Dr. Offit

[Guest guest]

>

>Dr. Offit lists that he is a consultant to Merck on an attachment to his

OGE

>450, but does not disclose whether or not he received any remuneration for

>his services.

>

>Dr. Offit shares the patent on the Rotavirus vaccine in development by

Merck

>and lists a $350,000 grant from Merck for Rotavirus vaccine development.

>Also, he lists that he is a consultant to Merck.

>

>Dr. Offit began his tenure on ACIP in October of 1998. Out of four votes

>pertaining to the ACIP's rotavirus statement he voted " yes " three times,

>including, voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC

>program.

>

>Dr. Offit abstained from voting on the ACIP's rescission of the

>recommendation of the rotavirus vaccine for routine use. He stated at the

>meeting, " I'm not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck

on

>the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain

>because it creates a perception of conflict. " [lxvii]

>

>

>He was questioned continually by Dan Burton, Congressman in the Conflict of

>Interest Hearings in D.C. about his conflicts and he ABSOLUTELY denied that

>the above made a conflict because he was an honest man.

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

vaccineinfo@...

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

PO Box 1563 Nevada City CA 95959 530-740-0561 Voicemail in US

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE

DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.

Well Within's Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin

International Tours, Homestudy Courses, ANTHRAX & OTHER Vaccine Dangers

Education, Homeopathic Education

CEU's for nurses, Books & Multi-Pure Water Filters

[Guest guest]

, He's a paid consultant by the vaccine manufacturers to travel

around the country teaching doctors about the safety of vaccines (among

other things) - it's at the top of the article.

Sandy

Dr. Offit

Sandy, I remember reading this. Was it his wife, that has an investment?

It

just gets me, my son was operated on in CHOP. I'm not that far away. I

would

love to see egg on his face someday. Might be spiteful, but so be it.

[Guest guest]

<<Dr. Offit abstained from voting on the ACIP's rescission of the

recommendation of the rotavirus vaccine for routine use. He stated at the

meeting, " I'm not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on

the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain

because it creates a perception of conflict. " [lxvii]

((((BUT HE STIL HAD MAJOR CONTACT WITH THOSE WHO DID VOTE}}}}}}}>>

Sheri, isn't this just great! This is the same Dr. who is claiming you have

to have the chicken pox vax and the measles vax at the same time, or within

30 days of each other. Where is his scientific research? Maybe, he feels he

doesn't need it, because he's an important Dr. at a big children's hospital.

Parents will listen to his word as though he were God.

Say something negative about vaccines, and you better have your research to

back it up. Even when you do have the evidence to back it up, they rip the

studies apart. Where is the equality in that?

The reason I'm interested in him is, there is a link under a vaccinations

heading in the files in POFAK (Parents of Food Allergic Kids), that leads

directly to him. I was very grateful they let me post about 's

survey. I could not post the survey itself. If anyone was interested they had

to email me privately. Vaccines are considered OT on this list unless it

deals with an allergy, like egg in the flu and MMR vaccines. Very frustrating

indeed, what about all the preservative and adjuvants?

[Guest guest]

At 06:05 PM 03/08/2002 EST, you wrote:

>Sandy, I remember reading this. Was it his wife, that has an investment? It

>just gets me, my son was operated on in CHOP. I'm not that far away. I would

>love to see egg on his face someday. Might be spiteful, but so be it.

>

>

>

Just type his name in the archives and you will see.

He has a patent on a rotavirus vaccine.

And makes $$$$$$$$$$$ from vaccine cos

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

vaccineinfo@...

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

PO Box 1563 Nevada City CA 95959 530-740-0561 Voicemail in US

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE

DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.

