TIMES OF INDIA– Even as questions are being raised about whether the swine flu scare was exaggerated to benefit pharma companies, evidence has surfaced that several members of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) vaccine board which pushed countries to buy the H1N1 vaccine have had significant ties with pharma companies.

This fact, which is bound to raise issues of conflict of interest, was exposed by Danish daily ‘Information’ last month. TOI attempted to get WHO’s response, but several emails sent to the office of the WHO director-general on January 9 met with no response.

Documents acquired through the Danish Freedom of Information Act revealed that Prof Juhani Eskola, a Finnish member of the WHO board on vaccines, ‘Strategic Advisory Group of Experts’ (SAGE), received almost 6.3 million euros in 2009 for his vaccine research programme, THL, from the vaccine manufacturers, GSK, qualifying GSK as THL’s main source of income. SAGE advises WHO chief Margaret Chan and recommends which vaccines and how much of it member countries should purchase, pointed out the Danish newspaper.

Apart from Prof Juhani Eskola, who received almost 6.3 million euros for his vaccine research programme, Danish journalists reported on six other members of ‘Strategic Advisory Group of Experts’ (SAGE) with financial ties to various pharmaceutical companies. These include Dr Peter Figueroa, Dr Neil Ferguson, Prof Malik Peiris, Dr Arnold Monto, Dr Friedrich Hayden and Dr Albert Osterhaus. Barring Dr Figuero, who revealed that he had accepted a research grant from Merck, none of the others made any disclosures.

Many of the pharmaceutical companies with which the vaccine board members had ties, are also the manufacturers of vaccines including the H1N1 vaccine like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Novartis, Solvay, Baxter, MedImmune and Sanofi Aventis. None of the WHO members on the vaccine board, barring one, declared any conflict of interest despite having extensive financial ties with the pharmaceutical companies in the form of research grants and consultancies.

In a statement issued on December 3, 2009, WHO claims that numerous safeguards are in place to manage possible conflicts of interest or their perception. “Members of SAGE are required to declare all professional and financial interests, including funding received from pharmaceutical companies or consultancies or other forms of professional engagement with pharmaceutical companies.

The names and affiliations of members of SAGE and of SAGE working groups are published on the WHO web site, together with meeting reports and declarations of interest submitted by the experts. Allegations of undeclared conflicts of interest are taken very seriously by WHO, and are immediately investigated,” says the statement. However, there is no such disclosure by these SAGE members on the WHO website.

© TIMES OF INDIA, 2010

Photo by flickr user Y

WASHINGTON INDEPEDENT– Employees of the CIA-connected private security corporation Blackwater diverted hundreds of weapons, including more than 500 AK-47 assault rifles, from a U.S. weapons bunker in Afghanistan intended to equip Afghan policemen, according to an investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

On at least one occasion, an individual claiming to work for the company evidently signed for a weapons shipment using the name of a “South Park” cartoon character. And Blackwater has yet to return hundreds of the guns to the military.

A Blackwater subsidiary known as Paravant that until recently operated in Afghanistan acquired the weapons for its employees’ “personal use,” according to committee staffers, as did other non-Paravant employees of Blackwater. Yet contractors in Afghanistan are not permitted to operate weapons without explicit permission from U.S. Central Command, something Blackwater never obtained. A November 2008 email from a Paravant vice president named Brian McCracken, obtained by the committee, nevertheless reads: “We have not received formal permission from the Army to carry weapons yet but I will take my chances.”

As a result of Blackwater’s disregard for U.S. military restrictions on contractor firearms, four employees of Paravant — which held a subcontract from defense giant Raytheon to train Afghan soldiers — under the influence of alcohol opened fire on a car carrying four Afghan civilians on May 5, 2009, wounding two. That incident, occurring less than two years after Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad, prompted the committee’s investigation.

