News Archive
SMAC Head Doctors - Can They Be Trusted ?
Drug safety Doctors hold shares in drug firms
A Report in The Times (4/4/99) by Lois Rogers and Mark Macaskill lends
further weight to the conspiracy theories concerning Doctors, Scientists,
the Pharmaceutical Industry and Government.
Senior doctors who advise the government on whether new drugs should
be approved for use in Britain have investments worth tens of thousands
of pounds in the companies manufacturing them, a Sunday Times investigation
has revealed.
Many of the doctors have direct shareholdings in the drug companies.
One, who sits on the committee that advises the government on drugs to
be used in specific treatments, has shares worth £130,000 in two
of Britain's biggest drug companies.
Others receive substantial perks such as research and equipment grants,
free air travel to conferences and money to cover salaries of extra research
staff. The extent of the links raises questions about the objectivity
of some members of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee (SMAC), and
the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). They are drawn from medical
royal colleges, universities and hospitals across the country to give
independent advice on which treatments should be licensed for use in Britain.
David Hinchliffe, Labour chair of the Commons health committee, said
he would investigate the apparent conflict of interest.
"It is wrong for government advisers to have financial interests
in companies whose products they are advising on. It is something that
concerns me very much," he said.
Professor Robert Kendell, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
and a member of SMAC, did not believe potential profits from drug sales
to the National Health Service would influence the value of his £130,000
holding in SmithKline Beecham and Glaxo Wellcome. Kendell, who has declared
his interests, said: "Any profits would be utterly trivial, probably
only a couple of quid." !
Committee members are supposed to declare such interests in a register
which is, in theory, a public document. But it was only made available
to The Sunday Times by the Department of Health after several requests
and is not easily accessible to the public.
At least one committee member has, however, failed to make any declaration
at all. Professor Roderick MacSween, president of the Royal College of
Pathologists and a SMAC member, admitted that he might have been "neglectful"
in not revealing his drug company shares worth £15,000.
"I have never been conscious of a conflict arising. I don't
think I was ever asked about my interests in drug companies,"
he said.
Others reacted angrily to questions about their financial interests.
Brian Evans, a senior pharmacist on the CSM who has declared his shareholdings
in Scotia, Glaxo, Boots and SmithKline Beecham, refused to discuss the
potential conflict of interest. "I have done everything by the book
and I don't see that it is anyone else's business," he said. !
Members are not obliged to disclose shares held by their spouses or other
close family members. Sheila Willatts, a consultant anaesthetist in Bristol
and a SMAC member, admitted that her husband had shares in Glaxo but said:
"I haven't declared them on the register of interests because they
are not mine."
It is well known among doctors and civil servants at the Department of
Health that the committee members are targeted by drug companies.
Some committee members believe that seeking funds from drug companies
is ethically acceptable if the money is used to boost their research and
so encourage medical advances. members who have drug company links are
also adamant that such connections in no way influence their CSM and SMAC
decisions.
"Any specialist in an area invariably has research collaborations
with companies; you just can't avoid it," said Gordon Duff, professor
of molecular medicine at Sheffield University. He also sits on the CSM
and has declared his interests in eight pharmaceutical companies.
Such links are, however, being increasingly questioned within the medical
profession. Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics,
called for the committees to be governed by much stricter regulations
of the kind that cover MPs.
The CSM's 34 members are paid £160 plus expenses to prepare for
and attend the fortnightly meetings in London. SMAC's 33 members are not
paid. Last week, however, the health department warned members of both
committees not to speak to the media about their drug company links. In
an effort to deflect accusations that the committees are exclusive cliques
and that the doctors may be too closely involved with the drug companies,
in January it appointed two lay members to the CSM.
However, one of them has now declared she has shareholdings in three
drugs companies.
Max Newton, Uncaged Campaigns 07.04.99
You Must Use Drugs
Herbal remedies and vitamin supplements are under attack from
multinational drug companies. All around the world pressure is being brought
to bare by the drug giants onto government agencies to regulate out of
existence non-pharmaceutical 'alternative' health products and remedies.
In Britain the situation is reaching crisis-point, and hardly anyone
seems to know anything about it. This is hardly surprising given that
the Government has been formulating proposals in secret, with a short
and negligibly publicised public consultation period.
The Government is about to grant the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) powers
that are more sweeping than any other authority in the land. The MCA is
seeking to put into practice consultation letter MLX 249, under which
the agency would have the right to decide itself, with no consultation
or right of appeal, whether a vitamin, a herbal product or an oil is medicinal
in nature and thus in need of an extremely costly license.
The only criteria the MCA needs are:
a) can the product alter physiological function?
b) is it being used for medicinal purposes?
As everything you eat or drink has an effect on your body, this covers
anything and everything! So in theory even glucose, coffee and brandy
could be classified as medicinal.
