so called whilstleblower Aubrey Blumson TAKES payout in Proctor&Gamble drug data row

so called whilstleblower Aubrey Blumson TAKES payout in Proctor&Gamble drug data row

Joined: April 1st, 2004, 4:56 pm

December 4th, 2008, 9:20 am #1

Payout in P&G drug data row
 

<a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/s ... ioncode=26" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/s ... ioncode=26</a>>

7 April 2006
Phil Baty
The researcher who raised the alarm over restricted access to trial results has settled with Sheffield University. Phil Baty reports

Sheffield University has reached a settlement with the whistleblower it threatened to sack after he raised concerns about scientific misconduct at the university, and it has dropped all disciplinary charges against him.

<strong><em>It is believed that Aubrey Blumsohn, who has parted company with the university, has received a six-figure payment to settle his differences with Sheffield. Both parties refused to provide details about the terms of the deal. Dr Blumsohn, who declined to comment, had earlier rejected an offer from Sheffield of £145,000, including £25,000 compensation for injury to feelings, because it included an extensive gagging clause. </em></strong>

Dr Blumsohn's concerns surrounded the conduct of a drug study that university researchers were working on in collaboration with pharmaceutical giant Procter & Gamble. Sheffield this week confirmed that it would conduct a review of the allegations "to enable an independent panel to look into these issues", two years after concerns were raised internally.

This week, the university issued a brief statement to staff, which says:

"Dr Blumsohn... left the university on 31 March 2006. Dr Blumsohn and the university are pleased to announce that they have compromised their differences upon mutually satisfactory terms, which they have agreed will remain confidential."

Sheffield later released the statement to <em>The Times Higher </em>.

Dr Blumsohn, senior lecturer at the university's Bone Metabolism Research Unit, was suspended in September after openly co-operating with a <em>Times Higher </em>investigation.

He informed the university that he was talking to the media after losing faith in its internal systems for dealing with such allegations. He was subsequently told that he could lose his job over alleged "conduct incompatible with the duties of office".

The charges included raising concerns outside agreed university procedures, "briefing journalists" and "distributing information, including a <em>Times Higher </em>article, to third parties with apparent intent to cause embarrassment".

After working with Dr Blumsohn, The Times Higher reported in November that researchers from his unit had published findings on P&G's billion-dollar osteoporosis drug Actonel without conducting independent analyses of the drug-trial data.

Richard Eastell, head of the unit, had published research findings on the drug despite relying solely on P&G's in-house statisticians to interpret the results of laboratory tests.

Dr Blumsohn, who joined the study in 2001, said he was repeatedly refused access to drug-trial data, preventing him from verifying findings that were published by P&G in his name. When he eventually gained limited access to data, he expressed doubts about the conclusions being drawn.

The case, which was raised in Parliament and in the US Senate, led P&G to issue a "bill of rights" guaranteeing academics access to its data and ensuring independence of academic research it sponsors.

There were never any questions about the drug's safety, and P&G always maintained that the Sheffield researchers had sufficient access to the data to satisfy themselves about any conclusions being published.

<a href="" rel="nofollow">phil.baty@thes.co.uk"> href="[url=mailto:phil.baty@thes.co.uk]phil.baty@thes.co.uk[/url]" target=_blank>phil.baty@thes.co.uk</a>



<strong>'Malign' effect </strong>

An MP is concerned about the limited progress of a government-backed investigation into the conduct of Sheffield University's study of Actonel, Procter & Gamble's billion-dollar osteoporosis drug.

After <em>The Times Higher </em>reported concerns last November that Sheffield researchers had put their names to the findings of a study on Actonel without carrying out their own independent analysis of the firm's drug-trial data, the Government's Chief Medical Officer asked the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to investigate.

But correspondence between the whistleblower, Aubrey Blumsohn, and the MHRA shows that little progress has been made.

On February 15, he wrote to Ian Oulsnam, the MHRA's senior investigator: "I have not been asked to provide any documentary evidence or data, no party at the MHRA has arranged to meet with me." In early March, he wrote: "I have no idea what you are supposedly 'investigating' since, as you know, you have had no relevant evidence or information from me and seem not to understand the ethical or scientific problem."

In the correspondence, Mr Oulsnam calls the case "low priority" and explains that the MHRA does not have a proper remit to investigate the issue because its "priority" is to inspect clinical trials where the risk to patients is "more apparent and immediate".

Paul Flynn, a Labour MP, said: "I trust entirely in Aubrey Blumsohn's integrity, but if the MHRA told me it is Monday I'd check the calendar. I have long campaigned against the malign selfish, greedy influence of the pharmaceutical industry in academic life and in subverting science. Their tentacles spread everywhere including deeply into the MHRA, which is the pharmaceutical industry regulating the pharmaceutical industry."

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2004, 4:56 pm

December 4th, 2008, 9:22 am #2


<strong><em>It is believed that Aubrey Blumsohn, who has parted company with the university, has received a six-figure payment to settle his differences with Sheffield. Both parties refused to provide details about the terms of the deal. Dr Blumsohn, who declined to comment, had earlier rejected an offer from Sheffield of £145,000, including £25,000 compensation for injury to feelings, because it included an extensive gagging clause. </em></strong>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2004, 4:56 pm

December 4th, 2008, 9:25 am #3


<a href="http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:OLv ... d=11&gl=uk" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:OLv ... d=11&gl=uk</a>>

 

 

Compromise Agreement Page

      Beachcroft Wansbroughs

From: Larter Hilary 30/11/2005 18:11

To: "' aaaaaaaaa @bma.org.uk'" <'</FONT><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"> aaaaaaaaa @bma.org.uk> </font>

Cc:

Subject: Without Prejudice and Subject to Contract

 
 


Dear aaaaa,

 


I refer to our recent discussions and attach a revised agreement for

discussion with Dr Blumsohn. I have marked the changes by way of track

changes for ease of reference.

