| Help Us To Spread The Word. Just click the "Digg It" and "Shout It" buttons! | |
|
 |
 |
| | home | sign up | news tips | permalink | |
On the one hand you have the obvious issue. A massive pharmaceutical company, Roche, who just happen to be the makers of two rather prominent cancer treatments, Herceptin and Avastin, are funding Cancer United, a group dedicated to ensuring that all patients in all regions of Europe receive the best possible care and the newest possible treatments. Which all sounds great! On the other hand you have a board made up almost entirely of professionals from the very highest echelons of the medical profession, all of whom specialise in the fight against cancer. Highly qualified, highly motivated and highly talented. But the fly in the ointment looms large and hairy! However, before we examine the ointment, let me first tell you why is was torn. When a car safety improvement group is set up, one naturally assumes, if not actually wishes, that the car manufacturers will become involved in some way. When an animal welfare improvement group is set up, one will equally assume or wish for the farmers and veterinarians to be involved. It makes sense that the people and companies that are involved in the day to day business in question should be involved where the improvement of safety, quality or welfare for the "end-user" of their field of industry is being discussed. So why do I feel like a major pharmaceutical company should not be involved in a group that has been set up to improve cancer treatment? Well, there are a few things. Firstly, lets look a little more closely at that ointment! Amongst the aforementioned group of professionals is a lady called Catherine Steele. Catherine is International Head of Public Policy for Roche. Public Policy? Is there a public policy required for the uniting of medical professionals in the fight against cancer? That sounds fairly bad, doesn't it?! No? Ok, then how about this... Prior to taking on her role at Roche, Catherine worked as a lobbyist and consultant in government relations and communications specialising in health care. Let's break that down a little: A lobbyist is somebody who tries to, using almost any means these days, apply pressure to or gain favours from politicians and political groups. They have no interest in what is best for the end user of any such product or agreement that is made, instead they push whatever they have to "sell" regardless of what is best for anybody other than themselves and the people supplying them with the funding. Government relations and communications is, well, to cut a long story short, see the above answer! So, essentially, prior to getting an incredibly lofty position at one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, Catherine Steele was advising, no, pressurising political parties and persons into doing what her paymasters wanted them to do. I wonder who those paymasters might have been?!??! Now, and this is the part that I am particularly uncomfortable with, Catherine does not actually have any medical qualifications whatsoever... In fact, Catherine holds a Bachelor of Arts in French and Political Science and a Master of Arts degree in Political Science. French and politics...Hhmmm...Does a pan-European group of Oncologists really need that much help with their French?!??! Unlikely, so one can safely assume that Catherine is involved for her proven talents in lobbying and persuading political groups and persons into doing what her paymasters, Roche, want them to do. Not good... But it get worse... Do you remember Lynn "this balloon could be a potential death-trap" Faulds Wood of BBC's Watchdog fame? Think Scottish accent and padded shoulders? No, not to worry, it isn't important! What is important is that she is now the Chairman of the European Cancer Patients Coalition and NOT a member of the executive board of Cancer United. Why do I point that out? Because Cancer United, for reasons best known to themselves, chose to list her as a member of their executive board without ever having asked her! Not good either... Lynn Faulds Wood goes on to say "We have reservations about the transparency of the Cancer United initiative, which appears to have only one funder." And who can disagree with that?! The truth of the matter is that this group is having its launch ceremony in Brussels tomorrow and have also based their offices there for a very good reason. They are going to work together as a Roche-funded focus group with the Roche International Head of Public Policy there along the way to ensure that any recommendations (or lobbying) to the EU include the latest and, of course, very profitable products from Roche. This group only has one donor too...Guess who they are?! You got it...Roche! When a medical group that has only one non-medical member on its executive board is ONLY funded by the same company that member is employed by AND that member's entire career has been spent figuring out how to make politicians and political groups accept their "advice" AND the company that member works for has a VERY vested interest in ANY decisions that group makes, the very idea that the group can be relied upon to provide independent advice in an area as serious as cancer treatment for the whole of Europe is ridiculous and this group can clearly not be taken seriously. Let's all write to our MP's and ask them to guarantee in writing that all and ANY recommendations coming from Cancer United are taken with a liberal pinch of salt, shall we? Please feel free to send us a copy of any response you may get.
