HealthInternational panel calls for overhaul of WHO following Ebola crisis By Helen Branswell Nov. 22, 2015 Reprints Helen Branswell Ebola burial team members remove the body of Mekie Nagbe, 28, for cremation in Monrovia in October 2014. John Moore/Getty Images Independent Panel on the Global Response to Ebola It said the Geneva-based global health agency should strip itself of unnecessary programs and focus instead on efforts it is uniquely capable of handling. And it called on countries and donors to stop tying WHO funding to specific programs, noting that four of every five dollars the agency receives is earmarked by donors.Read more: 10 ways to protect against a global health disasterIn what seems like a coded indictment of the agency’s Director General, Dr. Margaret Chan, the panel’s report stressed that the WHO must be led by a strong leader unafraid of standing up to the agency’s member states. It also called for the creation of a global health committee within the UN Security Council to bring quick attention to emerging health crises.advertisement Ebola’s deadly tallyVolume 90%Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcutsKeyboard ShortcutsEnabledDisabledPlay/PauseSPACEIncrease Volume↑Decrease Volume↓Seek Forward→Seek Backward←Captions On/OffcFullscreen/Exit FullscreenfMute/UnmutemSeek %0-9 facebook twitter Email Linkhttps://www.statnews.com/2015/11/22/ebola-response-review/?jwsource=clCopied EmbedCopiedLive00:0000:3700:37 The recommendations were drafted by the Independent Panel on the Global Response to Ebola, drawn up of academics, think tank researchers, and leaders of nongovernmental organizations. Their report, published in the journal The Lancet, is one of a number of reviews assessing the Ebola response that have or will soon be released.While the report addressed the roles that should be played by individual governments, the United Nations, and others in the event of a global health crisis, its harshest criticism was leveled at Geneva. “The reputation and credibility of WHO has suffered a particularly fierce blow,” said the panel, which also focused most of its recommendations on reforms there.It added: “Our primary goal is to convince high-level political leaders worldwide to make necessary and enduring changes to better prepare for future outbreaks while memories of the human costs of inaction remain vivid and fresh.”The unprecedented outbreak was more than 10 times larger than all previous known Ebola outbreaks combined. The most recent figures suggest it killed at least 11,314 people and that at least 28,634 people were infected. Early last week it appeared the outbreak might be over. But on Friday Liberia reported three new cases, its first since the summer.Quick action will be critical to reforming the WHO, outside experts watching the process said. Effecting change is difficult and if reform is to flow from the aftermath of the Ebola crisis, the WHO will need to move swiftly to embrace a few key recommendations that can be pushed through, suggested Dr. Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, a British charity that funds biomedical research.Infectious diseases expert Michael Osterholm concurred. Osterholm, who heads the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy, said the momentum for reform will stall if the various groups critiquing the Ebola response draw up long wish lists. “There can’t be a list of 110 recommendations,” he said flatly.This panel issued 10, though several were made up of multiple parts. A number were aimed at strengthening the WHO’s emergency response capacity. While the panel demurred from advising the WHO on what programs it should cut, it did state firmly that responding to global health crises is one of the reasons the agency exists. About the Author Reprints Dr. Peter Piot, one of the panel’s cochairs and director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the head of the proposed center for emergency preparedness and response should report directly to the WHO director general and should be shielded from political pressure.The panel said countries that report disease outbreaks promptly should be publicly praised. Those that hold back information that puts the world at risk should be “named and shamed,” Piot said.The report also advises the WHO to publicly criticize countries that impose unwarranted trade and travel restrictions during outbreaks; the fear of those kinds of reprisals encourages affected countries to hide rather than disclose.The report does not directly criticize Chan, who declared Ebola a global emergency two months after Doctors Without Borders warned the situation was out of control. Three members of the panel interviewed by STAT sidestepped the question of whether the report’s multiple references to the need for a strong WHO leader was an indictment of the current director general. They said the panel wanted to look forward, not back.“Member states should insist on a director general with the character and capacity to challenge even the most powerful governments when necessary to protect public health,” the panel wrote. Internal emails obtained by the Associated Press suggested that the WHO was reluctant to declare the outbreak an emergency, fearing it would antagonize the affected countries.The WHO said it is already working to address some of the shortcomings that were raised in the report as well as in earlier appraisals of its Ebola response. “There were operational problems in early 2014 and that is what the reforms at WHO are all about. We are building the capacities to do that and moving from a technical/political organization to an operational one,” the agency said in a brief emailed statement when asked to comment on the report.Chan promised reform at the UN health agency’s annual general meeting last May.