“In the fight against the Taliban, the perception that the Afghans have of us is critical,” Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the committee, told reporters Tuesday afternoon. “It’s clear to me that if we’re going to win that struggle, we need to know that contractor personnel are adequately screened, they’re adequately supervised and they’re adequately held accountable.” Levin will hold a hearing on Blackwater’s Afghanistan contracts Wednesday morning.

The committee’s investigation points to the contrary. Blackwater personnel appear to have gone to exceptional lengths to obtain weapons from U.S. military weapons storehouses intended for use by the Afghan police. According to the committee, at the behest of the company’s Afghanistan country manager, Ricky Chambers, Blackwater on at least two occasions acquired hundreds of rifles and pistols from a U.S. military facility near Kabul called 22 Bunkers by the military and Pol-e Charki by the Afghans. Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of all U.S. military forces in the Middle East and South Asia, wrote to the committee to explain that “there is no current or past written policy, order, directive, or instruction that allows U.S. Military contractors or subcontractors in Afghanistan to use weapons stored at 22 Bunkers.”

Continue reading about Blackwater Seizing Guns.

© WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT, 2010

Photo by flickr user dcbprime

NEW YORK TIMES– In a first-year pharmacology class at Harvard Medical School, Matt Zerden grew wary as the professor promoted the benefits of cholesterol drugs and seemed to belittle a student who asked about side effects.

Mr. Zerden later discovered something by searching online that he began sharing with his classmates. The professor was not only a full-time member of the Harvard Medical faculty,

“I felt really violated,” Mr. Zerden, now a fourth-year student, recently recalled. “Here we have 160 open minds trying to learn the basics in a protected space, and the information he was giving wasn’t as pure as I think it should be.”

Mr. Zerden’s minor stir four years ago has lately grown into a full-blown movement by more than 200 Harvard Medical School students and sympathetic faculty, intent on exposing and curtailing the industry influence in their classrooms and laboratories, as well as in Harvard’s 17 affiliated teaching hospitals and institutes.

They say they are concerned that the same money that helped build the school’s world-class status may in fact be hurting its reputation and affecting its teaching.

The students argue, for example, that Harvard should be embarrassed by the F grade it recently received from the American Medical Student Association, a national group that rates how well medical schools monitor and control drug industry money.

Continue reading about Harvard’s Ethics Quandary.

© COPYRIGHT NY TIMES, 2009

Photo by Be.Futureproof flickr user

SD UNION TRIBUNE– Northrop Grumman Corp. on Wednesday said its first-quarter profit rose almost 50 percent, boosted by higher sales of military products like aerial drones and a larger contract for a satellite-based tracking system.

The No. 2 defense contractor seems largely insulated from the recession, which has hurt earnings at other U.S. manufacturers like Boeing Co., Caterpillar Inc. and rival Lockheed Martin Corp. It appears Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ proposed fiscal 2010 defense budget, which begins Oct. 1, will not cancel or hurt any of Northrop’s ongoing projects for the military.

The Los Angeles-based company also raised its 2009 outlook, reflecting a pretax gain of up to $70 million in the second quarter from a legal settlement with the U.S. government.

Northrop Grumman said its full-year forecast is now $4.65 to $4.90, up from previous guidance of $4.50 to $4.75.

The results were a contrast to Lockheed Martin, which reported a 9-percent decline in first-quarter profit on Tuesday as a result of growing pension costs. The rival continues to devote more cash to a pension plan that has been hurt by sharp declines in the stock market. For its part, Northrop Grumman is considering kicking in up to $500 million to cover its pension costs in 2009, beyond its required contribution of $126 million for the year.

“Northrop Grumman is off to a solid start in 2009,” said CEO Ronald Sugar, on a call with Wall Street analysts.

In the latest quarter ended March 31, the company earned $389 million, or $1.17 per share, up from $264 million, or 76 cents per share, in the same period last year.

Continue reading about Northrop Grumman’s Profit Increase.

© SD UNION TRIBUNE, 2009

Photo by flickr user purple slog