Poul Thorsen, a Danish scientist who worked on many subjects including autism prevalence, was indicted in the United States today, the Atlanta Business Chronical reports. The article, Dane indicted for defrauding CDC, notes:
A Danish man was indicted Wednesday on charges of wire fraud and money laundering for allegedly concocting a scheme to steal more than $1 million in autism research money from the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Poul Thorsen started his association with the CDC as a visiting researcher. Later he moved to Denmark and Aarhus University.
According to the news article, Mr. Thorsen was using his position to create fraudulent invoices, and got his university to pay funds into his personal accounts in the US.
Mr. Thorsen worked on many projects. Most pertinent to this blog are his group’s efforts on autism epidemiology. These include works on MMR vaccines and thimerosal (e.g. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism and Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data )
No charge has been made about the quality of these research projects or the conclusions drawn. However vaccine-causation advocates have been promoting the Thorsen case as part of their efforts.
Make no mistake: if guilty Poul Thorsen has committed very serious crimes. As a taxpayer, of course I am upset that this man might have stolen taxpayer money. As an autism parent, I can say without reservation that if found guilty Mr. Thorsen should be sentenced to the maximum sentence. The damage to the reputation of the research community which has sought to answer the questions of vaccine causation. A million dollars is a lot of money, but it is small change compared to the potential damage that might be caused .
Left Brain Right Brain 
I would expect the hoopla raised by AoA, et al over this to be a non-trivial obstacle to prosecution in the US, as it could easily be cited by the defense as making any American jury unduly biased against him, something that should have been considered by both Aarhus and AoA in the handling of the document incriminating him. I think it would, on the whole, be unfortunate if any court simply threw the book at Thorsen. Whatever happened, and whatever Thorsen’s role, there is NO chance that he or anyone else was solely responsible.
I think his work in autism epidemiology is a non-issue as far as US prosecution is concerned. It sounds like they have an extremely robust case. It isn’t like he has another explanation for how the money got transfered to his personal account.
This is th first I have seen of any allegation that Thorsen not only misappropriated funds, but using the money on himself. That makes me a little wary. At this stage, it seems all too convenient for any number of people to use his trial as an opportunity to divert attention from their own incompetence (or worse). Even granting that the story finally being put out now is truthful and complete, I’d consider it a tossup whether Thorsen’s behavior or that of his colleagues warrants more contempt.
Was the fraud uncovered by routine grant audits, or valiant anti vaxers?
The fraud was uncovered by the U.S. Justice Department.
@McD,
By the university’s account, they became aware of a problem after the CDC declined to pay one or several grants that Thorsen had already received advances for. That makes the “defrauding CDC” part of the headline problematic. The reason Thorsen became publicly known as a suspect long before being formally charged was, essentially, a screwup by Aarhus University. What I believe happened was that, rather than either keeping quiet or going public, representatives of the university tried to badmouth Thorsen to other research institutions, with a clumsily-written letter that unintentionally reached public circulation.
Surely if the man is a fraudster(looks so) his work and research is fraudulent, I say.
Funny that the indictment should come down on the same day Thorsen’s tax evasion case goes to trial in Denmark.
“Surely if the man is a fraudster(looks so) his work and research is fraudulent, I say.”
If there wasn’t ample evidence that his work is correct you might have some argument there. But unlike Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Thorsen’s work *has* been replicated. His is not the only work that shows no evidence of a link for MMR or for thimerosal and autism risk. One could ignore his results completely and still come to the same conclusion. MMR and thimerosal don’t increase the risk of autism.
Dear Helen
All the bad news out in one day job. As George Galloway calls it “the mother of all smokescreens” .
When Thorson goes to court what is he going to say? Thorson is meant to be another, George Galloway. I’ve heard, via a work associate in Copenhagen, Thorson is going to spill the beans with Galloway style, and aplomb, incontrovertibly, naming other scientists, and individuals from the CDC involved in scientific fraud.
Galloway style below..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/17/iraq.usa
Sincerely
Sniffer
Dear Sullivan
Even the most sincere cannot remain mis-guided forever.Thorson I am told is going to put the record straight r.e. Wakefield and it is not good for the pro- vaccine camp.
Sincerely
Sniffer
“Thorson is going to spill the beans with Galloway style, and aplomb, incontrovertibly, naming other scientists, and individuals from the CDC involved in scientific fraud.”
Right. And you know this how?
He doesnt know this. He is simply shit stirring. Predictably boring.
Dear Sullivan,Sharon,
As I said above,”via a work associate in Copenhagen,”.
Obviously ,I cannot promulgate the how, where, and who to be disseminated into the public arena.I am sure you will respect this.
Sincerely
Sniffer
OK…and you will respect the fact that I consider this basically made up until there is some actual confirmation. You will respect the fact that I doubt that there will be confirmation.
Thorsen was sixth and fourth author respectively for the papers mentioned above. He was not in the same position as Wakers was, as lead author to collect the various components, analyse the data as a whole, compile the final paper, and generally pull the wool over the eyes of the other researchers working on separate aspects.
Until such time as the other authors identify problems with the aspects of the work that Thorsen was involved with (and I am sure they will be checking that very carefully now), there are simply no red flags here. As Sully says, the work is part of a larger coherent body.
@McD,
In my initial appraisals, I weighed Thorsen’s high position as a point against his being directly responsible for fraud: Simply by comparison with other cases, it seemed more promising to look for a suspect among his immediate subordinates. As colleagues began to talk about him putting his name on papers for relatively minor contributions, I found the charges a lot more plausible, as he came to better fit an “underachiever” profile. Thus, ironically, Thorsen’s reported LACK of influence over the actual research made him look better as an embezzlement suspect.
Wakefield’s original data, the histology slides of the biopsies that were taken, mysteriously disappeared. Even Wakefield’s original work can’t be checked because the specimens vanished. All we have is Wakefield’s statement that the descriptions are correct. Since the descriptions changed during the course of examination, which descriptions are correct? The first ones or the later ones?
Have the vaccination records of all the children in Denmark disappeared? If they have, then the Thorsten situation might be comparable to Wakefield, if the Thorsten report also was a singleton out lier.
David you wrote:
‘In my initial appraisals, I weighed Thorsen’s high position as a point against his being directly responsible for fraud: Simply by comparison with other cases, it seemed more promising to look for a suspect among his immediate subordinates. As colleagues began to talk about him putting his name on papers for relatively minor contributions, I found the charges a lot more plausible, as he came to better fit an “underachiever” profile. Thus, ironically, Thorsen’s reported LACK of influence over the actual research made him look better as an embezzlement suspect’.
Thorsen was certainly not a minor, if any, contributor to the 2003 MMR vaccination study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421889
In fact, he was primarily responsible for obtaining the funding for this study. In 2001 and 2002 he recieved 105,000 in funding from NAAR (Autism Speaks) to conduct the study that was published in 2003:
http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/research/initiatives/naar_environmental_factors.php
Paul Thorson (2001 and 2002)
Risk Factors for Neurodevelopmental Disorders: MMR Vaccine and Childhood Autism ($105,300)
Used medical records in a group of children in Denmark to determine the change in rates of autism as a function of MMR vaccination. No association was found, and these results were published in a 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
His standing in the research community for his contributions to autism research led to his appointment on the APA’s DSM-V working group on the PDD’s. A position he was summariy dismissed from when the allegations gainst him became known.
This hardly fits the profile of an ‘underachiever’.
Poul Thorsen was an author on the studies, plain and simple. But his team came to the same conclusions many other teams have come to. One could withdraw his team’s papers or ignore them completely and come to the very same conclusion: thimerosal and MMR didn’t cause an autism epidemic.
Autism “rates” have continued to climb after the removal of thimerosal and after the publication of the earlier studies. The prevalence estimate for autism in Denmark is now 0.22%, for ASD’s 0.68%. This from the recent paper comparing Denmark and Western Australia.
Here’s another place where you can get the estimate
http://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2008/webprogram/Paper2460.html
Both studies have Poul Thorsen’s name on them as well, so many will discount this. But when it comes to questioning his team’s efforts, I am left with “why?”. The data continue to support the idea that thimerosal and MMR were not the causes of the prevalence increase. Indict him. Try him. If guilty, send him to jail for a good long time. If people want to see the data reanalyzed, I’d be glad to help. But I don’t see the point in spending the money given that their results are consistent with the conclusions of so many other teams.
