David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You
By Jake Crosby
His motto is “A statement of fact cannot be insolent,” yet the title of his blog reads “Respectful Insolence.” In other words, even he admits there are no facts on his blog.
He has become the online spokesperson for the vaccine industry, a member of the highly trafficked, drug-industry-sponsored “Science”Blogs where he heavily promotes the tobacco science obscuring causes of autism. Posting under the science fiction name “Orac,” David Gorski has become the most outspoken, self-styled “skeptic” in defense of mercury that exceeds EPA limits in vaccines. Another example of a cause of autism he vehemently denies is the MMR - the triple, combined live-virus vaccine implicated in measles virus infection in the ileum, peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and cerebrospinal fluid of children who have autistic enterocolitis.
In case anybody’s wondering what David Gorski’s connection is to the autism debate, he has undisclosed financial ties to the vaccine industry. He has made no mention of these connections, despite stating in one of his many defenses of millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit, “A general principle is that undisclosed potential conflicts of interest (COIs) are of far more concern and potentially far more damaging to the scientific process than disclosed COIs.” However, Gorski has steadfastly denied possessing any conflicts, having once told me online without my even accusing him, “You are wrong. I receive no money from pharmaceutical companies and haven’t for 14 years.”
Sanofi-Gorski
Well, it so happens Sanofi-Aventis – the world’s largest vaccine maker - is involved in several partnerships under which the company may be required to pay a total of €31 million ($39 million USD) from 2008 to 2013. Gorski’s employer, Wayne State University, is one of the partners, and he is conducting a clinical trial of one of the company’s drugs. Therefore, like Offit (who concealed the millions he received in Merck royalty payments because Merck paid the royalties to a third party, not Offit directly) Gorski has a reasonable expectation to receive money from a vaccine maker, even if it is through a third party. A look at the summary description of the Gorski Lab reveals that his research focus is drug discovery and development. However, he is not developing a new drug, but rather, developing new uses for an existing one. Such a process is far more profitable to the drug manufacturer as it eliminates the costs of developing a new substance from scratch, thereby maximizing profits for the company.
The potentially profitable drug Gorski is in the process of conducting a clinical trial for is the ALS drug Riluzole, made by Sanofi-Aventis and marketed as Rilutek. Amplifying the conflict further is that the same drug is also being studied for the treatment of autism. At Autism One, the National Institute of Mental Health was handing out recruitment pamphlets for children ages 7-17 to take part as subjects in a clinical trial of Riluzole for its effectiveness in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders, and repetitive and stereotypical behaviors in particular. Apparently, David Gorski has had his eye on that drug for a long time, but as a possible treatment for breast cancer. As suggested by a 2008-2009 webpage of a breast cancer website:
“Three years ago in another cancer (melanoma), Dr. Gorski's collaborators found that glutamate might have a role in promoting the transformation of the pigmented cells in the skin (melanocytes) into the deadly skin cancer melanoma. More importantly for therapy, it was found that this protein can be blocked with drugs, and, specifically, in melanoma cell lines and tumor models of melanoma using a drug originally designed to treat ALS and already FDA-approved for that indication (Riluzole) can inhibit the growth of melanoma.” HERE
Subtract three years from 2008-2009 and you get 2005-2006 – when David Gorski started blogging heavily about vaccines. Currently, the Barbara Anne Karmanos Cancer Institute of Wayne State University is sponsoring the trial for Riluzole, and Wayne State is the only university listed in the Yahoo! Finance stock summary of Sanofi-Aventis as being in a financial partnership with the company. Sanofi-Aventis owns Sanofi-Pasteur, the second largest manufacturer of vaccines in the world, including both thimerosal-preserved vaccines, and MMR vaccines. (Its first MMR vaccine, Immravax, was banned for causing viral meningitis in children.) David Gorski, while up front about the direct funding he received from drug companies 14 years ago for a patent as well as the funding he has received from the various institutions with which he has been affiliated, has not been up front about funding from drug companies received through his institution. According to the drug company’s website in 2008, “Sanofi-Aventis has entered into various other collaboration agreements with partners including Immunogen, Coley, Wayne State University, Innogenetics and Inserm, under which Sanofi-Aventis may be required to make total contingent payments of approximately €31 million over the next five years.” This is the same year it was announced that David Gorski would carry out a series of clinical trials for the company and its drug, Riluzole. HERE
In fact, one of the two primary interests of the Gorski lab is this Sanofi-Aventis drug. In the Wayne state description, the lab’s two interests are described, “First, we are interested in the transcriptional regulation of vascular endothelial cell phenotype.” Worth noting is that a patent relating to this was issued listing David Gorski as an inventor. In his blog bio, Gorski admits receiving money for the patent in 1994 from a drug company, but that was only during the provisional filing before the patent was issued. Whatever the compensation was, its timing does not suggest any licensing of the intellectual property rights.
Also, according to the Gorski lab, “Our second area of interest is the role of metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) in breast cancer,” which relates directly to the therapy linking the use of Riluzole to breast cancer treatment. However, the description concludes, “In addition, we have noted that mGluR1 is expressed on vascular endothelial cells and have preliminary evidence that its inhibition is also antiangiogenic, thus linking our laboratory’s two interests and suggesting a broader application for metabotropic glutamate receptor targeting in cancer therapy.” In other words, David Gorski’s entire research focus, including a patent still listed in his name for which he admits receiving drug company money, ties into finding new uses for a drug made by Sanofi-Aventis, while the university housing his lab is in partnership with the company. HERE
In spite of this easily-accessible information about his drug industry ties, Gorski’s denial of being in the pocket of the drug industry stretches so far beyond what he is even regularly accused of, that he will from time to time actually post a handful of links to the few token, laughably transparent posts out of the thousands he’s written which are at all critical of the drug industry. None concerned ongoing, unresolved controversies such as those surrounding autism, and none are critical of Sanofi. To David Gorski, Sanofi-Aventis is apparently untouchable. When a fellow blogger wrote a post entitled “Placing a vaccine order with crooks and liars” - questioning the government’s reliance on Sanofi-Aventis developing a swine flu vaccine just after the company was forced to pay nearly $100 million in compensation for cheating Medicaid, David Gorski was not amused. “Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick. The antivaccine nuts will have a field day with this,” he yelped.
The blogger responded, “orac: Meaning we shouldn't call them on it?” David Gorski chastised even his fellow blogger: “I would have hoped that you would realize that that's not what I meant at all to the point where you wouldn't have even asked a question like that, but apparently I was wrong. I didn't realize your opinion of me was so low.” Apparently, the public image of Sanofi-Aventis is more important to Gorski than the fact that disabled people, including those with autism, were cheated out of millions of dollars.
His actual profession may have nothing to do with the disorder, but Sanofi-Aventis certainly plays a major role in the autism epidemic. So blogging like the kind Gorski has been engaged in would undoubtedly win him some major brownie points with the pharmaceutical company. This could be very beneficial to a researcher like him, given that he is conducting a clinical trial of Sanofi-Aventis’ drug while his employer is in a Sanofi-Aventis partnership that could be worth millions. Meanwhile, he is trashing alternative therapies for autism when the drug he is conducting a clinical trial on may become a treatment for autism. How none of this could be considered undisclosed COIs to David Gorski--while Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s connection to lawyers in relation to the retracted case report from the Lancet is a “fatal” COI--is absolutely bizarre. Gorski makes no mention of his current connections to the drug industry on his blog, including the possible application the drug he is focused on may have to autism.
Yet a number of years back, David Gorski wrote on his blog as “Orac,” “Yes, in the case of a true ‘shill’ who does not reveal that he works for a pharmaceutical company and pretends to be ‘objective,’ it is quite appropriate to ‘out’ that person.” From reading this, one would think David Gorski would be happy to know that his undisclosed connections to Sanofi-Aventis – one of the largest vaccine makers in the world - have just been outed.
