 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2004Drug companies abused their position
BMJ 2003;327:946 (25 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7421.946-a Competition body rules that drug companies "abused" their position Pat Sidley Johannesburg South Africa's competition regulatory body has ruled in favour of AIDS activists who want protection of patents on antiretroviral drugs to be drastically curtailed so that South African makers of generic drugs will be able to produce cheap copies of the drugs. The Competition Commission ruled in favour of 10 complainants (including the trade union federation and several doctors and nurses) who sought to prove that GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim abused their position of market dominance and their patents by charging too much for their drugs, depriving poor people of access to the drugs. The activists, grouped under the banner of the Treatment Action Campaign, had also complained that a voluntary licence that the companies granted to a manufacturer of generic drugs was too restrictive. The commission ruled that the companies had indeed abused their position and has indicated that all generic drug manufacturers wishing to make cheap copies of antiretroviral drugs ought to be able to do so without seeking the permission of the patent holder. Just as the commission was making its findings known GlaxoSmithKline announced that it had dropped the prices of several of its antiretroviral drugs and had eased restrictions on the voluntary licence. The company protested that the commission had assured it that it would have time to negotiate a settlement with the litigants. The ruling has been referred to the Competition Tribunal for what is effectively an appeal. It is likely to be vigorously contested, because the precedent set by the commission is likely to affect a wide range of drugs used to treat the types of diseases found in large numbers of poor people in the region. These diseases include malaria and tuberculosis. The lawyer working on behalf of the activists, Fatima Hassan, believes the commission has given a clear indication of its future direction when other such complaints reach it. In reaching its decision the commission had taken into account international law on intellectual property and had used intellectual property consultants in its research. South Africa has several generic drug manufacturers, although only two are able to make antiretrovirals. Other companies, however, would be able to import the drugs from India and other countries. "Derick Burns" <news@emergencycare.com.au> wrote... > South Africa's competition regulatory body has ruled in favour of AIDS > activists who want protection of patents on antiretroviral drugs to be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > market dominance and their patents by charging too much for their drugs, > depriving poor people of access to the drugs. I often criticize the drug companies, but I'm going to defend them here. They've literally spent billions of dollars on research over the last 20 years to come up with these incredible drugs and they deserve to profit from their work. What exactly do the activists define as "too much" to charge for a drug that suppresses the HIV virus and allows patients to live in good general health indefinitely instead of rotting away in 3 years? I say that if the activists don't like the price, they can go raise money, build their own drug factory, and invent new drugs which they can then give away for free. I often use the Soviet Union as a perfect example of what happens when the government sets the price of goods - you wind up with great prices and NO goods available at those prices. Take an HIV drug that currently sells for $100 a pill and set the price at $0.01 a pill (truly a "fair price" in the eyes of the activists), and the result will be no HIV drug at all, as the manufacturers are not going to sell something they can't profit off of. Now if I were the pharmaceutical companies and South Africa and whatever other country violated my patents and manufactured low-cost generics (or rather counterfeits), then I would respond by refusing to sell any other drugs to those countries, and I would lobby the U.S. government to impose sanctions on those countries for theft of intellectual property by manufacturing illegal counterfeit drugs. snip...> >I often criticize the drug companies, but I'm going to defend them here. >They've literally spent billions of dollars on research over the last 20 >years to come up with these incredible drugs and they deserve to profit >from their work. Where do you get that figure? Do you know how much they've earned? What the public sector contribution has been to that drug development process? What the market in Africa is as a percentage of business? Why they block access to medications that are much cheaper that could save millions of lives? Do you believe intellectual property trumps human life? George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote... > snip...> >>I often criticize the drug companies, but I'm going to defend them here. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Do you believe intellectual property trumps human life? Do you want new drugs or not? Remember that each new drug in development must undergo the most rigorous testing, and many compounds are discovered to be toxic and thus the large amount of money spent developing them is lost. Just look at some of the members of this group who have conniption fits when any HIV drug on the market is discovered to be harmful later, accusing the drug companies of negligence and suing their a.ses off. Why should a drug company spends tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in research to develop a single new HIV drug, then have some company in South Africa or India rip off the formula and sell it for a steep discount (hint: the reason the generics are so much cheaper is because the cost of development was paid by the original inventing company, not the company that manufactures the ripoff). As I said, profit is very important, and protection of intellectual property rights is even written into the U.S. Constitution. You are still free to spend YOUR own money on research, invent YOUR own HIV drugs, and sell them for any price you wish or give them away for free. You do not do so because you don't have the money, and you are not going to find investors willing to invest in your research if they know they aren't going to profit off your discoveries (since you give away your drug for free). I'm sorry you don't understand this most fundamental principle of capitalism, but it is the way the world works. