Evil Abbott Labs have seen the light- or not? [Archive] - Sawatdee Gay Thailand the oldest and most popular gay forum on Thailand and South East Asia

View Full Version : Evil Abbott Labs have seen the light- or not?

March 15th, 2007, 11:24

BANGKOK, Thailand North Chicago(Illinois)-based Abbott Laboratories says it won't launch new medicines in Thailand because of a patent dispute.
A spokesman says Abbott is taking the action because the military-installed government has decided not to honor the drug maker's patent for an AIDS drug called Kaletra.

Abbott's move won't affect medicines that are already available in Thailand. Thailand's Health Ministry today said it hadn't been informed of Abbott's decision, but one health official says he isn't surprised and there are other companies the country can do business with.

The United Nations says more than 500-thousand people in Thailand are living with H-I-V -- the virus that causes AIDS.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=6226282&nav=1sW7

March 15th, 2007, 11:30

US drugs firm blacklists Thailand
By Jonathan Head
BBC News, Bangkok

Kaletra is a widely-used anti-retroviral drug. One of the world's biggest pharmaceutical companies has announced it will stop licensing any new drugs it develops for sale in Thailand. US-based Abbott Laboratories said it was responding to the Thai government's decision to break the patent on the anti-HIV/Aids drug Kaletra.

Thailand has announced it will either make or import cheap generic versions of three patented drugs. The health ministry said it wanted to cut the cost of healthcare. The decision is the boldest challenge yet by a developing country to the global pharmaceutical industry.

Under World Trade Organization rules, poorer countries can issue what are called compulsory licences to make cheaper, generic versions of branded drugs if they face a health crisis. The big multi-national companies have already accepted this in the case of basic anti-retroviral drugs in order to cut the death toll from HIV/Aids. But they argue Thailand has gone too far in issuing compulsory licences for two newer HIV treatments and a heart drug. They say this amounts to theft of their intellectual property, and that Thailand should have negotiated first.

One of the companies affected, Abbott Laboratories, has now struck back, by refusing to sell any new drugs it develops in Thailand. The Thai health ministry argues that the companies' prices are too high, putting an impossible burden on the government, which is one of the few in the developing world to offer universal, free healthcare.

Thailand's action is being applauded by health campaigners. Even the US, which usually supports patent protection, says Thailand is within its legal rights to take such action. But if other big drug companies follow Abbott's example, patients in Thailand could find themselves deprived of vital treatments in the future.

BBC News

gearguy

March 15th, 2007, 11:52

Abbot has a another drug, Norvir, an older protese inhibitor, which was not a particurly effective PI.

But Norvir is unique, at low doses, that it helps boosts the blood serum level of other PIs, such as Lexiva.

This is call boosted therapy and is a pretty common practice for people on a PI based regime.

Then Abbott developed Kaletra which is a newer PI and added Norvir in the same pill.

To force patients to switch to Keleta from other PIs boosted with Norvir, Abbott raised the price
of Norvir at 4x and was going to make it only available in a vile tasting liquid form.

There was a first page article on their efforts in the Wall Street Journal a month or two ago,
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medical ... wsid=60142 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=60142)

April 12th, 2007, 09:26

Drug Access┬а|┬аAbbott To Reduce Cost of Kaletra in Thailand, Other Developing Countries
[Apr 11, 2007]
┬а┬а┬а┬а┬а Abbott Laboratories on Tuesday said that it plans to reduce the cost of its antiretroviral drug Kaletra in Thailand and more than 40 low- and low-middle-income countries by more than half, the Chicago Tribune reports. The company said it will provide Kaletra in the countries for $1,000 per patient annually, which is less than the cost of generic versions of the drug, instead of the current price of $2,200 (Miller, Chicago Tribune, 4/10). Abbott in March announced that it had withdrawn applications to sell seven new drugs in Thailand in response to the country's decision to issue a compulsory license for Kaletra. Thai Health Minister Mongkol Na Songkhla in January signed the compulsory license, which allows Thailand to produce a lower-cost version of Kaletra, into law. Abbott had previously offered to lower Kaletra's cost to $167 per patient monthly, but representatives from the health ministry said the offer was still too high (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 4/10). In a meeting with the Thai government on Tuesday, Abbott offered to reduce the cost of 30 Kaletra tablets to about $100, a 40% drop from its earlier proposal, Suchart Chongtrasert -- a senior official at the health ministry's Food and Drug Administration, who helped negotiate the cost -- said (AFP/Todayonline.com, 4/11). Abbott said it will continue with its plan to refrain from introducing some new drugs in Thailand (Chicago Tribune, 4/10). Kaletra costs more than $7,500 per patient annually in the U.S., and Abbott provides the drug at a cost of $500 per patient annually in 69 of the poorest developing countries, including all of Africa (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 8/15/06).
Reaction ?The World Health Organization, which contacted Abbott about making the pricing change, welcomed the decision, the Wall Street Journal reports (Johnson, Wall Street Journal, 4/11). "We are seeing many more patients develop resistance to first-line antiretroviral drugs who will require second-line drugs," WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said, adding, "Clearly a high number of people in 40 countries will benefit" (Dixon, Reuters, 4/10). The AIDS Healthcare Foundation said Abbott's decision was "an enormous victory" for HIV/AIDS advocates, the Journal reports. However, AHF President Michael Weinstein called it "highly vindictive" on Abbott's part not to reinstate the new drug applications in Thailand, adding that the company is "admitting that [it is] wrong" but that it "still feel[s] the need to punish Thailand" (Wall Street Journal, 4/11). Suchart said the proposal shows that Abbott "understands" the position of the Thai government, adding that Abbott did not discuss its ban on new drugs in Thailand (AFP/Todayonline.com, 4/11). According to the Journal, Abbott has said its decision to suspend new medicines is due to concerns about patent integrity and the need to fund continuing drug research (Wall Street Journal, 4/11). The new agreement "takes HIV pricing out of the debate, and now we hope we can have a thoughtful debate about a system society needs in order to bring forth new medicine while increasing affordability," Abbott spokesperson Melissa Brotz said (Chicago Tribune, 4/10).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_repo ... R_ID=44162 (http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=44162)

Aunty

April 12th, 2007, 10:45

Drug Access┬а|┬аAbbott To Reduce Cost of Kaletra in Thailand, Other Developing Countries
[Apr 11, 2007]"We are seeing many more patients develop resistance to first-line antiretroviral drugs who will require second-line drugs,"....................... According to the Journal, Abbott has said its decision to suspend new medicines is due to concerns about patent integrity and the need to fund continuing drug research (Wall Street Journal, 4/11).

And where exactly do people, including the Thai, think these second-line drugs come from? Growing on trees? And do they have any idea of how many of these second-line drugs that work there actually are? Well I'll tell you, there's fuck all of them. Once resistance has developed to them, there's NOTHING left, so new drugs are always needed or else the situation will become dire.

All the HIV drugs that there are were discovered/invented by the hard work of scientists, usually in the drug companies. The strike rate of getting any drug into the clinic is like drilling for oil. Only 2% of drugs that start out in preclinical development make it into the clinic. And it all costs a lot of money, and it's research that comes with no guarantees of success in spite of spending a lot of money. If the Thai are just going to steal these pills and not pay the makers' of them anything then the whole system of drug development will break down. The drug companies will go out of business or at the least stop making new drugs. So what is the alternative? Are Governments going to lock drug-development scientists up in gulags and hold a gun to their head and say make us some new drugs, or else. That's like holding a gun to the head of Beethoven and saying write us another symphony.

Good on Abbott for sticking to its guns. There's a lot more at stake here than just the cost of antivirals in Thailand.

April 12th, 2007, 10:51

gearguy

April 13th, 2007, 00:25

The hand that stocks the drug stores rules the world.

Let us start our Republic with a chain of drug stores, a chain of grocery stores, a chain of gas chambers, and a national game. After that we can write our Constitution.

"Cat's Cradle", Kurt Vonnegut.

Aunty

April 13th, 2007, 05:43

[
Good on Abbott for sticking to its guns.

Too late; they already caved in. Didn't you see the news yesterday? I'll leave it to our resident town crier (teepee/wowpow) to cut and past it for you (I have a life).

Well if Abbott and the Thai authorities have come to an arrangement acceptable to both parties, then that is great, that is at it should be. But Thailand stealing medicine that does not belong to it and doing so unilaterally is a very bad thing for us all.

April 24th, 2007, 12:24

Aunty agrees with Abbott - I seriously think that's appalling. It is effectively killing off those with diseases and not enough money to buy expensive drugs. You may feel happy with the poor dying so that the rich can enjoy the benefits of research funded by drug sales - many do not.

The drug companies do mostly make vast profits and are not reluctant to make their drugs as expensive as the market will bear. The market is No1 USA and No2 Europe where high prices are mostly affordable. Not only that but they cheat as well - search up Roche overcharging British National Health scheme. Some companies have seen the light and Glaxo have recently announced that a new drug will be sold in Africa at cost.

Funding for research can come from many different sources but mainly those with money are Governments and big charities.

I don't know the answer but we must have good research for new and improved drugs and they must affordable to the end user rich or poor. The present capitalist system is not working. As always the poor suffer. What's to be done?

===================================

PR Newswire

"Despite Abbott's Recent Price Cut on Key AIDS Drug for Thailand, US'
Largest HIV/AIDS Healthcare, Prevention and Education Provider Challenges Drug Giant's New 'Quid Pro Quo' Offer to Cut Price Only If Thailand Pulls Compulsory License for Lifesaving AIDS Drug. Drug Giant Also Strongarms Thailand in Continuing its Drug Blacklist on
Several Other Drugs

LOS ANGELES, April 23 /PRNewswire/ -- AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF),
the US' largest HIV/AIDS healthcare, prevention and education provider, which operates free AIDS treatment clinics in the US, Africa, Latin America/Caribbean and Asia, today chastised US drug giant, Abbott Laboratories for its 'quid pro quo' offer earlier today to the Government of Thailand to lower its price for Abbott's key AIDS drug, Aluvia (a heat-stable tablet version of Kaletra) to approximately USD$800 per patient per year -- an offer contingent upon Abbott's demand that Thailand immediately halt issuing compulsory licenses for the generic manufacture of this lifesaving drug. Abbott, vowed to continue its drug blacklist against the people of Thailand, however, by halting the registration of several other new Abbott drugs in Thailand by continuing to withhold those drugs from regulatory approval in that country, a punitive action taken last month by Abbott following unsuccessful drug price negotiations between Abbott and the Government of Thailand on pricing of several of Abbott's drugs......

Full article http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori ... 635&EDATE= (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-23-2007/0004571635&EDATE=)

Aunty

April 24th, 2007, 15:21

Lunchtime O'Booze

April 24th, 2007, 18:37

in fact my mother always said it was her fault I ended up being a poofter !

Drug companies do invest $$$millions in research..but only because the rewards are so great, not for any altruistic motive. Many people think the oil companies are George Bush's greatest backers but the drug companies are the ones who give the most in the USA to political campaigns because they can afford it.

Surely they have some moral obligation to others who cannot access health care like us lucky few in the west-in fact the drug companies actively campaign against universal health care in the countries where it's been so successful like Canada, New Zealand, Australia Sweden etc. where governments force these drug corporations to offer much cheaper drugs in bulk ( and they still make huge profits).And they were the ones who funded the attacks upon the Clinton administration when Bill announced Hilary was to set-up an inquiry into creating universal health care system for the US..we know how that story ended. (a b/j in the White House !)

So I reckon Abbott's are acting like rotters !

(end of rant ) :rr:

April 25th, 2007, 09:29

Every 30 seconds a child dies from Malaria in Africa and in the world between 3000 and 5000 a day.

http://www.who.int/malaria/

April 25th, 2007, 12:14

In all this the parients of HIV and indeed Malaria need help. Lower profits for the drug companies and more availability for the victims.
Life is more important than the shareholders dividends.

April 25th, 2007, 13:39

Bouquet to Mrs Bucket

April 25th, 2007, 15:15

EDITORIAL - Bangkok Post 25th April

"Abbott wrong to target Thailand
The latest offer by Abbott Laboratories to register second-line Aids drug Aluvia in Thailand if the government drops its compulsory licence is a step in the right direction. But the government should reject any offer that calls for dropping the compulsory licence, which is a right guaranteed in the World Trade Organisation's agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS).

Indeed, the government's decision to issue a compulsory licence for Kaletra has already reaped benefits, and not just for Thailand. Although Abbott pulled registrations for Aluvia - a heat-stable form of Kaletra that does not require refrigeration - and six other new drugs in Thailand, the company did reduce the price of both Kaletra and Aluvia for 45 low- and middle-income countries to $1,000 per-patient per year from $2,200 previously.

Thailand was included in this list of countries, but Abbott singled Thailand out by refusing to register Aluvia here. In essence, the pharmaceutical giant was hoping to placate growing calls for an international boycott while still slapping Thailand for daring to take advantage of a WTO agreement on intellectual property rights. The message to the rest of the world was clear: Issue a compulsory licence, and be punished.

But Thai negotiators should accept no punishment from Abbott for issuing a compulsory licence. And that's what makes Abbott's latest offer unacceptable.

First of all, Abbott will still refuse to register six new drugs in Thailand to protest its use of the compulsory licence. This is punishment enough. If Thai policy-makers accept Abbott's latest price reduction on Aluvia - which has been extended to Brazil, China, India and about 40 other countries with no such penalty - then it will have accepted the drug company's right to sanction the country for following an international agreement accepted by 150 WTO members.

Secondly, if Thailand agrees to drop the compulsory licence, it would be giving up a right guaranteed in the TRIPS agreement, which could set a dangerous precedent for future talks with drug companies.
Thailand should not have to apologise or give up rights guaranteed in international treaties for Abbott to register Aluvia and the six other drugs it withdrew. To the contrary, the Thai government's decision to issue compulsory licences has led to cheaper Aids drug prices around the world.

The issue is all about finding the cheapest drugs available for poor patients. As the Public Health Ministry has repeated again and again, the Thai government is not interested in seeking price reductions for rich patients who can afford to pay $2,200 per year for Kaletra or Aluvia. Policy-makers are simply trying to secure cheap prices only for Aids patients who can't afford the drugs and wouldn't buy them anyway.

If Abbott wants to blame anyone for compulsory licences, it can start pointing the finger at the WTO's 150 member governments, including the United States, which agreed that developing countries should have the right to use them. Indeed, TRIPS is the world's foremost agreement on intellectual property rights. It's unacceptable for Abbott to scold Thailand about intellectual property rights when the government has complied with TRIPS throughout the process. Even World Health Organisation head Margaret Chan said Thailand's compulsory licences were "fully in line with the TRIPS agreement."

If Abbott thinks otherwise, it should ask the US government to file a complaint at the WTO's dispute settlement body. If Abbott doesn't do that, it should not expect Thailand or the rest of the world to follow the company's own guidelines on intellectual property.

Although Thai policy-makers courageously started this discussion on intellectual property rights, now the debate must move beyond the country's borders. The WHO and other international bodies should make it clear where they stand.

If TRIPS is nothing more than empty promises, then it must be reworked. If the majority of trading nations oppose compulsory licensing, then it should be done away with altogether. Or if more conditions must be placed on using compulsory licences, then by all means they should be put in place.

But it's the height of hypocrisy for governments to pass a ground-breaking agreement to expand drug access to poor patients, and then heap vitriol on a country that actually tries to implement the deal."

Bangkok Post

It strikes me as a bad comparison for a US lobbyist to be comparing military spending with amounts spent providing affordable drugs for the poor.

Aunty

April 25th, 2007, 16:43

Oh what a lot of self-serving twaddle. Theft is theft, no matter how Thailand wants to tart it up as a right to rip-off the drug companies that made these drugs. On this basis, Thailand might as well take all the drugs it wants and pay the people who actually made them nothing.

Actually there's no point continuing this discussion if none of you address the points I actually raise, but rather, just adopt an unthinking and ill-informed (bigoted really) view that cuts across every legal and business law going!

My advice to Abbott and all the drug companies is clear. Stop making HIV/Aids drugs and avoid this mess altogether. And while they're at it, don't bother with any new TB and malaria drugs either, unless you want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars only to see the drugs stolen. Just concentrate on the drugs needed by the West, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, cholesterol lowering drugs.

Lunchtime O'Booze

April 25th, 2007, 17:59

that's a word my scary Aunty used..you've risen from the grave !!!! angry9: :bonedemon:

Lunchtime O'Booze

April 27th, 2007, 22:16

jaafarabutarab and Aunty.

Surely the (unbelievably rich) drugs companies can provide extremely cheap drugs to countries like Thailand. They make a motza in the West..all that's being asked for is a little humanity.

After all-it's within their own interests to keep as many people alive on the planet as possible !

Just because my morals are in the gutter, doesn't mean large corporations don't have some moral sense towards those in need.

As for them spending huge fortunes on developing drugs-which they do-we could also begin to examine the many tax benefits they get particularly in the US. You're making them out to be saint like entities whose sole aim is to bring us life saving pills-rather than profit making companies for shareholders.

The obvious solution is for Abbotts to come to a happy arrangement with poorer countries-otherwise, people in dire need are perfectly entitled to do whatever they have to to stay alive and if that means nicking the formula for a drug and producing cheap copies, then so be it.

### I followed a similar debate in Australia that happened when they signed a "Free" Trade agreement with the US. They have socialized medicine in Oz and their government bargains with large drug corporations to buy massive quantities of drugs at far cheaper prices ( capitalism at work !). Naturally the Yanks (who always get the better deal) did over the Aussies on the supply of generic drugs...courtesy of the US drug Corporations who are all powerful.

April 28th, 2007, 03:29

This is an interesting debate going on here for a change so I will put in my two cents. I am sure that all of us want to see people (rich or poor) who need life sustaining drugs receive those drugs. The question becomes how does one keep the momentum going on the research and development of new drugs if the corporations which do this do not make a profit on the sale of those drugs? The drug companies are in business to make money for their shareholders. Their raison d'etre is to return profits to their shareholders NOT to operate as a benevolent organization. Sorry folks but that is the way it is. Corporations try to make money, as much of it as they can, same as you and me when we work.

Thailand and like countries spend more on military and defense than on health care. I have a hard time listening to the government of Thailand using arguments like not affording these drugs when the military spends lavishly to insure they can roll a tank into Bangkok to "restore" democracy so let's put some of the blame where it belongs. It all has to do sometimes with priorities. We all know where the Thai government's priorities are, and it is NOT education and health care. Some where in this thread is something quoted that Thailand has universal health care. We know this is NOT the case. They don't come close. All this does not mean that I don't think there are some very dedicated people in Thailand working hard to care for those with HIV and AIDS, there are. But the government surely has not given any leadership to this issue. While many can understandably support the Thai governments desire to get around the drug companies by manufacturing their own generics, it does not do any good when, like someone said, the drug companies decide it is no longer profitable to develop such drugs and just stick to making drugs that are of more interest in the western countries. I personally think that there should probably be more funding by governments to develop those drugs which are so badly needed throughout the world and then they could be manufactured and distributed at cost throughout the world.

We have a situation going on here in the United States with hospitals emergency rooms. Hospitals with emergency rooms are required by law to admit anyone for emergency treatment whether they can pay or not and whether they have insurance or not. Now this is all fine and good in theory. However once the hospitals start loosing money on the cost of this emergency treatment because there is no or little reimbursement from the government, they quickly see the writing on the wall and ultimately close the emergency rooms altogether. This has and is happening. There is no doubt that the health care system in the USA is broken and need of major overhaul. The point is that once the financial incentive is taken away the hospitals (corporations) figure other methods of making a return on their investment or at least stopping the areas of loss.

Lastly, I will mention that we always here about the huge profits made by drug companies but wouldn't it be more informative for us to actually look at these public corporations and see how the money is made and how it is spent and what the net return really is. I wish I had the time to actually look into Abbott and see what their return on investment is for the drug in question and overall. No one should be foolish enough to think any corporation is satisfied with a 10 or 15% return. They just as well close the doors and invest the money elsewhere with no effort. They must grow their profits year after year or the stock holders will invest elsewhere.

So as much as I think those of you who think the drug companies should be more benevolent are well intentioned, it is just not real world thinking. Is Abbott's stand against the Thai authorities any different in Microsoft and movie companies going after those who pirate CD/DVD/software?

I think the Thai government should have negotiated with Abbott BEFORE sticking their neck out and taking unilateral action. I am happy that Abbott saw fit to work with the Thai government and reach a settlement that will help those in need of this drug. But if all underdeveloped, poor countries took this attitude, the drug companines would do one of two things to maintain their profit: (1) charge more for the drug in the USA and Europe countries placing the burdon on the people of these countries, (2) stop conducting research and stop manufacturing such drugs that do not give them a return on their investment. It is the world's governments that can negotiate with the drug companies and reach solid and fair agreements but they must step up to the plate and be willing to put health care above defense spending. That would show me that they are really looking after the needs of their people. That is not likely to happen.