So I e-mailed him:
Dr. Gorski,
This is Jake Crosby. I am doing a piece about your acknowledgment that disclosure of conflicts of interest is important, yet your lab at Wayne State University stands to benefit from Sanofi Aventis money for the breast cancer research you are conducting on a drug the company manufactures and markets, Riluzole, which is also being studied for the treatment of autism. Why isn't any of this disclosed on your blogs? I await your reply.
Sincerely,
Jake Crosby
Age of Autism
Contributing Editor with Autism
http://www.ageofautism.com/jake-crosby/
Dr. Gorski Responds
David Gorski, a.k.a. “Orac,” of “Science”Blogs/-BasedMedicine replied the next morning with a short, excuse-filled response:
“A more comprehensive answer will be forthcoming when I have more time, probably by tomorrow. (I have to go to work now, and because we have house guests, I will be busy when I get back.) In the meantime, suffice it to say that I receive no money from Sanofi-Aventis, nor am I likely to.
David”
He did not address my question at all; perhaps he was too busy cooking breakfast for his house guests. I never said he received any money from Sanofi-Aventis, only that his lab stood to benefit from such money since the company is in a partnership with his lab’s university, Wayne State, which is sponsoring Gorski’s clinical trial of Riluzole.
Two days later came his “more comprehensive answer.” If Dr. Jekyll wrote his previous email, Mr. Hyde wrote:
“My answer is here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5627
Since you were obviously preparing to do to me what you've done in the past with, for example, Adam Bly, Gardiner Harris, and Chris Mooney, I decided that the best defense is a good offense and that a public preemptive response was demanded.
When you write your piece, link to it if you dare. If there's one thing about AoA that I find despicable and cowardly, it's that they refuse to link to me when they slime me. J.B. is particularly guilty of this. I link to AoA because I'm not afraid of my readers going to the primary source. Are you?
David”
I’ll let the editors at Age of Autism decide whether they want to include the link or not. Age of Autism is comprised of original material that Gorski is heavily dependent on for his fits; he’s a scavenger. Plus, all our readers are perfectly capable of accessing his tantrums anyway.
Moving on to his post, it is essentially a huge rant divided up into five sections, the first of which can be summed up by this sentence: “It’s far easier for [quacks and pseudoscientists] just to put their fingers in their ears and scream ‘Conflict of interest! Conflict of interest!’ and then use that to dismiss completely their opponent’s argument.”
In fact, that’s basically the whole point of the first three sections. I have never advocated this in any of my articles, and I invite him to point out a specific example of where I have either in his case or in another example of my posts. He even lied that I accused Seed Media founder Adam Bly of being influenced by Sanofi-Aventis while he was studying at the Canadian National Research Council – I never alleged any such thing.
I do agree with him, however, that this is the proper way to take into account conflicts of interest: “…if a study is funded by big pharma, he decreases the strength of the evidence in his mind by a set amount.” That said, I do believe that conflicts of interest whenever present should be brought up, like that of Gardiner Harris, who violated the ethical guidelines of The New York Times by failing to disclose that his brother sells lab equipment to pharmaceutical companies. David Gorski does not seem to think so, despite agreeing with me that pharmaceutical funding does decrease the strength of evidence. My question for him: Which is it?
In the fourth section, Gorski congratulates himself for the research that is related to his Sanofi-Aventis connections. He brags, “If it passes clinical trials, it may well be a very useful drug for potentiating the effects of other cancer therapies, such as chemotherapy and radiation.” Beyond Gorski’s blogging about autism and his undisclosed COI, as J.B. Handley put it, “I could care less about Mr. Gorski or his career.”
Moving on to the final section, he sums up his basis for denying he has a conflict of interest:
“First, I would have to be receiving money from Sanofi-Aventis. I am not.”
I never said he was, only that Sanofi-Aventis is in a partnership with his university, which in turn is sponsoring his clinical trial of Sanofi’s drug, Riluzole.
“Second, I would have to have the reasonable expectation to receive money from Sanofi-Aventis. I do not.”
Though he may not expect to receive money from Sanofi-Aventis directly, he can expect to receive money that Sanofi has paid to his employer, Wayne State.
“I’m not even angling for money from Sanofi-Aventis to run my lab.”
He doesn’t have to; his university does the angling for him.
“Third, I would have to know that Riluzole is being tested as a treatment for autistic children.”
It does not matter if he did not know Riluzole was being studied to treat autism, he would still have a COI.
“In any case, even if I had known [of Riluzole as a possible treatment for ASD], it still wouldn’t have been a COI. I’m not a neurologist, and I don’t treat ASD or OCD. I’m never going to be doing research with Riluzole in children with ASD, OCD, or both.” Even though he does not treat autism, and even though he is not a neurologist, he still has a conflict of interest because of his Sanofi ties and the fact that he blogs about autism causes and treatments all the time.
What ultimately matters is that David Gorski is conducting a clinical trial of a Sanofi-Aventis drug (undisclosed to his readers), sponsored by his Sanofi-Aventis-partnered university (also undisclosed to his readers), and he constantly writes blog posts that are favorable to Sanofi-Aventis. To show just how important Sanofi is to Gorski, he even said in the comments section that if the drug fails his clinical trial for breast cancer, it would be a “major setback” for his research. Yet, instead of conceding that he is conflicted in this way, he attempts to talk his way out of the points I raised in the 84-word e-mail I sent to him with a 4,562-word smokescreen, followed by another 20,915 words from his loyal commenters.
Jake Crosby is a college student at Brandeis University who is double majoring in History and Health: Science, Society and Policy, and is a contributing editor to Age of Autism.
@Adraina: I've wondered the same about Gorski's hidden talents. Because they're so well hidden.
I would speculate that he fries small furry mammals with γ-rays.
Posted by: Narad | September 04, 2016 at 07:56 PM
Ahmed
Exactly so - it is hate rhetoric and nothing else. Absolutely intended to obliterate tolerant scientific discourse.
Posted by: John Stone | September 04, 2016 at 04:05 PM
I had a conflict with this Gorski before on one of his articles on his blog (Science based medicine). The article was about antiperspirants and breast cancer. Through the entire article he insulted many researchers who contributed in studies which showed whether there is any evidence of a probable link between antiperspirants and breast cancer.
His method is : Debunk a myth by trying to minimize any efforts have suggested it to be possibly true.
What really bothered me is his way of criticizing. This is not ethical at all. Any one with an average knowledge about scientific research will understand what i mean. Some studies are not well established (may contain bias or confounding factors) and need further investigations and sequels. Instead of correctly interpreting clinical studies and showing motive opinions to do more work on these studies, he intends to minimize these efforts in his writings in a disgusting way. This is exactly like saying "He intend to block the way off any further research studying the relation between Antiperspirants and breast cancer". Who wants to do a research that may be insulted and underrated by a well-known, media-empowered researcher.
What also bothered me are his followers on social media and blogs. They are physicians and students who agree with whatever he says. This really made me to believe for the 1st time that there's priesthood in medicine.
Medical field had witnessed many controversies, but hadn't witnessed a corruption like we have these days.
Ahmed Fouad,
Community pharmacist,
Cairo, Egypt
Posted by: Ahmed Fouad | September 04, 2016 at 01:19 PM
He cuts breasts of for a living of women with breast cancer.
Why would he EVER want to find a cure? LOL
He also trolls health pages on Facebook and is on the Anti Vax Wall of Shame and a known troll
VAD
Posted by: Victim of Dave | April 20, 2016 at 02:54 AM
i think i'd trust this site a lot more if the comments section wasn't obviously moderated to exclude other voices.
i look for what i can believe - but if those to try and tell me stuff don't allow me to judge then what's the point?
huh?
