The Brief thoughts of a doctor reading the review report . "who say they have suffered detriment as a result of raising legitimate concerns, as well as with employers, trade unions, professional and system regulators and professional representative bodies. " This is the crux of it, there are whisteblowers and there are whistleblowers and it appears to me that the review is just going to trust all those who claim to be whistleblowers absolutely. This is problematic in many ways. For me, I think one should only include whisteblowers who have been proven to be genuine whisteblowers by the legal system. We all know that some people who claim to be 'whistleblowers' are sometimes utter incompetents trying to move the attention away from their own incompetence, and sometimes they are people seeking publicity, and who have never even raised their concerns in the workplace. How can the above quote from the terms of reference make sense? Who judges 'legitimacy'? If one just takes the whisteblower's 'say so' it, then this as a judge of legitimacy is pathetically weak. In this way the review is massively open to potential bias. One aspect of whistleblowing that needs to be analysed is the harm done by people 'whistleblowing' inappropriately, ie they never raise any issues with their line managers or employers, but go straight to higher powers in a way that can be very unconstructive. If one makes it too easy to whistleblow anonymously there are pros and cons with this, to me it looks like the review will only look at the pros and not the cons. Making it easy for people to complain anonymously can be problematic, as this can become a source of bullying and smearing in itself. It is a tricky balance to strike. Also as regards the survey, there is a huge element of selection bias, ie those who answer are self selecting, plus they have no idea at all of the response rate, overall the results of this survey are going to be pretty much meaningless. Overall I have concerns with this review as it seems to lack balance from a distance, before one even reviews 'whistleblowing', one needs to define it properly, has this been done? And once one has defined it, one has to ensure that the evidence one collects is valid, ie it comes from whisteblowers as one has defined them. If one just relies on the 'say so' of the whisteblowers, then this calls into questions the validity of the whole review's methods, Written by a clever doctor who posts on Twitter