http://www.cogforlife.org/vaxconflict.htm
News
Release From

For Immediate Release
Contact: Sean M. Spicer
23 August 2000
(202) 225-5074
sean.spicer@mail.house.gov
Burton Critical of Vaccine
Approval Process
A House Government Reform Committee staff
report published this week criticized the FDA and the CDC for routinely
allowing scientists with conflicts of interest to serve on two influential
advisory committees that make recommendations on vaccine policy.
The report concludes that,
"conflict-of-interest rules employed by the FDA and the CDC have been
weak, enforcement has been lax, and committee members with substantial ties to
pharmaceutical companies have been given waivers to participate in committee
hearings."
In an August 10th letter, Chairman Burton
called on HHS Secretary Donna Shalala to implement reforms to crack down on
conflicts of interest on the two committees. The FDA's Vaccines and
Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) makes recommendations
on the approval of new vaccines. The CDC's Advisory Committee on
Immunizations Practices (ACIP) makes recommendations on guidelines for the
administration of vaccines. The Government Reform Committee staff report
found that the majority of members of both committees have financial ties to
vaccine manufacturers or hold patents on vaccines under development.
The report focuses on the advisory
committees' review of the controversial rotavirus vaccine in 1997 and
1998. Despite concerns about potentially serious side effects of the
drug, it won unanimous votes of support in both committees. Within one
year, the vaccine, made by Wyeth Lederle had to be pulled from the market
because it was causing severe bowel obstructions in infants that required
surgery to correct. One baby died.
The Committee found that three out of the
five full-time FDA advisory committee members who voted for the vaccine had
financial ties to Wyeth Lederle or tow companies developing rival rotavirus
vaccines...Merck and SmithKline Beecham. Four out of eight CDC advisory
committee members who supported the vaccine had conflicts with the same
companies. The staff report concludes that the committees demonstrated a
"lack of vigilance" in their review of the rotavirus vaccine known as
"Rotashield", with the CDC's committee rushing to approve guidelines
for the vaccine even before the FDA had licensed it.
One physician who voted to recommend the
rotavirus vaccine on the FDA's advisory committee received $255,000.00 per year
in research funds from the maker of the vaccine, Wyeth Lederle. She
received a waiver from the FDA to vote on the issue because her research for
Wyeth focused on other vaccines.
One member of the CDC's advisory committee
who was not allowed to vote on the rotavirus vaccine because of a conflict was
allowed to participate in closed-door working group meetings that drafted the
committee's recommendations for the vaccine. He was also allowed to make
an impassioned plea for approval of the vaccine at the full committee
hearing.
Another member of the CDC's advisory
committee held a lucrative patent on a rival rotavirus vaccine under
development by Merck. Despite this conflict, the doctor voted three times
on recommendations regarding Wyeth's vaccine. It was not until the
committee voted to rescind its recommendation of the rotashield that he recused
himself because of a "perception of conflict".
The staff report takes issue with the FDA's
tax guidelines for conflicts of interest. For instance, under the FDA's
rules, ownership of up to $100,000.00 in stock is considered a "medium
involvement" conflict that is also eligible for waiver. Until some
time in 1999, the Chairman of the CDC's advisory committee owned 600 shares of
stock in Merck, one of the world's largest vaccine manufacturers. The
chairwoman of the FDA's advisory committee also owned stock in Merck.
The staff report finds that the CDC's
practice of automatically granting annual waivers to all members of its
committee for one-year periods "does not lend itself to a healthy respect
for the conflict-of-interest rules." (Members who have direct
conflicts with the sponsor of a vaccine are generally not allowed to vote on
that company's products, but they are free to participate in working groups
that draft the recommendations and in committee deliberations leading up to the
vote.)
In his letter Secretary Shalala, Chairman
Burton stated:
"For the public to have confidence in the decisions made by their
government, they must be assured that those decisions are not being affected by
conflict of interest."
"It has become clear over the course
of this investigation that the VRBPAC and the ACIP are dominated by individuals
with close working relationships with the vaccine producers. This was
never the intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that a
diversity of views be represented on advisory committees."
Committee on Government Reform
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515 - (202) 225-5074
Article taken from http://www.house.gov/reform/press/00.08.23b.htm
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.