건강과 대안 » GSK

[기업감시] GSK 당뇨치료제 ‘아반디아’ 부작용 알고도 숨겨

건강과대안 — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:30:30 +0000

2009 신종플루 대유행으로 막대한 수익을 올렸던 다국적 거대 제약회사 글락소스미스클라인(GlaxoSmithKline)이 11년 동안 당뇨병 치료제 아반디아( Avandia)의 심장에 대한 부작용을 알고도 숨겨왔다는 사실이 폭로되었습니다. 이 약품을 승인한 미 FDA도 책임에서 벗어나기 힘들 것입니다.

아반디아는 2009년 GSK 총매출의 1.57%를 차지한 블록 버스터입니다. 아반디아는 2000년부터 안전성 논란이 제기되어 왔습니다.

오늘자 로이터통신의 보도에 따르면, GSK는 4억6천만$를 지불하고 이번 소송들을 해결하기로 동의했다고 하는군요. 1만건의 소송이 제기되었는데 1인당 평균 4천6백$를 배상할 것이라고 합니다.

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

Glaxo covered up diabetes drug’s risks: US lawmakers

출처 : AFP Tue Jul 13, 3:46 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100713/hl_afp/ushealthdiabetespharma_20100713194722

WASHINGTON (AFP) – British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline hid the dangers of its top-selling diabetes drug Avandia and secretly wrote scientific articles about it, two US lawmakers charged Tuesday.

The allegations came as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) opened a two-day meeting of experts who will weigh whether to pull Avandia from the market over safety concerns.

In a letter dated Monday and addressed to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley accused Glaxo of covering up scientific studies that found problems with Avandia and of including the drug in a “ghostwriting” program.

Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee and Grassley is a ranking member on the committee, which counts oversight of the FDA among its key tasks.

Their letter to Hamburg cited several Glaxo internal emails which show that the pharmaceutical giant knew that studies had found “problems” with Avandia but ordered that the findings not be made public.

Several studies have linked Avandia to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke, but a Glaxo-funded study last year came up with the opposite result.

Some of the Glaxo emails date back to 2000, a year after the diabetes drug was brought to market in the United States.

One of the studies, which showed that taking Avandia gave patients a worse lipid profile than ACTOS, a comparable diabetes drug made by a competitor, was withheld from the FDA’s attention, the letter says.

Higher lipids can contribute to an increased risk of heart attack or stroke.

According to an internal Glaxo email attached to the senators’ letter, Glaxo senior management requested that the results of the study “should not see the light of day to anyone outside of GSK.”

A note on whether to publish two further studies, which also found problems with Avandia, said bluntly, “Not a chance.”

Avandia is a money-spinner for Glaxo, racking up 800 million dollars in sales worldwide last year to make it one of the top-selling diabetes treatments in the world.

Glaxo included Avandia in a “sophisticated ghostwriting program” set up to promote some of its drugs, the US lawmakers alleged.

At least one article was ghostwritten by Glaxo on Avandia, attributed to a practicing medical doctor and published in a scientific journal

AFP saw copies of ghostwritten articles on Avandia and the internal Glaxo emails, which the lawmakers attached to the letter sent to Hamburg.

The lawmakers’ letter came as a panel of experts began considering whether Glaxo’s star diabetes drug should be pulled from the market.

“The documents we uncovered in our investigation will help arm the FDA with the best information possible as it evaluates Avandia’s safety,” Baucus said.

In a statement posted on its website, Glaxo said the documents were incomplete and misleading and “included drafts and documents taken out of context.

“GSK has been diligent in providing its safety data on Avandia to the FDA and in publishing its clinical trial data in peer-reviewed journals or on its clinical trial website,” the company said.

Data from the studies that drew the “not a chance” comment were, in fact, submitted to the FDA in 1999, Glaxo said, while the study that showed that Avandia-takers had worse lipid profiles than diabetics who used the competition’s drug was not even about Avandia and heart attacks.

As for ghostwritten articles, Glaxo said it “follows established authorship practices modelled after the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines.”

The FDA is not bound by recommendations made by the panels of experts it convenes to take a decision on a drug, but usually follows their advice.

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

Glaxo said to settle Avandia cases on eve of vote

By Lisa Richwine Lisa Richwine –

출처 : 로이터통신 2010년 7월 13일
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100713/hl_nm/us_glaxo_avandia_6

GAITHERSBURG, Md (Reuters) – GlaxoSmithKline Plc has agreed to pay $460 million to settle thousands of lawsuits over its Avandia diabetes pill, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, on the eve of a crucial vote by U.S. experts on whether the pill should be withdrawn due to heart risks.

Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the settlements, said the U.S. review was a factor in the decision by Glaxo officials to start negotiating with lawyers for former Avandia users.

It said Britain-based Glaxo would settle about 10,000 suits for an average of $46,000 each. A Glaxo spokeswoman declined to comment. Plaintiffs’ lawyers reached by Reuters also could not confirm a settlement.

Shares of Glaxo closed up 1.7 percent in New York trading, easily beating a 0.2 percent increase in the S&P pharmaceutical index.

Avandia’s U.S. sales were just 1.5 percent of Glaxo’s 2009 revenues, but investors fear withdrawal from the market could spark further patient lawsuits.

Scientific experts assembled by the FDA are holding a two-day meeting to sort through sharply conflicting data and opinions on whether Avandia causes heart attacks.

They are due to vote on Wednesday on recommendations ranging from ranging from keeping the drug on the market to recommending a withdrawal. Restrictions on use or beefing up a 2007 heart warning are among other choices.

Because the FDA asked panelists to select only one of the five options, there may be no clear majority.

The debate on Avandia’s safety has raged since warnings were placed on the drug in 2007 saying some research shows a link with a higher heart attack risk but the data is “inconclusive.”

Two U.S. senators released internal company documents on Tuesday they said showed Glaxo sought to downplay scientific findings about Avandia’s safety as far back as 2000, shortly after the drug was approved.

Added pressure on Avandia is coming from the European Medicines Agency, which has launched a new review into the drug’s risks and benefits.

DIVIDED FDA

FDA staff are deeply divided over the safety of Avandia, also known as rosiglitazone, and the agency has thrown the issue to the expert panel to untangle.

Dr. David Graham, an FDA reviewer who has pushed for Avandia’s withdrawal for years, said the agency applies different standards when deciding whether to approve a drug versus determining risk after a medicine is on the market.

Graham said the Record study relied on by Glaxo to show no increased heart attack risk from Avandia compared to older diabetes drugs would not pass muster for an approval. “You wouldn’t even hear about it because it’s garbage,” he said.

Dr. Ellis Unger, a deputy director of drug evaluation said he found Record’s results “pretty reassuring” on heart safety.

But he added it was up to the expert panel to decide if Record was legitimate.

“Can we trust the sponsor (Glaxo) with the results of Record? I think that is something the committee is going to need to think about,” Unger said.

Panelists asked some questions of Tuesday’s presenters but gave little hint on how they were leaning.

“It’s hard to say if GSK was helped or hurt by today’s events,” said Ira Loss, an analyst who follows the FDA for Washington Analysis.

GLAXO DEFENDS

Glaxo officials defended Avandia before the advisers saying diabetes was a serious disease that needed multiple treatment options to control blood sugar and prevent devastating complications including amputations and blindness.

“When used appropriately, (Avandia) has a positive benefit/risk profile and should remain a treatment for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Murray Stewart, a Glaxo vice president for drug research and development.

For the FDA, the case is seen as a test of how the agency will handle major controversies under Democratic President Barack Obama. Officials are facing heavy pressure from consumer groups and some lawmakers who say the FDA fumbled decisions in past administrations and failed to protect the public.

Some FDA staff see the Glaxo drug as more dangerous to the heart than Takeda Pharmaceutical Co’s rival diabetes pill, Actos, with no unique benefits.

An ongoing study comparing Avandia and Actos could provide a more definitive answer but critics argue it is wrong to wait years for those results. They say findings against Avandia are strong enough now to warrant the drug’s removal.

An outspoken critic, Dr. Steven Nissen, said there was enough evidence to conclude Actos was a safer option and Avandia offered no benefits over other diabetes drugs.

“Continued marketing of rosiglitazone cannot be medically or ethically justified,” said Nissen, head of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat, and the committee’s top Republican, Charles Grassley, said they were very concerned Glaxo appeared to have failed to tell regulators about adverse findings in a timely manner.

Several documents released by the senators referred to a Glaxo study finding a potential heart advantage for Takeda’s Actos over Avandia.

Glaxo said the documents were being taken out of context and represented only a small percent of the documents provided to plaintiffs’ attorneys in Avandia product liability litigation.

(Reporting by Lisa Richwine; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

==================================================
“제약업체 GSK, 당뇨치료제 위험 숨겨”

출처 : 연합뉴스  2010/07/14 04:49
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2010/07/14/0200000000AKR20100714005200072.HTML?did=1179m

(뉴욕=연합뉴스) 김지훈 특파원 = 제약업체 글락소스미스클라인(GSK)이 당뇨병 치료제인 아반디아의 부작용 위험성을 알고 있으면서도 이를 오랜 기간 숨겨온 것으로 드러났다고 뉴욕타임스(NYT)가 13일 보도했다.

   이에 따르면 GSK의 전신인 스미스클라인 비챔은 1999년 가을 아반디아가 경쟁업체 다케다의 액토스보다 심장에 안전한지를 알아보기 위해 비밀리에 실험을 실시했다.

   하지만, 실험결과 아반디아는 액토스보다 효능이 떨어질 뿐만 아니라 오히려 심장에 더 위험하다는 점이 분명히 드러났다.

NYT가 입수한 문서에 따르면 이 업체는 이런 실험결과를 공개하도록 규정한 관련 법규를 어기고 이를 11년간이나 은폐해왔던 것으로 드러났다.

