“Patient Advocacy Organizations, Industry Funding, and Conflicts of Interest”

“Relationship between Research Outcomes and Risk of Bias, Study Sponsorship, and Author Financial Conflicts of Interest in Reviews of the Effects of Artificially Sweetened Beverages on Weight Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Reviews”

Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research
A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents FREE ONLINE FIRST
Cristin E. Kearns, DDS, MBA1,2; Laura A. Schmidt, PhD, MSW, MPH1,3,4; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD1,5,6,7,8

1Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, San Francisco, California
2Department of Orofacial Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco
3Clinical and Translational Science Institute, San Francisco, California
4Department of Anthropology, History, and Social Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
5Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco
6Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, San Francisco, California
7Cardiovascular Research Institute, San Francisco, California
8Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California

논문 초록 링크 바로 가기

What is already known on this topic

- Academic leaders frequently serve on pharmaceutical industry boards of directors and receive substantial cash compensation that results in conflicts of interest between their academic and industry roles
- Until now the prevalence of these relationships among other members of academia and other sectors of healthcare has been lacking
What this study adds

- Nearly 1 in 10 US for profit healthcare company directorships are held by academically affiliated individuals, including academic leaders, professors, and trustees from 85 major non-profit academic institutions
- 41% of publicly traded US healthcare companies included at least one academically affiliated director, and these directors received substantial cash fees and stock shares for serving as directors
- Dual obligations to for profit companies and non-profit academic institutions create diverse individual and institutional conflicts that vary in gravity and reconcilability depending on an individual’s academic roles; these conflicts have not been fully addressed by previous guidelines and warrant additional review, regulation, and, in some cases, prohibition when conflicts cannot be reconciled

JAMA. Published online August 03, 2015.

전문가 집단 혹은 전문학회에서 나온 임상진료지침이라고 해서 의심 없이 금과옥조처럼 따르기도 어려운 현실. 그러한 임상진료지침 제정 과정에 ‘이해관계 충돌(Conflict of Interest)’이 있는 경우가 많기 때문. 가장 최근 미국심장학회/미국심장협회(ACC/AHA)가 펴낸 고지질혈증 관리 가이드라인도 그런 구설수에 오른 바 있음. 저자는 전문학회 중심의 가이드라인이 갖는 한계를 극복하고 대중의 신뢰를 얻기 위해서 환자를 포함한 다양한 이해관계 집단이 참여하는 콘소시움의 협업에 의한 다층적 가이드라인 개발을 제안. 2008년 6개 집단이 협업하여 개발한 “병원 감염 예방을 위한 전략 개요(Compendium of Strategies for Healthcare-Associated Infections)”를 그 예로 제시

하버드의대, 교수-제약회사 커넥션 차단 조치

출처 : 연합뉴스 2010/01/04 01:46 송고
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/international/2010/01/04/0601090100AKR20100104002100072.HTML
 
(뉴욕=연합뉴스) 김현재 특파원 = 하버드 의대가 교수와 제약회사간 커넥션을 차단하기 위한 엄격한 조치들을 발효시켰다.

   제약회사나 바이오테크놀로지 회사의 사외 이사를 겸하고 있는 교수와 고위직들에 대해 이들 회사로 부터 받을 수 있는 급여 상한선을 설정하고, 스톡옵션도 금지한 것이다.

   3일 뉴욕타임스(NYT) 등 미국 주요 언론들은 하버드 의대 부속 매사추세츠 병원과 브리검앤위민스 병원에 소속된 20여명의 유명 교수들과 고위 행정직들은 `학문적 역할을 위협하는 수준의’ 돈을 받을 수 없도록 하는 규제안이 올해 1월 1일자로 발효됐다고 전했다.

   이들 두 병원의 공식 소유주인 `파트너스 헬스케어’가 발표한 이 규제안은 이들 고위직들이 다른 기관의 사외이사로 실제 활동하면서 받을 수 있는 금액의 상한선을 시간당 500달러, 하루 5천달러를 넘지 못하도록 한정했다.

   또 제약회사 등으로부터 스톡옵션과 심지어 연설료를 받는 것 조차도 완전 금지된다.