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Do you want new drugs or not? LOL. Answer the questions with a question. A stupid rhetorical trick that implies an answer--if I want new drugs, then ONLY the system we have will provide them. Bullshit. > Remember that each new drug in development >must undergo the most rigorous testing, and many compounds are discovered >to be toxic and thus the large amount of money spent developing them is >lost. It's the costs of R&D. Yep. Familiar with them. They're not THAT much. In vitro testing is not that costly. Animal testing starts to get a bit costly--and the REASON that costs are increasing for preclinical evaluation is partly BECAUSE of the dense thicket of patents where new compounds, to be investigated, must pay out sometimes exorbitant licensing fees all up- and downstream in the process of that development. Patent law has gotten completely out of control. In addition, MOST infectious diseases that require antibiotic therapy for a short (few weeks/few months) course are completely ignored by R&D. So the system is worse than broken. > Just look at some of the members of this group who have conniption >fits when any HIV drug on the market is discovered to be harmful later, >accusing the drug companies of negligence and suing their a.ses off. Ah, that happens with all drugs because they've lost sight of the science and decided to use LOTS of money to make bad deals with hospitals and universities to turn them into little propaganda factories that churn out data designed to be used as marketing tools. Where HUGE amounts of pharma money go: advertising, marketing as well as their litigation departments to sue others for patent infringement. > Why >should a drug company spends tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the cost of development was paid by the original inventing company, not >the company that manufactures the ripoff). Because in South Africa --and sub-Saharan Africa--they have NO market whatsoever. There will be no harm done to them--indeed, they COULD have worked out compulsory license agreements that garner them some money instead of zero money for another company to provide the drugs much less expensively. MUCH. From $15,000/patient/year to as little as $120. And so that translates into lives. So you think it's just peachy keen that 3 MILLION MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN DIED of AIDS last year...just last year--when treatments are available? That's OK? It's justified by protecting a market that doesn't exist? By protecting profits that go well into the BILLIONS the first year after approval? For an industry that has generated profits year-over-year far in excess of any other industry--riding on that while failing to do any really good R&D and pipelines narrow? Your fundamental principles of capitalism are garbage. There IS an alternative. Government funded studies. I'm sure LOTS of us would be happy to see more $ go into R&D, development and clinical studies than already does. (Indeed, much of what pharma has COMES from publicly funded research--lest you forget--but our government is corrupt and hands over a license without even a whisper of how much they should charge. CRADAs got dumped for that reason.) there's also not-for-profit research companies that are developing. I'm sorry you're such a Scrooge-esque a.shole that you think making money is the be-all and end-all--indeed, it IS the end-all for millions. Who will die year in and year out because sh.ts like you think GREED is good. Yeah. Well, merry f.cking christmas to you too. Tell that to the kids in Africa, India, Thailand, Nepal. Tell it to their faces. Hey! Sorry. We gotta protect intellectual property rights so stop complaining about the fact that drug treatment is available but, tough titties, we're gonna let you die. George M. Carter > "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > this most fundamental principle of capitalism, but it is the way > the world works. This system that you seem to think is so perfect is the same one the developed Viox and Celebrex two drugs that according to all the available research are no more effective pain relievers then is Ibupropun though in some patients they may be easier on the stomach. While being poor pain relievers they are great at increasing the odds of the patients having hart problems. So your perfect market system produced products that have cost the nations health care system Billions of dollars for there purchase when an expenditure of pennies on the dollar would have produced the same pain relief for the patients in question while killing untold numbers of those same patients due to hart problems. This same system produced 4 drugs to solve erectile dysfunction again costing the health care system Billions of dollars while at the same time due to reduction in insurance coverage due precisely to these types of costs many patients can not afford to purchase the drugs they need to save their very lives. What kind of rational person would think that it is important to provide access to drugs like Viox that cost massively more then existing products does not provide better outcomes or quality of life and turns out to be deadly rather then needed life saving medications that are safe and do improve outcomes and quality of life? Gary Stein |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.