   아반디아의 심장질환 관련 위험성은 2007년 5월 한 의사가 공개한 연구결과에서 처음 공개됐는데, 이로부터 몇 달 뒤 GSK는 2005년부터 이 약품이 심장마비를 초래할 수 있다는 점을 알고 있었다고 인정했다.

   그러나 최근 공개된 문서는 GSK가 1999년 아반디아 출시 직후부터 이 약이 광범위한 심장관련 질환을 초래할 가능성이 있다는 점을 알고 있었다는 것을 나타내주고 있다고 NYT는 지적했다.

   또 다른 문서에 따르면 이런 아반디아의 위험성이 심화됐을 경우 GSK가 입게 될 매출 손실은 2002년부터 2004년까지만 6억달러에 달하는 것으로 추산됐다.

   NYT는 미국 식품의약국(FDA) 내부에서 아반디아의 위험성에 대해 찬반양론이 있다고 지적하면서 FDA 관계자가 이런 내부의 논란을 GSK 측에 알려준 것으로 드러났다고 지적하기도 했다.

   이에 대해 GSK의 대변인은 당시 실험 결과가 중요한 새로운 정보를 담고 있지 않았기 때문에 이를 공개하지 않았다면서 아반디아는 안전했었다고 주장했다.

   hoonkim@yna.co.kr

[돼지독감] WHO 또다시 돼지독감 리베이트 스캔들에 휘말려

건강과대안 — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:31:34 +0000

세계보건기구(WHO)가 신종플루(돼지독감) 대유행과 관련하여 제약업계로부터 리베이트를 받은 혐의로 스캔들에 휘말렸다는 소식입니다.

WHO의 신종플루 대유행 스캔들로 인하여 호주의 제약회사 CSL, Ltd, 사노피-아벤티스(Sanofi-Aventis), 아스트라-제네카(Astra-Zeneca), 노바티스(Novartis) 등 백신제조회사들은 수조달러가 넘는 막대한 이익을 남겼습니다.

뿐만 아니라 타미플루를 생산하는 로슈, 릴렌자를 생산하는 GSK 등 항바이러스제 생산 제약회사들도 엄청난 수익을 올렸습니다.

최근 유럽의회는 “WHO가 H1N1 대유행을 선언한 방식에 따라 막대한 공공 기금이 소모되었으며, 유럽 시민들이 직면한 건강상 위험에 대한 공황과 공포는 근거가 없는 것이었다”는 결론을 내렸다고 합니다.

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

News

Flu experts rebut conflict claims

Reports throw unsubstantiated suspicion on scientific advice given to the World Health Organization.

Declan Butler

출처 : Published online 8 June 2010 | Nature 465, 672-673 (2010) | doi:10.1038/465672a
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100608/full/465672a.html?s=news_rss

“Drug firms ‘encouraged world health body to exaggerate swine flu threat’,” screamed Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper on 4 June. “2 European reports criticize WHO’s H1N1 pandemic guidelines as tainted,” headlined The Washington Post the next day. To judge from media coverage last week, a major scandal had been exposed in the handling of the H1N1 flu pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). But nothing could be further from the truth.

The news articles reported on two investigations: one by journalists at the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a non-profit body in London launched in April; the other by the health committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) — a human-rights body based in Strasbourg, France, independent of the European Union.

Both reports allege that the WHO might have been unduly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry in declaring H1N1 flu a pandemic, and in backing widespread vaccination and stockpiling of antiviral drugs, a claim often made by conspiracy theorists. They also complain that a 2004 WHO pandemic-preparedness document did not reveal that some of its authors had been paid for work by pharmaceutical companies — although the scientists had declared their competing interests elsewhere.

Suspicious minds

Paul Flynn, a UK Labour Member of Parliament and rapporteur of the PACE report (see go.nature.com/G9CvVL), and Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the BMJ, presented their reports at a press conference together in Paris on 4 June, with Flynn asserting that “this was a pandemic that never really was”. Afterwards, he wrote on his blog: “One of the joys today was giving evidence with the editor of the splendid British Medical Journal. We have never met before but we cooed in harmony and just avoided saying it was the Pharmas that did it.”

Both reports say that it is suspicious, for example, that the WHO has kept secret the names of its Emergency Committee, an expert group that advises the WHO on the status of international public-health emergencies, including the declaration of a flu pandemic. Gregory Hartl, a spokesman for the WHO, says that the secrecy of the Emergency Committee’s membership is maintained to buffer its deliberations from outside pressure. The WHO says that it will make public the names, and any competing interests, once the pandemic is declared over.

“A key question will be whether the pharmaceutical companies, which had invested around $4 bn (£2.8bn, €3.3bn) in developing the swine flu vaccine, had supporters inside the emergency committee, who then put pressure on WHO to declare a pandemic,” says the article in the BMJ (D. Cohen and P. Carter Br. Med. J. 340, c2912; 2010). “It was the declaring of the pandemic that triggered the contracts.”

This is false. Many countries — including the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Finland, Canada, the Netherlands and Switzerland — had already placed large orders for H1N1 vaccine weeks before the WHO declared H1N1 a pandemic on 11 June 2009. The United States, for example, ordered US$649 million of pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine antigen and $283 million of adjuvant on 22 May 2009. So the Emergency Committee could not have influenced these in any way.

“You are absolutely right,” conceded the authors of the articles in the BMJ when challenged with this timeline.

Both reports also seize on the WHO’s April 2009 revision of its criteria on what constitutes a pandemic, which removed the need for an assessment of the ‘severity’ of the disease, based on estimates of future mortality. Flynn speculated in the Daily Mail that this was suspicious: “In this case, it might not just be a conspiracy theory, it might be a very profitable conspiracy.” Neither report provides any evidence to substantiate its implication that the WHO rushed to declare a pandemic to boost pharmaceutical company sales. Moreover, the WHO says that the revisions were finalized in February 2009, before pandemic H1N1 was on the horizon.

Scientists interviewed by Nature early on in the pandemic noted that severity is impossible to pin down until many months after it starts. Also, pandemic viruses can mutate or reassort to become more severe, so initial estimates are in any case of limited use.

Clear firewall

The BMJ also notes that three scientists who were involved in the preparation of a 2004 WHO document, WHO Guidelines on the Use of Vaccines and Antivirals during Influenza Pandemics, had received payments from pharmaceutical companies, including research funding, or consultancy or speaker fees. The scientists told the BMJ that they had declared these competing interests to the WHO, although the WHO had not included these in its report.

Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy in Minneapolis, points out that the 2004 document was based on input from an international panel of 22 scientists and public-health officials, in response to the threat of the deadly H5N1 avian flu virus. “To suggest that the three scientists were able to direct and control the final recommendations is naive, and stated without a single shred of evidence,” he says.

The BMJ also claims that industry funding of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI), a group of flu scientists that provided advice to the WHO, presented a “potential conflict of interest”. It notes that several ESWI scientists also receive industry funding directly.

One of those scientists is Albert Osterhaus, a virologist at Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam in the Netherlands, who chairs the ESWI. He says that the body has a “clear firewall” with its funders, and that it informs all partners about any of its competing interests — its sources of funding are also listed on its website. Private–public partnerships are essential in tackling pandemics, and excluding flu researchers with industry links would deprive advisory panels of world-class expertise, he says. “The critical thing is transparency,” says Osterhaus. “I have always declared my own competing interests.”

The BMJ acknowledges that the researchers had declared their interests elsewhere. But it takes issue with the WHO’s not having included them in its pandemic-planning documents.

David Ozonoff, an epidemiologist at the Boston University School of Public Health in Massachusetts, says that the reports “smear” the scientists involved in pandemic planning by “insinuating” that they would have offered different advice had they not had a relationship with drug companies. “This is a pretty serious charge,” he says.

“We think this is the researcher’s reading into it, not necessarily ours,” the BMJ authors respond.

Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, says that the WHO’s advice on the pandemic has been sound, and has reflected the state of scientific opinion. Comparing the situation with the ongoing Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Lipsitch says that “it is ironic, as we watch for the second time in five years the catastrophic results of ‘best-case scenario planning’ in the Gulf of Mexico, to have the WHO coming under criticism for planning for, and raising awareness of, the possibility of a severe pandemic. That is what public-health agencies should do, and what most did in this instance, and they should be commended for it.”

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

World Health Organization embroiled in swine flu kickback scandal

출처 : http://www.huliq.com/9990/world-health-organization-embroiled-swine-flu-kickback-scandal

The World Health Organization (WHO) is again in the spotlight and being accused of accepting kickbacks from the pharmaceutical industry. In return for monetary compensation, the WHO had to issue an H1N1 or “swine flu” pandemic worldwide.

The Health Advisory Board of the WHO made the decision to issue a worldwide statement, declaring the H1N1 threat a pandemic and encouraging countries to stockpile vaccines to protect the population from contact or aerosol contamination.

The vaccine, available since 2009, is made by CSL, Ltd, Melbourne, Sanofi-Aventis, Paris, Astra-Zeneca, London and Novartis, Basel. All companies promised financial kickbacks after a pandemic was officially declared by the WHO resulting in multi billion dollar gains for the pharmaceutical companies.

The scheme was first reported by the British Medical Journal in 2009 and later confirmed by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism but did not receive a lot of exposure until yesterday when the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) endorsed the conclusions of its Health Committee.

The conclusions from the committee stated that “the handling by the WHO of the H1N1 pandemic led to a waste of large sums of public money and unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public”.

The scheme, as set up by the WHO’s Health Advisory Board was a five step process. First they exaggerated the risk, they urged countries to stockpile, vaccine producers collected the cash, the board members cashed in the kickbacks and the WHO kept everybody afraid.

Secretary General of the WHO, Dr. Margaret Chan, was asked to release the names of all the members of her advisory board but insisted that the secrecy was crucial to protect the integrity and independence of the work the board members perform.