   이 같은 조치들은 지난해 하버드 의대 교수들과 제약회사간 커넥션 의혹과 관련해 미 하원은 물론, 연방 수사기관의 조사가 시작되면서 의대내 교수 협의회의 수많은 논의끝에 나온 것이라고 언론들은 전했다.

   규제안 마련을 주도한 유진 브라운월드 교수는 “의대 교수들이 제약회사 등의 사외이사를 겸임하면서 학문적 성과를 환자들에게 유익한 약을 생산하는데 도움을 주는 방향으로 기능하는 것은 바람직하다”면서 “그러나 이것이 의사들의 개인적 치부 수단이 돼서는 안된다”고 말했다.

   이런 규제안에 대해 의사사회 일각에서는 지나친 규제라는 반발도 나오고 있지만, 또 다른 일각에서는 의대와 제약회사간 이해충돌을 완전히 차단하는 데는 미흡하다는 지적도 나오고 있다고 NYT는 전했다.

   kn0209@yna.co.kr

=================================
Harvard Teaching Hospitals Cap Outside Pay

By DUFF WILSON

출처 : [NY Times] Published: January 2, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/health/research/03hospital.html?em

The owner of two research hospitals affiliated with the Harvard Medical School has imposed restrictions on outside pay for two dozen senior officials who also sit on the boards of pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies. The limits come in the wake of growing criticism of the ties between industry and academia.

Medical experts say they believe the conflict-of-interest rules at the institution, Partners HealthCare, go further than those of any other academic medical center in restricting outside pay from drug companies. The rules, which became effective on Friday, impose limits specifically on outside directors who guide some of the nation’s biggest companies.

Senior officials at the two hospitals, Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s Hospitals in Boston, must limit their pay for serving as outside directors to what the policy calls “a level befitting an academic role” — no more than $5,000 a day for actual work for the board. Some had been receiving more than $200,000 a year. Also, they may no longer accept stock.

Criticism has been mounting in recent years as the conflicting roles of some medical leaders have been disclosed through Congressional investigations, lawsuits and reports in the news media. Those disclosures have raised questions about bias and the cost and quality of patient care at the nation’s medical institutions.

Harvard, in particular, has come under scrutiny from Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a leader of Congressional inquiries into the influence of money in medicine.

Partners HealthCare is also forbidding speaker’s fees from drug companies for any employee, including nearly 8,000 with Harvard faculty appointments. Some other medical schools have taken similar actions in prohibiting faculty members from being paid by drug companies to speak about their products.

But no other academic medical centers have so restricted participation in boards of directors.

“We’re the first to go in this deep, and we’re still into it only up to our knees,” said Dr. Eugene Braunwald, a Harvard professor and former Partners chief academic officer who was chairman of the policy-writing group. He said the group had “a very spirited debate” before announcing its compromise in general terms in April, much of it effective in 2010.

“We thought it was a very good idea to have institutional officials serve on boards, but we did not want to have personal enrichment,” Dr. Braunwald said.

The ban on speaking fees was one reason Partners wanted to take a strong stand on the issue of directors, he added. It would seem unfair, Dr. Braunwald said, to restrict outside pay of junior faculty but not senior leaders.

Among the senior officials affected by the policy is Dr. Dennis A. Ausiello, chief of medicine since 1996 at Massachusetts General and the Partners chief scientific officer, who serves on Pfizer’s board. He was paid more than $220,000 by the company last year. Dr. Ausiello said he would continue in both roles.

Dr. Ausiello said Pfizer and other companies were crucial to translate academic research into drugs that benefit patients. At Partners, he has oversight of a research, ventures and licensing office that seeks to commercialize the hospitals’ intellectual property.

“I’m very proud of my board work,” he said. “I’m not there to make money. I certainly think I should be compensated fairly and symmetrically with my fellow board members, but if my institutions rule otherwise, as they have, I will continue to serve on the board.”

The proper pay for time spent on board meetings under the new policy was calculated at $500 an hour for a 10-hour day, said Christopher Clark, a senior lawyer at Partners and director of a new office for interactions with industry. Stock and options were banned because they tie the director’s fortunes to company profits.