Posted by: pop | December 29, 2015 at 08:22 PM
Thanks to Crosby who revealed the economic reasons for David Gorski's (aka Orach) financial ties to pharma. If people do not post under their own names, they should not be taken seriously. Saying he does not take money is lying. It is simply indirect, rather than direct. I was searching for his financial connection when I found this site. Thank you.
Posted by: Patricia P tursi | December 15, 2013 at 06:52 AM
This is what other professionals say about Dr??? Gorski:
"ENJOYS MANIPULATING EVIDENCE TO INFLUENCE OPINION"
"CREEPY DOCTOR"
FROM A MEDICAL RESIDENT: "A DISHONEST,UNETHICAL LITTLE TWIT"
Please look at his own web page where he disclosed his contracts (for speaking) and please find out where the 30,000 Euro came from.Paid by pharma,works for pHarma;simple is that.
He needs to be fired from his job.
Posted by: oneVoice | September 06, 2013 at 12:37 PM
Best not to waste our precious enegy on this shark.It is clear that dr.Dorski does not understand the vaccine issues
and parental concerns.He can not imagine that a parent may
self-educate and becomes more knowledge-able than a doctor.
Let us focus on our children and find the answers.He is a pharma sponsored big pharma shark who may come up with his own dorski vaccine one day.We need to keep an eye on him. One shoe does not fit all,dr(!?!#)Dorski,voo.
Posted by: oneVoice | November 17, 2012 at 05:23 PM
I read the post from the mom whose child was given 11 vaccines in one visit.
In the journal "Pediatrics" Jan 2002 p 124 --the writer states not to worry about getting too many vaccines - it's OK because they've just found out that an infant can safely withstand 10,000 vacines. Just by chance the article was written by a member of the CDC Advisory Board, Paul 'for profit' Offit.
Posted by: Mark Landes | May 05, 2012 at 10:32 PM
Not saying anything bad about a specific drug company because they are funding your research and could pull it = you should not have a blog where you discuss medical advice for anyone considering there is one source you are not at liberty to critically analyze in addition to the others.
Am I missing anything?
Posted by: Valerie | April 22, 2012 at 09:23 AM
This is not abut David Gorski but it IS about another pharma company using children as guinea pigs in impoverished countries.
Anger over secret drug trials on Indian children
www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/03...-on-indian-children/
Brutalities fined a minimal sum
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 11:15 by Makomborero Midzi
newspoint.co.za/story/412/1877-brutalities-fined-minimal-sum
Posted by: Pro Truth | January 05, 2012 at 01:37 PM
After having been in email contact with Gorski over his attacks on Joe Mercola and others, I am confident that this piece accurately represents the man. He seems bent on attacking anyone who offers real cures with his half truths, broken facts, and misleading energy and wit.
Posted by: Dustin | August 12, 2011 at 03:14 PM
Gorski accuses me of spreading a lie from this article - I have yet to hear him point out what this imaginary lie is and where it is written anywhere in this post.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | February 07, 2011 at 12:04 PM
And one more thing:
David Gorski censored the link to this article when I tried to post it in a comment on his blog.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | September 29, 2010 at 10:15 AM
You're right, John. Good point.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | September 20, 2010 at 07:26 PM
Jake
"It is possible that the research contract he has with the drug company prevents him from stating publicly that the study is being funded by the company. This appears to be common practice in the industry."
He also shouldn't sign such a contract. We are supposed to believe in transparency these days.
Posted by: John Stone | September 19, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Then he shouldn't be blogging about an issue for which his opinion would be highly conflicted.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | September 19, 2010 at 10:00 AM
"David Gorski, while up front about the direct funding he received from drug companies 14 years ago ... has not been up front about funding from drug companies received through his institution."
It is possible that the research contract he has with the drug company prevents him from stating publicly that the study is being funded by the company. This appears to be common practice in the industry.
Posted by: Tony | September 15, 2010 at 06:58 AM
MONEY!!!plain and simple ...directly or indirectly its there..otherwise altruism!!!!
Posted by: Twinz | September 06, 2010 at 12:58 PM
"It comes back in the form of good publicity - ranging from word of mouth, thanks you in a newsletter or in the case of GSK good name recognition."
Adding further support to the phrase, "money talks."
Posted by: Jake Crosby | July 28, 2010 at 04:32 PM
Mary P
Even you agree that it is at best a form a form of advertising for GSK, and therefore not something for nothing - and it is patently a disclosable competing interest. The worst think is that sins become invisible to the participants. I don't doubt that Gorski was outraged with me, because it's the culture, but he descended at the same time into semi-articulacy because there is no answer.
I have quoted the ICMJE rules. There is no point in pretending I am being naieve (unless they are).
Posted by: John Stone | July 28, 2010 at 04:28 PM
@John Stone
"I think it would be very surprising if GSK were just giving away its shareholders' money."
This suggests you have never been involved in the management of a business. Most businesses give away money - the amount varies by the size of the business. It comes back in the form of good publicity - ranging from word of mouth, thanks you in a newsletter or in the case of GSK good name recognition.
Posted by: Mary P | July 28, 2010 at 01:58 PM
Hi Jake,
"Burning stupid". In Gorski's hands even adjectives become nouns - the language of someone totally enraged and without perspective. For the these people the problem is that their own status is so bound up in a system of patronage that when they have it pointed out they feel challenged to their very core. Gorski took the Scherer article as the deepest personal affront, and instead of offering a reasoned response (since there isn't one) he emotes in picturesque fashion.
I think it would be very surprising if GSK were just giving away its shareholders' money. There was also a famous incident involving Scherer's university (Toronto)when psychiatrist David Healy's professorship there was cancelled after he criticised Prozac (the department was funded by Eli Lilly). Any prospective aponsor might well have been encouraged by that incident that they had come to the right place!
Anyhow, you can read an account of the Healy affair by Guardian journalist Sarah Boseley who also wrote the original news report of the Pinto study for the newspaper.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/may/07/medicalscience.highereducation
Somehow, all this put me in mind of Beaumarchais and Mozart: our institutions as rotten as France before the revolution.
John
Posted by: John Stone | July 14, 2010 at 04:19 AM
John, Gorski's tirade about you was paper-thin, even for a typical Gorski rant.
First he claims you don't know what an endowed chair is because you cite it as a COI, which as he states:
"a company or wealthy donor gives a university a lot of money, and the university sets up the endowed chair using that money."
And that money talks.
Then he claims you don't know what a corresponding author is simply because you say Scherer is both the senior author and corresponding author, and that SUPPOSEDLY you should have automatically assumed they were one in the same.
Then he attempts to play down the role in the study:
"namely the author in whose laboratory and using whose funding the research described in the paper was performed."
Right, the senior author does not have much to do with the study...he only runs the lab where the research was conducted and controlled the purse straps for the money that goes into that research. And yet, according to him, such a coauthor would not have a relevant COI to report.
All I have to say about Dr. Gorski - giving him a taste of his own medicine - is that:
"...he's just completely humiliated himself by laying down a swath of burning stupid that has consumed everything in its path."
Posted by: Jake Crosby | July 13, 2010 at 08:26 PM
The ICMJE rules seem to have been updated in the past weeks but they cover Gorski's situation in detail: also it demonstrates how palpably erroneous Gorski's attack on me was regarding the AGPC study in Nature where 176 authors produced only these declarations of competing interest:
“Competing Financial Interests: L.J. Bierut and J.P. Rice are inventors on the patent “Markers for Addiction” (US 20070258898) covering the use of certain SNPs in determining the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of addiction. L.J. Bierut served as a consultant for Pfizer Inc. in 2008.”
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/06/scherer-of-nature-autism-gene-study-fails-to-disclose-pharma-funding-as-competing-interest.html
This surely would not have been possible in an ICMJE journal, whatever their deficiencies.
