- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
http://mobil.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article14842118.ab (Swedish)
Google Translate to English below
Swedish tobacco experts in the double seats
Doctor helps to lobby against snuff - and for Pfizer's drug
May 18, 2012 The Public Health Institute are experts in tobacco.
They propagate to snuff and the anti-nicotine drug Champix.
While they are working for Pfizer - which lobbies on snuff and manufactures Champix.
- This could damage the authority's credibility, says Thomas Bull, a professor of constitutional law, told Aftonbladet.
Professor Hans Gilljam at the Karolinska Institute is one of the most common names when it comes to tobacco control.
He also pops up frequently as an advocate of the controversial drug Champix, which both in Europe and the U.S. linked to suicides and heart attacks.
Gilljam representing organizations Physicians for Smoking and Tobacco Facts think tank, which receives one million grant from the Institute of Public Health, FHI, every year. He appears in the writings of facts about tobacco on the agency website.
Often advocates he Champix as an effective method to quit smoking and using snuff.
Nowhere in FHI remains to be Gilljam also collaborates with Pfizer.
First speaker
When Pfizer launched the drug in Sweden in 2006 was Gilljam first speaker at the Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Gothenburg.
In October 2007 he allowed himself to be offered by the company on a one-week conference trip to Madrid.
His study demonstrates that Champix works well against the use of snuff was paid by the company and by May of last year is Gilljam as the contact person at Pfizer's press material for a study that shows that few manage to quit smoking without help.
The Aftonbladet reported Gilljam that he works volunteer for Pfizer.
- I meet them and talk to them, but never take any compensation from them.
If it can be seen as problematic because he is both FHI's and Pfizer's expert, says Gilljam:
- It is more problematic that there are more experts on the drug for smoking cessation. It is clear that whether the reliability can be produced. But it strikes me as FHI's problems.
"I do not advertise"
Gunilla Bolinder, chief physician at Karolinska University Hospital, although she is on the board of Physicians for the Prevention of tobacco and the other of FHI frequently consulted expert, sitting in Pfizer's "advisory board" as an adviser.
- I'm sitting there saying that they are not needed. I'm really not a pill advocates. I do not advertise for Champix, I really do not, she says.
But you are included in Pfizer's press releases which you speak well of Champix.
- I do? It's weird. That I know of. They have not asked me.
In a Pfizer press release from March 2009 Bolinder says: "Every fifth patient was smoke free after one year and this is a very good result." She is also the contact person for questions.
Copies Pfizer response EU
Prior to this fall approved a new tobacco Directive in the EU Commission has requested in your comments.
Pfizer has issued a response template that among other things says, "It is a top priority to maintain the sales ban on snus. There is no reason to introduce yet another harmful product."
Response identical to Pfizer's template has been received by the Commission from several agencies, including the organization Physicians for Smoking and Tobacco Facts think tank.
Deniest extension
When Aftonbladet calling Barbro Holm Ivarsson, President of FHI-supported in the Psychologists against Tobacco, she becomes suspicious when the question of Champix show up.
- How is it that you ask? In what context then, so to speak? In what capacity are you calling?
As a journalist.
- Yes, but I have many different roles as well.
I'll call you as representatives of Psychologists against Tobacco.
- Okay, now I understand.
Is Champix something you would advocate?
- It depends on. It's one of the medicines recommended for those who find it difficult to stop smoking and there is even one study (His Gilljams, editor's note) to show that it can help snuff users.
Are you sitting in the Pfizer Advisory Board?
- No. I have no affiliation with any pharmaceutical company at all.
Not at all?
- No.
But the FHI are you connected?
- I hired as a consultant by FHI. They have hired me as a consultant for many years. They have a number of experts they consult on various areas.
Approved applications Pfizer
At Pfizer's website is among other things their browsers Life Rewards, for people who want to quit tobacco. It is recommended Champix, and is said to be approved by you.
- I reviewed it as an independent consultant 2006th But I've never had any ties to drug companies.
At FHI's website is published by you of smoking cessation in which you express yourself as FHI's expert. While there are press releases from Pfizer to your recommendations on the drug. Is it a problem do you think?
- It's nothing to do about it. For several years I have committed to not at all carry out orders for them.
Looked favorably on Champix
- I used to work at FHI and finished 2006th When I worked there we had a very positive view on to express ourselves in favor of when it was something new drugs, such as Champix. There was nothing strange at all.
- But then, it has become increasingly evident that drug companies' primary interest is to keep people healthy. Their primary interest is always to make money. Then it's not that I can help and cooperate with them. However, I must recommend their products. It is based on scientific evidence.
Christina Astrén Eriksson, Senior Vice President, Pfizer, says that those who participate in the company's Scientific Advisory Board are paid. However, no charge for participating in the press material, said she.
So no one is paid for recommending your products?
- It does not work that way.
"You start to wonder"
According to Thomas Bull, a professor of constitutional law at Uppsala University, it is essential that public opinion as an authority operates is based on a scientifically unfounded.
- There may be worries about someone who is employed or are independent of the FHI has ties to private industry.
- It is especially tricky if you openly advocating a product, they have their own interests to do. There is a concern that it gives the impression of representing an agency's view. It is something that in the long run can damage confidence in the authority. One begins to wonder what other areas it looks like this?
"Sometimes mistakes are made"
FHI's Chief Legal Officer Ingrid Millet says that tobacco is one of the areas where the number of experts are few.
- It's a dilemma we have in such a small country like Sweden. In some areas there are no experts who are not related to pharmaceutical companies, she says:
- People should be able to have confidence in the assessments made by our agencies and we are constantly working on this issue. Sometimes it is clear that mistakes. But all the experts we hire jävsdeklarerar and we work with transparency.
