Hundreds of NIH Scientists Accept Drug Companies' Money

[Guest guest]

http://www.mercola.com/2005/jan/5/nih_drug_money.htm

Hundreds of NIH Scientists Accept Drug Companies'

Money

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is seen by

many Americans as a group of neutral government

experts who set out to provide the public with honest,

reliable, unbiased health information. And as the

group is supported by taxpayers at a cost of $28

billion a year, this is exactly what one would expect.

However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that NIH

members, some who travel the world encouraging doctors

to prescribe certain medications, advise federal

regulators and write articles for well-known medical

journals, are not the unbiased resource they claim to

be.

According to records, at least 530 government

scientists at the NIH have taken fees, stock or stock

options from biomedical companies in the last five

years.

Even NIH leader Dr. H. Brewer Jr., who was part

of the team responsible for the nation's new

cholesterol guidelines that left millions more

Americans taking cholesterol drugs, is not immune.

From 2001 to 2003, Brewer accepted $114,000 in

consulting fees from four companies making or

developing cholesterol medications, including $31,000

from the maker of the controversial Crestor.

Other examples of conflict of interest at the NIH

uncovered by The Los Angeles Times include:

A senior psychiatric researcher who took $508,050 in

fees from Pfizer while collaborating with the drug

company regarding Alzheimer's disease. He later

endorsed the use of an Alzheimer's drug marketed by

Pfizer.

A laboratory director at the National Cancer Institute

who was working with a company trying to develop an

ovarian cancer test, who then took $70,000 as a

consultant to the company's rival.

The NIH's top blood transfusion expert who accepted

$240,200 in fees and 76,000 stock options over the

last five years from companies developing

blood-related products.

The NIH does not require that these potential

conflicts of interest be exposed, which may explain

why even the NIH's director was unaware of the extent

to which agency scientists have been receiving

industry money.

Inquiries made by Congress along with uncovered

documents have revealed over 150 such relationships

that do not appear to have required NIH approval.

Many are outwardly concerned that the NIH members'

ties to industry make it nearly impossible to make

impartial recommendations and fulfill what the agency

calls its mission: " To extend healthy life and to

reduce the burdens of illness and disability. "

Yet NIH Director Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, while

acknowledging that some " improper " deals have been

made, continues to argue in favor of allowing agency

scientists to consult for industry and, as reported by

the Times, has said that " supplemental income from

industry fees can help the NIH retain talented

scientists. "

Los Angeles Times December 22, 2004

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

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

We've seen the many recent examples of federal

agencies charged with protecting the public health

taking it on the chin from the FDA (thanks to my

newest hero Dr. Graham) to the Institutes of

Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC). Now, it's the National Institutes of

Health (NIH) turn in the spotlight and, folks, the

news isn't any better.

A trio of articles featured in the Los Angeles Times

detailed the blurring of the greater good --

supposedly the optimal health of Americans -- at the

NIH when commerce -- meaning Big Pharma -- so

obviously taints the decision-making process.

So, if you have no doubts that drug you may be taking

is completely safe, consider this: According to the

above article, more than 500 government scientists at

the NIH have taken fees, stock or stock options from

biomedical companies over the past five years!

Apparently, that's not a problem to NIH Director Dr.

Elias A. Zerhouni who has told Congress outside work

by NIH scientists should be allowed if " the scientist

is giving advice in an area ... that is not part of

his official duties. "

Also, if you're not convinced the power of greed as

wielded by Big Pharma doesn't have an affect on the

toxic drugs you read about on my Web site or see or

advertised in the media, take a look at some of the

article's examples of the six-figure sums and stock

options paid to NIH scientists.

Taxpayers -- that means you and me -- fund the NIH's

current $28 BILLION budget. Its ongoing mission: To

extend healthy life and to reduce " the burdens of

illness and disability " by overseeing research.

What a sham ... and what a shame!