Question Should there be an open debate and discussions about Conflicts of Interest in Federally Funded Healthcare Research?


Jul 2, 2020
PBS has reported that

"While the worth of NIH-funded researchers’ financial conflicts of interest has not previously been made public, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services inspector general reported last year [2019] that the value of NIH grants associated with such conflicts was $1 billion in fiscal 2018"

Its time to have full disclosure about what is is going on and how this might effect the health care medicines being offered

“This is critically important,” said Lisa Bero, a University of Sydney professor who studies the impact of corporate interests on health care research. “Many people over the years have been calling for it. We need this kind of data available.”

View the full PBS info below

In the age of the Coronavirus how medical experts make decisions is now even more important to all aspects of our world.
Nov 12, 2020
Of course, full disclosure, and debate about the health care outcomes influenced by vested interests is both laudable and logical. That being said; silly taxpayers. How many folks really think that such could happen in today's big government money environment? "The government "cookie jar" can accommodate a lot of hands". That is usually the reason for and intent of the "cookie jar". Perhaps a better measure of publicly funded research, health or otherwise, is commercial viability and/or the advancement in science.


Jul 2, 2020
People might be interested to view the FDAs own limited conflicts disclosure report related to the members of the

Panel on COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Financial Disclosure for Companies Related to COVID-19 Treatment or Diagnostics

9 panel members disclosed connections to Gilead. This same panel approved Gileads Remdesivir as a Covid-19 treatment this approval was later withdrawn.

This FDA disclosure only covers the previous 11 months of conflicts and does not disclose other non financial relationships or those that recently expired

It is worth noting 2 of the CDC / NIH Covid-19 Panels 3 co-chairs have long term links to Gilead which are hard to find and do not need to be declared or disclosed.

One of these Dr Masur speaks regularly at a Gilead sponsored event

A search for Dr Roy Gulick another co-chair is more problematic his disclosures usually say no relevant financial disclosures to make

However a google search turns up medscape links that need a login to access but can be seen in the google search summary to refer to receiving Gilead research grants, educational fees and consultancy payments

  • Authors: Roy M. Gulick, MD, MPH

Target Audience and Goal Statement

This activity is intended for HIV specialists, infectious disease specialists, and other healthcare providers who manage patients with HIV infection.

As an organization accredited by the ACCME, Medscape, LLC requires everyone who is in a position to control the content of an education activity to disclose all relevant financial relationships with any commercial interest. The ACCME defines "relevant financial relationships" as financial relationships in any amount, occurring within the past 12 months, including financial relationships of a spouse or life partner, that could create a conflict of interest.

Roy M. Gulick, MD, MPH

Associate Professor of Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University; Associate Attending Physician, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York

Disclosure: Roy M. Gulick, MD, MPH, has disclosed that he has received research grants from Gilead, Merck, Panacos, Pfizer, Schering, and Tibotec.

Disclosure: Dr. Gulick has also disclosed that he has served as a consultant to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Monogram, Pfizer, Roche-Trimeris, Tibotec, and Virco, and that he has served as a Data and Safety Monitoring Board Member for Koronis.

Other links state....

Dr Gulick..........has received grants for educational activities from Gilead.

The third co-chair is Dr Clifford Lane has co-authored a postive study on Remdesivir as a Covid-19 treatment

However Dr Lane does not need to declare any indirect connections to Gilead or Remdesivir / Veklury on his CDC disclosures such as co-authoring papers finding in favor of Remdesivir

Further Dr Fauci and Dr Lane published a joint paper which was generally in favor of Remdesivir and against Hydroxychloroquine

Another non Covid-19 FDA Panel has 16 Gilead associated members, some of whom are on the Covid-19 Panel

This shows how far Gilead is able to extend influence into the FDA

Gilead Sciences, the drugmaker behind the experimental COVID-19 treatment remdesivir, spent more on lobbying Congress and the administration in the first quarter of 2020 than it ever has before, according to federal filings.

The pharmaceutical company spent $2.45 million on lobbying in the first three months of the year, a 32% increase over the first quarter of 2019.

People may also wish to read the info on GS-441524 as a Covid treatment and Gilead. The FDA says GS-441524 should be studied. Researchers indicate it is a better Covid-19 treatment, even Gileads own research indicates this to be true - but nothing happens.

Dr Aberg features on both FDA Panels above as a Gilead connected person. You can see this data from 2018 going back to 2014 below

Last edited:


Jul 2, 2020
Here is an update on pharma research grants effecting questionable outcomes about research

FDA Medical Panel Member

Professor David Boulware MD
Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Research Grant

Professor Boulware, a key researcher and
hydroxychlorquine / HQC skeptic should not have been conducting trials on HQC as he has conflicts of interest as he receives grants from Gilead the maunfacturer of Remdesivir which was a much more expensive alternative to HQC

The Minnesota study is one of a triad of randomized controlled trials, organized by Dr David Boulware, that aimed to test hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy for Covid-19; the trial failed.


"if remdesivir can shorten duration of hospitalization by four days, then the medicine provides a reasonable value,” Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota

The Minnesota study is one of a triad of randomized controlled trials, organized by David Boulware, that aimed to test hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy. One tested giving the drug to people after they were exposed to patients with Covid-19; that trial also failed. This trial tested using the drug right after symptoms began. A third study, for which results have not yet been reported, gave hydroxychloroquine to doctors and other people at high risk of getting Covid-19 before they were exposed to the virus.

To conduct these studies, the researchers made significant compromises.

Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Observer