A coalition of unions, women's and health groups have been granted intervenor status in a case in which CanWest MediaWorks is seeking to overturn the Canadian government's ban on direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA). The groups argue that if CanWest is successful it would push up healthcare costs and undermine the sustainability of the Canadian healthcare system. CanWest is arguing that the ban on DTCA is a violation of their right to freedom of expression. In an analysis of the case, Colleen Flood and Michelle Zimmerman from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, warn against assuming that the court won't decide in the media giant's favour. "In order for the current legislation to be upheld, courts will need to be persuaded that nothing short of the existing limits on DTCA would allow the federal government to achieve its other pressing societal concerns, such as protecting patient safety. This will be a difficult task," they wrote.

In a survey of 29 U.S. patient groups, New Scientist found only two ruled out drug company funding. Seven of the patient groups surveyed received less than 5% of their income from drug companies, while others were reliant on them for over one-third of their budget. The Colorectal Cancer Coalition receives approximately 81% of its budget from drug companies while a PR consultant for the Neuropathy Association claimed funding sources was "proprietary" information. Joel Lexchin, from York University in Toronto, Canada said "groups should publicise how much money they've gotten from which companies and what it is used for." Even though patient groups dismiss the idea that funding influences their advocacy, Lexchin is unpersuaded: "psychologists talk about the 'gift relationship'. The patient organisations are getting something and feel the need to repay that gift. Whether they are conscious of it or not is really irrelevant."

Speaking to journalists at a conference in Tokyo, News Corporation Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Rupert Murdoch, downplayed the death toll following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. "The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war are quite minute," he said. "I believe it was right to go in there. I believe that certainly the execution that has followed that has included many mistakes," he said. Murdoch's global media network strongly backed the push for war. In April 2004 Murdoch said that "there is one small part where the Sunnis are, which were the people who supported Saddam Hussein, who are giving trouble." The death toll of U.S. military in Iraq is now over 2,830. A recent study published in the the U.K medical journal The Lancet estimated that 600,000 deaths Iraqis have died as a result of the war.

Arizona and Ohio have initiatives on the ballot to end smoking in public places and workplaces, including bars and restaurants. If the measures pass, these states will join Florida, California, New York and 9 other states that have enacted comprehensive laws protecting workers from unnecessary exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke. Instead of fighting these measures head-on as they always have, though, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (makers of cigarette brands Camel and Winston) is using a different tactic: bringing much weaker alternative initiatives and pitching them to voters with deceptive-sounding names. The initiatives public health groups support are called Smoke-Free Arizona and SmokeFree Ohio, while the RJR-backed initiatives are called the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act and SmokeLess Ohio. Voters will need to do their homework and pay close attention to make the right decision about which measure to back.

Vanity Fair magazine has rushed on line an article excerpt by David Rose in which leading neoconservatives condemn Bush's handling of the war on Iraq. "Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness," reports Vanity Fair, which published the excerpt on its website before the mid-term elections, thereby angering Perle and others interviewed. Is Vanity Fair trying to atone in part for its previous and now-discredited reporting by David Rose prior to the war? In 2002 and 2003 Rose was duped by the propaganda campaign that sold the war, and he wrote articles for Vanity Fair that echoed and gave credibility to false claims from phony defectors provided by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. As Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber report in their book The Best War Ever, Rose has since expressed "profound regret" for his duping. On election day 2006 he appeared on Democracy Now.

The U.K. drug industry's self regulatory body, the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), has censured Janssen-Cilag after an employee from its PR firm, Burson-Marsteller (B-M), offered journalists cash if they attended a hearing of the government drug regulator. The offer related to a public hearing on Jannsen-Cilag's appeal against a decision against approving the drug Eprex before the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. "As it is possible that the hearing will take up most of the day, and we understand that your time is valuable, we are able to offer £200 (€293) if you wish to attend," the B-M employee wrote (sub req'd). The PMCPA found that Janssen-Cilag, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, was responsible for B-M's actions. In June B-M told PR Week the offer was a "human error" but has declined to comment (sub req'd) on whether the employee still works for the firm.