“I have heard what the world expects from WHO,” Chan said in her speech opening the World Health Assembly. “As director general of WHO, I am committed to building an organization with the culture, systems, and resources to lead the response to outbreaks and other health emergencies.”Chan’s second and final term ends on June 30, 2017, and would-be successors are likely already positioning themselves. Whether WHO member states will want an assertive and proactive director general remains to be seen, though recent history provides some cause for doubt.Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland headed the WHO during the 2003 SARS crisis. A former Norwegian prime minister, Brundtland made tough calls; under her, the WHO warned against unnecessary travel to China, Toronto, and other SARS-affected locations. The travel advisories were loathed by the countries named and won Brundtland no friends in their capitals. That tool has never been used since.“At the end of the day, countries are sovereign. They’re going to do what’s in their best interests,” acknowledged Dr. Ashish Jha, a panel cochair and director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “But the reason we have entities like the WHO is to be able to act in ways that are necessary for the world’s health, even when an individual country is thinking narrowly about its own short-term interest.”There have been other recent attempts to reform the WHO, notably after the SARS outbreak and the 2009 flu pandemic — which left some countries arguing that the global health agency had overreacted. But those efforts stalled when policymakers’ attention shifted to new crises.With the waning of the Ebola outbreak and the recent attacks on Paris and Beirut, global security concerns may put global health reform on the back burner. But if the world lets this opportunity slip, it will “remain wholly unprepared for the next epidemic,” the panel wrote in its report.Said Jha: “I don’t think we have a choice on this. I think letting this one go is not only a disservice to the people who died unnecessarily in West Africa, but it represents a huge vulnerability for all of us going forward.” @HelenBranswell This story was updated at 5:10 p.m., Nov. 23.The World Health Organization must be overhauled and countries worldwide must reassess their roles if they are to protect against future crises such as the West African Ebola outbreak, according to a major report released late Sunday by a panel of international experts.The group, convened by the Harvard Global Health Institute and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, called for a rebuilding of the WHO’s emergency response capacity, which has been crippled by funding cuts in recent years.advertisement Senior Writer, Infectious Disease Helen covers issues broadly related to infectious diseases, including outbreaks, preparedness, research, and vaccine development. “The reputation and credibility of WHO has suffered a particularly fierce blow.” Tags Ebolaglobal healthWorld Health Organization
Water does help to keep your liver and kidneys in tip-top shape. The body relies on the liver to pick up toxins from the bloodstream and convert them into water-soluable substances that can be excreted in urine. The kidneys help out, too. That’s a natural, everyday process, essential for life. Plain, old-fashioned water is a crucial ingredient to keep the system working. But adding cucumbers or mint doesn’t give the water extra power. And scientists say they don’t understand what special toxins the specialty waters are supposed to be helping you flush.“Nobody has really explained to me what toxins they’re getting rid of,” said Dr. Donald Hensrud, a nutrition researcher at the Mayo Clinic. “People talk about it as if it’s some big compound of chemicals we need to get rid of, and I’m not sure what they’re talking about.”advertisement Related: That hasn’t stopped companies from selling detox pitchers and water bottles, or bloggers from touting lists like “20 Delicious Detox Waters to Cleanse Your Body and Burn Fat.” Health celebrities have jumped on the trend, too. Oz brought fitness personality Kim Lyons onto his show to whip up some fat-flushing water. Michaels, the trainer on the popular TV show “The Biggest Loser,” shares a recipe for detox water she claims can help you lose up to five pounds in a week.The Kardashians are also on the bandwagon, with Khloe sharing her favorite detox water recipe (lemons, cucumber, mint) with her millions of Instagram followers. News Editor Detox waters are promoted by celebrities in the health and fitness world. Alissa Ambrose/STAT Celebrity selfies, lax regulations drive booming supplement industry HealthCan detox waters really flush your fat and toxins away? By Megan Thielking Jan. 5, 2016 Reprints Megan Thielking [email protected] Experts debate: Do we need tougher regulation of dietary supplements? Supermodel Miranda Kerr swears by another Dr. Oz-touted hydration trick — drinking warm water with lemon in the morning. Kerr has said the infused water “really helps kick up the digestion and it also cleanses the body and boosts the immune system.”Others promoting the health benefits of detox water claim that the body absorbs all the good vitamins seeping into the water from those orange and lemon slices, without the calories that come with actually eating a piece of fruit. “Basically, it’s like making your own ‘vitamin water,’ but without the cost or hidden ingredients,” the FAQ page on infusedwaters.com reads.But experts say it’s unclear how much benefit you’d actually get from drinking infused water.