[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]
[40.0] 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.[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
No comments:
Post a Comment