Slashdot Mirror


Brazil Voids Merck Patent On AIDS Drug

JoeBackward writes "Merck has this useful anti-AIDS drug Elfavirenz, and Brazil has lots of poor people with AIDS. So, after trying really hard to get Merck to cooperate on pricing, the Brazilian government has decided to take a 'compulsory license' to the patent, and get the drug from a factory in India. This compulsory license is basically a way to take the patent by eminent domain." This move gives Brazil one more thing in common with Thailand, both of which have blocked YouTube. Thailand's compulsory licensing of Elfavirenz and Plavix has landed the country on the US's watch list for piracy.

57 of 765 comments (clear)

  1. humanity vs capitalism by drfrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it s nice to see humanity win one for a change

    who can really put a price on that?

    --
    back in the day we didnt have no old school
    1. Re:humanity vs capitalism by TrnsltLife · · Score: 3, Informative

      Agreed. Good for them, it's good to see a country looking out for the welfare of its own citizens ahead of the profits of some multinational corporation.

    2. Re:humanity vs capitalism by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to agree on this one. Normally I'm against things like this because I personally feel that the more this stuff happens the less likely people are to work towards something, the whole private property issue. In this case, however, the pricing was just absurd, the company was not trying to make a slight profit by helping people (which I'm fine with) but way overcharging them. Good for Brazil.

      Sure, it cost them a lot to make it. But this isn't a drug whose need is going to go away any time soon and trying to remake your investment quickly means that poor people can't buy something that can save their life. Crix whatever should've been priced in such a way so that 10-12 years down the road they began making a profit, not so that they start making profit almost immediately. I mean, what investor wouldn't invest in an AIDS drug just because they're not likely to recoup their losses within a year? We all know AIDS is going to be around for a while, cut your prices so that more people can get it.

      But hey, just my opinion. Hopefully Brazil can start getting cheap crix out in their country and save some lives.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    3. Re:humanity vs capitalism by drfrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      im not saying they shouldnt, but there is a difference between making a profit and gouging poor people for a drug they need

      --
      back in the day we didnt have no old school
    4. Re:humanity vs capitalism by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... but it took capitalism to create the formula for the drug in the first place ... without capitalism _nobody_ would get this drug. so i'd say its not humanity vs capitalism, rather humanity benefiting from capitalism, and brazil and thailand aren't helping any.

    5. Re:humanity vs capitalism by drfrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      capitalism itself didnt create it

      knowledge did

      peopel living in the capitalist state took advantage of the fact they had that knowledge

      --
      back in the day we didnt have no old school
    6. Re:humanity vs capitalism by rewinn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >Where do you think the research for the next AIDS drug will come from?

      Mostly funded by taxpayers, then handed over to Big Pharma, as usual.

      "...the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH)."The Truth About the Drug Companies by Marcia Angell

    7. Re:humanity vs capitalism by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's okay, they will just do what they always do when countries around have price controls on medication, charge people in the US more than everyone else.

    8. Re:humanity vs capitalism by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not all moves to place fetters on the free market are the result of the hidden agendas of slavering, bloody thirsty autocrats, despite the media's attempt to make it seem so. The free market will not feed the poor, or give them medication or save their lives, as none of those activities are profitable. Ideas that save human life are the property of every human alive, and I will fight until the day I die the rights of people to unreasonably profit from or withhold those ideas from humankind. Those of you about to jump in with "but who'd pay for the research" arguments, pull your pants back up and get away from me. I've heard them all before and written on the subject many times. If our society cannot place a value on the saving of life itself, then we need to have a good, long, hard look at the belief that our society is the greatest one on Earth.

      --
      I hate printers.
    9. Re:humanity vs capitalism by jellie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. And to those people who argue for the free market (competition, profits, whatever): the pharmaceutical/biotech/healthcare is NOT a free market! There is literally no competition, and no regulation on pricing. It is true that a mere fraction of drugs will ever get approved, and it costs billions of dollars to do the research and the clinical trials.