“The calories in there are minimal, though I’m not sure the water has no calories,” Hensrud said, “and that suggests that the other substances in there provide health benefits that are probably minimal, too.”Though they’re skeptical of the big claims, nutrition experts say detox waters aren’t harmful. And they may even have one benefit — they just may be tasty enough to get you to drink more plain, old-fashioned water. Slice and dice a few cucumbers, peel a tangerine and a grapefruit, toss in a few sprigs of mint, and you’ve got yourself a bona fide detox water, able to flush fat and toxins out of the body. At least, that’s what TV health personalities like Dr. Mehmet Oz and trainer Jillian Michaels have been touting. So, what makes detox water so magical?Pretty much nothing, scientists say.“More water makes the body’s job of flushing toxins easier,” said Cornell nutrition and chemistry professor Thomas Brenna, “but I can get that water from my tap.”advertisement Related: @meggophone About the Author Reprints Tags dietary supplementsnutritionweight loss
BusinessMylan, like other generic drugmakers, feels the pricing pain Mylan and its rivals that make generic drugs have been under pressure because of falling prices.Mylan is also dealing with a decline in sales for its EpiPen Auto-Injector, following a decision to start selling a lower-priced generic version. That decision was made after the cost of the devices drew scorn from parents nationwide and spawned Congressional inquiries.“Given the region’s ongoing challenges and the uncertain U.S. regulatory environment, we have elected to defer all major U.S. launches from our full year 2017 financial guidance to 2018, including generic Advair and generic Copaxone,” said CEO Heather Bresch. “As a result, we now expect to deliver total revenues this year of between $11.5 billion and $12.5 billion.”The previous projection from Mylan was for revenue of between $12.25 billion and $13.75 billion. Mylan may have overcharged taxpayers by $1.27 billion for EpiPens, HHS says Jeff Swensen/Getty Images Related: By Associated Press Aug. 9, 2017 Reprints Mylan offered EpiPen discounts to states in exchange for privileged status, documents show Per-share projections released Wednesday of between $4.30 and $4.70 are also down from earlier expectations of between $5.15 and $5.55.The expectations for all of fiscal 2018 were also trimmed, from $6 a share, to $5.40 a share.Citi analyst Liav Abraham said that Mylan’s struggles mimic earlier quarterly reports from others in the generic industry.“This morning’s earnings, while consistent with the larger generic players thus far (TEVA and Sandoz in particular), are nonetheless not particularly reassuring, and point to structural issues in the US generics landscape,” Abraham wrote.Mylan shares have declined 17 percent since the beginning of the year. Associated Press Related: Earnings, adjusted for non-recurring costs, came to $1.10 per share, well below the per-share estimates of $1.18 that Wall Street was seeking, according to a survey by Zacks Investment Research.Revenue surged 15.6 percent to $2.96 billion on higher sales in Europe, largely due to products now owned by Mylan after its buyout of the Swedish drugmaker, Meda. However, that too was short of analyst expectations.advertisement About the Author Reprints NEW YORK — Mylan’s second-quarter profit and revenue surged, but not as much as Wall Street had expected and the company is taking a more conservative view going forward because of “ongoing challenges and the uncertain U.S. regulatory environment.”Shares tumbled 5 percent and were trading close to four-year lows at the opening bell Wednesday.The generic drugmaker, which is incorporated in the United Kingdom but has its U.S. headquarters outside of Pittsburgh, said profit surged 76 percent to $297 million, or 55 cents per share.advertisement
Off the ChartsTwo little girls, two similar paths to medicine, but one difference: immigration By Jennifer Adaeze Okwerekwu Sept. 8, 2017 Reprints Related: But Raquel is a DACA recipient, and she told me on Wednesday that she is worried. How could she not be? If Congress or the president doesn’t act, her career is at stake, and our profession could lose the work of yet another primary care doctor.advertisement Related: Earlier this week, President Trump moved to end DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era policy that allows undocumented children who came to the U.S. with their parents a deferral on deportation and the ability to work. On Thursday, he tweeted that DACA recipients have “nothing to worry about” — for now.For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the 6 month period, you have nothing to worry about – No action!