US puts Thailand on its watch list

[Gadfly]

"Restrictive practices"?

 

What are they "restricting"? They're restricting nothing.

 

They're the ones who come up with ideas. They don't restrict anything other people care to try to come up with.

 

People who complain about those actually coming up with ideas are imo and that's why I react badly to the lazy 'blame everyone else' arguments of people like Fidel.

 

Science is hard, finding drugs is difficult and risky (someone said it wasn't but they were talking in ignorance.) I think maybe around 5-10% of possible candidates might actually make it through expensive 3-phase trials that last years. And they're just candidates. Lots of biotechs go bust. Pharmas have not made great money for their investors compared to alternatives for years.

 

This is exactly right. But when you look at compulsory licensing in Thailand, you also need to take it a step further and look at what they are actually doing here.

 

Even if you absolutely disagree with Bibblies point about the basic economics of innovation (I am sure I won't surprise anyone when I say I agree), you need to look at how and why Thailand is applying compulsory licensing. In a way, this is similiar to the argument over capital controls (namely, even if you think they are a good idea in theory - I don't - the manner in which Thailand has applied them and the justification it provided for the measure was appalling).

 

The compulsory licensing is not limited to AIDS drugs in Thailand. In fact, it is not really about AIDS drugs - that is just emotional spin to get Western NGOs involved.

 

The Minister of Health said he wants to ultimately break the patents on at least another 30 drugs. (He is backing down now because of the response by the drug companies.) Only a few of those drugs have anything to do with AIDS or any other life threatening diseases.

 

Someone above said the compulsory licensing is legal under TRIPS. I don't know if this is true or not (I do know the drug companies don't agree with this statement), but I do know that Thailand has acknowledged that it is breaking the patents to make its health care system more affordable. This is about reducing government expenditures (so they can be spent on other items, like a bigger militairy budget) by confisicating the intellectual property of Western companies.

 

Is that legitimate? Is it surprising that drug companies and Western governments are pissed off?

 

I can see the moral argument for making less expensive drugs available to treat life threatening diseases in extremely poor Africa countries where you have a large wasting population of people with AIDS. Drug companies have cooperated in making less expensive drugs available. You can argue they haven't done enough, but I see that as a side issue to what is happening in Thailand. The situation is entirely different here.

 

Thailand is not an extremely poor country in Africa. Nor was the compulsory licensing primarily about AIDS or any national health emergency. Governments are supposed to negotiate with drug companies to work out compromises, but Thailand didn't even bother (maybe this explains why Thailand even bother negotiating the matter). In Thailand the issues are very different.

 

This is not about helping the poor and sick in Thailand. The NGOs and others, who genuinely want to help the sick (even if it is with anti-market measures with which I disagree), are getting taken for a ride in Thailand. They are being duped because they don't understand what is really driving these measures in Thailand.

 

Ultimately, when you look at the cynical motives behind compulosry licensing in Thailand (and they will become apparant), those who, in principle support compulsory licensing to help the sick, are doing themselves and their "cause" a disservice by supporting what Thailand is trying to do.

[BaronTT]

Chicago Sun-Times, May 5, 2007

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/371919,CST-EDT-REF05B.article

 

Thailand violates drug patents for its own profit

 

May 5, 2007

BY PHILIP STEVENS

This week, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued its annual review of the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights across the world. Twelve countries with particularly egregious policies were placed on the report's Priority Watch List, and for the first time, Thailand was elevated to that classification.

This dishonor was expected. Over the last few months, the nation's military-appointed government has issued several ''compulsory licenses'' on patented medicines.

 

Citing a World Trade Organization rule that permits a country to breach patents during a ''national emergency,'' the Thai government has granted itself the right to produce copies of Kaletra and Efavirenz, two powerful HIV/AIDS antiretrovirals, and Plavix, the popular heart-disease drug. The government has claimed, with much praise from a broad coalition of health activists and nongovernmental organizations, that it would be unable to meet its commitment to universal health care without compulsory licensing.

 

The truth is that Thailand's decision has nothing to do with lowering costs or compassion. Instead, the Thai government appears to be violating patents for its own profit. And in doing so, the nation is putting Thai citizens at great risk.

 

Consider: Earlier this month, Abbott Laboratories announced that it would sell to Thailand and dozens of other low-income nations, Kaletra for $1,000 per patient annually. That's about 55 percent less than Kaletra's current cost and cheaper than every copy of the medicine available. In March, Merck similarly offered to drastically reduce the price of Efavirenz.

 

Yet Thailand has asserted that it will maintain compulsory licenses for both medicines.

