The New York Times today published an op-ed piece blasting research that tests the comparative effectiveness of pharmaceuticals. The piece failed to mention that its author, Peter Pitts, is a senior vice president at the PR firm of Manning, Selvage and Lee. Pitts has a history of flacking as an attack dog for the pharmaceutical industry and currently heads a pharma front group called the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. Physician Roy M. Poses of the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine has written a critique of the "slippery slope" rhetoric in Pitts' editorial. "It is disappointing that a newspaper as influential as the New York Times would publish a health policy article without disclosing all the author's relevant financial interests, particularly one so relevant and direct," Poses adds. "Fostering more stealth health policy advocacy in ever more influential venues will just make the already confusing clamor about health care and its reform even muddier."

"If I had to do it all over again, I don't think I would use the Ontario system," said Canadian cancer patient Lindsay McGreith. "I would get my wife to drive me to Buffalo, because I know in Buffalo you'd get looked after, whereas here you'd just sit for seven and a half hours. ... Our system is lousy." McGreith's comments are in a soundbite and B-roll video package (basically, an unassembled video news release) distributed by the PR firm MultiVu and funded by Health Care America, which is funded in part by pharmaceutical and hospital companies. It's part of an organized industry response to the Michael Moore movie "Sicko." Another MultiVu fake news video, which was funded by America's Health Insurance Plans, promotes a "public-private" health care system and decries Moore's single-payer proposal as an unpopular, "simplistic" and unrealistic "public takeover of the healthcare system."

From the SiCKO website"A multifaceted counteroffensive against Michael Moore's film about the health care industry" is beginning, reports Elizabeth Solomont. To counter the movie Sicko, "free market think tanks and the drug companies are already mobilizing. ... Several organizations staging responses to 'Sicko' receive funding from pharmaceutical companies, including the Manhattan Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Pacific Research Institute," notes Solomont, citing SourceWatch. "It definitely has to be rebutted," said the Pacific Research Institute's Sally Pipes. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's Ken Johnson called the film a "biased, one-sided attack." Health Care America, "whose Web site says it is funded in part by pharmaceutical manufacturers," held a conference call with reporters, "to discuss what Michael Moore left out of his movie." A press release from FreedomWorks says the conservative lobbying group will also weigh in, with its "nationwide grassroots army ... handing out information at movie theaters that exposes Moore's hypocrisy, points out the problems associated with government-run health care, and promotes the FreedomWorks solution of removing existing government barriers that prevent Americans from being able to use the free market to choose the care that suits their individual needs."

Cancer United, a cancer patient group created and launched by the PR firm Weber Shandwick with funding from the drug company Roche, has got off to a rocky start. On its website the group states that it aims to run an 18-month-long campaign for more uniform cancer treatments across the European Union. However, before the group was launched, it was revealed that the study it relies on was also funded by Roche. The study by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm argues that survival rates increase the more a country spends on drugs. Michel Coleman from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine told the Guardian that the study was "woefully simplistic research." A Labor member of parliament, Ian Gibson, resigned from the group after discovering Roche's role. "I feel very silly and stupid," he said. The press conference convened in Brussels to announce the new group was "sparsely attended."