GMW:_GM_drug_critics_sacked_by_Health_Canada

[Guest guest]

> Subject:

> GMW:_GM_drug_critics_sacked_by_Health_Canada

> " GM_WATCH " <info

> Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:16:19 +0100

 

>

> GM WATCH daily

> http://www.gmwatch.org

> -------

> " There is war at Health Canada... The battle erupted

> in 1998 with the evaluation of rBGH (genetically

> engineered bovine growth hormone) " - Dr Richard

> Wilson writing in the Canadian Journal of Health and

> Nutrition (item 3)

>

> " This is retribution for having spoken out about

> what's going on at Health Canada and the concerns

> they have around the safety of drugs for veterinary

> use " - Steve Hindle, president of the Professional

> Institute of the Public Service of Canada

>

> " This is really serious because Margaret and Shiv,

> they were kind of the last few scientists at Health

> Canada who were really looking out for health

> safety " - Michael McBane of the Canadian Health

> Coalition. (item 1)

>

> 1.Health Canada fires 3 scientists

> 2.HOW BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE WAS REJECTED IN CANADA

> 3.Conspiracy to Silence - Scientists Muzzled at

> Health Canada

> -------

> 1.Health Canada fires 3 scientists

> Staffers often criticized policies

> Agency denies statements at issue

> OTTAWA BUREAU

> The Star, 15 July 2004

>

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_T\

ype1 & c=Article & cid=1089843028895 & call_pageid=968332188774 & col=968350116467 & tacod\

alogin=no

>

> OTTAWA - Three senior Health Canada scientists known

> for questioning the department's commitment to

> veterinary drug safety have been fired.

>

> However, Health Canada says the reason for the

> termination of Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and

> Gerard Lambert has nothing to do with their

> outspokenness.

>

> " It is not because of anything they may have said

> publicly, " said Ryan Baker, spokesperson for Health

> Canada.

>

> He did not outline the reasons for their dismissals,

> saying that the information is personal and

> protected by the federal Privacy Act.

>

> Steve Hindle, president of the Professional

> Institute of the Public Service of Canada, says

> Health Canada's public statement belies the truth.

>

> " This is retribution for having spoken out about

> what's going on at Health Canada and the concerns

> they have around the safety of drugs for veterinary

> use, " he said.

>

> The firing is the latest in a series of conflicts

> between Health Canada and the scientists who worked

> in the veterinary drugs directorate.

>

> Last year a memo revealed that they warned their

> superiors that the department's strategy to fight

> BSE was inadequate.

>

> In 2001, Chopra and Haydon said the department was

> leaning on them to approve a drug that would be used

> in chickens and cows that could lead to antibiotic

> resistance in people.

>

> Health Canada officials denied it.

>

> That year, Chopra also accused Health Canada of

> media hype by overstating the danger to Canadians

> posed by bio-terrorism agents such as anthrax.

>

> In 1998, Haydon and Chopra spoke out publicly about

> being pushed to approve drugs without enough

> assurances of safety from manufacturers.

>

> They were reprimanded by the department, but the

> Federal Court ruled in the scientists' favour,

> saying their outcry was in the public interest.

>

> Michael McBane of the Canadian Health Coalition, a

> public-interest watchdog group, said the firings

> will send shivers through the public service.

>

> " This is really serious because Margaret and Shiv,

> they were kind of the last few scientists at Health

> Canada who were really looking out for health

> safety.

>

> " Margaret in particular was very involved in recent

> years around the BSE issue and was speaking out in

> terms of the real risks and dangers we were facing

> and she was disciplined for that as well, " McBane

> said.

>

> " It will send a real serious signal throughout the

> public service that there's no such thing as

> protecting the public interest. You serve the

> minister and the minister in turn is serving

> industry, " he added.

>

> Legislation to protect whistle-blowers was

> introduced this year as part of Prime Minister Paul

> Martin's pledge to clean up government in light of

> the sponsorship scandal.

>

> However, Hindle said that in fact, the legislation

> does not adequately spell out the basis on which

> public servants are protected.