April 28th, 2007, 18:35

Bob, let's not be simplistic. Life saving drugs are not DVDs. To price such drugs beyond the affordability of people, or to refuse to supple a country, can be to condemn them to death.

April 28th, 2007, 19:12

The discussion is a good one. Thailand has not broken any laws by taking the actions it has. The government is responsible for the care of the population, at least they are light years ahead of South Africa and the criminal idiocy of their Prime Minister Tabo Mbeki.

Over half a million people in Thailand are living with HIV. It is likely that most of those are among the poorest in the population, and they have Little chance of meeting the ┬г1,100 per year cost for only one of the key drugs. Of course the government needs to get its priorities right, but no country is going to abandon funding its armed forces in favour of health care. At least the Thai government is not sending its army to interfere with other countries around the world at vast cost (financial and in blood).

The drug companies are researching HIV/AIDS drugs because of the needs of those infected in the western world where huge profits are to be made. If the problem was confined to poor countries they would certainly not be bothering.

Their actions in withdrawing much needed drugs should be made illegal under international law.

April 29th, 2007, 02:34

Bob, let's not be simplistic. Life saving drugs are not DVDs. To price such drugs beyond the affordability of people, or to refuse to supple a country, can be to condemn them to death.Drugs get priced like everything else - the law of supply and demand. And no profit-seeking company is going to supply drugs at less than the full cost of production, including the cost of discovering, developing and testing the drug in the first place. That's economic reality. We're not talking the dissection of amoebae here. If however governments wish to buy the drugs at the street price and then supply them at a lesser price to the indigent then that's a political decision. Let's not get the two confused

Bob

April 29th, 2007, 02:35

It's a bit surprising to me regarding the level of allegiance to the pharmaceutical companies shown in this thread. As far as I am concerned, most of them don't give a damn about much of anything other than profits. Historically, the drug companies based in my country (US) have charges US citizens 2-10 times for the same drug that they have charged elsewhere. Master gougers. And, but for governmental agencies such as the FDA which are designed to protect us from
dangerous pharmaceuticals, the drug companies would be producing and selling all kinds of more dangerous drugs than they already do (in the name of kind assistance to mankind if you're a dreamer or, profits, if you're not).

As concerns absolutely critical drugs (such as the HIV anti-virals), I for one would choose the health of my citizens over the profits or patent rights of the drug companies. The international accords protecting the drug patents have somewhat of an escape clause and the country is allowed to ignore the patent (and produce its own cheaper generics) after a one-year notice (although there is still required to be some fair payment). In my view, most of the third-world countries ought to provide the notice and take care of their citizens.

When it comes to products not needed for basic life and limb, I can understand the basis for strict patent protection. But applying the same rules to a drug you need to save your life and to a delayed wiper mechanism on an automobile makes no sense at all to me.

April 29th, 2007, 02:39

It's a bit surprising to me regarding the level of allegiance to the pharmaceutical companies shown in this thread. As far as I am concerned, most of them don't give a damn about much of anything other than profits. Why should they? Or are you saying that all companies don't (but should) give a damn about anything other than profits? Companies are the sum of their shareholders and as a shareholder in a drug company or a bank or any other Bastard Of The Moment, I expect management to maximise the return on my investment. It's up to government to have social aims - that's the point of democracy

Bob

April 29th, 2007, 03:15

While I agree that governments should pursue social policies, it's kind of a non-sequitur to say that's the point of a democracy. Democratic and undemocratic governments ought to pursue policies for the benefit of their citizens.

And perhaps some of those governments ought to step harder on the drug companies, especially involving drugs critically needed to save lives. And, if necessary, simply take them over. Many governments, in the name of national security, subsidize or substantially control their arms factories. If that government had an hiv/aids epidemic affecting 10,20, 30, or even 40 percent of its citizens, it would seem to me that national security would require that government to force by any means possible the provision of the anti-virals to those citizens.

As to your comment that these companies are merely the sum of their shareholders and/or express the will of their shareholders, that's the theoretical ideal and goal. And you could say the same about most democratic governments. And one would even hope it's true on a long-term basis (if so, maybe we'll eventually get the hell out of Iraq!).

April 29th, 2007, 03:52

While I agree that governments should pursue social policies, it's kind of a non-sequitur to say that's the point of a democracy. Democratic and undemocratic governments ought to pursue policies for the benefit of their citizens.Perhaps you should read Mancur Olson's Power and Prosperity. Undemocratic governments don't pursue such policies - there are no benevolent dictatorships. Democratic governments may pursue such policies and through the ballot box their citizens can encourage them to do so

April 30th, 2007, 00:51

PUBLIC-RELATIONS BATTLE
Thaksin linked to US criticism of government - The Nation

Democrat calls for swift response to article by adviser to ousted PM's lobby firm

A top Democrat yesterday urged the government to respond swiftly to what he described as a coordinated attempt to discredit Thailand in the United States that is being orchestrated by former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Korbsak Sabhavasu, a member of the Democrat Party's executive board, was responding to an opinion piece by Ken Adelman - a former US ambassador to the United Nations and an adviser to Edelman Public Relations - in the Washington Times on Friday. The article blasts the Thai government over its patent dispute with US drug firms.

"We've long regarded Thailand as a fine little country," Adelman wrote in the article that accuses Thailand's military of trying to steal US intellectual property (IP).

Thailand now belongs to what he calls "the axis of IP evil".

Korbsak said the tone of Adelman's article made it apparent that he was trying to discredit the government on behalf of Thaksin, although Adelman signed the article in his capacity as director of USA for Innovation, a group that lobbies for US pharmaceutical firms.

Edelman PR was hired by Thaksin earlier this year to launch a public relations campaign to help him return to the Kingdom, Korbsak noted.

The Chicago-based firm also represents Abbott Laboratories, which is involved in a patent dispute with Thailand over its life-saving Aids drug Kaletra....

Full article: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04 ... 033014.php (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/30/national/national_30033014.php)

April 30th, 2007, 02:28

There will never be a "Cure" for HIV as long as the Drug companies continue to make hugh profits "Treating" it, not cureing it. The drug companies have spent almost nothing to come up with a way to KEEP you from getting HIV (a vaccine), only how to treat you once you have it. The drug compaines are in no danger or going under because thailand decides to make some generic versions of a few HIV drugs that are a couple generations behind the latest drugs.

April 30th, 2007, 05:04

The drug compaines are in no danger or going under because thailand decides to make some generic versions of a few HIV drugs that are a couple generations behind the latest drugs.

And you aren't going to go bankrupt if a bar boy steals 10,000 baht out of your wallet. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it, though.

April 30th, 2007, 07:03

The drug compaines are in no danger or going under because thailand decides to make some generic versions of a few HIV drugs that are a couple generations behind the latest drugs.

you aren't going to go bankrupt if a bar boy steals 10,000 baht out of your wallet. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it, though.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/violin.gif You are Ike a fucking energizer battery, it goes on and on and on and ............ http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/detonate.gif

G.

April 30th, 2007, 09:37

Thailand takes on drugs giants
By Jonathan Head
BBC News, Bangkok

The Thai government's decision to bypass the patents on two Aids drugs and one heart drug, so it can offer them to all Thai citizens, is a bold move, which has put the country on a collision course with the big pharmaceutical firms.

Six years ago I visited a clinic outside Bangkok, where a locally-made pill, called V1 Immunitor, was being distributed. The claim that it could treat HIV/Aids was widely discredited, yet the queues went right around the block. The people waiting patiently in the Bangkok heat came from all walks of life. There were street vendors, civil-servants and respectable-looking middle-class women - evidence of the extraordinary reach of the HIV/Aids epidemic in Thailand. Few were under any illusions that V1 Immunitor would help them, but then what did they have to lose?
None could afford the anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) available in Europe and the US. To them, the HIV virus was a virtual death sentence.

Fast-forward six years, and nobody talks about V1 Immunitor any more.
Affordable ARVs are now available to tens of thousands of Thais - in fact many do not pay anything at all for them, as they are provided by the government's universal healthcare scheme or by HIV/Aids organisations.
This is possible because of Thailand's decision to make cheap, generic copies of ARVs at a fraction of the cost of the branded drugs. It is something the big pharmaceutical companies resisted at first, but then went along with.