It is precisely also because people do operate under the illusion that they are without bias that it is necessary to have disclosure. In the case of the AGPC/Nature study there is every reason to believe that it is a vain pursuit and a waste of space, and it assuredly uses public money as well.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/07/new-autism-consortium-study-proves-again-that-inherited-genes-dont-cause-autism.html
They should be called to account, and so should Gorski.
Posted by: John Stone | July 13, 2010 at 05:46 AM
There are some really smart people whose children have become sick after a vaccine. They want to just know why, so maybe they can fix it. They are smart enough like John Stone or Jake Crosby to wonder - and even figure out why someone would be up in their face, passionate about the issue that did not affect them personally except maybe linked to their pocket book.
Posted by: Benedetta | July 12, 2010 at 10:21 AM
These are relevant extracts from the current
ICMJE Conflict of Interest Form:
'The requested information is about
resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party -- that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a
government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". The complete the appropriate
boxes to indicate the type of support and whether the payment went to you, or to your institution, or both.
'Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work.
'This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to
influence,or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should
disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is
about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with
entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer.
Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36
months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work,
not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work's sponsor
that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a
relationship than not to do so.
For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that
could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by
entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome.
'Other relationships.
'Use this section to report other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work.
http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf
Posted by: John Stone | July 12, 2010 at 07:56 AM
"It only become a COI if a individual who has meade public pronoucements on a topic...benefit in some financial way from the source as a result of their activities."
As in conducting a clinical trial for a drug made by that source which, if successful, may potentiate the effectiveness of chemo or radiation - and if not - will be a "major setback" to the individual's research.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | July 11, 2010 at 10:36 PM
This does not pass the definition of COI. Just because the institution he works with receives funding he himself does not. Research institutions and Universities receive funding from many different sources. I challenge you to find a successful research institue of universtity that doesn't have some sort of funding link to a pharmaceutical company.
It only become a COI if a individual who has meade public pronoucements on a topic gets direct funding from such a source OR they benefit in some financial way from the source as a result of their activities. You have failed to provide any evidence that this is the case in this instance.
Posted by: Gosman | July 11, 2010 at 03:57 PM
Gosman,
If you read my article, which you apparently did not, you would not be confused. That's the whole point, he is NOT receiving direct funding from Sanofi, but the company is in partnership with his university which is sponsoring his trial of Sanofi's drug. As a result, he has misleadingly claimed that therefore he has not received any funding from a pharmaceutical company since the 1990s, while not disclosing his current COI.
So what if this time the money is being funneled to him through a third party, and so what if he may not receive a direct financial kickback if the trial is successful. Gorski's stating the drug's failure would be a "major setback" to his research is enough evidence for his having a huge stake in the outcome of his own trial.
And no, patented drugs are not equivalent to water and electricity. Your attempted analogies are ridiculous.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | July 08, 2010 at 11:37 PM
I'm still a little confused here.
You have no evidence that Dr Gorski is receiving any direct funding from the pharmaceutical company only that he is using a product of one in his studies.
He has stated quite categorically that he didn't even get this drug from the pharmaceutical company directly and bought it.
Finally there doesn't seem to be any evidence that if the trials that he is carrying are successful he will receive a monetary benefit from the pharmaceutical company making the drug.
So where is this supposed conflict of interest again? Is it because he uses a drug in his scientific investigation? Does this mean if he uses water or electricity he has a conflict of interest with the Water and Electric companies?
Posted by: Gosman | July 08, 2010 at 06:58 PM
Thank You Thereas O for your view on the greater good. It was a good view and I will remember it.
Quidam;
Sorry about your father. No, he did not deserve it, and there should have been some thinking before they released the vaccine. If I remember correctly - there were a lot of problems with the polio vaccine including a bad batch that actually gave kids polio. Bad batches happen, and if the light is shone on them and it is corrected with all the honesty, intriguity, honor that can be administered - I can accept that - probably better than the kids who lived in California that go ahold of a bad batch of live polio vaccine.
How would you feel if the vaccine that actually gave kids the polio was hidden and they told everyone it was some thing else that caused it?
When you are lied to, denied assess to certain facts, can not obtain justice - no explanation of how this happened, it is a whole different ball game.
Also
Polio can not be compared to whooping cough because for one thing there are antibiotics for it.
Yes, I know it is most dangerous for newborns. Although most newborns are suppose to have the immunity from their mothers but there are some that do not.
Like I said in an earlier post, there was such a new born that went to our church. Our church ended up with three brain damaged children instead of the one - thanks to the DPT vaccine.
Posted by: Benedetta | July 07, 2010 at 11:05 PM
My post got truncated because of angle brackets - looked OK in preview. sorry
My post was in answer to why antibiotics were administered when the kids had already been vaccinated - because some strains have evolved resistance to the acellular vaccine.
As to your 'greater good' argument, my sympathies are with you but...
My father caught polio when I was a child - very likely as a result of the vaccine my sister and I were given a week prior. As a result of that vaccination program Polio has gone from being an endemic killer with thousands of cases every year (58,000 in 1952) to being virtually eliminated. Yeah it sucked, but vaccinations saved hundreds of thousands from crippling disease and death.
Did my father deserve polio, no - no-one deserves to get a disease - whether from a vaccine or from another infected person.
Should we stop vaccinating? Only if you want preventable diseases to once again become rampant and hundreds of thousands of children to become sick and die.
Posted by: Quidam | July 07, 2010 at 09:17 PM
Benedetta, my husband and I were talking just the other night about what a misnomer "the greater good" is. What it really is, is that it's very hard to choose between two crappy things, and so a lot of people call their choice (harming some children in exchange for--theoretically, anyway--ridding the world of a bad disease) "the greater good." Calling it that doesn't make it true, any more than it was true for (for example) putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps during WWII or torturing prisoners of war.
I am so, so sorry about how your children were harmed by vaccines. Even if vaccines totally eliminated pertussis, and even if no other virus sprang up to take its place, I would still not consider your children's suffering to be "for the greater good." It's the flip side of a choice, and it's about time society was informed as to everything that's involved in making that choice.
Posted by: Theresa O | July 07, 2010 at 06:53 PM
Quidam;
What this link is saying is that the acellular pertussis vaccine is not working as good as the whole cell.
Not only that but there is a couple of new strains of pertusis that the newer DTaP vaccine does not prepare the immune system for.
The old whole cell pertussis really did a number on both of my children. There is no doubt about it since both of my childern were "rechallenged" several times over.
The new DTaP is also causing a lot of heart ache too. I just meet a young mother graduating for nursing school a couple of years back with an autistic child because he reacted to the newer DTaP.
I know the whole debate is how to protect the population,it is for the greater good.
"The greater good", is perhaps the most selfish, evil concept the human mind has reasoned out.
Don't my children and the other children harmed by the vaccine count for anything?
Are not their lives also just as important as other children's.
Are not their brains, who they were born as, who they were really meant to be - and not what the environment"all because of the greater good" made them --are not they worth at least some study and all of society facing the truth?
Posted by: Benedetta | July 07, 2010 at 05:30 PM
>>Here is another example.
My best friend now a grandmother - her grandson entered kindergarden last year. One child came down with whooping cough even though it was vaccinated.
So they required the whole kindergarden class to take two weeks worth of antibiotics.
My best friend is a nurse and beleives in vaccinating. She was stumped why they had to have antibiotics if they were vaccinated.<<
Some strains of the pertussis bacterium have become resistant to the acellular version of the vaccine. The acellular vaccine provides fewer antigens than the whole cell vaccines that were used in the past.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/02/whooping-cough-evolves-to-esca.html
Posted by: Quidam | July 07, 2010 at 03:53 PM
Gosman,
Gorski's university isn't just in partnership with Sanofi, he's also doing a clinical trial of a Sanofi drug sponsored by his university while the institution is in partnership with the company. It does not take a genius to put two and two together, especially when Gorski himself brags that if Sanofi's drug is successful in his clinical trial, it may potentiate the therapeutic benefits of chemo and radiation - and if it is not - it will be a major setback to his research. His words, not mine.