      But there is nothing that prevents a company from setting insanely high prices because most of the wealthy patients are shielded from the real cost. National healthcare is a great thing, but we must address the price gouging because the marginal cost to produce each pill is minimal, yet the costs are in the hundreds or thousands of dollars. I can pay $5 for my drug, but my (parent's) employer will cover the other several hundred dollars. And doctors usually won't encourage generics or alternatives, because it may strain their relationship with the patient. Would you really hesitate to get Abraxane, the FDA-approved brand-name drug at over $4000 a dose, or Taxol, the generic version of the same molecule that costs $150? Thankfully, Brazil knows what's in its citizen's best interests, at least in this case.

      I believe the pharmaceuticals spend about half of their money on marketing (which includes direct-to-consumer advertising, marketing to doctors, marketing to hospitals, and others), not R&D or those poor, poor lobbyists and congresspeople.

    10. Re:humanity vs capitalism by rhombic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry to disappoint, but there's a lot of people inside drug companies that give a lot of shit about people. I personally know I could be making a hell of a lot more money in the financial industry than I do in pharma. Why have lobbiests & etc to deal w/ governmental issues? Tell ya what, when the HMO's, AARP, & etc quit pushing the government to expropriate drugs & give them away for free, the companies would be more than happy to drop the government affairs and get back to doing science. But in the current climate, if you don't lobby, your interests will get buried. And then, once the investors realize that there are no more paying customers, you'll have no drug industry. Hope there's good leaches around in a few years when you decide to get sick.

      Where get the $1e9 dollars per drug? Lots of places. Here's a couple:

      The Tufts CSDD studies is a good source, their estimate was $900 mil four years ago.

      Medical News Today estimates $1.2 billion for a new biological

      Essentially, when you want the drug companies to give away a drug, you want to expropriate their property. As an investor, ask yourself whether you're willing to put your money into an industry that's subject to expropriation, and think about whether you want a drug industry around or not the next time a pesky little virus emerges from the forrest.

      --
      1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    11. Re:humanity vs capitalism by richie2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, because it didn't cost anything to do all the tons and tons of research and testing (not to mention the cost of education for all the scientists) to produce the drug. Let's turn that around: Merck did not pay one single dime for the education of those scientists. The US taxpayers did. Merck did not pay one single dime for all the basic research needed to develop the drug. The US taxpayers did. Why should Merck be allowed to steal money from the US taxpayers?

      Here's some basic reading for you:
      http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/21/opinion /opinion_30032324.php
      http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
      http://archive.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/01/13/drug _patents/index.html
      http://www.cepr.net/index.php?option=com_content&t ask=view&id=1065&Itemid=8
      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    12. Re:humanity vs capitalism by richie2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... but it took capitalism to create the formula for the drug in the first place ... Not really. It took a lot of greed and gaming of the system. If that's capitalism, well count me out.

      Here's some basic reading for you on how Big Pharma is gaming the patent system for their own short-sighted gain:
      http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/21/opinion /opinion_30032324.php
      http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
      http://archive.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/01/13/drug _patents/index.html
      http://www.cepr.net/index.php?option=com_content&t ask=view&id=1065&Itemid=8
      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    13. Re:humanity vs capitalism by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Informative

      FTFA:

      Talks over the price of Merck's drug, Efavirenz, broke off on Thursday when the health ministry rejected the New Jersey-based company's offer to cut its $1.59 per pill price by 30 percent. Brazil wanted to pay what Merck charges Thailand, or $0.65 per pill.

      They TRIED to negotiate, and Merck put up a wall. So, in effect, Merck DID refuse Brazil.

    14. Re:humanity vs capitalism by fourchannel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh it sure is nice not to be born with aids, especially when your mother got infected when pregnant. Or how about when the guerilla soldiers come to town and rape people. Or what about sheer ignorance of modes of transmittal. It sure is nice to live in a country that makes it very clear the dangers of aids, I'm not so sure Brazillians have that luxury.

      --
      ---FourChannel---
    15. Re:humanity vs capitalism by hxnwix · · Score: 4, Funny

      They do need to recoup the cost of the development of failed drugs and dead-end research.

      That being said, we might also want to remember that RIAA members need copyright durations of artist's death + 1000000 years in order to compensate for all those failed artists.

      And let us not forget that not every hole exxon drills yields oil, which makes $3.50/gallon a reasonable price for 85 octane gas.

      Furthermore, we should bear in mind that baby seals are vastly overpopulated ...

