OIG Fugitive: Poul Thorsen

[emmy526]

https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp#thorsen

Quote:

From approximately February 2004 until February 2010, Poul Thorsen executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC had awarded grant money to Denmark for research involving infant disabilities, autism, genetic disorders, and fetal alcohol syndrome. CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines, the relationship between cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and the relationship between developmental outcomes and fetal alcohol exposure.

Quote:

Thorsen allegedly diverted over $1 million of the CDC grant money to his own personal bank account. Thorsen submitted fraudulent invoices on CDC letterhead to medical facilities assisting in the research for reimbursement of work allegedly covered by the grants. The invoices were addressed to Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The fact that the invoices were on CDC letterhead made it appear that CDC was requesting the money from Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital although the bank account listed on the invoices belonged to Thorsen.

Quote:

Thorsen is currently in Denmark and is awaiting extradition to the United States.

[Taximom5]

"Thorsen allegedly diverted over $1 million of the CDC grant money to his own personal bank account. Thorsen submitted fraudulent invoices on CDC letterhead to medical facilities assisting in the research for reimbursement of work allegedly covered by the grants. The invoices were addressed to Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The fact that the invoices were on CDC letterhead made it appear that CDC was requesting the money from Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital although the bank account listed on the invoices belonged to Thorsen."

So where is he now? Why is the research he was involved with, that supposedly exonerated vaccine safety, not being re-examined for fraud, especially since he also had a clear conflict of interest, being employed by the CDC at the same time as he had a contract with Aarhus that forbade such outside employment?

[emmy526]

the article says he is denmark awaiting extradition to the USA for his crime

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

"Thorsen allegedly diverted over $1 million of the CDC grant money to his own personal bank account. Thorsen submitted fraudulent invoices on CDC letterhead to medical facilities assisting in the research for reimbursement of work allegedly covered by the grants. The invoices were addressed to Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The fact that the invoices were on CDC letterhead made it appear that CDC was requesting the money from Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital although the bank account listed on the invoices belonged to Thorsen."
So where is he now? Why is the research he was involved with, that supposedly exonerated vaccine safety, not being re-examined for fraud, especially since he also had a clear conflict of interest, being employed by the CDC at the same time as he had a contract with Aarhus that forbade such outside employment?

[kathymuggle]

This is currently being discussed on the non-vax forum, but I thought I would give it a bump over here in case anyone missed it.

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't know anything about this, did the research actually get done?  It sounded like he said he was going to do research and then stole the money instead?

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't know anything about this, did the research actually get done?  It sounded like he said he was going to do research and then stole the money instead?

Oh, yes it got done. I am sure you have heard of the Danish Study, which is used by mainstream as the "definitive" proof that thimerosal does not cause autism. See the thread in the not vaxing forum if you want more on this guy. 

[pers]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't know anything about this, did the research actually get done?  It sounded like he said he was going to do research and then stole the money instead?

Yes, the research actually did get done, and it is one of the major pieces of research on vaccines and autism, though certainly not the only one.   Most of the research was probably complete well before Thorson was even in charge of the CDC grant.  

Funny thing is, back before his theft was discovered and became news, Thorson wasn't really mentioned.  His part was too minor.  All articles, both mainstream and anti-vax alik, focused on the main authors of the study.  Then the theft was uncovered, and suddenly it seems everyone has forgotten about the actual people responsible for the bulk of the study and speak of it as if it belonged to Thorson alone.  

If Thorson really did take the money (and I believe that he did), then he absolutely belongs in jail.  The difference between him an Wakefield though is that he was not depending on the results of the study for his money; his scheme would have worked just as well (or failed just as well, since hew was caught) no matter what the results showed.  He was straight out stealing.  

So why should large and expensive bit of research be thrown out on the basis that a minor author, who was not responsible for the bulk of the work, whose work was looked at by others (and I am certain anything he touched was gone over again with a fine tooth comb once his true nature was revealed) was sticking his fingers in the money-pot and caught? 

How does his fraud invalidate other people's research?

Orac did a blog on it a year and a half or so ago which has more info (and his snarky opinions too, just to warn anyone offended by such):  http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/14/poul-thorsen-vaccines-fraud/

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by pers 

Yes, the research actually did get done, and it is one of the major pieces of research on vaccines and autism, though certainly not the only one.   Most of the research was probably complete well before Thorson was even in charge of the CDC grant.  

Funny thing is, back before his theft was discovered and became news, Thorson wasn't really mentioned.  His part was too minor.  All articles, both mainstream and anti-vax alik, focused on the main authors of the study.  Then the theft was uncovered, and suddenly it seems everyone has forgotten about the actual people responsible for the bulk of the study and speak of it as if it belonged to Thorson alone.  

How does his fraud invalidate other people's research?

It looks like Thorsen was far from a minor player in this research, according to a Reuters story he was Principal Investigator for the project:

Quote:

He moved back to Denmark in 2002 to be principal investigator for the program. Prosecutors said he was also in charge of administering the research dollars, earmarked in part to study the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-crime-research-funds-idUSTRE73C8JJ20110413

I would say a principal investigator in a research study like the "Danish Study" stealing $2 million certainly makes the study suspect. Especially given how it all came about subsequent to Simpsonwood.

