[Ip-health] IPN is not a front group, is CPTech?

[Julian]

Jamie

The accusation that IPN is a corporate front group is utterly false -- and
you know it. Below I have copied our response to Sourcewatch's false,
misleading and defamatory claims. We have been blocked from altering the
IPN entry on their supposedly open site, but we are posting this on our
site.

Regarding the use of the Civil Socierty Report by IFMPA: If the government
of Kenya used the words you wrote during its interventions at the World
Health Assembly, would you say that CPTech was a front group for one of
the World's more corrupt governments?

BTW the Civil Society Report was in fact published by 16 civil society
groups around the world. IPN was of the lead groups but we were not alone:
the views are widely shared by people who believe in markets and their
underlying institutions.

Julian

http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/sourcewatch-IPN.pdf

False, Misleading and Defamatory claims by Sourcewatch about International
Policy Network

The Sourcewatch website contains many factually incorrect and misleading
statements about International Policy Network, some of which are also
defamatory. For example, it claims that
=93The International Policy Network (IPN) is a corporate front group based
in the UK.=94
In fact, as we point out on our website:
=95=09International Policy Network (IPN) is a nonprofit research and
educational organisation, supported by charitable gifts from individuals,
foundations and businesses.
=95=09IPN=92s work is motivated and guided by principles. We hold that the
institutions of the free society are the best way to empower individuals,
to promote respect for people and property, and thereby to eliminate
poverty, improve human health and protect the environment.
=95=09IPN implements a research and advocacy agenda that encompasses not on=
e
or a few, but many public policy issues.
=95=09IPN=92s work stands on its own merit, through the scholarly integrity=
 of
our authors, rigorous documentation of findings, and a peer review process
appropriate to ensure quality.
=95=09IPN develops its research and advocacy agenda independently, through
internal research and brainstorming. On the basis of this agenda, we
produce fundraising proposals, which are then submitted to potential
donors.
=95=09IPN=92s agenda is neither dictated nor compromised by outside financi=
al
sources.  We are never a =93front group=94 for any donor or industry.
=95=09IPN does not accept contributions intended to =93purchase=94 a predet=
ermined
research outcome or in any way compromise the intellectual integrity of
our work.
=95=09IPN does not accept contributions from governments or political parti=
es.
=95=09IPN is nonpartisan.  Our work is made available to the public without
regard to political party affiliation.  We do not endorse candidates or
parties.  We offer praise or criticism in accordance with our findings and
principles, and without regard to political affiliation.
=95=09IPN is committed to the free flow of information and a spirited debat=
e
that focuses on ideas, not personalities.
In other words IPN categorically is NOT a corporate front group. The claim
that we are is false and defamatory.
Further, it claims
=93Set up in 2001, the network's main work is to promote the views of
pharmaceutical, software and oil companies.=94
Again, this is an outrageous and defamatory lie. See our statement above.
It claims that:
=93A thinly-disguised attack on IPN's activities appeared in a letter in th=
e
Financial Times by none other than one of the IPN's trustees, John
Blundell. [1] (http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=3Dnews&ID=3D223)=94
This was not an attack on IPN and it is clearly preposterous to suggest
that it was. John Blundell responded to a similarly bizarre claim in a
letter published in The Times in December of last year, which is
reproduced below:
Sir, Paul Staines rightly criticises lobbyists who masquerade as policy
wonks (Thunderer, Dec 20). The purchase by companies of particular policy
recommendations from groups pretending to be independent think-tanks is
disgraceful. That is why International Policy Network, a UK charity of
which I am a trustee, has a strict policy of not allowing its donors to
influence the conclusions of its policy work, and a strict conflict of
interest policy. If anyone at IPN were to accept money for the writing of
articles pushing specific policy ideas on behalf of corporate clients,
they would be swiftly dismissed.

Staines has done a disservice to those who believe in economic and
political liberty by attacking IPN with false claims about its motives.
IPN works on a range of issues where such liberty is threatened by global
and local policies. Most of our more than 150 donors are individuals and
foundations. We also receive contributions from businesses, but none is
tied to the production of particular papers, let alone the delivery of
specific policy recommendations. We are, of course, always looking for new
donors and would welcome contributions from wealthy investors like Mr
Staines, so long as they don=92t seek to influence what we say.