    16. Re:humanity vs capitalism by Y-Crate · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I see that you've been reading the leaflets that the pharmaceuticals have been spreading for years. The truth is that most of the actual research is conducted in labs that receive HUGE amounts of public funding. The the drug companies greatest contribution comes in the development of manufacturing processes. Take AZT for example. Developed by the National Institutes of Health in the 1960s as a cancer drug, but failed to amount to anything.

      Flash-forward to the early 1980s and the frightening early years of the AIDS crisis where there was absolutely nothing in the way of effective treatments for the first six years of the epidemic. It was pure hospice care until the National Cancer Institute took another look at AZT and found that it was the first drug that HIV seemed to respond to. The patent was assigned to Burroughs-Wellcome who paid for drug trials and promptly began selling it two years later. Selling it at a price that made it the most expensive drugs ever marketed ($8,000+ a year per patient) - despite the fact it was developed with public money and was the only treatment available for a rapidly-spreading disease with a 100% mortality rate.
    17. Re:humanity vs capitalism by laughingcoyote · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely silly. But it's a good measure here. Looks like Big Pharma's line of shit is considerably more effective than the RIAA and MPAA. Here's hoping they don't catch on.

      Here's the reality of the situation. The biggest expense to Big Pharma is not research and development (which mainly takes place in universities, including a lot of public ones. Big Pharma does not fund those. You and I do.) It is not testing (and that could be handled entirely by the FDA, without their involvement at all. A lot of it already is. Big Pharma does not pay for the FDA. You and I do.) Their biggest expense is not manufacturing the pharmaceuticals, which, as should be obvious here, can be done pretty cheaply. Their biggest expense is wining, dining, and schmoozing doctors to use their medicines. To advertise on TV, to get patients to push doctors into getting them whatever medication that is. And to pay overpaid executives.

      Let's cut out the middleman, and one of the biggest expenses here-the millions-per-year CEOs. Fund the universities well to develop the drugs. They will develop drugs for Third-World maladies, once the impetus to "make something you can sell" is gone. Have the FDA entirely in charge of testing, and farming out production-just production-to corporate entities. There we go.

      Under the current system, there's far more incentive to look for treatments rather than cures. A treatment is a lifelong paycheck, a cure is a one-time payment. There's far too much impetus to develop Viagra rather than treatments for diseases that kill millions in poor countries. There's far too big a temptation to hold back a slightly-improved formulation until the patent on the current one is about to expire, and to use it to extend the patent far longer than it was intended to last. If that system collapses, I won't shed too many tears. Something better will replace it.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    18. Re:humanity vs capitalism by mikkelm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because people with AIDS don't have children, and no one, especially the poor, are forced into prostitution.

    19. Re:humanity vs capitalism by EWAdams · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Remind me again why ANY health-care activity should be for-profit. ANY. Band-aids to heart surgery. Why is selling food to starving Africans profiteering (which it is), but selling healthcare to people in pain or danger of death, not profiteering?

      --
      I piss off bigots.
    20. Re:humanity vs capitalism by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, because lord knows a bunch of politicians are best folk to decide how much 'profit' a company needs, as opposed to the market (which can be cruel but a whole lot less corruptible than your average socialist wannabe).

      That argument would work if the market was actually free. As long as those same politicians are needed to have those nice patents, they also happen to get a say in things.

    21. Re:humanity vs capitalism by master0ne · · Score: 3, Informative
      although the patent doesnt last forever on papre, the Pharm. companies are always trying to figure out a way to extend there patents such as this method: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7347/1176/ b

      drug companies took advantage of the act by filing frivolous new patents designed to extend their hold on the market, the two senators say. "Drug companies are not spending all their time innovating new drugs. They're innovating new patents," Senator Charles Schumer of New York told a Senate subcommittee.


      This drove up the average length of market exclusivity of drugs from 9.0 years in 1982 to 10.1 years in 1999.
      9 years in alot of cases is too long to wait for a life saving drug millions of people need now. The way things are going though, the wait for a patent to expire will last alot longer than 9 years....
      --
      Noone writes jokes in base 13!
    22. Re:humanity vs capitalism by bheer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Looking at it from Brazil's POV, 45c from India vs 65c from a reluctant Merck -- I can see why they thought 65c was a good deal. Although as I mentioned in another post, it seems it was more of a "fulfil our demands or we do bad things to you" than a negotiation. And yes, this will hurt Brazil especially as it tries to develop its own drug-making expertise (which the article suggested).