The pharmaceutical industry has a very big influence on the World Health Organization, an independent UN agency, whose reputation has been tarnished in light of the scandal.

Submitted by Nick Doms on 2010-06-25

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

“신종플루 전문가, 제약회사와 유착”

의료계 뉴스/제약,의료산업 2010/06/04 14:00

지난 2004년 신종플루 관련 세계보건기구(WHO) 가이드라인 작성에 참여한 과학자 세명이 대형 제약업체들로부터 이전에 돈을 받은 적이 있었다는 내용의 보고서를 유럽의회가 4일 발표했다고 영국 일간 가디언 인터넷판이 보도했다.

   브리티시 메디컬 저널(BMJ)과 비영리조사단체인 언론조사국(BIJ) 공동 조사에서 WHO 가이드라인의 저자인 프레드 하이든, 아널드 몬토, 칼 니컬슨 등은 타미플루 제조사인 로슈와 레렌자 제조사인 글락소스미스클라인(GSK)으로부터 다른 사안으로 돈을 지급받은 일이 있는 것으로 드러났다.

   하이든 교수는 가이드라인이 작성되고 발표된 시점에 로슈로부터 강의료와 자문료를 받았고 2002년까지 GSK로부터 역시 자문료와 강의료를 받았다고 인정했다. 그 전해에는 로슈가 스폰서가 된 타미플루 판매 관련 연구에서 주저자들 중 한사람이었다.

   몬토 박사는 대유행의 시기에 백신 사용문제를 다룬 WHO 부칙의 주저자로, 로슈와 GSK로부터 자문료와 연구지원을 받았다고 밝혔다.

   니컬슨 교수는 인플루엔자 대유행에 관한 연구로 잘 알려져있는데 GSK와 로슈로부터 후원을 받았다고 시인했다.

   이 WHO 가이드라인은 신종플루 유행에 대비해 항바이러스제를 비축하라는 내용으로 되어있다.

   영국을 포함한 많은 국가가 이 가이드라인을 받아들여 타미플루를 대량으로 사들였다.

   각국 정부가 항바이러스제를 사들임에 따라 이 제약업체들은 70억달러 이상의 수입을 올렸다.

   영국은 6만5천명이 바이러스로 사망할 수 있다고 경고하고 항바이러스제와 백신을 사들이는데 10억파운드를 쓴 것으로 추정된다.

   그러나 폴란드 같은 일부 국가들은 지난해 WHO가 신종플루의 대유행을 선언했을 때 촉발된 패닉에 가까운 백신과 항바이러스제 구매 행렬에 참가하지 않았다.

   유럽의회 보건위원회의 폴 플라인 의원(노동당)은 “제약업체의 영향력이 의사결정과정의 모든 수준에 행사됐다”라고 주장하고 “전 유럽에 걸쳐 공중보건서비스의 우선순위에 왜곡이 있었고 막대한 공적 자금이 낭비됐으며 부당한 공포를 유발했다는 점에서 WHO는 투명해야 한다”라고 강조했다.

   지난해 신종플루가 대대적으로 유행할 것이라는 예측이 현실화되지 않으면서 투명성 문제가 제기됐다.

   영국 국무조정실은 약품 구입에 납세자들이 부담한 비용에 대한 조사에 착수했다.

[기업감시] 암젠, 골다공증 치료제 프롤리아 승인 임박(GSK 판매 예정)

건강과대안 — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 01:44:01 +0000

미 FDA가 암젠사의 폐경후 여성의 골다공증 치료 및 남성 전립선암 환자의 골손실 치료제인 프롤리아(Prolia; 데노수맙)를 제안서 재제출 2등급(Class 2 resubmission)으로 분류하고, 2010년 7월 25일을 처방전약 사용자 수수료법(Prescription Drug User Fee Act ; PDUFA) 심사종료일로 결정했다는 소식입니다.

처방전약 사용자 수수료법(Prescription Drug User Fee Act ; PDUFA)은 제약기업들이 신약 승인 소요 시간을 단축하기 위해 매년 FDA에 3억9300만 달러를 지불하도록 규정한 법으로 2012년 만료될 예정입니다.

프롤리아는 6개월마다 피하에 주사함으로써 골 파괴세포를 활성화하는 단백질을 저해하는 작용을 하는 골다공증 치료제인데, 류마티스성 관절염 및 암 치료제로도 개발중인 신약입니다.

미 FDA 산하의 생식기계 약물자문위원회는 2009년 8월 프롤리아 허가권고 결정을 내렸으나, 2009년 10월 FDA는 새로운 임상시험과 추가정보를 제출토록 주문했습니다.

이러한 FDA의 주문은 감염 및 종양 발생 위험성을 높일 수 있다는 우려를 반영한 것으로 보입니다.

프롤리아는 미국, 유럽, 스위스, 호주, 캐나다 등에서 허가를 위한 심사절차가 진행 중입니다. 암젠사는 2009년 7월 GSK와 제휴계약을 체결했습니다. 이에 따라 GSK는 유럽, 호주, 뉴질랜드, 멕시코에서 플로리아를 판매할 예정이라고 합니다.

제약업계를 담당하는 애널리스트들은 프롤리아가 2015년에 40억~50억 달러의 매출을 창출할 수 있을 것으로 전망하고 있을 정도로 프롤리아는 블록 버스터 신약이 될 것 같습니다.

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

Amgen’s Prolia Complete Response submission: FDA classifies and sets PDUFA date

출처 : 20일. 2월 2010년 00:15
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100220/Amgens-Prolia-Complete-Response-submission-FDA-classifies-and-sets-PDUFA-date.aspx

Amgen Inc. (Nasdaq: AMGN) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has evaluated the content of the Company’s Complete Response submission for Prolia™ (denosumab) in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis and classified it as a Class 2 resubmission. With the Class 2 designation, the FDA set a corresponding Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) action date of July 25, 2010.

In October 2009, the FDA’s Division of Reproductive and Urologic Products issued a Complete Response Letter for the Biologic License Application (BLA) for Prolia in the treatment and prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis. The letter requested several items, including further information on the design of Amgen’s previously submitted post-marketing surveillance program. The letter did not require additional pre-marketing clinical trials to complete the review of the treatment indication. The FDA also requested all updated safety data related to Prolia. Amgen submitted the requested information for the treatment indication in late January 2010.

Amgen continues to work with the FDA to determine appropriate next steps regarding its indications for Prolia in the prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis, as well as in the treatment and prevention of bone loss due to hormone ablation in breast and prostate cancer patients.

SOURCE Amgen

[기감] 4.2.1. 제약산업 GlaxoSmithKline plc

건강과대안 — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:59:56 +0000

4.2.1. 제약산업 GlaxoSmithKline plc

글락소 스미스 클라인 plc의 회사 프로파일

By Corporate Watch UK
2002년 11월 완료
———————————————————————-

GlaxoSmithKline plc
A Corporate Profile

By Corporate Watch UK
Completed November 2002
———————————————————————-

1. 회사 소개

2001년 글락소웰컴과 스미스클라인비참이 합병하여 세계에서 가장 큰 제약 회사인 글락소스미스클라(GSK)이 되었다. 현재는 민간제약회사들이 신약 개발을 제어하고 있다. 전 세계적인 건강 요구가 아닌 이윤이 새로운 치료제의 결정요인이 되고있다. 글락소스미스클라인의 기업 모토는 ‘인간 삶의 질 개선을 위해 노력한다’고 약속하고 있다. GSK는 에이즈환자들에게 그들이 감당할 수 있는 가격의 약을 공급하려고 한 남아프리카공화국 정부에 소송을 제기하면서, 고의적으로 유해 약물을 생산하면서, 영국에서 어떤 다른 화학제품생산자보다도 더 많은 발암 물질을 방출하면서 그들의 약속을 어기고 있다.

- 이름 ; 글락소스미스클라인

- 사업분야

처방 의약품, 백신 및 소비자 건강 제품 [예 : 치약, 영양 음료, 일반의약품]

- 시장 점유율 및 중요성

글락소스미스클라인社는 세계 최대의 제약회사이다. 2000년 그락소웰컴과 스미스클라임비참의 점유율을 합치면 전세계 시장의 7%를 차지한다. 또한 두 회사를 합치면 전세계 백신 판매의 26%를 차지하고 있으며, 항생제등의 시장에서 17%를 차지하고 있다.

- 역사

2001년 1월 글락소웰컴과 스미스클라임비참은 공식적으로 합병하여 글락소스미스클라인이 되었다. GSK의 역사는 1715년까지 거슬러 올라갈 수 있는데, 플라우코트약국이 스미스클라임비참의 전신으로 런던에서 문을 연 해이다.

글락소웰컴의 전신인 글락소연구소는 1929 년 알렉 나단에 의해 설립되었다. “나단은 그들의 건조유아식품인 ‘글락소’가 어린이들에게 구루병을 일으키는 원인임을 발견햇을 때 이 회사를 만들었다. 글락소연구소의 첫 번째 제품은 식품 건조과정에서 파괴된 비타민을 보충하기위한 비타민D제제인 오스텔린이었다.”(기업감시 잡지, 제10호)

이미 1930년대부터 인수 합병이 이루어졌다. 글락소연구소는 전국민의료보험(NHS)에 의해 생긴 새로은 시장에 의해 엄청나게 확장되었다. 그리고 1972년 비참그룹은 별로 성공적이지 않은 입찰로 글락소그룹을 사들였다.

- 제품

글락소스미스클라인의 의약품에는 항우울제인 팍실/세로자트, HIV/에이즈 치료제인 콤비비르, 알콜 중독에 대한 치료인 조프란, 2형 당뇨병치료제인 아반디아 등이 포함되어 있다.

그들의 소비자건강제품[기업 범죄, 동물 복지 참고]에는 아쿠아프레쉬 치약, 제산제 툼스, 니코렛(금연 껌), ‘영양음료’인 홀릭스, 리베나와 루코자드가 있다.