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2017 First wave of undocumented immigrants in medical schools face uncertain future Jennifer Adaeze Okwerekwu @JenniferAdaeze I’ve been thinking a lot lately about two little girls, one 6 and the other 8.Both girls came to America with their parents, who were looking for better opportunities in health care. Both girls watched their parents navigate the American health care system — in one case, as a patient in need of advanced medicine, and in the other, as providers in a profession uneasily reliant on immigrant doctors. Both girls took those experiences to Harvard, and then medical school, and finally, residency, serving patients from disadvantaged backgrounds.We’re basically the same, Raquel and I. We’re both American. We really don’t know any other country as our home. The only difference is that my family had visas, and then I became an American citizen. Raquel’s family didn’t.advertisement About the Author Reprints DACA recipients, also called “dreamers,” and undocumented people in the American health care system contribute to our nation in immeasurable ways, not the least of which is community health, Raquel’s calling. When it comes to people like her, I can’t help but wonder why America is trying to bite the hand that heals it.Raquel is unsure what comes next. Should nothing be in place for her to renew her work permit, she’s hoping the hospital she’s working for, and her residency director, will help her. She told me, “I would be willing to work for free to finish.”I really admire her. Raquel was one of the first undocumented medical students to match into residency under DACA. She has really pioneered uncharted waters. And she recognizes that it’s a bit of luck and timing that she happened to qualify for DACA in the first place — other children of undocumented adults, she said, for whatever reason, aren’t protected, and they should be.To that end, she’s started a nonprofit called fundscholar.org to help other students caught in immigration crosshairs get to where they want to go, or, she said, “just to have someone be supportive … that is important.” “Though it is concerning, it sucks more for the communities rather than the actual applicants,” Raquel told me, referring to the financial and emotional stability that children like her provide for their communities.True to her childhood experience, Raquel chose family practice for her residency, partly because she wanted to do it, but also because the residency can be completed in just three years, so the likelihood that she might not finish because of immigration issues was lessened. Related: Trump should consider the health consequences of immigration policy, not just economics ‘The fallout has been all around me’: How becoming a doctor has taken a mental toll Mike Reddy for STAT Tags educationphysician Columnist, Off the Charts Jennifer Adaeze Okwerekwu is a psychiatrist and a columnist for STAT. [email protected] She’s so right.Two little girls came to the U.S. with their parents. Both saw the role of community medicine in building health. Both lived in a country that expected more from them as women of color than other people, and both rose to that challenge. Both have struggled to find support in a medical system still trying to be more integrated, diverse, and inclusive. And, both have made it their life’s work to give back to the people in this country who need help the most.Yet, I get to pursue my dreams without fear of having to leave suddenly. I get to go to work each day, focused on my patients, focused on their health and well-being, and focused on becoming the best doctor I can be. I get to be an American, all the time, without question. Because of security I get from holding a U.S. passport.Something here just isn’t healthy. The president’s decision threatens to derail even this safety plan. DACA gives her a renewable work permit, and it expires just before her residency ends.Raquel and I matched into residency the same year. I’m asked multiple times a week about my plans for my career. Raquel’s dilemma has made me realize that my ability to freely design my own destiny is a luxury, one she said the ticking clock of her immigration status doesn’t afford her.Without DACA, or something akin to it, she may lose her right to work. If she doesn’t finish her residency, her options in the U.S. are limited. If she has to leave the country, she said she worries more about who she’ll leave behind.Raquel is frustrated. Her immigration status is always in the back of her mind, she said. She has little faith in the government she reluctantly trusted when DACA was put in place, when she handed over all her personal information for that work permit, for that residency, and for the ability to become a doctor in the only country she’s ever known.“I want to devote as much time as I can to the patients, and the work that I’m doing, and this is always happening on the side,” she told me at the end of a long evening in a mobile clinic in California, where she is based. We talked about the DREAM Act, legislation that would lessen immigration uncertainty for her and so many other medical students. It’s been bouncing around Congress in one way or another since we were in junior high. “Congress has had 16 years to work something out. I would be shocked if something were done in the next six months.”Becoming a doctor is one of the hardest things I’ve ever done. The demands of education and training have dominated my near 30 years of life and I can’t imagine being so close to the finish line and then being disqualified at the last second. It makes no sense on both an emotional and practical level.
