A panel of so-called “independent” U.S. and British experts played a key role in reviewing and authorizing the COVID-19 vaccines. Now, an analysis of these experts had significant conflicts of interest that either were not disclosed or were kept from the public.
For example, in some instances panelists listed “significant financial payments” they’d received from pharmaceutical companies within the past 12 months (the furthest back they’re required to disclose), along with grants, patents and other industry relationships they had that possibly could influence their decision-making.
But those revelations were not made public, even though some of the conflicts were in the vaccine field including relationships with COVID vaccine makers Pfizer and AstraZeneca. Further inquiry by investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker found that several committee members also had extensive Big Pharma conflicts through their affiliations with their workplace or membership in professional organizations.
The transparency problems even extended to The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) editor, who voted for authorizing the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. After the vote, Pfizer and Moderna published their work in the NEJM; Johnson & Johnson published in NEJM just before the vote.
Yet, the editor, Eric Rubin, declared no conflicts on all three vaccine panels, Thacker said. “Lisa Cosgrove, professor at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, studies conflicts of interest and found Rubin’s overlapping of roles troubling. When asked whether she would vote to authorise a product knowing that the company might later publish the clinical trial in a journal that she ran, she said, ‘Of course not. The obvious thing is that with this study everyone is going to read it, and it helps with their brand,’” Thacker added.
In all, Thacker’s investigation found that, despite rules of disclosure, when it comes to transparency with industry ties and other conflicts of interest, the standards vary and are either skirted or handled in a way that leaves the public completely in the dark.
SOURCE: The BMJ May 26, 2021