💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 2100.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 20:08:11. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)

➡️ Next capture (2024-05-10)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

WHO swine flu experts 'linked' with drug companies

2010-06-06 04:18:56

Key scientists behind World Health Organization advice on stockpiling of

pandemic flu drugs had financial ties with companies which stood to profit, an

investigation has found.

The British Medical Journal says the scientists had openly declared these

interests in other publications yet WHO made no mention of the links.

It comes as a report from the Council of Europe criticised the lack of

transparency around the handling of the swine flu pandemic.

A spokesman for WHO said the drug industry did not influence its decisions on

swine flu.

Guidelines recommending governments stockpile antiviral drugs were issued by

WHO in 2004.

The advice prompted many countries around the world into buying up large stocks

of Tamiflu, made by Roche, and Relenza manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.

A year after the swine flu pandemic was declared, stocks are left unused in

warehouses and governments are attempting to unpick contracts.

Conflict of interest

The BMJ, in a joint investigation with The Bureau of Investigative Journalism,

found that three scientists involved in putting together the 2004 guidance had

previously been paid by Roche or GSK for lecturing and consultancy work as well

as being involved in research for the companies.

Analysis

Continue reading the main story

Fergus Walsh

Medical correspondent, BBC News

Be open. Be transparent. That seems to be the key learning point for the WHO

from this joint investigation.

It is common practice for academic experts to work closely with the

pharmaceutical industry, such as getting funding for drug trials, or to be paid

for attending meetings.

On all clinical papers authors must publicly declare any competing interests.

So it is surely advisable that the WHO follows the same policy with its

advisors.

And there is surely no logic in refusing to name the members of the emergency

committee which advised the WHO about the pandemic.

To fail to do so presents an own goal to critics and conspiracy theorists.

Although the scientists involved had freely declared the links in other places

and said WHO asked for conflicts of interest forms prior to expert meetings,

the ties were not publically declared by WHO.

It is not clear whether these conflicts were notified privately by WHO to

governments around the world, the BMJ said, and a request to see conflict of

interest declarations was turned down.

In addition, membership of the "emergency committee" which advised WHO's

director general Margaret Chan on declaring an influenza pandemic has been kept

secret.

It means the names of the 16 committee members are known only to people within

WHO, and as such their possible conflicts of interest with drug companies are

unknown.

On its website, WHO says: "Potential conflicts of interest are inherent in any

relationship between a normative and health development agency, like WHO, and a

profit-driven industry.

"Similar considerations apply when experts advising the Organization have

professional links with pharmaceutical companies.

"Numerous safeguards are in place to manage possible conflicts of interest or

their perception.