A statement from Lisa Blakemore Brown

I have already posted about the victimization of Lisa Blakemore Brown by the British Psychological Society. Since then the case has been discussed by many concerned bloggers, and commentators on those blogs (See for example here here here here here here here). Here is a statement from Lisa dated today, 8am, the day of her "trial".

PUBLIC STATEMENT - LISA BLAKEMORE BROWN
31 January 2007 8:00 am


It is my view that the British Psychological Society have pursued vexatious complaints against me from sources of dubious credibility. This year will mark 10 years since I first encountered harassment from the British Psychological Society. I will not discuss this harassment here in detail, because it is obvious.

Instead of investigating my concerns, the Society sought to use an aged method of discrediting the messenger - abuse the stigma of mental illness. I find the accusations against me to be insulting, defamatory and malicious. Many members of the public believe it is comparable to the method used in a Totalitarian Regime. The BPS has a mandatory role to investigate the serious issues raised in the public's interest. Yet, as a authority it has been misled by various individuals, some with a criminal past and has sought to victimise me for expressing my honest views on the ethical issues affecting the public.

Over more than a decade I have raised a number of issues surrounding the management of children with ADHD, Asperger syndrome and Autism. I have discussed the difficulty of pigeonholing children into these diagnostic categories through my metaphor of the tapestry. Each child is different. I have also discussed Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy. I have challenged academic thinking about some of these problems in my writings, in court, in helping individual families facing legal challenge, and in my professional practice. I have mentioned that all is not well with our scientific evidence underlying the issue of vaccines and their potential side effects. I know that many people agree with my views. Some of my views may well be wrong. But that is what academic debate is all about.

The British Psychological Society will know full well that many of the things I have raised are correct. They will also know full well that many of the matters I have raised with regard to the manipulation of these procedures are correct, and have been shown to be so. And yet you have accused me of being paranoid based on my stating of the obvious. That was the charge panel members.

I believe that the BPS has behaved very badly. They have misused psychiatric assessment. They have contributed to the distortion of academic debate, and they will have contributed to the fear that professionals feel of challenging the unknown. In so doing the BPS has also failed the public. This is Soviet psychiatry at it’s worst, and we do not expect that in 21st Century Britain.

Thank you


Addendum: 1pm 31 January 2007: I am informed that the British Psychological Society have threatened legal injunction to prevent publication of the transcripts of these hearings. Having read the case transcripts, I find them most extraordinary. They read like an encyclopaedia of legal and psychological abuse. They also represent the most fundamental manifestation of the abuse of science and suppression of dissent. The British Psychological Society should be ashamed. The BPS should immediately make them available for public scrutiny. A.B

Earlier|Later|Main Page

Labels: , , , ,

Secrecy is the last refuge of a scoundrel - the ongoing saga of Lisa Blakemore Brown

I have already posted about the victimization of Lisa Blakemore Brown by the British Psychological Society. Since then the case has been discussed by many concerned bloggers, and commentators on those blogs (See for example here here here here here here here).

My correspondence with the British Psychological Society asking to attend her hearing (the first day of this repeated hearing is today) is below. It stands for itself. I understand that several other concerned doctors and colleagues had similar responses. With apologies to Samuel Johnson.

From: Aubrey Blumsohn
To: Christine O'Rourke (British Psychological Society)
Subject: Re:Ms Blakemore-Brown
Sent: Fri 26/01/2007 01:36


Dear Ms O'Roarke,

I would like to attend the hearings involving Ms Blakemore Brown. Assuming that Ms Blakemore Brown herself would not have any objections, please let me know whether that would be possible.

Pending your answer I will ask her permission.

Yours Sincerely
Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

From: "Christine O'Rourke"
To: "Aubrey Blumsohn"
Subject: RE: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:01:31 -0000


Dear Dr Blumsohn

If Ms Blakemore-Brown wishes to make an application for you to attend the hearing, she can apply to the Chair of the Hearing. The Chair would then decide whether to allow that application.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke
Professional Conduct Officer


From: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
To: Christine O'Rourke
Subject: RE: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Sent: Fri 26/01/2007 12:00


Thank you Ms O'Rourke.