If your product is deemed to fit one of these criteria, you will have
to prove the product works and apply for a license which could cost upto
£100,000 to obtain for a single-ingredient product, and £2million
for a multi-ingredient one. The drug companies think that this represents
a 'level playing field' for both themselves and 'alternative' remedies,
but companies producing herbal remedies etc tend not to be multinational
corporate monsters with that sort of money to spare for one product let
alone for every product that they make.
The effect of the ruling would be to wipe most products (enjoyed by many
who object to contaminating their bodies with dubious chemical cocktails)
off the shelves of health stores, save for the few who have already bought
licenses.
Angela Roberts, founder of Uncaged Campaigns, condemned the proposals:
"These draconian measures are both scandalous and dangerous.
This is another example of deliberate attempts by the powerful pharmaceutical
industry to end the burgeoning interest in 'alternative' medicine."
Only the MCA will be allowed to decide if a product is 'medicinal'. The
product must meet the demands of what some have termed a Nuremberg Trial'
commission consisting of one chairperson and two ad-hoc members. The commission
presumes guilt unless the manufacturer can prove 'innocence' - in this
case effectiveness. As Penny Viner of the Health Food Manufacturers Association
points out:
"This proposal will achieve the situation whereby the MCA
will be acting as policeman, judge and jury without any checks and balances."
The MCA is a Government appointed Quango, funded by the taxpayer. As
such they appear worryingly undemocratic, and can refuse to answer any
questions over the phone by hiding behind their protected status. Their
phone number is 0171 273 0392 (they are only listed under the name of
their supervising Dept)
This is a global attack by the pharmaceutical industry. In Canada and
the USA supplements have been withdrawn following pressure from multinational
drug companies. A German proposal calls for 1) no dietary supplements
to be sold for preventative or therapeutic use, 2) dosage limits set by
the EU commission, and 3) preventing nations from setting up their own
standards. These proposals for the EU are being pushed by three german
companies: Hoechst, Bayer and BASF - who were formed when IG Farben was
disbanded after the Nuremburg War Trials due to their role in manufacturing
the poison gas used in the Nazi concentration camps.
According to Christopher Whitehouse of Consumers for Health Choice:
"The implications are much more serious...It is not the law
that has changed, but that the MCA is saying that it is going to be
the most ruthless regulator in Europe."
ACTION:
- Write to your MP, making them aware of the proposals and consequences
of MLX 249, and urge them to oppose it.
- Write to The Secretary of State, Dept of Health, Richmond House, 79
Whitehall, London, SW1A 2NS, and make them aware of your concerns.
Max Newton, Uncaged Campaigns 07.04.99
()
EU Don't Need Animal Tests For Cosmetics
There were mixed signals emanating from Brussels last week concerning
a EU ban on animal testing for cosmetics.
The ban on for such tests on finished products was originally planned
for 1998. However, it was delayed due to the inability of those concerned
to agree upon alternatives that would 'guarantee consumer safety'. The
EU ban is now due to come into effect from 1st July 2000.
However, once again this is subject to a 'review of it's feasibility
by the European Commission' before the end of this year.The Commission,
trotting out the line given by animal-testing cosmetics giants themselves
said 'We want to be as restrictive as possible on animal testing. But
if other methods are not available we cannot replace animal testing with
testing on humans.' David Clark, chair of Colipa's committee on alternatives
to animal testing, said 'To guarantee safety without animal experiments
on the final products is a major milestone, but we can't yet guarantee
consumer safety without some animal tests.'
This is blatantly untrue! Hundreds of companies make like-for-like cosmetic
products that have not been tested on animals. The most obvious example
in the UK is the Body Shop, all of whose products are cruelty-free and
none of which have caused illness or harm that would have been eliminated
if animals had been used in their development. If the Body Shop and similar
companies can work (and indeed thrive) in the cosmetic industry without
resorting to cruel and universally abhorred animal tests then surely the
rest of the industry should be made to follow suit. Instead, it appears
that the Colipa's 'cost-benefit' analysis still values the 'benefit' to
the industry's ability to make more vast profits from new lines in frivolity
above the lives of tens of 30, 000 animals a year! Furthermore, the British
Government recently stated that it was both morally unacceptable and unnecessary
to continue to conduct such tests on 'vanity products,' and brought an
end to it in this country.
Meanwhile, it was reported that Europe's cosmetics manufacturers are
to stop using animals in tests on their finished products and in most
tests on ingredients (note: only most) in a bid to head off a ban. Details
are uncertain, if they want to stop using animals voluntarily, why not
simply agree to a legal and enforceable ban....? The Commission says that
the decision to end much of the animal testing will make it easier for
support to be won for a second postponement.
The waters are now further muddied by the resignation in March of all
of the European Commissioners - for wastefulness and incompetance, now
there's a thing...!
ACTION:
Write to your MEP asking her/him to actively support calls for a ban
on the use of primates in laboratory animals. The European Elections are
fast approaching - vote for a candidate who will pledge to support a ban
(e.g. the Green Party).
Max Newton 07/04/99 |
