How Conflicts of Interest Affect
Research Quoted in the Media
November 24, 2015
Story at-a-glance
−
-
Regulators are mandated to screen products for
safety, but in the case of vaccines, the regulators
are also promoting it, while essentially ignoring
safety issues—a clear and dangerous conflict of
interest
-
Revolving doors between regulatory agencies and the
drug industry deepen the conflicts of interest; and
these revolving doors exist both at the state and
national level
-
Medical journals also have problems with conflicts
of interest. For starters, they accept advertising
revenue from pharmaceutical companies—a practice
unheard of in economic and finance journals
By Dr. Mercola
Most of us appreciate science in helping us understand the
truth about health and disease. Unfortunately, much of the
science we rely on today is colored and confounded by massive
conflicts of interest.
Award winning associate professor Gayle Delong has an
interesting perspective of this topic. While working in the
Finance Department of the Baruch College in New York City, she
has studied the influence of conflicts of interest as it
pertains to
vaccine safety and research.
"I have two daughters with autism," she admits.
"When they were first diagnosed—my older daughter was
diagnosed in 2000, and my younger in 2003—there was this
idea kicking around that vaccines might have some kind of
association with autism.
When I first heard this I thought, 'That's crazy.
That couldn't possibly be the case.' It was only in 2005,
when the book Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and
the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy came out,
that the association between vaccines and autism really made
sense to me and my husband.
We were shocked by the idea that government
regulators could allow vaccines that could have such
devastating side effects. But it began to make sense after
we read Evidence of Harm."
Regulatory Capture—When Industry Influences Regulatory Decisions
The original theory was that mercury (thimerosal) was the
main source of the problem. That theory has now been expanded,
and as revealed in my interview with Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic,
vaccine adjuvants, such as aluminum, as well as viruses and
other ingredients, may play a significant role.
Not to mention the fact we're now "carpet bombing" our
children with vaccines, to use Delong's expression.
Common sense would suggest that if we're giving our children
more than five dozen vaccinations (69 doses of 16 vaccines are
recommended in the US) from day of birth to age 18, we're
probably overvaccinating them.
Yet, authorities continue to insist that "more is better"
when it comes to vaccines, without providing adequate scientific
evidence to justify that assumption.
"So, I began to think of this in terms of an
economist. I began looking at something called regulatory
capture," Delong says. "It's the idea that the
industry influences the decisions made by a regulator.
The whole pharmaceutical industry is influencing the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)... In this case... the
FDA licensed vaccines. But they were also tasked with doing
research on vaccines.
Here we have an agency that is approving vaccines,
and then told to say, 'OK, we'll make sure these vaccines
are safe.' Once they've approved some, and once they've
licensed them, very rarely are they going to turn around and
say, 'Oh, we made a mistake.'"
After the FDA approves a vaccine, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) decides whether it should go on the
recommended schedule for American citizens. Until very recently
this included mainly children, but now they're expanding that to
adults as well.
In addition to adding vaccines deemed necessary to the
vaccine schedule, the CDC is also supposed to provide
information about vaccine safety. That too is a conflict of
interest.
Regulators are mandated to screen the product for safety, but
in this case, they're also promoting it. In addition to that,
regulators keep moving through the revolving door between the
regulatory agencies of the very industry they are regulating; a
dangerous and reprehensible practice.
Examples of 'Revolving Door' Between Regulatory Agencies and
Industry Abound
Dr. Julie Gerberding is a perfect illustration of this
dangerous practice. She headed up the CDC from 2002 to 2009,
after which she became the president of
Merck's vaccine division, a position she still holds today.
The influence her former high-level ties to the CDC wields is
enormous, considering the fact that Merck makes 14 of the 17
pediatric vaccines recommended by the CDC, and nine of the 10
recommended for adults.
Dr. Thomas Verstraeten is another example. He was a
researcher at the CDC working on a study looking at the safety
of thimerosal back in the early 2000s. Before the study was even
published, he transferred from the CDC to GlaxoSmithKline.
"Do you think that report said there was an
association between thimerosal and autism? Heads up. No, it
didn't," Delong says.