 

Or look at the Global Fund, which recently announced that it would foot Thailand's entire bill for Efavirenz by purchasing a generic version of the drug from a World Health Organization-approved plant in India.

 

The Thai government rejected the Global Fund's offer, leaving Thai taxpayers to foot the bill for the drug's manufacture.

 

Clearly, this isn't about improving access to medicines for the Thai people. It's about establishing Thailand's state-owned drug manufacturer -- the Government Pharmaceutical Organization -- as a dominant regional manufacturer of copycat drugs. Only the GPO can sell copycat drugs to the Thai government, which excludes private manufacturers from receiving government contracts.

 

This leaves the GPO to reap all the cushy rewards, which flow right back to the government and provide further opportunities for the nation's politically connected to enrich themselves.

 

In 2005, the GPO made a profit of around $35.5 million and reinvested only about 2 percent of that sum into research and development. As one would expect, this money lines the pockets of Thailand's ruling class.

 

Further, when it comes to producing drugs, the GPO has a terrifying track record. In 2002, the Global Fund awarded Thailand $133 million to test and manufacture its locally produced HIV/AIDS medication, GPO-Vir.

 

Last August, however, the Global Fund was forced to withdraw its funding because the GPO's manufacturing facilities did not meet international standards and the GPO's drug had yet to gain WHO approval.

 

But it was too little too late. In July 2005, it emerged that GPO-Vir had caused a rise in drug-resistant AIDS cases because of its poor quality. Despite this track record, Thailand continues to administer GPO-Vir to its HIV/AIDS patients -- which, ironically, is making the virus even more deadly.

 

Yet instead of denouncing the Thai government's dangerous and self-interested policies, activist groups have urged it to go further and faster. Even worse, many U.S. lawmakers have piled on. Earlier this year, 22 members of Congress signed a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative expressing their support for Thailand's use of compulsory licenses.

 

The public-health impact, as the HIV/AIDS example suggests, will likely prove devastating.

 

By upgrading Thailand to the Priority Watch List, the U.S. Trade Representative has sternly condemned the Thai government's patent violations. U.S. policymakers should take this opportunity to trumpet the trade representative's report and denounce Thailand's behavior.

 

 

 

Philip Stevens is health program director at the International Policy Network, a London-based charity

 

[elef]

Bangkok Post

Today

Link

 

 

Clinton supports Thai patent-busting

 

New York (BangkokPost.com compiled from agency reports)

"No company will ever die because of the high price premium for Aids drugs in middle-income countries," said former US president Bill Clinton, with Public Health Minister Mongkol Na Songkhla at his side. "But patients may."

 

_____________________________________________________

 

Full story:

 

Former US President Bill Clinton, standing next to Public Health Minister Mongkol Na Songkhla, has endorsed recent decisions by Thailand and Brazil to break patents held by American pharmaceutical companies.

 

Mr Clinton said prices charged by drug companies are "exorbitant," despite claims by the companies they are reasonable.

 

"No company will ever die because of the high price premium for Aids drugs in middle-income countries," he said - "but patients may."

 

"I believe in intellectual property ... but that need not prevent us from getting essential life-saving medicines to those who need them in low- and middle-income countries alike."

 

Mr Clinton unveiled a deal with two Indian drugs firms to cheaply produce HIV/Aids drugs for 66 countries.

 

Mr Clinton said seven million people in those countries were in need of treatment for HIV/Aids, but could not afford it.

 

The Clinton Foundation's agreement will cut the cost of what are known as second line anti-retrovirals by 25-50%.

 

"Our announcement today responds directly to these challenges and sets the foundation not only for treatment for many more people but treatment that is more equitable, more affordable and more effective," he said.

 

Second line drugs are used when cheaper and earlier forms of treatment fail.

 

Mr Clinton says the prices of second-line treatments negotiated by his foundation will fall on average by 25 per cent in low-income countries and 50 per cent in middle-income countries.

 

His foundation has also negotiated a deal allowing the one-pill-a-day, first-line treatment to be made available for less than $US1 a day for developing countries, a 45 per cent saving on the current price in Africa.

 

"This drug represents the best chance that science has to offer," he said.

 

United States trade officials last week put Thailand on a watch list for countries inadequately safeguarding the intellectual property rights of American companies, noting the overriding of drug patents.

 

Tido von Shoen-Angerer, who leads the campaign by Doctors Without Borders for access to medicines, said he was unsure whether the recent developments would encourage developing countries to exercise their rights under international trade rules more freely to make or import generic drugs.

