US blocks cheap drugs agreement

Jaakko · January 14, 2003, 12:33

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2596751.stm

Quote:

The United States has blocked an international agreement to allow poor countries to buy cheap drugs.

This means millions of poor people will still not have access to medicines for diseases such as HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis.

US negotiators say the deal would allow too many drugs patents to be ignored.

Can anyone here offer an explanation for US' resistance, apart from them being the pharm. lobby's *****?
Because I can't honestly fathom any other reason for this than plain old greed.

MRT144 · January 14, 2003, 12:39

there is no good reason

Urban Ranger · January 14, 2003, 12:40

Money over lives. Yes, yes, what a country.

Arrian · January 14, 2003, 12:57

From the article:

Quote:

The United States said the proposed deal would mean that illnesses that are not infectious, such as diabetes and asthma, could also be treated with cheap, generic drugs.

Is there any truth to this part?

-Arrian

rah · January 14, 2003, 13:35

It's too bad a compromise couldn't be reached.

What surprised me more was the article itself.
I used to think (and respect) BBC reporting because of it's unbiased reports. I guess I have to think differently now. This one was almost completely onesided and played up the emotional side. Except for a short GENERIC mention of Patents, it didn't cover any of the other sticking points. Instead it harped on the outcome.

I would have liked to see it address their major concern of the cheaper drugs being black marketed back in the originating country. While granted, I'm not a big fan of drug companies, but that seemed quite a valid concern, (among a few of the others). But alas, after a biased trashing like I just read, I guess they didn't feel it was necessary to make an unbiased report.

So much for the integrity of the BBC. Another pillar of virtue come crumbling down.

RAH

Jaakko · January 14, 2003, 13:44

How much success would black-market drugs for diseases like AIDS or malaria have in the US? Aren't most expensive drugs paid for by insurance companies anyway?

Solly · January 14, 2003, 14:08

Looking for reasons?

- the cheap drugs would get exported back in richer nations, creating a large black market. Drugs being bought "cheap" in the receiving nation would lead to the price rising anyway, and falling in the donating nation.

- the incentive to produce drugs for deadly diseases is diminished, meaning we see less money put in to research on drugs. Has implications on the discovery of drugs for diseases in years to come.

Urban Ranger · January 14, 2003, 14:09

As far as I can tell, all these other sticking points are also about money.

Solly · January 14, 2003, 14:10

Which is worthless, Urban Ranger?

The fact is that if governments force drug companies to give away cheaply drug treatments for which they have invested billions in research, we will see a lot less successful new drugs.

Imran Siddiqui · January 14, 2003, 14:14

Quote:

the incentive to produce drugs for deadly diseases is diminished, meaning we see less money put in to research on drugs. Has implications on the discovery of drugs for diseases in years to come.

BINGO!

Ignore patents and the next big disease doesn't have a cure because the pharmacutical companies don't want to spend over a billion dollars for something that will be taken away from them.

Jaakko · January 14, 2003, 14:20

Of course, patents aren't being ignored, rather the proposition was to give "general" licenses for manufacture in those countries that can't afford the regular rate license.
And this link suggests that the risk of research diminishing isn't that great.

uh Clem · January 14, 2003, 14:54

Quote:

...the pharmacutical companies don't want to spend over a billion dollars for something that will be taken away from them.

...which is crapola.

MYTH: A typical new drug costs US$500 million

Quote:

Aside from relying on assumptions, the initial study wasn't representative of the 'average' drug, nor was it designed to be. The original study focused on drugs that were researched and developed exclusively by multinational pharmaceutical companies. Yet development of many drugs depends on major public involvement in both basic research and clinical trials.

I doubt they said much about the incredible sweetheart deals the pharma companies get on drugs developed at public expense, either.

The clincher: the data ...

Quote:

came from confidential industry sources in the 1980s and has not been available to other researchers.

In other words, the numbers are utterly worthless (at least from a truth perspective). As propaganda, they're great.

SpencerH · January 14, 2003, 14:59

Most of the anti-retrovirals are already sold at 1/10 of the price in african and other countries because of price cutbacks by the manufacturers.

Wernazuma III · January 14, 2003, 15:03

I think, generally, there is even some point in not allowing too many drugs to be produced and sold cheap, not only because of the black market, but because it would hinder corporations in doing further expensive research on new medications if they lose their patent within seconds!!! Yet there definitely ARE cases, where such measures are necessary. Like in Africa, facing the disastrous HIV-epidemics needs cheap drugs, but other cases too.
The general agreement should have been a mix of cooperation from pharmazeutic corporations with first world governments to invest(!) into third world health programs. Nations concerned with a demographic desaster aren't likely to prosper, which means not only a narrow market but also misery and uneducation (which unevadably leads to extremism and violence)

Anyway, I doubt, that the agreement was so simple, everyone, also the corporations and governments in Europe, know that it's not that simple, I'm sure it was a compromise and the USA as usually only didn't sign it, because they are the corporations' whore.

