PARITUTU Serum Data “Spin”

PARITUTU SERUM DIOXIN STUDY TIMELINE 2004-2011 DRAFT .

[01.0] 

In 2004 when elevated serum TCDD was detected the MoH set up a unit to manage potential*01 financial risks.

[02.0] 

As elevated results were politically politically significant*02 the MoH took over all reporting and re-targeted*16 the study.

[03.0]

The peer reviewed study design and ethical consent specified the study would target 1962 to 1975 residents.

[04.0] 

The MoH re-targeted Part II at 1974-87 those least likely to be highly exposed while claiming the direct opposite.

[05.0] 

ESR warned*03 the proposed MoH course of action was potentially misleading opposing MoH re-targeted testing.

[06.0]

2004 averages*04 were altered*05 to re-target*06 the study*16 to dilute*07 yet claim the opposite*08 after reviews*09 reviews.

[07.0] 

The MoH discouraged TV1 serum*10 tests. A high TV1 1967-73 test*11 cast doubt over*08 MoH claims.*12

[08.0]

2004 Fig 5a, x & y axis*13 were reversed in 2005*14 masking failure to find*15 evidence of 1974-87 exposure.

[09.0] 

Specified 2005 data reporting*16 was altered*17 as to claim*18 ongoing 1974-1987 TCDD exposure.*19

[10. 0] 

This extended the period of exposure away from the 1960-72 periods through the low exposure 1973-87 periods.

[11.0] 

Residents mean data*B22 was claimed as*20 low and media attention refocused*21 onto ex IWD workers.

[12.0] 

When errors were found*68 subjects sought clarification of*69 results, re-analysis of the results began.

[13.0] 

MoH refused to release*22 subjects anonymised results which confirmed*23 much lower 1974-1987 exposure.

[14.0] 

MoH denied study bias, claiming*24 participant selection, had not changed,*16 had not changed after receipt of serum results.*07

[15.0] 

ESR project leader*30 was sent data*31 & high short term test & asked if a class action had been considered ?*12

[16.0] 

ESR stalled*25 quoting $21K for TREC Ethics documents confirming ESR had forced*26 release of 2004 report.

[17.0] 

Oct. 2006 In TV3 Doco ‘Let Us Spray’ Forensic Accountant John Leonard supports community claims of errors in serum report.

[18.0] 

MoH misled the Minister who misled Parliament*27 claiming initial peer reviews had received anonymised results.

[19.0]

MoH purported 2004 Prof Pearce review as*09 the missing 2005*28 review, noting *reinforce lower 1973-87 levels.

[20.0] 

MoH stalled*29 the 2005 Ethics Annual report*30 on the ESR ESR complain*31 against MoH, until March 2007.

[21.0]

MoH rushed out new*32 reviews conducted*33 without data*03 and documents*02 and drafts*34 of unaltered*16 ESR reports.*07

[22.0]

Reviews did not recognise ESR reports outdated 0-18 years half life values*35 had skewed pre 1974 results.

[23.0]

Bias to lower 2004 levels in younger pre 1974 subjects resulted in flawed conclusions over timing of exposures.

[24.0]

The 2007 media conference did not tele-link the only peer reviewer*36 with participants key individual data.

[25.0]

MoH, ESR & Dr Fowles [ex ESR] continue to ignore key suggestions of the only*36 ever review with key data. e.g.

: correct and clarify, so that the text and tables match.

: revisit pre vs post 1974 exposure levels: Part II set out to investigate (the still unreported) 1974-87 exposures:

: instead the low exposure 1974-87 results are still blended with significantly increased 1962-87 results.

: outliers. e.g. 11.8 and 17.9 ppt were the only 2 highly significant Part II results, both had pre 1974 exposures.

: illustrate 1/2 lives e.g. Appendix P ages 0-18 years . Five pre 1974 subjects were unlikely to exhibit a 2004 increase.

[26.0]

BSA complaints were laid*37 on TV3*38 cultivating ideas of minor errors*39 before even checking*40 on them.*41

[27.0]

MoH misled*04 both media & the BSA*42 over relevance & number of errors*43 found by locals and J Leonard.*45

[28.0]

MoH used the BSA process without discovery and disclosure to create a perception the study was not*46 skewed.

[29.0]

The MoH BSA lawyer*47 ran a deceptive*48 and targeted*49 campaign discrediting*50 and marginalizing*51 the studies critics.*52

[30.0]

Then in 2009 a new report*53  [j.chemosphere.2009.01.067]*DNZ01 eliminated some errors.

[31.0]

The new 2009 report stated increased TCDD was found primarily [not *exclusively] pre 1968 study participants .

[32.0]

The new report continued to blend low results from samples assessing 1974-87 periods with high 1962-87 results

[33.0]

Although the new report eliminated some errors, it did not recheck the key residence period for the *17.9pg/g result.

[34.0]

The 17.9 pg/g TCDD result of subject 1408 was the only *highly significant evidence of 1974 to 1987 exposures.

[35.0]

Dr J Fowles dismissed 1961-63 study zone address of 1408*54 claiming the plant was not on site in 1961.*55

[36.0]

In 2010 asked for evidence of Part II 1974-87 exposure other than 17.9 pg/g (1408), Fowles cited three Part I results.

[37.0]

Fowles purports low 2004 levels in two 1968-74 subjects*43 vs the highest 2004 level in an adult 1968-86 subject.

[38.0]

Yet Dr Fowles has cited half lives*47 explaining this: 1968-74 subjects 12 / 13 years in 1969 vs adult 1968-86.*44

[39.0]

MoH ‘spun’ data to claim 1962 to 87 exposure, masking that highly significant results were exclusive to 1960-72.

[40.0] 

MoH used young 1962-74 subjects low levels to claim 1962-87 residence was key to increases, instead of 1960-72.

[41.0]

Steering focus away from*56 increased 1965-70 birth defects*62 and increased*57 1970-84 U.S.A I.O.M*58 linked cancers.*59

[42.0]

Mortality & still births data*60 suggest 1970-72 reproductive & 1980’s cancer rises for 1963-66 residents.*61

[43.0]

Data suggests a Moturoa 1965-72 rate of*62 linked NTD defects 4 fold N.P*B38 and double 2,4,5-T sprayers.

[44.0]

*24 Both*63 main*64 political*65 parties, ESR and MoH ignore evidence and continue issuing flawed denials.

[45.0]

The costly*66 *67 ‘early intervention’ health plan follows birth defect & cancers rises by 43-38 and 38- 24 years.

[46.0]

Recommended study of highly exposed*60 Moturoa 1962-72 residents*70 especially*71 descendants is still ignored.

Footnotes: *## hyperlinked
Share

admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *