Generic Drugs and the HIV/AIDS issue

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Now at the WTO this is a major issue, as the US and EU are stopping countries like Brazil, South Africa and India from producing generic copies of drugs that fight HIV/AIDS. I will not discuss the WTO aspect as it is far too detailed and lenghty and we would end up discussing the TRIPS agreement and the Public Health clauses of the DDA.

But one thing I would bring up would be should Intellectual Property be discontinued. I have never been a fan of IPRs. Intellectual property stifles innovation and leads to the stagnation of science and morality.

I personally think all drugs for dangerous or curable diseases should be distributed freely. Screw the seven sisters, well actually more like 12 but you get the idea. Companies should not have the right to charge prices for drugs so high that people end up dying.

Just to point out, it is cheaper to buy drugs in the EU and import them to south africa then buy actual HIV/AIDS drugs in South Africa. Talk about companies exploiting the poor and weak.

Minerva here you go. Your thread for the day.

2

I briefly glanced at

it deals with IT, Broadcasting, engineering etc. Article 27 gets into medicinal and bio stuff. I don’t think TRIPS is at play (IMO).

No, Intellectual Property shouldn’t be discontinued. The laws enforcing it should be modified and should be dynamically tailored to different industries. For instance in medicine the patent and right to manufacture for a certain amount of time should be lessened.
Intellectual Property is also tied to capitalism in a way. For instance if I make a nuclear powered microwave; what do I do just put the design in public domain for someone else to manufacture. Discontinuation for some reason reminds me of Soviet Union era or socialism. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
I agree that the prices charged are horrendous. I don’t mean to drag U.S into this thread however we (U.S) are the stingiest nation when it comes to causes such as fighting hunger, HIV etc.
I don’t mean to bring in Builder Bob either but as he says “Can we fix it yes we can” Well in this case we don’t wanna fix it cause someone is greasing someones hand.

3

Hey cool someone actually responded. Personally IPRs stifle innovation. They do not lead to improvements. Rather they limit it. Look at the mouse, if it had been patented we would have to wait a good 20 years from the 80s for it to be afforable.

The internet. Bit-torrent. Word Perfect. Linux. All freeware and worked perfectly to lead to innovation and development. The one way that Microsoft gained so much control over the world market is because they made sure Word Perfect was freeware.

Traditional knowledge is another issue. Due to IPRs and patents some dumbass company patented basmati rice and started to charge the Pakistani and Indian Govts with royalty fees.

Your last sentence i do agree with. MNCs have a big say in the trade and development policies of the western nations. Intecllectual property rights have basically made sure that people do not get the medicine they need.

Secondly the funding for malaria which as been developed an immunity to current anti-biotics are even harder to get as they are newly patented.

These medicines should be distributed freely.

4

Wordperfect was not freeware atleast initially, after Novell bought it and spun it off again don't know whatever happened to it. Linux while freeware is still expensive to deploy compared to a MS desktop in an enterprise, all having to do with standards, support, etc.
In the medicine industry having a public domain would mean a lot of "Hakims" sprouting up and to maintain quality control, and standards would be hard to maintain. As I had mentioned earlier the patent laws especially in the medicine field should be modified and the time for the exclusive right to manufacture or whatever should be lessened.

Intecllectual property rights have basically made sure that people do not get the medicine they need.
I think it is the legalistic wranglings that surround and shroud these "intellectual rights" that make sure people don't get medicines they need.
On the same token there are western nations where medicine is free; Granted that those nations do spend per person more on humanitarian causes than their cousins across the pond; howcome they won't take the lead in development of cheap drugs?

5

without proper compliance, irresponsible usage of these drugs will make them ineffective. IN past anti biotics have become ineffective because impropoer compliance resulted in resistant bacteria strains.

I am all for the greater good of people, and the greater good is not by giving this stuff away for free. The 2 issues here are

1) compliance
2) Attractive ROI on R&D investment

Now attractive ROI can be achieved if the companies are allowed to license the meds to other producers who will sell more of it, and cheap and the original company will get its rewards not in higher margins per patient, but in volume.

But ensuring compliance is an issue that medical establishment needs to ensure, not pharma companies.

6

When dealing with the public health issue, one thing must be noted. It is cheaper to buy HIV/AIDS drugs in Europe and then ship them to Africa. Anywhere in Africa. I bet that is really what the companies are looking at when it comes to ROI.

Europe is by far the most expensive society inwhich to live. Africa is cheaper. If the prices were even set at the same pricing standard it would be costly to parrallel import from Europe. It is not.

