Ethics of Medical Researchers and sorces of funding-Pharma Cartel

[Guest guest]

-

<arnoldgore

Ethics of Medical Researchers and sorces of funding-Pharma Cartel

 

 

> IAHF Webmaster: Breaking News, Whats New, All Countries

>

> IAHF List: In the letter below, I've just put the AMA morons on notice of

my

> intention to discuss this corrupt BS on the air. I will be on the air

again

> tomorrow (tuesday 12/30) and Friday on Dr.Stan Monteith's radio show at 8

PM

> western US time tomorrow, and at 8 pm western time Friday. Both shows can

be

> heard on the web at http://www.americanewsnet.com/radio.htm I will be

pitching

> badly needed support towards the ANH lawsuit to overturn the EU Food

Supplement

> Directive, please tune in and urge others to. Please forward this to more

> people. IAHF isn't taking any prisoners.

>

>

> To:

> Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs

> American Medical Association

> 515 N. State Street

> Chicago, IL 60610

> Phone: 312-464-4823

> Fax: 312-464-4799

> ceja

>

>

> Dear:

>

> Audiey Kao, MD, PhD

> Vice President, Ethics Standards

> Karine Morin, LLM

> Director, Ethics Policy

> Secretary, CEJA

> Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH

> Director, Institute for Ethics

> Faith Lagay, PhD

> Director, Ethics Resource Center

> Katherine Rouse

> Senior Staff Assistant, Ethics Standards

> Christian Krautkramer

> Research Assistant, Ethics Standards

> Amy Bovi, MA

> Senior Research Assistant, CEJA

> Sara Taub, MBe

> Senior Research Assistant, CEJA

> Susanna Smith

> Senior Research Assistant, Ethics Resource Center

> Philip Perry, MSJ, MA

> Research Assistant, Ethics Resource Center

> Meme Wang, MPH

> Research Assistant, Ethics Resource Center

> Alan Wells, PhD, MPH

> Senior Research Associate, Institute for Ethics

> Jennifer Reenan, MD

> Research Associate, Institute for Ethics

> Jennifer Matiasek, MS

> Senior Research Assistant, Institute for Ethics

> Jeanne Uehling

> Senior Secretary, Institute for Ethics

> Shane Green, PhD

> Senior Fellow, Institute for Ethics

> Richard Morse, MA

> Senior Fellow, Institute for Ethics

> Jacob Kurlander

> Fellow, Institute for Ethics

> Renee Witlen

> Fellow, Institute for Ethics

>

> I have read Dr.Carl Elliott's article below titled " Pharma Buys a

Conscience "

> (see below) and note with total non surprise and extreme disgust that the

> AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has accepted a donation of

$590,000

> " to educate doctors about the ethical problems involved in accepting gifts

> from the drug industry. " That initiative is funded by gifts from Eli Lilly

and

> Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., Pfizer, U.S. Pharmaceutical Group,

AstraZeneca

> Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Corporation, Procter and Gamble Company, and

> Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceutical.

>

> Question: Isn't this a bit like the fox guarding the henhouse?

>

> Question: Have any of you personally received grants from either these or

> other drug companies?

>

> What about gifts?

>

> How the hell do you expect ANYONE to trust the AMA in the face of this

> information?

>

> See Dr.Elliott's article below and please respond to my questions. I will

be

> doing radio shows tomorrow and Friday and intend to discuss this on the

air.

> Any lack of response from you will be very conspicuously noted on the air.

I

> am totally and completely disgusted. And you wonder why physicians are

> deserting the AMA in droves??? Money can buy a lot of things, but it can't

buy

> people's TRUST. Once that is gone, you're standing on very thin ice

INDEED. As a

> person who was almost killed by mainstream medical ignorance of

orthomolecular

> medicine over 20 years ago, (which Big Pharma has massively suppressed) I

want

> you to know that I oppose you with every fiber of my being.