 


You will see I have apportioned the payments and I should be grateful if you

would confirm you are satisfied with the division I have made.

 


I have taken instructions on the issue of the data that Dr Blumsohn wishes

to retain. The University have reviewed the Proctor & Gamble contract and it

is quite clear that the data is owned by Proctor & Gamble and the

University. It can only be passed to third parties with their express

consent. We understand that in terms of any publications these must be

submitted to Proctor & Gamble for approval before publication, within a

specified time limit. It is understood that Dr Blumsohn is aware of the

terms of this agreement and I am obtaining a copy. Given the above, the data

must be returned to or retained by the University as otherwise it ( and Dr

Blumsohn) will be in breach of the contract.

 


I look forward to hearing from you in the morning.

 


Hilary Larter

Partner

Employment Group

Beachcroft Wansbroughs

7 Park Square East

Leeds

LS1 2LW

 


DDI: 0113 251 4710

Fax: 0113 251 4900

 


Email: hlarter@bwlaw.co.uk


 



 
 
 


<a rel="nofollow"></a>(1)   THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD

 


<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>- and -

 


(2)   DR AUBREY <b>BLUMSOHN</b>

 
 
 
 
 
 
 


<a rel="nofollow"></a>COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

 
 
 


STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

<a rel="nofollow"></a>WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO CONTRACT

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


7 Park Square East, Leeds  LS1 2LW

Tel: 0113 251 4700      Fax: <a rel="nofollow"></a>0113 251 4900


 



This Agreement is made on ***** 2005 (the Agreement Date) between:

 

<ol>[*]The University of Sheffield of Firth Court, Western Bank Sheffield, S10 2TN (the Employer); and </li>[/list]
 


2)  Dr Aubrey  (the Employee).

 


BACKGROUND

 


The Employer and the Employee recognise that the relationship between them has broken down.  As such, this Agreement seeks to bring the employment relationship to an end with the Employee confirming he will not pursue his potential claims of unfair dismissal, suffering a detriment for a public interest disclosure, discrimination on grounds of his race or religion or victimisation nor will he pursue a personal injury claim in relation to the alleged affect on his health.

 


