It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thailand Goes Against Patent Laws To Treat AIDS

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Thailands government released an official statement announcing they would be producing AIDS drug treatment themselves as well as a heart disease drug. They announce that this move will save them 800 million baht or 24 million dollars. The Thai government says they don't have the money to buy the drugs from foreign drug companies. These companies are expected to take them to court.
 



www.washingtonpost.com
BANGKOK (Reuters) - Thailand's army-appointed government confirmed on Monday it approved a cheap, copycat version of a blockbuster heart disease drug, the first time a developing country has torn up the international patent for such a treatment.

In addition to the "compulsory license" of Plavix, made by U.S. and European pharmaceutical giants Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis, Bangkok approved a generic version of Abbott Laboratories' Kaletra, an HIV/AIDS treatment.

The move, which Thai health officials said would save the country as much as 800 million baht ($24 million) a year, drew flak from the drug industry but praise from AIDS activists.

"We have to do this because we don't have enough money to buy safe and necessary drugs for the people under the government's universal health scheme," Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla told reporters on Monday, confirming newspaper reports that circulated last week.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I say right on. When these companies are screwing people over by holding a monopoly on these drugs, what is a growing nation to do? They need treatment but cannot afford it. So what do they do, break the law for the good of their people, or let their people die?

If your child were sick, would you personally break the law to save them, or let them die to respect the law?

Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk




posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I agree with you completely. We in India had a very liberal patent regime earlier, wherein the patents were not 'product patents' but 'process patents'. This means that if a company was able to duplicate a moelcule owned by another company by using an alternative method of production it was allowed to do so freely.

This regime has led to India having some of the lowest drug prices in the world, and simoltaneously leading to a robust pharmaceutical industry that can take on the world.

However due to the WTO restrictions etc we have had to switch over to a 'product patent' regime. Which is quite sad.

However the government still holds the right to grant the rights of manufacture of any drug, patented or not, to several pharmaceutical company if it feels that the drug is needed by the population of the country.

This is a very good thing, as this means that drugs for diseases like AIDS, Diabetes, Tubercolosis, Heart disease etc, which afflict a significant protion of the population remain low cost and within the reach of the common man


df1

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
The only reason for any government to exist is to look out for the well being of the people that they represent. The government of Thailand is doing that. I can hardly wait to hear the American critics griping about the loss of corporate profits and explaining to us how if these multinational drug companies can't make a profit they won't develop new drugs in the future.

If sick people can't afford these new drugs who gives a damn if they do more research. The legal drug cartel might as well go back to making laundry detergent, if the people can't get treatment because they can't afford the drug.

We need to get the US congress to represent the interests of people instead of the interests of drug companies.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by df1]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Those companies that are suing the Thai government plan to have the trial where? Thailand?


It's going to be a losing case. A country's government can choose which copyright/trademark/patent laws they will accept into federal law.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Those companies that are suing the Thai government plan to have the trial where? Thailand?


It's going to be a losing case. A country's government can choose which copyright/trademark/patent laws they will accept into federal law.


That's right, Thailand will be using the "go eff yourself" defense.
God forbid human lives are chosen over money, although I'm sure some goofy, drug company sponsored spin-doctor will be on Fox News eventually about this, explaining how in the long run, this will hurt the economy and more people could die.

That's when I'll have to write Fox and explain how Thailand's defense works...
and that's much to graphic for ATS



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Well, I always knew Thailand was an interesting place, and was
on my list of countries that I did'nt mind and somewhat liked, but
this has moved it up to one of the countries I like.

I'm glad to see that the Thainese government is actuially doing
what government is for, to protect and aid it's peoples.


In my opinions, you should'nt have to pay money to be healthy
in the first place.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg
This regime has led to India having some of the lowest drug prices in the world,

Well, of course. You're stealing drugs. That tends to be pretty cost effective.


Its all well and good as long as there is someone actually inventing the drugs in the first place, but clearly it wouldn't work worldwide. I mean, I think that any nation really has no choice here, they have to dole out the drugs that will save so many lives, but still, the drug business is just that, a business, not a charity. They're not in it to cure diseases, they're there to make a profit, and its because of that that we even have these drugs at all.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Good going Thailand. At least someone's governmnet cares about the population they are protecting.

Screw Phiser and all those huge pharmacudicla companies who withhold medicin because they can't make a profit at it. That is immoral and wrong and should be a crime of some sort.

Shame on them if they sue. And I say the US govt. should not back up the pharmecudical companies either. It wrong, plain and simple.

Go for it Thailand. It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.


df1

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
They're not in it to cure diseases, they're there to make a profit, and its because of that that we even have these drugs at all.

Excuse me for not dropping to bended knee to offer my humble thank you to these corporate Gods for allowing even some of us to relieve our suffering with their powerful magic potions.

