30 October 2006
Hodgson should withdraw dioxin analyst, correct confusions
Green Party Health Spokesperson Sue Kedgley has called on Health Minister Pete Hodgson to re-think and withdraw his
choice of Dr.Allan Smith as the 'independent' expert appointed to review the findings of forensic accountant John
Leonard, contained within the recent TV3 dioxin documentary.
"The expert must not only be independent, but must be perceived to be independent if his conclusions are to have any
credibility with the Paritutu community. On that score, I was concerned to read the 1 June 2003 submission by retired
Major John Moller to the Health Select Committee inquiry into the exposure of Defence Personnel to Agent Orange, which
reports ( on pages 16-17) that the Environment Ministry had organised public lectures by Professor Allan Smith, Dr
Michael Bates and other officials regarding dioxin concerns then in the public arena.
"This participation in Government programmes of re-assurances about dioxin should discount Dr Smith as an independent
authority," Ms Kedgley says. .
"Mr Hodgson can only commence the corrective process by clarifying his apparently misleading statement to the House
during question time on 26 October.that ' the anonymised data in question [ie the individual serum results from the 2005
MoH study] was provided to the international peer reviewers.'
"This is not what Public Health Director Dr Mark Jacobs says. In a letter posted on the TV3 website, and received one
working day before the TV3 doco screened, Dr Jacobs states :"The local and international reviewers did not receive
individual test results contained in appendix O, just the analysed data."
"Furthermore, I have sighted correspondence between the four international peer reviewers and the makers of the TV3
doco, and the reviewers either say that they were not given the individual serum results or, in one case, said they
couldn't remember getting it. It is now up to Pete Hodgson to show that the international peer reviewers were given the
individual blood serum results, since the credibility of his reassurances about the 2005 MoH dioxin study hinges on
whether the peer reviewers considered all of the data.
"It would hardly be surprising that Mr Hodgson seems confused, because the Ministry's utterances contradict their own
Public Health Director..The Health Ministry's 26 October press release for instance says : "Peer reviewers received the
individual data for their review..." This is in clear conflict with what Dr Jacobs and the reviewers themselves are
saying.
"Finally, can Mr Hodgson assure us that who-ever ultimately gets to carry out the overview report on the Paritutu
situation will receive and consider the blood serum results? That anonymised individual data is crucial as to whether -
as the TV3 documentary argues - some individuals were wrongly categorised. Clearly, such a step is essential if any
definitive verdict is ever to be reached. To do less would be a whitewash, and a sheer waste of taxpayer money." "
ENDS