IT IS AGREED as follows:
<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>Termination </li>[/list]<ol>[*]The Employees employment with the Employer will terminate on 30 November 2005 (the Termination Date).  His basic salary will be paid and all contractual benefits provided up to the Termination Date together with pay in lieu of five days</b>holiday accrued but untaken as at the Termination Date, such payments being subject to deductions of tax and National Insurance contributions in the normal way. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]The Employee shall not be required to attend work up to the Termination Date except as required by the Employer from time to time in its discretion. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><b>Compensation[/b] </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>The Employer will pay to the Employee the sum of £120,000 (ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS (the Compensation Payment") as compensation for loss of his employment.  The Employee will receive a further £25,000 as compensation for injury to feelings ( the Injury to Feelings Payment). </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>The first £30,000 (THIRTY THOUSAND POUNDS) of the Compensation Payment will be paid without deduction of tax at source.  Income tax at basic rate will be deducted in respect of the balance of the Compensation Payment prior to payment to the Employee. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>The Compensation Payment is made in reliance on the warranties contained in clause ý12 below</b>and subject to the terms of that clause. </li>[/list]
2.4    Within 21 days of the Termination Date the Employer shall pay to the Employee  the first £60,000 (SIXTY THOUSAND POUNDS) of the  Compensation Payment together with the Injury to Feelings payment. The Employer will pay the balance of the Compensation Payment, namely £60,000 (SIXTY THOUSAND POUNDS) on 10 April 2006.
<ol>
[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><b>Benefits[/b] </li>[/list]
<a rel="nofollow"></a>With effect from the Termination Date and save as provided in this Agreement the Employer shall cease to provide all other benefits, whether contractual or otherwise, to or for the benefit of the Employee.
<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>Pensions </li>[/list]
The Employee will be separately notified by the trustees of the Pension Scheme of his entitlements under the rules of that scheme and of the options available to his for dealing with that entitlement.
<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>Reference </li>[/list]
Upon receipt of a written request to do so, the Employer will provide to a prospective employer of the Employee a reference in respect of the Employee in the form attached at Appendix 2 and will deal with all oral enquiries for a reference in a manner consistent with such reference provided that nothing in this clause shall fetter the Employers obligation to give full disclosure as required by law or a statutory or regulatory authority and the Employer reserves the right to withhold, amend or add to the reference in order to meet such obligations and/or as a result of information which comes to light after the date of this Agreement. All reference requests on behalf of the Employer must be directed to R Valerio, Director of Human Resource Management.
<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>Expenses </li>[/list]
The Employee will submit any outstanding expense claims with supporting invoices, receipts and vouchers within 14 days prior to the Termination Date to Andrew Dodman, Assistant Director of Human Resources and shall thereafter be reimbursed in respect of such claims by the Employer subject to the Employers normal expense policy.
<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>Return of Property </li>[/list]<ol>[*]On, or before, the Termination Date, the Employee will return to the Employer all books, files, documents, papers, materials, clinical and research data, computer equipment, disks, mobile telephones, security cards, credit cards, keys and other property  belonging to or relating to the business of the Employer or that of its clients, customers and/or suppliers. The Employee undertakes that he will not make or retain copies of any of the same and further undertakes that he will immediately return any such property which subsequently comes into his possession or control in the future. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]On request by the Employer the Employee undertakes to disclose to the Employer all passwords to all password protected files, software and hardware which have been created or protected by him and which are on the Employer's computers. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]The Employee may collect his personal belongings from his office by prior agreement with Andrew Dodman. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>Confidentiality of Agreement </li>[/list]The Employee warrants that he has not divulged to any person whatsoever (other than his immediate family in confidence or to his professional advisers/solicitors in connection with the conclusion of this Agreement) the fact of, negotiation and/or terms of this Agreement.  The Employee will not divulge in the future to any person whatsoever the fact of, negotiation and/or terms of this Agreement (except to his immediate family in confidence and to his professional advisers/solicitors in connection with the conclusion of this Agreement or where required by any competent authority or by a Court of law or Her Majestys Revenue and Customs.<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>STATEMENTS </li>[/list]
9.1 The Employer agrees to issue the agreed statement at Appendix 3 following the Termination Date.
9.2 The Employee and the Employer</b>agree that they will not, directly or indirectly, make any detrimental or derogatory statements about matters concerning the Employees employment with the Employer or its termination. The Employee confirms that he will not make any detrimental or derogatory statements to any third party, including the press, about any of the Employer's directors, officers or employees, including but not limited to Professor A Weetman, Professor P Fleming, Ms R Valerio, Professor R Eastell (except the Employee may make comment in relation to the issues raised in connection with Proctor and Gamble), Professor P Hellewell, Professor R Boucher, Dr a aaaaaa and Dr J Clowes (except that the Employer understands the Employee may pursue a pending legal action against Dr Clowes). Both parties will deal with any media interest in a factual and responsible manner.   Nothing in this clause shall fetter the Employers or the Employees obligation to give full disclosure as required by law or by a statutory or regulatory authority or body.
9.3     The Employer confirms that it has no current intention to report the Employee to the General Medical Council (GMC). The Employee confirms that he has no current intention to make or support any new referrals to the GMC in respect of any of the Employers directors, officers or employees.
<ol>
[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><b>confidential information[/b] </li>[/list]<ol>[*]In accordance with his common law duties the Employee agrees that he will not disclose to any person any Confidential Information concerning any matter relating to the business or affairs of the Employer or any Associated Company</b>or its Associated Persons, suppliers and clients/customers which Confidential Information has been acquired by the Employee in the course of his employment. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent disclosure by the Employee of: </li>[/list]<ol>[*]information disclosed pursuant to any order of any Court of competent jurisdiction; or </li>[/list]<ol>[*]information disclosed for the purpose of making a protected disclosure within the meaning of Part IV A of the Employment Rights Act 1996; or </li>[/list]<ol>[*]information which has come into the public domain otherwise than by a breach of confidence on behalf of the Employee. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><b>Tax Indemnity[/b] </li>[/list]
It is both parties understanding that a proportion of the Compensation Payment may not be subject to income tax pursuant to the provisions of Section 403 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.  Accordingly, up to £30,000 of the Compensation Payment will be paid without deduction of tax at source pursuant to those provisions.  Save for any deductions made prior to payment, the Employee accepts that he will be responsible for the payment of any tax or Employees National Insurance contributions (including, without limitation, any interest, penalties or fines in connection therewith) imposed by any competent authority in respect of any payment or provision of any benefit as set out in this Agreement (the Liabilities) and he agrees to indemnify the Employer or any Associated Company on a continuing basis against any of the Liabilities provided always that<a rel="nofollow"></a> before the Employer meets any  of the Liabilities it shall first take reasonable steps to notify the Employee and afford him a reasonable opportunity to challenge the relevant assessment or demand made by the competent authority.
<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>Warranties </li>[/list]
The Employee agrees and warrants that:-
<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>he has taken advice, as confirmed at clause 15 below; </li>[/list]<ol>[*]he has discussed with the Adviser all of the Relevant Legislation and the rights and obligations arising from his contract of employment ("the Law") and all issues regarding his employment and its termination which may be relevant to the Law;   </li>[/list]<ol>[*]the claims listed at clause 13.1.1 below amount to the entirety of the claims which he believes he has against the Employer or any Associated Company or their Associated Persons, arising out of or in connection with his employment including its termination (save only for any claims in respect of accrued pension rights);</b></li>[/list]<ol>[*]this Agreement is intended to settle any actual or potential disputes or proceedings between the parties (whether known or not, whether existing in fact or law or not, whether the claim be statutory or contractual or of any other nature) save only for any claims identified in clause<b>[/b]ý13.3 below; </li>[/list]<ol>[*]he has made full and frank disclosure to the Employer of all and any of his conduct which amounts to a material breach of contract or to a material breach of any of the duties arising out of his employment with the Employer including but not limited to a breach of trust; and </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>he has not at the date on which he signs this Agreement either received or agreed to accept an offer of new employment or a new contract for services or comparable remunerable activity. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>Full and Final Settlement </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>The Employee agrees to accept the Compensation Payment and the Injury to Feelings Payment in full and final settlement of any claims he has or may have in the future against the Employer or any Associated Company or their</b>Associated Persons<b>(whether known or not, whether existing in fact or law or not, whether the claim be statutory or contractual or of any other nature):- </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal,</b>race or disability discrimination, discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, victimisation, unlawful deduction from wages and/or<b>detriment on the grounds of having made a public interest disclosure; </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>relating to his employment or its termination including, without limitation, any claims under the provisions of any of the Relevant Legislation; </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>howsoever arising, out of or in connection with the Employees contract of employment, including the termination thereof; and </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>in tort arising out of or in connection with his employment with the Employer (subject to clause ý13.3 below). </li>[/list]<ol>[*]The Employer enters into this Agreement and makes the Compensation Payment in reliance upon the warranties given by the Employee at clause</b>ý12 above.  In the event that the Employee is in breach of clause ý12 above or<b>issues a claim relating to his employment or its termination (save for those claims listed in clause ý13.3 below) against the Employer or any Associated Company or their Associated Persons, whether in the Employment Tribunal, the High Court, the County Court or otherwise,  the Employee agrees that the Employer or any Associated Company</b>or their Associated Persons<b>may offset the Compensation Payment against any remedy due to the Employee from any such proceedings. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>Nothing in clause ý13 above shall affect:- </li>[/list]<ol>[*]any claims in respect of accrued pension rights; </li>[/list]<ol>[*]proceedings for the enforcement of the terms of this agreement where the Employer is in breach of any of its terms; or </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>Compromise Agreement </li>[/list]
The parties agree that the conditions regulating compromise agreements contained in the Relevant Acts are intended to be and have been satisfied by the terms of this Agreement.
<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>Independent Advice </li>[/list]
The Employee warrants that:-
<ol>[*]he has received independent advice from aaaaa aaaaaaaa ("the Adviser) as to the terms and effect of this Agreement and, in particular, its effect on his ability to pursue his rights before an Employment Tribunal.  The Adviser is an officer, official, employee or member of the British Medical Association, an independent trade union, who has been certified in writing by the trade union as competent to give advice and is authorised to do so on behalf of the trade union and has produced a letter addressed to the Employer in the form attached at Appendix 1 of this Agreement; and </li>[/list]<ol>[*]the Employee is advised by the Adviser that there is in force, and was at the time he received the advice referred to above, a contract of insurance or an indemnity provided for members of a profession or professional body covering the risk of a claim by him in respect of loss arising in consequence of that advice. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>agreement </li>[/list]<ol>[*]The Agreement is made and the consideration set out in clause ý2 above is given without any admission of liability whatsoever by the Employer. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between the parties and supersedes all or any previous contracts, agreements or arrangements, whether written or verbal between the parties (other than the Compromise Agreement dated 14 February 2005 and any provision in the Employee's contract of employment which is expressed to survive termination of the contract of employment and which has not been varied by any provision in this agreement). </li>[/list]<ol>[*]The terms of this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and the parties agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts in relation to any claims or any matter arising. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]Notwithstanding that this Agreement is marked without prejudice and subject to contract, it will, when signed by both parties, become open and binding. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]If any part of this Agreement shall be, or become, void or unenforceable for any reason, this shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this Agreement and, in the event that part of any provision shall be held to be void or unenforceable but would be valid and enforceable if some part thereof were deleted, such provision shall apply with such modification as may be necessary to make it valid and enforceable. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>Definitions </li>[/list]
In this Agreement:
<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>Associated Company includes all subsidiary companies and holding companies of the Employer and any subsidiary or holding companies of such holding companies, in the meanings attributed to those expressions by Section 736 of the Companies Act 1985 as amended. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]Associated Persons means any current or former shareholders, directors, officers, agents or employees of the Employer or any Associated Company. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>Confidential Information means any information of a confidential or secret nature relating to any and all aspects of the business of the Employer and/or its Associated Companies and/or its or their Associated Persons, clients, customers and suppliers including but not limited to personnel data, financial information, budgets, reports, business plans, strategies, know-how, formulae, designs, data, specifications, research, processes, procedures and programs, pricing, sales and marketing plans and details of past or proposed <a rel="nofollow"></a>transactions whether or not written or computer generated or expressed in material form. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>Pension Scheme means the Universities Superannuation Scheme. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]<a rel="nofollow"></a>person includes references to an individual, company, firm or association. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]Relevant Acts means the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Employment Rights Act 1996, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004. </li>[/list]<ol>[*]Relevant Legislation means the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, the Data Protection Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Employment Relations Act 1999, the Working Time Regulations 1999, the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, the Employment Act 2002, the Relevant Acts and European Community legislation. </li>[/list]
 