>

> John C. Hammell, President

> International Advocates for Health Freedom

> 556 Boundary Bay Rd.

> Point Roberts, WA 98281 USA

> http://www.iahf.com

> 800-333-2553 N.America

> 360-945-0352 World

>

>

>

> From In Touch, a journal of the Provincial Health Ethics Network, Alberta,

> Canada

>

>

>

> http://www.phen.ab.ca/materials/intouch/vol4/intouch4-09.html

>

>

>

>

>

> Volume 4, Issue 09 - December 2001

>

> Pharma Buys a Conscience

>

>

> The following are excerpts from an article published in The American

Prospect

> (Volume 12, Issue 12, 2001). Reproduced here with permission from the

> publisher.

>

> Guest Writer Profile:

> Carl Elliott

>

> Carl Elliott, MD PhD, is an associate professor at the University of

> Minnesota Center for Bioethics and the author of A Philosophical Disease:

Bioethics,

> Culture and Identity. He is Associate Professor and Co-Director of

Graduate

> Studies in the Center for Bioethics. He was educated at Davidson College

in

> North Carolina and Glasgow University in Scotland, where he received his

PhD in

> philosophy. He received his MD from the Medical University of South

Carolina.

>

> He joined the faculty at the University of Minnesota in July 1997 after

four

> years at McGill University in Montreal, where he held appointments in the

> Biomedical Ethics Unit and the Montreal Children's Hospital and directed

the

> Master's degree specialization in Bioethics.

>

> I was raised in a house filled with drug-industry trinkets. My father has

> been a family doctor for more than 40 years, and drug representatives

bearing

> gifts have visited him throughout his career. My brothers and I grew up

tossing

> Abbott Frisbees and Upjohn Nerf balls. We took down messages on Inderal

> notepads, wrote with Erythromycin pens, carried Progestin umbrellas. We

constructed

> weird Halloween costumes from models of the human hand and brain supplied

by

> Parke-Davis and Merck. My father was no great fan of " detail men, " as drug

reps

> were called then. (These days, if you're a male physician, your detail man

is

> likely to be an attractive young woman.) Nor did he take part in the drug

> industry's more outrageous marketing efforts, such as frequent-flier miles

in

> exchange for drug prescriptions. But he saw no great harm in accepting

drug

> samples for his patients or toys for his children. Like virtually all

doctors, he

> did not think that the gifts influenced him in any way.

>

> Why pharmaceutical companies want the goodwill of doctors is no great

> mystery. The surprise is why they want the goodwill of someone like me. I

am a

> philosophy professor, and I work at a bioethics center. While I do happen

to have a

> degree in medicine, that degree is largely decorative: The only

prescriptions

> I write these days are moral ones. Despite this difference (or maybe

because

> of it), the pharmaceutical and biotechnological industries are funneling

more

> and more cash into the pockets of academics who teach and study ethics.

Some of

> it goes straight to individuals, in the form of consulting fees,

contracts,

> honoraria, and salaries. Some of it--such as gifts to bioethics

centers--is

> less direct. Many corporations are putting bioethicists on their

scientific

> advisory boards or setting up special bioethics panels to provide in-house

advice.

> While I have not yet been offered Frisbees or Nerf balls, I suspect that

it is

> only a matter of time.

>

> The issue of corporate money has become something of an embarrassment

within

> the bioethics community. Bioethicists have written for years about

conflicts

> of interest in scientific research or patient care yet have paid little

> attention to the ones that might compromise bioethics itself. Arthur

Caplan, the

> director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, counsels

doctors

> against accepting gifts from the drug industry. " The more you yield to

> economics, " Caplan said last January, " the more you're falling to a

business model

> that undercuts arguments for professionalism. " Yet Caplan himself consults

for

> the drug and biotech industries, recently coauthored an article with

scientists

> for Advanced Cell Technology, and heads a bioethics center supported by

> Monsanto, de Code Genetics, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Geron Corporation,

Pfizer,

> AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Human

Genome

> Sciences, and the Schering-Plough Corporation.