It must however surely be the case that the hearings are either secret or they are not. I understand that FTP procedures may sometimes be subject to some element of secrecy, but the only legitimate reason for this is to protect the interests of the respondent.

I wish to discover the status of these proceedings.

1) Upon what basis will the Chair make such a decision (presuming that Ms Blakemore Brown does not object?).

2) Since I am not acting on behalf of Ms Blakemore Brown it is not clear to me why she should "make an application for you [me] to attend the hearing" any more than you yourself should make such application.

Yours Sincerely

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

From: "Christine O'Rourke"
To: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
Subject: RE: Ms
Blakemore-Brown
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:20:03 -0000


Dear Dr Blumsohn

The hearings are private to protect Ms Blakemore-Brown's privacy. If she wishes you to attend she can ask the Chair to admit you - ie make an application. That application can of course be made by her legal representative if she instructs her to do so.

The Chair will, I assume, make such a decision based on the interests of Ms Blakemore-Brown primarily, but also the interests of the public and the overriding principle of ensuring a fair hearing of the matter. He will take legal advice from the Committee's legal assessor before making a decision. That legal advice will be shared by Ms Blakemore-Brown.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke
Professional Conduct Officer


From: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
To: Christine O'Rourke
Subject: RE: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Sent: Fri 26/01/2007 15:55


Thank you. I do now have such permission. Can you notify me as a matter of urgency (today) as to whether I can attend - I will need to make travel plans.

If the answer is no I would appreciate knowing the reasons for this and a copy of the relevant procedures.

Kind wishes

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn


From: "Christine O'Rourke"
To: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
Subject: RE: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:07:46 -0000


Dear Dr Blumsohn

As I explained in my previous e mails, your application would need to be considered by the Chair, with confirmation from Ms Blakemore-Brown in writing that she wishes you to attend.

The Chair is currently out of the country and I do not believe he is due to return until Monday.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke
Professional Conduct Officer

From: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
To: Christine O'Rourke
Subject: RE: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Sent: Fri 26/01/2007 16:42


Dear Ms O'Rourke

You state:

"As I explained in my previous e mails, your application would need to be considered by the Chair, with confirmation from Ms Blakemore-Brown in writing that she wishes you to attend.".

The words "in writing" do not in fact appear previously. I note your statement that the Chair is out of the country.

I would nevertheless appreciate a copy of your documentation with relevance to secrecy of proceedings (under circumstances where a respondent does not wish such secrecy) and the need to ask the Chair and legal assessor. I would imagine this would be a public document. If helpful, please regard this as a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Kind wishes

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

From: "Christine O'Rourke"
To: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
Subject: RE: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:57:56 -0000


Dear Dr Blumsohn

I apologise that my previous e mails did not make it clear that any consent from Ms Blakemore-Brown would need to be evidenced in some way. I believed it to be self-evident.

The Society's procedures are set out in the Society's Statutes 14 and 15. These can be found on the Society's website.

The Society is not a body covered by the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke
Professional Conduct Officer

From: Lisa Blakemore Brown
To: Christine.ORourke@bps.org.uk,
Subject: Re: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:31:27 -0500


Dear Ms O'Rourke

I have no objections to Dr Blumsohn attending the Hearing. I have nothing to hide.

Sincerely

Lisa Blakemore-Brown

From: Aubrey Blumsohn
To: Christine O'Rourke
Subject: Re:Ms Blakemore-Brown
Sent: 29 January 2007 02:42


Dear Ms O'Rourke

please send specific reference to your procedure pertaining to the requirement to avoid transparency.

I understand that Ms Blakemore Brown has sent an E-mail to you denoting her non-objection.