 
 
 


Signed by 

      Dr Aubrey <b>Blumsohn</b>

 
 


Dated 

 
 
 
 


Signed by 

      For and on behalf of the Employer

      and its Associated Companies and

      their Associated Persons

 
 


Dated 

 
 



 

<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>

APPENDIX 1

 


This is to be typed on to the headed notepaper of the Trade Union

 


STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY

 


To: Rosie Valerio

      Director of Human Resource Management

      The University of Sheffield

      Firth Court

      Western Bank

      Sheffield  S10 2TN

 
 
 


Dear Sirs,

 


I, aaaaa aaaaaaaa, an officer, official, employee or member of the British Medical Association ("the Trade Union"), an independent Trade Union, confirm that I have given independent advice to Dr Aubrey Blumsohn (the Employee) of ___________________ as to the terms and effect of the agreement entered into between yourself and him and in particular its effect on his ability to pursue his rights before an Employment Tribunal in relation to the termination of his employment.

 


I confirm that I am certified in writing by the Trade Union as competent to give advice and as authorised to do so on the Trade Union's behalf.  I confirm that there is, and was at the time I gave the advice referred to above, in force a contract of insurance or an indemnity provided for members of a profession or a professional body covering the risk of a claim by Dr Blumsohn in respect of any loss arising out of that advice. 

