BMJ Fails to Disclose Money Link to Vaccine Manufacturers

Considering we are experiencing another wave of pertussis in places where the vaccine was greatly utilized, just as we face more flu cases in vaccinated people, one rally has to see beyond the dogma of a failed paradigm.

The money wasted on vaccine programs can be better spent on improving access to health promoting foods that support your immune system and help you stay free from disease.  This is a well known public health dictate: host health status as a barrier to disease.

Alliance for Human Research Protection

A Catalyst for Debate

www.ahrp.org

The editor in chief of the BMJ acknowledges that AHRP was right to criticize the BMJ and its editor for failing to disclose to its readership, the BMJ financial ties to Merck--manufacturer of 13 vaccines. She also acknowledges income from GSK--manufacturer of several vaccines as well. 

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335/reply#bmj_el_251470 

"Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to Vera Hassner Sharav's comment, [1] which for those of you who haven't seen it is reproduced below.

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/766/9/  

Although Vera's claims may seem far-fetched on this occasion, she is right that we should have declared the BMJ Group's income from Merck as a competing interest to the editorial (and the two editor's choice articles) that accompanied Brian Deer's series on the Secrets of the MMR scare.[2] [3] [4] We should also, as you say, have declared the group's income from GSK as a competing interest in relation to these articles. We will publish clarifications." 

However, her statement, "We didn't declare these competing interests because it didn't occur to us to do so " is startling. How seriously are we to take her strongly articulated stance against researchers who fail to disclose their financial conflicts of interest--if she doesn't recognize her journal's blatant conflict of interest?

Either she is being disingenuous or downright cynical about the BMJs declared stand against financial conflicts of interest that are undermining the integrity of medical research reports, and its own clandestine partnerships with industry.

Let's be clear: financial conflicts of interest ALWAYS influence the position one defends-- human nature is no different between politicians whose campaign chests are filled by vested interests, government officials, or academics who have grown dependent on financial support from special interests. Each delivers the service for which he /she is paid.

Dr. Wakefield: Was Attack Based on Conflict of Interest?

Quick Vaccine Facts

As reported by the New England Journal of Medicine - 35% of adverse reports for rheumatoid arthritis are associated with MMR.

Rubella vaccine caused 55% of RA cases 1991-1998 in girls.

1 of 3 damaged neurologically from DPT;  35,000 yearly.

Pertussis: Babies die 7 times greater within 3 days of vaccination.  Reported as SIDS.  Journal of Pediatrics shows only 40-45% non-sustained effectiveness.  In an Ohio outbreak, 82% of those vaccinated developed the disease.

Is it just conceivably possible, that the BMJ's decision to commission and publish Brian Deer's series of  articles attacking Dr. Andrew Wakefield's personal and scientific integrity--without giving him an opportunity to defend himself--and to lend its unwavering editorial endorsement to the charges--might be influenced by a SIGNIFICANT financial conflict of interest? 

In 2008, the pharmaceutical giant, Merck, signed a partnership agreement with the BMJ Group that effectively gave the company control of 350 interactive continuing medical education courses in over 20 medical therapy areas?

In 2009, The Lancet also entered into a Merck partnership. 

"This unique partnership will change the face of medical education in Europe and beyond, allowing users access to most of BMJ Learning's library of 'Continuing Medical Education' (CME) and 'Continuing Professional Development' (CPD) content. " 

More: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MSD+Signs+Partnership+With+BMJ+Group.-a0180213953

Why did the BMJ conceal from readers--of both the Deer series and the BMJ editorial excoriating Dr. Andrew Wakefield, charging him with deliberate fraud and financial conflict of interest--the fact that the BMJ had a partnership with Merck, manufacturer of 13 vaccines--including the MMR vaccine, which is at the center of the Wakefield controversy?  

The BMJ editorial accompanying Deer's articles, did its best to lend authority to the vaccine industry (Merck's) perspective. In an introductory sound bite the editors declare: "Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare."