Kind wishes

Aubrey Blumsohn


From: "Christine O'Rourke"
To: "Aubrey Blumsohn"
Subject: RE: Lisa Blakemore Brown
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:50:30 -0000


Dear Dr Blumsohn

I have now heard from the Chair of the Fitness to Practise Committee that he has refused your application to attend the hearing. Ms Blakemore-Brown and her legal representative have been informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke
Professional Conduct Officer

From: Aubrey Blumsohn
To: Christine O'Rourke
Subject: Re:Lisa Blakemore Brown
Sent: 29 January 2007 14:06


Dear Christine,

With similar respect, I ask that at the very least you provide a reason for such refusal given that Ms Blakemore Brown wishes transparency (and has specifically expressed non-opposition to attendance).

Regards

Aubrey Blumsohn

From: "Christine O'Rourke"
To: "Aubrey Blumsohn"
Subject: RE: Lisa Blakemore Brown
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:12:40 -0000


Dear Dr Blumsohn

I am sorry but the Chair has not authorised me to give you a reason.

I am sorry that I am not able to be of more help.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke
Professional Conduct Officer

Earlier|Later|Main Page

Labels: , , ,

The victimization of Lisa Blakemore Brown

This blog is about the distortion of scientific debate, most particularly by powerful forces in medicine. It is about the way in which industry, professional bodies, government regulators and powerful individuals collude to prevent scientific debate and to victimize those asking difficult questions (www.nhsexposed.com). It is about the way those entrusted with authority behave.

I have been contacted by many individuals who have found themselves in difficulty. Some of these stories are urgent enough for me to want take a break from my most interesting correspondence with Dr Larry Games Vice President at Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.

One such case is that of the psychologist Lisa Blakemore Brown, a specialist in Autism, ADHD & Aspergers [website] [Book]. Blakemore Brown has been involved on the "wrong side" of the debate about the psychiatric disorder Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), maintaining that many parents have been falsely accused of injuring their children. There have been high-profile releases from jail of women such as Angela Canning. MSbP is a disorder in which an adult invents or deliberately creates a child’s illness to draw attention to themselves. She has challenged prominent doctors such as Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall who, in her view, have promulgated a wholly inappropriate approach to scientific evidence. She has irritated pharmaceutical companies. But instead of debate Lisa has encountered its very opposite. The abuse of science goes right into the heart of a prominent professional body. Her colleagues have stood by in silence.

I have no special knowledge of the science that underpins the debate surrounding autism, MSbP or vaccine side effects. But I do know that debate is important. It is the lifeblood of science. I will be discussing much more of this tragic case over the next few weeks. It is not only a tragedy for Blakemore Brown, but also part of the tragedy of medicine.

For now I simply place in the public domain a letter written this week by John Stone and myself to the British Psychological Society. It speaks for itself.
Ray Miller, President,
The British Psychological Society
St Andrews House
48 Princess Road East
Leicester LE1 7DR 14 January 2007

Re: Lisa Blakemore Brown

Dear Mr Miller,

We are writing to express our concern regarding the treatment of Lisa Blakemore-Brown (LBB) by the British Psychological Society. The actions of the Society are such as to cast serious doubts upon its motives as well as upon its plausibility as a professional regulatory body.

It is disturbing that the Society appears to be acting to suppress open debate about controversial theories. Our purpose here is not to get involved in this debate, nor do we necessarily agree with her views. Ms Blakemore-Brown's views are in fact irrelevant. She is entitled to hold any views and to express these, no matter how uncomfortable they are to yourselves. This is enshrined by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It seems that the Society have developed an unhealthy obsession with preventing free speech through abuse of mental health diagnosis. Its actions may also be construed as a breach of the Harassment Act 1997.

It cannot be in the interests of society, human rights, patients and of the British Psychological Society to suppress open debate and academic freedom through such mechanisms. The society seems to have encouraged an endless series of unsupportable complaints against LBB, and then progressed them despite evidence that they were not sustainable. The society itself then generated an entirely different complaint (about her irritated response to these very complaints). This is not a proper example for resolving scientific or academic disputes. It appears to be more a method of silencing a critic.

Irritation with a professional body is not in any event an offence. Neither is annoying a professional body. Disagreement with the professional "view" is not a reason to refer an individual for psychiatric assessment except in a Stalinist state. This approach of the BPS is wholly anti-academic and unprofessional. To quote Kingsley Amis "If you can't annoy someone, there's little point in writing". It is also not a prime facie offence to perceive oneself to have been bullied, as the BPS seem to be suggesting.