 


Yours faithfully,

 
 



 



<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>APPENDIX 2

<a rel="nofollow"></a><a rel="nofollow"></a>Reference

 


Agreed reference to be issued upon request to employer from prospective employers

 


PRINTED ON UNIVERSITY LETTERHEAD

 


To whom it may concern

 
 


Dear Sir or Madam,

 


Reference for Dr Aubrey <b>Blumsohn</b>

 


Dr Blumsohn was appointed on 1 September 2000 as a Clinical Senior Lecturer/Honorary Consultant in Metabolic Bone Disease within the Division of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine at the University of Sheffield.

 


Dr Blumsohn left the University on 30 November 2005

 


During his employment with the University, Dr Blumsohn was involved in biochemical analysis of samples and research on osteoporosis as a member of the Bone Metabolism Group. The Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism is the largest of its kind in the UK, incorporating both University clinical and laboratory research (The Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism) and the clinical services provided by Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Trust. The whole group now consists of over 50 staff and is a rapidly expanding group in this research field. Recent analysis performed by the Institute for Scientific Information placed the University of Sheffield as 4th in the world from 3000 other institutions.

 


Dr Blumsohns main research interest relates to the effects of nutrient intake on skeletal physiology and the circadian rhythm of bone turnover. Dr Blumsohn helped establish the Sheffield laboratory relating to measurement of markers of bone turnover.

 


Dr Blumsohn holds an Honorary Consultant Contract with Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as a Chemical Pathologist.

 


We understand that Dr Blumsohn wishes to pursue his clinical work and we wish him well in these new directions.

 


Yours faithfully,

 
 
 
 


Rosie Valerio

Director of Human Resource Management

 
 


APPENDIX 3

 


Statement

 
 


E-mail statement to be sent to staff in Medicine following Dr <b>Blumsohns departure. </b>

 
 


I am writing to advise you that Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, Senior Lecturer has left the University to pursue his career in chemical pathology.

 


We wish Dr Blumsohn well in his future career.

 
 


Professor Tony Weetman

Dean of Medicine

© Beachcroft Wansbroughs 1999 Last amended on: 17 May 1999

j:\projects\websites\fraud\open\gag2.doc

© Beachcroft Wansbroughs 2005 Last amended on: 24 May 2006

j:\projects\websites\fraud\open\gag2.doc
Quote
Like
Share



Joined: April 1st, 2004, 4:56 pm

December 4th, 2008, 9:34 am #6

Gag money rejected
16 December 2005

 

<a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/s ... ioncode=26" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/s ... ioncode=26</a>>Phil Baty

The whistleblower who raised the alarm about the conduct of a Sheffield University study with the drug company Procter & Gamble rejected a £145,000 payoff from his university.

Aubrey Blumsohn, senior lecturer at Sheffield University's Bone Metabolism Research Unit, said that signing a gagging clause and handing over research data would have compromised the debate over the issue. He is now likely to face disciplinary action by the university.

Dr Blumsohn was suspended in September this year after co-operating with an investigation by <em>The Times Higher </em>into his concerns. It has now emerged that Dr Blumsohn was offered £120,000 compensation for loss of employment and a further £25,000 for "injury to feelings" if he agreed to part company with Sheffield.

The deal, which Sheffield this week tried to keep secret by threatening <em>The Times Higher </em>with an injunction, would have given Dr Blumsohn little scope to discuss concerns about P&G and would have required him to return all clinical and research data.

It would also have stopped him from making "detrimental or de-rogatory statements" regarding his employment at Sheffield and about any of Sheffield's staff, inc-luding Tony Weetman, the medical school dean, and Robert Boucher, the vice-chancellor.

In a letter to the university rejecting the offer, dated December 1, Dr Blumsohn says: "Effectively, I would be accepting £145,000 in exchange for allowing part of the jigsaw of clinical and scientific debate to remain uncorrected, and this would be unconscionable."

<em>The Times Higher </em>reported last month that findings on P&G's osteoporosis drug Actonel had been released under the name of Sheffield researchers although they had not carried out their own, independent analysis of the firm's drug-trial data. P&G said that it was standard industry practice to limit academics' access to its drug databases and that the Sheffield team had sufficient access to support conclusions being drawn.

Dr Blumsohn was suspended in September after a complaint from Professor Weetman, who accused him of conduct "incompatible with the duties of office". The charges included an acknowledgement that Dr Blumsohn had "no trust in the university's procedures".

Dr Blumsohn first raised concerns more than two years ago. In a tape-recorded conversation in September 2003, he was told by the head of his unit, Richard Eastell, "to really watch it" because P&G provided "a good source of income".

Professor Eastell said this week that he did not recognise the comments and could not recall the context of the conversation. In May 2004, Dr Blumsohn made a written complaint to Professor Eastell, who was also medical school research dean at the time, which was copied to Professor Weetman. But the university has never initiated any investigation.

In May 2005, Dr Blumsohn's solicitor wrote to Professor Boucher explaining that he had "serious concerns" and seeking a meeting so that the university might "support him as an academic confronted with an important external threat to academic freedom and integrity". But the vice-chancellor declined.

Dr Blumsohn then wrote to the director of human resources, Rosie Valerio, in June, copying her into letters outlining the detailed concerns to Professor Eastell and P&G. He told her: "I simply require the support of the university to raise a critical and urgent problem."

Sheffield maintains that it had repeatedly requested that Dr Blumsohn provide evidence of his concerns and raise them under the correct internal procedures, which he declined to do.

