• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Telegraph investigation: Third of NHS drugs panel being paid by pharmaceutical companies

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
More than one in three members of the government panel overseeing the NHS’s procurement of medicines across Britain has been carrying out paid work for drugs companies, a Telegraph investigation has revealed.

Ten senior officials in the Department of Health’s (DH) Pharmaceutical Market Support Group (PMSG) are acting as consultants to pharmaceutical firms alongside their role on the panel.

Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs...ement-being-paid-by-pharmaceutical-firms.html

Now we just need the Telegraph to show the same interest in publicly-funded individuals promoting non-pharmaceutical therapies while being paid by insurance companies.
 
Last edited:

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
And Alastair Burt launched an urgent enquiry.

Does anyone believe that these practices have not been known about in general, if not specific, terms for many years? It seems that those entrusted with regulation of public life only take action when scandals can no longer be concealed. The concept of conflict of interest has almost disappeared along with any notion of ethics.

Any guesses as to the outcome of the urgent enquiry?
 

Skippa

Anti-BS
Messages
841
I don't know why big pharma aren't agressively persuing a pill for CFS, seems there's money on the table if doctors could just hand out a pill to cure, I mean treat, CFS patients.

Maybe they are behind closed doors, who knows...
 

Invisible Woman

Senior Member
Messages
1,267
I don't know why big pharma aren't agressively persuing a pill for CFS, seems there's money on the table if doctors could just hand out a pill to cure, I mean treat, CFS patients.

Maybe they are behind closed doors, who knows...

Ah... maybe a conflict of interest with the DWP, insurance companies and other power peddlers. I'll ignore this, old chap, if you fail to see that. I reckon they save a lot more money by the current system of neglect and abuse than might be otherwise gained by the pharmas getting involved. Of course, once ME/CFS is acknowledged as the life destroying disease it really is & we've seen the BPS mob off the door will be open for the big pharmas. Sometimes it feels like we are not patients but prey....

In the UK it seems the norm for people to be (very well) paid for doing one job while also being (very well) paid by a 3rd party with vested interests. They justify this by claiming that such influence wielding is a perk of the job and they couldn't possibly exist on the pittance they are paid otherwise (3 or 4 times the national average wage & more excluding expenses). And these people claim the moral high ground while looking down their noses at the genuinely sick and disabled, doing all in their power to reduce whatever benefits they can receive.

End of rant....
 

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
In the UK it seems the norm for people to be (very well) paid for doing one job while also being (very well) paid by a 3rd party with vested interests. They justify this by claiming that such influence wielding is a perk of the job and they couldn't possibly exist on the pittance they are paid otherwise (3 or 4 times the national average wage & more excluding expenses). And these people claim the moral high ground while looking down their noses at the genuinely sick and disabled, doing all in their power to reduce whatever benefits they can receive.

End of rant....

Rant entirely warranted.

I think the justification this particular bunch of troughers are using is that they "need a good relationship" with drug companies in order to make the best decisions on behalf of patients. Which is unutterable horse manure. That's precisely the worst thing for good decision making.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs...ement-being-paid-by-pharmaceutical-firms.html

Now we just need the Telegraph to show the same interest in publicly-funded individuals promoting non-pharmaceutical therapies while being paid by insurance companies.

Actually, in the case of ME/CFS, I think we should try to promote pharmaceutical consultants to join any NHS panel that discusses ME/CFS.

That would be very helpful in getting the NHS to adopt some of the drug treatments that have shown efficacy for ME/CFS, such as Valcyte.
 

Skippa

Anti-BS
Messages
841
Ah... maybe a conflict of interest with the DWP, insurance companies and other power peddlers. I'll ignore this, old chap, if you fail to see that. I reckon they save a lot more money by the current system of neglect and abuse than might be otherwise gained by the pharmas getting involved. Of course, once ME/CFS is acknowledged as the life destroying disease it really is & we've seen the BPS mob off the door will be open for the big pharmas. Sometimes it feels like we are not patients but prey....

In the UK it seems the norm for people to be (very well) paid for doing one job while also being (very well) paid by a 3rd party with vested interests. They justify this by claiming that such influence wielding is a perk of the job and they couldn't possibly exist on the pittance they are paid otherwise (3 or 4 times the national average wage & more excluding expenses). And these people claim the moral high ground while looking down their noses at the genuinely sick and disabled, doing all in their power to reduce whatever benefits they can receive.

End of rant....

I always thought that big pharma act as "a law unto themselves" and that if they sniff a profit, they would develop the drug and then lobby the ptb themselves...
 
Last edited:

Snowdrop

Rebel without a biscuit
Messages
2,933
Actually, in the case of ME/CFS, I think we should try to promote pharmaceutical consultants to join any NHS panel that discusses ME/CFS.

That would be very helpful in getting the NHS to adopt some of the drug treatments that have shown efficacy for ME/CFS, such as Valcyte.

I don't really know how these things work but I would still add--if that's what actually happens.
You seem to think that they would make choices based on rational decision making and what the patient needs.
My experience in life says they'll make decisions based on money and what will get them loads of it.
Maybe those two interests match up--maybe not. One thing I'm certain of is that the pharma companies in no way have our interests at heart.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
You seem to think that they would make choices based on rational decision making and what the patient needs.

No, what I was thinking was that even just out of its own vested interests, the pharmaceutical industry might help steer ME/CFS treatment away from psychological interventions.



One thing I'm certain of is that the pharma companies in no way have our interests at heart.

I don't think it is that black and white.

Have a friend who sometimes meets scientists who work for pharmaceutical companies, and her impression is that these scientists are genuinely focused on wanting to find cures or treatments for diseases. And that's something I would have expected anyway. Though at the boardroom level, marketing and making a profit are more the focus. As lab coats are exchanged for business suits, you find a different outlook.
 

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
Have a friend who sometimes meets scientists who work for pharmaceutical companies, and her impression is that these scientists are genuinely focused on wanting to find cures or treatments for diseases. And that's something I would have expected anyway. Though at the boardroom level, marketing and making a profit are more the focus. As lab coats are exchanged for business suits, you find a different outlook.
I absolutely get what you're saying, though I think that's a different level of interaction to the one referred to in this article. And clearly there's no need for NHS individuals to be in receipt of financial benefit from drug companies in order to have the sort of very valuable interaction you're describing.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,824
And clearly there's no need for NHS individuals to be in receipt of financial benefit from drug companies in order to have the sort of very valuable interaction you're describing.

Well, the ME/CFS community knows that the inappropriate psychologization of diseases like ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, interstitial cystitis has been a catastrophe in terms of the amount of proper biomedical research into these diseases.

So when we hear that the psychiatrists (like Wessely and White) promoting ME/CFS psychologization get paid for consultancy work for disability insurance companies who would very much like to see ME/CFS as psychologically caused, it is clear that there is something seriously wrong with their cozy relationship with these insurance companies.

However, in the case of marketing or imposing pharmacologic interventions of diseases, are there any parallels? Are there any diseases where drugs have been "pushed", having a bad result in terms of either treatment outcomes or the general progress of research in the field?

Some argue that for example the treatment of ADHD by Ritalin is pushing drugs too far, but I actually think such treatment is a very good thing.
 

Justin30

Senior Member
Messages
1,065
Yeah and when i took the SSRI pill i though i was going to die...put me in hospitsl....ME chemical sensativity...