Legemiddelindustrien vil ikke offentliggjøre veldedighetsdonasjoner
The position by the trade group is revealed in a letter written by Billy Tauzin, PhRMA’s ceo, to Essential Action, one of several advocacy groups that are pushing drugmakers to disclose their global contributions. (pharmalot.com 12.9.2007)
Yale's Drug Dependency Documents detail key role of Big Pharma in med school fundraising (...) The documents, part of a confidential briefing for School of Medicine Dean Robert Alpern, outline an effort to raise more than $40 million in philanthropic dollars through 2008 from pharmaceutical companies.(conntact.com 17.9.2007)
- Legemiddelindustrien vil ikke offentliggjøre veldedighetsdonasjoner
PhRMA Won’t Disclose Charitable Donations (PhRMA vil ikke offentliggjøre veldedighetsdonasjoner)
pharmalot.com 12.9.2007
September 12th, 2007 7:38 am By Ed Silverman
The position by the trade group is revealed in a letter written by Billy Tauzin, PhRMA’s ceo, to Essential Action, one of several advocacy groups that are pushing drugmakers to disclose their global contributions. The reason? Concern that charitable and educational donations result in off-label marketing by groups receiving funds; mask the agendas of public policy groups that debate policy issues, and allow researchers to circumvent normal disclosure requirements.
Two months ago, the groups wrote the ceo of each drugmaker and large trade group asking them to commit to full disclosure on a worldwide basis. Since then, Lilly agreed, expanding an earlier promise to reveal all US donations. But the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations declined, saying disclosure should be made on a national level.
Tauzin used similar reasoning. “Member companies should make individual decisions regarding how they work together and communicate about their work to others,” he wrote. Meanwhile, Pfizer’s Richard Bagger, senior vp of ww public policy, wrote that the drugmaker is taking disclosure steps in the US and the UK, but stopped short of commiting to a global effort. And Schering-Plough ceo Fred Hassan wrote back that he’s instructed his team to undertake a “thorough review” of the suggestion. (...)
(Anm: Interessekonflikter, bestikkelser og korrupsjon (mintankesmie.no).)
- Hvorfor vet vi ikke hvor mye vaksiner koster?
Why don’t we know how much vaccines cost? (Hvorfor vet vi ikke hvor mye vaksiner koster?)
BMJ 2011; 343:d6239 (28 September)
The Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunisation can be proud of what it has achieved. As Sophie Arie reports, it has prevented more than five million premature deaths since it started in 2000 (doi:10.1136/bmj.d5182). It has also attracted huge amounts of funding, reflecting the confidence of major donors, so it’s well set to meet its target of saving a further four million lives by 2015.
But GAVI has prominent critics, raising challenges for its incoming chief executive officer, Seth Berkley, who is interviewed this week by Rebecca Coombes (bmj.com/podcasts). At issue is GAVI’s current strategy. Could it use its vast resources more effectively? Is it right to focus on access to new vaccines against rotavirus and pneumonia for children in countries that can afford to contribute financially? Or should it help the very poorest countries building health systems so their children can get basic vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis? Most vexed of all, is GAVI paying too much for vaccines? Could it vaccinate even more children with the funds it has been given if it negotiated a better deal from the industry?
Most of the vaccines acquired by GAVI and then bought by Unicef and other agencies come from the major vaccine manufacturers; GSK, Pfizer, and Merck. But as Arie explains, there is growing competition from emerging markets, notably India and China, where manufacturers can in some cases produce vaccines for less than half the standard price. This is in spite of GAVI getting vaccine manufacturers to agree to charge substantially less if they are paid in advance. (...)
(Anm: Legemiddelindustrien. (mintankesmie.no).)
- Linker mellom ikke-profitt organisasjoner og firmaer utgjør mulige interessekonflikter
Links between non-profit foundations and companies pose potential conflicts of interest (Linker mellom ikke-profitt organisasjoner og firmaer utgjør mulige interessekonflikter)
BMJ 2011; 342:d2490 (15 April) (pdf)
Big philanthropic foundations are transforming public health around the world, but their links to food and drug companies pose potential conflicts of interest, says a study.
The research says that some of the corporations benefit directly from grants from foundations, and foundations in turn have investments in the corporations to which they award the grants.
Foundation board members and decision makers also sit on the boards of some for-profit corporations benefiting from their grants.
Three experts on public health examined the activities, financial investments, and institutional relations of five of the biggest private global health foundations, including the world’s largest, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (PLoS Medicine 2011;8(4):e1001020, doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001020).
At the end of 2008 the Gates Foundation had $29.6bn (£18bn; €20.5bn) of assets under its management, “financing greater than the budget of the entire World Health Organisation,” says the report. The foundation funds medical research and drug and vaccines programmes in developing countries.
