newjerseynewsroom.com

Nutley's Roche named in conflict of interest investigation

BY JEFF LEVY

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

The World Health Organization is under investigation for their handling of the H1N1 influenza pandemic. An inquiry into WHO has been opened by the British Medical Journal and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London.

Concerns have been brought up regarding how WHO managed conflicts of interest from scientists consulting WHO on preparations for a widespread influenza outbreak. Scrutiny has also come upon the actual risk of the H1N1 influenza virus, the drugs to fight the virus and WHO's definition of a pandemic. Additional questions have come to light over the transparency of the science used by WHO in major recommendations to nations around the globe.

Swine flu first became a public health concern one year ago on June 11, 2009 when WHO announced that the H1N1 influenza virus had reached the level of a pandemic. This prompted countries around the world to stockpile vaccines and influenza medications.

The swine flu pandemonium cost governments following WHO's suggestions a staggering amount of money. Spending by the United States on H1N1 drugs and public information campaigns is estimated to range from $4.3 billion to as much as $8.5 billion set aside by Washington to combat the virus. The French government reportedly spent over $750 million on the H1N1 virus. The Canadian government doled out more than $2 billion to fight swine flu. Pharmaceutical companies fattened their wallets, while an influenza pandemic never came to be.

Many of WHO's scientific advisors had previously been on the payrolls of pharmaceutical companies that would financially benefit from their guidance to WHO on the H1N1 pandemic. WHO's first planning for an influenza outbreak took place in 1999. They received recommendations from the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza, a group funded by Roche, a Swiss global health care company with operations in Nutley, N.J.. Not only did WHO accept advice from influenza experts who had done prior work for Roche, but also from experts that had connections to GlaxoSmithKline, which has its headquarters in London. Both of these companies produced the H1N1 drugs, Tamiflu and Relenza for general use.

WHO faces the challenge of balancing health industry conflicts of interest with the best interests of the public. Pharmaceutical companies, the global public health system and WHO all rely on the same knowledge base. WHO has failed to reveal if their experts ever disclosed their conflicts of interest or how these conflicts affected decisions made by WHO. WHO's lack of accountability over their handling of the H1N1 pandemic has led to far ranging skepticism on whether their allegiance lies with the public or the private sector.

"Potential conflicts of interest are inherent in any relationship between a normative and health development agency, like WHO, and a profit-driven industry. Similar considerations apply when experts advising the Organization have professional links with pharmaceutical companies. Numerous safeguards are in place to manage possible conflicts of interest or their perception," WHO said.

WHO has been criticized for not properly communicating the level of threat the H1N1 virus posed. They failed to convey the uncertainty of the impact swine flu could have. WHO purported the virus would afflict two billion people worldwide, nearly one third of the human population. The scientific evidence leading WHO to this conclusion remains a mystery to the public.

To add to the confusion over swine flu's seriousness, WHO changed their definition of a pandemic in May 2009. This revision happened just one month prior to the announcement that the world had an influenza pandemic on their hands.

General fears surrounding the H1N1 virus drove governments to rush production and distribution of vaccines and antivirals that hadn't been properly tested for their efficacy or side effects. The Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency each questioned the effectiveness and benefits of the drugs Relenza and Tamiflu before they were approved for use.

Dr. Deborah Cohen, features editor of the BMJ explained on the Alex Jones Radio Show that she expects practices and protocol to be reviewed as the report garners international attention.

“I think what we hope for is that the WHO really looks at how they deal and how they use experts with industry ties. I mean what they've got to sit back and think is, how do you feel as a taxpayer knowing that somebody is on the payroll of a big pharmaceutical company that is set to make billions out of a drug? How do you feel about them developing your policy, is that acceptable? And our feeling is it probably isn't acceptable,” Cohen said.

The WHO faces several problems as they move forward and reform their approach to public policy.

“One of the key things has been a lack of transparency. And you know at one point people would have accepted the doctors making decisions, they weren't questioned. But we're past that now and I think we're in a day and age where we want transparency and we expect decision makers to be accountable for their actions,” Cohen explained.

A major concern of health care professionals is if similar situations of calling wolf arise again, the medical system will lose credibility and public trust.

“The World Health Organization rather than deflecting criticism I think really has to take stock now and say, how are we going to deal with this in the future?” Cohen said.

Cohen hopes that some good will come out of this investigation and these issues will be addressed.