pharmaceutics and market law

[pedro2112]

Yes, Joff I read many different sources of information and then use common sense and logic to come to a conclusion, which is usually self evident after looking at all the information.

I wasn't talking about Brazil, tuberculosis or anything else.. I was talking about AIDs in Africa.. the extent of my observations relate to that topic only. Consequently your "insult" about Brazil and myth's is quite irrelevant. I don't know about Brazil, and I don't comment about something as strongly I do without being fully informed.

[Sylvaner]

Please accept my apologies Pedro, I didn't want to sound "insulting". But in your original post, you refered to my original post as based on "hysterical "myth"", so I took the liberty to mention Brazil as a counter-argument to what you said about africa.

And I'm sure that the South African, the Doctors Without Borders and other, and so on wouldn't be very happy to hear that everything they try to save some people from AIDS in Africa is bound to fail, "because of the governments".

Yes, there are some problems with the governments. Yes, the health structures are notoriously unefficient. An african friend told me that over there, you only go to the hospital only when herbs, potions and the local sorcerer have failed, because you only go there to die.
But there are also many, many problems with drugs costs. Any drugs, AIDS or others.

You said "The fact of the matter is even if the drugs were free, it wouldn't end up saving a significant amount of people there."

I first replied that since it did make a difference in Brazil, it could maybe make a difference in some places in Africa.

Second, no existing cure will "save" anyone anyway. It's just a matter of living longer, in better conditions.
What would save the people would be a vaccine. 1$ per dose, one dose only, no injection needed (you just swallow it). These are the official recommended specifications for a 3rd world country vaccine, by the WHO.

And moreover, I am shocked by the phrase "a significant amount of people." How many people do you need to make it significant ? 5000 ? should they stop trying just because they won't manage to help the millions who need it ?

Eventually, as the western countries and some companies recently understood, even if the outcome is not as good as some may hope, what does it cost to let them try ?

I'm sorry, I'm heating up again.
This is a very hot topic to me, as a biologist.
Medical science is globally unfair, and no one seem to care about it.

EDIT PS : and is it me you are calling Joff

[Diogenes]

Sylvaner said:

I'm sorry, I'm heating up again.
This is a very hot topic to me, as a biologist.
Medical science is globally unfair, and no one seem to care about it.

Well, I care.  It's just not an area I know much about, so please keep enlightening us :-)

I agree in general terms that western concepts of global markets are working tremendous injustice in less developed countries.  

I have a friend with a passion for this very subject, and much more knowledgeable about it than I, who I am trying to recruit for this forum, so you may have a very powerful ally in your cause coming soon ;-)

[Silver_Cheetah]

Diogenes said:

Well, I care.  It's just not an area I know much about, so please keep enlightening us :-)

I agree in general terms that western concepts of global markets are working tremendous injustice in less developed countries.   <br>
I have a friend with a passion for this very subject, and much more knowledgeable about it than I, who I am trying to recruit for this forum, so you may have a very powerful ally in your cause coming soon ;-)

What's your friend's name, Dio?

[Diogenes]

Silver_Cheetah said:

What's your friend's name, Dio?

Her name is Amanda Kasifir.  She is this really cool person who lives in Brighton, England.  

And I am glad to see that she came by to check out the forum ;-)  

Btw, I was referring to the effects of globalization in general as an area of interest for her, and not specifically in the area of medical science, in case there is confusion about that in my post.  

[Silver_Cheetah]

Diogenes said:

Her name is Amanda Kasifir.  She is this really cool person who lives in Brighton, England.  <br>
And I am glad to see that she came by to check out the forum ;-)  <br>

The blue is a little hard on the eyes.........

[Diogenes]

Silver_Cheetah said:

The blue is a little hard on the eyes.........

Yes, it is.  But these are just temporary colors for a temporary, hastily put together forum.  

[pedro2112]

What I meant Sylvy (sorry about the "joff" slipup), is that even if the drug companies gave away their Aids medicines for free in africa, it wouldn't save that many people. The real problem their is health care. the most advanced aids medicines need to be monitored very carefully by professionals or else they either wont work, or worse, end up killing people outright. The fact of the matter is that these drug companies cannot research and develop these new fantastic drugs without money, huge sums of money. So if we "forced" the companies in this instance to basically go belly up or seriously curtail their development of new drugs just to give them away free in southern africa, it wouldn't help much and would destroy the next generation of new drugs (which will hopefully included a cure or at least an easier to handle drug so that it will be effective even in places, such as africa, where there isn't the underlying public health system to support complex medicines).

I remember about a year ago when the US congress was considering putting price controls on medication. Retired Sen. Moynahan of New York (a liberal democrat) warned of the dire consequences of such action. The companies spend enormous amounts on research, which in recent years has developed some miraculous drugs; one such drug is xantac, which ELIMINATED the need for 2/3 of the stomach surgeries in the US. We don't want to end up "losing" drugs like this in the future to satisfy the needs of a few, while hurting the needs of the many.

