PARITUTU Serum Data “Spin”



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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Reviews did not recognise ESR reports outdated 0-18 years half life values*35 had skewed pre 1974 results.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Footnotes: *## hyperlinked


Leave a Reply

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