Officials reject claims of drug industry's influence
BMJ 2004; 329 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7467.641-a (Published 16 September 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;329:641
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Hurry.
The second session of the parliamentary inquiry has been held and is only
archived for 14 days.
Vastly more riveting than the first, as can be imagined from list of
witnesses below.
You can view it on Parliament's web site, in the archive.
Http://www.parliamentlive.tv/
( Tip: remember to right click to enlarge image)
Full details are:
Thu 14 Oct 10:30am HoC Health Committee
The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry
Witnesses:
(i) No Free Lunch, Consumers' Association, Drug and Therapeutics
Bulletin
(ii) Mind, Professor David Healy and Professor Andrew Herxheimer
Warning: May not be suitable viewing for those who can not overcome
any cognitive dissonance that the evidence may produce.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
SD asked for references 20.9.04
Ray Moynihan's report that "officials reject claims of drug industry
influence" during the Parliamentary hearing by MPs on the issue, is
typical, and should come as no surprise to anyone. The stereotype response
given by Dr Felicity Harvey about economic returns and unspecified
"mechanism in place", only serve to provide more evidence that the fears
are in fact very well founded.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to question the veracity of the
MPs' views as conveyed by Dr. Taylor, that "the drug industry has much
greater influence over the national health system than it should have". I
share this view, and beleive the MPs should go further because they are,
in my view, absolutely right.
Not only does the drug industry decide "where the research goes"
(itself bad enough), but in many resource-poor developing countries of sub
-Saharan Africa, the industry also decides how the research is conducted.
I raise this point because decision- and lawmakers in the developed
countries like Britain itself,must remember that they were colonising
powers in Africa, and should have left a legacy that guarrantees good,
ethical and legal practices by big multinational companies of any
undertaking, operating in those former colonies. Whenever this point is
made, it is followed by a barrage of questions asking for examples. Here
is one.
There was a severe epidemic of meningococcal meningitis in Nigeria in
1996, and a US based drug company flew in staff and started clinical trial
of an investigational, unlicensed and unregistered drug known as
trovafloxacine (Trovan), on children with the disease, right in the middle
of the epidemic, without approval of the children or their parents, or
indeed of any properly constituted ethical committee. One thought that
this was a straight forward breach which would be dealt with urgently,
severely and decisively only one way, but no. A report sent to the highest
health authorities was ignored, and the trial was continued and concluded
allegedly "on Ministerial approval" to ignore the written order suspending
the trial pending satisfactory review and regulatory and ethical committee
approvals. Anyone who is astonished or disbelieves such official
disregtard for responsibility should ask to see a copy of the Minister's
official reply to the complainant.
It is now fully 8 years since this episode, and we must hold the US,
British and Nigerian governments responsible for the fact that no punitive
action of any kind was taken against the drug company. It is not as if the
world knows nothing about it, because The Washington Post newspaper
conducted its own inquiry, and published the stark truth about this trial.
The Nigerian Government was embarrassed, and set up a Panel of inquiry.
The report was submitted over 2 years ago, but there is doubt if anyone
outside the establishment has seen it, or whether in fact it will ever see
the light of day.
All health professionals must support the British Members of
Parliament investigating the influence of the drug industry on health
policy, research and action, hoping that success in the UK may be extended
eventually to those poor, little informed and innocent people of Africa.
Competing interests:
Professor Idris Mohammed was leader of the task force set up by the Federal Government of Nigeria to control the epidemic of cerebrospinal meningitis (CSM) which occurred in northern Nigeria in 1996. He is also a member of the editorial Board of the BMJ; and of the International Campaign to Revitalise Academic medicine (ICRAM), but the opinions in this response are entirely his.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Where have these officials at the Ministry of Health been for the
last 10 years?
Hardly a week goes by without a report in the medical press of
inappropriate behaviour on the part of one drug company or
another.
There is an increasing literature on the ill-effects of these
activities
on doctors, in particular on their prescribing habits. If these
officials are not aware of this they are not up to the job of advising
a parliamentary enquiry.
They could make a start on better
informing themselves by looking up the webs site:
www.heathysceptism.org
Competing interests:
I have an interest in
persuading doctors and
medical students to be
aware of the ways in which
the pharmaceutical industry
seeks to influence their
medical practice by
persuading them to
prescribe their products.
This interest presumably
conflicts with that of the
drug industry, which is to
make money.
Competing interests: No competing interests
the danger looms but it is easier to bury the head in the sand and
feel that all is ok.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Hurry -See the Second Session
Des Spence did give a good show, especially as he wasn't drawn by one
of the MPs into making a joke of what amounts to corruption.Let's hope
they also bring up the matter of freebies in the way of invites to
conference attenders' companions, families, partners and significant
others. Several international conferences, mainly those held in desirable
locations, have offered the incentive of provision of accomodation, trips,
tours and events for these lucky people whilst their 'other' is doing
her/his duty at the conference - before joining them later for his/her
share of the 'tours of historical towns'/local festivals/local food and
wine, etc.
When the next conference on global poverty takes place maybe there
should be a quota of places for those who actually live in poverty in
their own countries to atend and see how the other half lives - and a quota
of those who usually attend these conferences could 'live in their shoes'
for the duration of the trip.
There's no need to wear a hair shirt - but neither should funding be
mis-used.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests