Conflicts of Interest
Conflict of Interest Taints Vaccine Approval Process, Charges US
Lancet (www.thelancet.com) (09/02/00) Vol. 356, No. 9232, P. 838; McCarthy, Michael
A U.S. Congressional committee report has found that government officials are not enforcing regulations to prevent conflict of interest for vaccines, allowing experts connected to the industry to serve on vaccine approval panels. One critic of U.S. vaccination policies is Rep. Dan Burton, the chair of the House Committee on Government Reforms, which prepared the report.
Burton, whose grandson is autistic, believes there may be a link between the condition and the measles vaccine. The committee's report concerns two panels that approved the RotaShield rotavirus vaccine. Investigators found that the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices include experts who may have conflicts of interest. Some committee members were known to own stock in a related vaccine company, or to receive grants from companies that would benefit from vaccine approval. According to Linda Suydam, the senior associate commissioner of the FDA overseeing the selection of advisor panels, the agency requires members to divulge conflicts of interest, and significant conflicts negate their participation.
However, she also noted that experts often have relationships with pharmaceutical companies or through a university's contract with the companies.
Conflict of Interest?
Many FDA Drug Advisors Financially Tied to Firms
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/fda_interests000925.html
W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 25, More than half of the experts hired to advise the U.S. government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial ties to the drug companies that will be affected by their decisions, USA Today reported today.
The experts are hired to advise the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on which medicines should be approved for sale, what the warning labels should say and how studies of drugs should be designed. They are supposed to be independent, but USA Today said it found that in 54 percent of the cases, the advisers had a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate. These conflicts include helping a pharmaceutical company develop a medicine, then serving on an FDA advisory committee that judges the drug; holding stock in the company; consulting fees or research grants.
Hundreds of Waivers
(US) Federal law generally prohibits the FDA from using experts with financial conflicts of interest, but the paper said the agency had waived the restriction over 800 times since 1998."...
And in the UK . . . .
The Veterinary Products Committee advises the Veterinary Medicines Directorate as to which veterinary products should receive licenses in Britain.
‘Independent’ experts on the VPC include:
Professor P Lees who has had support for research and consultancy fees from Abbot Laboratories, and support for research from Bayer, Intervet UK, Novartis, Nutreco, Rhone and Merieux.
Dr Q McKellar who has done contract research for Arnolds, Boehringer, Ciba-Geigy, Core Technologies, Cross Vetpharm Group, Grampian Pharmaceuticals, Inveresk Research Intl., Leo Laboratories, Merial, MSD Agvet, Pfizer, Pharmacia Upjohn, and Bayer, and had a conference funded by Bayer. He is listed as a director of Grampian Pharmaceuticals.
Professor R Richards who has had research contracts or grants from Vetrepharm, Inveresk Research Intl. Ltd, Bayer, Ciba, Elanco, Ewos Uniroyal, Fishpharm Supplies, Intervet UK, Hoffman La Roche, Rhone Poulenc, Roche Products, Sandoz, Schering-Plough, and consultancy for Eurogentec.
Professor R Gaskell has a shareholding in Boots, Glaxo Holdings, and has received research grants and support for studentship from Intervet UK and Pfizer.
Professor G Gettinby who consults, or has consulted for Grampian Pharmaceuticals, Hoechst UK, Organon Medical Research Labs (sister company of Intervet) and who has benefited from support from research from Grampian.
Now the question is . . .
How is it that someone who is seemingly intimately involved with pharmaceutical and chemical companies can be deemed independent? And . . . we churn out hundreds of scientists every year from universities in the UK. Why is it that the ones taking research grants and consultancy fees are the only ‘independent’ experts our government can find?
Lancet (www.thelancet.com) (09/02/00) Vol. 356, No. 9232, P. 838; McCarthy, Michael
A U.S. Congressional committee report has found that government officials are not enforcing regulations to prevent conflict of interest for vaccines, allowing experts connected to the industry to serve on vaccine approval panels. One critic of U.S. vaccination policies is Rep. Dan Burton, the chair of the House Committee on Government Reforms, which prepared the report.
