US blocks cheap drugs agreement

[Jaakko]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2596751.stm

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.

[MRT144]

there is no good reason

[Urban Ranger]

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

[Arrian]

From the article:

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

[rah]

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

[Jaakko]

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?

[Solly]

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.

[Urban Ranger]

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

[Solly]

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[Jaakko]

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.

[uh Clem]

...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

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 ...

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.

[SpencerH]

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.

[Wernazuma III]

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.

[DaShi]

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

Aren't you in China?