How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense

Blasdelb — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:17:54 -0800

How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense: Report looks at methods of corporate abuse, suggests steps toward reform [Full Report (PDF)] [Executive Summary (PDF)] The report includes telling examples of Suppressing Research,

a USDA microbiologist was prevented from publishing research showing that emissions from industrial hog farms contained antibiotic-resistant bacteria

Dr. Ingacio Chapela of the University of California–Berkeley and graduate student David Quist published an article in Nature showing that DNA from genetically modified corn was contaminating native Mexican corn. The research spurred immediate backlash. Nature received a number of letters to the editor, including several comments on the Internet from "Mary Murphy" and "Andura Smetacek" accusing the scientists of bias. The backlash prompted Nature to publish an editorial agreeing that the report should not have been published. However, investigators eventually discovered that the comments from Murphy and Smetacek originated with The Bivings Group, a public relations firm that specializes in online communications and had worked for Monstanto. Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek were found to be fictional names.

"Boots commissioned Dr. Betty Dong, a scientist at the University of California–San Francisco, to test the effects of Synthroid, a replacement for thyroid hormone. Boots hoped to reveal that despite its high price, Synthroid was more effective than similar drugs. The company closely monitored the research, and when Dong found that the drug was no more effective than its competitors, instructed her not to publish the results. When she refused to comply, Boots threatened to sue. The company relented only after several years, during which consumers continued to pay for the costly product."

Corrupting Advisory Panels:

"A few weeks before a CDC advisory panel met to discuss revising federal lead standards, two scientists with ties to the lead industry were added to the panel. The committee voted against tightening the standards."

"ReGen Biologics attempted to gain FDA approval for clinical trials of Menaflex, a device it developed to replace knee cartilage. After an FDA panel rejected the device, the company enlisted four members of Congress from its home state of New Jersey to influence the evaluation process. In December 2007, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Robert Menendez, and Representative Steve Rothman wrote to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach asking him to personally look into Menaflex. Soon thereafter, the commissioner met with ReGen executives and heeded the company's advice to have Dr. Daniel Shultz, head of the FDA's medical devices division, oversee a new review. The FDA fast-tracked and approved the product despite serious concerns from the scientific community."

Ghostwriting Articles:

"A 2011 analysis found evidence of corporate authorship in research articles on a variety of drugs, including Avandia, Paxil, Tylenol, and Vioxx."

"From 1998 to 2007, Pfizer discreetly facilitated the publication of 15 case studies, six case reports, and nine letters to the editor to boost off-label use of Neurontin, a drug prescribed to treat seizures in people who have epilepsy and nerve pain. The number of patients taking the drug rose from 430,000 to 6 million, making it one of Pfizer's most profitable products. An investigation found that Pfizer had failed to publish negative results, selectively reported outcomes, and excluded specific patients from analysis. [Most importantly] Pfizer failed to note that the drug increased the risk of suicide.'

Purchasing Rigged Research

'To counter a study that found that formaldehyde caused cancer in rats, a formaldehyde company commissioned its own study. That study-which found no association between the chemical and cancer-exposed only one-third the number of rats to formaldehyde for half as long as the original study. A formaldehyde association quickly publicized the results and argued before the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that they indicated "no chronic health effects from exposure to the level of formaldehyde normally encountered in the home""

Creating Front Organizations

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit that targets dietary guidelines recommended by the FDA, other government agencies, medical associations, and consumer advocacy organizations. The center has run ads and owns a website that accuses government agencies of overregulation, and has published articles claiming to refute evidence that high salt intake and other dietary guidelines are based on inadequate science. The center was founded with a $600,000 grant from Philip Morris, but has also received funding from Cargill, National Steak and Poultry, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, and Sutter Home Winery.

Purchasing Support from Existing Organizations

In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry accepted a $1 million donation from Coca-Cola. That year, the group claimed that "scientific evidence is certainly not clear on the exact role that soft drinks play in terms of children's oral disease." The statement directly contradicted the group's previous stance that "consumption of sugars in any beverage can be a significant factor…that contributes to the initiation and progression of dental caries."

Pharma reps from another planet

Mister_A — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:07:10 -0800

Feast your senses (including, perhaps, your sense of outrage) on this Merck Vioxx sales training video, presented in 3 parts without commercial interruption (heh) by the often interesting Pharmalot. Vioxx was pulled from the market a few years ago because of cardiovascular risks (increased incidence of MI associated with Vioxx in clinical trials and post-marketing reporting). There is currently a huge class-action suit going on over Vioxx deaths, so it is interesting to see what Merck brass was telling the reps back in the early 2000's. Of particular interest is the bit about Vioxx and MI (heart attack) about 2:15 into the second clip.

As you might have heard on the news today, two more women have died after taking RU-486.

sequential — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:01:16 -0800

The number of patient fatalities in mifepristone abortions is estimated at 1 in 200,000¹, about double the rate for suction-aspiration abortions of comparable terms, and about equal to the combined early and late term fatality rates for vacuum aspiration abortion.² (source) (via) [More inside]

Whoa

punkbitch — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:33:46 -0800

No mere slap on the wrist for Merck. Jury awards grieving widow $253.4 Mil in Vioxx suit. The first of thousands of cases like it. (washpost)

It's a Beautiful Morning?

Otis — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:51:26 -0800

In September 2001 the FDA warned Merck, makers of the painkiller Vioxx, for engaging in a promotional campaign that minimized "potentially serious cardiovascular findings." The previous year, Merck spent $161 million on Vioxx advertising (more than Pepsi or Budweiser spent on advertising that year). Earlier this year, a securities class action complaint was filed on behalf of several Merck investors alleging the company engaged in a marketing campaign that included false and misleading statements concerning the safety profile of Vioxx and that company insiders sold personally held shares of Merck for over $175 million in proceeds. Today, Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market.

MetaFilter posts tagged with Vioxx

How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense

Pharma reps from another planet

As you might have heard on the news today, two more women have died after taking RU-486.

Whoa

It's a Beautiful Morning?