Back to East Penrest
Here's documentary evidence of the Krebs connection - there's a lot more
circumstantial evidence too:
http://www.maff.gov.uk/inf/newsrel/2001/010323a.htm
The Ministry of Agriculture and the Food Standards Agency held a joint
meeting on 21 March to receive urgent advice from independent expert
epidemiologists. Jim Scudamore (Chief Veterinary Officer), Sir John Krebs
(Chairman FSA) and Professor David King (Chief Scientific Adviser) heard
reports from Neil Ferguson and colleagues (Imperial College) Mark Woolhouse
(University of Edinburgh) and opinions from experts at the Institute of
Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. The models and analysis
use data recorded by MAFF up to 19 March 2001. A brief summary of the
available findings is attached; Imperial plan to publish
shortly................
What you might ask was Krebs/FSA doing at such a meeting? Does FMD
modelling have anything to do with food safety?
No of course not - he was there to ensure things went 'OK' for Anderson and
to ensure that the CVO stayed 'onside'.
BTW do you see any evidence of the supposed modelling team from Cambridge
University - mentioned several times by King? Nor do I.
But I do see evidence of a CVL/VLA modelling team that we've not heard of
since - this team headed by Prof John Wilesmith - Head of the CVL/VLA
Epidemiology Unit - was using a well regarded well established FMD model
(InterSpread) from Massey University's Epicentre in New Zealand
(http://epicentre.massey.ac.nz/). The Massey group sent two people over I
understand to help with the modelling work.
The Anderson et al and Wilesmith/CVL-VLA 'groups' have little love lost
between them, dating back to a big row in the 'heydays' of BSE.
I'm reliably informed that when MAFF commissioned FMD modelling studies
they did NOT commission work from Anderson's team at Imperial - but
Anderson et al did their own FMD modelling studies independently funded
(partly by the Royal Society and also by the Wellcome Trust) which they
then 'brought to the attention of' Prof King - 'aided' by May and Krebs? -
who was 'impressed' and invited then onto his Science Group.
This raises the interesting question of where Anderson et al got the data
to drive their moedel - I just don't belive that given past history that
Wilesmith/CVL-VLA (who collatred the data) would have given it to Andreson
et al unless the Imperial team had been officially commissioned to do FMD
modelling studies - which they were not. Two possibilities come to ming a)
they initially used data from the 67/68 epidemic and not the 2001 epidemeic
and/or b) Prof Mark Woolhouse - another non-vet biomathematician - who led
the 'independent' Edinburgh modelling team gave (leaked) the 2001 epidemic
data to Anderson et al for their unofficial modelling studies. This is
quite possible since Woollhouse used to work with Anderson at Oxford, and
is known to be something of a 'fan', and Woolhouse still defends the 12/48
culling policies. I've also been told that Woolhouse did not have an
independent prediction model of his own but used The Anderson (Imperial)
team's model. if true this makes a mockery of King's claim of having 3 (or
sometimes 4) independent modelling teams - it could well be that there were
only ever 2 truly independent modelling teams - the
Wilesmith/CVL-VLA/Massey team and the (initially unofficial) Anderson et al
(imperial) team.
Anderson et al still had a problem - to become predominant they needed to
get rid of the Wilesmith/CVL-VLA/NZ modelling team, and to 'sideline'
Donaldson and Kitching from the IAH Pirbright (who would have naturally
'sided' with Wilesmith/CVL-VLA/NZ team) and who as we know have been very
critical of the Anderson modelling work and the cull policies that arose
from it..
I have been informed that at some point - after the meeting mentioned
above? - the CVL/VLA/Massey team was instructed (by MAFF/Govt?) to stop
their modelling work. I believe the NZ folk then went home. If one goes to
the Epicentre web site - http://epicentre.massey.ac.nz/ - there's a link to
a 'Links' page - on this 'Links' page there's a link to 'UK FMD Outbreak
2001 - Interspread Predictions ' -
http://epicentre.massey.ac.nz/AHE/economics_exercises/html/Fmd.htm - guess
what? It's 'dead'.
So there's my 'story' of how Anderson et al 'engineered' or 'leveraged'
their way to become the predominant advisors WRT cull policies.
Stinks doesn't it - of course completely undermines any claim that
Govt/MAFF acted on 'the best scientific advice', and rather demolishes
Govt/MAFF/King claims that all the scientists were unanimous about need for
12/48 hour cull policies (which of course has already been denied by
Donaldson and Kitching).