The study says that the Gates Foundation’s corporate stock endowment is “heavily” invested in food and drug companies, both directly and indirectly, and that it holds “significant” shares in McDonald’s and Coca-Cola.
The foundation also participates in grants that encourage farmers in developing countries to become business affiliates of Coca-Cola.
The study also looked at the Ford, Rockefeller, W K Kellogg, and Robert Wood Johnson foundations. (...)
(Anm: Interessekonflikter, bestikkelser og korrupsjon (mintankesmie.no).)
- Yale's Drug Dependency
Yale's Drug Dependency
conntact.com 17.9.2007
Documents detail key role of Big Pharma in med school fundraising
With the role of pharmaceutical companies in the nation's health funding crisis increasingly up for debate, the Yale School of Medicine has mounted an aggressive fundraising campaign targeting drug makers, according to internal university documents recently reviewed by Business New Haven.
The documents, part of a confidential briefing for School of Medicine Dean Robert Alpern, outline an effort to raise more than $40 million in philanthropic dollars through 2008 from pharmaceutical companies. Yale officials confirmed details of the fundraising effort outlined in the documents, including a suggestion to send Yale President Richard C. Levin to Germany to meet with Bayer Pharmaceutical's president to help secure $5 million in funding for the new Yale Cancer Center.
Specific departments and researchers are highlighted as conducting research of interest to drug makers and multiple research alliances are suggested with no mention of potential conflicts of interest. Merck & Co., under fire in recent years in the Vioxx scandal, is targeted for a $5 million appeal for the Yale Mouse Phenotyping Center, Yale officials confirmed. (...)
A former Yale professor serves on the Prescription Project's advisory committee and drafted a series of cutting-edge guidelines for Yale on "impeccable financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and physicians." The guidelines restrict doctors' access to free meals and samples offered by companies.
It's also "par for the course" for academic medical centers to seek pharmaceutical company money, Rothman adds. "We do want collaborations," he says.
Yale has a particularly close relationship with Pfizer, which opened a clinical research facility adjacent to the university in 2005. Pfizer and the university also collaborated on the Yale Positron Emission Tomography Center, which opened earlier this year with help from a $5 million gift from the drug maker and a pledge of $2 million a year in research funding.
But Rothman says that he is troubled there is no mention of potential conflicts of interest in the documents obtained by Business New Haven, which deal with large sums of money and the research priorities of entire departments. (...)
But Yale's explicit appeals to pharmaceutical companies trouble some experts.
"Yale has put itself up for sale," says Merrill Goozner, director of the Integrity in Science project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C. "That's a fairly sad day for academic medicine."
"The reality is that pharmaceutical company influence over the nation's medical schools is pervasive and unfortunate because it's skewing research," Goozner says. "You would think that medicals schools would take greater precautions, that they would draw a bright line." (...)
But there are no ethical guidelines in place regarding philanthropic gifts and their effects on research priorities. "There's a spectrum of outside interests," Spangler says. "There aren't bright lines and hard and fast rules."
Rothman of the Prescription Project says it may be time for the focus of concern over drug company influence to shift from individual doctors and researchers to universities as a whole.
"Is it an important issue? Absolutely. Is a frontier issue? Absolutely," Rothman says. "This kind of material compels us to go up one notch and start thinking long and hard about institutional conflict of interest." (...)
(Anm: Legemiddelindustrien. (mintankesmie.no).)
Diverse artikler
- Banken gir bort pengene dine
na24.no 2.5.2012
- HVEM TROR DU BETALER? Når banken din gir to millioner til det lokale idrettslaget er det du som kunde som betaler, sier Jorge Jensen i Forbrukerrådet.
Uten å ha spurt om lov, mener direktør i Forbrukerrådet.
26. april tikket følgende melding inn til NA24 fra en av landets banker: "Vi inviterer folk over hele landet til å være med å fordele inntil tre millioner kroner på Facebook". Banken ber om forslag til organisasjoner og prosjekter som fortjener pengestøtte fordi de gjør noe som er viktig for lokalsamfunnet.
Kundene betaler
Denne praksisen har fagdirektør Jorge Jensen i Forbrukerrådet sett seg lei på.
- I løpet av de siste åtte årene har sparebankene gitt gaver for 4100 millioner kroner til verdige formål. Disse pengene er det du som kunde som betaler, sier Jensen til NA24.
Han peker på at inn til det store kretsløpet, som bankvesenet utgjør, er det bare kundene som bidrar med penger.alle gaver som banknæringen gir, betales til syvende og sist av kundene.
