BMJ Fails to Disclose Money Link to Vaccine Manufacturers

Considering we are experiencing another wave of pertussis in places where the vaccine was greatly utilized, just as we face more flu cases in vaccinated people, one rally has to see beyond the dogma of a failed paradigm.

The money wasted on vaccine programs can be better spent on improving access to health promoting foods that support your immune system and help you stay free from disease.  This is a well known public health dictate: host health status as a barrier to disease.

Alliance for Human Research Protection

A Catalyst for Debate

www.ahrp.org

The editor in chief of the BMJ acknowledges that AHRP was right to criticize the BMJ and its editor for failing to disclose to its readership, the BMJ financial ties to Merck--manufacturer of 13 vaccines. She also acknowledges income from GSK--manufacturer of several vaccines as well. 

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335/reply#bmj_el_251470 

"Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to Vera Hassner Sharav's comment, [1] which for those of you who haven't seen it is reproduced below.

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/766/9/  

Although Vera's claims may seem far-fetched on this occasion, she is right that we should have declared the BMJ Group's income from Merck as a competing interest to the editorial (and the two editor's choice articles) that accompanied Brian Deer's series on the Secrets of the MMR scare.[2] [3] [4] We should also, as you say, have declared the group's income from GSK as a competing interest in relation to these articles. We will publish clarifications." 

However, her statement, "We didn't declare these competing interests because it didn't occur to us to do so " is startling. How seriously are we to take her strongly articulated stance against researchers who fail to disclose their financial conflicts of interest--if she doesn't recognize her journal's blatant conflict of interest?

Either she is being disingenuous or downright cynical about the BMJs declared stand against financial conflicts of interest that are undermining the integrity of medical research reports, and its own clandestine partnerships with industry.

Let's be clear: financial conflicts of interest ALWAYS influence the position one defends-- human nature is no different between politicians whose campaign chests are filled by vested interests, government officials, or academics who have grown dependent on financial support from special interests. Each delivers the service for which he /she is paid.

An Interesting Take on How You Can Trust the FDA

Most who know me know that I have worked in mental health and psych for many years, albeit, mainly with a keen interest in natural mental health.

I believe nutrition has a very important role in health, physical and mental.  However, with the furor over S510 it does concern me that good, sound nutrition won't be part of the landscape.

And as you can see here in the following three articles, leaving it to the FDA leads us down a very slippery slope.

Looks like more and more no one in Congress or government is doing too much of a good job for the electorate these days.

And outside the issue of risky antidepressant drugs, FDA allows so many more that we have alerted our readers to their dangers for many, many years... 

The antidepressant reboxetine: A headdesk moment in science

By SciCurious Nov 30, 2010 08:44 AM 

Every so often there comes a truly "headdesk" moment in science. A moment where you sit there, stunned by a new finding, and thinking, blankly..."ok, now what?"
For psychiatry and behavioral pharmacology, one of those moments came a few weeks ago with the findings of a meta-analysis published in the British Medical Journal (Eyding et al., 2010). The meta-analysis showed that an antidepressant, reboxetine (marketed by Pfizer in Europe, but not in the US, under the names Edronax, Norebox, Prolift, Solvex, Davedax or Vestra) doesn’t work. Not only does it not work, it REALLY doesn’t work, and it turns out that Pfizer hadn’t published data on the putative antidepressant from 74% of their patients. Some people have reported that the study found that reboxetine was even "possibly harmful," but that’s not quite true. What the study DID find is that reboxetine produced more side effects (noted as "adverse events") than placebo (as might be expected), but with no positive effects at all. While many antidepressants on the market today are not great, most are effective in around 60% of patients, reboxetine turns out to be even worse than that.
SOURCE and complete article

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next two reports come from the Alliance for Human Research Protection news feed, www.ahrp.org

A letter of complaint by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) was sent to the director of the National Institutes of Health, documenting $66.8 million in NIH grants over the last five years awarded to a handful of psychiatrists who used ghostwriters for scientific publications. 

The instances in the letter involve ghostwriting by only one company--Scientific Therapeutics Information-- and involve only one drug--GlaxoSmithkline's antidepressant, Paxil.

Duff Wilson of The New York Times reports that previously sealed GlaxoSmithKline documents reveal that a textbook in psychiatry, whose listed authors are  Charles Nemeroff, MD and Alan Schatzberg, MD, was actually ghostwritten by Sally Laden of STI. GSK paid the ghostwriter and the "authors" who penned their names to the book.

The sheer audacity prompted former FDA commissioner, Dr. David Kessler to exclaim: "To ghostwrite an entire textbook is a new level of chutzpah. "I've never heard of that before. It takes your breath away."  Surely that is a
dubious distinction in academic medicine!

and

On November 23, 2010, Terry Vermillion, Director of FDA's Office of Criminal Investigation announced his  retirement next month amid a brewing scandal involving corrupt practices.

The announcement came after complaints by Republicans in Congress who raised concern about his misdirection of the Office's resources: instead of pursuing drug companies and researchers who commit crimes when seeking FDA approval for drugs, OCI pursued drug-abuse cases--which are the purview of the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The issue came to a head when Senator Chuck Grassley sent a complaint to the Acting Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office (GAO) about a "less than stellar" GAO investigative report which whitewashed misconduct at OCI. 

The investigation and the report were compromised by a GAO mole who tipped off someone at the Office of Criminal Investigations.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/grassleyletter.pdf