Some say the restrictions are too tough on well-meaning hospital leaders. Others say they are too weak to control conflicts of interest, arguing that corporate directors should not be overseeing research, managing educational programs or determining elements of patient care.

“I think that’s a gross conflict for an official of an academic medical center to be on the board of a pharmaceutical company,” said Dr. Arnold S. Relman, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and Harvard professor emeritus who has written about conflicts of interest.

“It’s happening more and more around the country,” he added. “If it isn’t stopped, I think the academic institutions are going to lose the confidence of the country and the government and they will no longer deserve the tax exemption or anything else. They will be part of industry itself.”

Ann C. Bonham, chief scientific officer for the Association of American Medical Colleges, said other academic centers were considering restrictions on director pay from zero to $10,000 a day. “They’re all taking this very seriously and moving as quickly as they can,” she said.

Thomas Donaldson, a professor of business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, said: “It strikes me as a breath of fresh air in a room that’s getting progressively more stale. I hope this will set a standard for others — hospitals, medical schools.”

Professor Donaldson, who advises large companies on corporate governance, said dual roles in a hospital and at a drug maker were “dicey at best” because a director’s duty is to look out for the corporation’s financial interests.

Senior faculty in leading teaching hospitals are in high demand on medical product boards, but corporate filings show that Partners and Harvard Medical have a disproportionate share.

For instance, Dr. Samuel O. Thier was president of Partners when he was named to the Merck board in 1994. He is now retired from Partners.

Dr. Joseph B. Martin, dean of the Harvard Medical School from 1997 to 2007, was named to the board for Baxter International in 2002. Dr. Thier and Dr. Martin each receive over $200,000 a year from the corporate boards.

Dr. Martin, a professor of neurobiology, declined to comment. Dr. Thier did not return calls seeking comment.

Dr. Daniel K. Podolsky was the original chairman of the Partners policy commission in 2007, when he was the chief academic officer at Partners and a $191,000-a-year board member at GlaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical company based in London.

Dr. Podolsky, who left in 2008 to become president of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, said: “It is possible to find an approach that separates the potentially distorting effects of the personal benefit, but more importantly the perception of that, and still work in a constructive way as a board member.”

Dr. Braunwald, who succeeded him as chairman, also had industry ties, as a director of Astra Pharmaceuticals 20 years ago and as a science adviser to at least six companies more recently.

“In all fairness,” he said, “what was O.K. three years ago is not O.K. now.”

[파괴의 씨앗 GMO- 미국 식량제국주의의 역사와 실체](윌리엄 엥달 지음 | 김홍옥 옮김 | 길 | 2009.11.15)의 저자 윌리엄 엥달이 쓴 “세계보건기구(WHO) ‘돼지독감의 아버지’, 이해관계의 전반적 충돌에 관해 조사 중”이라는 제목의 글을 지난 12월 8일자로 자신의 홈페이지에 올려놓았습니다.

(참고 : 윌리엄 엥달(William Engdhal) : 30년 넘게 에너지, 정치학, 경제 문제에 대해 글을 써왔다. 일본의 『니혼게이자이신문』, 시사월간지 『포사이트』, 그랜트의 인베스터닷컴(investor.com), 『유러피언 뱅커』, 『비즈니스 뱅커 인터내셔널』을 비롯하여 다수의 간행물에 정기적으로 기고해왔다. 수많은 국제회의에서 지정학, 경제, 에너지를 주제로 강연했고 경제전문가로 활동하고 있다. 저서로 『석유 지정학이 파헤친 20세기 세계사의 진실』(도서출판 길, 2007) 등이 있다.  출처 : http://book.daum.net/detail/book.do?bookid=KOR9788987671338)
)

“독감 박사(Dr Flu)”라는 별명으로 불리는 네덜란드 암스테르담 소재 에라스무스대학 알버트 오스터하우스(Albert Osterhaus) 교수는 2009년 전세계적인 인플루엔자 대유행 히스테리를 일으킨 핵심적인 인물이라고 합니다. (참고 : 현재 전세계적으로 명망있는 인플루엔자 전문가는 로버트 웹스터, 가와오카 요시히로, 앨버트 오스터하우스, 클로드 하눈, 데스먼드 오툴리 등으로 알려져 있습니다.)

그는 제약 마피아로 불리는 세계적 네트워크의 중요한 관련 인물(connecting person)일뿐만 아니라 WHO의 핵심자문가(key advisor)이며, 아울러 그는 H1N1을 위한 것이라는 주장이 제기되고 있는 백신(예방접종약)으로 수십억 유로의 개인적 이익과 밀접한 관련이 있는 인물이라고 합니다.

알버트 오스터하우스 교수는 지난 2005년 5월 25일자 [네이처]지에 미국 학자들과 공동으로 기고한 글에서도 “인체간에 감염되는 조류독감 변종의 출현은 시간문제”라며 “인체간에 감염되는 조류독감이 발생하면 65억 인류의 20%가 감염될 수 있고, 3천만명이 병원 치료를 필요로 하며,750만명이 숨질 수 있다.”고 경고한 바 있습니다. 당시 오스터하우스 교수는 2000만∼4000만명이 숨진 1918년 독감 때보다 피해가 더 클 것으로 예측하기도 했습니다.

(참고 : Ron Fouchier, Thijs Kuiken, Guus Rimmelzwaan, Albert Osterhaus, ‘Global task force for influenza’, Nature 435, 419-420 (25 May 2005) doi:10.1038/435419a Commentary)

윌리엄 엥달은 오스터하우스 교수에 대한 신임과 전문성은 의심할 여지가 없지만, 파리 주재 대유행 전문가인 마틴 엔터링크(Martin Enserink가 )지난 10월 16일자 [사이언스]지에 기고한 짧은 보고서에 “오스터하우스 교수가 백신 개발에 있어서 자신의 사업적 이해를 증진시키기 위해서 돼지 인플루엔자(신종플루)의 대유행 공포를 조장했다는 주장에 대해 네덜란드 의회에서 논쟁을 벌이면서 그의 평판은 곤두박질쳤다.”고 밝혔다고 전했습니다.

(참고 : Martin Enserink, In Holland, the Public Face of Flu Takes a Hit,  Science, 16 October 2009:  Vol. 326. no. 5951, pp. 350 – 351; DOI: 10.1126/science.326_350b.)

이후 내용은 오스터하우스 교수가 SARS를 매개로 마거릿 찬 WHO 사무총장과 밀접한 인연을 맺은 얘기와 그가 H5N1 조류독감 때도 지속적으로 대유행과 백신을 떠벌이고 다닌 얘기, 전문가들과 제약회사(타미플루를 판매하는 로슈, 리렌자를 판매하는 GSK, 신종플루 백신을 생산하는 GSK와 노바티스 등)와 WHO의 부패 등에 과한 이야기가 이어집니다.

전문은 아래와 같으니 읽어보시기 바랍니다.

==========================

WHO ‘Swine Flu Pope’ under investigation for gross conflict of interest

출처 : By F. William Engdahl, 8 December 2009
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Swine_Flu/Flu_Pope/flu_pope.html

The man with the nickname “Dr Flu”, Professor Albert Osterhaus, of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam Holland has been named by Dutch media researchers as the person at the center of the worldwide Swine Flu H1N1 Influenza A 2009 pandemic hysteria. Not only is Osterhaus the connecting person in an international network that has been described as the Pharma Mafia, he is THE key advisor to WHO on influenza and is intimately positioned to personally profit from the billions of euros in vaccines allegedly aimed at H1N1.  

Earlier this year the Second Chamber of the Netherlands Parliament undertook an investigation into alleged conflicts of interest and financial improprieties of the well-known Dr. Osterhaus. Outside of Holland and the Dutch media, the only note of the sensational investigation into Osterhaus’ business affairs came in a tiny note in the respected British magazine, Science.