|
| Wednesday 18th October 2006 | The Guardian Original article entitled "Concern over cancer group's link to drug firm" | link | |
||
Cancer United, which is due to be launched with a fanfare in Brussels tomorrow, is being presented as a pioneering effort by a coalition of doctors, nurses and patients to push for equal access to cancer care across the EU. However, the campaign is being entirely funded by Roche, the maker of Herceptin and Avastin. A senior company executive sits on the board. The company's PR firm Weber Shandwick is the secretariat and has been heavily promoting it to clinicians and journalists. And the principal study on which it is based has been hotly contested - and was also funded by Roche. MEPs and the head of the European Cancer Patients Coalition have already withdrawn from Cancer United's executive board, amid concerns over the funding and lack of transparency. Roche last night strongly denied the campaign was in effect a marketing exercise. However, one of the UK's leading cancer experts, Michel Coleman from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told the Guardian he had grave concerns about Cancer United. "Governments will no doubt be pressed to fund a big increase in expenditure on cancer drugs - on the entirely spurious grounds that such an increase has been proven to increase national survival rates. I wonder if all the dignitaries on the executive board of Cancer United are aware of this murky background. "Cancer patient groups should think twice before accepting sponsorship from Cancer United." He is highly critical of the study that is central to the campaign. The report, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, links patient survival to the amount their government spends on drugs. Prof Coleman said the report represents "woefully simplistic research... This is clearly nonsense. For most cancers, higher survival results from earlier diagnosis and a combination of expert surgery and/or radiotherapy, as well as from the use of cancer drugs." Cancer United was expecting to launch in the European parliament itself but will now use the elegant Bibliotheque Solvay, which boasts of visits by UN general secretary Kofi Annan and Bill Gates. Tomorrow's meeting is chaired by the former ITN political editor, John Sergeant. In its promotional material, the campaign says it "brings together for the first time under one banner all parties concerned with the care of all cancer patients... in Europe." It aims to collect one million signatures and will press the European commission for an EU-wide strategy. But concern about Cancer United and the role of Roche - whose drugs include Herceptin, licensed for early and late-stage breast cancer, Avastin for bowel cancer and Tarceva for lung cancer - has been growing for weeks. One of the members of a small group called MEPs Against Cancer, Adamos Adamou, was invited to join the executive board and attended an early meeting, but pulled out. He and two fellow MEPs wrote to the chair of the executive board, Professor John Smyth from Edinburgh University, welcoming moves to raise awareness around the prevention of cancer but warning "we have reservations about the transparency of the Cancer United initiative, which appears to be solely funded by one pharmaceutical company. "It would seem that the secretariat is provided by a paid consultancy rather than an independent charitable organisation." This secretariat "would be well advised to identify themselves", the letter goes on. Lynn Faulds Wood, chairman of the European Cancer Patients Coalition, found herself listed as a member of the campaign's executive board without her agreement. She has asked to be removed. "We have reservations about the transparency of the Cancer United initiative, which appears to have only one funder," she said. Prof Coleman wrote a detailed critique of the Karolinska report in Cancer World, the magazine of the independent European School of Oncology. He was alarmed to find Roche had approached the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine seeking a senior academic to review the study's findings for the campaign launch to increase the report's academic credibility. "One can be highly critical of European inequalities in cancer survival - and I am critical - but attempting to manipulate public opinion or national cancer policies on the basis of poor science about the availability of cancer drugs is not the right strategy for addressing those inequalities," he said. Prof Coleman found the report seriously flawed and its conclusions "all wrong". The report has also been criticised by the UK cancer tsar, Mike Richards. Prof Smyth, who wrote the foreword to the Karolinska report, says the campaign for a debate on cancer care standards was his idea and is not solely based on drugs provision. He said he had a grant from Roche and had asked the company's head of international public policy to join the board, but added: "Somebody has got the idea that we might be in the pay of Roche or it might be a publicity stunt, but that couldn't be further from the truth. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate about having the support of industry. I wish people would stop seeing them as the enemy." Catherine Steel, Roche's head of international public policy, who is on the campaign's executive board, said: "The Cancer United campaign is about cancer care for patients. It is not about marketing for Roche." Weber Shandwick, the PR agency, acknowledged it was the campaign secretariat. "There is a grant from Roche but it is a first grant," said a spokeswoman. |
|
|
