The Secret Pact Between Mainstream Medicine and Big Pharma
We read about it almost every day in newspapers, magazines, and trade publications - doctors, scientists, medical journals and government officials are all being influenced by payments from drug companies. These payments can and do affect the way in which decisions are made about what drugs we will and will not use; how your doctor will treat you when you are ill; whether or not a generic will be selected over a brand name medication; and how those who treat with natural alternatives such as herbs or homeopathy are treated. It has been a closely held secret for many years but now, this link has become so blatant and so many people are starting to ask questions about whether their doctors are doing the best for them or the best for their own back pockets, that damage control must be attempted.Â
Dr Steven Hambleton, President of the AMA, appeared on the ABC's Background Briefing programme on several days ago and, when discussing the possibility of a register that would allow patients and the public to know what doctors have been taking payments from drug companies and how much, Dr Hambleton said he was concerned that a register could jeopardise the reputations of the doctors on it! With more than 18,000 Australians dying every year in the public hospital system from adverse reactions to properly prescribed medications and medical error, one would think that Dr Hambleton would be more concerned with the health of those treated by mainstream doctors rather than their reputations.
Below is a letter sent to Health Minister Nicola Roxon by our guest blogger, Judy Wilyman, PhD researcher at the University of Wollongong, regarding the current situation regarding conflicts of interest in both medicine and the media. This information needs to be widely distributed and mainstream media will not do it. If you can forward this page to your friends and family, it would be fantastic and you may just save a life by doing so!
To the Federal Health Minister,
I am writing in response to the article 'A Noble Cause' aired on Background Briefing on the ABC radio 16.10.11. In this article the President of the AMA, Dr. Steven Hambleton, made his position on the transparency of government health policies crystal clear. He stated that:
 'A register could jeopardise the reputations of the doctors on it'. In another words, the public interest is not a priority. The need for 'balanced, unbiased and evidence-based science' is clearly not a goal to be achieved by the AMA.
This statement was made with respect to the following activities of doctors and institutions:
doctors being paid to give presentations using pharmaceutical company slides and pharmaceutical funded research and statistics
doctors given free international trips and paid to give presentations for drugs
Pharmaceutical sales representatives given large bonuses to sell a drug even after concerns were raised about the side-effects of the drugs
The hidden industry ties of academics in universities and similarly in government advisory boards.
The conflicts of interest in the media presentation of drugs and their side-effects
The conflicts of interest in Australia's National Immunisation Conference presented by the Public Health of Australia (PHAA)Â and fully funded by the pharmaceutical companies
The hidden ties between industry and the chief-editors on peer-reviewed journals, who are selecting against articles with negative findings on drugs/vaccines.
Little research funding being provided for research in the public interest. In particular, the possibility that the chemicals in the 13 vaccines now recommended to infants under 12 months of age, are causing the steep increase in chronic illness in our children.
These activities of the health department are all occurring without an adequate surveillance system for adverse reactions to drugs and in particular to vaccines (which are for healthy people). Australia has a passive post-marketing surveillance system for adverse reactions that is not designed to determine causal relationships with the vaccine. This is a significant failing of the health system and means that chronic illness in the population will continue to increase - despite all the money that is being put into healthcare. It also means we will need to put millions of dollars into disability insurance schemes for long-term carers created by a fraudulent health system. Please contact Professor Peter Collignon (ANU) for confirmation of the inadequate surveillance system set up for determining the rates and causal links for adverse events to vaccines.
If you (as the Health Minister) are unaware of the ingredients of vaccines and if you have never used 13 vaccines in yourself in a one year time frame, can I please ask why you would be recommending that 13 should be used in a developing infant? These questions have been put to Professor Fiona Stanley and the Telethon Institute but they have not been answered. Instead the academics and scientists who are speaking out on this issue are being attacked by faceless people on twitter and blogs. The consumers are wanting this policy supported by evidence-based science but consumer organisations have become toothless as advocates and health professionals protect their jobs.
I have attached a picture for you to see the implications of the current immunisation schedule and in the words of Professor Fiona Stanley 'many educated people are no longer vaccinating their children'.
Please could you address these issues in your department as consumers would like some accountability. I am happy to provide references for any of the claims made in this email. I will forward this email to the community.
Kind regards,
Judy Wilyman
PhD researcher
Wollongong University
For some recent articles on this issue, please click on the following links:
Corporate Voices Toolkit Ilustrates Perils of Conflicts of Interest