This type of disastrous revolving door policy doesn't just
exist at the national level; it's happening at the state level
as well. In New Jersey, Dr. Eddy Bresnitz went from being the
state vaccine policy maker to working in Merck's vaccine
division.
This type of conflict of interest goes back over a century in
the US and has been prevalent in all sorts of industries. For
example:
"When railroads were first regulated, the industry
tried to get their guys to become regulators. And then, of
course, reward them after they have done a good job as
regulator by giving them nice jobs."
The Agency Theory
Conflict of interest is a well-known factor within the field
of economics. According to Delong, the major problem discussed
in economics is something called the agency theory—a
situation in which company owners hire the managers.
The owners of the company want the value of their company to
grow as much as possible. The managers want their own wealth to
be maximized. What you often end up with is a situation in which
one hand keeps washing the other, while the consumers or
customers are seen as little more than a means to a profitable
end.
"If we think about in terms of US citizens, we are
hiring the regulators essentially. We want our health to be
maximized, whereas the people working at the CDC and the FDA
want to maximize their own wealth, their own agendas. They
see their friends going to work for the private industry
after they've been regulators and earning many more dollars.
The consequences are tragic."
There Are No Checks and Balances...
There should be checks and balances as far as product safety
goes. If a product harms someone, that person can typically sue
the producer. That doesn't exist with vaccines. You cannot sue a
vaccine manufacturer if you or your child is injured. You have
to submit a claim to a panel.
They call it "the vaccine court"—which was started in 1985 to
protect the vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits—but it's not a
court at all, as there's no discovery, no judge presiding, and
no appeal process. There's also no publicity to share the damage
awards with the public.
"It is just a panel of special masters, who hear a
claim that the vaccine injured you or your child. They
decide whether you deserve compensation. Often, they only
pay out about 30 percent of the claims. It's not working in
a way it should be working," Delong says.
"That is why I'm not sure we can work through the
government to get proper vaccine safety. I think we're
basically on our own. Parents have to do their own research.
They need to gather the information from different sources.
Yes, look at the information from the CDC.
Look at the information from Dr. Bob Sears' books. Go
to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) Website.
Get the information from there because we can't trust the
regulators."
Medical Journals Are Compromised by Conflicts of Interest Too
Delong has published one article1
on the conflicts of interest in vaccine safety research in the
peer-reviewed journal Accountability in Research, and
another on the association between
autism prevalence and childhood
vaccination uptake in the Journal of Toxicology and
Environmental Health,2
in which she presents evidence showing "a positive association
between vaccine uptake and autism or speech delays. In states
that had higher vaccine uptake for children up to the age of 2,
six years later, when the children were 8, they tended to have a
higher prevalence of autism or speech delays among the
population."
Now, it's worth noting that medical journals also have
problems with conflicts of interest. For starters, medical
journals accept advertising revenue from pharmaceutical
companies—a practice unheard of in economic and finance
journals, according to Delong. Another tool used by drug
companies that creates financial incentive for medical journals
to cherry-pick the studies they publish is the reprinting of
journal articles.
The drug company also regularly orders tens or even hundreds
of thousands of reprints of journal articles supporting their
drug, which their drug reps dole out to doctors as a stamp of
approval. What people don't realize is those reprints are
enormous revenue sources for the journals and heavily
incentivize them to not bite the hand that is feeding them. It's
just another form of kickback linked directly to the journals.
The journal knows that if they print a certain article, the
reprints will add to their bottom line; whereas a more obscure
or negative study will not be reprinted because there's no sales
rep demand for them. We tend to think that if a study is
published, it must be good, and if there are no published
studies on something, it must not be based in solid science.
Understanding that there are powerful financial incentives
steering medical journals to accept a study for publication may
help you loosen that prejudice against unpublished science.
Why Mainstream Media Will Not Report Important Truths About
Medicine
The mainstream media is not of much help either, as the drug
industry spends billions of dollars in the US alone every year
on advertising with them. The influence this creates is
insidious, as discussed in my recent interview with
award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, author
of "Stonewalled:
My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction,
Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington".
She refers to it as "soft censorship"—that situation in which
a media outlet's sponsors wield power at the corporate level
over the types of stories and topics that are covered. It's
important to realize that you simply will not get the truth from
the media on certain topics for this reason. Attkisson actually
quit her job because she got fed up with her inability to run
important stories, simply because they ran afoul with corporate
sponsors.