If I believed that my doctor is more concerned with making a profit than curing me, I'm going to get a new doctor. And so would you, don't deny it, because it is in your best interest to do so. Yet you are not applying this same standard to the drug companies which provide the medications that are prescribed by your doctor and it doesn't bother you in the least that they don't give a damn about whether you get well or not.

Americans aren't thinking right any more. I'm not sure if its cellphones, chemtrails or what. But something is definitely wrong. I believe what Nygdan posted is true. What troubles me is the number of people that think it is just fine and dandy.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by df1]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its all well and good as long as there is someone actually inventing the drugs in the first place, but clearly it wouldn't work worldwide. I mean, I think that any nation really has no choice here, they have to dole out the drugs that will save so many lives, but still, the drug business is just that, a business, not a charity. They're not in it to cure diseases, they're there to make a profit, and its because of that that we even have these drugs at all.

What Nygdan speaks is the truth. Pharms spend years of research, hundreds of millions in money, and adherence to strict regulations before a drug is allowed to be placed on the market. And then they are supposed to, in effect, give it away? They cannot stay in business that way.

Perhaps Thailand cannot afford the cost of the drugs today. Maybe they can tomorrow. Let Thailand work out some repayment schedule with the pharms.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
If I believed that my doctor is more concerned with making a profit than curing me, I'm going to get a new doctor.

Kinda doesn't matter since your doctor isn't the one creating these medecines.


And so would you, don't deny it, because it is in your best interest to do so.

Your doctor IS more concerned with making money than helping you. If you need medecine but can't afford it, he's not going to give you his paycheck to cover it.



Yet you are not applying this same standard to the drug companies which provide the medications that are prescribed by your doctor and it doesn't bother you in the least that they don't give a damn about whether you get well or not.

They do, they need for the drug to work, or else they don't make money. The profit motive is far more stable, reliable, and pervasise, than the charity or altruism motive.


What troubles me is the number of people that think it is just fine and dandy.

We think its 'good' because without it, we wouldn't have the drugs in the first place. At least this way the people that can afford it can pay for it, and the countries that can't will just take it anyway.
Seems win win, really. Good intentions don't treat diseases, good pharmacology does.


df1

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
What Nygdan speaks is the truth.

These companies spend big bucks to cultivate a positive image on television, news and in government. You really don't have any idea about the true research costs, any more than the president & the congress know where 3 trillion of our tax dollars has gone. Nygdan spoke the truth only when said they were in it just for the money. And they will freaking lie, fake test result and fudge the budget to make more money. And now you jump on board saying its "A ok" with you.


Originally posted by Nygdan
The profit motive is far more stable, reliable, and pervasive, than the charity or altruism motive.

The profit motive is far more stable, reliable, and pervasive as a method of making money, but not as a method for developing medications for people. These companies own the freaking FDA so we have no oversight. For all we know the pharmacist is filling our scripts with "Soylent Green" that will spontaneously reverse everyones sexual preference on 12/12/2012 and it would still be "A ok" with you because, damn it, your a capitalist.

Guys, capitalism is not a religion. Nobody is going to burn eternally in the abyss if as a society we choose to put the well being of people ahead of money. Controlling the spread disease is of benefit to everybody, even capitalists, not just those receiving the medication. The actions of Thailand may very well be insuring your health.


[edit on 29-1-2007 by df1]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by jsobecky
What Nygdan speaks is the truth.

These companies spend big bucks to cultivate a positive image on television, news and in government. You really don't have any idea about the true research costs, any more than the president & the congress know where 3 trillion of our tax dollars has gone. Nygdan spoke the truth only when said they were in it just for the money. And they will freaking lie, fake test result and fudge the budget to make more money. And now you jump on board saying its "A ok" with you.

Do you have any idea of the cost of physical plant necessary to manufacture drugs? Forget the cost of plant, do you have any idea of the investment in education and discipline necessary to create the concept? It's not three crones in a cave stirring a cauldron of bubbly.

And after years of research and development, chances are good that you end up with a dud. Sorry, df1, I think you are the one who is being naive here.


Originally posted by Nygdan
The profit motive is far more stable, reliable, and pervasive, than the charity or altruism motive.


The profit motive is far more stable, reliable, and pervasive as a method of making money, but not as a method for developing medications for people.

What you don't understand is that it's what make altruism possible. If it were not for these pharmcos, we'd still be using bloodletting as a cure, and we'd be looking for the striped barber's pole when we had a cancer ravaging our body.


These companies own the freaking FDA so we have no oversight. For all we know the pharmacist is filling our scripts with "Soylent Green" that will spontaneously reverse everyones sexual preference on 12/12/2012 and it would still be "A ok" with you because, damn it, your a capitalist.

Time to check out of this conversation, because when you make statements like that, you're either delusional or joking around.