      If there are lessons here, I guess it is that the 3rd world is f*cked as the developed world can pay beacoup $$$ for health care and drugs. In the long run, this will result in a gradual siphoning off of the best talent even as 3rd world countries want to spend less on things that cost millions (if not billions) to produce.

    23. Re:humanity vs capitalism by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 5, Interesting

      there is a difference between making a profit and gouging poor people for a drug they need

      Right. And in this case, the Brazilian government, whose AIDS policy is a model being copied by other countries worldwide, makes sure every single HIV and AIDS patient in Brazil has the medicines. It therefore has huge bargaining power, because it represents such a large number of patients. The former Health Minister, the man responsible for Brazil's AIDS policy, is José Serra, currently the governor of São Paulo state (think of it as being like holding the offices of governor of California and New York and you start to get an idea of the importance of that post). Before anyone cries for the poor drug companies, there are a few important facts you need to know. First, when Serra was still Health Minister, the drug companies decided to try to make more money since the government was buying up everything. They tried to increase their prices when they were already reaping massive profits (all these drugs are mature products in the "cash cow" phase of the product lifecycle, so the BS "paying for research" argument doesn't fly in this case) at the old price. And now the Brazilian government is asking that Merck charge the same price here as they charge in Thailand. And you can be sure Merck is not selling at that price in Thailand as a public service - they are making a profit there too.
      When Serra originally went to the two largest makers of AIDS drugs that sell in Brazil, he showed them that the Brazilian constitution permits the Health Minister to determine that a given epidemic is an emergency situation, and in case of emergencies, the Federal Government, on the recommendation of the Health Minister, can break patents. Serra went to the companies and told them he didn't want to do that, but that they would have to negotiate with him in good faith or he would simply break their patents. As I recall, one went along and the other balked for a time, until they saw that Serra wasn't bluffing and was really going to allow Brazilian pharma companies to manufacture the patented drug. I'm surprised the president had to go this far, but the drug companies may have decided to improve their bottom line by doing a little gouging of AIDS patients in Brazil. I'm proud of the government for not knuckling under to Big Pharma. If only the US government would see that and be shamed into actually standing up to Big Pharma on any issue, any issue at all. Instead, you all (I fled 7 years ago) will have to deal with health care prices spiraling out of control until almost nobody can afford it. I have to tell you I'm happy to be in Brazil, a country that actually cares about its residents' health. Yes, I said RESIDENTS. I'm not even a citizen yet! Brazil isn't xenophobic like the USA either, and does not see me, an immigrant, as some kind of threat or some kind of outsider to be treated like crap. Contrast that with how immigrants are treated in the USA these days... I understand there were huge anti-immigration rallies in the USA last week.

      Just a quick disclaimer: I think Serra was one hell of a great Health Minister. In addition to standing up to Big Pharma on AIDS drugs, he was also the one who successfully pushed for a law permitting generic drugs (before him, there were none in Brazil), something you can be sure the price gougers from Big Pharma were opposing every step of the way. Serra was really brave to stand up to them on those two points, and I'm proud of him for doing it. He also worked hard (from the executive branch) with the Brazilian Congress to pass a modern organ donation law in Brazil, basically doing away with the black market for transplantable organs that existed before. All that said, I don't think Serra would be much of a president, and I can't say I'm unhappy he lost in his bid for the presidency in 2002. I suspect he'll run again in 2010, because the current president, who is serving his second consecutive term and is still massively p