- Det er derfor bankkundene og ikke – som det blir hevdet – banknæringen som er en av de aller største private bidragsyterne til idrett, kultur og frivillighet i Norge sier Jensen. (...)
Gir to millioner til en nordmann
na24.no 11.3.2012
GAVMILD: Odd Reitan er blitt 60 og omsetter for over 60 milliarder kroner. Nå vil han gi bort to millioner kroner til en nordmann.
Ønsker du å bli millionær, da må du smiske med disse seks personene.
Colonialmajor Odd Reitan vil gi bort to millioner kroner til en nordmann. Han vil kåre årets Ladejarl.
- Vi er stolte av å ha satt sammen så mange kompetente mennesker med sansen for verdibasert arbeid. Flere kunne sikkert vært nominerte selv også. Jeg er trygg på at dette er de aller beste til å velge ut kandidatene, og til slutt den som fortjener to millioner kroner, sier Colonialmajor Odd Reitan. (...)
Vil du vinne millionene, må du smiske med følgende personer, i tillegg til colonialmajoren selv. Cecilie Staude, Gunnar Flikke, Marit Breivik, Andres Diaz og Kristin Clemet. (...)
Millioner forsvant i veldedig organisasjon
vg.no 19.12.2011
I løpet av tre år brukte Stiftelsen Fadderbarnas framtid cirka sju millioner kroner mer på administrasjon enn vedtektene i stiftelsen tillater.
Dette kan være straffbart, skriver revisjonsselskapet BDO i sin konklusjon i en granskingsrapport de har laget på oppdrag fra Stiftelsestilsynet.
BDO anbefaler at det vurderes om påtalemyndigheten bør orienteres om det som er avdekket. (...)
Valutatriksing
Fadderbarnas framtid (Faf) jobber for å skaffe barn i India utdanning og en trygg start i livet, og har i dag rundt 4.500 fadderbarn som det samles inn penger til i Norge.
Stiftelsens vedtekter slår fast at det ikke kan brukes mer enn 20 prosent av de innsamlede midlene på administrasjon av stiftelsen i Norge.
- Stiftelsen har løst dette ved hjelp av valutareguleringsgevinsten. De har vekslet mellom norske kroner og indiske rupi. Det er brukt en fastkurs på 5 kroner. Hvis kursen har vært 8 kroner, har mottakeren i India fått sine 5 kroner, mens 3 kroner er blitt pumpet tilbake til Norge og blitt brukt til formål i strid med vedtektene, sier seniorrådgiver Per Ole Sollie i tilsynet til NTB. (...)
Amerikanerne gir milliarder til veldedighet
tv2nyhetene.no 20.6.2011
GIR PENGER: Til tross for finanskrisen ga Amerikanerne ga nærmere 1610 milliarder kroner til veldedighet i fjor.
Amerikanerne ga nærmere 1610 milliarder kroner til veldedighet i fjor, men finanskrisen legger fortsatt en demper på giverlysten.
Fjorårets donasjoner var 4 prosent høyere enn året før, men lå fortsatt 6 prosent under rekordåret 2007, viser en undersøkelse Giving USA Foundation og Center on Philanthropy ved Indiana University har foretatt.
Les også: Buffett og Gates ber rike gi mer
Over en tredel av pengegavene går til religiøse grupper, mens 14 prosent gikk til utdanningsformål i fjor.
Bare 5 prosent av pengegavene var øremerket nødhjelp og bistand til utlandet, mens miljø- og dyreverngrupper fikk 2 prosent. (©NTB)
Kjendisfondet skulle redde de fattige - rammet av grov korrupsjon
vg.no 25.1.2011
Sverige og Danmark fryser midlene - Norge fortsetter investeringen
SAMARBEID: Bill Gates og statsminister Jens Stoltenberg har diskutert Det globale fondet ved en rekke anledninger.
(VG Nett) Bill Gates og Bono har gått i spissen for Det globale fondet. Nå er fondet så hardt rammet av korrupsjon at land og kjendiser løper om kapp for å trekke seg ut.
Da Det globale fondet for bekjempelse av Aids, tuberkulose og malaria ble etablert ble det omtalt som det største kollektive krafttaket mot alvorlige sykdommer i den tredje verden.
Statsminister Jens Stoltenberg har hele tiden vært en tydelig støttepilar, og Norge har investert flere hundre millioner kroner årlig siden starten i 2002.
Nå fryser både danske og svenske myndigheter sine bidrag til fondet. Norge har på sin side ingen planer om å gjøre det samme - til tross for at fondet lider kraftig under korrupsjon og svindel.
Det innrømmer fondets direktør, professor Michel Kazatchkine, ifølge Berlingske Tidende. (...)
Websidene er designet og tilrettelagt av Hein Tore Tønnesen © 2009