US firms try to block cheap Aids drugs

[dArKeR]

The United States, under pressure from its giant pharmaceutical companies, is trying to undermine the use in poor countries of cheap, copycat Aids drugs, made by "pirate", generic companies but validated by the World Health Organisation, campaigners claim.

US drug companies want the money promised for President George Bush's Aids plan to be spent on their products.

The American department of health and human sciences has now convened a conference in Botswana at the end of the month that will question the WHO's approval process for generic drugs, known as "pre-qualification".

If the cheap drugs, which sell for less than R1 980 per patient per year, are discredited and the more expensive brand-name drugs are bought instead, the limited money available for treatment will help fewer people and reduce the WHO's hopes of getting three-million on treatment by 2005.

http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?ao=32964

Disgraceful! What the difference between Bush's America and Communist China?

[Mika]

1. I guess that it'll take "communist" Cuba to do the right thing

Cuba offers low cost AIDS drugs
http://www.aegis.com/news/bar/2001/BR010405.html

Cuba and South Africa have signed a co-operation treaty designed to help the development of drugs to fight Aids.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1248821.stm



Plenty more here
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Cuba+%2BAIDS+%2Bdrugs

[cosmicdot]

2. compassionate conservatism-at-work-and-on-display

it's, as we know, a lie, a fraud

[Joanne98]

3. Isn't it just like us

To be the only country on earth to deny dying people cheap drugs?

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. The only motivation to research drugs is profit

Take that away and no companies will do it. Yes, the AIDS patients will be saved. And no new drugs will ever come to market.

[rac6]

5. But who sponsored the research?

While it is true that pharmaceutical R&D requires a profit, one should also look at who paid for the research. Some nucleoside analog HIV drugs, for example AZT and DDI, were found at the NIH as potential anti-cancer drugs in the 60s. Most of the early trials looking at their effect on HIV infection were sponsored by the AIDS clinical trial group (ACTG) of the NIH, therefore, they were paid for by our tax dollars and not Glaxo-Wellcome or Bristol Myers Squibb, who keep the profits. Many of the protease inhibitor trials and non-nucleoside RT inhibitor trials have been paid for by the ACTG. While big pharma is entitled to a return on its investment, so are we, the taxpayers. One valid return would be the use of generic drugs in the developing world to save many people from a horrible death and stabilizing the countries where the problems from AIDS are the worst. Finally, one must always remember that almost all pharmaceutical target validation occurs in academic labs, which are almost always completely funded by the NIH.

[Raster]

34. thank you, well said. big pharma would NOT be scoring such huge profits..

...if not for all the public funding in one fashion or another.

And as someone who has lost approximately 80% of his friends and peers to this scourge, pig pharma should be giving drugs away at cost to everyone. This profiting off of another's misery and/or general corruption and/or human conflict has got to go.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. Sorry for your loss

But that's a silly suggestion. Because without profits, big or small pharma firms will simply close down. Then no one is saved.

[Raster]

36. O.K., make a modest profit, but the point is a large portion

of the expense of the R&D, including testing, is borne by the public. No drug company develops drugs all by their selves and absorbs all costs. It just doesn't happen.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Many industries get government aid

If they didn't, they would locate elsewhere.

[Raster]

44. big pharma is one of the largest, if not the largest entetprises...

...on the planet. in addition, big pharma is one of the largest, if not the largest political contributor in the united states, mainly to republicans. the price of drugs is manipulated with an eye to profit only. market forces do not come to bear because big pharma owns enough politicians that artificial price controls govern our cost. we in the united states pay 2 to 5 times what the rest of the civilized world pays in drug costs. why is this?

and perhaps it is time that we look very carefully at the arrangements between big business in general and politics. any enterprise receiving substantial aid and protection from governmental sources should be returning a portion of said profits to the people who helped pay R&D, testing, etc.

[k in IA]

6. Profit motive is what drives R&D but we need to find some way

so that the American public (not the US govt.)is not subsidizing the research done for the entire world.

Some of us just can't afford it - and neither will the govt after the Medicare bill passed where the govt can't even negotiate to get the best prices.

[Occulus]

7. So, it seems

industrial espionage followed by very fast public release of the formulae involved is the only option for The People.

Sad, that we must consider breaking the law to access that which we have, by and large, already paid for.