      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    24. Re:humanity vs capitalism by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It sure is nice to live in a country that makes it very clear the dangers of aids, I'm not so sure Brazillians have that luxury.
      While I agree with the overall point your post makes, I'd like to tell you that Brazil has an outstanding AIDS policy, one that has been praised by the WHO (called OMS here - Organização Mundial de Saúde) and copied by numerous other countries. Brazil's policy includes free distribution of condoms, distribution of clean needles to addicts of intravenous drugs, and free access to the best and most modern drugs. It also includes free HIV and STD testing, a service I've personally used a few times. I am not in a high risk group, but it's good to be sure. Further, the Brazilian government's AIDS policy includes education. I myself learned quite a bit from the people at the government health center near my apartment where I have gotten HIV tests. The test result is given by a counselor, and the counselor gave me a lot of information I didn't previously have about STDs and HIV. Since I am highly educated and generally try to keep myself well-informed, I was surprised at how much basic information I didn't know before the counselor told me.
      So in Brazil, in fact, the dangers of AIDS are made very clear by the excellent educational portion of the AIDS policy. Further, unlike the USA, insane religious fanatics don't have the power to push idiocy like the "abstinence only" sex education pushed in a lot of places in the USA despite having been repeatedly proven not to decrease teen pregnancy at all, but proven to lead to increased incidence of STDs, including AIDS. So let me bounce it right backatcha and say it sure is nice to live in a country where the public interest is placed above the sensitivities of lunatics who want to impose their beliefs on others, even if imposition of those beliefs can be a death sentence.
      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    25. Re:humanity vs capitalism by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Would you really hesitate to get Abraxane, the FDA-approved brand-name drug at over $4000 a dose, or Taxol, the generic version of the same molecule that costs $150? The solution to this is to prevent drug companies from advertising prescription medicines to anyone other than those legally allowed to write prescriptions. I have no idea what Abraxane or Taxol is (although a little research tells me that Paclitaxel is a drug used in the treatment of Cancer, and it branded as Taxol).

      If I get a prescription medicine in the UK, I have absolutely no idea what the brand name is. My doctor will never identify it by name, the prescription will say how many milligrams of the chemical name I need, and the pharmacy will fill that with the branded or unbranded equivalents (usually unbranded, in a generic bottle with a label printed by them).

      To anyone outside the USA, the whole concept of advertising prescription drugs to the general public seems absurd, and somewhat ironic for a company in the middle of a 'war on drugs.'

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:humanity vs capitalism by king-manic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Brazil isn't exactly poor. Badly mismanaged but not "poor". It's a fairly large economy. This whole ideas that everyone outside of the west is the "third world" is kind of silly. The term itself is related tot he cold war originally which has no meaning now. I know it's now a reference to developing countries but thats kind of a fluffy definition too. What are they developing too? It's sort of a ethnocentric term, full of hubris. Your not like me so you must be a few categories down. Is china third world? India? How about the Ukraine? /rant

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    27. Re:humanity vs capitalism by fourchannel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, well I'm really impressed with Brazil, and even more pissed off at my own country (USA). But people are people, regardless of their local or country, and this goes to show that our current US government needs some serious reform.

      --
      ---FourChannel---
    28. Re:humanity vs capitalism by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remind me again why ANY health-care activity should be for-profit. ANY. Band-aids to heart surgery.

      Because the government is so good at running things?

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    29. Re:humanity vs capitalism by saforrest · · Score: 5, Informative

      You have to physically perform an action which every semi-intelligent person knows carries the risk of AIDS (unprotected sex, sex with a stranger, sharing needles, etc) to get AIDS.

      Oh goody, the moralistic argument.

      First, it needn't surprise you that there are all kinds of ways one person can compel another to engage in sexual intercourse. And I'm not just talking about rape and prostitution either.

      Second, there are all kinds of ways one person can come into contact with another's blood. In a country with a sufficiently high HIV prevalence, any car accident, mugging, or fistfight might result in infection. And while the First World now has pretty good testing regimes for blood transfusions, are you sure that's the case everywhere?

      If you think every fistfight is voluntary: on CBC radio a couple of weeks ago, they had an example (from Tanzania I believe) where a guy had gotten beat up while defending his elderly neighbour's house from burglars, and contracted HIV in the process.

      So cut the moralizing "they all made their choices" crap.

    30. Re:humanity vs capitalism by RealGrouchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, and Brazil actually had the balls to stand up the the U.S. and refuse AIDS prevention money that was locked into abstinence-only programs.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    31. Re:humanity vs capitalism by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      wow, ignore the body of the post and attack the person. nice.

      the US is known for using "abstinence" only, and not providing any barrier methods. that is plain stupid, and defies human nature.

      the country with the highest abstinence age, lowest STI rate and highest public awareness is Holland. Sex education starts at 5, and teaches that sex is normal, fun but overall has to be SAFE. and it works. and your system doesnt

      GUess you;ll just go down the toilet then.

    32. Re:humanity vs capitalism by Elektroschock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't really see the point of the US. Patent law adheres to the territorial principle. Brasil is free to request compulsory licensing. And everythings conforms TRIPs. In fact the USA did the same with Bayer vaccine.

    33. Re:humanity vs capitalism by hamelis · · Score: 3, Informative

      I love how the US has put Thailand on its watch list for piracy even though compulsory licensing is completely legal under internation patent agreements. This is the only reason we don't see a lot more poor countries doing the same thing: even though it's legal, they get leaned on by the US gov't because the pharmacy companies are whining about their profits.

      See a decent explanation of compulsory licensing here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license

      Brazil has fulfilled the "attempts to obtain a licence under reasonable commercial terms must have failed over a reasonable period of time" requirement. As others have mentioned, they have threatened this before. Another nice loophole that was or soon will be closed is that India's patent system only allow a process to be patented, not an end product. This allowed production of AIDS drugs at cost. But of course, India has been under pressure to 'normalize' its patent laws (ie make them the same as US laws) and this loophole will be closed either this year or next. Unfortunate, as the availability of cheap drugs from India has been a major factor in forcing pharmaceutical companies to negotiate prices.

    34. Re:humanity vs capitalism by andymadigan · · Score: 3, Informative

      I live in Spencerport, NY in Upstate New York. My High School had an abstinence only curriculum. The class considered anything else to be completely unacceptable. This is the public High School. I hope _YOU_ haven't ever been to the U.S., this is very common around here.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    35. Re:humanity vs capitalism by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which basically makes it state-sponsored IP-scoffing.

      You say that as if "IP" were a God-given right. It's not: "IP" is a collection of government entitlement programs, and what a government gives, a government can take away.

    36. Re:humanity vs capitalism by iamnotaclown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other words, Canada.

      Don't believe the FUD. Socialized health care is more efficient and cheaper per capita than your broken free market system:

      http://www.thestar.com/News/article/204163

    37. Re:humanity vs capitalism by aurispector · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's ridiculous that these attitudes still persist. Every time I hear the claim that AIDS is the patient's fault I want to smack someone. There are at least a dozen ways people could contract the disease innocently and unknowingly. Sure, some people take risks and pay the price, but for instance in Africa the infection rates are so high because of ignorance about the disease, not because they are all moral failures.

      Merck does have a right to recoup their development costs-after all they have to save up for the next round of drug liability lawsuits like the vioxx fiasco.

      Still, they ought to play smarter and drop costs when countries try to negotiate price-the tactic of countries taking a compulsory license is a big weapon against which they have no counter. They could sell AIDS and malaria drugs cheap and look like angels whilst continuing to price gouge for boner pills. Problem solved!

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    38. Re:humanity vs capitalism by Acer500 · · Score: 3, Informative

      >> ...having been repeatedly proven not to decrease teen pregnancy at all, but proven to lead to increased incidence of STDs, including AIDS.

      References please?
      I'm not the OP, but sure, you only have to google around for a bit:

      "Teens Need Access to Contraceptives, Not Abstinence Messages, To Reduce Pregnancy, STD Rates, AAP Report Says" (AAP: American Academy of Pediatrics). http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?ne wsid=27083

      Original report here:

      http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/ full/116/1/281
      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    39. Re:humanity vs capitalism by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally I see nothing wrong with making money through prostitution is not a shameing occupation. AS long as you have free choice about it and it is properly regulated, then I see no problem. But then I peronally believe sex between consenting parties is fine.

      Finally, you made the classic straw man of suggesting because I liked ONE aspect therefore I must like it all. I agree Holland has problems, however it is a MUCH bettwer country to live in than the US. Much more free, in the ACTUAL versus religious rights idea of it....

  2. youtube by gargletheape · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you know what else Brazil and Thailand have in common? A boisterous tourism industry and hot girls. Seriously, what does youtube have to do with this story?

    1. Re:youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      as a matter of fact, brazil stopped blocking youtube three days after the ban was actually set. And not all ISPs complied with the ruling, only one, Brasil Telecom, which is responsible for broadbrand in all southern states.

  3. bullshit by teknopurge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this is not about humanity. the only reason this drug even exists is becuase money was able to be spent on R&D to create or discover the compound. Brazil has just put another nail in the coffin of innovation by this move: if a company cannot make money from a discovery or invention the amount of both will decline.