Read more.... http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/766/9/

No Wonder You Can't Trust Clinical Studies

Journal Watch

About Journal Watch

Written weekly by Dr Richard Lehman MD, Journal Watch provides a personal comment on articles from the main medical journals selected for their interest to doctors (and a few others!)

One Click Extract: NEJM  4 Nov 2010 Vol 363

The New England Journal describes itself as the world's leading medical journal and I wouldn't argue with that. Every now and again, though, its papers are of such a rarified nature that a mere GP cannot hope to apply their undoubted wisdom and excellence to his personal practice. You and I shall never use recombinant activated Factor VII in a heavily bleeding patient, which is probably just as well, because it might kill people; we shall never have the satisfaction of seeing the subependymal astrocytomas of tuberous sclerosis shrink under the influence of everolimus; nor indeed are we likely to use brentuximab vedotin in relapsed CD30-positive lymphomas; while advances in haemodialysis we leave in the capable hands of our learned friends, the nephrologists. I have no objection to such rarefaction on the part of the NEJM editors because these are life-and-death matters for many people around the world. Moreover, I can't fault the journal's stance on many of the important debates in medical politics, including criticism of the role of some major pharmaceutical companies, such as GSK in relation to rosiglitazone. 

But in one of his latest blogs, Richard Smith reminds us that high-faluting does not come cheap, and 32% of papers published by the NEJM relate to studies paid for by drug companies, who then pay the journal up to $1M for reprints. It is this sort of thing that led Marcia Angell to her depressing conclusion that "it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine."
 
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1006221
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1001671
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1002965
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra0902710

For more information please go to  http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2010/11/02/richard-smith-on-editors-conflicts-of-interest/

or here



just as Novartis plans to microchip your pills, transplant patients take heed! 

Consider Health News Review dot org for more of a discussion of this issue and current mis-reporting in mainstream media on omega 3

Recently on CBS News Couric reported erroneously on omega 3.

If you read this study you will notice that the form of DHA capsule that was utilized was from red algae. 

Red algae does supply some omega 3 in the form of DHA.  This is incomplete as it does not have the EPA component.

Some people cannot convert DHA to EPA and for this reason some supplements like flax oil are not always useful in certain populations.

The same can be said for vegetarian forms of omega 3 like algae (all ALA forms)

DHA is an omega-3 fatty acid made from another fatty acid called alpha-linolenic acid. ALA is found predominantly in flaxseed oil (also known as linseed) and hemp seed oil. Green leafy vegetables, soybeans, walnuts, and canola oil have small amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial because they provide fluidity to cell membranes and improve communication between brain cells. Omega-3s also reduce the clotting ability of platelets, thus potentially decreasing the incidence of heart attacks and strokes. Two very important omega-3 fatty acids are eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) and docosahexanoic acid (DHA). They are found in seafood, especially mackerel, salmon, striped bass, rainbow trout, halibut, tuna, and sardines. Supplements of fish oils that contain EPA and DHA are sold over the counter. DHA is also sold by itself, usually from an algae source. In the body, DHA is found mostly in the brain, retina, and in sperm. DHA plays an important role in vision.

DHA is thought to be helpful to people with diabetes.

But in general a person needs to take fish oil and DHA to get the full benefit of omega 3.

Also the report did not provide ANY information about the dose and frequency.

Some smaller, less rigorous studies suggested that mental decline could be slowed or prevented by eating fish, the main dietary source for omega-3 fatty acids, or supplements like fish oil pills that contain fatty acids including DHA. The study used capsules of DHA oil derived from algae.

Generally the accepted dose is 1000 to 3000 mg daily.  Fish based omega 3 is the effective form.

I'd suggest that  you have your news readers refer to Health News Review (dot org) for sound guidelines in health reporting, or at least make an effort to get all the facts before offering the public incomplete information that could be harmful to their health.

Thank you,

Dr Gayle Eversole

I have had no reply from CBS or heard a correction of the mis-information.

See also