Osterhaus’s credentials and expertise in his field were not in question. What is in question, according to a short report published by the journal Science, are his links to corporate interests that stand to potentially profit from the swine flu pandemic. Science carried the following brief note in its October 16 2009 issue about Osterhaus:

“ For the past 6 months, one could barely switch on the television in the Netherlands without seeing the face of famed virus hunter Albert Osterhaus talking about the swine flu pandemic. Or so it has seemed. Osterhaus, who runs an internationally renowned virus lab at Erasmus Medical Center, has been Mr. Flu. But last week, his reputation took a nosedive after it was alleged that he has been stoking pandemic fears to promote his own business interests in vaccine development.Last week, his reputation took a nosedive after it was alleged that he has been stoking pandemic fears to promote his own business interests in vaccine development. As Science went to press, the Dutch House of Representatives had even slated an emergency debate about the matter.”1

On November 3, 2009 it appeared that Osterhaus emerged with at least the damage somewhat under control. An updated Science blog noted, “The House of Representatives of the Netherlands today rejected a motion asking the government to sever all ties with virologist Albert Osterhaus of Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, who had been accused of conflicts of interest in his role as a government adviser. But Dutch health minister Ab Klink, meanwhile, announced a “Sunshine Act” compelling scientists to disclose their financial ties to companies.”2

The Minister, Ab Klink, reportedly a personal friend of Osterhaus3, subsequently issued a statement on the ministry’s website, claiming that Osterhaus was but one of many scientific advisers to the ministry on vaccines for H1N1, and that the Ministry “knew” about the financial interests of Osterhaus.4 Nothing out of the ordinary, merely pursuit of science and public health, so it seemed.

More careful investigation into the Osterhaus Affair suggests that the world-renowned Dutch Virologist may be at the very center of a multi-billion Euro pandemic fraud which has used human beings in effect as human guinea pigs with untested vaccines and in cases now emerging, resulting in deaths or severe bodily paralysis or injury.

The ‘Bird Shit Hoax’

Albert Osterhaus is no small fish. He stands at the global nexus of every major virus panic of the past decade from the mysterious SARS deaths in HongKong, where current WHO Director Margaret Chan got her start in her career as a local health official. According to his official bio at the European Commission, Osterhaus was engaged in April 2003, at the height of the panic over SARS (Severe Acquired Respiratory Syndrome) in investigation of the Hong Kong outbreak of respiratory illnesses. The EU report states, “he again showed his skill at moving fast to tackle a serious problem. Within three weeks he had proved that the disease was caused by a newly discovered coronavirus that resides in civet cats, other carnivorous animals or bats.”5

Then Osterhaus moved on as SARS cases vanished from view, this time publicizing dangers of what he claimed was H5N1 Avian Flu. In 1997 he had already began sounding the alarm following the death in Hong Kong of a three-year-old who Osterhaus learned had had direct contact with birds. Osterhaus went into high gear lobbying across Holland and Europe claiming that a deadly new mutation of avian flu had jumped to humans and that drastic measures were required. He claimed to be the first scientist in the world to show that H5N1 could be transferred into humans.6

In a BBC interview in October 2005 on the danger of Avian Flu, Osterhaus declared, “…if the virus manages indeed to, to mutate itself in such a way that it can transmit from human to human, then we have a completely different situation, we might be at the start of the pandemic.” He added, “there is a real chance that this virus could be trafficked by the birds all the way to Europe. There is a real risk, but nobody can estimate the risk at this moment, because we haven’t done the experiments.”7 It never did manage to mutate, but he was ready to “do the experiments,” presumably for a hefty fee.

To bolster his frightening pandemic scenario, Osterhaus and his lab assistants in Rotterdam began assiduously assembling and freezing samples of, well, bird shit, in an attempt to build a more scientific argument. He claimed that at certain times of the year up to 30% of all European birds acted as carriers of the deadly avian virus, H5N1. He also claimed that farmers working with hens and chickens were then exposed. Osterhaus briefed journalists who dutifully noted his alarm. Politicians were alerted. He wrote papers proposing that the far away deaths in Asia from what he termed H5N1 were coming to Europe, presumably on the wongs or in the innards of deadly sick infected birds. He claimed that migratory birds were carrying the deadly new disease as far west as Rügen and Ukraine.8 He conveniently ignored the fact that birds do not migrate east to west but rather north to south.

