14-01-2003 21:33									#1
	US blocks cheap drugs agreement Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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.

	14-01-2003 21:39									#2
	Inflate your Upload Space

there is no good reason

	14-01-2003 21:40									#3
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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

	14-01-2003 21:57									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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

	14-01-2003 22:35									#5
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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

	14-01-2003 22:44									#6
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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?

	14-01-2003 23:08									#7
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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.

	14-01-2003 23:09									#8
	Got spare money?

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

	14-01-2003 23:10									#9
	Suffering from ads?

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.

	14-01-2003 23:14									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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.

	14-01-2003 23:20									#11
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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.

	14-01-2003 23:54									#12
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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.

	14-01-2003 23:59									#13
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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.

	15-01-2003 00:03									#14
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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.

	15-01-2003 00:17									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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

Aren't you in China?

	15-01-2003 00:27									#16
	Put an end to popups!

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.

	15-01-2003 00:34									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.

	15-01-2003 00:35									#18
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Sorry, not patient enough.

	15-01-2003 00:37									#19
	Suffering from ads?

Is that so, you Japanese atrocity denier.

	15-01-2003 00:38									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Blah!

	15-01-2003 01:35									#21
	Re: US blocks cheap drugs agreement Increase Your PM Length

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.

	15-01-2003 01:43									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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.

	15-01-2003 01:46									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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

	15-01-2003 01:57									#24
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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...

	15-01-2003 02:00									#25
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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.

	15-01-2003 03:01									#26
	Suffering from ads?

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.

	15-01-2003 03:02									#27
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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.

	15-01-2003 03:05									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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?

	15-01-2003 03:05									#29
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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?

	15-01-2003 03:15									#30
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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.