Pharmalot Pharmalittle: Allergan CEO says Mohawk deal wasn’t ‘desperation’; pharma layoffs are rising @Pharmalot Hello, everyone, and how are you today? We are doing just fine, thank you, despite the gloomy clouds hovering over the Pharmalot campus. Sunny spirts are in order because, as the Morning Mayor schooled us: Every brand new day should be unwrapped like a precious gift. Words to live by, yes? While you think it over, please join us for yet another delicious cup of stimulation. And of course, here are your tidbits. Have a wonderful day and do keep in touch …Allergan (AGN) chief executive officer Brent Saunders told Mad Money there has been “a lot of misunderstanding” about the controversial deal to transfer Restasis patent rights to the St. Regis Mohawk tribe. “It wasn’t desperation, it was tenacity. … And I think people got confused that said because I believe in strong intellectual property, I don’t believe in making medicines affordable and accessible, and one has nothing to do with the other.” Alex Hogan/STAT Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free! GET STARTED About the Author Reprints What is it? What’s included? GET STARTED By Ed Silverman Nov. 2, 2017 Reprints STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Tags jobslegalpharmaceuticalspharmalittleSTAT+ Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. Log In | Learn More Ed Silverman Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry. [email protected]
The recent revelation that a leading official at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center failed for years to disclose lucrative financial conflicts of interest might have been surprising in its scale. But it’s old news that many researchers aren’t fully transparent when it comes to their financial relationships with industry.So why should we keep up the charade? And why, given the clarity of the problem, do medical journals continue to take authors at their word — only to wind up looking like dupes?According to an investigation by ProPublica and The New York Times, Dr. José Baselga — who was chief medical officer of the venerable cancer clinic until resigning Thursday — has what can charitably be described as an inconsistent personal policy on revealing companies that have given him cash or other potentially lucrative fillips. Baselga also has stayed mum about his conflicts of interest — which also involve research funding and seats on advisory boards — in many of his publications, including those in high-rent titles like the New England Journal of Medicine, and despite policies from the journals demanding that authors reveal such relationships.advertisement So as a first step, journals should publish those forms. Second, just as nearly every publisher now screens submissions for evidence of plagiarism, it’s time the journals do the same for conflicts of interest.Journals already have some of the tools they need to look for conflicts. A 2010 law, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, established a government database called Open Payments to disclose industry payments to physicians. Dollars for Docs, from ProPublica, also tracks these ties. However, neither database, as Matthew Herper at Forbes has noted, catches participation on corporate boards or work on drugs or devices that the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t yet approved. Nor do they include patents for relevant discoveries, which a comprehensive repository should house.The Baselga affair and others illustrate how flawed the system is, but even when journals do learn of undisclosed conflicts of interest, they tend to respond weakly. Although the Committee on Publication Ethics says failure to disclose a major conflict of interest can be grounds for retraction, journals almost always choose to issue corrections instead. At the time of this writing, our database of retractions shows 114 removals of papers for undeclared conflicts of interest, less than 1 percent of the more than 18,000 total retractions, and most of those include other reasons without which the article more than likely wouldn’t have been retracted. That sends the message to authors and readers alike that journals don’t take these issues seriously.It seems clear, then, that it is time to take this responsibility away from journals, or at least add another layer. What’s needed is a single pool of conflicts data — one that captures cash payments, patents, stock holdings, board seats (both corporate and foundations), funding sources for research — against which editors can screen authors. Given that unscrupulous or indifferent authors are likely to omit potential conflicts, the burden of tracking them on an individual level must be as automated as possible. The names of authors would be linked to their entries in the database, so any reader could click and judge what’s relevant and what isn’t. Dr. José Baselga Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center