The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is seen by many Americans as a group of neutral government experts who set out to provide the public with honest, reliable, unbiased health information. And as the group is supported by taxpayers at a cost of $28 billion a year, this is exactly what one would expect.

However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that NIH members, some who travel the world encouraging doctors to prescribe certain medications, advise federal regulators and write articles for well-known medical journals, are not the unbiased resource they claim to be.

According to records, at least 530 government scientists at the NIH have taken fees, stock or stock options from biomedical companies in the last five years.

Even NIH leader Dr. H. Bryan Brewer Jr., who was part of the team responsible for the nation's new cholesterol guidelines that left millions more Americans taking cholesterol drugs, is not immune. From 2001 to 2003, Brewer accepted $114,000 in consulting fees from four companies making or developing cholesterol medications, including $31,000 from the maker of the controversial Crestor.

Other examples of conflict of interest at the NIH uncovered by The Los Angeles Times include:

• A senior psychiatric researcher who took $508,050 in fees from Pfizer while collaborating with the drug company regarding Alzheimer's disease. He later endorsed the use of an Alzheimer's drug marketed by Pfizer.

• A laboratory director at the National Cancer Institute who was working with a company trying to develop an ovarian cancer test, who then took $70,000 as a consultant to the company's rival.

• The NIH's top blood transfusion expert who accepted $240,200 in fees and 76,000 stock options over the last five years from companies developing blood-related products.

The NIH does not require that these potential conflicts of interest be exposed, which may explain why even the NIH's director was unaware of the extent to which agency scientists have been receiving industry money.

Inquiries made by Congress along with uncovered documents have revealed over 150 such relationships that do not appear to have required NIH approval.

Many are outwardly concerned that the NIH members' ties to industry make it nearly impossible to make impartial recommendations and fulfill what the agency calls its mission: "To extend healthy life and to reduce the burdens of illness and disability."

Yet NIH Director Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, while acknowledging that some "improper" deals have been made, continues to argue in favor of allowing agency scientists to consult for industry and, as reported by the Times, has said that "supplemental income from industry fees can help the NIH retain talented scientists. "

Los Angeles Times December 22, 2004

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

We've seen the many recent examples of federal agencies charged with protecting the public health taking it on the chin from the FDA (thanks to my newest hero Dr. David Graham) to the Institutes of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Now, it's the National Institutes of Health (NIH) turn in the spotlight and, folks, the news isn't any better.

A trio of articles featured in the Los Angeles Times detailed the blurring of the greater good -- supposedly the optimal health of Americans -- at the NIH when commerce -- meaning Big Pharma -- so obviously taints the decision-making process.

So, if you have no doubts that drug you may be taking is completely safe, consider this: According to the above article, more than 500 government scientists at the NIH have taken fees, stock or stock options from biomedical companies over the past five years!

Apparently, that's not a problem to NIH Director Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni who has told Congress outside work by NIH scientists should be allowed if "the scientist is giving advice in an area ... that is not part of his official duties."

Also, if you're not convinced the power of greed as wielded by Big Pharma doesn't have an affect on the toxic drugs you read about on my Web site or see or advertised in the media, take a look at some of the article's examples of the six-figure sums and stock options paid to NIH scientists.

Taxpayers -- that means you and me -- fund the NIH's current $28 BILLION budget. Its ongoing mission: To extend healthy life and to reduce "the burdens of illness and disability" by overseeing research.

What a sham ... and what a shame!