A spokesperson for Sheffield said: "The university had entered into formal 'without prejudice' discussions with Dr Blumsohn's British Medical Association representative. These discussions were at Dr Blumsohn's request and had been undertaken in good faith by the university. The university would like to stress that these negotiations are the result of complex matters that have been ongoing between the university and Dr Blumsohn involving a number of different issues, and these negotiations have not occurred as a result of Dr Blumsohn having concerns about the pharmaceutical company that have been recently reported in the press."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2004, 4:56 pm

December 4th, 2008, 9:41 am #7


<img height="148" alt="Blumsohn" src="http://www.thejabberwock.org/blog/atoon.gif" width="100">

because he is an expert
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2004, 4:56 pm

December 4th, 2008, 9:53 am #8

Payout in P&G drug data row
 

<a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/s ... ioncode=26" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/s ... ioncode=26</a>>

7 April 2006
Phil Baty
The researcher who raised the alarm over restricted access to trial results has settled with Sheffield University. Phil Baty reports

Sheffield University has reached a settlement with the whistleblower it threatened to sack after he raised concerns about scientific misconduct at the university, and it has dropped all disciplinary charges against him.

<strong><em>It is believed that Aubrey Blumsohn, who has parted company with the university, has received a six-figure payment to settle his differences with Sheffield. Both parties refused to provide details about the terms of the deal. Dr Blumsohn, who declined to comment, had earlier rejected an offer from Sheffield of £145,000, including £25,000 compensation for injury to feelings, because it included an extensive gagging clause. </em></strong>

Dr Blumsohn's concerns surrounded the conduct of a drug study that university researchers were working on in collaboration with pharmaceutical giant Procter & Gamble. Sheffield this week confirmed that it would conduct a review of the allegations "to enable an independent panel to look into these issues", two years after concerns were raised internally.

This week, the university issued a brief statement to staff, which says:

"Dr Blumsohn... left the university on 31 March 2006. Dr Blumsohn and the university are pleased to announce that they have compromised their differences upon mutually satisfactory terms, which they have agreed will remain confidential."

Sheffield later released the statement to <em>The Times Higher </em>.

Dr Blumsohn, senior lecturer at the university's Bone Metabolism Research Unit, was suspended in September after openly co-operating with a <em>Times Higher </em>investigation.

He informed the university that he was talking to the media after losing faith in its internal systems for dealing with such allegations. He was subsequently told that he could lose his job over alleged "conduct incompatible with the duties of office".

The charges included raising concerns outside agreed university procedures, "briefing journalists" and "distributing information, including a <em>Times Higher </em>article, to third parties with apparent intent to cause embarrassment".

After working with Dr Blumsohn, The Times Higher reported in November that researchers from his unit had published findings on P&G's billion-dollar osteoporosis drug Actonel without conducting independent analyses of the drug-trial data.

Richard Eastell, head of the unit, had published research findings on the drug despite relying solely on P&G's in-house statisticians to interpret the results of laboratory tests.

Dr Blumsohn, who joined the study in 2001, said he was repeatedly refused access to drug-trial data, preventing him from verifying findings that were published by P&G in his name. When he eventually gained limited access to data, he expressed doubts about the conclusions being drawn.

The case, which was raised in Parliament and in the US Senate, led P&G to issue a "bill of rights" guaranteeing academics access to its data and ensuring independence of academic research it sponsors.

There were never any questions about the drug's safety, and P&G always maintained that the Sheffield researchers had sufficient access to the data to satisfy themselves about any conclusions being published.

<a href="" rel="nofollow">phil.baty@thes.co.uk"> href="[url=mailto:phil.baty@thes.co.uk]phil.baty@thes.co.uk[/url]" target=_blank>phil.baty@thes.co.uk</a>



<strong>'Malign' effect </strong>

An MP is concerned about the limited progress of a government-backed investigation into the conduct of Sheffield University's study of Actonel, Procter & Gamble's billion-dollar osteoporosis drug.

After <em>The Times Higher </em>reported concerns last November that Sheffield researchers had put their names to the findings of a study on Actonel without carrying out their own independent analysis of the firm's drug-trial data, the Government's Chief Medical Officer asked the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to investigate.

But correspondence between the whistleblower, Aubrey Blumsohn, and the MHRA shows that little progress has been made.

On February 15, he wrote to Ian Oulsnam, the MHRA's senior investigator: "I have not been asked to provide any documentary evidence or data, no party at the MHRA has arranged to meet with me." In early March, he wrote: "I have no idea what you are supposedly 'investigating' since, as you know, you have had no relevant evidence or information from me and seem not to understand the ethical or scientific problem."

In the correspondence, Mr Oulsnam calls the case "low priority" and explains that the MHRA does not have a proper remit to investigate the issue because its "priority" is to inspect clinical trials where the risk to patients is "more apparent and immediate".

Paul Flynn, a Labour MP, said: "I trust entirely in Aubrey Blumsohn's integrity, but if the MHRA told me it is Monday I'd check the calendar. I have long campaigned against the malign selfish, greedy influence of the pharmaceutical industry in academic life and in subverting science. Their tentacles spread everywhere including deeply into the MHRA, which is the pharmaceutical industry regulating the pharmaceutical industry."
if you don't like this Aubrey - sue me, you know where I am !
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2004, 4:56 pm

December 4th, 2008, 10:09 am #9

Tuesday, June 17, 2008<a rel="nofollow"></a>Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, Penny Mellor, Lisa Blakemore Brown and David Southall Trust and faith is a fine thing when people actually know the value of friendship. In Aubrey <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blumsohn's</span> case, he didn't. Anyway, I felt it would be useful to have a background observation of Aubrey's view on Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span>. Aubrey is affectionately named " Audrey". He is dubbed a <span class="blsp-spelling-error">whistleblower</span> on research fraud. He also has a big mouth. Despite his failings as a human being he actually writes very well on Scientific Misconduct. The difference between me and Audrey is that I tell it how it is online and he hides his real persona behind closed doors. This may well be for the Scientific Community where he is well respected.