Osterhaus’ Avian Flu alarm campaign really took off in 2003 when a Dutch veterinary doctor became ill and died. Osterhaus claimed the death was from H5N1. He convinced the Dutch government to order slaughter of millions of chickens. Yet no other infected persons died from the alleged H5N1. Osterhaus claimed that that was simply proof of the effectiveness of the preemptive slaughter campaign.9

Osterhaus claimed that bird feces were the source, via air bombardment or droppings, onto populations and birds below. That was the vehicle for the spread of the deadly new Asian strain of H5N1 he insisted.

There was only one problem with the now voluminous frozen samples of diverse bird excrement he and his associated had collected and frozen at his institute. There was not one single confirmed example of H5N1 virus found in any of his samples. At a May 2006 Congress of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), Osterhaus and his Erasmus colleagues were forced to admit that in testing 100,000 samples of their assiduously saved bird feces, they had discovered not one single case of H5N1 virus.10

At a WHO conference in Verona in 2008 titled “Avian influenza at the Human-Animal Interface,” in a presentation to scientific colleagues undoubtedly less impressed by appeals to pandemic emotion than the non-scientific public, Osterhaus admitted that “A proper risk assessment of H5N1 as the cause of a new pandemic cannot be made with the currently available information.”11 By then, however, his sights were already firmly on other possible pandemic triggers to focus his vaccination activities.

Swine Flu and WHO corruption

When no mass wave of human deaths from Avian Flu materialized and after Roche, maker of Tamiflu and GlaxoSmithKline had banked billions of dollars in profits from worldwide government stockpiling of their dangerous and reportedly ineffective antiviral drugs, Tamiflu by Roche, and Relenza by GlaxoSmithKline, Osterhaus and other WHO advisers turned to other greener pastures.

By April 2009 their search seemed rewarded as La Gloria, a small Mexican village in Veracruz, reported a case of a small child ill with what had been diagnosed as “Swine Flu” or H1N1. With indecent haste the propaganda apparatus of the World Health Organization in Geneva went into gear with statements from the director-general Dr Margaret Chan, about a possible danger of a global pandemic.

Chan made such irresponsible statements as declaring “a public health emergency of international concern.”12 The further cases of outbreak at La Gloria were reported on one website as, “a ‘strange’ outbreak of acute respiratory infection, which led to bronchial pneumonia in some pediatric cases. According to a local resident, symptoms included fever, severe cough, and large amounts of phlegm.”13

Notably those were symptoms which would make sense in terms of the proximity of one of the world’s largest pig industrial feeding concentrations at La Gloria owned by Smithfield Farms of the USA. Residents had picketed the Smithfield Farms site in Mexico for months complaining of severe respiratory problems from the fecal waste lagoons. That possible cause of the diseases in La Gloria apparently did not interest Osterhaus and his colleagues advising the WHO. The long-awaited “pandemic” that Osterhaus had predicted ever since his involvement with SARS in the Guandgong Province of China in 2003, was now finally at hand.

On June 11, 2009 Margaret Chan of WHO made the declaration of a Phase 6 “Pandemic Emergency” regarding the spread of H1N1 Influenza. Curiously in announcing it, she noted , “On present evidence, the overwhelming majority of patients experience mild symptoms and make a rapid and full recovery, often in the absence of any form of medical treatment.” She then added, ”Worldwide, the number of deaths is small…we do not expect to see a sudden and dramatic jump in the number of severe or fatal infections.”

It later was learned that Chan acted, following heated debates inside WHO, on the advice of the scientific advisory group of WHO, or SAGE, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts . One of the members of SAGE at the time and today was Dr. Albert “Mr Flu” Osterhaus.

Not only was Osterhaus in a key position to advocate the panic-inducing WHO “Pandemic emergency” declaration. He was also chairman of the leading private European Scientific Working group on Influenza (ESWI), which describes itself as a “multidisciplinary group of key opinion leaders in influenza [that] aims to combat the impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza.” Osterhaus’ ESWI is the vital link as they themselves describe it, “between the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin and the University of Connecticut, USA.”