"I remembered telling my mother that HPV vaccine is
killing girls," Delong says. "My mother was
flabbergasted. She said, 'We don't read about it in the
paper.' That's, of course, because pharmaceutical companies
are still buying advertisements unlike many other types of
industries.
If you read any of the magazines or the inserts in
the Sunday paper, you're going to see advertisements from
pharmaceutical companies, page after page after page.
They're not allowed to do that in other countries,
but they get away with it in the US, because they
manipulated the federal regulators to allow them to do
that... And, there was a study showing that if an industry
pays for advertising in a media, that media tends not to
report negative news about the industry."
We Need a National Vaccine Safety Board
Delong believes we need to implement a National Vaccine
Safety Board, similar to the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB). After there's an accident, the NTSB does an
investigation to determine the cause of the accident, and then
presents recommendations for avoiding a repeat in the future.
Importantly, the NTSB is completely removed from the Department
of Transportation.
Likewise, a National Vaccine Safety Board would have to be
completely outside of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. The sad tragedy is that such a rational "ideal world"
recommendation will never be implemented due to the massive
conflicts of interests discussed earlier...
Considering the many vaccines currently on the market, where
did all the vaccine studies (typically revolving around
efficacy, not safety) come from? The answer is, from the
industry. The problem with that is that study after study shows
industry-funded research is very prone to bias in favor of the
product. And, there's no impartial objective review.
When the FDA approves a product, most consumers are under the
illusion that the FDA has conducted its own independent
evaluation to validate the research presented to them.
Nothing could be further from the truth. All they do is
examine the studies submitted to them by the very companies who
want to gain massive revenues from it.
Moreover, independent researchers who manage to publish
negative findings often come under heavy fire, and many have
even lost their careers publishing findings that run counter to
the industry's PR machine. Take vaccine researcher Lucija
Tomljenovic, who studies the neurotoxic effects of aluminum
vaccine adjuvants for example.
Together with neurological disease researcher Christopher
Shaw, Tomljenovic has published a number of papers3,4,5,6,7
showing aluminum-containing vaccines may be unsafe. One critic
blasted them saying it was irresponsible to publish
this type of research because it might erode the confidence
in vaccines.
But how can one have confidence when the evidence shows that
many vaccine ingredients, such as aluminum, have never actually
been tested for safety? Efficacy is only one side of the
equation. Granted, industry-funded efficacy studies are prone to
bias, but even if efficacy was top-notch, what good is
a vaccine that effectively prevents one disease if it can cause
lifelong disability or chronic health problems?
Safety is the other side of the equation, and vaccines need
safety studies to ascertain their safety not just in isolation,
but also in combination with all the other vaccines on the
schedule.
This has never been done. Moreover, Tomljenovic actually
discovered FDA documents from 2002 admitting that routine
toxicity studies with vaccine ingredients have not been
conducted because it was assumed that these ingredients
are safe—emphasis on the word "assumed." I don't know about you,
but to me, an assumption does not equate to proof of safety, no
matter how many times you repeat it.
Helpful Resources Before You Vaccinate
One helpful resource suggested by Delong is David Kirby's
book, "Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism
Epidemic: A Medical Controversy."
She also suggests the following books for addressing the
treatment of autism: Changing the Course of Autism: A
Scientific Approach for Parents and Physicians by Bryan
Jepson, and Dr. Kenneth Bock's Healing the New Childhood
Epidemics: Autism, ADHD, Asthma, and Allergies: The
Groundbreaking Program for the 4-A Disorders.
I also highly recommend Dr. Suzanne Humphries' book,
Dissolving Illusions, which documents the historical
framework for why vaccines have been an overhyped failure. It's
an excellent resource for refuting the typical arguments and
justifications used to push for vaccination.
On a final note, Delong says:
"I think, if I had to do it over again, before
vaccinating my child I would go to the
National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), definitely,
and the Generation Rescue [website]. EpidemicAnswers.org is
another good resource."
© Copyright 1997-2015 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/11/24/industry-influences-regulatory-decisions.aspx
|