PR firm Weber Shandwick
For setting up a front group to advance the interests of pharmaceutical giant Roche while pretending to work for better access to cancer care.
Cancer United was launched in Brussels on 19th October 2006. While claiming to represent a coalition of doctors, nurses and patients pushing for equal access to cancer care in the EU, it is in fact a front group set up for pharma giant Roche by PR firm Weber Shandwick (who run the campaign’s secretariat). When Cancer United recruited board members and reached out to the press and clinicians, they did not say a word about being entirely funded by Roche, the world’ biggest manufacturer of cancer drugs.
The Cancer United campaign aims to collect a million signatures and press the European Commission for an EU-wide strategy on cancer treatment. It all appears to be deceptive lobbying to increase government expenditure on cancer drugs. An increase that would help Roche’s bottom line: it makes Herceptin – for breast cancer, Avastin for bowel cancer and Tarceva for lung cancer.
A key weapon of Cancer United is a report by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, which was also funded by Roche and links patient survival to the amount spent on drugs by governments. According to a leading UK expert on cancer, Michel Coleman, it is seriously flawed and its conclusions are all wrong.
Concerns about the source of funding and its lack of transparency – boosted after the unmasking of Weber Shandwick and Roche´s role by the Guardian – are causing a stampede. MEPs, the head of the European Cancer Patients Coalition and the UK Prime Minister’s former spokesman are among those who quickly withdrew from the executive board.
Vote for Weber Shandwick for deception about the role of ROCHE
Links:
Concern over cancer group’s link to drug firm, by Sarah Boseley, The Guardian, 18th October 2006
Support for cancer group naive, says MP, Sarah Boseley and David Gow, The Guardian, 20th October 2006
Rob wrote on 02-11-2005:
! ! ! Access to this website is blocked to anyone trying to access it from one of the nominates' company server, this is so cheap technique! (Hello! Internet has reached homes already!)
.... I would not be surprised if my comment was 'accidentally' erased as well.
I find the Awards initiative very interesting, but I regret its credibility is undermined by this "do what I say, but not what I do" attitude.
What do the organisers fear? That nominates' employees make use of their freedom of speech?
Before giving lessons about transparency, it might be a good idea to put their own acts right, don't you think so?
But who am I to question this? After all NGOs are the good guys and Industry the bad guys, right? as simple as that, right?
vincent wrote on 02-11-2005:
Bon, créer une fausse ONG pour ses besoins est soit particulièrement habile soit particulièrement retors, selon le point de vue. Pour ma part je pense qu'être à ce point incapable de faire preuve de jugement moral dans l'exercice de ses fonctions reflète un état de délabrement psychologique avancé. Je voterai donc pour Weber & Shandwick, et propose comme prix un séjour de deux semaines pour une personne à la campagne ou un quelconque autre endroit où ces malheureux zombies du pouvoir pourront retrouver leur estime d'elles-mêmes!
Vincent Vega wrote on 02-11-2005:
Let's face it - that wasn't Weber Shandwick's first
or last "coup d'UE". They're lobbying people that just don't have a clue what they're dealing with. That's politicians.
Tamiflu, Roche's avian flu fighting drug, is
a text book case for that.
maren hahlbeck wrote on 02-11-2005:
die Instrumentalisierung wohltätiger&sozialer Zwecke wie Krankenversorgung finde ich besonders perfide. Genauso perfide wie die Biotechlobby, die behauptet die Welternährung wäre nur mit Gentechnik sicherzustellen.
chris wrote on 01-11-2005:
The reach of these lobbists in the disguise of early diagnosis influences people's minds (not only when it comes to cancer diagnosis) - and thereby hinders reforms of public health sectors. Although I am a 100% advocat of a free market economy this constitutes a remarkable example of how a company's goal of maximizing profits contradicts the collective well-being.
June wrote on 01-11-2005:
People pushing for cancer "treatment", whoever they are, are missing the point- cancer prevention is down to nutrition and environment - not glossy,not expensive, just careful living.
Lobster wrote on 01-11-2005:
Kaiser, are you funded by Roche?
Kaiser wrote on 01-11-2005:
Err, surely this is only really a problem if Roche are the only people making cancer drugs? If it was specific for their products alone, fair 'nuff, but doesn't sould that bad to me
Joanne wrote on 01-11-2005:
the more intransparency and professional cheat, the worse.
Carlos wrote on 01-11-2005:
I agreed with Ruis...The esoul is the most especial thing that human individuals have. Down with the money long live the piece and love...I prefer to be happy in my esandals than esad in espensive gucci loafers.
goto page: 1 2