An investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism concludes that key scientists advising the World Health Organization on how to prepare for a flu pandemic had done paid work for drug companies that could benefit from these recommendations.
The report is summarized in the BMJ but a subscription is required.
In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee writes that WHO’s credibility has been badly damaged.
Excerpts of a BMJ news release:
WHO’s advice led to governments around the world stockpiling billions of dollars of antiviral drugs as part of global pandemic preparedness plans. Yet these conflicts of interest have not been publicly disclosed by the WHO. Despite repeated requests, the WHO has failed to provide any details about whether such conflicts were declared by the relevant experts and what, if anything, was done about them.
This report echoes a highly critical inquiry by the Council of Europe, whose findings will also be published today (4 June), and will fuel suspicions that the drug industry was able to exert undue influence on the WHO’s decisions about the swine flu pandemic and the mass stockpiling of drugs.
The investigation finds that the WHO’s 2004 guidance on the use of antivirals in a pandemic was prepared by an influenza expert who had received payment from Roche, manufacturers of oseltamivir (Tamiflu), and GSK, manufacturers of zanamivir (Relenza), for lecturing and consultancy work. The guidance concluded that … “countries should consider developing plans for ensuring the availability of antivirals” and that they “will need to stockpile in advance, given that current supplies are very limited.”
In addition, the investigation found two other scientists who prepared annexes to the WHO 2004 pandemic guidelines had recent financial links to Roche.
According to Deborah Cohen of the BMJ and Philip Carter of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the WHO did not publicly disclose any of these conflicts of interest when it published the 2004 guidance. It is not clear whether these conflicts were notified privately by WHO to governments around the world, many of which followed its advice.
The WHO deny any industry influence on the scientific advice it received. It also says it takes conflicts of interests seriously and has the mechanisms in place to deal with them. But the BMJ and the Bureau suggest that WHO seems not to have followed its own rules for the decision making around the pandemic.
And, despite repeated requests, the WHO has refused to provide any information about the conflict of interest declarations made to it, leaving the investigation to wonder “whether major public health organisations are able to manage the conflicts of interest that are inherent in medical science effectively.”
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
JUST ME in T
June 6, 2010 at 7:47 pmSeveral key advisors who urged WHO to declare a pandemic received direct financial compensation from the very same vaccine manufacturers who received a windfall of profits from the pandemic announcement. During all this, WHO refused to disclose any conflicts of interests between its top advisors and the drug companies who would financially benefit from its decisions.
All the kickbacks, in other words, were swept under the table and kept silent, and WHO somehow didn’t think it was important to let the world know that it was receiving policy advice from individuals who stood to make millions of dollars when a pandemic was declared.
http://just-me-in-t-health.blogspot.com/2010/06/who-manufactures-disease.html
Super Dave
June 7, 2010 at 2:12 pmSomething you may not have known…..
The WHO changed its own definition of a pandemic just prior to the June 2009 announcement. The previous definition required two key elements missing from the revised definition: there must be a high morbidity and high mortality rate. And we know neither of these applied to H1N1!
Hmmmmmm….methinks that was done on purpose to “scare” the general population about H1N1 and the need to get a vaccine from the same folks they hold an obvious conflict of interest with.
Buffalo Sean
June 7, 2010 at 10:37 pmI think there are a couple of clichés that fit very appropriately here along with many other private and political organizations statements and predictions………
“DON’T BELEIVE THE HYPE” and ALWAYS, ALWAYS “FOLLOW THE MONEY”!!!
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like