Big Pharma pushes for U.S. action against India over patent worries

jrodI personally think a Socialism type of healthcare is better because in the capitalism approach results in profits being more important than the patient and I believe that is an unethical practice.

Well you can think what you like. The problem is this breakthrough was created by someone intending to profit, without socialist ideas. If a company wishing to give medicine away forms they are free to do whatever they like, until then, this is flat out theft, it's wrong, and if this became the norm then new drugs would not be developed.

Hoosierdaddy71
I have a question, and I'm sincere in asking. I don't have a clue what the answer is.
Where do most of the breakthroughs in medicine come from? Is it big pharma profit machines? Or do we get the same results in a socialized healthcare country such as Canada? I've never really looked into it..

Drugs come from companies looking to make a profit, or war.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


That is not always true. Innovation is not always profit oriented. Health care is about saving lives and improving the quality of life.

Big Pharma in the United States is as ridiculous a business plan as I've ever seen.

Their products, taken correctly as prescribed and recommended, are the biggest killer in the United States. 22,000 deaths from correctly prescribed pharmaceuticals last year vs about 3,000 from heroin.

They haven't developed a cure for ANY disease - EVER. They're only interested in treating the symptoms for the life of their customers, not developing a cure.

They can call a product "an effective drug" if it affects the symptoms of FIVE percent of the population without killing more than 3 people during drug trials.

Now, if my product failed 95% of the time, and I still called it a "great product", I'd be out of business in any other industry.

OccamsRazor04

jrodI personally think a Socialism type of healthcare is better because in the capitalism approach results in profits being more important than the patient and I believe that is an unethical practice.

The problem is this breakthrough was created by someone intending to profit, without socialist ideas. If a company wishing to give medicine away forms they are free to do whatever they like, until then, this is flat out theft, it's wrong, and if this became the norm then new drugs would not be developed.

Businesses that everyone will need at some point in their life will always have customers, because of this constant demand it can still profit from this with out optimizing profits. However when big pharma's ultimate goal is to maximize profits the health of the less fortunate patients will suffer.

This type of business practice breaks the Hippocratic Oath.

jrod

OccamsRazor04

jrodI personally think a Socialism type of healthcare is better because in the capitalism approach results in profits being more important than the patient and I believe that is an unethical practice.

The problem is this breakthrough was created by someone intending to profit, without socialist ideas. If a company wishing to give medicine away forms they are free to do whatever they like, until then, this is flat out theft, it's wrong, and if this became the norm then new drugs would not be developed.

Businesses that everyone will need at some point in their life will always have customers, because of this constant demand it can still profit from this with out optimizing profits. However when big pharma's ultimate goal is to maximize profits the health of the less fortunate patients will suffer.

This type of business practice breaks the Hippocratic Oath.

They don't take that oath. If India wants this medicine they should pay for it. Why do I have to pay for it and people in India get to steal it? Maybe India should have made them a better offer than 6% royalty on a 97% price reduction. That's 500 times less than they should make.

OccamsRazor04
They don't take that oath. If India wants this medicine they should pay for it. Why do I have to pay for it and people in India get to steal it?

If they do not respect the Hippocratic Oath then they should not be in the healthcare business.

A country with more than 15% of the world's population shall do what is best for its people. India has many intelligent people that are capable of 'pirating' medicine and the infrastructure and ingredients to make it happen regardless of any sanctions the Big Pharma puts on them.

jrod

OccamsRazor04
They don't take that oath. If India wants this medicine they should pay for it. Why do I have to pay for it and people in India get to steal it?

If they do not respect the Hippocratic Oath then they should not be in the healthcare business.

A country with more than 15% of the world's population shall do what is best for its people. India has many intelligent people that are capable of 'pirating' medicine and the infrastructure and ingredients to make it happen regardless of any sanctions the Big Pharma puts on them.

I said they did not take the oath. Almost no one in healthcare does. With that said, can India kidnap American Doctors and force them to work for $500 USD a year? They took the oath, so that's cool right?

OccamsRazor04

I said they did not take the oath. Almost no one in healthcare does. With that said, can India kidnap American Doctors and force them to work for $500 USD a year? They took the oath, so that's cool right?

Complete bogus argument! You are comparing kidnapping to having access to medicine.

I'm done trying to debate this with you unless you can understand that a human life is more valuable than maximizing profits.

jrod

OccamsRazor04

I said they did not take the oath. Almost no one in healthcare does. With that said, can India kidnap American Doctors and force them to work for $500 USD a year? They took the oath, so that's cool right?

Complete bogus argument!

You are comparing kidnapping to having access to medicine.