[nodehopper]

11. hey, kfgnally

weren't we all supposed to be dead from the bird flu by now? Where's the promised crow-eating?

[Occulus]

22. I'm looking for a good pic of a crow

Funny how all the news about all that stuff just vanished, though, isn't it? Poof, just like that.

[dArKeR]

9. Morals motive is what drives life, I thought? Isn't that what religion is

about?

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Morals don't drive business

Profits do.

No matter what the rules or how R&D is done, it is done for profit. Take away profit and you take away the incentive to bring new drugs to market.

[Liberal Veteran]

12. If the pharms lost the profit from all Africa, they would still profit...

...from the way they gouge North American and European markets.

I call bullshit on your notion.

There is hardly anyone in Africa who can afford to pay a month what I pay for my antivirals with insurance, much less retail.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. No, they would be setting a horrible precedent

That any time society wants their drugs, they can simply make cheap knockoffs.

If the UN, WHO and a bunch of others wish to aid Africa, they should work out a deal with the companies.

[Liberal Veteran]

19. If you want to make excuses for the pharma company's gouging...

...that's your business. But don't try to insult my intelligence and claim that if some knock offs are sold in Africa that GSK will stop producing drugs that are in part researched by tax dollars.

Right now the drug companies are making OBSCENE profits even in the face of economic downturn and that cannot attributed to recouping R&D costs.

And you won't like this at all, but sitting back and saying "Well, that's just business" is extremely mafioso in nature while millions are dying every year in Africa. It makes you an apologist to a form of mass murder it's shameful in the extreme.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Profts

I am not saying they will stop producing drugs. I am saying they lose the incentive to stop producing NEW drugs.

What are obscene profits in your mind? Do you mean overall or on one individual product? Overall, I don't see the pharm companies making 200% or 300% returns each year. That means you are likely complaining about the profits on successful drugs. Unfortunately, for each success, several fail, so the success has to cover those failures as well.

If you actually read my posts, I said that this could be worked out. But to do it in a way where the companies don't profit is unrealistic.

[Liberal Veteran]

27. Africa cannot afford to subsidize pharmaceutical profits.

They can't even afford what the pharmaceutical companies try to pass off as "at cost".

It's gonna be the US and Europe that pays for those companies to recoup their costs. That's just a fact.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. And I'm OK with that

Or maybe WHO or the UN pay. (Why does everyone assume the pharm companies are the ones who pay?) I couldn't care less who does, but the pharm companies don't care either, as long as it isn't them. I just want the situation improved fast. In the meantime, the pharm companies will slow the process pursuing their legal rights if they aren't paid.

[Liberal Veteran]

30. YOU are making an assumption that IF Africa uses generics...

The pharmaceutical companies will not make a profit on the drugs in question and reality simply doesn't bear out your assumption.

If Africa dropped off the map tomorrow, the pharmaceutical companies would be no better or worse off from a profit standpoint because the extreme lion's share of that profit is coming from first world countries.

So what is the harm in allowing knock offs in countries that cannot afford to pay the premiums that the major pharmaceutical companies want?

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. If you copy my product

You pay to do so. That's the way commerce and law work together. If you try and copy my patented product and don't pay, my lawyers take you to court and stop you.

If I allow some nations to copy some drugs, others will be emboldened to copy others and ALL my profits go out the window.

So, instead, I will sue you and do everything I can to slow the process.

[dawn]

14. Well..

Morals should drive people in the healthcare business.

How the hell do those people sleep at night?

[Liberal Veteran]

15. Agreed. I don't know which is worse.

The gouging greed of the pharmaceutical companies or the apologists who make excuses for their greed and that includes those on this message board.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Not apologizing for anything

No need to. But I am trying to explain to those who set pretty unrealistic goals about corporate behavior.

Corporate behavior is LEGALLY driven by profit. Company owners and directors have a legal responsibility not to the AIDS victims in Africa, but their own shareholders.

Yes, something should be worked out, but the result also needs to assist the companies.

[Liberal Veteran]

20. Again, even without Africa, the pharmas are making a tidy profit...

...by gouging US and European customers. Generally speaking they have already recouped their R&D and made profit before these drugs are even made available in third world countries. The only possible reason to not allow generics in Africa is to line the shareholders pockets with blood money.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Tidy or obscene

Which is it. Are the pharm company profits tidy or obscene?

