"Shoot IOM, the Messenger"?

I've finally found time to read a good portion of the actual study by the IOM and I am familiar with some of the references. Instead of parroting word for word the predictable naturalnews ad hominem attack on the Institute of Medicine, why not examine each of the 1000 or so studies analyzed by the IOM for "content"? Find and present here specifically where their analysis is flawed! Assemble your own committee of independent academic, medical and scientific experts and report back soon. Or would a random committee selected off the street be more to your liking?