Well Within's Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin

International Tours, Homestudy Courses, ANTHRAX & OTHER Vaccine Dangers

Education, Homeopathic Education

CEU's for nurses, Books & Multi-Pure Water Filters

[Guest guest]

>

>The reason I'm interested in him is, there is a link under a vaccinations

>heading in the files in POFAK (Parents of Food Allergic Kids), that leads

>directly to him. I was very grateful they let me post about 's

>survey. I could not post the survey itself. If anyone was interested they

had

>to email me privately. Vaccines are considered OT on this list unless it

>deals with an allergy, like egg in the flu and MMR vaccines. Very

frustrating

>indeed, what about all the preservative and adjuvants?

>

>

Afraid of the truth are they?

Good grief

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

vaccineinfo@...

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

PO Box 1563 Nevada City CA 95959 530-740-0561 Voicemail in US

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE

DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.

Well Within's Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin

International Tours, Homestudy Courses, ANTHRAX & OTHER Vaccine Dangers

Education, Homeopathic Education

CEU's for nurses, Books & Multi-Pure Water Filters

[Guest guest]

Voting Himself Rich: CDC Vaccine Adviser Made $29 Million Or More After Using

Role to Create Market

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/voting-himself-rich-cdc-vaccine-adviser-made-\

29-million-or-more-after-using-role-to-create-market.html

By Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill

Dr. Offit of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) took home a

fortune of at least $29 million as part of a $182 million sale by CHOP of its

worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine to Royalty Pharma in

April of last year, according to an investigation by Age of Autism. Based on an

analysis of current CHOP administrative policies, the amount of income

distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million.

There is nothing improper about receiving compensation for a patented

innovation; but the extraordinary valuation placed on CHOP's patents raise

concerns over Offit's use of his former position on the CDC's Advisory Committee

on Immunization Practices to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine -- to

effectively vote himself rich.

Offit has steadfastly refused to say how much he made from the vaccine. Based on

the income distribution guidelines set forth in CHOP's current administrative

policy manual (HERE) entitled " Patent and Intellectual Property Policy, " Offit's

share of this transaction -- the " inventor's share of net income " -- would have

earned him a personal distribution of 30%. In a Moody's report dated June 2008,

CHOP reported net proceeds from the Rotateq transaction of $153 million, a deal

basis that would put the value of Offit's 30% share at $45.9 million.

Although the royalty transaction amounts and current CHOP inventor shares are

publicly known, several factors complicate a precise calculation of Offit's

income. Royalty Pharma paid $182 million for the Rotateq royalty stream, but

CHOP reported proceeds of only $153 million. Since most universities calculate

income based on net royalties, the lower number might more closely reflect the

basis for calculating Offit's income. If CHOP applied an inventor share of 30%

to a transaction value of $153 million they would have then been required to

distribute $45.9 million to Offit.

CHOP's 30% policy for inventor share is consistent with the current practices of

other children's hospitals. But depending on what standard was in effect when

the patents were filed and how it was applied to Offit's proceeds, the amount

could be lower. For example, the $29 million difference between the payment made

by Royalty Pharma and the proceeds received by CHOP comprises 15.9% of the

Royalty Pharma payment (15% is the lowest inventor share percentage we uncovered

in our investigation) and could reflect the distribution to Offit,

So although it is clear that Offit's personal share of CHOP's royalty

transaction was large, the exact amount could range from as little as $29

million to as much as $55 million. Age of Autism chose to feature the smaller

amounts in this report.

CHOP spokeswoman Salis-Silverman, contacted by Age of Autism about

Offit's income from the vaccine, first said, " I don't even know. That's not

public information. " She initially refused to provide an e-mail to which Age of

Autism could send a detailed account of how it determined Offit's income, but

subsequently sent an e-mail saying she was expecting the information.

" We are declining comment to your questions, " she then replied after receiving

our inquiry. Offit did not respond to an e-mail sent to his Children's Hospital

address.