I'm done trying to debate this with you unless you can understand that a human life is more valuable than maximizing profits.

I am sorry you are unable to understand. If they can't produce their own doctors they can not kidnap others. If they can not produce their own medications they can not steal others. They have access to medicine. If India can not produce it's own they are welcome to buy someone elses. If they can't teach their own doctors, they are welcome to hire someone elses.

What they can NOT do is kidnap doctors, or steal medications, because they are unwilling to pay for them. The only one limiting their access is themselves.

The only one missing the point is you. More profits is more incentive to keep producing more medications. If everyone stole the product then no new ones would be produced, and in the end MORE people would suffer. Or is it only ok for some countries to steal and not others?

OccamsRazor04
What they can NOT do is kidnap doctors, or steal medications, because they are unwilling to pay for them. The only one limiting their access is themselves.

Well they don't have to "steal" medications. The patent agreement that the pharmaceutical company signs in order to obtain exclusive production rights in countries that have also signed on to the agreement has certain requirements. They did not meet these requiements so India, based on the signed contract, is given permision to have their $500 a year chemists produce the medication.

daskakik

OccamsRazor04
What they can NOT do is kidnap doctors, or steal medications, because they are unwilling to pay for them. The only one limiting their access is themselves.

Well they don't have to "steal" medications. The patent agreement that the pharmaceutical company signs in order to obtain exclusive production rights in countries that have also signed on to the agreement has certain requirements. They did not meet these requiements so India, based on the signed contract, is given permision to have their $500 a year chemists produce the medication.

Can you prove that? Because I can source where India admits the patent agreement says they CANT do it .. but they will anyway.

ETA: India is only one of 2 countries to EVER use this loophole to steal a cancer drug. Basically it's there for when a public health need arises and most people can not afford medication. This completely goes against the spirit of the TRIPS agreement. You clearly do not have any knowledge of the issue.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

So you ask for proof and then provide it yourself but want to act like it wasn't meant to be used that way.

I think it is in line with the spirit of the agreement. The pharmaceutical company saying that they had no intention of making the medication accessible to the general populace of that country is a perfect example of why that "loophole" was written into the agreement.

daskakik
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

So you ask for proof and then provide it yourself but want to act like it wasn't meant to be used that way.

I think it is in line with the spirit of the agreement. The pharmaceutical company saying that they had no intention of making the medication accessible to the general populace of that country is a perfect example of why that "loophole" was written into the agreement.

No .. you said ....

They did not meet these requiements so India, based on the signed contract, is given permision to have their $500 a year chemists produce the medication.

This is completely false. Source this. What are the requirements Bayer has to meet? How did they not meet them? Please give the exact requirements that were not met. Who gives India permission?

OccamsRazor04
This is completely false.

If they had a legal leg to stand on they would not be asking the US government to throw their weight around.

What are the requirements Bayer has to meet? How did they not meet them? Please give the exact requirements that were not met.

There is no set criteria. According to the WTO's FAQ on TRIPS:

Does there have to be an emergency?

Not necessarily. This is a common misunderstanding. The TRIPS Agreement does not specifically list the reasons that might be used to justify compulsory licensing. However, the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health confirms that countries are free to determine the grounds for granting compulsory licences.

Here is the case study. The argument made by both sides is there. Whoever had jurisdiction handed down the verdict and to date the WTO is standing by it.

Who gives India permission?

The WTO.

daskakik

OccamsRazor04
This is completely false.

If they had a legal leg to stand on they would not be asking the US government to throw their weight around.

No, they simply have no power to do anything to make it right.

What are the requirements Bayer has to meet? How did they not meet them? Please give the exact requirements that were not met.

There is no set criteria. According to the WTO's FAQ on TRIPS:
So you admit you are completely 100% wrong and that Bayer did not fail to meet requirements. I agree.

Does there have to be an emergency?

Not necessarily. This is a common misunderstanding. The TRIPS Agreement does not specifically list the reasons that might be used to justify compulsory licensing. However, the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health confirms that countries are free to determine the grounds for granting compulsory licences.

It's not a misunderstanding I made. I did not say they violated the letter of the law, but the spirit. They intentionally made it vague so as to not prevent countries that have a real need from being able to exercise that right. Countries doing what India is doing will cause the letter to change, making it so countries who could benefit will be screwed over.

Here is the case study. The argument made by both sides is there. Whoever had jurisdiction handed down the verdict and to date the WTO is standing by it.

Who gives India permission?

The WTO.

False, it is India giving India permission. Can you link me a source where a WTO court gives a verdict? It was India saying India can do this.