JOHN BLUNDELL
Chairman of the trustees,
International Policy Network
London WC2
(John is not in fact the Chairman of the Trustees, this was a mistake made
by the editors at The Times.)
Even when it makes true statements, the implications of Sourcewatch=92s
claims are often intended to be insidious. For example:
=93The IPN is connected with the White House Writers Group, a for-profit
corporate lobbying company (the senior director[2]
(http://www.whwg.com/thefirm/WritersBio.cfm?StaffId=3D24) at the White Hous=
e
Writers Group is also a trustee of the IPN).=94
It is true that Daniel Oliver, a member of the Board of our US charity
(IPN US, Inc) is also affiliated with the White House Writer=92s Group
(WHWG). The Hon. Mr Oliver was also formerly the head of the Federal Trade
Commission, has been a friend of Professor Morris=92s for about 10 years an=
d
a friend of IPN=92s Board members for much longer. He is a very upstanding
member of society. The suggestion that there might be some impropriety in
Mr Oliver=92s dealings with IPN is preposterous.
It further claims that:
=93Its director, Mr Julian Morris, is an adviser to the UK Independence
Party[3] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,,1715676,00.html).=94
Again, this is a lie and The Guardian , which repeated this allegation
first made on a weblog, has published a correction. None of IPN=92s staff
are advisers to any political party.
Sourcewatch compounds its defamatory lies with further lies and
disinformation, claiming that:
=93The IPN's main area of interests [sic] are the environment, campaigning,
for example, against the Kyoto Protocol, recycling, or any environmental
regulation at all, and opposing the right of poor people to have access to
AIDS drugs.=94
This is ludicrous: Regarding the assertions pertaining to environmental
regulation, IPN=92s Executive Director Julian Morris has written widely on
improving environmental regulation, arguing that it should be more
decentralised and based on =91sound science=92; he has also written about t=
he
benefits of property rights, contracts and tort law as means of regulating
the environment. The simpleminded and ill-informed authors confuse direct
centralised state control with =91environmental regulation=92.
Regarding the claim that IPN has opposed =93the right of poor people to hav=
e
access to AIDS drugs=94: It is contentious to claim that anyone has an
automatic =93right=94 to any medication (the problem being that such a righ=
t
implies a duty on some individual or group to provide that medication and
yet it is not clear upon which individual or group that duty falls). In
the context of AIDS drugs in Africa, such a =93right=94 would be absurd, si=
nce
it simply could not be achieved practically given the lack of health
infrastructure (hospitals, clinics, surgeries) and health professionals
(doctors, nurses, pharmacists) on the continent as a whole and especially
in countries such as Malawi and Zimbabwe. Worse, the provision of
medicines by untrained people might make the situation worse =96 leading to
more widespread resistance to therapies. In the context of AIDS, it has
been shown repeatedly that prevention is more important than treatment and
that in the absence of effective prevention strategies, treatment also may
make the situation worse by sending the wrong signal to potential victims.
However, as any minimal intelligent person can discover for themselves,
IPN has campaigned vigorously for the removal of barriers to access to
medicines, including AIDS drugs.
Furthermore, the by now surreal document claims:
=93It also attacks drug reimportation, believing that drug companies should
be able to make abnormal profits at the expense of consumers.=94
No, that is not what we believe or say. Authors of IPN reports have argued
that where governments impose price controls on drugs, they undermine the
incentives to innovate =96 and also reduce access (for example by reducing
the profit from marketing and distributing drugs, as well as by
undermining price differentiation). Where those price-controlled drugs are
exported to other markets, the negative impact of the controls on
incentives to invest in R&D is exacerbated. In other words, in a world in
which government sets prices, reimportation (also known as parallel trade)
can undermine innovation. There are also potential problems with
reimportation in terms of patient safety, especially when importers are
compelled to relabel drugs (as they are in Europe), since this enables
counterfeits to enter the market.
It furthermore claims that
=93The IPN is currently running a technology campaign, apparently to promot=
e
the use of software patents in Europe. [4]
(http://www.ipntechnology.org/ip.php)=94
Actually, this website was established without IPN=92s consent and has
nothing to do with our organisation. We requested that the author of the
website remove it and he has done so.
The bizarre and untrue allegations continue:
=93It has also become involved in international pharmaceutical issues,
seeking to defend the pharmaceutical industry from claims that it ignores
the diseases of the developing world in favour of the more profitable
lifestyle diseases of wealthy countries.=94
This is presumably a reference to a report that we published on the
mythical =9310/90 Gap=94. The intelligent reader is encouraged to read our
report, in which we simply assess the evidence. The claim that we =93defend
the pharmaceutical industry=94 simply isn=92t true: IPN exists to promote t=
he
institutions of the free society, not to lobby for special interests.
Indeed, we are highly critical of industry lobbying for special favours;
we believe that the pharmaceutical industry, like all other industries,
should be subject to the rule of law.
More nonsense follows:
=93In November 2004, IPN released a report claiming that "climate change is
'a myth', sea levels are not rising and Britain's chief scientist is 'an
embarrassment' for believing catastrophe is inevitable." It called "the
science warning of an environmental disaster caused by climate change ...
'fatally flawed'" and contested predictions that the global sea level
would increase by a meter over the next century, saying that "sea level
rises will reach a maximum of just 20cms." Moreover, the report listed
some benefits of global warming, including "increasing fish stocks in the
north Atlantic and reducing the incidence of temperature-related deaths
among vulnerable people."=94
The author(s) are here relying on a report about our report that was
published in The Observer and which is factually incorrect. A partial
correction was published in The Observer and can be seen here:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html
Again, intelligent readers who are interested in the issue can read our
actual report and decide for themselves the veracity of the assessments
made therein.
Sourcewatch also publishes a statement made by Norman Baker under
Parliamentary Privilege:
=93Mr Morris, the director of IPN, was attacked in the House of Commons for
the link between IPN's funding and research outcomes. Norman Baker MP
said: "We may be able to deduce from the comments of Julian Morris that
there is an ulterior motive behind his denial of climate change." [7]
(http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=3D2005-02-08.1353.1&s=3Djulian+m=
orris#g1355.1).=94
Notwithstanding the bizarre claim that Julian Morris is in =93denial of
climate change=94 =96 a claim that is readily countered by reading anything
that Professor Morris has actually said on the subject in the past fifteen
years =96 the allegation he has =93an ulterior motive=94 is as unambiguousl=
y
false as it is maliciously defamatory. Prof. Morris has a long-standing
interest in climate change and has published extensively on the subject.
Professor Morris has continued to make the same argument in various
publications, before and after establishing IPN.  Those who take the time
to read IPN=92s publications on any number of environmental issues will fin=
d
that our research is both rigorous and principled, based on core academic
ideas which relate to the functioning of markets and their underlying
institutions.