>

> By no means does Caplan's center stand alone in its coziness with

industry.

> The University of Toronto houses the Sun Life Chair in Bioethics; the

Stanford

> University Center for Biomedical Ethics has a program in genetics funded

by a

> $1-million gift from SmithKline Beecham Corporation; the Merck Company

> Foundation has financed a string of international ethics centers in cities

from

> Ankara, Turkey, to Pretoria, South Africa. Last year the Midwest Bioethics

Center

> announced a new $587,870 initiative funded by the Aventis Pharmaceuticals

> Foundation. That endeavor is titled, apparently without irony, the

Research

> Integrity Project.

>

> Bioethics appears set to borrow a funding model popular in the realm of

> business ethics. This model embraces partnership and collaboration with

corporate

> sponsors as long as outright conflicts of interest can be managed. It is

the

> model that allows the nonprofit Ethics Resource Center in Washington,

D.C., to

> sponsor ethics and leadership programs funded by such weapons

manufacturers as

> General Dynamics, United Technologies Corporation, and Raytheon. It also

> permits the former president of Princeton University, Harold Shapiro, to

draw an

> annual director's salary from Dow Chemical Company while serving as chair

of the

> National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Dow, of course, has been the

> defendant in a highly publicized lawsuit over the Dow Corning silicone

breast implants

> as well as in numerous legal actions involving disposal of hazardous

waste.

>

> Part of the problem is aesthetic. It is unseemly for ethicists to share in

> the profits of arms dealers, industrial polluters, or multinationals that

> exploit the developing world. But credibility also is an issue. How can

bioethicists

> continue to be taken seriously if they are on the payroll of the very

> corporations whose practices they are expected to assess?

>

> Listening to Eli Lilly

> Last year some colleagues and I helped put together " Prozac, Alienation,

and

> the Self, " a special issue of The Hastings Center Report, a bioethics

journal.

> Some of the papers that we published, including one by me, expressed

worries

> about the extent to which antidepressants are being prescribed, especially

for

> patients who are not clinically depressed. One paper in particular - " Good

> Science or Good Business? " - was especially critical of the drug industry.

Its

> author, David Healy, is a psychopharmacologist and a historian of

psychiatry at

> the University of Wales.

>

> Shortly after these Prozac essays were published, Eli Lilly and Company,

> which manufactures Prozac, withdrew its annual gift to the Hastings

Center, citing

> the special issue as its reason. Lilly's yearly check for $25,000 was not

> especially large by industry standards, but it was the Hastings Center's

largest

> annual corporate donation. Lilly's letter to the organization was

especially

> critical of Healy's article. Healy had previously published research

indicating

> that some patients, particularly those who are not clinically depressed,

may

> be more likely to commit suicide while taking antidepressants. He has also

> testified as an expert witness against Lilly and other drug manufacturers

in

> lawsuits brought by family members of patients who killed themselves or

others

> after taking antidepressants. In " Good Science or Good Business? " Healy

argued

> that manufacturers of antidepressants have gone into the business of

selling

> psychiatric illnesses in order to sell psychiatric drugs. Apparently, this

was

> not the kind of bioethics scholarship that Lilly had in mind when it

donated

> money to the Hastings Center.

>

> The reaction of bioethicists to all of this is emblematic of the

difficulties

> raised by corporate money. Some were encouraged by the response of the

> Hastings Center staff -particularly by the Report's editors, who published

the

> special issue without regard to Lilly's reaction. We are never hostage to

corporate

> money, these scholars say. We can always turn it down, resign our posts,

and

> do the right thing despite enticements to the contrary. For others,

however,

> the fact that the Report's editors faced such incentives is precisely the

> problem. Given enough cases where bioethicists must choose between

scholarship and

> their corporate funders, the funders will eventually win out. In the long

run,

> money conquers all.