Dr Aubrey <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blumsohn</span> continued a conversation with Brian Morgan sometime ago. No doubt Morgan's sly half baked arguments may well have been convincing to him. I have no doubt that he visits Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor's</span> blog and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected">in fact</span> admitted to it a few days ago. Audrey is curious to see what his pet project on Lisa <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blakemore</span> Brown resulted in. He stays on the side lines and simply observes the spectacle. It is much like tennis.

He was kind enough at the time to supply said Brian Morgan emails to me. I therefore know the quality of Brian Morgan's contact with Aubrey <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blumsohn</span>.

The problem with this entire <span class="blsp-spelling-error">msbp</span> issue is that most people are as frazzled as each other. I was looking through their emails yesterday reliving last year. I came to the conclusion that most of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error">msbp</span> group were seriously on something. I have no idea what. Perhaps it was an extra strong version of chocolate or even red bull. Each person set the other off and they all revolved in a fictional world much like second life.

Only one lady has functioned unscathed and that is because she is the most intelligent of them all. It was indeed a breath of fresh air to discover that there was one honest, decent, hardworking and highly intelligent mother who still believed that there was a flip side of a debate.

The rest of them are caught up in <span class="blsp-spelling-error">pseudoconspiracy</span> theories, backbiting and a world where people hate each other for no reason. You ask them all " Why do you hate David <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Southall</span>". The answer you get is " because everyone says he is bad". You then move onto asking " Why do you think he is bad". The answer comes " Well he just is". Then you ask them the scientific evidence backing these theories and nothing comes forward in evidence. I admit, on repeated occasions I have sought to expose David <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Southall</span>, on each occasion I have found nothing to expose him with. In the number of years I have investigated the case, there has been nothing based in evidence to write against David <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Southall</span>. All evidence has been supportive of David <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Southall</span>. No doubt Aubrey who has limited understanding of paediatrics dislikes David <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Southall</span> based on the speculative issues. A case of follow the masses much like a large wooly sheep.

I have become a hate figure - why? Well, I quite like David <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Southall</span> and I think he is a good man. So, for that difference of view, I am billed<span class="blsp-spelling-error"></span> as the enemy to thousands of mothers and women. Aren't I allowed to have an opinion? Aren't I allowed to say - actually, David <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Southall</span> is a good man, he is a decent man and he has always tried his best for children. Do I get more hate mail for saying that? It escapes many people that one does not have to be aligned to David <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Southall</span> to have that view of him. Unlike the rest of the msbp board who rotate in secrecy, David Southall opens his evidence up for all of us to see at the GMC. Some of us have read detailed evidence related to the cases against him and spent time reading transcripts. What other reason would I have of supporting David <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Southall</span>? Why does everyone fear to stand and be counted and say they support David <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Southall</span>? What is he? A leper? Is he a leper because Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> tells us he is? Is he a leper because the General Medical Council have misjudged him. They misjudge most doctors as does Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span>. Essentially, people can have differences of opinion and still like each other or at least get on. There does not have to be a full blown war. Has David Southall ever had the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the media? No, no one gives him the benefit of the doubt. Everyone just follows Mellor like sheep. That includes the General Medical Council.

As for Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> -she requires challenge because only by that will she seek to improve herself. She is a far cry from the person who first believed in her causes. Fame has certainly got to her head and she has become a hate figure. Hated by the mothers she has helped. We question, why this is so? Challenge is also important because some of us believe in social responsibility. Who is going to challenge Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> for the sake of vulnerable mothers who do not know any better when <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> misleads them? Who is going to challenge Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> when doctors are harassed and crippled by their obligations in confidentiality? This is about social responsibility. It is also about trying to do what is right. Of course, we could all walk away leaving the catastrophic situation or we could attempt to present the evidence as it is. <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> for me is an interesting eccentric. A subject of writing fodder. An interesting character who has become much like Alexis <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Carrington</span> probably because of the influence of fame and fortune. No doubt somewhere in her past she may have once been a decent person but social evolution has rendered her an unlikable and flawed character. She has developed her personal vendetta in my direction but that is her character. She always develops vendettas. Brian Morgan once told Aubrey <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blumsohn</span> that it was Folly to be embroiled with us. He is probably correct because in all their efforts to silence me in the last year - all have failed and all will continue to fail.

<span class="blsp-spelling-error">Msbp</span>.com was a dysfunctional website. It was taken down because it was a threat to the mental health of those who are vulnerable and a threat to the lives of paediatricians. I am simply grateful to both Julie Patrick and Ms <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Trachtenberg</span> for reviewing the situation. I do though hope they will continue their own valid cases. Over the years, I do believe Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> has <span class="blsp-spelling-error">piggie</span> backed on Patrick's good name. <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> is nothing like Patrick and never has been. I understood this from the MAMA movie which I watched with great interest. I like studying people and Julie Patrick was the nicest of human beings and came across as a decent and honest mum who was actually in trouble. Having understood this of Julie, I found the group in England led by Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> to be untruthful. Mind you, it entertained me somewhat to see Professor Griffiths being given a hard time by a gaggle of women.

Dr Aubrey <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blumsohn</span> is an interesting character who came into the above situation because he wanted to be Lisa <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blakemore</span> Brown's hero. A man who apparently flaunts bravery but when the **** hits the fan, he really is nothing more than a coward. It is very true that Aubrey did not have the guts to fight <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> on her own turf. In fact what amuses me about <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> is that she has all these powerful apparently brave men running the opposite direction when she waves her handbag. Does she have a Gucci handbag at all? I often wonder that because perhaps we could meet at dawn - her with her Gucci handbag and me with my Louis <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Vitton</span> lookalike. We could just bash our handbags at dawn. I doubt <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> would find this an entertaining prospect. Of late, she has had no sense of humour.

Anyway, to continue the Aubrey <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blumsohn</span> story - he deserted the Lisa <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blakemore</span> Brown case midway. The rest of us had to finish the case off and spring Lisa <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blakemore</span> Brown from the dreadful British Psychological Society. Aubrey <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blumsohn</span> does not mention his desertion on the Scientific Misconduct blog. He uses a facade to keep his image in the scientific community. Having persuaded me to assist Lisa and left me caught with the General Medical Council, Aubrey jumped ship. One cannot blame him for being such a coward because he has an image to maintain. That is what its all about in the scientific community - image.

Of course, the essential element of <span class="blsp-spelling-error">whistleblowing</span> is bravery and Aubrey hasn't got it. Having created a situation, he ran off and hid under his duvet. I know a lot about Aubrey but that is because we run <span class="blsp-spelling-error">NHS</span> Exposed. Most of the material is not fit for public consumption but I believe his comments on Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> serves as a useful insight into his real thoughts on the situation. This is the only post I intend to write about Audrey. I had implied I would write others but I think some matters are better left at rest and in the past.

I write about him because as a friend he was a spectacular failure. The quotes below are not actually about disclosing correspondence but more about examining his views on our dark angel Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span>. <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor's</span> wings have been clipped and quite rightly so. The media should have much better sources and one that is not a compulsive liar.

Here is what Aubrey <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blumsohn</span> told us about Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span>

"<span>Several other interesting issues arose. <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> is also a <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Scientologist</span>. I am not sure whether you</span><span> know much about the Scientology connection with psychiatry, but I guess you do. It may be another possibility that she is in fact implanted by them. This might make quite a lot of sense attacking in both sides.I understand that she is quite close to a psychiatrist called <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Sammi</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Temini</span> who perversely is also a <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Scientologist</span>. I don't think there's any evidence that she has ever supported anyone who is in the psychology/psychiatry camp" </span>

He then told us about Penny <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor's</span> activities on other blogs and websites

"<span>Think you need to post a variety of very well substantiated and immediately pertinent things on a variety of other blogs re <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span>. She now seems to be sending <span class="blsp-spelling-error">threating</span> emails to other <span class="blsp-spelling-error">bloggers</span> with a vague "please remove comments that are defamatory and she is implying she is a qualified psychiatrist when she clearly is not</span>"

This is what he wanted to say to <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> but didn't

<span>"You may have done some great things, but you have also done some nasty, vindictive evil things"

Dr <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Blumsohn</span> went onto say.....
</span>
<span>"A stooge is installed into the <span class="blsp-spelling-error">mamma</span> group (<span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span>) either by government or <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Pharma</span>. What</span>
<span>better to do than to fight <span class="blsp-spelling-error">LBB</span> from her own side (but only one side, and use that to discredit the</span><span> other). Remember also that if <span class="blsp-spelling-error">MbP</span> is dismissed as a diagnosis in court, other reasons for death in</span><span> these high profile cases will be raised. <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> is a strange bod. Refuses to tell anyone who she really is. Her reason for involvement in <span class="blsp-spelling-error">mAMA</span> is a complete mystery. Has to gain credibility by going full throttle on the case. For no apparent reason starts attacking Lisa from with in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error">mamma</span> camp. She also takes very very specific steps to dismiss anything to do with vaccines out of hand, and starts discrediting any vaccine hypotheses from within the MAMA camp. This is also anomalous because my impression is that people's views tend to come in clumps, and it is hard to find anyone who would fall into these opposite camps simultaneously fighting against the medical establishment in terms of <span class="blsp-spelling-error">MbP</span> but for them in terms of vaccines. You can see all this quite nicely on the chat-groups from a few years back in which <span class="blsp-spelling-error">Mellor</span> participated (I need to dump them before they get removed).

Aubrey talks about Brian Morgan

"What's with Morgan. Sorry for calling you "abrupt" and "rude" - rather <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected">thought</span> of it as a compliment -- added to the bizarre nature of this. Sends me an email about your comment - all that suggested was they he knows <span class="blsp-spelling-error">mellor</span>, may be involved, and is a lousy journalist. The latter is <span class="blsp-spelling-error">suvjective</span> and the first 2 were confirmed by am email from <span class="blsp-spelling-error">mellor</span> with his name on immediately after."</span>





Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 26th, 2011, 10:58 pm

November 26th, 2011, 10:58 pm #10

I was researching research ethics and fraud for a book which I've been commissioned to write, as a science journalist amongst many skills I've acquired over a quarter of a century working in media. I found this thread quite by accident. I'm not going to respond fully just now as I'm too busy - all I'll say is that my name's in there - it's spelled correctly. Not much else about me is correct. Except the little sequence about emails from me being forwarded by Aubrey Blumsohn - to the writer of the entry in question - who is Dr Rita Pal. She can look forward to a very great deal more being written about her internet conduct, in this thread. And if she uses the word cyber stalking to describe me responding to what she's written, well good luck to her. Take it up with West Midlands Police Dr Pal I'll say. I think she did the cyber stalking first and for a whole decade.
Quote
Like
Share