The Sick NIH Follow the MONEY

[Guest guest]

" The Sick NIH "

Posted by Sharon Kramer on 12/26/04

Hi All,

Thought you may find this of interest.

FYI, GlobaxTox makes much of it's income from doing defense

litigation support work in toxic tort cases. Is it right

that Dr. Kelman and Dr. Hardin of GlobalTox should be

writing papers for the International Journal of Toxicology

then profiting from this position becoming the accepted

position? Particularly if there is evidence that the

original data they use to support relevant dose response

required for residents living in mold infested indoor

environments,is FLAWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

SOMEONE NEEDS TO LOOK INTO THIS!!!!!

..

They write papers like the ACOEM Report. Dr. Kelman and Dr.

Harden are two of the three original authors of the ACOEM

Evidence Based Statement RE indoor molds.

They sit on ethics in medicine committees, determining what

is and is not morally ethical guidelines for the medical

community. This appears to me to be a " fox watching the hen

house scenario " !

They receive much money for expert testimony supporting and

supported by their OWN writings. GlobalTox even received

monies from the Manhattan Institute for editing the ACOEM

paper to the tune of $40,000. Few words were changed, yet

the Manhattan Institute was willing to pay approximately

$40K for these word changes to be written.

In the meantime, many people are gravely ill; losing

their homes, health and families while these " gentlemen "

are profiting tremendously from their opinions and

involvement in the government decision making processes.

Sharon

Risk from Inhaled Mycotoxins in Indoor Office and

Residential Environments

Bruce Kelman A1, Coreen Robbins A1, Lonie Swenson A1,

Hardin A1

A1 GlobalTox, Inc., Redmond, Washington, USA

Abstract:

Mycotoxins are known to produce veterinary and human

diseases when consumed

with contaminated foods. Mycotoxins have also been

proposed to cause adverse

human health effects after inhalation exposure to mold in

indoor residential,

school, and office environments. Epidemiologic evidence

has been inadequate

to establish a causal relationship between indoor mold and

nonallergic,

toxigenic health effects. In this article, the authors

model a maximum possible

dose of mycotoxins that could be inhaled in 24 h of

continuous exposure to a

high concentration of mold spores containing the maximum

reported

concentration of aflatoxins Bm1and Bm2, satratoxins G and

H, fumitremorgens B and C,

verruculogen, and trichoverrols A and B. These calculated

doses are compared to

effects data for the same mycotoxins. None of the maximum

doses modeled were

sufficiently high to cause any adverse effect. The model

illustrates the

inefficiency of delivery of mycotoxins via inhalation of

mold spores, and

suggests that the lack of association between mold

exposure and mycotoxicoses in

indoor environments is due to a requirement for extremely

high airborne spore

levels and extended periods of exposure to elicit a

response. This model is

further evidence that human mycotoxicoses are implausible

following

inhalation exposure to mycotoxins in mold-contaminated

home, school, or office

environments.

Keywords:

Aflatoxin, Fumitremorgen, Satratoxin, Tremorgen, Tricho-

verrol, Verruculogen

December 23, 2004

EDITORIAL (From the LA Times)

The Sick NIH

The Bush administration has just released a study by a 13-

member federal panel saying legalizing drug importation

wouldn't really help lower prices and might crimp research

on new prescription drugs. Who would benefit from that

recommendation: consumers or U.S. pharmaceutical companies?

Should we trust it? If the rampant conflicts of interest at

the National Institutes of Health being reported by The

Times' Willman are anything to go by, the answer is a

flat no.

As The Times first reported in December 2003, NIH doctors

have pocketed lavish fees and stock options from biomedical

companies while keeping those payments as veiled as

possible.

In his latest installment, on Wednesday, Willman showed

that the corrupting links between the drug industry and the

Bush administration were even more pervasive than

previously known. At least 530 government scientists at the

NIH, employees who are supposed to do independent research,

have accepted fees, stock or stock options in the last five

years, often from companies whose products the scientists

evaluate.

Consider senior NIH psychiatric researcher Dr. P. Trey

Sunderland III, who pocketed $508,050 from Pfizer Inc. at

the same time he worked with Pfizer in his government

capacity — and even endorsed one of its drugs. Or blood

transfusion expert Dr. Harvey G. Klein, who accepted

$240,200 in fees and $76,600 in stock options from

companies working on blood-related products. Or Dr. H.

Brewer Jr., who helped develop new federal

cholesterol guidelines and praised the cholesterol

medication Crestor as he hauled in $31,000 from Crestor's

maker. Arcane rules at the NIH help keep many such

connections obscure.

Willman notes that Brewer, in a 2003 article in the

American Journal of Cardiology, minimized concerns about a

muscle-wasting side effect of Crestor — effects serious

enough that the consumer group Public Citizen called for

the drug to be banned.

The rationale for allowing this ethically bankrupt gravy

train is that without the extra income, medical researchers

will shun government. Last month, almost 200 NIH

researchers preemptively complained that a ban on industry

consulting would make them " second-class citizens in the

biomedical community. " But employment by the NIH, one of

the world's top research bodies, is itself a privilege. The

NIH may say it is worried about a brain drain, but far more

dangerous is the growing perception that it is a front

organization for the drug companies.

The problem at the NIH is not just that doctors aren't

fully disclosing their conflicts of interest. Even with

full disclosure, substantial fees from drug companies give

researchers a mercenary reason to protect what amounts to a

business client. The same sorts of ties also trouble

academic research, but if government freely allows it, what

can be expected of the universities?

With Congress in thrall to the drug industry lobby (how

else could anyone explain the lack of drug price

negotiations in the costly Medicare prescription

drug " benefit " ?), what remains as a corrective is the

weight of shame. Unfortunately, it is a weight felt lightly

by NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, who simply opposes an

across-the-board ban. He is floating a bogus compromise

proposal, a one-year " moratorium " on consulting.

So what can be done? Zerhouni, unwilling or unable to

control the appearance of corruption in his midst, should

step down. If an unassailable opponent of the drug money

trough at the NIH were then named by President Bush, with a

strong statement of support from him, we would have the

beginning of an answer.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the

Archives at latimes.com/archives

*********************************************************

Hmmmmm? Besides the drug companies, wonder what other big

industries would profit from influencing the " Evidence

based statements " put out by the NIH and other national

medical associations?

Happy New Year (and is a new year!)

Sharon