Not-So-Public Relations -Eli Lilly

[Guest guest]

From Wolff

http://www.prwatch.org/spin/index.html

Not-So-Public Relations

The standard treatment for sepsis, an infection of the blood,

costs $50 per day, but Eli Lilly has a new drug out called

Xigris, which may not be any better than older treatments but

costs $6,800 per treatment. That’s not exactly an easy sell,

but Lilly has hired a PR firm to launch a campaign called " The

Ethics, the Urgency and the Potential, " whose premise is that

it is " unethical not to use the drug. " " To reinforce the point, "

writes Carl Elliott, " Lilly has funded a $1.8 million project

called the ‘Values, Ethics & Rationing in Critical Care Task

Force,’ in which bioethicists and physicians from various

American medical schools will examine the ethics of rationing

certain drugs and services. It is a brilliant strategy. There is no

better way to enlist bioethicists in the cause of consumer

capitalism than to convince them they are working for social

justice. ... It’s no mystery, then, why pharmaceutical

companies want to brand themselves with bioethics. But do

bioethicists really want to brand themselves with Pharma? To

take only one example: The pharmaceutical sponsors of the

University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics and its faculty’s

projects are now facing multimillion dollar fraud sanctions

(AstraZeneca), a Nigerian lawsuit for research abuse (Pfizer),

massive class-action payouts (Wyeth-Ayerst), a criminal

probe into obstruction of justice (Schering Plough), an ongoing

fraud lawsuit (Merck and Medco), and allegations of

suppressing research data on suicide in children

(GlaxoKline). " Source: Slate, December 15, 2003

--

Wulff

Coalition for a Safe Lab

P.O. Box 1803

Hamilton MT 59840

http://www.oiruco.com

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

vaccineinfo@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL

OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE

DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.

******

" Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down.

Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy

knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information

and religions destroy spirituality " .... Ellner

[Guest guest]

On the same page...but further down:

http://www.prwatch.org/spin/index.html

(pardon me if this is a repeat)

Kimberley

Saturday, December 13, 2003

Drug Companies Fund Patient Advocacy Groups

" Pharmaceutical companies are pouring millions of dollars into patient

advocacy groups and medical organisations to help expand markets for their

products. They are also using sponsorships and educational grants to fund

disease-awareness campaigns that urge people to see their doctors. Many

groups have become largely or totally reliant on pharmaceutical industry

money, prompting concerns they are open to pressure from companies pushing

their products. An investigation by The Age newspaper has found: An

awareness campaign run by the National Asthma Council was spearheaded by a

cartoon dragon that was the registered trademark of a drug company used to

promote one individual asthma medication. A drug company used a public

relations firm to set up an expert medical board to persuade people they

needed hepatitis A and B vaccinations. The company was not interested in

raising awareness about hepatitis C because it did not sell a vaccine for

the disease. " Source: Sydney Morning Herald, December 13, 2003

[Guest guest]

Kimberley Medlin

Full text:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/12/1071125652945.html

Drug firms fund disease awarenessBy and Liz Minchin

December 13, 2003

Pharmaceutical companies are pouring millions of dollars into patient

advocacy groups and medical organisations to help expand markets for their

products.

They are also using sponsorships and educational grants to fund

disease-awareness campaigns that urge people to see their doctors.

Many groups have become largely or totally reliant on pharmaceutical

industry money, prompting concerns they are open to pressure from companies

pushing their products.

An investigation by The Age newspaper has found: An awareness campaign run

by the National Asthma Council was spearheaded by a cartoon dragon that was

the registered trademark of a drug company used to promote one individual

asthma medication.

A drug company used a public relations firm to set up an expert medical

board to persuade people they needed hepatitis A and B vaccinations. The

company was not interested in raising awareness about hepatitis C because it

did not sell a vaccine for the disease.

Treatment guidelines issued by Australian doctors for some diseases are

being modelled by those developed by international groups entirely funded by

pharmaceutical companies selling drugs for those same diseases.

Groups funded by pharmaceutical companies are helping lobby the federal

Government to have new drugs added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

The health policy officer with the Australian Consumers' Association, Martyn

Goddard, who is a former member of the federal Pharmaceutical Benefits

Advisory Committee, said pharmaceutical companies had far too much influence

over many consumer groups.

" Drug companies find it very easy to recruit consumer groups and they do it

very cheaply, " he said.

" There's almost no such thing as clean money for most consumer

organisations. "

The total amount of money flowing into patient groups and medical bodies in

Australia is unclear. The most recent figure available from the industry

body Medicines Australia shows that drug companies spent between $20 million

and $25 million on philanthropic causes in 1999, which mostly covered

payments to such groups.

One medical specialist involved in an organisation totally sponsored by drug

companies described the situation as like " dancing with the devil " .

There are no independent regulations covering drug company sponsorship deals

and grants with patient groups in Australia.

Voluntary guidelines developed by Medicines Australia are now being

independently reviewed by Swinburne University. The review is being funded

by Medicines Australia and individual drug companies.

A South Australian general practitioner, Dr Mansfield, who runs the

internationally renowned Healthy Skepticism website, which exposes

pharmaceutical marketing techniques, said the hijacking of patient groups

had become a huge problem.

" To be an advocate for people with those conditions, those organisations

ought to be free to criticise the drug companies - just as they ought to be

free to criticise doctors if we are not doing our jobs properly, " he said.