1. The Company

Glaxo Wellcome plc and SmithKline Beecham plc merged in 2001 to become GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK), the largest pharmaceutical company in the world.
At present, private pharmaceutical companies control the development of new medicines. Profit margins, not global health needs, are what determine the next new drug. GlaxoSmithKline’s corporate motto is ‘committed to improving the quality of human life’[1]. GSK has shown it’s commitment by suing the South African Government for trying to supply AIDS victims with medicine they can afford [2], knowingly producing toxic drugs [3], and by emitting more carcinogens than almost any other chemical producer in the UK.[4]

Name
GlaxoSmithKline plc

Industry areas: Prescription Medicines, Vaccines, and Consumer Health Products [i.e. toothpaste, nutritional drinks and over the counter (OTC) medicine]

Market share and importance
GlaxoSmithKline is the world’s largest pharmaceutical company. In 2000 GlaxoWellcome and SmithKline Beecham had a seven per cent share of the global pharmaceutical market, combined. In addition, the two combined companies accounted for 26 per cent of all vaccine sales, and 17 per cent of all anti-invectives (antibiotics, etc.).[5

History
In January 2001 Glaxo Wellcome plc and SmithKline Beecham plc officially merged to become GlaxoSmithKline plc. GSK’s history dates back to 1715, when Plough Court pharmacy, a predecessor to SmithKline Beecham, was opened in London.[6]

Glaxo Laboratories Limited (the predecessor to Glaxo Wellcome) was set up in 1929, with director Alec Nathan. “Nathan formed the company when it was discovered that their dried baby food ‘Glaxo’ was the cause of rickets in children. The first product Glaxo Laboratories Ltd produced was therefore Ostelin, a vitamin D concentrate to replace vitamins that were destroyed in the food drying process.” (Corporate Watch Magazine, Issue 10).[7]

From the 1930s onwards there was a flurry of mergers and acquisitions. The business of Glaxo Laboratories Ltd expanded greatly with the new market created by the founding of the National Health Service (NHS).[8] And in 1972 Beecham Group Ltd made an unsuccessful bid to buy Glaxo Group Ltd. [9]

Products [10]
GlaxoSmithKline’s pharmaceuticals include the antidepressant Paxil/Seroxat the HIV/AIDS treatment Combivir, Zofran, a treatment for alcoholism, and Avendia a treatment for Type 2 diabetes.

Their Consumer Health Products [see Corporate Crimes, Animal Welfare] include Aquafresh Toothpaste, Tums antacid, Nicorette and the ‘nutritonal drinks’ Horlick’s, Lucozade and Ribena.

———————————————————————-
References

[1] www.gsk.com/about/animal_research.htm (source: GlaxoSmithKline, date viewed 28/10/2002)
[2] (source: The Guardian, date viewed: 25.10.2002)
[3] Corporate Watch Magazine, Issue 10, Spring 2000
[4] www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2002/20021023000159.html (source: Friends of the Earth, date viewed: 25.10.2002)
[5] Oxfam, Briefing paper on GlaxoSmithKline: Dare to lead, Public Health and Company Wealth, 2001
[6] (source: GlaxoSmithKline, date viewed: 02.11.2002)
[7] Corporate Watch Magazine, Issue 10, Spring 2000
[8] Corporate Watch Magazine, Issue 10, Spring 2000
[9] (source: GlaxoSmithKline, date viewed: 02.11.2002)
[10] www.gsk.com (source: GlaxoSmithKline, date viewed 23.10.2002)

[돼지독감] GSK(글락소), 신종플루 백신 판매 예상보다 25% 감소

건강과대안 — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:58:22 +0000

글락소스미스클라인(GSK)사의 신종플루 백신이 예상(20억 파운드, 32억5천만$)보다 25% 적게 판매되었다는 [Financial Times]의 기사를 1월 17일자 블룸버그통신이 보도했습니다.

글락소가 지난 주 발표한 통계는 신종플루 백신 주문을 30% 감축하겠다는 독일정부와의 계약, 비슷한 수준으로 감축할 것으로 예상되는 영국 및 프랑스정부와의 계약 등이 고려되지 않았다고 합니다.(독일은 GSK로부터 5000만회분량의 신종플루 백신을 주문하는 계약을 체결했으나 주문량을 30% 가량 감축하여 3400만회분량만을 주문하기로 했습니다.)

참고로 일본 후생노동성도 지난 1월 15일 GSK와 노바티스로부터 구입하기로 계획했던 신종플루 백신 구입 예상분 중 일부를 해약하기로 결정했습니다. (일본은 GSK와 노바티스로부터 총 9900만회 접종분량을 수입하기로 계약을 한 바 있습니다.)

다국적 거대 제약회사들은 ’Flu’s Gold’ 분위기에 편승하여 대량으로 백신을 생산했는데, 각국 정부들이 백신 주문량을 30% 가량 취소함으로써 대량의 재고 부담을 떠안을 것으로 예상됩니다.

이에 따른 문제는 다음과 같습니다.

첫째, 신종플루 대유행에 대한 위험성을 과대평가하여 백신 수요를 과대 예측한 책임을 누가 질 것인가? (실제로 유럽에서 백신 접종율이 저조한 이유가 전국민적인 예방접종을 실시해야 할 정도로 신종플루 바이러스의 위험성 높지 않기 때문으로 평가됨)

둘째, 독일, 영국, 프랑스, 일본 등 각국 정부가 주문 취소에 따라 글락소(GSK), 노바티스 등 다국적 거대 제약회사들에게 얼마 만큼의 보상액을 지불할 것인가? (전세계적인 경제위기의 상황에서 보상액 지불이 정당한가, 이에 따른 예산낭비의 피해를 어떻게 메꿀 것인가 등)

셋째, 1회 백신으로 충분한 항체가 형성되는 것으로 밝혀졌으며, 이미 항체가 형성되어 있는 사람의 비율도 높은 상태에서 다국적 거대 제약회사들의 이익을 위해 지나치게 많은 백신을 주문을 하도록 영향력을 행사한 전문가 또는 정부 고위 관료가 누구인가?(백신 주문 취소에 따른 보상액에 대한 계약을 어떻게 했는지 그 내용의 공개 등)

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

Glaxo Flu Drug Sales May Be 25 Percent Below Forecast, FT Says Share Business

By Beth Mellor

출처 : 블룸버그통신 2010년 1월 17일
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aVmAUKmN9WA8

Jan. 17 (Bloomberg) — GlaxoSmithKline Plc’s sale of pandemic flu vaccines may be 25 percent lower than the forecast 2 billion pounds ($3.25 billion), the Financial Times reported, without attribution.

Sales figures released by Glaxo last week fail to take into account an agreement with the German government to reduce orders of flu vaccines by 30 percent, and similar reductions are expected in the U.K. and France, the newspaper said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Beth Mellorbmellor@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: January 17, 2010 16:04 EST

[돼지독감] WHO 가짜 신종플루 스캔들 조사 주역, 볼프강 보다르크 인터뷰

건강과대안 — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:23:16 +0000

유럽의회에서 ‘WHO의 가짜 신종플루 대유행 선언 스캔들’을 조사하도록 제안한 전 독일사민당(SPD) 대변인이자 현 유럽의회의 건강위원회 위원장인 볼프강 보다르크(Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg) 박사를 인터뷰한 인터뷰 기사입니다.

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

Swine flu: “They Organized the Panic”. Inquiry into the Role of Big Pharma and WHO by Council of Europe

Bruno Odent interviews Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg

by Bruno Odent

출처 : Global Research, January 11, 2010
L’Humanité – 2010-01-08
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16902

New Development: The German President of the Health Committee of the Council of Europe, Wolfgang Wodarg, is issuing accusations against the pharmaceutical lobbies and the governments. He has intitiated the start of an investigation by that body concerning the role played by the pharmaceutical in the campaign of panic about the virus.

Ex-member of the SPD, Wolfgang Wodarg is a doctor and epidemiologist. His request for a commission of inquiry into the role of pharmaceutical companies in the management of swine flu outbreak by WHO and the nation states was granted unanimously by the members of the Health Committee of the Council of Europe…

What made you suspicious about the influence of pharmaceutical companies had on the decisions being taken in respect of swine flu?

Wolfgang Wodarg. We are facing a major failure of national institutions responsible for warning about risks and responding in case a pandemic occurs. In April when the first alarm came from Mexico I was very surprised at the figures furnished by the World Health Organization (WHO) to justify the declaration of a pandemic. I was immediately suspicious: the numbers were very low and the alarm level very high. There were not even into a thousand patients when there was already talk of the pandemic of the century. And the alert was decreed extreme based on the fact that the virus was new. But the characteristic of influenza disease is to develop very quickly with viruses which take on new forms each time, by dwelling in new hosts, animal, human etc.

There was nothing new in itself to that. Each year a new virus of this “flu” type appears. In reality there was no reason to sound the alarm at this level. This was only possible because in early May the WHO changed its definition of a pandemic. Before that date there had to be not only a disease which had broke out in several countries at once but also one that had very serious consequences with the number of deaths above the usual average. This aspect was removed from the new definition, to retain the rate of spread of disease as the only criteria. And they claimed that the virus was dangerous because people had not been able to develop immunity against it. Which was false for this virus. Because it was observed that people aged over 60 years already had antibodies. That is to say they had already been in contact with similar viruses. That is why also there are virtually no people aged over 60 who have developed the disease. Yet those were the people who were recommended to be vaccinated quickly.

Among the things that aroused my suspicions there was therefore on one side this determination to sound the alarm. And on the other side, some curious facts. Such as, for example, the recommendation by WHO to carry out two injections for vaccines. That had never been done before. There was no scientific justification for this. There was also the recommendation to use only special patented vaccines. There was however no reason for not adding, as it is done every year, specific antiviral particles of this new H1N1 virus, “completing” the vaccine used for seasonal influenza. This was not done because they preferred to use patented vaccine materials that major laboratories had designed and manufactured to be ready in case of a pandemic developing. And by proceeding in this way they did not hesitate to endanger the persons vaccinated.