If they are only making tidy profits, I doubt they could be gouging anyone.

The only possible reason to not allow generics in Africa is because they violate patents for which the pharm companies wish to be paid. Shocking.

[Liberal Veteran]

29. Your sympathy for the shareholders would be better spent on the sick.

The pharmaceutical's 18.9% profit-to-revenue ratio is, by far, the highest margin of any industry in the nation.

According to various studies including one must-read conducted by the Boston University School of Public Health, just 11% of drug company revenue typically goes to research and development. Meanwhile, about 16% is taken as profit, and over 30%, or three times the amount spent on R&D, is devoted to drug marketing and administration. And it's their marketing budget -- not R&D, which has remained a steady percentage of their revenue for years -- that has been expanding most rapidly. What's more their massive profit is PURE profit, meaning it's AFTER all costs including R&D, meaning it goes to happy shareholders and some of the richest executives in the world, amongst other healthcare causes.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Not sure you are correct on that one

About the profit numbers I mean.

The typical ROR for newspapers is in the 20s.

I have sympathy for the sick. I also want the companies to get their fair share.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Depends on how you look at it

If your 401(k) and whole retirement were tied up in the profits of a company, you might want them to look out after YOUR interests, not just the interests of others.

To just expect the pharm companies to sign over drugs because they are public-minded is downright silly. Yes, I am sure a deal could be worked out, but not without money heading their way.

[Liberal Veteran]

21. And that is why they say the love of money is the root of ALL evil.

Your mileage may vary.

Or as this quote from your avatar says:

"More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation."

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Is it love of money to want to feed your family?

Hmmm. Maybe not. It might just be realistic that many people buy stock and expect companies to fulfill their LEGAL obligation to make wise business decisions so the stock goes up in price.

I am NOT advocating that they ignore Africa. I am advocating a realistic approach that makes sure the pharm companies also get paid.

[Occulus]

23. these people follow the religion

of the Great Green Slip.

Profit is their savior. Well, they have their reward.

[MrPrax]

45. This is wrong...

"The only motivation to research drugs is profit"?

No, the only motiviation to INVEST in the drug industry is profit...
take that away and scientists and researchers will continue to do what they have done for centuries...RESEARCH.

Your faith in the power of the 'free market' seems misplaced to say the least, if this were true, then there would be no public education system as there is NO profit involved either.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. We are talking about private companies here

Not professors. As such, the reason companies research drugs isn't for the public good. It's for THEIR good. Why else did they spend so much finding Viagra and its clones.

[NickB79]

47. But as has been pointed out

Even private companies rely on the research done by publicly funded labs to lay the groundwork for and test most of their drugs. It's for the companies good that they charge taxpayers massive amounts of money for drugs the taxpayer's own money helped to develop.

[Liberal Veteran]

8. Profit over lives = Compassionate conservatism

I fucking hate those greedy right wing motherfuckers.

[Jazzgirl]

13. I'm with you on that liberal!

I hate 'em too and I hope the WHO tells 'em to kiss their collective asses!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Rex]

33. Haha...who they kidding?

-"The United States, under pressure from its giant pharmaceutical companies..."-

As if the U.S. Gummit and Big Bizness are two separate entities! Hope no one here fell for that line of horseshit.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal Veteran]

38. Such a compassionate point of view.

NOT!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberal Veteran]

42. You people? Who would "you people" be?

Democrats? Liberals?

Humans who understand that millions of people are dying?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mbperrin]

39. #1 - drug companies don't pay for research, the

taxpayers do; #2- Adam Smith, the "father" of economics was opposed to corporations because the split between management and ownership is immoral - managers risk what they don't own, to their own profit; #3 - long-term, for economic efficiency, there are NO economic profits, just the bare minimum to keep businesses going (again, Adam Smith).

It is not moral to make me pay for something, keep it for yourself and sell it to me for a huge profit for yourself. Anyplace else, we'd call that thievery (and it is) and apply a large birch rod where it would do the most good!

But here in the land of the fee, those who worship at the money tree have gotten things 100% their way - sure, Kenny Lay needs all those houses, and retirees need nothing, right?