Of course Prof Anderson et al (Ferguson and Donnelly), Prof King, Blair,
Nick Brown continue shamelessly to peddle various lies:
1. There was no alternative.
2. Had there been any other way we'd have taken it.
3. Any other policy would have prolonged the epidemic.
4. Any other policy would have resulted in more animals being killed in the
end.
5. The scientists were unanimous about the need for the 12/48 hour cull
policies.
6. Dr Donaldson's and Dr Paul Kitching's (IAH Pirbright) comments and
criticisms were fully accounted for in the Anderson et al model.
7. CVL-VLA had no experience of or expertise in modelling.
etc. etc.
The Ferguson, Donnelly, Anderson (Imperial College Modelling team headed by
Anderson) paper that describes their deeply flawed' model - that resulted
in the 12/48 cull policies - is' entitled The foot-and-mouth epidemic in
Great Britain: pattern of spread and impact of interventions.It was
published on line by Science Express 12th April. In the References and
Notes section one finds the following in item (20):
"We thank Sir Robert May for valuable advice and discussions, and 3
anonymous referees for comments."
Now guess what? Prof Sir Robert May - President of the Royal Society,
previous Chief scientist, mentor of Anderson and Krebs, close associate of
King, and newly appointed 'People's Peer' - is to 'head the Royal Society
inquiry into the science behind the policy decisions on FMD' - how very
'neat'!!!!!
Regards
Andrew
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Stephens BVetMed MRCVS
36 Falstaff Avenue, Earley, Reading, RG6 5TQ, UK
Tel: +44-(0)118-9756574 Fax: +44-(0)870-1337217
Email: andrews@mediavets.co.uk
Web: http://www.mediavets.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>If my memory serves me well, Krebs was chief exec of one of the
>conservation/environment bodies, before doing a report on TB in cattle and
>badgers for MAFF that was so fudged and vague that another academic
>luminary had to dig him out the sh*t. The reward for Krebs - a knighthood
>and chief exec of the newly formed Food Standards Agency. So he continues
>his career of fudging!
Guess what - Anderson was on the Krebbs Committee which produced the TB and
badgers report. He's also on SEAC which is now jointly 'adminstered' by the
Dept of Health and the FSA - small world ain't it.
Also Dr Christl Donnelly - of Anderson, Ferguson and Donnelly 'fame' - is
on the independent TB science group set up on recommendation of Krebs
committee to oversee further research and the badger culling trials -
incestuous ain't it. (That's how they work the 'system').
Do you remember who the 'academic luminary had to dig him - Krebs' -out the
sh*t' was?
Anderson of course sought to 'leverage' his way into becoming predominant
in the FMD science/modelling/policy 'scene' in this epidemic - with a
little help from his friends -once it was clear that the FMD epidemic would
be a 'big thing' , because he saw it as a golden opportunity to
'rehabilitate' himself after the Oxford scandals, enhance his
'fame/status', and to get the knighthood he is said to crave - he may yet
get one! Pity he and his team - Ferguson and Donnelly - so f*cked up with
the FMD modelling.
Andrew
.....................
An email from Val:
Andrew - I have been doing a little digigng for the past few weeks on your unholy alliance -
what I did find was:
I was not able to pull out on the web a listing of any of the academic works
or a proper academic CV for any of these people
(king, anderson) - only newspaper listings and 'political' type committees
whereas - I typed in the names of a few of the people I went to university with, who continued with 'proper academic careers' when I left - without exception for the 6 I tried ( just who I could think of off the top of my head - not ones Ive contacted in the meantime) - every single one of them had about 100 academic papers, committees, and listings (and often Pictures) - these guys were not your 'ivory tower academics' - 3 were head of Department at major american universities (ones we would have heard of) a 4th is head of department at Kings College London (Philosophy), one an emeritus professor at Imperial and the 6th a senior professors in Canada whose outside interests were legion (and extremely well documented.)
What I am saying is: in the 'true' academic world, one still has to 'publish or perish' - you don't survive otherwise - and your academic provenance is extremely well documented
- anyone else is purely a politician in academic circles
(I did find a bit more academic provenance for Christl Donnelly and the other fellow on the modelling team - not much for Mark Woolhouse (a more famous woolhouse is a philosopher!) - but not as much as for my friends - but perhaps they are a bit younger!)
Val
================================================================<<<
Back to East Penrest