> Eric Noehrenberg is speaking now to the WHA on the CIPIH and R&D
> resolutions, and he made reference to the "Civil Society Report on
> Intellectual Property Innovation and Health," which was published by
> the International Policy Network (IPN), (described by Source Watch as
> "a corporate front group," http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?
> title=3DInternational_Policy_Network) and he made reference to
> "responsible" members of civil society, which I guess means NGOs on
> the pharmaceutical industry payroll, or which which have far-right
> views on intellectual property or drug pricing issues.
>
> Maybe later Eric can explain how the IPR report embraces both the
> Merck/Attaran/While view (page 35) that the low level of patents on
> the WHO essential medicines list (EML) is "evidence" that patents are
> not important for access to essential medicines, and views of
> industry defender John Kilama (page 33), that criticizes the WHO
> essential drugs list for not having more patented drugs on it,
> because the WHO wrongly (in his view) considers the issue of cost
> effectiveness.
>
> -------------------
> http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/Civil_Society_text_web.pdf
> John Kilama, page 33:
> Despite this, the concept of the EML is ill-fitted to the myriad
> health needs of people in lower-income countries. Diseases such as
> diabetes, hypertension, cancer, cardiovascular disorders,
> gastrointestinal disorders, dermatological disorders and arthritis
> are just as common in Africa as in developed countries. Yet the WHO
> Essential List of Medicines does not provide medical practitioners in
> Africa with sufficient choice for dealing with these diseases. . . .
>
> The disease burden in lower-income countries is coming increasingly
> to resemble that of higher income countries, especially in terms of
> cardiovascular diseases and cancers. Plenty of new drugs are coming
> on stream to combat these diseases, but the rationale behind the EML
> denies patients in poorer countries access to these new drugs. This
> is because the EML deliberately favours listing generic medicines
> over patented ones. In this way, the treatments available to patients
> in poorer countries do not match the contours of the disease
> burden. . . .
>
> ----------------
>
> Jamie
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love@cptech.org /
> tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
> "If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks."  Bill Walton
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>