What danger?

Wolfgang Wodarg. To provide products rapidly, adjuvants were used in some vaccines, whose effects have not been adequately tested. In other words, they wanted absolutely to use these new patented products instead of developing vaccines according to traditional methods of production which are much simpler, more reliable and less costly. There was no medical reason for this. It was only for marketing purposes.

How could anyone justify that?

Wolfgang Wodarg. To understand we must return to the episode of avian influenza from 2005 to 2006. It was then that new international plans were defined for dealing with a pandemic alarm. These plans were officially developed to ensure rapid manufacturing of vaccines in case of an alert. This led to negotiations between pharmaceutical companies and governments. On the one hand the labs committed themselves to keep ready to develop the preparations, on the other hand, states assured them they would buy them all. After this strange deal the pharmaceutical industry took no economic risk by engaging in new fabrications. And it was sure to touch the jack pot in the case of a pandemic outbreak.

Do you disagree with the diagnoses and even the potential severity of influenza A?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes, it’s just a normal kind of flu. It does not cause a tenth of deaths caused by the classic seasonal flu. All that mattered and that led to the great campaign of panic which we have seen was that it was a golden opportunity for representatives from labs who knew they would hit the jackpot in the case of a pandemic being declared.

Those are very serious accusations you’re making. How was such a process made possible within the WHO?

Wolfgang Wodarg. A group of people in the WHO is associated very closely with the pharmaceutical industry.

Will the investigation by the Council of Europe also work in this direction?

Wolfgang Wodarg. We want to clarify everything that brought about this massive operation of disinformation. We want to know who made decisions, on the basis of what evidence and precisely how the influence of the pharmaceutical industry came to bear on the decision-making. And the time has come at last for us to make demands on governments. The purpose of the inquiry is so that there are no more false alarms of this type in the future. So that the people may rely on the analysis and the expertise of national and international public institutions. The latter are now discredited, because millions of people have been vaccinated with products with inherent possible health risks. This was not necessary. It has also led to a considerable mismanagement of public money.

Do you have any concrete figures on the extent of this mismanagement?

Wolfgang Wodarg. In Germany it comes to 700 million euros. But it is very difficult to know the exact figures because we are talking on one side about vaccines resold to foreign countries and most firms do not communicate due to the principle of respect for “business secret” regarding the amounts in contracts concluded with States and any indemnification clauses contained therein.

Will the work of “lobbying” by pharma companies on the National Institutes of Health also be dealt with by the investigation of the Council of Europe?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes we will examine the attitude of institutions like the Robert Koch Institute in Germany or Pasteur in France who should in fact have advised their governments from a critical standpoint. In some countries certain institutions have done so. In Finland and Poland, for example, critical voices were raised to say: “we do not need that.

Has the tremendous global operation of disinformation also been possible because the pharmaceutical industry had “representatives” even within the governments of the most powerful countries?

Wolfgang Wodarg. As regards the ministries, that seems to me to be obvious. I can not explain how specialists, very smart people who know the problems of the influenza disease by heart, did not notice what was happening.

So what happened?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Without going as far as saying direct corruption, which I am certain does exist, there were many ways for labs to exercise their influence over decisions. A very concrete example, is how Klaus Stöhr, who was the head of the epidemiological department of the WHO at the time of bird flu, and who therefore prepared the plans to cope with a pandemic that I mentioned above, in the meantime had become a top executive of the company Novartis. And similar links between Glaxo and Baxter, etc. and influential members of the WHO. These large firms have “their people” in the cogs and then they pull strings so that the right policy decisions are taken. That is to say, the ones that will allow them to pump as much money from taxpayers.

But if your survey succeeds, will it not be a support for citizens to insist their governments demand accountability from these large groups?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes, you’re right, this is one of the major issues related to this investigation. States could indeed take advantage of this to contest contracts drawn up in, let us say, improper conditions. If it can be shown that it was under the influence of firms that the process was initiated then they will have to be push to ask for reimbursement. But that’s just the financial side, there is also the human side, persons who were vaccinated with products that were inadequately tested.

So what kind of risk have these healthy people unknowingly taken by getting vaccinated?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Again, the vaccines were developed too quickly, some adjuvants were insufficiently tested. But there is worse to come. The vaccine developed by Novartis was produced in a bioreactor from cancerous cells. A technique that had never been used until now.

Why, I’m obviously not an expert, but how can one claim to make a vaccine from diseased cells?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Normally one uses chicken eggs on which viruses are grown. We need in fact to work on living cells. Because viruses can only multiply in this way and so do, by definition, the virus preparations that go with it. But this process has a big flaw, it is slow and it takes a lot of eggs. And it is long and complex technically. Another potentially excellent technique is to grow the virus in living cells in bioreactors. This requires cells which grow and divide very quickly. It’s a bit like the method used to culture yogurt, which is also produced in a bio-reactor. but in this context the cell was so upset in its environment and its growth that it grows like a cancer cell. And it is on these rapidly multiplying cells that they grow the virus. But to manufacture the vaccine the virus must be re-extracted from these cells on which they were implanted. And it can therefore happen that during the manufacturing process of the vaccine, residue of cancerous cells remain in the preparation. In the same way as it happens in conventional manufacturing with eggs. Thus we know that in the case of a classic influenza vaccination, side effects can occur in people who are allergic to egg albumin found in egg white. It can not be excluded that proteins, remains of a cancer cell present in a vaccine produced by bio-reactor, may generate a tumour on the person vaccinated. According to a true principle of precaution, before such a product is allowed on the market, there should therefore be 100% certainty that such effects are actually excluded.

And wasn’t this done?

Wolfgang Wodarg. It was not. The EMEA (European Medicines Agency), an institution under the responsibility of the European Commissioner for Economic Affairs, based in London, which gives permission to release vaccines on the market in Europe, gave the green light for commercializing this product arguing, namely, that this mode of manufacture was not a “significant” risk. This was very differently appreciated by many experts here in Germany and by an independent drug institution, which instead sounded the alert and voiced their objections. I took these warnings seriously. I studied the case and intervened in the context of the Bundestag health committee of which I was a member so that the vaccine would not be used in Germany. I made it known that I was certainly not opposed to the development of vaccines with this technique. But first it had to have a total guarantee of innocuousness. The product has therefore not been used in Germany where the government terminated the contract with Novartis.

What is the name of this vaccine?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Obta flu.

But that means that in other European countries like France the product can be marketed without any problem?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes, it obtained permission from EMEA and can be used anywhere in the EU.

What alternative do you intend to propose so that further scandals of this type are avoided?

Wolfgang Wodarg. The WHO should be more transparent, so we know clearly who decides and what type of relationship exists between participants in the organization. It should also be flanked by at least one elected chamber, which should be able to react very critically and where everyone can express themselves. This enhanced public scrutiny is essential.

Isn’t the question of another system capable of handling a matter which is in fact a common good for citizens across the planet coming to the surface?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Can we go on allowing the production of vaccines and the conduct of these productions to organizations whose goal is to win as much money as possible? Or is the production of vaccines not something that States must absolutely monitor and implement themselves? That’s why I think we should abandon the system of patents on vaccines. That is to say, the possibility of monopolization of vaccine production by a large group. For this option requires that we sacrifice thousands of lives, simply in the name of respect for these monopoly rights. You’re right, that particular claim has become evident for me.

Interview by Bruno Odent translated into English by Carolyn Dunning.

To read the original article in French click here

Council of Europe’s motion for a recommendation: Faked Pandemics — a threat for health

Global Research Articles by Bruno Odent

[돼지독감] “신종플루 대유행은 ‘허위 대유행’”..제약회사들이 대유행 선언토록 공포심 조장”

건강과대안 — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:15:29 +0000

“신종플루 대유행은 ‘허위 대유행’”

제약회사들이 대유행 선언토록 공포심 조장”

출처 : 연합뉴스 2010/01/12 09:15 송고

(서울=연합뉴스) 신종플루(인플루엔자 A［H1N1］) 확산세가 주춤한 가운데 제약회사들이 `대유행(pandemic)’을 선언하도록 세계보건기구(WHO)에 압력을 가하기 위해 신종플루 공포를 확산시켰다는 주장이 나와 파문을 일으키고 있다.

유럽회의 의원총회(PACE)의 볼프강 보다르크 보건분과위원장은 신종플루 대유행은 신종플루 백신으로 막대한 이익을 챙긴 제약회사들이 주도한 ‘허위 대유행’이며 금세기 최대 의학 비리 가운데 하나라고 주장했다고 영국 일간 선지가 11일 보도했다.

WHO는 신종플루가 확산하자 지난해 6월 인플루엔자 경보의 최고 단계인 대유행을 선언했었다.
보다르크 위원장은 신종플루는 “일반적인 종류의 독감일 뿐”이라면서 사망률이 계절성 독감의 10분의 1도 안된다고 지적했다.

그는 신종플루에 대한 공포심 조장은 대유행이 선언되면 ‘대박’을 터트릴 것이라는 걸 알고 있던 제약회사 대표들에게 다시없는 기회를 제공했다고 말했다.

그는 “우리는 어떤 근거로 누가 (대유행) 결정을 내렸으며, 제약업계가 의사결정에 어떻게 영향력을 미쳤는지 알길 원한다”면서 “WHO 내 일군의 사람들이 제약업계와 매우 긴밀한 관계를 맺고 있다”고 주장했다.
47개 유럽국가 정부 간 협력기구인 유럽회의는 이달 말 긴급회의를 열고 제약회사들이 신종플루 대유행 선언에 어떤 영향을 미쳤는지 논의할 예정이다.

