return to www.warmwell.com


(Correspondence sent to warmwell.com by Mark Purdey some time before his untimely death in November 2006 )

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MAFF CHIEF SCIENTIST GROUP AND BRITISH AGROCHEMICAL ASSOCIATION  PROVES GRAND ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

At long last, we have concrete evidence which cements the long suspected liaison between MAFF / DEFRA officials and the commercial interests of the agrochemical industry.

Here we read the authentic correspondence that took place between senior MAFF officials and the Agrochemical industry, where they unashamedly plan a "joint initiative" ( in their own words !) to extract public funds to finance trials designed for the sole purpose of protecting the vested interests of their chemical products.

Read about the grotesque experiments that have been planned for unfortunate "laboratory cows". These trials have been selectively designed in such a way that their results could only ever discredit the theory that the organo phosphate, phosmet, played a role in the cause of BSE , whilst crediting the official view that BSE was caused by meat and bone meal.

A proper impartial scientific study would have been constructed differently; where one batch of cattle get treated with phosmet only, another batch gets exposed to meat and bone meal only and a third batch gets exposed to both. But since the trial has been judiciously designed to expose every cow taking part in the experiment to meat and bone meal, then the reasons given for any cow which subsequently goes down with BSE during the trial can be conveniently misattributed to the meat and bone meal cause - and not to phosmet.

I thought the duty of the Chief Scientist's Group was to ensure that public funds get channelled into impartial research projects which furthered the best interests of agriculture, animal health, food safety, human health, etc - NOT to protect the commercial interests of multinational corporations. It makes me wonder whose payroll these officials are really on.

ENVIRONMENT OFFICIALS CONSPIRE TO DISRUPT THEIR OWN MINISTER'S ATTEMPTS TO INVESTIGATE THE THEORY THAT INSECTICIDES HAD CAUSED BSE.

Unbeknown to me, Michael Meacher had made repeated requests to his officials to organise a personal meeting in order to discuss my theory that phosmet plays a role in the cause of BSE.

The attached correspondence was acquired through my request via the data protection act for my personal data held by the government. It demonstrates the somewhat scandalous, yet successful attempts of various environment officials to prevent the meeting which Meacher had requested from ever taking place. Once again, we witness another incident where officials gang up together in order to obstruct their own Minister's personal requests. Such perverse, autocratic behaviour begs the same old question; whose interests do these civil 'servants' truly serve ? - their minister's or that of the industry ?

Some of the highest Uk authorities have provided good evidence to me which suggests that DEFRA staff are infiltrated by multinational company employees. These latest exposures of hard evidence makes such an assumption ever more conclusive.

Sadly, the current mainstream media seem totally uninterested in highlighting the evidence which betrays this kind of insidious corruption within the civil service; whose totalitarian tactics are corroding the cornerstones of our democracy. I hold the ever increasing array of media spin doctors fully accountable for the current demise of our democracy.



DESPITE OFFICIAL GUARANTEES OF CONFIDENTIALITY, THE DEFRA GRANT DEPT 'AID AND ABET' ONE OF THEIR GRANT REVIEWERS TO PLAGIARIZE AND PILFER THE CONTENTS OF GRANT PROPOSALS. This short snippet of correspondence betrays the aberrant antics of one of the reviewers who DEFRA had appointed to review my grant proposal. Hailing from the Vet Laboratory Agency, this cheeky upstart tried to push his own proposal to officials over and above that of my own - claiming how "his" project (PROJECT SE0227 ) - which had clearly been hijacked / plagiarized whilst reviewing my original research project - was better value for money than my own proposal . Needless to say, at the end of the day, this guy got the grant award from DEFRA so he could research the more politically acceptable aspects of my project, whilst my proposal was rejected.