Dr. Gøtzsche – The institutionalizing of “group think” is alive and well everywhere, in every sector. This is all too common in the US and especially in NAMI Chapters in my state. Their funding sources were substantially increased through my states department of mental health. With this funding, they attained a level of “legitimacy.” It is similar to the post 9/11 catch phrase, “you must Unionize to Professionalize,” when it came to TSA security at airports. As with all subsidies, there are strings attached. They have taken the state’s party line of every question of inquiry. They stopped advocating therapeutic treatment (or even defining it). One can even find clearly conflicted members on several chapter’s board membership. There are good people still present, but their efforts have been marginalized by the change of direction. I have experienced many similar situations to yours in my line of Private Sector Regulatory Work. Too many times has my input been disregarded. This coincides directly with (mis)management and misguided interests. The costs of compliance were too expensive, until fined. It was only then, they complied at greatly increased costs. Even though I would identify key regulatory considerations in the early stages of projects, they ignored them. When it came time to assign blame, they placed it directly on my role, even though I had no legitimate authority in matters. From a very general point of view, I see in your situation, with the Board hiring the new CEO, they indicated they wanted a change of organizational direction. With your dismissal, they indicated that the original intent of your group is no longer valid as they no longer valued your “advise and consent” capacity. I see this more and more in Advocacy Groups . . . and the co-opting of the Groups’ missions.