    1. Re:bullshit by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Brazil wanted to give them some money.
      Mereck said no so Brazil took it to save the lives of its people.
      Considering its a global company, They should have taken Brazils offer and looked to Europe and N.America to recover costs.
      OTOH, since Merick wouldn't sell to Brazil anyways, there not actually loosing money now, are they?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. "Black Box" Drugs? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder what the endgame might be out of situations like this.

    Right now, my understanding is that to produce and get approval for a drug, you need to release its chemical formula and other information about it.

    But I wonder if at some point in the future, if the drug companies get too worried about their profits due to genericization in countries like Thailand and Brazil, that they might try to implement some sort of "drug DRM." Rather than making the composition of the drug open, don't release what's actually in it, and just test it as a 'black box,' show empirically through tests that it's effective and reasonably safe, but dope the actual pills with a lot of random substances that make it difficult to reverse-engineer (or have the actual drug only be something that's produced in the body through subtle combinations of various things in the pill, or keep the methods of producing the various chemicals in the pills a secret). I'm sure there are lots of bizarre ways that the drug companies could think up to protect the compositions.

    Now, I'm not saying that any of these schemes would be effective at protecting the composition -- if the market for a generic drug is big enough, the labs in Thailand can probably afford to spend a lot of time with a mass spectrometer/gas chromatograph and unravel it, but that doesn't mean the drug companies wouldn't try, and waste a lot of time and effort in the process.

    As we've seen in the battles over digital IP, there are a whole lot of things that can end up as collateral damage in the fights between rightsholders who see the gravy train slowing down, and people who want their products at a lower price than is being offered.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:"Black Box" Drugs? by haluness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Rather than making the composition of the drug open, don't release what's actually in it,
      > and just test it as a 'black box,' show empirically through tests that it's effective and
      > reasonably safe, but dope the actual pills with a lot of random substances that make it
      > difficult to reverse-engineer

      I really can't forsee any form of DRM for chemical compounds. It's quite like DRM for music - at one point the music has to be played on a speaker. Similarly, if you're going to make a drug, you're going to have to give the pill out at which point you have the whole field of analytical chemistry (mass spec, HPLC etc) at your disposal!

      Furthermore, adding random substances to it, doesn't really hinder the identification process - they'd just show up as separate peaks on the spectrum. In addition randomly adding substances to a drug mixture would probably mess up pharmacokinetics which would have to be restudied all over again.

      Unfortunately the chemical world is a little bit messier than the digital world :)

    2. Re:"Black Box" Drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      In fact there are at least two such drugs. Premarin is actually made from Pregnant Mare Urine (get it) by a process that is a trade secret. No one is entirely sure which of the components of the final product are active and which aren't. As a result, last I checked (a couple of years ago), no one had successfully developed a generic. A similar situation exists for Thalidomide (which is now a very effective treatment for Multiple Myeloma and a somewhat less effective treatment for other cancers). The drug is in fact a pro-drug that is only active when metabolized by the liver. Unfortunately, the liver generates >100 different metabolites, some of which are very short-lived. No one actually knows which of these is active. As a result, development of analogs (which I have been involved in) has been significantly hampered.
      P.S. those who say that FDA has anything to do with funding for clinical trials have no idea what they are talking. Typically, a company pays for ALL therapy-related medical care for trial participants, they pay for data managers at treatment centers, they pay for the physicians who treat the patients, they pay for tests, they pay their own data managers, their own trials managers, and finally, THE DRUG COMPANY pays the FDA to review their application (through user fees). In fact, I seem to recall having read recently that the approval process at FDA actually generates surplus revenue. Finally, during the trials process, before manufacturing is mass scale, drug costs can be hundreds of dollars a dose. By the time one factors in that only a fraction of drugs that begin trials are actually approved, it is easy to imagine drug approval costing hundreds of millions of dollars (even though the pivotal trial(s) itsel "only" cost ~$100,000,000--~10,000/patient * ~1000 patients.)