It also speaks volumes that he will defend the company in situations where it already conceded fault - like when the pharmaceutical giant was forced to pay back nearly $100 million in compensation after it was shown to have cheated Medicaid.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | July 06, 2010 at 03:21 PM
Kerry,
Here is a very good analysis of why sciencebasedmedicine isn't helpful on the topic of autism.
http://my-socrates-note.blogspot.com/2010/03/guest-blogger-novella-gets-it-wrongbig.html
Posted by: MinorityView | July 05, 2010 at 09:55 AM
So your whole argument is that David Gorski’s opinions might be influenced by the fact that the organisation that he works for receives funding from a Pharmaceutical company, even though he himself receives no direct benefit from such an association? That is an incredibly long bow to draw.
You might as well try and claim that as he lives in a country where there are many Pharmaceutical companies present and who contribute a large amount of funding through taxation to the government he needs to reveal that particular conflict of interest as well.
If you have no evidence of a direct link to David Gorski and the pharmaceutical company then you have no conflict of interest. Trying to argue that you do because of such tenuous linkages as detailed in your article smacks of a major kind of desperation.
Posted by: Gosman | July 04, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Kerry, I totally agree with you - pseudoscience does harm the innocent. That's why I don't get my information off the "Science"-BasedMedicine Blog, which still hasn't addressed my point.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | June 29, 2010 at 07:38 PM
Benedetta said, "I made a list on the way to the emergency room last night after my daughter had a seizure ( long history of vaccine reactions by all three of my family members) the list was of people I have met over the years that I wished killed. Trouble is to get the real deep satisfaction from it- I would have to bring them back to life to kill 'em again. "
We should compare notes sometime!
Posted by: bensmyson | June 29, 2010 at 07:53 AM
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5827#more-5827
Science based medicine is the only way to move forward in this world.Research and testable claims.Pseudoscience harms the innocent.
Posted by: Kerry H | June 29, 2010 at 12:39 AM
How Big Pharma responds to every exposure of its impropriety: "It's a CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!"
Posted by: Jake Crosby | June 28, 2010 at 10:49 PM
I've been wait'in Kerry for 29 years, for not only real science but for scientific curiosity. It is not any where to be found.
I almost reached my limit last night.
I made a list on the way to the emergency room last night after my daughter had a seizure ( long history of vaccine reactions by all three of my family members) the list was of people I have met over the years that I wished killed. Trouble is to get the real deep satisfication from it- I would have to bring them back to life to kill 'em again.
Yes, I am a deeply paranoid person, boooooo! I think the medical establishment could care less about my family or the mess they have caused.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 28, 2010 at 03:15 PM
Don't you love how the Science Club trolls bumrush the back end of a post once everyone else moves on to new things?
Posted by: Josh | June 28, 2010 at 03:04 PM
Wow! The people who write for this website want to"tell parents the truth" but then fill their entries with bull honkey! You are really grasping as some pretty feeble straws to try and "make a point". Get over yourselves! Or better yet...put on your tinfoil hat and hide in a room because you think everything is big this and big that. What a depraved life it must be feeling that everything is a conspiracy...and oh how smart you are to see through it. Of course YOU don't require ANY support from any BIG paymaster do you. That whole notion of big pharma and shills is such an old piece of rhetoric garbage...come up with something new or get off the pot! Wait...just get off and let the real science do the job...
Posted by: Kerry H | June 28, 2010 at 02:36 PM
Um... with all due respect, when you know anything about research funding structures, your conclusion seems really far-fetched.
However, I find the photo of Dr. Gorski surprisingly adorable. Is that what he looks like? Is he available?
Posted by: KidsInTheGarden | June 28, 2010 at 07:35 AM
Well Done Jake, It's becoming a full time job to investigate and inform readers of the real and potential conflicts of interest of those who write and say the worst things.
Most of what pharma touches becomes rotten.
Posted by: michael framson | June 27, 2010 at 06:42 PM
Barney - the sodium is even worse!!
Posted by: Jenny Allan | June 27, 2010 at 05:44 PM
ZOMG, table salt is half CHLORINE, a deadly poison! WE MUST BAN IT NOW!
Posted by: Barney | June 27, 2010 at 04:24 PM
Just for fun I had a quick look at the first three articles on Gorski's (Orac) site. His first article laments about 'poor' science reporting as he sagely points out:-
'Many are the times when I've complained about how the press reports on science and medicine. I love it when science is reported well, but sadly such examples are far fewer than I'd like to see.'
Oh poor poor Orac!! His next article was banging on about mercury in tooth amalgams and vaccines being 'harmless' (It's been proved beyond all doubt that both can be harmful; in the case of mercury amalgams it is the dentists who are most vulnerable due to their high usage and preparation. My dentist no longer uses this stuff for fillings).
By the time I got to Orac's third extract which seemed to be telling U.S. folks that it is perfectly safe to be in hospital in July when the interns qualify or some such, I realised that this guy was an apologist for his 'sponsors' and anyone or anything else that might further his career or make him some cash. This was such a rambling piece that I (yawn) gave up on his laborious prose. At my age apnoea sets in!! In the UK it is August when the newly qualified doctors get 'let loose' on real patients in hospitals. Insiders call this 'the killing fields' time, although my own experiences with newly qualified doctors has been mostly good. In the UK it is WEEKENDS that are dangerous times in hospitals; (the regular staff are mostly off duty).
I couldn't be bothered reading his 'sad tale' about a breast cancer patient who chose 'holistic' treatment over conventional. This was HER choice and God help any of us if we are ever forced into having treatments, vaccinations, or any other medical treatments we don't choose to have, assuming we are of 'sound mind' at the time. Even this is open to interpretation. The medical establishment, with the support and connivance of the likes of 'Orac', has become opressive and bullying to all of us.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | June 27, 2010 at 03:11 AM
Here is another example.
My best friend now a grandmother - her grandson entered kindergarden last year. One child came down with whooping cough even though it was vaccinated.
So they required the whole kindergarden class to take two weeks worth of antibiotics.
My best friend is a nurse and beleives in vaccinating. She was stumped why they had to have antibiotics if they were vaccinated.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 26, 2010 at 10:09 PM
The boy who introduced whooping cough into my daughter's second grade class in the early '90s had been diagnosed with parapertussis. It was only when a partially immunized child contracted it that it became a whooping cough outbreak with full Health Department involvement. The original child had not been tested (as was the custom, since it was still widely believed that vaccinations permanently protected). In the meantime, a dozen or more people ranging from so-called fully-immunized grade-schoolers to fully immunized adults were affected.
Pertussis outbreaks are not new. They were simply re-categorized unless or until they couldn't be ignored when they were then simply claimed to be anomalies.
This follows the pattern laid down as long ago as the typhoid epidemics: when the vaccine recipients exhibited symptoms of typhoid, they were believed to have paratyphoid for which a new vaccine was developed (which didn't help). Polio or infantile paralysis followed the same pattern and was re-classified as encephalitis.
Plus ça change...
Posted by: tal | June 26, 2010 at 07:35 PM
Ditto for my kids' school in California. Toward the end of the year, lots of fever/persistent coughs going around. My husband wound up with atypical walking pneumonia, as did a boy in my son's class. My daughter had the cough but not as bad. If it had been a year ago, they probably would have been reported as swine flu. If it had been now, instead of a few weeks ago, they probably would have been put in as part of the "pertussis outbreak". As it was, the doctors all seemed pretty blase about the whole thing, and none of them were tested for anything.