While refusing to disclose his personal profit from this transaction, Offit told

Newsweek reporter Kalb last year that he got a " small percentage " of the

payment and confessed that " it's like winning the lottery. "

The $29 million-$55 million range is consistent not only with CHOP's published

royalty arrangements but with typical medical patent standards:

-- At Boston Children's Hospital, inventors get 25% of " net lifetime revenues "

for all income over $500,000. For royalty amounts smaller than $500,000

inventors receive 45-100% of revenues.

-- At Arkansas Children's Hospital, inventors get 35% of " net royalties " after

the first $200K and 50% before that.

-- At the University of Virginia, inventors get 15% of " total royalty income "

over $1 million and a sliding scale of 25-50%for amounts smaller than that.

-- At the University of California, inventors get 35% of " net royalties. "

Offit's claim to a share of the profits from Merck's Rotateq revenues is based

on his role as a listed inventor on the cluster of patents that protect Merck's

vaccine. These patents share the title " Rotavirus Reassortant Vaccine " and

include four granted US patents -- US5626851, US5750109, US6113910 and US6290968

- and two granted European patents - EP323708 and EP493575.

All of the patents are jointly owned by CHOP and the Wistar Institute. Offit

is one of the three listed inventors on the vaccine patents but holds 100% of

CHOP's inventor rights. The other two inventors, Fred and Stanley Plotkin,

are both affiliated with the Wistar Institute (in a December 2005 transaction

that was similar to CHOP's deal with Royalty Pharma, the Wistar Institute sold

its royalty interest in Rotateq to Capital for $45 million).

The CHOP policy manual that delineates the distribution of income for inventions

owned by CHOP can be found (HERE) (see section III . Clearly, based on the

distribution of income rights outlined in this manual, Offit had a greater

personal interest in Rotateq's commercial success than any other single

individual in the world. And more than other individual in the world, he found

himself in a position to directly influence that success.

--

Unlike most other patented products, the market for mandated childhood vaccines

is created not by consumer demand, but by the recommendation of an appointed

body called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). In a single

vote, ACIP can create a commercial market for a new vaccine that is worth

hundreds of millions of dollars in a matter of months. For example, after ACIP

approved the addition of Merck's (and Offit's) Rotateq vaccine to the childhood

vaccination schedule, Merck's Rotateq revenue rose from zero in the beginning of

2006 to $655 million in fiscal year 2008. When one multiplies a price of close

to $200 per three dose series of Rotateq by a mandated market of four million

children per year, it's not hard to see the commercial value to Merck of

favorable ACIP votes.

>From 1998 to 2003, Offit served as a member of ACIP. Before and during his ACIP

term, Offit was involved in rotavirus vaccine development activities, the value

of which ACIP influenced. Shortly before his term began in October 1998, Offit's

first two rotavirus patents were granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office, the first on May 6, 1997 and the second on May 12, 1998. During his ACIP

term, Offit received two additional patents in 2000 and 2001.

Receiving a patent provides the potential but not the certainty of financial

reward. In most cases, when an inventor's employer receives a patent, the

commercial value of the patent award is highly uncertain. In the case of

Rotateq, the business uncertainty revolved around three factors: 1) the creation

and eventual size of the rotavirus vaccine market, 2) the market share of

competing products such as Wyeth's RotaShield vaccine and 3) the success of

Merck's clinical trial for Rotateq and subsequent FDA approval. For the first

two of these three factors, Offit's ACIP membership gave him a direct

opportunity to favorably influence his personal financial stake in Rotateq.

Four months before Offit was appointed to ACIP in October 1998, the committee

had voted to give the rotavirus category a " Routine Vaccination " status, in

anticipation of an FDA approval of RotaShield (oddly, ACIP made this vote before

the FDA approved Wyeth's RotaShield vaccine on October 1, 1998). Shortly after

Offit's term began, there were several additional votes involved in establishing

the rotavirus vaccine market and Offit voted yes in every case. In May of 1999,

the CDC published its revised childhood vaccination schedule and rotavirus

vaccine was included. This series of favorable votes clearly enhanced the

monetary value of Offit's stake in Merck's rotavirus vaccine, which was five

years into clinical trials.