  5. nonsense by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what happened was this: merck had the AIDS drug and Brazil tried to negotiate it at what they could afford, merck declined, Brazil then told merck to screw themselves and got the drug anyway. it isn't so much an attack on merck's ability to make money off its own research as it is the idiot practice of denying DYING people medical treatment for the sake of said profit. moral of story: better to negotiate then to be bypassed.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  6. I live in Brazil, Youtube was never blocked here. by had3l · · Score: 4, Informative

    I remember seeing that "Brazil blocks Youtube" thing on slashdot, but seriously, I tested it back then, and there was no block, I talked to everyone I know, and they also noted no block. Not that one wasn't issued though, it probably was never enforced.

    It was a BS case anyway, it was a public beach, everyone was there to see them having sex. If anyone was breaking the law, they were. Of course, with the justice system here as corrupt and moronic as it is, those kinds of rulings aren't surprising. Believe me though, 100% of the Brazilian people would be against any sort of ban.

  7. Innovation is pretty safe by TimTucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As they say: necessity is the mother of innovation. As long as we have a need for medicine, someone's going to do the research to look for it. It may become less easy to justify spending millions in funding and make millions in profits off of discoveries, but that doesn't mean that innovation will stop.

  8. This is a very slippery slope -when does this end? by spineboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These countries are treading on a slippery slope. At what point is it OK now to not pay for the hard work of other people, or to begin to directly steal from them? If this happens enough the company will go bankrupt as correctly pointed out by the parent comment. There will always be someone else who can justify why their need is to get/steal/borrow what they need to a greater and greater extent.
    Yes I know that giant pharm firms spend a lot on advertising, but it also costs approximately one Billion dollars to get a single new drug to the marketplace (that's $1,000,000,000 !!)

    Pricing is a problem for the third world countries, probably because it takes so many resources to make that product.
    Now please pay attention - I'm not saying that Brazil is unjustified in it's taking of the drug and helping those people, but rather that there needs to be some limits so that this behavior is not abused, and ruins it for everyone. This sounds like a good problem for the U.N.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  9. Not without instructive precedent in the US by Wdi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Year 2001: 5 (five) US citizens die in Anthrax scare. US government immediately starts proceedings for compulsory license for Cipro, wrestling the patent rights away from foreign company and competitor Bayer. This stance is widely praised as proactive and protecting the precious lives of US citizens.

    Year 2007: Tens of thousand of people die in Brazil each year from AIDS because they cannot afford patented medication. Action from Brazil to force compulsory licensing is widely denounced as destroying the worldwide pharma industry, especially by US commentators.

    Well...

    1. Re:Not without instructive precedent in the US by kmac06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From your link: "This quantity was far greater than the supply, and Bayer lacked the capacity to produce such a large quantity in a timely manner."

      Sounds like the manufacturers couldn't produce the drugs, so the government stepped in to ramp up production. Not exactly what you made it sound like.

  10. Re:This is a very slippery slope -when does this e by MojoRilla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop believing big pharma's FUD.

    There are several significant factors undercutting this supposed billion dollar price tag. The first is that AIDS research has received significant public funding, and second is that antiretroviral drugs have the shortest time to approval of any class of drugs, approximately half the time of normal clinical trials (the mean time for antiretrovirals is 44.6 months, compared to an industry average of 87.4 months).

    See this report from Doctors Without Boarders for more information.

  11. The State giveth, the State taketh by bidule · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Patents are government-granted monopolies. It is not an absolute right and has to be balanced against the need of the People.

    Reading this news as a fight between corporate greed and governmental greed is the wrong way to look at that. Right or wrong, you try to choose the lesser evil. Everyday the little citizen get crushed for reason of State, for once it is a big pharma that pays the price.

    BTW, the pharma spammer are quick on the button today. Disgraceful.

    --
    ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
  12. Meh, what can you do? by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the Article:

    Other countries, including Canada and Italy, have also used a clause in World Trade Organization rules to flout drug patents in the name of public health.


    Under WTO rules, countries can issue a "compulsory license" to manufacture or buy generic versions of patented drugs deemed critical to public health.

  13. Merck's spending breakdown by compumike · · Score: 5, Informative
    From their latest annual report, for fiscal year 2006: (all numbers in millions of dollars)
    • Sales revenue: 22,636.0
    So where does the money go?
    • Manufacturing costs: 6,001.1
    • Marketing & adminstrative costs: 8,165.4
    • R&D: 4,782.9
    Only 20% of the price of each pill goes toward future research and development... Marketing & administrative costs are double that. Ouch.