[Sylvaner]

Well, I understand your point. But let's use a metaphoric image, for all its worth :

Computer companies sell their computers and the components at a much higher price than the production cost. This is understandable, since part of the money is used to develop the new computer technology. But the personal computer applies perfectly to the capitalist society : the need for it is mostly created by the society, marketing people have to make people think they must have that new Athlon XP thing to be cool. Alright !
Moreover, since the companies invest much on research, they want fast returns on investments. So, when a new technology / component / whatever comes, they do their best to make people think that the new stuff is what they need, and that whatever they used or had before is complete crap. I could say I'm fine with this, although I'm not really (because of the amount of waste and everything) but it doesn't matter.
Eventually, it is bound to happen that, just when a company has finished the development of a new, say, processor, the R&D department comes out with a newer one, much more powerful than the one about to be sold. Once again it seems logical that the company will hide this fact, try to sell its product as much as possible before accepting the existence of the new one.
All these tricks apply perfectly to the computer industry, since ethics are not really a problem for personal computers.

The problem is that these three examples also apply to drug companies, and there are ethical questions related to this. I know that the american policy is that every company, in every field and in every country, should work with the same rules of free market and free competition.

There has been violent opposition between France and the US because we wanted a "cultural exception", ie to be allowed to give subventions to french movies in France, because they can't compete with american movies which are made on a global scale.

I really, really think that there should be a "medical exception". That the companies should take some benefits out of their products, and out of their R&D, is completely legit.
But public institutions should care for public health, even if it somehow limits these benefits.

[pedro2112]

Your analogy is useless. Think about it. We are not talking about computers. We are not talking about "new" technologies that make us able to do things faster or "better."

We are talking about life and death. If you fuck with the system that brings out so many incredible new drugs that mean the difference between someone dying or someone living, or someone suffering or someone at ease, then you are asking for disaster. The system works now better than at any time in human history. The problems arise not from the companies, or "costs" but because some people think that backwards countries that are unable to provide work and hope for their peoples are entitled to the treasure of other countries just because they need it.

[Sylvaner]

pedro2112 said:

Your analogy is useless. Think about it. We are not talking about computers. We are not talking about "new" technologies that make us able to do things faster or "better."

We are talking about life and death. If you fuck with the system that brings out so many incredible new drugs that mean the difference between someone dying or someone living, or someone suffering or someone at ease, then you are asking for disaster. The system works now better than at any time in human history. The problems arise not from the companies, or "costs" but because some people think that backwards countries that are unable to provide work and hope for their peoples are entitled to the treasure of other countries just because they need it.

You say that the system works well and we shouldn't touch it.
I say that the system doesn't work so well and, in several fields, goes to its doom. See you in 20 years, and I hope I'm the one who will come out to be wrong.

I don't think that the fact that something is "roughly working" means that we should not try to find ways to make it better. Or at least voice out what is wrong with it. This is the very process that led to a system that "works now better than at any time in human history".
And may I point out that you sort of contradict yourself : you tell me that we are talking about life and death (which was exactly my point) and then you speak of "the treasure of other countries". This is not a treasure, this is life and death, precisely.

And that was not really "my" analogy. That's an analogy that the WTO and the capitalism enforce, since the drug companies and the, for example, computer companies obey the same rules.

I'm not sure of what you mean in the last part of your post : do you mean that the problems don't come from the fact that the drugs are expensive, but from the fact that some people want the cures available to the ones who need them ?

In that case, sure, if nobody cared about who is dying in foreign countries, these kinds of problems would never appear. But once again, I may be misunderstanding what you say.

I must admit I don't have a solution, but what I refuse is the "there's no solution, let's go on doing what we do and forget about it" attitude. Everyone's problem is partly my problem.
Call me an idealist... But that's part of the reason why I respected 3 minutes of silence on september 12th,also.

[PixieChic]

I was discussing something like this with a co-worker the other day, and the situation surrounding the anthrax drug was described differently to me.  According to this individual, pharmaceutical companies, when developing and marketing a new drug, receive a 10 year patent on that new drug.  That means for 10 years, no other companies can produce/market generic "copies" of that drug.  (This is the reason why, for example, there are no generic versions of drugs like Claritin on the market yet...their 10 year patent has not ended yet.)

I was told that Pres. Bush is actually trying to convince Bayer to release the last two years of their patent on their anthrax drug so other companies can begin to produce the drug as well, allowing for a larger supply, and I suppose, lower prices.

Has anyone heard any reports of this nature?  Is this misinformation, or did Pres. Bush fail to convince Bayer to release the patant and instead, decided to convince Bayer to lower the prices?  Just curious....

[pedro2112]

Pixie, what happened was that it became moot. Cipro is now not considered the best or even that good at fighting the anthrax. Several other antibiotics are now being prescribed other than Cipro, and those have generic forms.

Sylv, perhaps it is a language issue, but we are arguing apples and oranges. Of course their are ways of "making it better." And my comment on national treasure was in reference to how some people view the solution. A solution which will end up costing humanity more lives in the long run if implemented.

The fact of the matter is that the pharmacutical companies (with respect to the aids crisis) ARE lowering prices and even in certain circumstances giving up certain patent rights. I am not saying that things are perfect. I was just denouncing the suggestion that all we have to do to make things better is to force the drug companies to give their products away for free, or worse yet, abrogate their patent rights and basically steal from them.

Sylvy concluded:
"Call me an idealist... But that's part of the reason why I respected 3 minutes of silence on september 12th,also."

What the heck does idealism have to do with that? Your respect for the 3 minutes of silence reflects that you are a thinking, compassionate, and freedom loving human being. That's more realism than idealism to me...  

[PixieChic]

Thanks Pedro...