Talk:Campaign for Fighting Diseases

This description of the Campaign for Fighting Diseases is riddled with defamatory, libelous and misleading statements. It shows that Sourcewatch is opposed to proper research and has no integrity. The fact that these accusations have been posted without even an attempt to communicate with the Campaign suggests malice on the part of the contributors. I have therefore removed the post.

1) IPN, the CFD’s coordinator, is funded by a wide range of individuals, foundations and businesses and that it is not beholden to any of them

2) CFD is not a ‘lobbying’ group, because lobbying involves pressurizing legislatures to alter specific pieces of legislation. We have almost no direct contact with politicians and governments, and exist as a campaign to educate the public about the need for more market-oriented approaches to global health issues.

3) We have never ‘lobbied’ against the establishment of pharmaceutical industries in developing countries. This is an absurd claim without foundation. Indeed, we have published papers that support competition in the supply of medicines, whether on patent or off; such competition leads to better, less expensive products. However, we are concerned about the use of public funds to establish and subsidise industries in poor countries, since this undermines the competitive process. We are especially concerned when such subsidies might go towards the production of sub-standard and dangerous drugs, including drugs that have not undergone proper clinical trials. Does Sourcewatch support the use of taxpayers’ money to subsidise such drugs, when the risks to patient safety are so grave?

4) The claim that we do not consider AIDS to be a serious health problem is malicious and is contradicted by the very source the contributor cites. If the contributor had bothered to take even a cursory look at the material we have produced, he or she will have learnt that we have always considered AIDS to be a serious problem, but we have questioned the strategic direction and apparent rent-seeking behaviour of some of the intergovernmental agencies charged with tackling the disease. Does Sourcewatch believe such bureaucracies are beyond criticism? For example: http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/articles.php?articles_id=279; http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/articles.php?articles_id=477; http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/articles.php?articles_id=527; http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/articles.php?articles_id=677; http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/articles.php?articles_id=687; http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/articles.php?articles_id=688;

5) It is true we do not fight diseases directly, as you state, but that is because we are an awareness-raising campaign and such activities are not within our mission, and nor did we ever claim them to be. There is no contradiction there. But contrary to what you allege, many of our advisors have medical degrees, such as Professor Sir Colin Berry, Dr. Alphonse Crespo, Professor William Keatinge, and Professor The Lord McColl. Our other advisors are highly qualified, respected, and eminent in their fields. http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/about.php?content_id=1. The fact that you make such a claim when it so readily rebutted makes one wonder about how many other lies there are within the pages of Sourcewatch.

The CFD came into existence partly as a corrective to the domination of global public health by a dogmatic, statist mindset that believes more and bigger government intervention is the only solution to the myriad health problems faced by poor countries - exemplified by this feebly-researched and malicious Sourcewatch article. This mindset continues to exist in spite of the voluminous evidence which details how governments and public health systems have systematically failed to deliver health care in much of the developing world.

If Sourcewatch is really interested in the plight of poor people, it would welcome our contribution to this debate instead of posting in public fora innuendo-laden and libelous articles which appear to be purposefully designed to mislead the public.

disputed language

I'm moving disputed language from the article page here. It can be moved back, after additional research is done to confirm (or deny) the claims and references are added.
Thanks,
Diane Farsetta 11:16, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

It lobbies against the establishment of pharmaceutical industries in developing countries that would compete against its multinational funders[1]. The CFD claims that AIDS is not a serious health problem [2] and that cheaper AIDS drugs are not needed.

Despite its name, the Campaign for Fighting Diseases and its parent the International Policy Network do not directly employ any staff with any medical qualifications whatsoever and the CFD conducts no activities to fight diseases.

I removed the reference to the spinwatch article because firstly it misrepresented John Blundell, and second because it no longer appears on the Times website, where it was originally published. They rarely remove archived material without a good reason.