This is excerpts of a disturbing read.
The part about RWJ funding(not excerpted here)is very interesting.
Gary K.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/05/loophole-pa...-canary-in-mine.html

Loophole Part Two: The canary in the mine?

Should failings in the integrity of science and evidence-based clinical guidelines matter, regardless of the popularity of their proposals, even when the health interventions are for people seen in our society as especially repugnant or undesirable?

Or, do we look the other way because we don’t want to be seen standing up for such patients, or appear to be endorsing politically incorrect unhealthy behaviors?

Do the ends ever justify the means if it’s at the expense of science or lives?

Smoking has come to be seen so negatively, though, that surprisingly little attention or concern has been given to conflicts of interest behind the clinical care guidelines for tobacco use issued by the HHS, even as it appears people are being hurt.

Regardless of what you may personally believe about smoking, improper science and conflicts of interest, and a system that encourages and allows such breaches, should concern all of us... as we could be next.

Last November 20, 2007, the Food and Drug Administration had issued an Early Communication, warning the public and healthcare professionals that it was investigating serious adverse events from the drug, Chantix (varenicline), a drug made by Pfizer and marketed to help smokers quit.

On February 1st, the FDA issued a formal Public Health Advisory and a Medwatch alert, warning consumers and healthcare professionals about safety concerns with this drug, which it updated on May 16th.

Yet, despite even the FDA communications and numerous medical concerns raised in the medical community since last year, the HHS just issued the new smoking cessation Clinical Practice Guidelines, “Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence, 2008 Update” ... which specifically recommends Chantrix.

Anytime we encounter research or guidelines that appear to depart from the strength of the scientific evidence, we turn to those financial disclosures to better understand what might have influenced the conclusions.

It reveals that 9 of the 24 members on this expert panel have received pharmaceutical moneys, most of which stand to benefit from the clinical guideline recommendations.

The 18-member panel that developed the earlier 2000 guidelines had also been headed by Dr. Fiore. “He and at least eight others on it had ties to the makers of stop-smoking nicotine,” wrote Hilliker.

However, looking at the actual financial disclosure statements in the earlier 2000 guidelines, I count 13 with extensive pharmaceutical connections, including those reported by the chair.

While having experts writing clinical care guidelines who also have connections with the very drug companies whose products they are recommending is disturbing, regardless of the health issue, if we stop here, we miss even more serious issues raised in this incident: that greater potential influences come from nonprofits.

Going down the list of members on the 2008 expert panel that developed the tobacco clinical guidelines, finds 15 members with extensive ties and funding from RWJF, including a number serving on a variety of RWJF programs such as Prescribe for Health (advances behavioral counseling interventions for tobacco cessation and obesity), Addressing Tobacco in Managed Care (working to get smoking cessation products and interventions covered by healthplans), Smoke-free Families, and its Smoking Cessation Leadership Center.

What you may have realized is that not only these latest clinical guidelines, but the 1996 and 2000 versions, were co-sponsored by RWJF, as is described on its website and the Executive Summary of the guidelines themselves.

“Seventeen of the 18 panel members who developed the original Guideline reconvened to produce the update,” said RWJF. “The final version was sent to RWJF” before being “submitted to the US Public Health Service” for publication.

As of 2006, RWJF held 55,983,308 shares of J&J common stock, valued at $33.4 billion dollars.
(I think this should be $3.34 billion-Gary K.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30,

Actually, if they have (RWJF holds) 55,983,308 shares of J&J common stock, at current market values (65.76/share as of Sunday Night June 8, 2008), it is worth 3,681,462,334.08 thats Three BILLION, Six-Hundred Eighty-one MILLION, Four-Hundred Sixty-Two THOUSAND, Three Hundred Thirty-Four Dollars and eight cents
Still, one HELL of a lot of money to throw at us, isn't it?

Dividends on JNJ is $1.84/share.

RWJF annual income from JNJ stock is about $103,009,287.

That is "Still, one HELL of a lot of money to throw at us, isn't it?"

Gary K.

And that money is from after tax profits.

Each of the products they offer have their own advertising budgets as well.

They used to be worth $8 billion IIRC.