Buh-bye.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Good for Thailand. It's not law that is the question of motive, but humanism, something that can be circumvented by law so easily.

The following is from Dr Matthias Rath's book, Why Animals Don't Get Heart Attacks . . . But People Do!

1. The purpose and driving force of the pharmaceutical industry is to increase sales of pharmaceutical drugs for ongoing diseases and to find new diseases to market existing drugs.

2. By this very nature, the pharmaceutical industry has no interest in curing diseases. The eradication of any disease inevitably destroys a multi-billion dollar market of prescription drugs. Therefore, pharmaceutical drugs are primarily developed to relieve symptoms, but not to cure.

3. If eradication therapies for diseases are discovered and developed, the industry has a basic interest to suppress, discredit and obstruct these medical breakthroughs in order to make sure that diseases continue as the very basis for a lucrative prescription drug market.

4. The economic interest of the pharmaceutical industry is the main reason why no medical breakthrough has been made for the control of the most common diseases such as cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, heart failure, diabetes, cancer, and osteoporosis, and why these diseases continue like epidemics on a worldwide scale.

5. For the same economic reasons, the pharmaceutical industry has now formed an international cartel by the code name "Codex Alimentarius" with the aim to outlaw any health information in connection with vitamins and to limit free access to natural therapies on a worldwide scale.

6. At the same time, the pharmaceutical companies withhold public information about the effects and risks of prescription drugs and life-threatening side effects are omitted or openly denied.

7. In order to assure the status quo of this deceptive scheme, a legion of pharmaceutical lobbyists is employed to influence legislation, control regulatory agencies (e.g., FDA), and manipulate medical research and education. Expensive advertising campaigns and PR agencies are used to deceive the public.

8. Millions of people and patients around the world are defrauded twice: A major portion of their income is used to finance the exploding profits of the pharmaceutical industry. In return, they are offered a medicine that does not even cure.


We live in a sick world, no pun intended. As long as there are diseased individuals, there is profit to be made.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Well, of course. You're stealing drugs. That tends to be pretty cost effective.

Its all well and good as long as there is someone actually inventing the drugs in the first place, but clearly it wouldn't work worldwide.


Nygdan hit the nail right on the head.

#1 its theft.

#2 You can decry big pharma till the cows come home, but, they tooks risks in terms of $$$$ and time to develop the drug and should by all recognized rights profit from thier risk. If the drug did not pan out, the eat the costs of R&D.

Its easy to pirate the drugs and produce them when you have no R&D costs etc. How would you feel if you put you blood, sweat, and tears into something and your neighbor just goes and rips it off?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I don't know where I stand on this. Good on the Companies for putting in the money and effort to produce lifesaving drugs that we would not otherwise have, and good on the government of Thailand for putting the needs of the people before other obligations.
I hope Thailand is going to at least attempt to fix up their debt to the Companies.

I was in Thailand when their King had his most recent birthday. Over there, everybody loves the King. I mean, if you bad-mouth him to anybody, prepare to get hurt. They went completly crazy with the celebrations.
I can now see why they like him so much. He appears to genuinely be a good guy.

rofl, I just found out that it's a crime to insult the royal family.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Excellent. Right on Thailand.

And these corporates taking them to court... for shame. If a country can;t afford your cures, they should make it themselves.

As for the whole doctor argument, the doctor is concerned with our wellbeing, but thats only because he has to see you suffer. Corporate cheeses just look at statistics which don't show the true depth of a sufferers pain, and so its easier for them to just ignore it.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:38 AM
link   
I say let the drug companies bite the bullet they can afford to give a little, ever wonder why the doctors are able to give out all those free samples at the office... It's because drugs on avarage cost very little to produce, pennies per pill in some cases, so I say go thailand.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   
I say go Thailand!

Drug companies have to realise that their patent rights end at the boarders of countries that care that they have the patent on the drug.

This is a simple case of a drug companies rights vs a governments duty to its people. Thailand is choosing the moral high ground here, IMO.

Yea the research on a new drug costs millions even billions of dollars to develop. But once that the drug is developed it cost's pennies to produce the pill itself. Drug companies have long shown that they care little about making people better only making a large proffit.

Thailand is saying "Well we don't care about your proffit we care about the sick and dying people of our contry"



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:28 AM
link   
If the shoe was on the other foot and it was Thailand that was putting up all the money for new drugs and America was ripping off the patent, I'm betting it would be viewed VERY differently. I agree with medicine being highly subsidised
to countries who cant afford full price or even loans that can be repayable.
But once you start this kind of ripping off for ultruistic reasons, sooner or later corruption sets in and middle men appear from nowhere who will then sell what was ripped off for free for a price and the poor still dont get healed/cured.
And you cant complain as the original ultruistic reason was corrupt and wrong to begin with.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join