Medical License Breached
in [Immunology]
|
From: juderon on 6 Aug 2008 16:59 Peter Parry wrote: >> >You constantly manipulate. For example you say "Professor Lennon derides the public claims of the Ministry of Health about peer review and partnership ", your reference document shows nothing of the sort, simply a one line comment that the data had not yet been provided and would need to be before a peer reviewed study of the trial could be published. >She wrote "Publication of clinical trials results in a peer reviewed journal requires the Principle Investigator [Prof Lennon] as guarantor to certify the validity of the work, which would not be possible while the analysis and hence interpretation of the data can not be verified >You didn't mention that such reports were produced :- > Vaccine. 2005 Mar 18;23 (17-18):2191-6 15755593 "MeNZB: a safe and highly immunogenic tailor-made vaccine against the New Zealand Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B disease epidemic strain." >"Clinical studies have been conducted in New Zealand evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of an outer membrane vesicle (OMV) vaccine, MeNZB, developed to control epidemic disease caused by group B meningococci, subtype P1.7b,4. MeNZB, administered in a three-dose regimen, was well tolerated and induced a seroresponse, defined as a four-fold rise (> or =titre 8) in serum bactericidal antibodies against the vaccine strain 4-6 weeks after the third vaccination, in 96% (95% confidence interval (CI): 79-100%) of adults, 76% (95% CI: 72-80%) of children, 75% (95% CI: 69-80%) of toddlers and 74% (95% CI: 67-80%) of infants receiving MeNZB. In conclusion, these findings suggest that MeNZB is safe and is likely to confer protection against systemic group B meningococcal disease caused by the epidemic strain." >One of the authors was Professor Diana Lennon. Peter, again, you have fallen into the role of an apologist, rather than rationally look at the actual references and information. If Professor Lennon had seen the data before signing it off for the Vaccine article published in March 2005 (and submitted sometime earlier) why did she write the letter to the Ethics committee on March 21 2005 complaining that she had been prevented from accessing the actual data to independently analyse it? Why did she say that on Chiron had seen the data and analysed it? Why did she say that results that she was responsible for had been submitted to the medicines approval committee without her even knowing? You imply my reference to professor lennon deriding the claimed partnership was false... but in her letter that is exactly what she is on about... you obviously haven't done your homework... apologists rarely do. Ron Law Risk & Policy Analyst
From: Peter Parry on 6 Aug 2008 17:31 On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:45:37 -0700 (PDT), juderon(a)gmail.com wrote: >On Aug 7, 5:51�am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote: >>One can only assume she has validated the work to her own >satisfaction. I suspect she understands the data and its relevance >somewhat better than you do and is better placed to decide if she has >sufficient relevant information. > >>Which is one reaqson even senior medics have asked, "where is the data...?" > >>Which senior medics? When? Where? Are you going to answer this? >1. Why was Lennon dumped as principal researcher as soon as she >challenged the Ministry of Health and Chiron? I have no idea, have you asked her? >2. Why was she dropped of authorship of subsequent papers? She doesn't appear to have been, some were published some time later. However, if you think she was, you are there and New Zealand is only the size of a small city in population terms so why not ask her and let us know? >3. Why did she write to a medical journal throwing doubt over the so- >called efficacy study? Can you provide a reference to that article? >4. If you don't know about the question, "where is the data?" being >asked then that further highlights the fact that you are not informed Of course not, I've mainly read your articles. However, I've found them to misrepresent facts on a very basic level. Quite simply I can't trust anything you say, nor could any other reader. Again, why, if your case is so strong, do you feel it necessary to be dishonest in your presentation of information?
From: Peter Parry on 6 Aug 2008 18:28 On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:06:48 -0700 (PDT), juderon(a)gmail.com wrote: >Peter Parry wrote: >> Which senior medics? When? Where? >You quoted from a letter Diana Lennon wrote to the NZMJ No, I quoted from a document you referenced dated 25 Mar 2005 provided as a pdf file you used as a reference in the third iteration of your articles. You said it was one you got under a freedom of information request. >but failed to see the one immediately in front of it? Probably because it wasn't there. The only letter immediately before the one my quote came from was also by Prof Lennon and was hand annotated 04/08/210. >Now that is a sure sign of an apologist blinded by their act of defending the faith. They were documents you supplied. If they were not complete that doesn't altogether surprise me but If they were manipulated I suggest you look in a mirror to find the culprit. As for defending the faith may I remind you that it is you who has the degree in theology. >I emailed Dr Mark Bolland... I'm not familiar with NZ medical hierarchy, the only Dr M Bolland I can find is an Endocrinologist . Is this the Dr Bolland you are quoting? It would be helpful if you could explain his involvement in the vaccination programme. >his response?... >I had read your work. It sounds as though the meningococcal programme >is going to be stopped in June, if the rumours are true. It will be >interesting to see whether an �official� version of the data will ever >be offered for close scrutiny in NZ Is this your answer to my question about who, what, when and where? to your statement "senior medics have asked, "where is the data...?"
From: Peter Parry on 6 Aug 2008 18:35 On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:59:47 -0700 (PDT), juderon(a)gmail.com wrote: >Peter Parry wrote: >If Professor Lennon had seen the data before signing it off for the >Vaccine article published in March 2005 (and submitted sometime >earlier) why did she write the letter to the Ethics committee on March >21 2005 complaining that she had been prevented from accessing the >actual data to independently analyse it? I have no idea, nor do you. Why not ask her? >Why did she say that on Chiron had seen the data and analysed it? Probably because they had. What's wrong with that? >Why did she say that results that she was responsible for had been submitted to the medicines >approval committee without her even knowing? I have no idea, nor do you. If you really feel this level of triviality is important why not stop wasting everyone's time with silly guessing games and put these questions to her? >You imply my reference to professor lennon deriding the claimed >partnership was false. I implied nothing of the sort I stated your interpretation of it, and the description "derided" was nonsensical. It was. Please try to be accurate.
From: Peter Parry on 6 Aug 2008 18:35 On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:40:12 -0700 (PDT), juderon(a)gmail.com wrote: >Now you highlight further that you don't have a clue and are simply >guessing... Why are senior doctors asking publicly, "Where is the >evidence?" I have asked you who these senior doctors were and where and when they asked this question.
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: [ MenZB vaccine NZ] Medical License Breached Next: Martin Walker's latest article |