>

> But the Hastings Center episode was only the first chapter of the Healy

> affair. In November 2000, Healy gave a talk on the history of

psychopharmacology at

> the University of Toronto's Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH),

> where he was scheduled to take up a new position as director of the Mood

> Disorders Program. In that lecture, Healy mentioned his worries about

Prozac and

> suicide. Shortly thereafter, the center rescinded his appointment. He was

given no

> reason but merely informed by e-mail that CAMH did not feel that his

> " approach was compatible with the goals for development of the academic

and clinical

> resource " of the clinic. CAMH officials insist that the Eli Lilly

Corporation

> had nothing to do with the decision; yet the center is the recipient of a

> $1.5-million gift from Lilly. The Mood Disorders Program, which Healy was

to

> direct, gets 52 percent of its funding from corporate sources.

>

> Whether Lilly or any other corporate funder had anything to do with

Healy's

> dismissal is impossible to know. Even so, the trouble CAMH has had in

> convincing the public that industry sources were not involved points to

the difficulty

> of discerning financial influence. Would CAMH have dismissed Healy if it

had

> no ties to Lilly whatsoever? Does fear of being unable to attract future

> corporate money count as influence? Does fear of angering powerful

industry-tied

> psychiatrists?

>

> " Doctors fear drug companies like bookies fear the mob, " says Harold

Elliott,

> a psychiatrist at Wake Forest University. Corporate money is so crucial to

> the way that university medical centers are funded today that no threats

or

> offers need actually be made in order for a company to exert its

influence. The

> mere presence of corporate money is enough.

>

> And researchers are probably right to be afraid. The University of Toronto

> itself has seen two other public scandals erupt over

pharmaceutical-company

> funding in recent years. The most visible one involved Nancy Olivieri, a

> researcher at the university's Hospital for Sick Children,

> " How can bioethicists continue to be taken seriously if they are on the

> payroll of the very corporations whose practices they are expected to

assess? " who

> was conducting clinical trials of deferiprone, a thalassemia drug, for the

> generic-drug manufacturer Apotex. When Olivieri became concerned about

possible

> side effects of deferiprone, she broke her confidentiality agreement with

> Apotex and went public with her concerns. In response, Apotex threatened

her with

> legal action. Rather than backing Olivieri against Apotex, the Hospital

for

> Sick Children attempted to dismiss her. News headlines had hardly faded

when

> Apotex promised the University of Toronto $20 million (about $13 million

in U.S.

> dollars) in funding for molecular biology, then threatened to withdraw it

if

> the school's then-president, Robert Prichard, did not lobby the federal

> government to change its drug-patent regulations. Apotex wanted rules that

would be

> more favorable to generic-drug manufacturers. The president did as he was

asked

> and was later forced to apologize publicly when the story broke.

>

> Industry-sponsored bioethics programs face problems that parallel those

> encountered by industry-sponsored medical researchers. What do you do when

your

> scholarly work conflicts with the goals of your industry sponsor? No one

is

> forcing industry money on bioethics programs, but many of them are located

in

> academic health centers, where faculty members are expected to generate

money to

> fund their research either by seeing patients or by obtaining grants. If

> bioethics is seen as an activity that can attract industry sponsorship,

university

> administrators strapped for cash will inevitably look to industry as a

financial

> solution. All that remains is for bioethicists themselves to dispense with

> the ethical roadblocks...

>

> Still, we can all take heart: Help may be on the way. The American Medical

> Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs is planning a

$590,000

> initiative to educate doctors about the ethical problems involved in

accepting

> gifts from the drug industry. That initiative is funded by gifts from Eli

Lilly

> and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., Pfizer, U.S. Pharmaceutical Group,

> AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Corporation, Procter and Gamble

Company, and

> Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceutical.

> For Health Freedom,

> John C. Hammell, President

> International Advocates for Health Freedom

> 556 Boundary Bay Road

> Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA

> http://www.iahf.com

> jham

> 800-333-2553 N.America

> 360-945-0352 World

>

>