What is more significant about the ESWI is that its work is entirely financed by the same pharma mafia companies that make billions on the pandemic emergency as governments around the world are compelled to buy and stockpile vaccines on declaration of a WHO Pandemic. The funders of ESWI include H1N1 vaccine maker Novartis, Tamiflu distributor, Hofmann-La Roche, Baxter Vaccines, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and others.

Not to lose the point, the world-leading virologist, official adviser on H1N1 to the governments of the UK and Holland, Dr Albert Osterhaus, head of the Department of Virology at the Erasmus Medical College of Rotterdam, also sat on the WHO’s elite SAGE and served as chairman at the same time of the pharma industry-sponsored ESWI, which in turn urged dramatic steps to vaccinate the world against the grave danger of a new Pandemic they insisted could rival the feared 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. 

The Wall Street bank, JP Morgan, estimated that in large part as a result of the WHO pandemic decision, the giant pharma firms that also finance Osterhaus’ ESWI work, stand to reap some €7.5 to €10 billion in profits.14

A fellow member of WHO’s SAGE is Dr Frederick Hayden, of Britain’s Wellcome Trust and reportedly a close friend of Osterhaus. Hayden also receives money for “advisory” services from Roche and GlaxoSmithKline among other pharma giants involved in producing products related to the H1N1 panic.

Chairman of WHO’s SAGE is another British scientist, Prof. David Salisbury of the UK Department of Health. He also heads the WHO H1N1 Advisory Group. Salisbury is a robust defender of the pharma industry. He has been accused by UK health citizen health group One Click of covering up the proven links between vaccines and an explosive rise in infant autism as well as links between the vaccine Gardasil and palsy and even death.15

Then on September 28, 2009 the same Salisbury stated, “There is a very clear view in the scientific community that there is no risk from the inclusion of Thiomersal.” The vaccine being used for H1N1 in Britain is primarily produced by GlaxoSmithKlilne. It contains the mercury preservative Thiomersol. Because of growing evidence that Thiomersol in vaccines might be related to autism in children in the United States, in 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the   US Public Health Service called for it to be removed from vaccines.16

Yet another SAGE member at WHO with intimate financial ties to the vaccine makers that benefit from SAGE’s recommendations to WHO is Dr. Arnold Monto, a paid consultant to vaccine maker MedImmune, Glaxo and ViroPharma.

Even more, the meetings of the “independent” scientists of SAGE are attended by “observers” who include, yes, the very vaccine producers GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Baxter and company. One might ask if the SAGE are supposed to be the world’s leading experts on flu and vaccines, why they would ask the vaccine makers to sit in.

In the past decade the WHO, in order to boost funds at its disposal entered into what it calls “public private partnerships.” Instead of receiving its funds solely from member United Nations governments as its original purpose had been, WHO today receives almost double its normal UN budget in the form of grants and financial support from private industry. The industry? The very drug and vaccine makers who benefit from decisions like the June 2009 H1N1 Pandemic emergency declaration. As the main financiers of the WHO bureaucracy, naturally the Pharma Mafia and their friends receive what has been called “open door red carpet treatment” in Geneva.17

In an interview with Der Spiegel magazine in Germany, epidemiologist Dr. Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration, an organization of independent scientists evaluating all flu related studies, noted the implications of the privatization of WHO and the commercialization of health:

 “cone of the extraordinary features of this influenza — and the whole influenza saga — is that there are some people who make predictions year after year, and they get worse and worse. None of them so far have come about, and these people are still there making these predictions. For example, what happened with the bird flu, which was supposed to kill us all? Nothing. But that doesn’t stop these people from always making their predictions. Sometimes you get the feeling that there is a whole industry almost waiting for a pandemic to occur.

SPIEGEL: Who do you mean? The World Health Organization (WHO)?

