a gross understatement.
Home
Contact
​Introduction
Key Concepts & Terms
"If you see fraud and don't shout fraud, you are a fraud." --Motto of Nassim Nicholas Taleb, (his Home Page)
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”  --Mark Twain (attributed)
​“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people ​what they do not want to hear.” --George Orwell  [Note: The idea to use this quote attributed to Espen Egil Hansen]
Copyright: (© 2017 Lannon & Fæmundshytten)
Citation: Lannon E, Fæmundshytten L (2017) LailasCase.com
Data Availability Statement: Data are available; requests will be considered.
Funding: none; more specifically: "zero, zip, zilch, nada"