Was Flu Pandemic Advice By World Health Organization Compromised?
Editor's ChoiceMain Category: Swine Flu
Also Included In: Litigation / Medical Malpractice; Flu / Cold / SARS; Pharma Industry / Biotech Industry
Article Date: 04 Jun 2010 - 10:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
5 (4 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
4.5 (8 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
Although the World Health Organization (WHO) said that its advice to governments to stockpile pandemic flu drugs was not influenced by the drug industry, it did not reveal that some of the key scientists behind this recommendation had financial links with companies which stood to benefit financially, a report by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has revealed. This report echoes an extremely critical inquiry by the Council of Europe, whose findings will also be published today (4 June), and will heighten 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 British Medical Journal wrote today:
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.
Even though the British Medical Journal (BMJ) explains that the scientists had openly declared their financial interests in other publications, WHO did not.
Many governments worldwide responded to WHO's advise by buying enormous quantities of Tamiflu and Relenza.
A year after the so-called swine flu scare, these stocks languish, unused in warehouses as health authorities and their governments wonder what to do with them.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, together with the BMJ found that three researchers who contributed to the 2004 guidance had previously received money by Roche (makers of Tamiflu) and GlaxoSmithkline (makers of Relenza) for consultancy work and giving lectures - they were also involved in research for those pharmaceutical companies.
The scientists had declared their links to these companies in other situations, and explained that WHO had asked for conflict of interest forms before their experts meetings. That is not the issue. The concern is that WHO did not publicly declare this.
The BMJ had requested to see conflict of interest declarations, but they were turned down, so whether or not WHO informed governments about this privately is a mystery.
WHO director general, Margaret Chan was advised by an emergency committee with 16 members. They advised on declaring an influenza pandemic. Nobody knows who the members of this committee were, because it has been kept a secret. If nobody knows who they were, except for WHO insiders, it is impossible to know what conflicts of interests there might have been.
The WHO guidance concluded that
countries should consider developing plans for ensuring the availability of antivirals .. (they) will need to stockpile in advance, given that current supplies are very limited.
Despite claiming that it takes conflicts of interests seriously and has the mechanisms in place to deal with them, the BMJ and the Bureau suggest that WHO appears not to have followed its own rules for the decision making around the pandemic.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief of the BMJ says WHO's credibility has been badly damaged. She believes that:
Recovery will be fastest if it publishes its own report without delay or defensive comment, makes public the membership and conflicts of interest of its emergency committee, and develops, commits to, and monitors stricter rules of engagement with industry that keep commercial influence away from its decision making.
Conflicts of Interest
WHO and the pandemic flu "conspiracies"
Deborah Cohen, features editor, BMJ, Philip Carter, journalist, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, London
Published 3 June 2010, doi:10.1136/bmj.c2912
BMJ 2010;340:c2912
Editorial
Conflicts of interest and pandemic flu
Fiona Godlee, editor in chief
Published 3 June 2010, doi:10.1136/bmj.c2947
BMJ 2010;340:c2947
Written by Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
MLA
15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/190966.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/190966.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
We Need Another MP's Inquisition To Get The Whole Truth Out Of The WHO Scandal
posted by Betty Senior on 4 Jun 2010 at 3:25 pmAll the WHO's advisers had been paid by big pharma in the past in one way or another according to WHO insiders. That is why the WHO is not telling us. Ab Osterhaus was the most prominent according to the WHO source. It is about time that an equivalent investigation to that of the 'MP's scandal' in the UK was undertaken here as only the taxpapyers have been taken for a very big financial ride. Where is the daily Telegraph, we need you again !
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




