JOHN MASTERS wonders whether indignation at the University of Otago about its research reputation is a case of people in ivory towers throwing stones.
It is fascinating to watch the consternation among University of Otago authorities in recent weeks over their belief that the university's research reputation is not being properly acknowledged.
I am ignorant of the breadth and value of Dunedin-based research over the years. I write as a once young New Zealand soldier who was sent to the Vietnam War.
What I do know is that a piece of University of Otago-sourced and approved research, in the form of a report to the Government, caused thousands of men and their families grief, pain and real hardship.
The report was called The Health Needs of the Children of Operation Grapple and Vietnam Veterans.
It was described as a critical appraisal undertaken for the Office of Veterans Affairs and commissioned in response to an undertaking by the Prime Minister to discover the facts of chemical exposure of New Zealand soldiers in Vietnam, and the effect on their families. The researchers were Deborah McLeod, Donna Cormack and Tai Kake. We called it the McLeod Report.
The McLeod Report of August 2001 opened with the premise that New Zealand troops served in Vietnam in a war zone where there was no aerial chemical spraying, so there could be no down-line consequences for the children of veterans. This claim was palpably wrong.
The report used research which, much earlier, had been rejected by inquiries in Australia and the United States. Such research became invalid after scientists, employed by chemical companies, admitted they had lied before congressional inquiries and an Australian Royal Commission.
The McLeod Report took research studies and used them to make statements supporting a basic premise, yet those studies gave results opposite to what the report claimed. Such errors were at the level of schoolboy howlers, and even within the comprehension of rude soldiery. A simple internet search would have produced the judgment I have just given.
The angst and dismay caused by the report among the veteran community produced the pressure which resulted in a special inquiry into the matter in October 2004 by the parliamentary Select Committee on Health. There, we were treated to the unedifying spectacle of two government ministries, Health and Veterans Affairs, supporting the report, while a third, Defence, produced incontrovertible evidence that proved the report invalid. We watched as government officials lied to the select committee.
We watched again as a damning select committee report slammed the quality of research as selective and incomplete, for the evidence of bias, and the quality of peer reviews, ostensibly carried out by other University of Otago academics and the Ministry of Health, none of whom were prepared to be named. What does that tell a simple soldier?
We watched as the formal Government response to the select committee's recommendations not only ignored the strong comment on the quality of the McLeod Report, but actually quoted that report.
Further pressure reversed this official stance and resulted in a memorandum of understanding between the Government and veteran organisations signed by two Ministers of the Crown, Phil Goff and Rick Barker, on December 6, 2006, in which they formally acknowledged that "the conclusions and recommendations of the McLeod Report do not form the basis of current Government policy". Opposition politicians went further, indicating they would consign the report "to the dustbin".
Will the McLeod Report be repudiated by University of Otago research authorities, or will they, like government officials and advisers, continue to support a ravaged piece of research in their name?
In a recent University of Otago magazine relating to her experience with the report, McLeod makes a case for protection for researchers and comments on her position with statements such as "explaining studies to the public can be difficult" and "we have been harassed, our personal integrity and professionalism publicly attacked". Vietnam veterans can certainly relate to that last lament.
In her article, she says "intellectual freedom is one of the cornerstones of academia and, as such, the academic viewpoint is seen to provide good- quality and unbiased information". Not even a soldier could argue with that, but the research has to be of integrity, unbiased, and able to withstand genuine review.
University of Otago academics have recently expressed their frustration and disappointment at missing out on government research funding, describing the process as a fiasco.
As a retired, fixed-income taxpayer, a long-ago Invercargill schoolboy who once aspired to the University of Otago, and an old soldier who is intimately aware of the frustration and disappointment suffered by thousands of my fellows as a result of one piece of government-funded University of Otago research, I repeat I am fascinated by their consternation and outrage.
* John Masters, ONZM, MC, JP, is a former commander of the New Zealand Artillery Battery in Vietnam, from 1970 to 1971. He now lives in Christchurch.
Originally Posted July 16, 2007
Note: Mathew (Matt Allen) is a spokesman for a private regulatory company in NZ being contracted by the Ministry of Health in order to suggest ways of health assistance to residents who live adjacent to the Dow Plant in New Zealand.The Ministry of Health blurb attached to their mail out prompted my response given that they are historically and factually incorrect in a number of areas.
Dear Mathew,
The letter written by Col. John Masters and published in The Press on 12th July 2007 pretty much sums up the current situation.
First up, thank you for seeking my views on health support options for groups exposed to dioxin and the supporting documents attached to your letter of 7 July 2007.