Google Translate to English below
Swedish tobacco experts in the double seats
Doctor helps to lobby against snuff - and for Pfizer's drug
May 18, 2012 The Public Health Institute are experts in tobacco.
They propagate to snuff and the anti-nicotine drug Champix.
While they are working for Pfizer - which lobbies on snuff and manufactures Champix.
- This could damage the authority's credibility, says Thomas Bull, a professor of constitutional law, told Aftonbladet.
Professor Hans Gilljam at the Karolinska Institute is one of the most common names when it comes to tobacco control.
He also pops up frequently as an advocate of the controversial drug Champix, which both in Europe and the U.S. linked to suicides and heart attacks.
Gilljam representing organizations Physicians for Smoking and Tobacco Facts think tank, which receives one million grant from the Institute of Public Health, FHI, every year. He appears in the writings of facts about tobacco on the agency website.
Often advocates he Champix as an effective method to quit smoking and using snuff.
Nowhere in FHI remains to be Gilljam also collaborates with Pfizer.
First speaker
When Pfizer launched the drug in Sweden in 2006 was Gilljam first speaker at the Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Gothenburg.
In October 2007 he allowed himself to be offered by the company on a one-week conference trip to Madrid.
His study demonstrates that Champix works well against the use of snuff was paid by the company and by May of last year is Gilljam as the contact person at Pfizer's press material for a study that shows that few manage to quit smoking without help.
The Aftonbladet reported Gilljam that he works volunteer for Pfizer.
- I meet them and talk to them, but never take any compensation from them.
If it can be seen as problematic because he is both FHI's and Pfizer's expert, says Gilljam:
- It is more problematic that there are more experts on the drug for smoking cessation. It is clear that whether the reliability can be produced. But it strikes me as FHI's problems.
"I do not advertise"
Gunilla Bolinder, chief physician at Karolinska University Hospital, although she is on the board of Physicians for the Prevention of tobacco and the other of FHI frequently consulted expert, sitting in Pfizer's "advisory board" as an adviser.
- I'm sitting there saying that they are not needed. I'm really not a pill advocates. I do not advertise for Champix, I really do not, she says.
But you are included in Pfizer's press releases which you speak well of Champix.
- I do? It's weird. That I know of. They have not asked me.
In a Pfizer press release from March 2009 Bolinder says: "Every fifth patient was smoke free after one year and this is a very good result." She is also the contact person for questions.
Copies Pfizer response EU
Prior to this fall approved a new tobacco Directive in the EU Commission has requested in your comments.
Pfizer has issued a response template that among other things says, "It is a top priority to maintain the sales ban on snus. There is no reason to introduce yet another harmful product."
Response identical to Pfizer's template has been received by the Commission from several agencies, including the organization Physicians for Smoking and Tobacco Facts think tank.
Deniest extension
When Aftonbladet calling Barbro Holm Ivarsson, President of FHI-supported in the Psychologists against Tobacco, she becomes suspicious when the question of Champix show up.
- How is it that you ask? In what context then, so to speak? In what capacity are you calling?
As a journalist.
- Yes, but I have many different roles as well.
I'll call you as representatives of Psychologists against Tobacco.
- Okay, now I understand.
Is Champix something you would advocate?
- It depends on. It's one of the medicines recommended for those who find it difficult to stop smoking and there is even one study (His Gilljams, editor's note) to show that it can help snuff users.
Are you sitting in the Pfizer Advisory Board?
- No. I have no affiliation with any pharmaceutical company at all.
Not at all?
- No.
But the FHI are you connected?
- I hired as a consultant by FHI. They have hired me as a consultant for many years. They have a number of experts they consult on various areas.
Approved applications Pfizer
At Pfizer's website is among other things their browsers Life Rewards, for people who want to quit tobacco. It is recommended Champix, and is said to be approved by you.
- I reviewed it as an independent consultant 2006th But I've never had any ties to drug companies.
At FHI's website is published by you of smoking cessation in which you express yourself as FHI's expert. While there are press releases from Pfizer to your recommendations on the drug. Is it a problem do you think?
- It's nothing to do about it. For several years I have committed to not at all carry out orders for them.
Looked favorably on Champix
- I used to work at FHI and finished 2006th When I worked there we had a very positive view on to express ourselves in favor of when it was something new drugs, such as Champix. There was nothing strange at all.
- But then, it has become increasingly evident that drug companies' primary interest is to keep people healthy. Their primary interest is always to make money. Then it's not that I can help and cooperate with them. However, I must recommend their products. It is based on scientific evidence.
Christina Astrén Eriksson, Senior Vice President, Pfizer, says that those who participate in the company's Scientific Advisory Board are paid. However, no charge for participating in the press material, said she.
So no one is paid for recommending your products?
- It does not work that way.
"You start to wonder"
According to Thomas Bull, a professor of constitutional law at Uppsala University, it is essential that public opinion as an authority operates is based on a scientifically unfounded.
- There may be worries about someone who is employed or are independent of the FHI has ties to private industry.
- It is especially tricky if you openly advocating a product, they have their own interests to do. There is a concern that it gives the impression of representing an agency's view. It is something that in the long run can damage confidence in the authority. One begins to wonder what other areas it looks like this?
"Sometimes mistakes are made"
FHI's Chief Legal Officer Ingrid Millet says that tobacco is one of the areas where the number of experts are few.
- It's a dilemma we have in such a small country like Sweden. In some areas there are no experts who are not related to pharmaceutical companies, she says:
- People should be able to have confidence in the assessments made by our agencies and we are constantly working on this issue. Sometimes it is clear that mistakes. But all the experts we hire jävsdeklarerar and we work with transparency.