But they are strongly resisting Thailand's latest move. Last November the new country's health minister, Dr Mongkol na Songkhla, announced he would issue what is known as a compulsory licence to manufacture low-cost versions of the HIV drug Efavirenz. Efavirenz - which is made by the pharmaceutical giant Merck MSD, and protected by a patent in Thailand - is an alternative treatment for patients who do not respond well to the locally made ARVs. Three months later, Dr Mongkol announced that two more drugs would be targeted with compulsory licences - the second-line ARV Kaletra, which is manufactured by the US company Abbott and is important for HIV/Aids patients showing signs of resistance to first-line ARVs - and most controversially the heart drug Plavix, manufactured by the French company Sanofi-Aventis.

Suddenly Thailand, long seen as a loyal trading partner of the US, has seen its image transformed into that of a violator of intellectual property rights. Its decision has been condemned by the pharmaceutical industry, but applauded by non-governmental organisations campaigning for wider access to affordable medicines.

Actually what Thailand has done is completely legal under international trade regulations.

The landmark 1995 World Trade Organisation agreement on intellectual property, Trips, gives governments a large amount of freedom to bypass patents on drugs if they face any kind of health crisis.

The language of the agreement is vague. It recommends that governments consult the drug companies first, and requires them to pay a small royalty. But crucially, the government itself can decide what constitutes a health crisis. The drug companies have always assumed that the Trips exception would only be used for a dire emergency, like HIV/Aids or avian flu. Issuing a compulsory licence for a heart drug, they say, breaks the spirit of the agreement.

Abbott has now withdrawn all its future products from the Thai market - including a new heat-resistant form of Kaletra which is desperately needed by HIV patients.

Dr Mongkol is quite open about his motives for challenging the patents on these three drugs. "Our health system is in danger of going bankrupt," he said, "and one of the biggest expenses we face is the cost of drugs." A developing country now approaching middle-income status, Thailand has very high levels of heart disease. At Bangkok's main chest hospital, doctors say they spend almost 20% of their entire budget on Plavix, which is why it was one of the drugs targeted.

But should a developing country be allowed to fund its public health service by breaking the patents of drugs developed by multi-national pharmaceutical companies? Thailand is one of the first countries at its income level to introduce such a service.

Richer countries like Britain have difficulty funding their health systems; Thailand, with a much lower government budget, inevitably finds it harder still.

The nationwide health scheme was first introduced in 2001 by then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who had a gift for coming up with populist policies that would keep getting him elected.

When he was over-thrown by a military coup last September, the new government, needing to shore up its own legitimacy, went even further and eliminated the nominal charge for treatment.

It was encouraged in this by Dr Mongkol, who suddenly found himself promoted to becoming a minister after 40 years fighting for better health care as a career civil servant in the Ministry of Health.

Supporters of the compulsory licences, like Paul Cawthorne from Medicins Sans Frontiers, believe Thailand's bold step is the right one. He argues that the big pharmaceutical companies make plenty of money from less essential drugs, like Viagra, and that they spend a lot more on advertising their products than they do on research and development. Much of the research in the US is, in any case, done by government-funded universities, he says. He is calling for a radical shake-up in the pricing of a whole range of essential drugs, to make them affordable in every country - and he believes Thailand has set an example other governments should follow.

Opponents argue that governments cannot feel free to break the patents on any drugs they choose, just to fund cheap healthcare for their citizens.
That, they say, destroys the incentive to develop new drugs. But the situation varies enormously from country to country.

Until recently India, for example, did not recognise the patents of multinational drug companies, and has built up a huge industry making cheap generic drugs without incurring the wrath of the industry. Because Thailand went along with patent protection many years ago, it is being criticised for following India's example. Indeed, some of the cheap drugs Thailand now wants to give its patients are actually imported from India.

Tellingly the US, normally a vocal defender of intellectual property rights, has not criticised Thailand's decision, nor has the World Health Organization. The drug companies are also showing signs of flexibility, offering significant price cuts to Thailand. Even Abbott, which has taken the most hardline stand, is under great pressure to reverse its decision to pull future products from the Thai market.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Thailand's drugs pricing policy, it looks as though Dr Mongkol is starting to win his battle for affordable healthcare.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/a ... 587379.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/6587379.stm)