@RAJ,
“Thorsen was certainly not a minor, if any, contributor to the 2003 MMR vaccination study… In fact, he was primarily responsible for obtaining the funding for this study. In 2001 and 2002 he recieved 105,000 in funding from NAAR (Autism Speaks) to conduct the study that was published in 2003…”
Actually, that’s the kind of thing I mean by “underachieving”. Obtaining grant money is VERY important, but it does NOT, in itself, make one a researcher of significance. Unfortunately, it does give a trained scientist stuck with a desk job opportunity to pad his bibliography by asking for “coauthor” status in exchange for favors, a problem seen egregiously in the case of one Yuri Timofeevich Stutchkov.
I just find it amusing how Wakefield has multiple conflicts of issue (patent, lawyer payments, misinformation about the children.. on and on) and it’s all dismissed as a frame up.
Then it’s revealed that Thorsen pocketed some money and we’re to immediately dismiss everything he’s ever done, lock him away, throw away the key, our entire history has been fabricated.
Awfully convenient, that.
No playing favourites there huh?
Nope, not at all.
Stuart Duncan,
at the risk of playing favorites: congratuations.
lol,
thank you very much.
@Sullivan
O SNAPS!
Would you buy a car from Thorsen?
Very incredulous you all, comparing Wakefield with Thorsen .
Wakefield said“”I want to make one thing crystal clear for the record – my research and the serious medical problems found in those children were not a hoax and there was no fraud whatsoever. Nor did I seek to profit from our findings”.
You cannot get clearer than that.Wheres the fraud charges on Wakefield for fraud ?? It’s put up or shut up.
I’m not commenting on the substantive points, let’s be crystal clear. I am not saying Wakefield is guilty of a hoax, or fraud or that he profited from the findings.
But what history tells us in the form of a saying by Mandy Rice Davies (please look her up, those of less than mature years) “Well, he would [say that], wouldn’t he?” is that this was considered a valid argument.
What Wakefield said about his own conduct is not evidential either way.
Dear Brian
I say, Irrelevant comment Brian.
Dr Wakefield is by his indefatigability ,willingness to support his work ,proves he is innocent .
Anyone not living in the parallel universe, the posters on here seem to live in, realise his indefatigability . You misapprehend that at your peril if you wish.
Sincerely
Sniffer
Wakefield said“”I want to make one thing crystal clear for the record – my research and the serious medical problems found in those children were not a hoax and there was no fraud whatsoever. Nor did I seek to profit from our findings”.
Nixon said, “I am not a crook.”
Dear sniffer,
Ever heard of cognitive dissonance?
Or just lying to save face for that matter?
-Esa
“Dr Wakefield is by his indefatigability ,willingness to support his work ,proves he is innocent ”
Or that he doesn’t believe he has done anything wrong, or isn’t willing to be seen admitting he did wrong.
If he admitted he did wrong, he not only wouldn’t be able to practice as is currently the case, but he would also lose the chance of any highvalue gainful employment. The only people willing to employ him are apparently doing so only because of the political and promotional value inherent in his infamy. Without that, he is just another Dr. who got caught out and struck off.
Denial of wrongdoing is to be expected from Wakefield as he wouldn’t have done what he was proven to have done (in front of the highest relevant authourity, to the highest applicable standard, with full and total opportunity for input from Wakefield) if he believed it was wrong to do so.
His lack of willingness to make a full and proper defence was not only a callous waste of the time and money of his supporters, but his resultant behaviour surrounding his book is classically confidence trickster in execution, and his ‘sudden’ discovery of ‘recently uncovered’ ‘exonerating’ documents is suspiciously fortunate.
Wakefield will continue to deny any wrongdoing because he does not see that he did wrong (hencewhy he didn’t stop himself from doing it), it benefits him career-wise and financially to continue to deny, and he has enough sense of what other people would see as wrong to realise it would not benefit him from admitting the reality of his chosen actions.
To use his denial as evidence to prove his denial is patently a bizarre course of action with very little reference to the behaviour and self-views of people who commit ethical infractions.
It’s laughably naive to the point that I actually physically laughed when I read it. It clearly has no relation to defendant behaviour in real-world fitness to practice hearings.
I would advise sniffer to spend some time reading hearings on the Health Professions Council website, and other professional institution websites. They will realise that it is not at all uncommon for defendants to deny the charges even if they have been proven six-ways till sunday.
Thanks for the laugh though, but don’t try to pull such a weak-ass stunt again.
