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.
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.
This extended the period of exposure away from the 1960-72 periods through the low exposure 1973-87 periods.[11.0]
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]
Reviews did not recognise ESR reports outdated 0-18 years half life values*35 had skewed pre 1974 results.[23.0]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.
MoH used the BSA process without discovery and disclosure to create a perception the study was not*46 skewed.[29.0]
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]
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.[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
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]
Recommended study of highly exposed*60 Moturoa 1962-72 residents*70 especially*71 descendants is still ignored.