>

> " The legislation didn't really say people had the

> right to speak publicly about issues that caused

> some concern, concerns about health and safety of

> Canadians, " he said.

>

> Hindle's organization, which has represented Chopra,

> Haydon and Lambert in the past, will do so again, he

> said.

>

> " We'll have to establish the facts, and part of the

> facts will be that these people have a reputation as

> whistle-blowers, they've been in the public eye, and

> the managers in the department have tried to impose

> discipline on them in the past. "

>

> That discipline included verbal and written

> reprimands and attempts to suspend them (Chopra was

> suspended for five days in 2002).

>

> Hindle said the scientists will have to file a

> grievance with Health Canada. The institute can then

> make the case that the discipline imposed was too

> severe and that their jobs should be reinstated, he

> said.

>

> The Public Service Staff Relations Board will

> decide.

>

> If the scientists are not satisfied, they could

> pursue the case in Federal Court, he said.

> ------

> 2.HOW BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE WAS REJECTED IN CANADA

> by: Wolfson, Richard, Ph.D.

>

http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19991128221446

>

> Prior to 1980, Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) could

> only be obtained from cows, but with the development

> of genetic engineering, scientists were able to

> genetically engineer bacteria that were able to

> produce BGH in the laboratory. Even in the

> mid-eighties, scientists who were developing BGH

> were very concerned and said we should have

> long-term testing before we start using this in

> cows. When we inject a hormone into an animal or a

> human, it affects other hormones and it can have a

> whole cascade of effects which no one really knows.

> In Europe, hormones are not permitted to be used in

> cows; so Monsanto decided to change the name of BGH

> to bovine somatotropin (rBST) which was created to

> avoid using the word 'hormone'.

>

> In 1988, about four different companies applied in

> Canada for the approval of bovine growth hormone.

> One of the scientists, Dr. Shiv Chopra in the human

> safety division of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs,

> requested more information on the long-term effects

> on human health, particularly on the effect on the

> immune system and on birth defects, but no long-term

> studies had been conducted. The only research that

> was done, was a 90-day study on 30 rats. And even

> that study was not available to the scientists. So

> Dr. Chopra submitted a request for more research to

> ensure that it was safe, and the main effect of his

> request was that he was taken off the BGH review,

> and all of the other scientists in the Bureau of

> Veterinary Drugs were also taken off the review of

> BGH. It seems that industry pressured Health Canada

> and the only people who were allowed to do the

> review of BGH were the upper level management. The

> fellow, Monseignon, the chief

> of the Human Safety Division approved it, going

> against the advice of his own scientists, even

> though the scientists said it wasn't safe for humans

> because the safety tests weren't done to prove it

> which is a very scary thing - that he could veto his

> own scientists. That happened around 1990.

>

> Health Canada based their approval solely on an

> abstract of a study published in Science magazine by

> two American scientists who worked for Monsanto.

> This was the 90-day study of 30 rats. During the

> whole time period, from 1994 to 1998, the scientists

> at Health Canada couldn't even get a look at it

> because the complete study was kept locked up and

> kept secret. By law, the scientists in Health Canada

> are supposed to study the research

> before the drug is approved.

>

> In 1993, when BGH was approved in the U.S. it was

> approved on the basis of the same limited

> information in this journal abstract. Upper

> management level scientists at Monsanto claim that

> since BGH is a protein, it gets digested and broken

> down so there won't be any physiological problems.

> However, within the last year, the scientists at

> Health Canada were able to obtain the whole study.

> Research on the animals showed that BGH does pass

> through the gut, the animals had increased antibody

> levels, and at the same time there was damage to

> various organs such as cysts in the thyroid and

> inflammation of the prostate and other glands.

>

> There are two levels of approval. First there is

> approval for human safety and then there is approval

> for animal safety. After BGH was approved in the

> Human Safety Division in Canada, against the advice

> of the scientists who got vetoed by their boss, it

> was passed onto the Animal Safety Division. In the

> Animal Safety Division it wound up in the hands of

> another scientist, Margaret Hayden, and the people

> who passed it along to her didn't realize she had a

> conscience. So she started looking at the results of

> the research that was given to her (industry does

> the research, and they pass it along to Health

> Canada). She found problems such as mastitis or

> inflammation of the udder, joint problems, deformed

> offspring, and a decrease in lifespan of up to two

> years. So Dr. Margaret Hayden recommended it not be

> approved. What do you think happened to Dr. Margaret

> Hayden, after she made this recommendation? She got

> dropped. She was never allowed to study BGH again.