As a Vietnam Veteran and researcher involved in this issue since 1982 I take considerable umbrage that the MoH has tasked your firm to investigate this issue which as stated in your attachment includes New Zealand Vietnam Veterans. Indeed your communication states that Vietnam Veterans are included in the Dioxin exposed group.That is patently untrue.The Health Select Committee did not find that our New Zealand Vietnam Veterans had been exposed to Dioxin but in point of fact : "A toxic environment."
The Health Select Committee could not make a finding of Dioxin exposure because of the simple fact that no blood serum tests had been conducted on our Vietnam Veterans in order to establish what their levels were as compared to other exposed groups in New Zealand such as the residents of Paritutu or former timber workers exposed to PCP on the Green Chains.The premise of your approach to this matter Sir is thus based on a falsehood.There is no excuse for what transpired consequent to the McLeod Report, (as published in John Master's Letter) because at a meeting with the Prime Minister Helen Clark, Dr. Feek from MoH and other officials in 2001 they were told in no uncertain terms that they were about to use overseas scientific information which was known (through court proceedings in the USA) to be fraudulent.That advice, even though backed up by Court Records was ignored .
You make the statement that there is evidence that Dioxin does not cause damage to DNA.May I suggest you read the prime tome on organic chemistry used in our universities which uses the work of a former Nobel Peace Prize Winner who states very clearly that ionizing radiation and the 2,3,7,8 Dioxin isomer have exactly the same effects on DNA.Note as well that Eastern Bloc scientists as early as 1982 found that Dioxin exposed children in Vietnam exhibited the same chromosomal breaks and abberations as the children of Hiroshima.Talk too, as well to Prof. Al Rowlands of Massey University who has conducted DNA tests on our NZ Vietnam Veterans and found significant damage.
The basic premise of your approach to this issue is also very seriously faulted in that it is focused on the manufacture of 2,4,5,T in New Zealand and its consequent use from the early 1960's by Dow who happened to have a plant based in New Plymouth.Historical documents show quite clearly that a 50/50 mix of 2,4,5T and 2,4D was being imported into New Zealand in the early 1950's from TIMBROL Co. Ltd based in Victoria, Australia.YATES was also importing high volatile 2,4,5T into New Zealand at that time, including scrub dessicant.The health hazard warning labels on drums of their products talked in terms of "women of child bearing age having to avoid the spray because of the risk of birth defects." Indeed in Vietnam TORDON used by the Australian Army in their own defoliation programme was labelled "Exposure May Cause Sterility Or Birth Defects."Other multi national chemical companies based in NZ were also co suppliers of Dioxin contaminated 2,4,5,T for use in forestry, agriculture, railways and home use.
Circa 1975 the New Zealand Forest Service were not only using scrub dessicant being a mixture of 2,4,5,T and 2,4,D but were actually experimenting by mixing other chemicals such as Paraquat and Diqaut with the 2,4,5,T base .They also mixed diesel with those mixtures as wetting agents.What this means in simple terms is that the NZ Forest Service were in fact making new and untested chemical compounds which of course totally transgessed any of the human safety trials the chemical suppliers had been involved in.
Much the same rule of thumb was adopted as well by New Zealand Railways where the chemicals used by their spraying wagons had to be strong enough to take care of blackberry, wooly nightshade etc.Indeed at a casual glance the highest Dioxin reservoirs in New Zealand could well be the railway ballast lines in New Zealand along with the downstream silt reservoirs at the heads of streams and rivers where the chemicals ended up.
The suggestion that the exposed population in Paritutu lived in a corridoor of some 1000 meters by 400 meters is simply stupid and unsupportable and is not supported by the actual evidence of how the Dioxin translocates within the environment.Furthermore we have the problem of a former MP and JP being the Hon Bert Walker stating in the NZ media that he actually visited a factory in Tauranga circa the Vietnam War where Agent Orange was being mixed for export to that theatre of conflict.Who is to say that the marine environment in Tauranga is not as contaminated as say, Sydney Harbour where at Homebush the chemical companies plied their trade.
Joel Michalek, one of the prime investigators in the Ranch Hand Study recently advised me that there is now evidence that the chemical companies knew as early as 1968 that their AO product was at least ten times higher than the safety margin.He goes on to say that in respect of the Ranch Hand Study that they are shortly to produce a paper which will indicate an increase of cancers at all sites amongst the Ranch Hand Study Group.
That sort of takes care of the IOM findings which you quote in your attached document.In simple English language Mathew, the Ranch Hand Study, (and others supported by the USA Governments) were rorts based on political expediency and a reluctance to accept any responsibility for what had transpired given the fiscal costs involved.Not surprising then that Ministers of the New Zealand Body Politic and their public servants so faithfully parrot the historical lie.