Burton, whose grandson is autistic, believes there may be a link between the condition and the measles vaccine. The committee's report concerns two panels that approved the RotaShield rotavirus vaccine. Investigators found that the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices include experts who may have conflicts of interest. Some committee members were known to own stock in a related vaccine company, or to receive grants from companies that would benefit from vaccine approval. According to Linda Suydam, the senior associate commissioner of the FDA overseeing the selection of advisor panels, the agency requires members to divulge conflicts of interest, and significant conflicts negate their participation.
However, she also noted that experts often have relationships with pharmaceutical companies or through a university's contract with the companies.
Conflict of Interest?
Many FDA Drug Advisors Financially Tied to Firms
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/fda_interests000925.html
W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 25, More than half of the experts hired to advise the U.S. government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial ties to the drug companies that will be affected by their decisions, USA Today reported today.
The experts are hired to advise the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on which medicines should be approved for sale, what the warning labels should say and how studies of drugs should be designed. They are supposed to be independent, but USA Today said it found that in 54 percent of the cases, the advisers had a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate. These conflicts include helping a pharmaceutical company develop a medicine, then serving on an FDA advisory committee that judges the drug; holding stock in the company; consulting fees or research grants.
Hundreds of Waivers
(US) Federal law generally prohibits the FDA from using experts with financial conflicts of interest, but the paper said the agency had waived the restriction over 800 times since 1998."...
And in the UK . . . .
The Veterinary Products Committee advises the Veterinary Medicines Directorate as to which veterinary products should receive licenses in Britain.
‘Independent’ experts on the VPC include:
Professor P Lees who has had support for research and consultancy fees from Abbot Laboratories, and support for research from Bayer, Intervet UK, Novartis, Nutreco, Rhone and Merieux.
Dr Q McKellar who has done contract research for Arnolds, Boehringer, Ciba-Geigy, Core Technologies, Cross Vetpharm Group, Grampian Pharmaceuticals, Inveresk Research Intl., Leo Laboratories, Merial, MSD Agvet, Pfizer, Pharmacia Upjohn, and Bayer, and had a conference funded by Bayer. He is listed as a director of Grampian Pharmaceuticals.
Professor R Richards who has had research contracts or grants from Vetrepharm, Inveresk Research Intl. Ltd, Bayer, Ciba, Elanco, Ewos Uniroyal, Fishpharm Supplies, Intervet UK, Hoffman La Roche, Rhone Poulenc, Roche Products, Sandoz, Schering-Plough, and consultancy for Eurogentec.
Professor R Gaskell has a shareholding in Boots, Glaxo Holdings, and has received research grants and support for studentship from Intervet UK and Pfizer.
Professor G Gettinby who consults, or has consulted for Grampian Pharmaceuticals, Hoechst UK, Organon Medical Research Labs (sister company of Intervet) and who has benefited from support from research from Grampian.
Now the question is . . .
How is it that someone who is seemingly intimately involved with pharmaceutical and chemical companies can be deemed independent? And . . . we churn out hundreds of scientists every year from universities in the UK. Why is it that the ones taking research grants and consultancy fees are the only ‘independent’ experts our government can find?
So much debate, so much conflicting opinion - here's a simple thought - what interest does the person or body/organisation have when they speak? Government, large charities, vets etc all have vested interests in promoting unnecessary vaccination. This is all too evident when you look at the information they are using - which is far from independent, as much of it comes from industry sales and marketing data.
One simple and far reaching example is the UK government body that licences veterinary vaccines, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), who use statistics from vaccine manufacturers for official advice to the veterinary industry and the public. They cannot provide their own information in that regard - so how on earth can that not be an issue? It is certainly not independent.
There is very little, if any, truly independent information used in and by mainstream society. Bodies/commissions that claim 'independence' often have people sitting on the board that have ties with the very industry they are supposed to be regulating. Elsewehere in society when this type of situation is in the full glare of the media, often the people with vested interests have to stand down. Within the vaccine industry great care is taken to ensure the subject is never in the full glare of the media, so it remains hidden and unaccountable.
The Animal Health Trust is often cited as a 'scientific study' to show vaccines do not cause adverse effects other than the basic few. This 'charity' develops vaccines. And as far as their study goes it has been proven that their claims are wrong, with plenty of accepted studies that show the vaccine adverse reactions that the Animal Health Trust claim don't exist. Can they claim to be independent and do not have a conflict of interest? I think not!
As far as your vet and annual vaccination against the core diseases goes - ask the questions 'where is the science?', and 'whatever happened to the veterinary oath of first do no harm?'.