이와 관련, WHO는 최근 신종플루 대유행이 아직 끝나지 않았다는 입장을 재확인했지만 신종플루 사망자 수는 애초 우려했던 것보다 훨씬 적다.
보다르크 위원장은 또 신종플루 백신의 안전성에 대해서도 의문을 제기했다.

그는 앞서 프랑스 일간 뤼마니테 일요판과 인터뷰에서 “백신이 너무 급하게 개발됐으며 일부 성분은 충분한 시험을 거치지 못했다”고 주장했다.

yunzhen@yna.co.kr

[돼지독감] WHO 독감전문가 알버트 오스터하우스 교수, 자신의 경제적 이익 위해 신종플루 위험 과장… 조사중

건강과대안 — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:19:19 +0000

[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 Osterhaus 3, 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

[돼지독감] WHO, 신종플루 사망자 최소 12220명 집계

건강과대안 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:08:45 +0000

2009년 12월 30일자 WHO의 2009 H1N1 인플루엔자 대유행(신종플루) 업데이트 81의 원문입니다.

전세계적으로 최소한 12220명이 2009 H1N1 인플루엔자로 사망했다고 집계하고 있습니다.

WHO의 마가렛 찬 사무총장은 아직도 2009 H1N1 인플루엔자 대유행 상태라면서 신종 플루 대유행이 끝나가고 있다는 판단은 아직 이르다고
강조하고 있습니다.

마가렛 찬 사무총장은 세계가 신종 돼지독감(돼지 인플루엔자)보다 더 독성이 강하고 치명적인 H5N1 조류독감 바이러스에 유발되는 대유행을 피할 수 있기를 바라고 있다고 밝히고 있습니다.

그러나 WHO가 돼지독감 바이러스의 실제 위험성을 지나치게 과장하여 너무나 성급하게 대유행을 선언함으로써 암묵적으로 로슈나 GSK 같은 다국적 거대제약회사의 경제적 이윤을 극대화시켰으며, 에이즈(HIV), 결핵, 말라리아 등의 긴급하게 대처해야 할 질병들에 투입되었으면 더 좋았을 엄청난 자원(인력, 장비, 의약품 등)을 돼지독감 대유행에 허비했다는 비난으로부터 자유롭기는 힘들 것으로 판단됩니다.

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

Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 – update 81

Weekly update

출처 : WHO, 30 December 2009
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_12_30/en/index.html

As of 27 December 2009, worldwide more than 208 countries and overseas territories or communities have reported laboratory confirmed cases of pandemic influenza H1N1 2009, including at least 12220 deaths.

WHO is actively monitoring the progress of the pandemic through frequent consultations with the WHO Regional Offices and member states and through monitoring of multiple sources of data.

Situation update:

The most active areas of pandemic influenza transmission currently are in central and eastern Europe. Focal increases in rates of ILI/ARI during recent weeks were reported in at least three eastern European countries, Georgia, Montenegro, and Ukraine. A high intensity of respiratory diseases activity with concurrent circulation of pandemic influenza persists in parts of southern and eastern Europe, particularly in Greece, Poland, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, and the Urals Region of the Russian Federation. In Western Europe, influenza transmission remains active and widespread, but overall disease activity has peaked. At least 13 of 21 countries (testing more than 20 sentinel samples) reported that 30% or more of sentinel specimens were positive for influenza, down from a peak of over 70%. All were influenza viruses detected in Western Europe were pandemic H1N1 2009, however, very small numbers of seasonal influenza viruses, making up less than 1% of all influenza viruses detected, were reported in Russia. In addition, limited available data indicates that active, high intensity transmission is occurring in Northern African countries along the Mediterranean coast (Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt).

In Central Asia, limited data suggest that influenza virus circulation remains active, but transmission may have recently peaked in some places. In West Asia, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Oman, and Afghanistan also appear to have passed their peak period of transmission within the past month, though both areas continue to have some active transmission and levels of respiratory disease activity have not yet returned to baseline levels.

In East Asia, influenza transmission remains active but appears to be declining overall. Influenza/ILI activity continued to decline in Japan, in northern and southern China, Chinese Taipei, and Hong Kong SAR (China). Slight increases in ILI were reported in Mongolia after weeks of declining activity following a large peak of activity over one month ago. In southern Asia, influenza activity continues to be intense, particularly in northern India, Nepal, and, Sri Lanka. Seasonal influenza A (H3N2) viruses are still being detected in very small numbers in China making up about 2.5% of the influenza A viruses detected there.

In North America, influenza transmission remains widespread but has declined substantially in all countries. In the US, sentinel outpatient ILI activity has returned to the seasonal baseline, and indicators of severity, including hospitalizations, paediatric mortality, and P&I mortality have declined substantially since peaking during late October. Rates of hospitalization among cases aged 5-17 years and 18-49 year far exceeded rates observed during recent influenza seasons, while rates of hospitalizations among cases aged >65 years were far lower than those observed during recent influenza seasons.

In the tropical regions of Central and South America and the Caribbean, influenza transmission remains geographically widespread but overall disease activity has been declining or remains unchanged in most parts, except for focal increases in respiratory disease activity in a few countries.

In the temperate regions of the southern hemisphere, sporadic cases of pandemic influenza continued to be reported without evidence of sustained community transmission.

The Global Influenza Surveillance Network (GISN) continues monitoring the global circulation of influenza viruses, including pandemic, seasonal and other influenza viruses infecting, or with the potential to infect, humans including seasonal influenza. For more information on virological surveillance and antiviral resistance please see the weekly virology update (Virological surveillance data, below).

Weekly update (Virological surveillance data)

*Countries in temperate regions are defined as those north of the Tropic of Cancer or south of the Tropic of Capricorn, while countries in tropical regions are defined as those between these two latitudes.

**Abbreviations: influenza-like-illness (ILI), acute respiratory infection (ARI), and severe acute respiratory infection (SARI)

Qualitative indicators (Week 29 to Week 51: 13 July – 20 December 2009)

The qualitative indicators monitor: the global geographic spread of influenza, trends in acute respiratory diseases, the intensity of respiratory disease activity, and the impact of the pandemic on health-care services.

Human infection with pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus: updated interim WHO guidance on global surveillance
A description of WHO pandemic monitoring and surveillance objectives and methods can be found in the updated interim WHO guidance for the surveillance of human infection with pandemic (H1N1) virus.

The maps below display information on the qualitative indicators reported. Information is available for approximately 60 countries each week. Implementation of this monitoring system is ongoing and completeness of reporting is expected to increase over time.

List of definitions of qualitative indicators

Laboratory-confirmed cases of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 as officially reported to WHO by States Parties to the IHR (2005) as of 20 December 2009

Map of affected countries and deaths

The countries and overseas territories/communities that have newly reported their first pandemic (H1N1) 2009 confirmed cases since the last web update (No. 80): None.

The countries and overseas territories/communities that have newly reported their first deaths among pandemic (H1N1) 2009 confirmed cases since the last web update (No. 80): Nepal and Armenia.

Region	Deaths*

WHO Regional Office for Africa (AFRO)	130
WHO Regional Office for the Americas (AMRO)	At least 6670
WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (EMRO)	693
WHO Regional Office for Europe (EURO)	At least 2422
WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia (SEARO)	1056
WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific (WPRO)	1249

Total*	At least 12220

* The reported number of fatal cases is an under representation of the actual numbers as many deaths are never tested or recognized as influenza related.

[의료개혁] 언론은 어떻게 하지불안증후군을 질병으로 만들었는가?

건강과대안 — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:37:11 +0000

스티븐 올로신과 리사 슈워츠가 2006년 4월 11일자 [PLoS Med]에 발표한 사례연구입니다. 그들은 미디어가 어떻게 사람들에게 ‘하지불안증후군’에 걸려서 아픈 것처럼 느끼도록 만들었는지를 조사했습니다. 다시 말해 제약회사가 미디어를 이용하여(또는 미디어의 도움을 받아) 소수가 심하게 앓는 질병을 수백만명 이상의 사람들이 겪는 의료문제로 꾸며냈는지를 규명한 것입니다.

글락소스미스클라인(GSK)사는 2003년 리큅(Requip)이라는 하지불안증후군 치료약을 개발하였으며, 2005년 미 FDA로부터 승인을 받았습니다. 스티븐과 올로신은 바로 이 기간 동안 언론에 보도된 하지불안증후군 관련 기사를 분석하였습니다.

2003~2005년 미국 내 주요 신문에 하지불안증후군 관련 기사가 187회 게재되었으며, 그 중에서 64%가 미국 성인 10명 중 1명이 하지불안증후군을 앓는다는 제약회사(GSK)의 주장을 별다른 비판 없이 그대로 받아 쓴 기사였습니다.

하지불안 관련 신문 기사 중에서 73%는 하지불안증후군이 신체적-사회적-정서적으로 극단적인 결과를 초래할 수 있다고 적었음에도 불구하고 45%의 기사에서는 많은 사람들이 자신들이 아프타는 것조차 알지 못할 가능성이 있다고 강조했습니다.

미국 언론과 GSK가 공동 주연한 질병 부풀리기(Disease Mongering)는 다른 질병과 다른 약물을 이용해 현실 속에서 여전히 자행되고 있다고 생각합니다. 한국 언론과 제약회사가 공동 연출한 질병 부풀리기(Disease Mongering) 사례도 연구가 되었으면 하는 바램입니다.

=======================
Giving Legs to Restless Legs: A Case Study of How the Media Helps Make People Sick

Steven Woloshin^#^*, Lisa M. Schwartz

Citation: Woloshin S, Schwartz LM (2006) Giving Legs to Restless Legs: A Case Study of How the Media Helps Make People Sick. PLoS Med 3(4): e170. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030170

Published: April 11, 2006

출처 : http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030170

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.

Funding: SW and LMS were supported by Robert Wood Johnson Generalist Faculty Scholar Awards. This study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (R01CA104721) and from a Research Enhancement Award from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.