DaShi · January 14, 2003, 15:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Money over lives. Yes, yes, what a country.

Aren't you in China?

chequita guevara · January 14, 2003, 15:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

the incentive to produce drugs for deadly diseases is diminished, meaning we see less money put in to research on drugs. Has implications on the discovery of drugs for diseases in years to come.

BINGO!

Ignore patents and the next big disease doesn't have a cure because the pharmacutical companies don't want to spend over a billion dollars for something that will be taken away from them.

Considering most drug research is carried out by universities with government funding, I'll take that risk.

Jaakko · January 14, 2003, 15:34

Quote:

Originally posted by DaShi

Aren't you in China?

I ain't Urban, but I'd really appreciate it I you explained how one's country of residence affects one's moral stances.

DaShi · January 14, 2003, 15:35

Sorry, not patient enough.

Jaakko · January 14, 2003, 15:37

Is that so, you Japanese atrocity denier.

DaShi · January 14, 2003, 15:38

Blah!

TCO · January 14, 2003, 16:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaakko
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2596751.stm

Can anyone here offer an explanation for US' resistance, apart from them being the pharm. lobby's *****?
Because I can't honestly fathom any other reason for this than plain old greed.

Pharm research is directly driven by expectations of future profits. If you want to give all those drugs to Africans, you should pay the pharma companies for them. But don't expect companies to give stuff away.

Beleive me, every time somebody proposes price controls in the US, bitotech companies go uinder in the US. If you want to limit pharma profits, less money will be plowed into research. It is that simple. Of course if you are an idiot, you won't understand that. Just be a little baby than. Someone who thinks that the world owes them a living.

Imran Siddiqui · January 14, 2003, 16:43

Quote:

Considering most drug research is carried out by universities with government funding, I'll take that risk.

Which also get a substantial amount of money from pharmacutical companies which are in partnerships with those universities.

How else do you think Johnson & Johnson and Merck get rights to drugs. That and the fact they spend about $1 billion per drug, success or failure.

Jaakko · January 14, 2003, 16:46

Why don't you go **** yourself GP. If you want to discuss things, lay off the infantile insults first.

Hueij · January 14, 2003, 16:57

Hey, it's easy. If they can't pay then let them die. Patents are holy, companies spent billions in developing a cure. They have every right to make a fair profit, so bad luck for anyone that can't pay for it...

They shouldn't have contracked HIV in the first place...

Imran Siddiqui · January 14, 2003, 17:00

Quote:

Hey, it's easy. If they can't pay then let them die. Patents are holy, companies spent billions in developing a cure. They have every right to make a fair profit, so bad luck for anyone that can't pay for it...

Exactly

.

What, you thought I was going to contradict you?

I'd rather save billions and billions over 100s of years than just save a billion at the present.

TCO · January 14, 2003, 18:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Considering most drug research is carried out by universities with government funding, I'll take that risk.

Which also get a substantial amount of money from pharmacutical companies which are in partnerships with those universities.

How else do you think Johnson & Johnson and Merck get rights to drugs. That and the fact they spend about $1 billion per drug, success or failure.

Universities don't do clinicals. They do basic research. Look at Europe with state-funded research. Do you think that is what NDA's? HA!

Take away the incentives and people won't invest in biotechs and such. I've seen it happen.

TCO · January 14, 2003, 18:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaakko
Why don't you go **** yourself GP. If you want to discuss things, lay off the infantile insults first.

I've worked as an engineering and management consultant for this industry. You are? Let's see. A Cive player. Great knowledge base.

Jaakko · January 14, 2003, 18:05

It was the insult that was the issue, not your comments, which I thought had merit.

You call me an idiot, a baby and a parasite in an off-handed way, out of the blue, and you think you're debating rationally?

Solly · January 14, 2003, 18:05

Which tech would you rather research in Civ? One that was immediately given to every other player for free, or one you could keep and utilise?

TCO · January 14, 2003, 18:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaakko
It was the insult that was the issue, not your comments, which I thought had merit.

You call me an idiot, a baby and a parasite in an off-handed way, out of the blue, and you think you're debating rationally?

The adhominem has a real power to it. Especially if delivered from a sufficiently haughty demeanor. Oh...for the old days when I used to torture Stew.