Pretty sure there was pertussis outbreak in Georgia a year or so ago, among fully vaccinated, as there was the outbreak of mumps last year in fully vaccinated NJ/NY area. Instead of fomenting panic and selling more ineffective vaccines to "cocooning" adults, maybe CDC ought to be looking into whether the strains have mutated or shifted due to vaccination, such that the vaccines are no longer as effective. (like happened with the pneumococcal strains)
Posted by: Garbo | June 25, 2010 at 07:49 PM
Orac did actually print my post re. OSR and Dr. Haley and my mention of his ties with Sanofi-Aventis-Pasteur.
Posted by: jen | June 25, 2010 at 03:27 PM
Chris;
Does experience count more than what a text book teaches?
If so, then this is my experience.
A brain injuried red head little girl who was only a few years older than my two brain injuried childern attended the same church for years.
This red headed girl's injuries came from contacted pertusin at only a few days old.
My two children's injuries came from repeated reactions to DPT shots that finally lead to strokes, Kawasaki's, seizures, life long immune injuries.
So now the church has three brain injuries instead of the one.
A baby is suppose to have it's own mother's immunity for the first few months. Some times this does not happen. Perhaps science needs to study this. Because there were and still are a lot of injuries caused by the old DPT shot and the new DTaP. Because we are losing both ways.
At this time all children were vaccinated. The woman's older children, all the children in the church, all the children that attended school with her older children.
Freebies were given at the health department, freebies that were subsidies by the federal governmnet was given at the peds doctor. The peds would not allow any kids to get by with out being vaccinated, even when they had heart mumurs every time they had a DPT shot, or Kawasaki's , or passing out with a spiked hot fever. Yes, they finally let my son out of the rest of his DPT shot after he had a stroke, had an autoimmune disease, and was epileptic.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 25, 2010 at 03:24 PM
oops, I mean censoring and censored.
Posted by: jen | June 25, 2010 at 01:15 PM
Yep, Orac has been closing comments, sensoring, where normally, I have to admit, he does not. I just sent one in re. the OSR article slamming Dr. Haley. I doubt he will post it. Anything where I have referred to his ties to Sanofi-Aventis/Pasteur have been sensored. They are a pathetic bunch of paid bloggers. Jake, you must've hit a nerve!! Congratulations.
Posted by: jen | June 25, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Yes, the push is on to vaccinate adults against pertussis to stop the spread of this disease. However, as explained here, http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/vaccine-efficacy-how-often-do-vaccines-work/dtap/pertussis-vaccine-and-transmission/ the vaccine does not prevent carriage or transmission of pertussis. Not sure what the vaccine is supposed to do besides add to the pharma bottom line and occasionally reduce the severity of the cough in an adult case.
Posted by: MinorityView | June 24, 2010 at 10:04 AM
My son's elementary school had a pertussis outbreak. But, all the kids were vaccinated so it was hushed up. For two months straight, almost every kid was hacking. All attended school without being sent home. It was an open secret. Shhh, vaccines are a hoax.
Posted by: Mary | June 24, 2010 at 09:37 AM
My son was watching Saturday morning cartoons several weeks ago. I wasn't paying much attention to the TV until I caught the tail-end of a public service announcement. What caught my attention was a statement indicating that 80% of children who become ill with pertussis catch it from an unvaccinated adult. How can this be? I thought it was only unvaccinated children passing on these nasty illness - has anyone else seen this ad?
I guess if they convince adults to catch up all their booster shots, we'll see more cases like the Redskins cheerleader in the future. Oh, but I forgot, she was just faking it.
Sarcasism intended due to lack of coffee this AM!
Posted by: Shelly | June 24, 2010 at 08:46 AM
Jake, I'm confused. You said,
"But even after a solid start of many boosting shots, the pertussis vaccines are only effective for most people for about 5 years. That's why your kid gets another booster around kindergarten."
How does that impact the vulnerability of the newborns under 3 months? Isn't that the at risk group? How do I protect my newborn?
Posted by: chris | June 24, 2010 at 01:15 AM
California has declared a pertussis epidemic after five newborns (<5 months old) have died in the last 6 months. The article states reads...
"All of the deaths have been in infants under 3 months old. An additional 600 cases statewide are under investigation. This is four times the number of pertussis cases reported in 2009. Increases in pertussis cases are highest in the Central Valley and Bay area. "
Should I be vaccinating my baby for Pertussis?
http://thepinetree.net/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=18123
Posted by: chris | June 24, 2010 at 01:10 AM
Why the increase in pertussis? Simple, the creation of the vaccine for teens and adults. Once there was a vaccine in the pipeline, doctors were told to watch out for cases of pertussis in teens and adults. And, oh my gosh, there they were! All sorts of stuff that had been diagnosed as asthma or bronchitis was tested and turned out to be pertussis. This provided the justification for vaccinating teens and adults against this disease. Which had been there all along...
Posted by: MinorityView | June 23, 2010 at 08:20 PM
Chris asks for reasons about the recent rises in Measles, Mumps amd Whooping Cough. The 'official' UK stance and stats on measles are as reported in Brian Deer's Sunday Times on 6-02-09:-
'The data for England and Wales shows that there were 112 cases in babies under one and 265 in those aged between one and three-and-a-half.
There were 432 cases in children aged from three years seven months to 11 and 286 in youngsters aged 12 to 18.
Among those aged 18 and over, there were 252 cases. There was one case where the age of the person was unknown.
The number of measles cases in Britain has been increasing in recent years. According to the NHS, there were 739 cases in 2006, compared with just 70 in 2001. Health chiefs said that it was because of the relatively low take-up of the MMR jab over the last decade. This was triggered by now-discredited research by Andrew Wakefield that claimed there was a link between the jab and autism.'
It has suited the UK and US governments to blame Wakefield for parents' worries about the MMR jab, resulting in unvaccinated children, but the real facts are rather different. In the UK, measles vaccination was introduced in the late 1960s. Both my daughters, (now in their 40s) were vaccinated as infants. My younger daughter caught a very nasty dose of 'wild' measles in spite of this, showing that these vaccinations are not that effective in preventing measles anyway. Wakefield's view in 1998 was that these single measles jabs should be available on the NHS for certain children, but they were discontinued by the Department of Health in it's collective 'wisdom' (or not!!) We had to chase around the country and spend an absolute fortune to get my autistic grandson's younger sibling protected with single jabs for measles, mumps and rubella. Most parents could not afford this.
Now it's impossible to get single mumps jabs at all in the UK. This has caused enormous problems for young adult men who were 'too old' for MMR, when it was introduced to the UK in 1988. If they want mumps protection they have to play 'russian roulette' with the MMR. Mumps in adult males can cause sterility. God help them!!
I have no idea about a rise in Pertussis. In the UK, I believe, the DPT vaccinations are not declined widely by parents. There has been little publicity in the UK about possible adverse reactions to thimerosal.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | June 23, 2010 at 05:51 PM
But even after a solid start of many boosting shots, the pertussis vaccines are only effective for most people for about 5 years. That's why your kid gets another booster around kindergarten. So before recent changes in recommended vaccinations, most of us lost our solid baby-hood protection around age 10-11. Hence the recent outbreaks.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gurley/detail??blogid=114&entry_id=66426#ixzz0riNDISAu
Does that answer your question? As for measles and mumps, why is Merck refusing to allow single-vaccine options for its MMR vaccine, in spite of the fact that the demand for them would be quite high?
Posted by: Jake Crosby | June 23, 2010 at 05:46 PM
Why is there a rise in once rare outbreaks of measles, pertussis, and mumps?