As an aside, I hope Thorsen is not going to be another Galloway.
Galloway gave a cringingly bad and dissonant performance in the Senate, even denying that his alleged co-conspirator existed only to turn around and admit that he did exist but that he wasn’t a co-conspirator.
It was so filled with classical guilty-minded faux-outrage it basically made the Senates case better than any of the documentation would have. Very odd behaviour given that there was serious concerns that the documents were proven forgeries.
If you have a water-tight defence, you don’t shoot yourself in the foot by turning around and acting straight-up guilty.
Sniffer, name two studies that fully replicates Wakefield. I mean just the two, and post its full PubMed citation. Both need to be on either MMR the children in Wakefield’s case series were on, must be case series of at least a dozen children and discusses both autism and the gastrointestinal issues. And this is the final note: both must be independent, so no papers with Wakefield, Krigsman and any of his other collaborators as authors.
Then compare them to this list.
If Thorsen is smart, he will take the Wakefield route. Start screaming conspiracy and retaliation. That he was told he could take the money for generating the studies exonerating MMR. All he needs is one anti-vax conspiracy monger on the jury and he will get off. His lawyer is probably negotiating with the CDC and Justice Department now. Do they go forward and possibly take a hit on vaccine use rates, or do they drop the charges and hope the whole thing goes away? Let this guy go free on fraud charges, or take the hit on herd immunity and maybe have children die?
Chris. I’m not sure that is the test. The test is:
Produce ONE paper. Any one paper. Not six, nine or ninety seven, which matches the interpretation in the Wakefield paper. In other words, one peer-reviewed paper which reports finding developmental regression and inflammatory bowel disease in association with MMR vaccination.
There are none.
Visitor, I wanted to make a point about the sheer numbers of papers available that refute Wakefield. Also, it usually takes more than one study to substantiate a hypothesis.
Dear Dedj
My last post to you has been banned(to long) in a nut-shell your claims by Deer are bogus and deeply flawed.
Sincerely
Sniffer
Dear Chris,
And the “sheer number of papers” are built around Thorsen`s fraud.
They have endangered the lives and safety of our citizens.would you not agree Chris?
Sincerely
Sniffer
“your claims by Deer are bogus and deeply flawed.”
I’m find it curious that all pro-Wakefield commentators of note have thus far failed to identify any substantial flaw in Deer’s claims that are not either:
a: a total and utter misrepresentation of Deers claims (see John Stones claim that research fraud was impossible for an example)
b: completely reliant on Wakefields own claims (see yourself for an example).
c: are directly contradicted by established evidence (see Wakefields own claims that the referrals and recruitment were based routine self-refferals)
d: are not supported by what is known about the clinical evidence (see ChildHealthSafetys claims regarding Child 8)
I highly doubt your post was banned for being too long. It is more likely that it was held in the spam filter. As you do not appear to grasp how even a simple spam filter works, I do not hold any faith in the quality of your supposedly banned work.
One thing of note is that Wakefield does not officially disagree with the findings. He failed to make an appeal of note, instead preffering to sell his story for profit.
“And the “sheer number of papers” are built around Thorsen`s fraud.”
Select any one paper from the list and identify how it is based on Thorsens fraud.
Bear in mind that you cannot assume his work is fraudulent on the basis of financial fraud. You have to determine and demonstrate a connection first.
Hop to it.
Dear daedalus2u
Well, first of all I am sure that Wakefield will not be prosecuted, unlike Thorsen because it is only losers that are prosecuted.
Secondly
Thorsen will be remembered for nothing other than that he followed Offit for Profit guidelines over a cliff; took the rest of us with them, and we haven’t yet reached the bottom as the vaccines based on Thorsens fraudulent data, is ,are, I’m afraid to say unsafe .
Sincerely
Sniffer
“Thorsens fraudulent data,”
Provide a reference that confirms that his data is fraudulent. Otherwise, put up with claims of fraud by Wakefield.
Dedj,
“sniffer” is a troll or an “old friend” or both.
Take this from one of the posts I didn’t approve:
“A few years ago I took the time to read every published study that “proved” vaccines don’t cause item. Knowing this “Danish study” was the biggie, I started here.
It’s hard to put into words how dishonest and outrageous a study this is, and I knew after reading it that we were in for a long fight: if scientists will lie this explicitly and call it a study and if Pediatrics will publish something this dishonest, they are playing to win at all costs.”