Jefferson: The WHO and public health officials, virologists and the pharmaceutical companies. They’ve built this machine around the impending pandemic. And there’s a lot of money involved, and influence, and careers, and entire institutions! And all it took was one of these influenza viruses to mutate to start the machine grinding…18

When asked if the WHO had deliberately declared the Pandemic Emergency in order to create a huge market for H1N1 vaccines and drugs, Jefferson replied,

“Don’t you think there’s something noteworthy about the fact that the WHO has changed its definition of pandemic? The old definition was a new virus, which went around quickly, for which you didn’t have immunity, and which created a high morbidity and mortality rate. Now the last two have been dropped, and that’s how swine flu has been categorized as a pandemic.”19

Conveniently enough, the WHO published the new Pandemic definition in April 2009 just in time to allow WHO, on advice of SAGE and others like Albert “Dr Flu” Osterhaus and David Salisbury, to declare the mild cases of flu dubbed H1N1 Influenza A to be declared Pandemic Emergency.20

In a relevant footnote, the Washington Post on December 8 in an article on the severity, or lack of same, of the world H1N1 „pandemic“ reported that, “with the second wave of H1N1 infections having crested in the United States, leading epidemiologists are predicting that the pandemic could end up ranking as the mildest since modern medicine began documenting influenza outbreaks.”21

Russian Parliamentarian and chairman of the Duma Health Committee, Igor Barinow has called on the Russian Representative to WHO in Geneva to order an official investigation into the growing evidence of massive corruption of the WHO by the pharmaceutical industry. “There are grave accusations of corruption within the WHO,” said Barinow. “An international commission of inquiry is urgently required.”22
 

1 Martin Enserink, In Holland, the Public Face of Flu Takes a Hit,  Science, 16 October 2009:  Vol. 326. no. 5951, pp. 350 – 351; DOI: 10.1126/science.326_350b.

2 Science, November 3, 2009, Roundup 11/3 The Brink Edition, accessed here

3 Article from Dutch, De Farma maffia Deel 1 Osterhaus BV, 28 november 2009, accessed here

4 Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport, Financiële belangen Osterhaus waren bekend, Nieuwsbericht, 30 september 2009, accessed here

5 European Commission, „Research“, Dr Albert Osterhaus, accessed here

6 Ibid.

7 Jane Corbin, Interview with Dr Albert Osterhaus, BBC Panorama, 4 October, 2005.

8 Karin Steinberger, Vogelgrippe: Der Mann mit der Vogelperspektive, Seuddeutsche Zeitung, 20 October, 2005, accessed here

9 Ibid.

10 Schweinegrippe—Geldgieriger Psychopath Auslöser der Pandemie?, accessed here

11 Ab Osterhaus, External factors influencing H5N1 mutation/reassortment events with pandemic potential, OIE, 7-9 October 2008, Verona, Italy, accessed here

12 WHO Health Advisory, April 2009, accessed here

13 Biosurveillance, Swine Flu in Mexico- Timeline of Events, April 24, 2009, accessed here

14 Cited in Louise Voller, Kristian Villesen, Stærk lobbyisme bag WHO-beslutning om massevaccination , Information, Copenhagen, 15 November 2009 accessed here

15 Jane Bryant, et al, The One Click Group Response: Prof. David Salisbury Threatens Legal Action, 4 March, 2009, accessed PDF

16 Prof. David Salisbury cited in, Swine flu vaccine to contain axed additive, London Evening Standard, 28 September 2009, accessed here

17 Bert Ehgartner, Schwindel mit der Schweinegrippe Ist die Aufregung ein Coup der Pharmaindustrie? Accessed here

18 Tom Jefferson, Interview with Epidemiologist Tom Jefferson: ‘A Whole Industry Is Waiting For A Pandemic’ Der Spiegel, 21 July 2009, accessed here

19 Ibid.

20 Louise Voller, Kristian Villesen, Mystisk ændring af WHO’s definition af en pandemi, Copenhagen Information, 15 November 2009, accessed here

21 Rob Stein, Flu Pandemic Could Be Mild, Washington Post, December 8, 2009.

22 Polskanet, Russland fordert internationale Untersuchung, 5 December 2009, accessed here