WHO and Conflict of Interest; Chan versus Godlee

Without base, or substance, the WHO has come under fire for not having disclosed financial ties of some of its advisers regarding the influenza pandemic of last year.  It turns out the BMJ published an accusatory article, and accompanying editorial.  These accusations will persist in the blogosphere, despite very forceful and rightful fight back by Dr Chan (WHO director) and colleagues.  It seems that the BMJ editors are only is interested in self promotion of an agenda that has no basis.  If no influence is found (which will not be) then the WHO should press on with a request for a retraction, or at the very least an apology.

It is worth noting that criticisms for those who work with industry come  from people like Dr. F Godlee, who has no track record in having worked ever with industry. A quick Pub Med search reveals that most of her publications are commentaries while on editorial boards, and little in the way of original research.  One can easily conclude that her agitation and suspicion arises from a fundamental lack of understanding of the process of research involving industry.

No free latte, unless you are not from the US!

A new MSNBC poll looks at the absurdity of the current regulations regarding interactions between physicians and industry.  The vast majority of poll responders agree, and  thankfully so, that the regulations have gone to far.  At medical meetings there are now booths for international attendees only.  Once you swipe your card you can go inside and get a coffee and a biscotti.  To keep this under veils they have posted guards at the entrance of these international lounges.  The general public seems to finally have gotten it and at least 80% of poll votes go for the regulations having gone too far.

ACRE Perspective in Kaiser Health News

Although the database of payments to physicians from pharmaceutical and device companies, required by the recently passed Physician Payments Sunshine Act, will not be posted until September 2013, some are predicting that its impact will reduce such payments. A recent article in Kaiser Health News described how the new law will require companies to begin recording any physician payments that are worth more than $10 in 2012 and to report them on March 31, 2013.


While advocates of such laws believe that industry “compensation can affect a doctor's choice of drugs or treatment,” exposing such payments, despite their beliefs will not dissuade such behavior—it will dissuade doctors from working with industry. When doctors, who firmly and rightly believe that their work with industry is legitimate, feel their work is being questioned, patients will suffer, and so will future generations of doctors and researchers.


As Dr. Thomas Stossel, the director, division of translational medicine at Harvard, co-founder of the Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators (ACRE) noted, "The use of the term 'sunshine' has an implicit aura of corruption." The reality is, once payments are published, the public and critics will soon begin to realize that there is nothing to hide, and that these relationships are essential for advancing medicine and making people’s lives healthier and longer, as they have for decades.