via Creative Commons Comparing the Covid-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson The WatchdogsWhy do medical journals keep taking authors at their word? We note that this will not be a simple task, and would probably be best tried as a pilot program first, in a small area of research, with some government or foundation funding. The system also needs some sticks. Journals could let authors know that if they find out about relevant conflicts later, they won’t publish work by that author until the database is complete. A version of that approach has worked when it comes to pre-registration of clinical trials, although it took an act of Congress to really cement that incentive — and as STAT has shown, sharing data itself on that platform isn’t quite there yet.Of course, and this point is critical, a disclosed — or even an undisclosed — potential conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that a study, guideline, or bit of clinical advice is unreliable. Indeed, scientists often are highly sought after by industry because they have a reputation for integrity, fairness, and expertise in their field. Yet evidence shows that physicians who take money from industry are more likely to prescribe brand-name (and therefore more expensive, generally) medications. And, as ProPublica found, the more money, the greater the effect on prescribing habits.But as the ethicist Art Caplan of New York University tweeted in response to the Baselga news: “We have yet to figure out what [conflict of interest] means or how to manage it in a health care world where industry ties are everywhere.” The trick, to paraphrase Bruce Springsteen, is not to be blind to those ties that bind. Related: Journals that don’t publish such forms are telling readers that the only judgment of whether a conflict is relevant is theirs. They’re also leaving it unclear whether — when a conflict such as Baselga’s is found — it was the author who didn’t declare it, or the journal that didn’t find it important enough to mention.advertisement By Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus Sept. 14, 2018 Reprints Authors of premier medical textbook didn’t disclose $11 million in industry payments To be fair, some of the reason we know that Baselga wasn’t fessing up was because some journals — including the NEJM — publish conflict-of-interest disclosure forms that authors submit. That’s not a uniform practice; the Journal of the American Medical Association doesn’t, and in at least one case declined to release the form when pressed by a reporter. Trending Now: Tags ethicsphysicians
Great Hall of the People in Beijing FRED DUFOUR/AFP/Getty Images Tags biotechnologyChinaCRISPRethicsSTAT+ What’s included? About the Author Reprints BEIJING — A powerful new national medical ethics committee, which will approve all clinical trials involving high-risk biomedical technologies, is at the center of a regulatory shakeup Chinese authorities are planning in the aftermath of the widely condemned “CRISPR babies” experiment, STAT has learned.The technologies that will be regulated by the ethics committee are often new and are deemed risky either because of safety or moral concerns. They will include not only gene editing, but also cloning, cell therapy, xenotransplantation, mitochondrial replacement, and nanotechnology. GET STARTED Jane Qiu What is it? Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. Log In | Learn More STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Exclusive By Jane Qiu March 5, 2019 Reprints China creating national medical ethics committee to oversee high-risk clinical trials [email protected] @janeqiuchina Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free! GET STARTED
Pharmalot Ed Silverman By Ed Silverman March 15, 2019 Reprints Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the pharma industry — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED [email protected] @Pharmalot Log In | Learn More Doctors Without Borders blasts coalition working on vaccine development A feud has broken out between the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Doctors Without Borders, which accused the public-private coalition devoted to vaccine development of watering down a policy for equitable access to any treatments.Despite several pleas by Doctors Without Borders, CEPI declined to reinstate portions of its original access policy. The guidelines were adopted at the time the coalition was created in 2017 in the wake of the Ebola virus, with backing from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and several governments, among others. What is it? Carolyn Kaster/AP Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry. GET STARTED STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. About the Author Reprints Tags public healthSTAT+Vaccines Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. What’s included?