It goes on and on and finishes:
“When I first read this study I remember wondering, “what the hell kind of scientists would even put their name next to something like this?” As we learn more about Dr. Poul Thorsen, I think we’re finding out.
Sincerely
Sniffer”
Google it. It’s a blog post by JB Handley. I don’t think that “sniffer” is Mr. Handley. Other posts involve bits and pieces from other sources, including a piece attributed to one “Heidi Stevenson” in which sniffer would like to take this discussion on a tangent into Brian Deer land.
You will find “The boner of this story is that Dr. Poul Thorsen is a psychiatrist ” is from another old piece elsewhere.
“Oh and the lbrb filter is working big time..”
Actually, I’ve been a little slow this time.
Dear Dedj
My comment awaiting moderation again 2nd one tonight..
Simply they all are based around Thorsen so they are all false not one,not two, but all!!!
Sincerely
Sniffer
“Simply they all are based around Thorsen so they are all false not one,not two, but all”
Given that several predate the supposedly fraudulent data, this is an impossibilty.
You clearly have not read the list fully, nor have you attempted to look up any of the studies to examine them for relationship to Thorsen.
You are clearly lying if you wish to imply that you have knowledge that they are all based around Thorsen.
You have not demonstrated, to any standard, the existance of any fraudulent data by Thorsen.
You have not demonstrated, to any standard, that this fraudulent data has any connection to the papers listed.
You have not demonstrated that any connection, even a hypothectical one, could or did form the basis of even one of the the papers listed, much less all.
In short, you are making shit up.
Given how abundantly clear it is that you are a thorough liar, it is difficult to trust your claims that you have substantive comments in moderation. It is only due to having one of my own posts in moderation (where I point out that your claims of being banned are likely to be due to you misunderstanding the moderation filter) that I can put any level of faith in what you say.
Until you provide substance to your allegations, there is no reason to not assume that you are here for purely malicious purposes.
Dear Dedj
The Danish Study by Thorsen ,it was written as the biggie,the Danish Study was the Definitive study that eclipsed all others .
A site called Age Of Autism ,for one poke gigantean holes through the claims that Autism is not caused by vaccines and mercury..
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/first-fraud-dr-poul-thorsen-and-the-original-danish-study.html
Oh and the lbrb filter is working big time..
Sincerely
Sniffer
“The Danish Study by Thorsen ,it was written as the biggie,the Danish Study was the Definitive study that eclipsed all others .”
This wasn’t what you claimed, nor was it what you were asked to provide.
To remind you (as if you need reminding, you are clearly dodging the issue here – how honest of you!) , you were provided with a list of studies, you claimed they were all based around Thorsens work and that his work was fraudulant, you were asked to demonstrate that his work was fraudulant, that his work was the basis of these studies as you claimed, and that the connection was sufficient enough to warrent calling them all false.
Step to it and stop these games.
Your link to AoA is bizarre.
It claims “The data as it was captured was blatantly obscured.” when the paper actually states the inclusion of the oupatient data quite clearly and indicated what false effect this might have had (incidence rates increasing as an artifact), and the paper expressly states that analysis of both datasets were performed with concordant results.
The link complains that some of the authours have COI’s due to having recieved previous funding to look into vaccine safety. This is patently bizarre as one would expect experienced experts on vaccine safety to be the ones to perform a vaccine study such as Madsen et al. I have no doubt that this prior experience would have been lauded as evidence that we should take the study very seriously, had the study come to the opposite conclusion.
In short, the concerns about the data laid out in your link were very clearly addressed in the paper in exactly the place one would expect them to have been addressed. In effect, the paper was qoute-mined and misrepresented.
You clearly have not read the original paper if you think the AoA link you provided was in any way factually accurate about the supposed flaws and fraud.
Dear Dedj
In the year 2003 Dr. Thorsen along with his research group in Denmark stated that the mercury in vaccines could not be responsible for autism cases since they rose 20 times more in a country that banned mercury. It turns out that the good Dr. Thorsen failed to report that during that study a new mandated reporting system was implimented that resulted in a higher reporting ofdy autism cases. Not because there was a increase but because autism cases prior to that time period -were never reported.
Now the media latched onto this report and blasted all parents who blamed their children’s disabilities on vaccines and even the New York Times relied on Dr. Thorsen’s study which was skewed and basically inaccurate and unscientific as well as basically a lie.