An Indian patent appeals board upheld on Monday a decision to allow a domestic company to sell a generic version of Bayer AG's cancer drug Nexavar, in a blow for global drugmakers' efforts to hold on to monopolies on high-price medicines.

www.reuters.com...

OccamsRazor04
No, they simply have no power to do anything to make it right.

It doesn't mean that they can't try.

So you admit you are completely 100% wrong and that Bayer did not fail to meet requirements. I agree.

No, I am pointing out the rules that each side agreed to and how there are no specifications.

Countries doing what India is doing will cause the letter to change, making it so countries who could benefit will be screwed over.

Until it changes things will continue as they are.

False, it is India giving India permission. Can you link me a source where a WTO court gives a verdict? It was India saying India can do this.

The WTO has given India (and every national government) jursidiction. That is why I said they stand by the verdict. Have they said otherwise?

daskakik

OccamsRazor04
No, they simply have no power to do anything to make it right.

It doesn't mean that they can't try.

They did try. That's why they appealed it. India is in charge of the appeal though. So there is nothing Bayer can do.

So you admit you are completely 100% wrong and that Bayer did not fail to meet requirements. I agree.

No, I am pointing out the rules that each side agreed to and how there are no specifications.
No. You said Bayer did not meet certain requirements. Then you admitted there are no requirements and India can do whatever it wants. That means you were wrong, not sure why you can't just admit it.

Countries doing what India is doing will cause the letter to change, making it so countries who could benefit will be screwed over.

Until it changes things will continue as they are.

That's exactly what I said. If countries keep stealing then things will change.

False, it is India giving India permission. Can you link me a source where a WTO court gives a verdict? It was India saying India can do this.

The WTO has given India (and every national government) jursidiction. That is why I said they stand by the verdict. Have they said otherwise?

They haven't said anything. You tried to misrepresent the situation as the WTO affirming Bayer is in the wrong. In fact, India simply took what it wanted, and then India was in charge of the appeal and affirmed they would take what they wanted. The WTO has not weighed in at all on this particular case. I proved that basically NO ONE does what India is doing. They are only the second country to ever "steal" cancer medication using this loophole.

OccamsRazor04
They did try. That's why they appealed it. India is in charge of the appeal though. So there is nothing Bayer can do.

Guess you missed the point of the OP.

No. You said Bayer did not meet certain requirements. Then you admitted there are no requirements and India can do whatever it wants. That means you were wrong, not sure why you can't just admit it.

No, the agreement says that in order for CL to be granted the country must show a reason and that there isn't a set criteria. It doesn't mean that the reasons given by India were not evaluated and deemed to have merit.

That's exactly what I said. If countries keep stealing then things will change.

And until then...

They haven't said anything. You tried to misrepresent the situation as the WTO affirming Bayer is in the wrong. In fact, India simply took what it wanted, and then India was in charge of the appeal and affirmed they would take what they wanted. The WTO has not weighed in at all on this particular case. I proved that basically NO ONE does what India is doing. They are only the second country to ever "steal" cancer medication using this loophole.

Actually WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy said.

“Recent decisions by the courts in India have led to a lot of protest by pharmaceutical companies. But decisions made by an independent judiciary have to be respected as such,”

The only thing you have proven is that your opinion differs from those who actually have a say in the matter.

JohnPhoenix


I don't think you folks understand socialism. Look at Canada and France. They have socialist health care and the people are suffering.

Here we go again- I would like to know what the heck you are talking about? HOW are the people of France suffering??
I will not speak for Canada, as I am not personally familiar with it, but I have lived in France for more than twenty years, and had never ever had such great healthcare in the states as I have experienced here!
-And I started out with the same propaganda conditioning, sure that it was going to be hellish. Sometimes you just have to face reality and admit you've been bamboozled, lied to, tricked into thinking your own horrendous conditions are greater than they are.

France has a multi-payer system, and you can go to any medical establishment or practitioner you want- unlike the american system where your insurance company dictates that. It can be state run or private.

Secondly, the pharmaceutical companies are PRIVATE. France has a capitalist economy.

My husband has worked for pharma for many years, and believe me, they work for profit just as in the US. The only difference being that the state has some laws to limit them- like they do not have the right to do public commercials, or to give doctors samples, gifts, money, trips, etc. They are not allowed to give even a pen with the company logo on it. They are limited in the spending on employee trips and workshops- they used to have training weeks on Carribean cruises and such- now they must stay in the same country and just use a normal hotel.

Take out those expenditures, and it is funny how you can bring down drug prices without even TOUCHING the innovation and development!

I also have a cousin who works for pharma in the US, for one of the leading companies, and they have not made ANY of those changes, and the mindless expenditures are phenomenal.