NIH conflict of interest and vaccines

Maybe I could suggest some good natural remedies for eyesight and cognitive impairment?  Just because you pick and choose, does not mean that the unaltered results I posted were selected by me - they were selected by Google, and then you decided to pick and choose the ones you wished to quote.

And I see you fail to comment on the fact that not one single result came back indicating that the NIH just might be biased towards the public.

Cut and paste you say? I figured that maybe doing so might be something you could grasp, as it differs little from your picking and choosing from mainstream and .gov sources, as well as cut and pasting, to justify what has been thoroughly taken apart here: vaccine safety and effectiveness.  Certainly facts and reasons you won't accept have not worked.

OK, let's cut to the chase - is there or is there not any bias or conflict of interest (which equates to bias) at the NIH regarding industry.

From the respected Townsend Letter to Doctors:

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the "steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation." Doctors rely on the NIH for unbiased, accurate information; but, current practices have jeopardized the NIH reputation. In his investigative article for the Los Angeles Times (22 December 2004), David Willman describes the permissive NIH culture that allows, even encourages, its scientists to accept consulting fees and stock options from companies whose products they evaluate. The article provides several examples of NIH scientists who have received money, stock, or stock options from biomedical companies and, later, endorsed a company product. When the companies use the consulting scientists to endorse a product, the consultants' NIH positions are emphasized; their collaborations and financial arrangements with the companies are rarely mentioned.

National Institutes of Health criticised for not preventing conflicts of interest

New York

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been criticised by members of Congress for letting employees accept lucrative consultancy assignments from drug and biotechnology companies.

On 22 June the director of the NIH, Dr Elias Zerhouni, told the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, "In retrospect, there was not a sufficient safeguard against the perception of conflict of interest." He said the NIH would tighten rules about employees' consultancy work.

The NIH's troubles began on 7 December 2003. In a front page article the Los Angeles Times described how a small number of the institutes' 17 000 employees had received millions of dollars of income from outside sources since 1995 ( 2003 December 7;sect A: 1).

That in itself was not illegal, although the public and even many senators and representatives were probably unaware of the practice.

Restrictions on outside work by NIH employees were loosened in 1995 by Dr Harold Varmus, the Nobel prize winner who headed the organisation at the time, in an effort to recruit leading scientists who could earn much more at universities. In his testimony on 22 June Dr Zerhouni outlined what he described as "a major reform" since then.

"We are severely restricting the ability of NIH employees to consult with industry," he said. He suggested prohibiting holding stock in biotechnology or drug companies, consulting by senior staff and staff who award research grants, and receiving stock as payment or holding stock in drug or biotechnology companies, limiting outside work to 400 hours a year, and limiting payment to 25% of salary—as well as random audits to detect unreported outside work. He also called for more public financial disclosures by employees.

However, the Washington Post (2004 June 23;sect A: 19) reported that one researcher at the National Cancer Institute continued to receive consultancy fees, although he testified that he had suspended the agreement. It also reported that the blue ribbon committee had turned up about 100 consultancy arrangements that NIH officials didn't know about. A neurologist at the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr Trey Sunderland, had received more than $500000 (£273250; 410340) over the past five years in fees, honorariums, and expense repayments from Pfizer, but the amounts had not been reported.

The Wall Street Journal (2004 June 22;sect A: 4) reported that the investigation into conflicts of interest is being expanded to 15 other federal agencies.

^{Source: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/329/7456/10-b}

Related Articles

Investigators will review conflicts of interest at NIH

Janice Hopkins Tanne
BMJ 2007 334: 767. [Extract] [Full Text

U.S. National Institutes of Health News - The New York Times

and finally, in the "Cut and Paste Coup de Grace"

take a look at Vaccine Conflict of Interest Quotes at

http://www.whale.to/m/quotes9.html

Here are two of MY favorites which I will cut and paste just for you: