Mediator
Mediator will go down in history as one of the cases that most violently agitated the French health and political spheres.
The “killer drug” story was presented as a David and Goliath battle, valiantly waged by a brave physician: Irène Frachon, alone against the powerful Laboratoires Servier, number 2 in French pharma. But is it really that simple? And who benefited from this scandal?
Catherine Riva’s three-part investigation into a case that rather seems an economic war has won the 2016 Nicolas Bouvier Special Collective Prize.
Article:
-
2012: “Mediator: l’affaire des investigations manquées?” (Mediator: the case of missing investigations?)
The Mediator scandal has been extensively covered by media over the past months. However, the majority avoided to feature key issues. Published by EDITO+KLARTEXT.
Three-part investigation of the Mediator case
Published in 2016, available on Sept.info (in French, paid access required)
-
1st part: ”Mediator: une affaire aux allures de guerre économique” (Mediator: a case that looks like an economic war)
The Mediator scandal has earned Laboratoires Servier unprecedented criticism. But behind the scenes, it has helped other pharmaceutical companies avoid significant losses and strengthened their positioning in various multi-billion-dollar markets.
-
2nd part: “Mediator: derrière la fable de la ‘femme formidable’” (Mediator: behind the fable of a “tremendous woman”)
Irène Frachon is the main character of the Mediator affair, the emblem of a David and Goliath fight, courageously led by this modest physician that picked up the fight against powerful interests. But is it that simple? Not quite. An investigation into the underbelly of a fairy tale.
-
3rd part: “Mediator: falsifier l’histoire pour mieux façonner l’avenir” (Mediator: falsifying history to better shape the future)
Throughout the Mediator scandal, some actors imposed a very particular narrative of key events that took place between the 1990s and today. However, the story is strewn with inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Who benefited from the distortion of facts? And what are the implications for drug safety?