>

> Margaret Hayden was one of the scientists who were

> at a meeting with Monsanto officials when they

> offered Health Canada one to two million dollars to

> approve BGH without any further studies. Fifth

> Estate, Canada AM, and several other TV stations

> have confirmed this by talking to other people

> present at the meeting. Len Ritter, the Director of

> the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs tried to pressure

> Margaret Hayden to approve BGH conditionally, and

> subsequently keep records of the effects of the

> hormone on the cows and the humans. Margaret

> responded that it's illegal to approve a drug, and

> allow it on the market before it is shown to be

> safe. Then what happened to Margaret was very scary,

> to say the least. A few weeks later, Margaret came

> in Monday morning and realized someone had stolen

> all her records on Bovine Growth Hormone, research

> showing that it producedlameness in animals and

> increased mastitis, as well as the notes she had

> taken at the meetings when Monsanto offered one to

> two million dollars to Health Canada.

>

> Back in 1996, scientists in the Bureau of Veterinary

> Drugs filed a grievance that they were being

> pressured to approve drugs against their

> professionaljudgement, that they are being coerced

> and threatened. These are scientists who are just

> trying to protect our health. Another hormone,

> Revlor H, is injected into cattle to get them to

> produce more meat. Margaret Hayden looked at the

> research on Revlor H and found enlarged ovaries,

> uterus and prostate, and shrunken thymus glands,

> which were very extreme warning signals. She tried

> to stop it and her boss, again, vetoed her and

> approved it anyhow. Another scientist agreed that it

> shouldn't be approved, and Don Landry, the Head of

> the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs said, " So what. They

> are just going to be slaughtered. " The scientist

> said, " What do you mean? They are going to be

> eaten. " There is some extreme financial pressure

> being exerted by industry on Health Canada.

>

> Early this year, the Canadian Senate Agriculture

> Committee was conducting its own evaluation of BGH,

> and when they heard Margaret Hayden's reports of

> bribery and of stolen documents, they were

> completely amazed. They didn't believe they were in

> Canada. When the Senate Agriculture Committee gave

> its interim report on BGH, one of the main

> recommendations was that there should be a very deep

> investigation of the relationship between Health

> Canada management and industry, because they are

> just too closely intertwined. Industry gives Health

> Canada money to do research. As a result,

> Health Canada looks on industry as its client and

> wants to keep its client happy, so it wants to

> process its requests for drug approvals very

> quickly. And that is basically what is going on.

> Finally, at the beginning of 1999, Health Canada

> decided that it couldn't push BGH through, but they

> still wouldn't admit that there were safety problems

> for humans, because they had already announced back

> in 1990 that it was safe.

>

> But that's not really the end of the story, because

> it is still being used in the U.S. The Consumer

> Union, Michael Hanson, and various public interests

> groups want an investigation into the approval

> process. It seems their approval process is what

> they call a 'revolving door policy'. Margaret Miller

> who did much of the research on BGH at Monsanto,

> was then hired by the Food and Drug Administration

> (FDA) of the US government, and then she ended up

> approving her own research on BGH. So it seems the

> whole approval process and the relationship between

> industry (particularly Monsanto) and government

> health departments both in Canada and in the U.S.

> are slimy.

> -------

> 3.Conspiracy to Silence

> Scientists Muzzled at Health Canada

> by Richard Wolfson, Ph.D.

>

http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lscientistsmuzzled.htm

>

> Reprinted with permission from the March 2001 issue

> of Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition

>

> There is war at Health Canada. On one side of the

> battlefield stands Dr Shiv Chopra and other drug

> evaluators who firmly refuse to approve drugs of

> questionable safety. On the other side stands the

> Drug Directorate management - influenced by

> pharmaceutical companies who wish to facilitate a

> fast-track of drugs to market.