 

Quote:

In Poul Thorsen, many say, the CDC bought a high level fraud artist, to produce a high level fraudulent study - which he did..  So, why would the CDC be surprised, you might ask, when that same Thorsen defrauded THEM out of a million dollars he funneled to himself through fake billings, transferred to a bank account he made appear to be a CDC account, but was actually his?

http://www.bolenreport.com/Mark%20Geier/poulson.htm

[Rrrrrachel]

It's pretty easy to tell if he was major or minor. Look up the study on pub med and see if his name shows up.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134


He's listed, but he's listed sixth of like eight authors.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

It's pretty easy to tell if he was major or minor. Look up the study on pub med and see if his name shows up.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134


He's listed, but he's listed sixth of like eight authors.

Flimsey. As I said Reuters reported him as Principal Investigator, and given the CDC sent him over, I would say, he was of significant importance to the project. 

From the second link above:

Quote:

The real question here is "Did Thorsen actually defraud the CDC, or was top CDC management part of a conspiracy to funnel money to Thorsen, and his co-conspirators, for their dirty work."  This article asks that question. And, where is the other million?

Why do I think that?

For two reasons:

(1)  Poul Thorsen is named as an author in nineteen (19) studies published since his indictment, all of which appear to be funded directly, or indirectly, by the CDC.  Go here.

(2)  The Danish news media Moderne Tider did an expose on Thorsen, his financial manipulations, and his friends.  Funny, but the US media never wrote anything about it (sarcasm intended).  Click here to see the article in the original Danish.  Click here to see the entire English translation. 

 

[Rrrrrachel]

Flimsy? Actually it's pretty conclusive. Maybe you aren't familiar with how people are credited on research studies.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Flimsy? Actually it's pretty conclusive. Maybe you aren't familiar with how people are credited on research studies.

Again, he was reported by Reuters as the Principal Investigator and in many other articles too. It looks highly likely the CDC hired him to do their dirty work, maybe?

Here is what the Danish article says:

Headline: THE FATHER OF DANISH EPIDEMIOLOGICAL AUTISM-RESEARCH JOKED ABOUT BEING READY TO KILL TO MAKE HIS WAY IN THE WORLD 

"The Father of Danish Epidemioligical Austims-Research" doesn't make him sound like a "minor" investigator in the study to me. 

I am just imaging now what all the extremist pro-vaxers would be saying if Lucija Tomljenovic or some other researcher who undertakes studies that question vaccines, had been caught embezzling from the the CDC and how they would use that to discredit the study in a nano second. 

More from the article:

Quote:

Three former employees at the once so dollar-gilted danish research unit, North Atlantic NeuroEpidemiology Alliances (NANEA) tell danish newspaper Information about their years at the CDCsponsored research unit. 

Now NANEA is dead, the creator of it all, Poul Thorsen, has disappeared, and the former 

employees are talking about a story of seduction and propaganda 

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm not familiar with the Bolen report, but judging by their homepage it doesn't seem like a mainstream news source, or very neutral. Even if it was, one headline doesn't make it so. Especially when people have an agenda to discredit the study. The authorship on the paper is what it is and was documented when it came out a decade ago. That doesn't change no matter how many headlines try to make it look different, now.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm not familiar with the Bolen report, but judging by their homepage it doesn't seem like a mainstream news source, or very neutral. Even if it was, one headline doesn't make it so. Especially when people have an agenda to discredit the study. The authorship on the paper is what it is and was documented when it came out a decade ago. That doesn't change no matter how many headlines try to make it look different, now.

This kind of information is never printed in the mainstream media so your bashing the Bolen Report is typical MO. This is why I have typed out three times a least now Reuters (mainstream media)  has said he was the PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR. The Danish story from Moderne Tide (of which I gave you the English language link above) certainly implied he was of major part of the study. No one has changed the headlines to discredit the study. Poul Thorsen did that himself by stealing.

[crayfishgirl]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

This kind of information is never printed in the mainstream media so your bashing the Bolen Report is typical MO. This is why I have typed out three times a least now Reuters (mainstream media)  has said he was the PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR. The Danish story from Moderne Tide (of which I gave you the English language link above) certainly implied he was of major part of the study. No one has changed the headlines to discredit the study. Poul Thorsen did that himself by stealing.

I wouldn't put too much weight into that term.  I am a scientist and have a role in a number of research grants.  In the grant writing stage all the researchers that will potentially be involved with with project need to be identified, and they are called "Principal Investigators" regardless of the role they play. 

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by crayfishgirl 

 

I wouldn't put too much weight into that term.  I am a scientist and have a role in a number of research grants.  In the grant writing stage all the researchers that will potentially be involved with with project need to be identified, and they are called "Principal Investigators" regardless of the role they play. 

Oh please, the man was one of the big guys in all this, for heaven sakes he was head of the North Atlantic NeuroEpidemiology Alliances (NANEA). 

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm not trying to bash anything. It seems pretty apparent they're neither mainstream or neutral.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm not trying to bash anything. It seems pretty apparent they're neither mainstream or neutral.

No but Reuters is and so is Moderne Tide.

[Rrrrrachel]

Initially I only saw the Bolen report link.

[crayfishgirl]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Oh please, the man was one of the big guys in all this, for heaven sakes he was head of the North Atlantic NeuroEpidemiology Alliances (NANEA). 

Relax! 

I'm just telling you how people are identified on grants, and chances are if you play any role in the research you are listed as a principal investigator.  There's no one handing out "Principal Investigator" crowns to those who oversee a project...everyone involved gets that designation.  And just because the designation appeared in a Rueters article or three doesn't change that (especially because information on CDC-issued grants is probably publicly accessable and would be a source for a journalist writing about this).