The boner of this story is that Dr. Poul Thorsen is a psychiatrist -he has no qualifications whatsoever in Toxicology and he is not a research scientist that used quantitative analysis for his study. Basically it is junk science and the CDC promoted this as truth and lauded this man for his opinions.
You really have to wonder where and why I should need to go back and read older dated studies when the Thorsen study to Pharma followers was until last week headed up as the “shangrila” of studies.
Offit For Profit the 1000 vaccine kid, can actually have before they become permanently damaged (remeber). How many is too many ? because there is not one study that proves vaccines are safe none of the studies you quote are reliable hence the Thorsen study. Dr. Thorsen was your only hope for a victory on the vaccinate the world drug pushers who have lost their sanity .
Offit and co,are possessed of a kind of messianic belief that somebody, God perhaps, gave them the job of shouldering the white man’s burden, which is the world.
In other people’s blood through vaccines.
That someone gave them the right to step outside of international vaccine law; go anywhere with vaccines , do anything, make up any study whatsoever ,lie and spin about it after the study has been done ,pay any price in other people’s blood, to reshape the world in their image with vaccines ; in the image that they want to see such as Africa .
I think that Offit and Thorsen et-all that support them will be damned in history.
Offit and Thorsen will be followed into the history books and into the grave with this mark of Cain on their forehead.
Yours Sincerely
Sniffer
Dedj, the tactic you described above – quote-mining and misrepresentation – seems to be standard tactics, as demonstrated by Child Health Safety in their deceptive ‘analysis’ of vaccine research on their web-site.
Basically, they take the section of the paper where the authors discuss problematic issues (which always exist for all research) and write these up as if the ‘analyst’ had uncovered some fatal flaw in the research. By using issues identified by the authors themselves they can sound as if they know what they are talking about, without having to do much more than paraphrase the authors and add sneaky sounding adjectives which imply the authors were attemping to conceal important information.
They know their constituents will never read the paper, or at most will read the abstract. Even better if they can imply that the researchers used some underhand method to reach their results, like use a transformation or deal to outliers. Child Health Safety linked to a classic demonstration of the tactic recently on the ‘Sloppy Science’ thread. This tactic needs a name for handy reference, like ‘Gish Gallop’. What do you suggest? (if there isn’t a name for it already)
Sniffer, are you the same sniffer who posted this?
https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/04/brian-deer-stomping-at-the-savoy/#comment-156502
Wierd.
@Sullivan, I called sniffer out as a chatbot here:
https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/02/sloppy-science-a-perfect-example-of-how-the-anti-vaccine-crowd-will-listen-to-anything/#comment-158753
I haven’t seen anything since to convince me that sniffer is not someone’s science-fair project. The posts are not quite so random as they were originally, but they are still completely devoid of logic.
@Sullivan,
Heidi Stevenson is a homeopath who runs a site called gaia-health.com. She got herself attention last year when she did a “story” on the DDI v. Barrett suit using Tim Bolen as her source.
Also of interest, at the time a document incriminating Thorsen came out, AoA et al were spinning a conspiracy theory about the Danish research being part of a “coverup” of data from somewhere in California. I did an analysis on the “covered up” numbers posted by anti-vaxxers, and found that in fact it suggested that the (unidentified) locality had a trend of rising autism diagnoses that could be traced back to the early 1980s. It also recorded a DROP in diagnoses around 1986, when the Hib vaccine WITH thimerosal was added to the CDC “schedule”.
http://evilpossum.weebly.com/thorsen.html
“Anti-vaccine War on Denmark” .doc
I’ve tried a few times to use the LBRB search function and cannot get it to work. I use iMacOSX 10.6.7 and Safari, Opera, SeaMonkey – haven’t tried Firefox yet but I guess if the earlier three won’t work there’s not much chance of success.
Would someone try and report back please or maybe the administrators take a check? I’ve actually managed to post a message on the board that comes up when I click on ‘search’ so I think there’s a glitch in there – maybe it’s vaccine damaged?
Brian Morgan, the search function has not worked for a while. Your best bet is to use google’s “site” command. It is something I have to use for a couple of other sites when their databases have had issues (like the JREF forums and Neurodiversity).
Example to what to put in the Google search box:
subject site:http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk