If I had not dealt with people over the years who have lived in houses with low level meth residues whose health has been compromised, I could almost believe what is written in this article about me and my motivations for raising awareness of what remains a real issue. People still use and make meth in New Zealand.
It was indicated back in June by a researcher in the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor that a story of this nature was likely to be forthcoming. It is something of a surprise it took so long. Perhaps the timing of its release, is because the Official Information Act requests the report refers to have been uncovering some serious issues with the way the PMCSA Report was put together, released and subsequently reported on.
Some requests are still outstanding, and the parties involved continue to dodge and weave.
This article comes from a media outlet that has nailed its colours firmly to the Labour Party mast. It should be seen for the smoke screen it is, but I recognise that some will continue to be of the view that this is gospel.
A shame they have never been prepared to engage with the facts that indicate something is seriously amiss.
A summary of these can be viewed via the link below. We should be outraged and concerned that this is not being picked up by the media.
Part 2 of Newsrooms expose of the meth risk management industry catalysed by investigations into the development, communication and roll out of the PMCSA Meth Report.
All the parties referenced in this article who have not been involved with meth testing and decontamination and who are held up as defenders of the public interest, are contributors to the PMCSA Report and its associated narrative in one way or another. Their reputations hang on this report being watertight. It isn’t.
Fact checking and OIA requests are demonstrating that there are fundamental problems with how the PMCSA Meth Report was developed, communicated and rolled out.
The freelancer who wrote these articles has access to much of that information. They have simply chosen not to report on the concerns that are contained within it. Interesting approach to balancing the article.
By discrediting those people who are asking the difficult questions this article should be seen as nothing more than an increasingly desperate attempt to protect the self -interests of those people and organisations behind the strategy which is underpinned by the PMCSA Meth report.
If the numbers in the PMCSA Meth Report are correct, it is a good thing. But if they are wrong, there will be major problems. Independent investigation, just as happened with the NZS8510 Standard Process should be insisted upon.