that's wrong. it's not licensed under fixed terms, it's licensed between 14-22% of annual sales, based on volume. more sales=more licensing fees for gilead.
Having just written two term papers analyzing the social construction of the bird flu, I'm loaded with more H5N1 knowledge than I ever thought possible.
Part of the problem is that Tamiflu isn't designed to fight the bird flu, it's not a vaccine, it's an anti-viral (and, up until the end of 2004, it was one of Roche's least successful drugs). It operates by reducing the spread of a virus within the body, alleviating the severity of the effects of normal flu strains in humans by up to 38%, and reducing the time of infection by up to two days. It does NOT cure/prevent bird flu, but it is believed that it might be effective in lesseing the communicability of the disease.
There are other anti-virals, such as GlaxoSmithKline's Relenza, that should have roughly equal effectiveness. BUT, guess what? The creator/patent-holder of Tamiflu is Gilead Sciences Inc; a company whose CEO from 1997-2001 was none other than Donald Rumsfeld. The wife of former California Gov. Pete Wilson is on the board, as well as George Schultz (US Sec of State from '82 - '89). These political connections might be a key reason why the Bush Administration hasn't invoked the WHO's TRIPS Agreement, which allows for compulsory licensing (in which, in the face of a potential health crisis, the patent on a drug is broken, allowing other companies to produce the drug, while a modest licensing fee is paid to the patent holder), and would actually allow the US to stockpile enough of the drug to make a serious impact (WHO recommends that a country have enough anti-virals to treat 25% of its population, given the current productive capacities of Roche, the US won't have that amount until around 2011).
In light of the recent discovery that the 1918 flu outbreak was, in fact, a strain of the bird flu that had mutated amongst bird populations until developing in a strain that was capable of human-to-human transmission, scientists DO have a genome sequence of one such iteration of the virus, which could be used to develop vaccines (that may or may not work). Most health officials agree, however, that spending money on drug stockpiling is an empty gesture, and that available treatments should be sent instead to the poor East Asian countries where an outbreak is most likely to occur (and who can least afford to pay for the drugs). Even then, the drugs are not recommended as a primary means of prevention, rather, improvement in monitoring/reporting infrastructures, as well as new medical technology, is the suggested course of action.
I could go on, but suffice it to say, it's not surprising to hear about Tamiflu's lack of effectiveness, and were it not for the fact that the "BIRD FLU PANDEMICPALOOZA" were just a big political opportunity for the Bush Administration to assert themselves as competent and forward-thinking after the Katrina tragedy and the recent drop in US public support for the Iraqi War, that is, if the Bushies REALLY wanted to fight the flu and not just use it as a means of gaining some good PR while lining the pockets of their friends, then Tamiflu would almost never be mentioned in the press. End Rant.
Slashdot Mirror
that's wrong. it's not licensed under fixed terms, it's licensed between 14-22% of annual sales, based on volume. more sales=more licensing fees for gilead.
Having just written two term papers analyzing the social construction of the bird flu, I'm loaded with more H5N1 knowledge than I ever thought possible. Part of the problem is that Tamiflu isn't designed to fight the bird flu, it's not a vaccine, it's an anti-viral (and, up until the end of 2004, it was one of Roche's least successful drugs). It operates by reducing the spread of a virus within the body, alleviating the severity of the effects of normal flu strains in humans by up to 38%, and reducing the time of infection by up to two days. It does NOT cure/prevent bird flu, but it is believed that it might be effective in lesseing the communicability of the disease. There are other anti-virals, such as GlaxoSmithKline's Relenza, that should have roughly equal effectiveness. BUT, guess what? The creator/patent-holder of Tamiflu is Gilead Sciences Inc; a company whose CEO from 1997-2001 was none other than Donald Rumsfeld. The wife of former California Gov. Pete Wilson is on the board, as well as George Schultz (US Sec of State from '82 - '89). These political connections might be a key reason why the Bush Administration hasn't invoked the WHO's TRIPS Agreement, which allows for compulsory licensing (in which, in the face of a potential health crisis, the patent on a drug is broken, allowing other companies to produce the drug, while a modest licensing fee is paid to the patent holder), and would actually allow the US to stockpile enough of the drug to make a serious impact (WHO recommends that a country have enough anti-virals to treat 25% of its population, given the current productive capacities of Roche, the US won't have that amount until around 2011). In light of the recent discovery that the 1918 flu outbreak was, in fact, a strain of the bird flu that had mutated amongst bird populations until developing in a strain that was capable of human-to-human transmission, scientists DO have a genome sequence of one such iteration of the virus, which could be used to develop vaccines (that may or may not work). Most health officials agree, however, that spending money on drug stockpiling is an empty gesture, and that available treatments should be sent instead to the poor East Asian countries where an outbreak is most likely to occur (and who can least afford to pay for the drugs). Even then, the drugs are not recommended as a primary means of prevention, rather, improvement in monitoring/reporting infrastructures, as well as new medical technology, is the suggested course of action. I could go on, but suffice it to say, it's not surprising to hear about Tamiflu's lack of effectiveness, and were it not for the fact that the "BIRD FLU PANDEMICPALOOZA" were just a big political opportunity for the Bush Administration to assert themselves as competent and forward-thinking after the Katrina tragedy and the recent drop in US public support for the Iraqi War, that is, if the Bushies REALLY wanted to fight the flu and not just use it as a means of gaining some good PR while lining the pockets of their friends, then Tamiflu would almost never be mentioned in the press. End Rant.