ACCforum: Moth spray cancer appeal thrown out - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Moth spray cancer appeal thrown out

#1 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 02 April 2013 - 04:05 PM

http://www.stuff.co....peal-thrown-out

Moth spray cancer appeal thrown out


Moth spray 'unlikely to be cancerous'
SARAH HARVEY
Last updated 14:03 02/04/2013


Fairfax NZ
SPRAYING: A twin engined BK117 helicopter drops a load of Foray 48B spray over Traherne Island alongside the Auckland North Western Motorway in 2002.
Relevant offers

An Auckland man who claims his leukaemia was caused by the West Auckland apple moth spraying programmes has had a final appeal dismissed.

Grant Philpott said the use of Foray 48b in Auckland in 2002 and 2004 caused his chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, endocrine system failures and other associated medical conditions.

In March last year a judge ordered further investigation into the alleged poisoning, in particular the effect of an exposure to chloramphenicol on Philpott's health. Philpott believed chloramphenicol, an antibiotic, was used in the manufacture of the moth spray.

However, a toxicology panel, made up of five experts, found that Philpott's health problems "were most unlikely to be attributable to chloramphenicol exposure".

The panel also said that had the antibiotic been present in the spray the concentration would have been so low it would have barely been measurable, and noted that chloramphenicol eye drops and ointment have been used for many years and would have been withdrawn "long ago" if there was a risk.

Philpott's long fight to get compensation for his health problems began when his claim to ACC for costs to cover his conditions was denied in 2007.

He sought a review almost two years later and outside the time frame for reviews, and then subsequently appealed the decision denying him a review.

Last year the court heard evidence of Philpott's five-year battle.

In denying his initial claim, ACC said: "The evidence that has been considered does not support a causal link to an exposure to painted apple moth spray and endocrine failure."

ACC had initially asked for an extended time frame to send Philpott's claim to the Toxicology Panel - which convenes quarterly - but Philpott declined the request saying ACC had more than enough time to consider the request and convene the panel.

ACC however went ahead and forwarded the claim to the panel, which did not find a link between Philpott's health condition and his alleged exposure to the spray.

Neither did Philpott's GP.

In a letter to ACC in 2007 the GP said he was "personally not convinced of a personal injury as a result of an accident leading to this gentleman's chronic lymphocytic leukaemia".

"I know this will cause significant anger for [Philpott]," the GP said.

A letter from the then-clinical head of the department of clinical pathology at Auckland City Hospital to the GP said there was no "credible evidence" that exposure to the spray was linked to any kind of leukaemia or to any endocrine disorders.


Counsel for ACC told the court ACC had taken its investigations as far as it was reasonably obliged to do.

Judge Roderick Joyce
said, in a final judgement released recently, that Philpott's "dogged pursuit of a remedy . . . led him consciously to choose his own path . . . and thus to ignore the statutory limits of which he was well aware".

- © Fairfax NZ News

Doctors reports outside their scope of practice topic
http://accforum.org/...__1#entry136750
View Post bygeorge, on 03 September 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:
The Toxicology Panel, all of them have no detailed qualifications in Toxicology.
They are Occupational Physicians - that is not Toxicology. A separate and distinct
field of learning and understanding. NZMC should be more proactive but the problem
is ANYBODY can call themselves toxicologists, that does not mean they have the
understanding especially at the legal level and medical judication.

The members of the Toxicology Panel are:
Prof. Des Gorman, Dr Michael Beasley, Dr Bill Glass, Dr John Monigatti, Ralf Schnabel.
All Occupational Physicians according to the NZ Medical Council with no toxicology
mention except Ralf Schnabel who is a neuropyschiatrist and Michael Beasley is GP
with no noted scope.

Prof.Gorman and Ralf Schnabel are authors of "Cognitive Profile of Neurotoxicity". Ralf Schnabel is 'MNZPsS , MI MNZCCP DipClinPsych, a neuropyschiatrist who's view at least once being discredited by Judge Beattie.

http://accforum.org/...-head-injuries/

It is likely Gorman and Schnabel have a close professional relationship which might be
construed as not being independent viewpoint.

How Occupational Physician training makes one an expert on the brain and effects of
chemicals which must be a highly complex subject and of complex biochemical effects on
the nervous systems and whole body, is beyond me. But I am a lay person.

Having no training in the principles of Toxicology they demonstrate a very poor analysis process
and understanding of agrichemicals and industrial chemicals, dose and accumulation, genotype
interaction. It astounds me that they are allowed to interprete toxicological matters.

There is no Clinical Toxicologist in New Zealand and no sharing arrangement with Australia.

Therefore, the conclusions and inputs by the Toxicology Panel and as individuals must be
legal invalid as they have no Medical Council recognised specialisation or mentioned training
in this complex specialisation.
0

#2 User is offline   asgardnz 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-February 14

Posted 26 February 2014 - 08:54 PM

I am the Mr Philpott referred to in the post.
I will reply in more detail later.
Suffice to say, I got my ultimate aim- of the ACC Toxicology Panel having to assess chloramphenicol(added to Foray 48b to genetically modify the btk) as the cause of my injuries(which were far greater than just the leukemia).
As I suspected they would, the Panel lied about the effects of chloramphenicol on the human body to the extent that I now have enough evidence of corrupt practices to complain at an international level.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users