<div dir="ltr"><div id="article-header">
<div id="main-article-info">
<ul class="article-attributes no-pic multi-pub"><li class="byline"><font size="4"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/randeepramesh">R</a><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/randeepramesh">andeep Ramesh</a>,
social affairs editor
</font></li><li class="publication">
<font size="4"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian">The Guardian</a>,
Friday 4 June 2010</font></li></ul><h1><br></h1><h1>Report condemns swine flu experts' ties to big pharma</h1>
<p id="stand-first" class="stand-first-alone">Trio of scientists
who urged stockpiling had previously been paid, says Council of Europe
report bemoaning tentacles of drug company influence<a title="Digg this article" id="share-link-digg" href="http://digg.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2010%2Fjun%2F04%2Fswine-flu-experts-big-pharmaceutical&title=Report+condemns+swine+flu+experts%27+ties+to+big+pharma"><img src="http://static.guim.co.uk/static/90584/common/styles/wide/images/icon_digg.gif" alt="Digg it"></a></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="content">
<br>
<div id="article-wrapper">
<p>Scientists who drew up the key <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/world-health-organisation" title="More from guardian.co.uk on World Health Organisation">World
Health Organisation</a> guidelines advising governments to stockpile <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/drugs" title="More from
guardian.co.uk on Drugs">drugs</a> in the event of a flu pandemic had
previously been paid by drug companies which stood to profit, according
to a report out today.</p><p>An investigation by the British Medical
Journal and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the not-for-profit
reporting unit, shows that WHO guidance issued in 2004 was authored by
three scientists who had previously received payment for other work from
Roche, which makes Tamiflu, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), manufacturer of
Relenza.</p><p>City analysts say that pharmaceutical companies banked
more than $7bn (£4.8bn) as governments stockpiled drugs. The issue of
transparency has risen to the forefront of public health debate after
dramatic predictions last year about a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/swine-flu" title="More from
guardian.co.uk on Swine flu">swine flu</a> pandemic did not come true.</p><p>Some
countries, notably Poland, declined to join the panic-buying of
vaccines and antivirals triggered when the WHO declared the swine flu
outbreak a pandemic a year ago this week. The UK, which warned that
65,000 could die as a result of the virus, spent an estimated £1bn
stockpiling drugs and vaccines; officials are now attempting to unpick
expensive drug contracts.</p><p>The cabinet office has launched an
inquiry into the cost to the taxpayer of the panic-buying of drugs.</p><p>Today,
the Council of Europe, produces a damning report into how a lack of
openness around "decision making" has bedevilled planning for pandemics.</p><p>"The
tentacles of drug company influence are in all levels in the
decision-making process," said Paul Flynn, the Labour MP who sits on the
council's health committee. "It must be right that the WHO is
transparent because there has been distortion of priorities of public
health services all over Europe, waste of huge sums of public money and
provocation of unjustified fear."</p><p>Although the experts consulted
made no secret of industry ties in other settings, declaring them in
research papers and at universities, the WHO itself did not publicly
disclose any of these in its seminal 2004 guidance. In its note, the WHO
advised: "Countries that are considering the use of antivirals as part
of their pandemic response will need to stockpile in advance."</p><p>Many
nations would adopt this guidance, including Britain. In 2005, the
government said it had begun bulk-buying the drug Tamiflu, initially
ordering 14.6m doses after bird flu killed 40 in Asia.</p><p>The
specific guidance on antivirals was written by Professor Fred Hayden. He
has confirmed in an email that he was being paid by Roche for lectures
and consultancy work at the time the guidance was produced and
published. He received payments from GSK for consultancy and lecturing
until 2002. He said "[declaration of interest] forms were filled out for
the 2002 consultation".</p><p>The previous year Hayden was also one of
the main authors of a Roche-sponsored study that asserted what was to
become a main Tamiflu selling point – its claim of a 60% reduction in
flu hospitalisations.</p><p>Dr Arnold Monto was the author of the WHO
annex dealing with vaccine usage in pandemics. Between 2000 and 2004,
and at the time of writing the annex, Monto had openly declared
consultancy fees and research support from Roche and GSK. No conflict of
interest statement was included in the annex published by the WHO.</p><p>When
asked if he had signed a declaration of interest form for WHO, Dr Monto
said "conflict of interest forms are requested before participation in
any WHO meeting".</p><p>The third scientist, Professor Karl Nicholson,
is credited with the WHO's influential work Pandemic Influenza.
According to declarations he made in the BMJ and Lancet in 2003, he had
received sponsorship from GSK and Roche.</p><p>Even though the previous
year these declarations had been openly made, no conflict of interest
statement was included in the annex. Nicholson said he last had
"financial relations" with Roche in 2001.</p></div></div><p>When asked
if he had signed a declaration of interest form for WHO, he replied:
"The WHO does require attendees of meetings, such as those held in 2002
and 2004, to complete declarations of interest."</p></div>