Competing interests: The funders played no role in the submission or preparation of this paper. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviation: FDA, Food and Drug Administration

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: steven.woloshin@dartmouth.edu.

# These authors contributed equally to this work.

Steven Woloshin and Lisa M. Schwartz are at the Veterans Affairs Outcomes Group, White River Junction, Vermont, United States of America, and the Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States of America.

“[Restless legs syndrome] is quite a serious sleep disorder that affects a lot of people….Their sleep is disturbed and, unless they are really awake, they will not be aware of it” [1].

Life can be hard. Sometimes you feel sad or distracted or anxious. Or maybe you feel a compelling urge to move your legs. But does that mean you are sick? Does it mean you need medication?

Maybe, maybe not. For some people, symptoms are severe enough to be disabling. But for many others with milder problems, these “symptoms” are just the transient experiences of everyday life. Helping sick people get treatment is a good thing. Convincing healthy people that they are sick is not. Sick people stand to benefit from treatment, but healthy people may only get hurt: they get labeled “sick,” may become anxious about their condition, and, if they are treated, may experience side effects that overwhelm any potential benefit.

“Disease mongering” is the effort by pharmaceutical companies (or others with similar financial interests) to enlarge the market for a treatment by convincing people that they are sick and need medical intervention [2]. Typically, the disease is vague, with nonspecific symptoms spanning a broad spectrum of severity—from everyday experiences many people would not even call “symptoms,” to profound suffering. The market for treatment gets enlarged in two ways: by narrowing the definition of health so normal experiences get labeled as pathologic, and by expanding the definition of disease to include earlier, milder, and presymptomatic forms (e.g., regarding a risk factor such as high cholesterol as a disease in itself).

Discussions about disease mongering usually focus on the role of pharmaceutical companies—how they promote disease and their products through “disease awareness” campaigns and direct-to-consumer drug advertising, and by funding disease advocacy groups. But diseases also get promoted in another way: through the news media. News reports are a major source of health information for people [3]. Unless journalists approach stories about new diseases skeptically and look out for disease mongering by the pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical consultants, and advocacy groups, journalists, too, may end up selling sickness.

The Case of Restless Legs Syndrome Top

To get a sense of how the media works in the context of a major disease promotion effort, we examined news coverage of “restless legs” (see sidebar). In 2003, GlaxoSmithKline launched a campaign to promote awareness about restless legs syndrome, beginning with press releases about presentations at the American Academy of Neurology meeting describing the early trial results of using ropinirole (a drug previously approved for Parkinson disease) for the treatment of restless legs [6, 7]. Two months later, GlaxoSmithKline issued a new press release entitled “New survey reveals common yet under recognized disorder—restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night” about an internally funded and, at the time, unpublished study [8]. In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ropinirole for the treatment of restless legs syndrome (the first drug approved specifically for this indication). Since then, the restless legs campaign has developed into a multimillion dollar international effort to “push restless legs syndrome into the consciousness of doctors and consumers alike” [9].

Newspaper Coverage of the Restless Legs Syndrome Top

To identify media coverage related to this campaign over two years (November 2003–November 2005), we did full-text searches of “major newspapers” in Lexis-Nexis and ProQuest databases and found 187 unique articles with the phrase “restless legs.” We excluded articles not about the syndrome (e.g., “Elvis’s restless legs”), nonnews stories (e.g., health advice columns, notices of restless legs health screenings/support groups), and articles with only passing mention of restless legs (most of these were about sleep disorders, another “new yet largely unrecognized problem”). We analyzed the remaining 33 articles (all focused on restless legs syndrome) using an explicit coding scheme organized around the key elements of disease mongering, as outlined in the first column of Table 1: exaggerating the prevalence of the disease (e.g., uncritically accepting a broad prevalence estimate), encouraging more diagnosis (e.g., doctors fail to recognize it), and suggesting that all disease should be treated (e.g., overstating the benefits or minimizing the harms of treatment).

Table 1. Key Elements of Disease Mongering and How the Media Could Do Better

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030170.t001

Exaggerating Disease Prevalence Top

Figure 1 shows that the news articles often included elements exaggerating disease prevalence. Only one article questioned the disease definition at all (and portrayed the act of questioning the definition as insensitive: “[the patient] knows it can sound trivial. That’s one of the problems with restless legs. Radio show host Rush Limbaugh, for example, has mocked it as a pseudoillness” [10]).

Figure 1. Frequency of Key Elements of Disease Mongering in Newspaper Articles

Top bar graph analyzes all articles about restless legs syndrome. Bottom bar graph analyzes the subset that mentions ropinirole

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030170.g001

Almost two-thirds of articles provided an estimate of disease prevalence (most commonly, statements such as “at least 12 million Americans suffer from the syndrome” [11] or “[it] affects 1 in 10 adults in the United States” [12]). No article questioned the validity of the prevalence estimates. In fact, there are reasons to believe the estimates overstate the prevalence of clinically meaningful disease. For example, the frequently cited 10% estimate came from a study that used a single question to identify restless legs syndrome rather than the four standard criteria [13]. The less stringent definition inflates the estimate because people with other causes of leg symptoms (e.g., leg cramps or diabetic neuropathy) are counted incorrectly as having the syndrome.

In a recent large study, only 7% of respondents reported all four diagnostic criteria, and only 2.7% reported moderately or severely distressing symptoms two or more times per week (i.e., the group for whom medical treatment might be appropriate) [14]. Even the 2.7% estimate is probably too high, because of bias inherent in the study sample. The authors claimed an implausible 98% response rate to their random-digit dial survey (typical response rates are 50%–70% [15]). Most likely, the authors meant that 98% of individuals who agreed to participate completed the survey. But respondents agreeing to participate in a restless legs study are more likely to have leg-related symptoms than nonrespondents.

Nearly three-quarters of newspaper articles highlighted the potentially serious physical, social, and emotional consequences of restless legs: “…the condition sounds like a joke, but its consequences can be devastating. Driven to despair by years of sleepless nights, patients have become suicidal” [16]). While over 40% of the articles provided anecdotes about people with severe disease, no article provided anecdotes about people who did not find their symptoms especially bothersome.

Encourage More Diagnosis Top

The articles also reinforced the need for more diagnosis. About half reported that the syndrome is underdiagnosed by physicians (“…relatively few doctors know about restless legs. This is the most common disorder your doctor has never heard of” [17]) and underrecognized by patients (“…many people can suffer in silence for years before it is recognized” [18]). One-quarter of articles encouraged patient self-diagnosis and suggested people ask their doctor whether restless legs might explain various problems (including insomnia, daytime fatigue, attention deficit disorder in children, and depression). One-fifth of articles referred readers to the “nonprofit” Restless Legs Foundation for further information; none reported that the foundation is heavily subsidized by GlaxoSmithKline. No article acknowledged the possibility of overdiagnosis (the idea that some people will be diagnosed unnecessarily and take medication they do not really need).

Suggest That All Disease Should Be Treated Top

About half the news stories mentioned the drug ropinirole by name. Only one story quantified the drug’s benefit. By contrast, about half the stories mentioning ropinirole included anecdotes about patients who took the drug (and in most cases noted substantial improvement). One-third of articles used “miracle language” to describe patient response to medication (e.g., “it has been a miracle drug for me” [19]). The actual benefit of the drug is modest. The drug label reports that in a 12-week US clinical trial, restless legs symptom scores (measured on a 40-point scale) improved by 13.5 points for patients taking ropinirole compared with 9.8 points for those taking placebo [20]. In more clinical terms, 73% taking ropinirole responded to the drug (i.e., restless legs scores improved by six points) compared with 57% taking placebo.

The drug label [20] also notes that ropinirole has a number of side effects, including nausea (40% in ropinirole group versus 8% in placebo group) and dizziness (11% versus 5%, respectively). Somnolence and fatigue (ostensibly, the real target of the drug) were also higher in the ropinirole versus the placebo group (12% versus 6%; 8% versus 4%, respectively). Nonetheless, only five of the 15 articles mentioning ropinirole noted that it could have side effects and just one quantified the chance of any side effect (“nausea was the most common side effect, reported in 38% of patients” [18]). Finally, only one news story noted that the ropinirole trials were “relatively short” in duration (the longest was 36 weeks), despite the fact that many people would use the drug for years or even a lifetime.

Suggestions for How the Media Could Do Better Top

Unfortunately, there is no obvious way to distinguish information from infomercial. In Table 1, we highlight clues that should alert journalists to the presence of disease mongering, and suggest some things they can do to expose these efforts.

First, journalists should be very wary when confronted with a new or expanded disease affecting large numbers of people. If a disease is common and very bothersome, it is hard to believe that no one would have noticed it before. Prevalence estimates are easy to exaggerate by broadening the definition of disease. Journalists need to ask exactly how the disease is being defined, whether the diagnostic criteria were used appropriately, and whether the study sample truly represents the general population (e.g., patients at an insomnia clinic cannot be taken to represent the general public).

Journalists should also reflexively question whether more diagnosis is always a good thing. Simply labeling people with disease has negative consequences [21]. Similarly, journalists should question the assumption that treatment always makes sense. Medical treatments always involve trade-offs; people with mild symptoms have little to gain, and treatment may end up causing more harm than good.

Finally, instead of extreme, unrepresentative anecdotes about miracle cures, journalists should help readers understand how well the treatment works (e.g., what is the chance that I will feel better if I take the medicine versus if I do not?) and what problems it might cause (e.g., whether I might be trading less restless legs for daytime nausea, dizziness, and somnolence).

Conclusion Top

The news coverage of restless legs syndrome is disturbing. It exaggerated the prevalence of disease and the need for treatment, and failed to consider the problems of overdiagnosis. In essence, the media seemed to have been co-opted into the disease-mongering process. Although our review was limited to the coverage of a single disease promotion campaign, we think it is likely that our findings would apply to others. It is easy to understand why the media would be attracted to disease promotion stories and why they would be covered uncritically. The stories are full of drama: a huge but unrecognized public health crisis, compelling personal anecdotes, uncaring or ignorant doctors, and miracle cures.

The problem lies in presenting just one side of the story. There may be no public health crisis, the compelling stories may not represent the typical experience of people with the condition, the doctors may be wise not to invoke a new diagnosis for vague symptoms that may have a more plausible explanation, the cures are far from miraculous, and healthy people may be getting hurt.

We think the media could report medical news without reinforcing disease promotion efforts by approaching stories like “restless legs” with a greater degree of skepticism. After all, their job is to inform readers, not to make them sick.

What Is Restless Legs Syndrome?

The diagnosis of restless legs syndrome requires the presence of the following four criteria [4]:

An urge to move the legs due to an unpleasant feeling in the legs.
Onset or worsening of symptoms when at rest or not moving around frequently.
Partial or complete relief by movement (e.g., walking) for as long as the movement continues.
Symptoms that occur primarily at night and that can interfere with sleep or rest.

The severity of disease is judged by the frequency of these symptoms, which can range from less than once a month to many times a day. Recommended treatments include stretching exercises and less caffeine for intermittent disease and various prescription drugs (e.g., benzodiazepines and dopamine agonists) for daily symptoms [5].

Acknowledgments Top

We would like to thank Elliott Fisher and Brenda Sirovich for helpful comments on earlier drafts.

References Top

Revill J2004 Restless legs keep 6m awake. The Observer.September Available: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1307797,00.html . Accessed 2 March 2006 .
Moynihan R, Cassels A (2005) Selling sickness. How the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies are turning us all into patients. New York: Nation Books. 254 p.
Kaiser Family Foundation (2005) Kaiser health poll report: Public opinion snapshot on health information sources—July 2005. Menlo Park (California): Kaiser Family Foundation. Available: http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/pomr071805oth.cfm . Accessed 2 March 2006.
Reuters2005 Glaxo drug for restless legs syndrome is approved. The New York Times. May Sect C: 3. Find this article online
Silber M, Ehrenberg B, Allen R, Buchfuhrer M, Earley C, et al. (2004) An algorithm for the management of restless legs syndrome. Mayo Clin Proc 79: 916–922. Find this article online
GlaxoSmithKline2003 Apr 1. Restless legs syndrome can significantly impair quality of life. Research Triangle Park (North Carolina): GlaxoSmithKline. Available: http://www.gsk.com/ControllerServlet?appId=4&pageId=402&newsid=175 . Accessed 7 March 2006 .
GlaxoSmithKline2003 Mar 31. Study shows Requip® (ropinirole HCl) improves symptoms of Restless legs syndrome. Research Triangle Park (North Carolina): GlaxoSmithKline. Available: http://www.gsk.com/ControllerServlet?appId=4&pageId=402&newsid=71 . Accessed 7 March 2006 .
GlaxoSmithKline2003 Jun 10. New survey reveals common yet under recognized disorder—Restless legs syndrome—is keeping America awake at night. Research Triangle Park (North Carolina): GlaxoSmithKline. Available: http://gsk.com/press_archive/press2003/press_06102003.htm . Accessed 7 March 2006 .
Rundle RL (2005) Motion sickness: Restless legs syndrome has long been misdiagnosed and misunderstood; that’s about to change. The Wall Street Journal. Sect R: 5. Find this article online
Lerner M (2005) Respect, relief for restless legs; pill helps relieve pain and exhaustion for those who suffer from syndrome. Star Tribune, Metro ed; Sect B: 1. Find this article online
O’Connor A2004 Restless legs; uncomfortable and overlooked. The New York Times.May Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/health/25legs.html?ex=1141448400&en=2bf6d431bc7f2b69&ei=5070 . Accessed 2 March 2006 .
Rackl L2005 Drug to calm sleep-robbing leg syndrome okayed by FDA; uncontrollable urge to move limbs affects 1 in 10, runs in families. Chicago Sun-Times.May Available: http://www.zoeticzone.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050523/ai_n14648506 . Accessed 2 March 2006 .
Phillips B, Young T, Finn L, Asher K, Hening WA, et al. (2000) Epidemiology of restless legs symptoms in adults. Arch Intern Med 160: 2137–2141. Find this article online
Allen R, Walters A, Montplaisir J, Hening W, Myers A, et al. (2005) Restless legs syndrome prevalence and impact: REST general population study. Arch Intern Med 165: 1286–1292. Find this article online
Groves R, Fowler F, Couper M, Lepkowski J, Singer E, et al. (2004) Survey methodology. Hoboken (New Jersey): John Wiley and Sons. 448 p.
Lantin B2004 No sleep for those with restless legs. The Daily Telegraph.December Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2004/01/12/hrest12.xml .
O’Neill P (2004) Restless legs treatments under study in Oregon. The Oregonian; Sect B: 1. Find this article online
Cresswell A (2005) Relief at hand for restless legs. The Weekend Australian; Sect C: 29. Find this article online
Fiely D (2005) Restless legs syndrome; ads for drug raise awareness of annoying condition. The Columbus Dispatch. Home Final Edition ed; Sect G: 1. Find this article online
GlaxoSmithKline (2005) Requip® (ropinirole hydrochloride)—Prescribing information. Research Triangle Park (North Carolina): GlaxoSmithKline. Available: http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2005/020658s013lbl.pdf . Accessed 2 March 2006 .
Haynes R, Sackett D, Taylor D, Gibson E, Johnson A (1978) Increased absenteeism from work after detection and labeling of hypertensive patients. N Engl J Med 299: 741–744. Find this article online

건강과 대안 » GSK

[기업감시] GSK 당뇨치료제 ‘아반디아’ 부작용 알고도 숨겨

Glaxo said to settle Avandia cases on eve of vote

[돼지독감] WHO 또다시 돼지독감 리베이트 스캔들에 휘말려

Flu experts rebut conflict claims

Suspicious minds

Clear firewall

“신종플루 전문가, 제약회사와 유착”

[기업감시] 암젠, 골다공증 치료제 프롤리아 승인 임박(GSK 판매 예정)

[기감] 4.2.1. 제약산업 GlaxoSmithKline plc

[돼지독감] GSK(글락소), 신종플루 백신 판매 예상보다 25% 감소

[돼지독감] WHO 가짜 신종플루 스캔들 조사 주역, 볼프강 보다르크 인터뷰

[돼지독감] “신종플루 대유행은 ‘허위 대유행’”..제약회사들이 대유행 선언토록 공포심 조장”

[돼지독감] WHO 독감전문가 알버트 오스터하우스 교수, 자신의 경제적 이익 위해 신종플루 위험 과장… 조사중

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

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

[돼지독감] WHO, 신종플루 사망자 최소 12220명 집계

Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 – update 81

Weekly update

Situation update:

Qualitative indicators (Week 29 to Week 51: 13 July – 20 December 2009)

Geographic spread of influenza activity

Trend of respiratory diseases activity compared to the previous week

Intensity of acute respiratory diseases in the population

Impact on health care services

Laboratory-confirmed cases of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 as officially reported to WHO by States Parties to the IHR (2005) as of 20 December 2009

[의료개혁] 언론은 어떻게 하지불안증후군을 질병으로 만들었는가?

The Case of Restless Legs Syndrome Top

Newspaper Coverage of the Restless Legs Syndrome Top

Exaggerating Disease Prevalence Top

Encourage More Diagnosis Top

Suggest That All Disease Should Be Treated Top

Suggestions for How the Media Could Do Better Top

Conclusion Top

What Is Restless Legs Syndrome?

Acknowledgments Top

References Top

Add a note to this text.

Add a note to this text.

Add a note to this text.

Add a note to this text.

건강과 대안 » GSK

[기업감시] GSK 당뇨치료제 ‘아반디아’ 부작용 알고도 숨겨

Glaxo said to settle Avandia cases on eve of vote

[돼지독감] WHO 또다시 돼지독감 리베이트 스캔들에 휘말려

Flu experts rebut conflict claims

Suspicious minds

Clear firewall

“신종플루 전문가, 제약회사와 유착”

[기업감시] 암젠, 골다공증 치료제 프롤리아 승인 임박(GSK 판매 예정)

[기감] 4.2.1. 제약산업 GlaxoSmithKline plc

[돼지독감] GSK(글락소), 신종플루 백신 판매 예상보다 25% 감소

[돼지독감] WHO 가짜 신종플루 스캔들 조사 주역, 볼프강 보다르크 인터뷰

[돼지독감] “신종플루 대유행은 ‘허위 대유행’”..제약회사들이 대유행 선언토록 공포심 조장”

[돼지독감] WHO 독감전문가 알버트 오스터하우스 교수, 자신의 경제적 이익 위해 신종플루 위험 과장… 조사중

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

[돼지독감] WHO, 신종플루 사망자 최소 12220명 집계

Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 – update 81

Weekly update

Situation update:

Qualitative indicators (Week 29 to Week 51: 13 July – 20 December 2009)

Geographic spread of influenza activity

Trend of respiratory diseases activity compared to the previous week

Intensity of acute respiratory diseases in the population

Impact on health care services

Laboratory-confirmed cases of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 as officially reported to WHO by States Parties to the IHR (2005) as of 20 December 2009

[의료개혁] 언론은 어떻게 하지불안증후군을 질병으로 만들었는가?

The Case of Restless Legs Syndrome Top

Newspaper Coverage of the Restless Legs Syndrome Top

Exaggerating Disease Prevalence Top

Encourage More Diagnosis Top

Suggest That All Disease Should Be Treated Top

Suggestions for How the Media Could Do Better Top

Conclusion Top

What Is Restless Legs Syndrome?

Acknowledgments Top

References Top

Add a note to this text.

Add a note to this text.

Add a note to this text.

Add a note to this text.

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

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