Posted by: chris | June 23, 2010 at 02:17 PM
I've got a friend who worked as a professor in a school of pharmacy for many years. He ran a research lab. He was under continual pressure by the university to attract dollars to support research and to pay his graduate students. Once he had tenure, he couldn't be fired for a failure to attract research dollars, but no research, no additions to your published work, no reputation building, no chance to move to a higher paying position, no respect from your peers, AND if the person is a real scientist, no opportunity to do the work you actually want to do: research.
Any researcher in these areas who publishes stuff that goes against the pharma push will end up with no money for the lab and a dead-ended career.
Gorski is doing things right in terms of his career.
Posted by: MinorityView | June 23, 2010 at 01:06 PM
Christie in response to "how is it that you seem to be OK with the fact that the very man responsible for the so-called connection between vaccines and autism, was being paid to find a way to sue vaccine companies? That doesn't bother you at all?"
Please do your homework. First, read the Lancet paper, it clearly states in the discussion section "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described" and the last paragraph of the study "We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. Inmost cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."
Dr. Wakefield has been accused of making a clear cut association that was NEVER made. He has been crucified for just proposing that further investigation into vaccines and their effects be studied.
Second, read the book "Callous Disregard" as it addresses Conflict of Interest and Dr. Wakefield's work very openly and concisely.
Posted by: Tired of the BS | June 23, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Jake: The reason for giving the university the money is to remove some of their influence. They do not control how the money is spent. Given Big Pharma's misbehavior on some of their drug trials, it helps to prevent them from saying "You can't publish that". The researcher who receives these funds from the university will have a conflict of interest to declare. I would expect that David Gorski is paid to teach and that he has to find his own research grants.
I have to agree with Christie as Andrew Wakefield was being paid directly to find the evidence which he then claimed to find. Or are you just trying to hold David Gorski to a higher standard as that is what he requires of others?
Posted by: Mary P | June 23, 2010 at 10:52 AM
Mary,
The company is in partnership with his university, which houses his lab - a partnership possibly worth up to 31 million euros. It's a mutual benefit.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | June 22, 2010 at 11:49 PM
If you are so concerned with conflicts of interest, how is it that you seem to be OK with the fact that the very man responsible for the so-called connection between vaccines and autism, was being paid to find a way to sue vaccine companies? That doesn't bother you at all?
Posted by: Christie | June 22, 2010 at 11:02 PM
Working in an area where I am constantly evaluating conflict of interest I do not believe that David Gorski has such a conflict. If you can establish that the company is funding his lab then he has a conflict of interest to be declared. This sounds more like he is benefiting Big Pharma rather than Big Pharma benefiting him.
Posted by: Mary P | June 22, 2010 at 09:08 PM
Patrick,
Had it not been for your outing of "Orac" five years ago, this article might have never been written.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | June 22, 2010 at 07:34 PM
Bravo Jake! Thanks for everything you do, very well written and concise. Please keep up the good work.
Posted by: Amy Stoutjesdyk | June 22, 2010 at 04:28 PM
Jake, your battle(s) with Orac remind me of my own tens-of-thousands-of-words debates in posts and comments back in 2005 when I first became interested in the mercury-autism link.
http://www.patsullivan.com/blog/2005/09/dr_buttar_on_th.html
I realized (eventually) that he's like talking to a brick wall. All he does is dodge.
Posted by: Patrick Sullivan Jr. | June 22, 2010 at 04:01 PM
Jake-
Also look into the links between Wayne State and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a.k.a. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals.
Posted by: Jeffry | June 22, 2010 at 03:08 PM
I remember looking back at the Bush/Quayle campaign and thinking that Quayle was such a monumental idiot and dufus that he simply had to be good at something-- probably something the American public would never know about. Like rat-fucking, cover-ups and keeping his mouth shut. Everyone has a talent after all.
I've wondered the same about Gorski's hidden talents. Because they're so well hidden. And now we know.
The plot thickens, doesn't it? Fantastic investigative work, Jake.
Posted by: Adriana | June 22, 2010 at 01:05 PM
News from David Gorski MD:
"Actually, my involvement in the riluzole project didn’t start until 2006, at least a year after I started my online activities with respect to vaccines."
That is hilarious! Andrew Wakefield first got involved in this issue in 1995, one year before he had any involvement with lawyers. Yet, it was that very relation that led to his being struck off for a "non-disclosed COI" (although we know editor-in-chief Dr. Horton actually did know well in advance of publication, he just lied about it later).
Do we complain to Gorski's medical board? Strike him off? Get his papers retracted? Seek to end his career as a researcher for good? He can't logically support the stifling of autism research, and then not expect the autism community to attempt to do the same to his.
Meanwhile, his blog is the third highest trafficked "health" blog on the internet, above The New York Times and Wall Street Journal Health blogs, according to a site called "eDrugSearch" (which I assume is also pharma-sponsored). If he thinks the government should exclude us from the media, we should get him to stop blogging. It's only fair.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | June 22, 2010 at 11:31 AM
When reading about the extent of effort and money put into lobbying for vaccines, while denying damage, I went back to search for something that the "LANCET" didn't take down. Perhaps they will now? Thirty years later, and the "governments" continue to have their political motivations trump science. Now we can add to this the financially motivated pharm PR men.
The Lancet, Volume 309, Issue 8005, 29 January 1977, Pages 234-237
GordonT. Stewart
Abstract
Calculations based on the mortality of whooping-cough before 1957 predict accurately the subsequent decline and the present low mortality. Notifications of incidence, though variable and incomplete, follow the same pattern of steady decline in the United Kingdom and are unaffected either by small-scale vaccination beginning about 1948 or by nationwide vaccination beginning in 1957. When valid comparisons can be made, attack-rates may be lower and complications fewer in vaccinated children, but allowance has to be made for overcrowding and socioeconomic differences which may be more important as determinants of attack-rates. No protection by vaccination is demonstrable in infants. Adverse reactions and neurotoxicity following vaccinations were studied in 160 cases. In 79, the relationship to pertussis vaccine was strong. In 14 of these cases, reaction was transient but characteristic of a syndrome of shock and cerebral disturbance, which, in the other 65 cases, was followed by convulsions, hyperkinesis, and severe mental defect. It seems likely that most adverse reactions are unreported and that many are overlooked. Precise information about the efficacy and safety of this vaccine is lacking, because existing provisions, national and international, for epidemiological surveillance and evaluation are inadequate. The claim by official bodies that the risks of whooping-cough exceed those of vaccination is questionable, at least in the U.K.
Purchase PDF (527 K)
Posted by: B's mom | June 22, 2010 at 10:17 AM
"Medicine is not a science--it's an art, at best. If if were a science, they would have actually, scientifically STUDIED the short and long-term effects of multiple vaccines on children. And they haven't."
Bingo, Zed.... So true. This is a great point. The "science" that Dorkski (David Gorski) spouts on and on about has very little actual "science" behind it. He knows that and we know that... Whatever his motivation is to cloud the issue doesn't much matter to me at this point... He's just an annoying flea.
Posted by: A Friend | June 22, 2010 at 09:30 AM
There's really no point wasting energy on David Gorski. He is so intellectually vapid that the only healthcare solutions he sees are surgical and pharmaceutical. Everything else is "woo." We live in a country that values freedom of religion. He is simply a faithful disciple, worshiping at the altar of the Church of Modern Medicine. Medicine is not a science--it's an art, at best. If if were a science, they would have actually, scientifically STUDIED the short and long-term effects of multiple vaccines on children. And they haven't. Let him worship the gods he wishes In the meantime, perhaps we'll eventually get a double-blind, placebo-dontrolled vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study for some "science" of our own.