Nevertheless, Merck's Rotateq vaccine was several years behind Wyeth's

RotaShield, which stood to be the market leader based on its lead in making its

way through clinical trials. But when the widespread administration of

RotaShield to infants started producing a high incidence of intussusception

reports, including numerous fatalities, ACIP was forced to reverse itself. On

October 22, 1999, ACIP voted to rescind its recommendation of the RotaShield

vaccine.

Offit recused himself from this vote, although he participated in the

discussion. In the meeting in which ACIP discussed RotaShield, Offit remarked,

" I'm not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on the

development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain because it

creates a perception of conflict. " CDC records make it clear that Offit was not

silent on RotaShield. By 2001, he was actively advancing a " unique strain "

hypothesis, an argument that RotaShield was formulated in a way that did

increase intussusception risk whereas other formulations (e.g. Rotateq) would

not.

In commercial terms, Offit had a clear stake in the earlier RotaShield decision.

As a competitor to Rotateq, RotaShield's withdrawal provided a financial

opportunity for Offit's partner, Merck. Not only did RotaShield's withdrawal

give Rotateq an opportunity to gain 100% of the rotavirus vaccine market Offit

had voted to create (until April 2008, when GlaxoKline's Rotarix vaccine

was approved, Merck held a monopoly on the rotavirus vaccine market), but the

absence of competition enabled Merck to charge a premium price for its vaccine,

significantly more than Wyeth had charged for RotaShield.

With RotaShield out of the market and the favorable rotavirus policy precedent

established, when the FDA approved Rotateq on February 3, 2006, the path to

profitability for Merck was set. And for CHOP, which had licensed its patent

rights to Merck, the valuation of its patent portfolio soared. Faced with this

newly valuable asset, CHOP chose not to take their profits in the form of a

series of smaller royalty checks. Instead, they opted to sell off their rights

to the income stream and receive a lump sum payment in its place. Royalty Pharma

-- an intellectual property investment firm that " provides liquidity to royalty

owners and assumes the future risks and rewards of ownership " -- stepped in to

pay CHOP for the rights to its Merck royalties. CHOP, in turn, paid Offit his

inventor share. Although neither CHOP nor Merck has disclosed Merck's royalty

obligation around CHOP's patents, the fact that Royalty Pharma was motivated to

pay CHOP $182 million for the right to receive the Rotateq royalty stream

suggests that obligation was significant.

Other news organizations, most notably CBS News, have asked Offit to disclose

the financial details of his Merck relationship. CBS New reporter Sharyl

Attkisson wrote last July that, " future royalties for the [Rotateq] vaccine were

just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit's share of vaccine profits? Unknown. "

Offit protested loudly over the CBS News report and went so far as accusing

Attkisson of unethical conduct. " Did [Attkisson] lie about whether or not we

provided materials? Of course, " Offit claimed in an August interview with the

Orange County Register. He argued that in responding to a CBS News investigation

of his financial ties to Merck, he readily provided full details of the payments

that CBS asked for including: " the sources and amounts of every grant he has

received since 1980 " ; " the details of his relationship, and Children's Hospital

of Philadelphia's relationship, with pharmaceutical company Merck " ; and " the

details of every talk he has given for the past three years. "

A personal profit of at least $29 million seems like more than a small detail to

leave out.

--

Dan Olmsted is Editor and Mark Blaxill is Editor At Large of Age of Autism.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/voting-himself-rich-cdc-vaccine-adviser-made-\

29-million-or-more-after-using-role-to-create-market.html

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

Vaccines - http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers & Homeopathy Online/email courses - next classes February 18 &

19

VIC (Vaccine Injury Coalition)

Autism is 1 in 67 children today and it's impossible to have a genetic epidemic!

Please learn from our mistake and educate BEFORE you vaccinate!

For more information visit www.vacinfo.org or call 800-939-8227