 

â??Thereâ??s a strong chilling effect from the U.S. action,â? he said.

 

Drug company officials yesterday strongly defended their policies of charging better-off developing countries more for Aids drugs than they did for poor countries, as well as the role of patents, which give inventor companies a monopoly on the sale of a drug, in stimulating the development of new drugs.

 

Jennifer Smoter, a spokeswoman for Abbott, said patents were needed â??to ensure innovation in the futureâ? but declined to respond to Mr. Clintonâ??s comment that â??Abbott has been almost alone in its hard-line position here over what I consider to be a life and death matter.â?Â

 

 

[Gadfly]

If you want to see the spin the Thai press puts on this, read today's editorial in the Bangkok Post. But before doing so, go back a month or so here to the threads here quoting Thailand's representative to the WHO directly when he said Thailand should hold Western tourists hostage if Western drug companies withheld drugs from the Thai marketplace.

 

There is no dispute Thailand's top representative to the World Health Organization made this outrageous threat. Now read how the Thai press treat this threat in today's Bangkok post. Specifically:

 

First, we heard Ken Adelman, a senior counselor for Edelman Public Relations Worldwide who heads a non-profit group called USA For Innovation, spew venom about how "the Ministry of Health threatened to kidnap American tourists"

Bangkok Post Editorial

 

The problem is not the threat by Thailand's representative to the WHO to hold Westerners hostage, but farangs drawing attention to this threat. All Ken Edleman did was quote Thailand's own representative to the WHO. He highlighted the words of a Thai government official. So the problem is not the threat by the Thai government, but rather the fact that somone on the other side drew attention to threat. Ultimate spin.

 

If you doubt any of this, you can check this board. Those words - by Thailand's own rep to the WHO - were also quoted on this board (with cites) about a month or so ago.

 

But instead of focusing on the threat made by a Thai official, a Mr. Edleman's quote of that official is characterized as spewing venom. The venon he is spewing is simply quote of a Thai government official, but you wouldn't realize that if you read the Bangkok Post's editorial.

 

Indeed, the Thai press, as far as I can see, was silent on the outrageous threat Thailand's government made to hold Western tourists hostage. But, when a foreigner quotes that threat to demonstrate that the Thai government is being unreasonable, they characterize that quote as venemous spew, without explaining that originated with Thailand's own official represenative to the WHO.

 

Alice through the looking glass.

[elef]

World Trade Organization: Facts

[Steve]

I don't know if this solution would actually work but I heard this offered at a forum once by a 3rd party candidate a couple years ago. I can't recall which party (Libertarian, Natural Law, Socialists, etc. were all there). However, it seemed novel enough and could possible work.

The person said the UN or some world body should offer an amount for certain deseases it deems important enough for the world: Cancer, AIDS, etc. and offer a one time reward for it. For instance 50 billion or 100 billion for AIDS, maybe a half a trillion for cancer. The 'reward' amount would be shared by all countries in the UN to the person, company or country that introduced it. The reward would far exceed the cost of presumed R&D to find such a cure. I don't know how much R&D that pharmas spend nowadays but I assume it can't be more tha a few billion, even with the cost of clinical tests. I don't know. Its just a guess.

 

Anyway, would this work? It guarantees the company would make a very healthy profit, it gives the world the cure forever.

[Hugh_Hoy]

[basically, you're saying you want OTHER PEOPLE to pay the cost, not you.

:thumbdown:

 

But Bibblies, that's the commie/liberal doctrine.

Kind of like a high school senior who works his/her ass off to get A's so he/she can get a scholarship to a good college/uni. Then the high school principal decides that there are a couple students who are failing and will not graduate from high school unless the principal takes some points from the "A student" and gives them to the "F" students. Nevermind that the "A" student will fall into the "C" catagory and will not get a scholarship or get into the collge/uni he/she had worked so hard to get into. (Of course, if the student has big tits and I'm the uni Director of Admissions...)

 

HH

 

[Hugh_Hoy]

Maybe the U.S. should start producing "Thailand's" famous "jasmine rice" in record amounts...or start cloning Thai pussy.

 

HH

[Gadfly]

Actually the manner in which Thailand is imposing compulsory licesning will do more harm to Thailand than the US ever could.

 

And its happening at a time when Thailand has developed a really seriously bad reputation with investors and the foreign business community generally. And this in a country where 70%+ of the GDP is based on exports, and Thailand is running out of capacity to increase its exisiting line of exports, let alone move up the value-added change of products it produces.

 

Sadly, all of this could have been easily avoided. The last several months have been like watching a train wreck happen in slow motion.