Last week Frontline explored the details behind our national debt, what it means and some of the tough choices we now face in a program entitled, “Ten Trillion and Counting”. I have embedded the program below. It is reported by Forrest Sawyer and well worth the time to explore.

The Associated Press’ Linda A. Johnson is a business reporter who predominately covers the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. Here is a segment of a great piece she wrote last fall on the influence pharmaceutical companies try to exert over the medical and academic communities by giving them gadgets, lunches, trips, paid research posts, etc. We first wrote about this problem last May when NPR failed to report the ties their guests had to the pharmaceutical industry and again in June of 2008 referencing the Harvard Medical School staff failing to declare kickbacks.

“Recent articles and editorials in major medical journals blast the industry. Medical schools, teaching hospitals and physician groups are changing rules to limit the influence of pharmaceutical sales reps. And three top editors of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine last month publicly sided against the drug industry in a U.S. Supreme Court case over whether patients harmed by government-approved medicines may still sue in state courts.

As more voices have called for change, new guidelines for how drugmakers and doctors should interact are coming from both industries, and doctors say some abuses of the past have ended. But the industries’ dealings remain fraught with potential conflict because the sectors depend on each other so much — medicine on drugmakers’ research dollars and drugmakers on the credibility researchers give them.”

There is no doubt in my mind that this piece of reporting covers the delicacies of this issue in a well-written, fairly comprehensive manner. The medical, academic and pharmaceutical industries are forever linked and important to each other, but there exists a line where support becomes inappropriate influence. The pharmaceutical companies will do anything they can in order to spin, peddle and influence those around them. This includes journalists.

As you will see in the video below, apparently Linda A. Johnson, the reporter who writes almost exclusively about the pharmaceutical industry, enjoys her own set of perks provided by Pfizer, and I’m sure other companies’ communications departments as well.

Here is a list of stories, published in leading newspapers around the world, where Johnson writes about Pfizer and their business practices. I guess she has a front row seat, huh?

Pfizer to disclose payments to doctors next year

Pfizer CEO: Wyeth merger will bring what’s needed

Pfizer deal gives Wyeth say on board, breakup fee

Pfizer launches new website on medication safety

NewsVines list of articles, written by Linda A. Johnson

From the blog of Andrew Baron:

“Open Letter to James C. Mullen, CEO of Biogen

**URGENT**

cc: Lance Armstrong, President Bill Clinton, Senator John Kerry, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Ted Kennedy, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach (Head of FDA)

Mr. Mullen, my name is Andrew Baron and my father Frederick (61 yrs. old), has final stage multiple myeloma has been recommended the drug Tysabri as a last chance effort for life.

Please read this carefully.

Last Thursday, his doctors at the Mayo Clinic determined that he may only have about 24-48 hours to live.

In what can only be defined as a miracle in timing, a few days ago, one of his doctors who has been studying his tumor cells in the lab for years found an antibody with an exact match: Tysabri which is manufactured by your company, Biogen Idec. In the test tube, it attached to the antigens on the surface of the tumor 100%.”

He continues the letter here on his blog.

As one of the comments on his blog points out, Biogen already knows of Tysabri’s use in treating multiple myeloma.

Today’s New York Times’ opinion piece on three top researchers at Harvard and their inability to properly report income, again brings to light how insidious the pharmaceutical industry’s influence is on affecting drug treatment, prescription and research.

“Three prominent psychiatrists at the Harvard Medical School and its affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital have been caught vastly under-reporting their income from drug companies whose fortunes could be affected by their studies and their promotional efforts on behalf of aggressive drug treatments.”

On May 10th, MediaSlackers called out NPR and the producers of an NPR-syndicated series titled, “Prozac Nation: Revisited” for improper or non-disclosure of financial ties to the same pharmaceutical companies they were reporting on and in some cases, regulating. Today’s NYT piece is an important one which needs to be more thoroughly explored. While the researchers’ work may or may not have been affected by the drug companies’ payments, proper disclosure must be demanded. Legislation is already in the works so let’s hope more national news outlets pick up on this before the pharmaceutical lobby kills it in committee.

According to an August 6th, 2007 press release on the FDA’s website, the Exelon Patch has been cleared to be used to treat Dementia, as well as symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmaceutical giant Novartis is the US distributor of Exelon. According to a recent piece on Slate.com, Novartis has given money to, among many, many others, Andrew F. Leuchter, a professor of psychiatry at UCLA. Dr. Leuchter was recently on a panel of antidepressant medication experts for an NPR-syndicated series titled, “Prozac Nation: Revisited.” The series discussed the pros and cons of antidepressant medications to treat illnesses and their frequent use and possible effects later on in life. The Exelon Patch and Dr. Leuchter may not actually have anything in common and therefore it is an arbitrary connection. However, this is more information on Dr. Leuchter’s financial ties than the producers of the NPR piece told their listeners. I remember listening with great interest to this panel’s discussion and wondered how biased these experts were. When NPR didn’t disclose any connection, I assumed (wrongly) there was no connection between these experts and the makers of the drugs in discussion.

Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer wrote a very informative article to bring to light the financial connections that not just Dr. Leuchter had, but all of the the “experts” on the show who have undisclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Both Brownlee and Lenzer can be commended for bringing such an important issue to light and for truly reporting the issue and its facts. Formerly funded through either private donations or government grants, NPR now has to fight to save any semblance of independence in my opinion. This particular show receives money from Eli Lilly, but the show’s producers neglected to mention the importance that Eli Lilly produces the antidepressant Prozac. The full article can be found here and is certainly worth the time.

Discussion on Slate.com can be found here.

Here is a rather telling portion of the aricle:

“How frequently are journalists glossing over such conflicts? Gary Schwitzer, a professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota, is the publisher of HealthNewsReview.org, a Web site that reviews health care news for balance, accuracy, and completeness. Schwitzer and his team of reviewers have looked at 544 stories from top outlets over the two-year period from April 2006 to April 2008. Journalists had to meet several criteria in order to receive a satisfactory score, among them: They had to quote an independent expert—someone not involved in the relevant research—and they had to make some attempt to report potential conflicts of interest. Half the stories failed to meet these two requirements, Schwitzer says.”