Having read the case transcripts, we must confess that we find them most extraordinary. The transcript of the first three days of the Fitness to Practice hearing July 2006 reads like an encyclopaedia of legal and psychological abuse. If LBB has responded with irritation, this would seem to be understandable.
  • Lisa had been coerced into "hearings" despite having left the society years before. The main charge was modified progressively until it bore no relation to the flawed original charge. The modified "charge" of supposed mental illness (so called "paranoia") was not revealed to Lisa for months after the process had been set in motion.
  • Evidence was assembled by the panel as if having been provided by Lisa herself, and presented to others in a jumbled order and without context to suggest mental incoherence in her correspondence with the BPS (a supposed offence).
  • In one instance it emerged that the material was forged. Despite that, the original complainants were not invited to be cross-examined, and no action was taken against them after the information was dropped.
  • An independent psychiatric report declaring LBB perfectly lucid, quite normal and fit to practice was rejected, and others were requested instead. This is a rather interesting approach for a "psychological society" towards the reliability of such reports. This interesting approach of the BPS appears to be on the basis of the findings of the reports themselves rather than upon the methodology used (since the panel seemed quite happy to consider an assessment based only on LBB's correspondence with the BPS complaining about her treatment, compiled without seeing "the patient" and without any relevance whatever to her clinical practice). More convincing evidence supporting justifiable paranoia and predetermination would be hard to find.
  • A psychiatrist declared Lisa to be unfit to practice with the diagnosis of "paranoia" without examining her, and on the basis of material constructively assembled by the committee. Having read the transcript relating to this material we find this "diagnosis" intriguing, and wonder whether a majority (or even any) other psychiatrists or members of the public would reach such a conclusion based on the same information if we were to provide it to them. In any event the material bears no apparent relation to her practice, only to her views about the suppression of scientific debate.
The society has acted callously over a sustained period seeking to undermine and silence Ms Blakemore Brown, despite her unfortunate family circumstances. It has used the practice of psychiatry and psychological assessment in a non-evidence-based way as a tool for destruction. It cannot improve the reputation of the society to be seen to act in such an arbitrary way using its own tools of trade.

The society must bring this charade to an end before any more damage is done, both to society itself and to the chances of proper public discourse in an atmosphere that is free from fear.

  1. We would appreciate the views of the society before taking this matter forward in terms of public discussion.
  2. We are unable to find any list of the psychological traits that would render an individual unfit to practice and would appreciate a copy of the same. If supposed "paranoia" or "irritation with the BPS" is on such a list, perhaps bullying should also be added.
  3. In addition we would also request that the society provide what scientific evidence it has in relation to the, indications for psychiatric assessment in such cases, as well as the reproducibility and plausibility of such reports.
  4. So bizarre are the case transcripts, we believe that open discussion is required. We intend to publish these in full, with appropriate commentary as part of a campaign to prevent such behaviour by professional regulatory bodies. If the society can see any reason such publication should not take place, we would appreciate it if you would let us know those reasons.
Yours sincerely,

Mr John Stone

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn


Please contact me if you want to help (Email me)

On 25 January 2007 we received the following "reply" addressing none of the issues raised. The discussion with regard to confidentiality was particularly surprising in that the BPS has since threatened legal action if Blakemore-Brown publishes the transcript.


[Address]

I am surprised that you have seen transcripts of proceedings which are confidential for the benefit of the respondent to those proceedings, and which the Society has neither intention nor authority to publish.

This matter has yet to be concluded, and consequently no comment can be made on it.

I would remind you that the transcripts belong to the Society and are confidential to Ms Blakemore-Brown and any publication would be entirely inappropriate and a breach of confidence.

Yours sincerely

RAY MILLER
President, British Psychological Society


Earlier|Later|Main Page

Labels: , ,

Actonel hamburgers and cows - a reply from the P&G Vice President

Larry Games, Vice President at Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals has replied. For previous correspondence and the letter to which he is replying see Let's take the high road Dr Games and Letter to Dr Games. For an executive summary of the background see AAAS Professional Ethics Report or Slate or Press reports or the rest of this blog.

These issues go to the heart of science and the responsibility of scientific authors. His reply and my reply to his reply are below. Dr Games has promised to write back again to explain what Procter and Gamble mean by "access to data" given repeated refusal to provide it to authors (see some part of that here). One approach might be to redefine the meaning of either the word "access" or "data" to fit with statements made to journals. We await his further reply with interest.

In this case the data was randomization codes. Access to data means that you have those codes. Its as simple as that. And we are talking here about access to data by authors not random other interested scientists. Access does not mean that someone else has told you as author what those codes might mean. In the words of one blogger its like being offered a hamburger when what you need is the original cow. PloS medicine blog has a useful interchange on access to data. Readers may wish to comment here as to what "access to data" means to an authoring scientist.

The relationship between the hamburger purporting to represent data (P&G's graphs and statistical analysis in one paper, two draft papers, and at least 5 meeting abstracts) and the actual cow (when data was finally revealed to authors in 2006) is interesting.

Dr Games's further definition of access to data is awaited. He might also explain again why he thinks anyone will be satisfied by this ongoing hamburger when journal editors and all other investigators out there who have expressed interest are still not allowed to see that cow (apart from me and a few other statisticians of course who have seen that beast). Of course its that proprietary right to represent that proprietary data in whatever half cocked manner one likes, and then to use the academic authors who generated it to front it for you. Never mind that this involves a critical aspect of science involving a licensed drug and the original studies used to gain approval for that drug.


To: Aubrey Blumsohn
Subject: Re: Actonel Studies Sheffield
From: games.lm@pg.com
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:44:54 -0500

Dear Dr. Blumsohn,

Thank you for your letter of November 23, 2006. The following responds to your questions in that letter. In reference to your December 15 note attached below, you can send the abstracts and statistical reports to me.

You have asked that we permit you to share with third parties the data that we recently provided to you (and to which you were provided access prior to your presentation of the research at scientific meetings in 2003). As noted in my previous letter to you, this proprietary data was provided to you in good faith to allow you to repeat your original research, and should not be shared with third parties without our consent. However, as I indicated earlier we would be willing to discuss the need with the organization to whom you are submitting the abstracts. If you forward any request for the data to me, I can ensure legitimate needs are met while protecting our proprietary rights. I would of course copy you on that transmittal, so that you could verify that the correct data was provided.

Since you were not involved in the research related to the article that appeared in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in 2003, it would not be appropriate to provide you with the data used in that publication. Some of that data (e.g., CTx data) was not part of your research with us. However, we have in response to your allegations provided that data to the academic authors of that article, to allow them to respond appropriately. It is our understanding that the original authors are working with the JBMR and would presumably publish their findings. If you have questions about that article I suggest that you contact them or the editors of the JBMR.

Sincerely,

Larry Games
Vice-President R&D
P&G Pharmaceuticals



Dr Larry M Games
Vice President
Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals
Health Care Research Center
8700 Mason-Montgomery Road
Mason, Ohio, 45040
USA 21 December 2006

[Attachment here]

Dear Dr Games,

Thank you for your response (below).

  1. Although predictable, I am disappointed that the wrong road appears to have been taken.
  2. I will shortly transmit several meeting abstracts written using the randomization and event codes you provided in April 2006.
  3. You state data "should not be shared with third parties without our consent". The point of my letter of 23 November was precisely to request such consent. The message conveyed by refusal is obvious.
  4. It is now known that P&G mis-described that data in my name in an obvious way. Some of that was admitted in 2003/4 but corrected publication was impossible without data. P&G then tried to alter the hypothesis and mode of analysis in retrospect. P&G also mis-described the subset of that data which forms the NTX component of the Eastell 2003 paper. Two further publications mis-describing that data (in my name) would have been transmitted to journals in 2004 had I been willing to sign the draft publications written by P&G. Under such circumstances commercial confidentiality has little place.
  5. I was intrigued by the image you provided of the editor of JBMR "working with" the authors of the first of the three papers to deal with the issue of pharmaceutical research misconduct (having first declined to scrutinize the evidence or statistical reports related to that paper and other abstracts). I am aware that P&G's looming presence might well have led to this unbelievable situation. Quite what questions he is expecting the authors to answer I have no idea. Perhaps not the questions asked?
  6. Apart from limited public access, I repeat that refusal to allow an author to transmit data to a journal editor is unreasonable, particularly under the current circumstances. It is also not appropriate to suggest that a commercial company would interact with that editor directly to "resolve" any difficulties. Should there be any attempt to avoid proper description of these data I would be inclined to instruct my legal representative to release the version of the data provided to him.
  7. I am interested in your comment with regard to the meaning of "access to data". Attempts to distort and confuse language and events has no place now. You continue to state: "and to which you were provided access prior to your presentation of the research at scientific meetings in 2003".

Some of Professor Eastell's correspondence about the denial of data is attached to provide some reality-check for those copied in here. [Attachment here]

Kindly define the meaning of the word "access" so that we can be certain we are speaking the same language. If you mean access to data in the usual scientific (and linguistic) sense, and in the sense conveyed by Journal declarations, please share with me how this accords with the following examples:

  • Richard Eastell's correspondence with Ian Barton on 27 May 2002 complaining about absence of access to data (4 weeks after submission of the Eastell paper to JBMR).
  • Ian Barton's correspondence of 14 June 2002 refusing data (6 weeks after submission of the Eastell paper to JBMR).
  • Mike Manhart correspondence of 13 July 2002 refusing data (8 weeks after submission of the Eastell paper to JBMR).
  • Ian Barton's correspondence of 10 June 2003 about refusal of data
  • Ian Barton correspondence of 19 June 2003 and associated communication with Richard Eastell about refusal of data
  • Communication with Ian Barton on 1 Sept 2003 about refusal of data
  • Communication with Richard Eastell on 10 September 2003 about refusal of data
  • Failure of any data provision in response to my letter of 24 May and 26 May 2004 about refusal of data.
  • Professor Eastell's letter to me of 13 December 2004 (also conveyed by him to McKay Law and the General Medical Council) attempting to rationalize why P&G/Aventis were denying data [Attachment here].
  • Response of Professor Eastell to letter from McKay law of 25 May 2005 (transmitted to McKay law and also by Professor Eastell himself to the General Medical council) stating that he too was unable to get access to the data, and was aware that I had been asking for it repeatedly [in attachment].
  • Your own response to a letter from McKay Law of 25 May 2005 asking for data.
  • The legal "threats" conveyed to the University of Sheffield in March 2006 and from them to myself and my British Medical Association representative that I apparently had "information in [his] possession" that "belongs to Proctor and Gamble" and that it was the view of P&G and the University that I "may have taken data from Proctor and Gamble without their consent" and that "Following contact from Proctor and Gamble's lawyers it is clear that he does not have their consent to retain this information" and that I had to return it to Procter and Gamble "including any copies he has taken".

Of course we all know I did see some tabulated and graphical summaries of data produced in a meeting with Ian Barton in 2003 (and produced three simplistic graphs myself under scrutiny during that meeting) --but those analyses raised substantial questions, several of which were admitted by Ian Barton. None of these questions were amenable to being addressed (until your provision of data in April this year).

This does not in any way constitute access to data.

Nor was it possible to publish the corrected findings (until your provision of data this year). Instead there was an attempt to hide the worrying findings by altering the mode of analysis and the study hypothesis to look at t-scores!

In summary I have three specific questions

A) Please explain what you mean by "access" to data in the light of these correspondences and P&G's Bill of Rights of February 2006?

B) Please explain why P&G felt it appropriate to issue legal threats to return data as conveyed by the University of Sheffield to me and my BMA representative in March 2006?

C) You reiterate that the data "should not be shared with third parties without our consent". Please respond to my request for such consent.


That high-road is still there Dr Games.

Kind Regards

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
MBBCh, PhD, MSc, BSc(hons), MRCPath
Earlier|Later|Main Page

Labels: , , ,