Documents Show Drug Company Promotion of Unproven Drug_NYT Tue, 29 Oct 2002 Internal company documents unsealed in a federal lawsuit reveal how the unholy alliance between doctors and drug companies has corrupted medical practice and defrauded the US taxpayer. Although it is illegal for drug companies to promote a drug…
October 11, 2002 Editorial: Trial Lawyers and Clinical Trials_WSJ Daniel Hennenger, the editor of the Wall Street Journal would give doctors free reign to experiment on human subjects unencumbered by ethical or regulatory considerations: just let every self-proclaimed ” genius who somewhere is dreaming of the next L-dopa, lithium or…
<p> Canadian Lawsuit:Autism-Vaccine – Maclean’s </p> <p> Mon, 11 Nov 2002 </p> <p> Dr. Jeffrey Bradstreet: “It’s garbage to say there’s a reason to have residual neurotoxicity in an injectable for a child. It’s not a necessary risk.” </p> <p> While scientists are unsure whether the mercury based vaccine preservative,…
September 2, 2002. South Carolina Judges Voted to Ban Secret Court Settlements. By Adam Liptak – New York Times. The NY Times reports that South Carolina’s 10 active federal trial judges unanimously voted to ban secret court settlements “that have made the courts complicit in hiding the truth about hazardous…
REASONS FOR OPPOSITION:
Researchers would not be required to first try approved treatments, if any exist, before entering the patient into a medical experiment that may be "risky."
Researchers would not be required to consult with an independent medical expert, a non-researcher who would consider the patient’s best medical interests as paramount.
Researchers would not be required to disclose their own professional and financial interests deriving from the experiment.
Researchers would not be required to fully disclose to the patient’s family what happened to other patients who had already participated in the experiment.
Why did OHRP SHRED informed consent documents? Sat, 25 Oct 2003 China Daily’s premier medical correspondent, XIONG LEI, raises embarrassing questions that should trouble Americans, not just the bioethics and research community. She makes a plea for justice for some 200,000 Chinese farmers who were used in 12 genetic experiments…
Presented by Vera Hassner Sharav
14th Tri-Service Clinical Investigation Symposium
Sponsored by The U.S. Army Medical Department and The Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancment of Military Medicine
The cornerstone of public trust in medical research is the integrity of academic institutions and the expectation that universities, which rely on public funding, have a responsibility to serve the public good. Financial conflicts of interest affect millions of American people – those who are subjects of clinical trials testing new drugs and those who are prescribed drugs after their approval.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Presented by Vera Hassner Sharav 14th TRI-SERVICE CLINICAL INVESTIGATION SYMPOSIUM Sponsored By THE U.S. ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT And THE HENRY M. JACKSON FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCMENT OF MILITARY MEDICINE May 5-7, 2002 The cornerstone of public trust in medical research is the integrity of academic institutions and…
AHRP InfoMail Return to Home Page Return to InfoMail Media Coverage List MediaCoverage News Stories on Human ResearchProtection andCommentary by Vera Hassner Sharav April 19, 2002 DHHS / FDA flip-flopsecond time re: " pediatric rule" FYI Tommy Thompson, Secretary of The Department of Health andHuman Services has reversed the FDA’s…
AHRP Alliance for Human Research Protection AHRP Speaks Out Return to Home PageAHRP Speaks Out Press ReleasesOctober 29, 2001 FYI Widely disparate perspectives are presented in an article in the Maryland Daily Record re: The Court of Appeals of Maryland decision (Gimes v Kennedy Krieger Institute, Aug 16, 2001). That…
Widely disparate perspectives are presented in an article in the Maryland Daily Record re: The Court of Appeals of Maryland decision (Gimes v Kennedy Krieger Institute, Aug 16, 2001). That 6-to-1 landmark decision severely criticized the practice of exposing healthy children to risks of harm in health related research. Children, we must bear in mind, are powerless to exercise that inviolable human right, the right to refuse to assume risks for research.
Will this decision undermine the legitimacy of research that puts healthy children at risk in clinical trials? AHRP believes it will, and that the decision will be sustained by other courts in other states.