What the US and EU are doing is making sure that the product stays expensive in Africa and then they attempted to make sure that parrallel importing will not take place.

I really guess they have the best interest at heart of the people.

Now on to the posts. When i used word perfect in 1990 it was freeware. Atleast that is what our school said and allowed us to move them around.

Linux went set up properly does not need support or any kind of background infrastructure different from MS products. I personally feel it is cheaper to set up a Linux system then MS. After all MS office alone costs nearly 600 dollars. While open office costs you nothing.

Cheaper drugs can be produced by any nation with a bio-chemical and bio-tech industry. Brazil, India and South Africa can produce all the HIV/AIDS drugs needed under a generic brand. They are not allowed to do so due to IPRs. That is the whole issue at the WTO.

Let these countries produce cheaper drugs and save people's lives and instead you have the US and EU screaming about IPRs.

IPRs do not cover public control from my knowledge. They do not cover adminstration of the pharmaceutical industry at all. So I do not see the relationship between the need for quality control which is maintained by the captialist market mechanism.

I agree it should be modified to the extent that it is eliminated. Public health is not a money making endeavour.

Fraudia from what i last heard companies do not train doctors in how to use a drug or medicine. Rather they produce them. It would be extremely costly for each individual company to go around the world and teach doctors how to properly employ their medicines.

Since they didn't do it before how can irresponsible usage of these drugs have a different affect than it already does now.

Secondly how does this relate to IPRs?

Licensing again is something that makes the production of drugs more expensive. If you can make it as a generic brand why do you need a license?

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sir Galahad: *
Personally IPRs stifle innovation.
[/QUOTE]

actually, on average i think they have the opposite effect. they protect innovation and a future of innovation. i completely agree with you about using a conscience to override IPR if it would save lives. but apart from these special cases, this level of protection is necessary to keep innovators at all levels motivated to create, research, think, invent, etc. Even today with the level of protection available, such a huge percentage of innovators get screwed before receiving even a decent sum or credit for their work. it's easy to not feel much sympathy for giant corporations with billions to throw at R&D, but what about all the others? the individuals? if there was no protection at all, the incentive is gone for the rest of these people. all it will do is allow the public to enjoy the full capabilities of currently implemented ideas and innovations - all at the expense of the future.

the pharmaceutical industry is in a bind because of their peculiar situation having all sorts of moral implications. this isnt the same for all others.

8

now we know why lil Billy is pumping aid into Africa.. benevolence?.. i don't think so.. the IPR effect his empire directly.. all over the world.. he can't let anyone relax them .. not even if people are dying due to lack of medicine somewhere..

9

Take the industrial revolution. If the steam engine was patented do you really think the industrial revolution and what followed would have occured so quickly.

I can show you examples where people have patented how to cut a sandwich and use it to earn royalty fees.

Ok rather than continuing this, I would like one example where IPRs actually helped innovation and progress.

PA sarcasm?

10

Originally posted by Sir Galahad: *
**Fraudia from what i last heard companies do not train doctors in how to use a drug or medicine. Rather they produce them. It would be extremely costly for each individual company to go around the world and teach doctors how to properly employ their medicines.*

you heard wrong, companies spend millions on education of physicians on proper adminstration of drugs, doses, frequency, side effects .. the whole shabang.

the cost of ensuring compliance is quite high, and it is managed by all involved entities, pharma corps, PBMs, hopitals, health depts etc etc.

who is doing that in these countries where you want to sell the cheap drugs?

*Since they didn't do it before how can irresponsible usage of these drugs have a different affect than it already does now. *

1- They indeed spend millions on compliance, it is not inly in their best interest but in the best interests of the patient, as well as future patients.

2- the larger the population with irresponsible and incorrect use of the medication, the larger the chances of mutations, and without other programs in place to curb the growth of the disease..variants of teh virus start spreading for which the drug does about as much as a mosquito bite does to concrete.

oh and guess what, who would come up with the drug to take care of the new mutation? and why?

Secondly how does this relate to IPRs?

it relates to why making the drug available even for free is a half baked answer that does little good in the short term, and more harm in the long term.

11

U.S. Contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria

The U.S. is an active participant in and supporter of the 2-year-old Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The U.S. is the world’s biggest investor in the Global Fund, contributing $623 million, 40% of the total amount contributed to the Fund so far.

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief pledges an additional $1 billion to the Global Fund over the next 5 years, increasing the total U.S. commitment to over $1.6 billion since the Fund’s inception. This figure amounts to around 35% of total current pledges.