Posted by: Zed | June 22, 2010 at 08:51 AM
David Gorski is both at a university partnered with Sanofi, AND is helping the company establish a new therapy from their drug. So your question does not apply here.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | June 22, 2010 at 08:46 AM
While I agree that Gorski is often offensive and arrogant, I'm not sure I see the point of this post. First let me say that I have a close relative currently undergoing breast cancer treatment, and I want as much research into this terrible illness as possible, so maybe I'm more a supporter of Gorski's work than the average person. However, it seems to me that Sandofi must give money to many different universities. And Sandofi certainly makes MANY different drugs. Does that mean that no professor at any of these universities who receive Sandofi funding, or who are working on any of Sandofi's drugs, can ever speak out one EITHER side of the autism-vaccine connection? Because that could include people on the pro-safe-vaccine side too! You may stretched too far in making this case.
Posted by: Jennifer S. | June 22, 2010 at 08:19 AM
The Department of Education is completely captured by pharma. That's why a principal would defend vaccines. It's his/her job. Don't take it personally.
Posted by: mary | June 22, 2010 at 08:18 AM
I am so sorry KR????
Why would this principle care?? Why would he give you more than a thought let alone grief?
Most people I meet barely gives autism/vaccine a thought. They -- well who knows what they think - but I put them in two catagories:
1.) They believe you, but they just know that it cannot possibley happen to them because they genetically superior, or
2.) They think you are sadly mistaken, misguided, and you believe it is the vaccines, but really it was probably something else. These are the people that listen with half an ear and their minds are really closed.
But this principle is some 3rd kind of NUT! Worse than us nuts here!
He must be some little guy with a little power which swelled his head and put him on a power trip. Good for you to remind him, he is a public servant and he does have rules that rule him too.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 22, 2010 at 08:00 AM
Dr. Gorski's employer is a known fact and their contact info is readily available to anyone with a couple of Google clicks.
I know of bloggers who have contacted employers and insurance companies to tattle about the personal healthcare choices families make - a big difference from asking an employer about policy on COI's.
KIM
Posted by: Managing Editor | June 22, 2010 at 07:34 AM
What Craig is saying reminds me of a situation my family was in. A local elementary school principal had a blog. Once an article about my family and our situation with our son's vaccine-induced autism was printed in the local newspaper. The day it was printed, the principal wrote a blog post linking to the article about us and basically belittled us and our child without hesitation. He was extremely cruel and judgmental. (Even tho our son is a student in his school system and one of the only ones who is progressing because he is treated for vaccine-damage). I tried to teach him, show him the science, explain that his closed mind needed to consider some optional angles. He argued with me and belittled more using the excuse that there's no science saying vaccines are unsafe, so therefore they are.
I let it go after a while.
A few months to a year later, an article about a study came out in a newspaper somewhere and he again approached the subject. He again linked to the article about us, this time stating that we as parents "don't give a rat's ass" about other people's kids. (Which was interesting since we had also just been in the newspaper for raising quite a bit of money for autism locally). I again approached him in the comment section explaining our situation. More cruelty ensued. At this point, I started to wonder...is this something an employee of my school system should be saying? Is this something a person in his position should be doing? I looked up the Ethics for Educators in our state and he had broken many of them. I went to the school board and they made him take down his blog.
I'm sure there are many reasons you can say this story is not a parallel, but I believe Gorsky has gone too far. His rantings can hurt his school and I think they need to know about it.
Posted by: kr | June 22, 2010 at 07:10 AM
Pharma has no friends only shills. Anyone who defends pharma is a shill. Ignore all shills.
Posted by: mary | June 22, 2010 at 06:33 AM
I was very happy to come across this blog tonight - this post in particular. I have written about the big pharma plague and I always say, the more truth the better.
Posted by: jsm | June 22, 2010 at 03:01 AM
How satisfying that the arrogant Gorski comes under such scrutiny at last. What an embarrassment to the profession!
Posted by: ttfd | June 22, 2010 at 02:36 AM
I just found out that my university accepts money from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and one time when I was with my friends I let it slip that I had a really good burger a few days prior - at least I know to be more careful next time, thanks Jake!
Posted by: BJ_Bacak | June 22, 2010 at 01:46 AM
Craig;
For 28 years I have lived with this. Killing those responsible or were/are helpful in all this would be to quick for me. There is not also not enough physcial pain through torture I could inflict that would satisfy my aching heart and smooth over all those years of worry.
Emotional pain is far worse thing than physical. Emotional pain last longer with a lot less effort. Being fired, out of a job, disgraced, whispers behind their backs. Yeah, sounds good to me.
But he won't get fired so don't worry about it. Wayne University is receiving money from a drug company because of him. Do you think any of us nuts calling or emailing, or phoning is going to be heard. Oh only in our dreams.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 22, 2010 at 01:12 AM
What a convenient symbiotic arrangement. The need to misdirect closer investigation explains the needy fellow's frequent bleating.
Developing new uses for an existing drug... how derivative. Piggybacking on others' expertise. So sad.
Posted by: Tolaez Eniccavitna | June 22, 2010 at 01:08 AM
Craig, A difference here is medical ethics.
“Non-maleficence” is the concept that professionals in the health service have a duty to protect the patient from harm: "first, do no harm". I believe Wayne State follows this as it has numerous mentions of it in published articles. It’s one of the basic principles taught in medical ethics 101. Classic textbook lessons were graciously added in history by the tobacco industry.
I dunno about all of you but, I’m guessing drug researchers are bound to that oath? The writing samples from Gorski illustrate a gross neglect of this ethic.
And people wonder why the public doesn't trust pharma...psht! As a member of the public, I see this as the ethical issue any with a vaccine injured child should be dedicated to. Wayne State should enlighten Gorski.
Posted by: MAKE AUTISM STOP | June 22, 2010 at 12:28 AM
And here, Garbo and Julie, is where I will have to respectfully disagree with you. Doing something like this is what people like Dorkski and his sycophantic lickspittles do. You know, like calling CPS on parents because their children may not be fully vaccinated. Or calling an insurance company to warn them that one of their customers may be trying alternative medicine. You know, things like that.
Doing something on a similar vein is petty and childish. It brings you down to their level, and going that low is disgusting. Please don't take it that I'm saying this about you, but this is the coward's way. It has nothing to do with sportsmanship or the like; it has to do with your dignity.
Posted by: Craig Willoughby | June 21, 2010 at 10:08 PM
@waterbear:
[1] Click the third link, where it introduces the "Gorski laboratory."
[2] I never said the linked-to document mentioned either Gorski or Riluzole.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | June 21, 2010 at 09:41 PM
Thanks to John Stone for posting this link a while back.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf
House of Common's Health Committee report 'The Influence of the Pharmaceutical industry' 2004 (see p. 60)
'The use of PR to counter negative publicity'
'221. Public relations is particularly important during times of bad publicity, especially when the safety of brands is called into question. Considerable resources are invested into building long-term, sustainable relationships with stakeholders and ‘key opinion leaders’ and journalists. These relationships are used to promote the use of certain brands and counter concerns relating to safety. Efforts to undermine critical voices in particular were identified, under terms of “issues management”. In later evidence, in response to the ISM’s memorandum, Pfizer stated that PR is entirely legitimate and can “help to educate and inform”. According to the PMCPA, PR activities may include “placing articles in the lay press, TV documentaries, soap operas etc”.'
Posted by: Kevin Barry | June 21, 2010 at 09:32 PM
Thanks Jake. Well done.
Posted by: bensmyson | June 21, 2010 at 09:25 PM
While I agree that calling to get him fired may not be sportsmanlike, neither was his lack of disclosure and neither are his attacks on parents who report vaccine injury. So I must disagree with Craig; I think it is IMPERATIVE for the money flow between the federal government (our tax dollars), academe, and corporations to be made EXTREMELY public. I think this is as much about the university research being corrupted by corporate profit motives as it is about Gorski.
Posted by: Garbo | June 21, 2010 at 07:49 PM