>

> The battle erupted in 1998 with the evaluation of

> rBGH (genetically engineered bovine growth hormone).

> When rBGH is injected into dairy cattle, cows

> produce more milk. Chopra and other scientists

> uncovered research showing rBGH causes safety

> problems for animals and humans. Sparks flew when

> they would not approve the drug and the Senate

> Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry

> investigated the resulting commotion. The Committee

> called the scientists to testify. After hearing

> about the dangers of rBGH, the senators recommended

> that the drug not be approved - a decision Health

> Canada eventually agreed to.

>

> The Health Canada scientists also told the Committee

> about other drugs of questionable safety that had

> been approved against their advice including growth

> hormones for animals that had been

> allowed even though the drugs were known to produce

> deformities in animals and were linked t cancer!

>

> An Attempt to Silence

>

> Health Canada officials were frantic! Corruption in

> its drug approval process was exposed. How could it

> silence the dissenting scientists?

>

> On July 23, 1999, two months after Chopra spoke

> before the Senate his supervisor, Dr André Lachance,

> suspended him for five days without pay. But at the

> end of the same year another Senate committee began

> investigating whether the suspension was retaliation

> against Chopra for testifying before the Senate.

> Such retaliation is against the law. This

> investigation was stalled due to various events,

> including the disappearance of Dr Lachance, Director

> of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs - a key witness.

>

> Shortly before Lachance was to testify, his lawyer

> sent a letter stating that he was on stress leave

> and couldn't appear for questioning!

>

> At about the same time, the Federal Court of Canada

> investigated and removed a gag order that Health

> Canada imposed on Chopra in 1998 forbidding him from

> speaking to the press or in public about concerns

> regarding the health of Canadians being risked. The

> court ruled Chopra was justified in

> speaking to the public because he had first

> exhausted all possible government channels for

> voicing his very serious concerns.

>

> Grievance Hearings

>

> The Senate's investigation of the five-day

> suspension was stalled. In the meantime, Chopra

> filed a grievance with the Public Service Staff

> Relations Board (PSSRB) of Canada, claiming he was

> unfairly suspended. After various delays, including

> another failed attempt to get Lachance to testify,

> the PSSRB heard the grievance from November 28 to

> December 1, 2000.

>

> Government officials said that Chopra was suspended

> because he spoke critically of Health Canada in

> March of the previous year at a Heritage Canada

> meeting. This argument made little sense since

> Chopra had been making these same allegations for

> many years, criticizing Health Canada's record on

> racism. In fact Chopra had actually won a landmark

> case on the matter in the Canadian Human Rights

> Tribunal.

>

> The Plot Thickens

>

> The grievance hearings took an amazing twist with

> the testimony of Hugh Hards, Senior Human

> Resources Advisor at Health Canada, who unwittingly

> proved that there was a conspiracy on behalf of

> senior management to muzzle Chopra.

>

> Hards testified that he had attended the

> disciplinary meeting with Chopra purely as a witness

> to take notes. New documents surfaced that

> contradicted several points from his testimony. In

> fact, these documents showed that Hards had actually

> recommended Chopra's disciplinary action. More

> damning evidence showed that Hards had even compiled

> the questions asked at the meeting. Copies of

> e-mails and briefing notes from July 23 showed that

> after the meeting, he wrote the report that

> recommended disciplinary action. Hards, a member of

> senior management, who first said he had little role

> in the disciplinary meeting or the suspension, in

> fact, played a key role in both!

>

> Under cross-examination, he had no choice but to

> admit that his testimony contradicted the new

> evidence. He also admitted to altering his notes

> from the July meeting, after obtaining input from

> Lachance and another colleague from the Human

> Resources Branch (who was not even at the

> disciplinary hearing). Hards' testimony conveniently

> hid facts that proved senior management conspired

> against Chopra.

>

> This case illustrates enormous underlying corruption

> at Health Canada, with senior management

> dancing to the tune of industry pressure and

> coercion. Fortunately, Dr Chopra and other

> government whistleblowers are battling against these

> pressures in order to safeguard the safety and

> rights of Canadians.

>