In any event I wish to make it very clear to you as a Vietnam Veteran that there is no way I will accept your firms involvement in this issue on my behalf given that it is our intention to bring this matter to the attention of the Courts both in New Zealand and internationally if so required .Whatever action you wish to take on behalf of the residents of Paritutu or former timber workers is up to you.But you do not speak on our behalf as we have no confidence whatsoever in the MoH or Minister of Health in regard to this issue.
Yours Faithfully,
John A. Moller.
This is the response from Mathew. It is interesting in so far as for the first time in NZ it seems that the Government system now assume that our troops were exposed to Dioxin. Surprise!Surprise!
It is also of interest to note that the Italian factory incident seems to be the prime model on which our Health Department are responding with no recognition of the fact that Vietnam Veterans and indeed the population of what was formerly South Vietnam are the most highly exposed groups on the planet.
Dear John,
Thank you for sending us your views on this and for forwarding the story from The Press.
You are right in noting that we have been asked by the Ministry of Health to consider the health needs of not just Paritutu residents and former residents, but also other groups, including Vietnam Veterans. We are working on the basis, as you indicated we should be, that Vietnam Veterans were exposed to a toxic environment, but that this may have (and it is our understanding that many Vietnam veterans would take this position) included exposure to dioxins. For the purpose of simplicity we have not specified this in the discussion document which, you will appreciate, is aimed at a number of audiences. Indeed, conscious that the document will be received by a large number of people who will not be familiar with the technical aspects, we have referred more generally to “dioxin” exposure whereas truth be told this term is a rather broad catch-all for several chemicals.
We will be approaching Vietnam Veterans’ organisations (eg RSA and the Ex-Vietnam Service Association) to offer the opportunity to discuss health service needs in the context of the work we are doing for other groups, particularly Paritutu residents and former residents in the first instance, and we will of course be more specific in these discussions. Our focus is likely to be on outlining the work we are doing to assist in the design of a health service for Paritutu residents and former residents and to discuss how this work may be of interest to Vietnam veterans (as well as other groups such as timber workers). However, it is not our expectation that any such service for Paritutu residents would or could be imposed on veterans or other groups, and the design of any health service for other group(s) would certainly need to take into account those groups’ wider and specific needs: such work, including any consultation, would not fall under the ambit of our project. I do believe, however, that it would be remiss for us not to touch base with other interested groups at an early stage given the likely interest they may have in the ultimate shape of any health support service provided to Paritutu residents.
With regard to DNA damage, we did come across substantial evidence to “suggest that TCDD does not directly cause DNA damage”. This includes evidence from the Institute of Medicine and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. But we are also aware of conflicting evidence and the concerns of people that may have been exposed to TCDD, and that is why tests to determine DNA damage is an option presented in the discussion paper.
In terms of the types of dioxins that groups may have been exposed to, we are aware of the different types of dioxins and also of the results of serum dioxin tests undertaken on behalf of residents in Paritutu which showed high exposure to TCDD. Our primary focus, as directed by the Ministry of Health is on TCDD but we are not excluding other dioxins from consideration. We have also consulted with epidemiologists (and will shortly of course consult with residents) on how perhaps to best identify the exposed group in Paritutu, including such factors as geographical, spatial and temporal parameters: the 1000m by 400m corridor you refer to in your email is one of the many issues up for discussion based on knowledge to date. It is very likely that we will not be able to identify a rigid characterisation of who has been exposed and who has not and may need to take a more practical and inclusive approach to who may access services. Again, this is up for discussion with residents and other interested parties.
To sum up, I want to stress that nothing we have researched and nothing we have proposed is considered cast in stone: we come to this process with open minds and a hope that all we consult with will be free and frank with their views (as you have been). As an objective, evidence-based policy firm we are willing (and keen) to talk with all parties about the views that they have on services to be provided. We will then provide free and frank advice to the Ministry and will report our findings back to those we consulted with.
Finally, I would like to make it very clear that, in response to the points you make in your final paragraph, we would never presume to speak on anyone’s behalf on this matter and we are simply offering the opportunity for people to speak for themselves.
We would be happy to hear your views about health support needs but also understand if you choose not to engage further on this matter.
Regards
Matthew Allen
Some Follow-on Notes
In May, 2007, researchers found positive corellaition between Vietnam herbicide exposure and genetic damage content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ArtikelNr=100407&Ausgabe=232915&ProduktNr=224037
The Ranch Hand Study has indeed been proven by testimony of the involved scientists and researchers themselves to have been falsified, and various work produced by the IOM has been totally discredited by rational scientific method.
RETURN TO the Main Page