Thailand Stuns Drug Firms With Generic Licenses

[slimdog]

OK then if its a myth we will arrange for some blood from an infected person and you can inject it into yourself without fear ok?

He can have some of mine if he wants....

[Prakanong]

OK then if its a myth we will arrange for some blood from an infected person and you can inject it into yourself without fear ok?

He can have some of mine if he wants....

It usually shuts up the HIV/AIDS as a myth characters - I have never seen one take up the offer yet!!!

These people have all probably been abducted as well by aliens at some point while watching Kennedy from the grassy knoll

[Galong]

OK then if its a myth we will arrange for some blood from an infected person and you can inject it into yourself without fear ok?

He can have some of mine if he wants....

It usually shuts up the HIV/AIDS as a myth characters - I have never seen one take up the offer yet!!!

These people have all probably been abducted as well by aliens at some point while watching Kennedy from the grassy knoll

Ooo, great comeback! Nice use of logic and reasoning to dispute/disprove/discredit my posting. I'm impressed.

OK, let me rephrase it... Do you actually think that the big drug companies and the governments of the world actually care about HIV or AIDS infected people? There are a lot of scientists out there who are very concerned about the lack of evidence to support the mainstream medical practices and the handing out of toxic drugs. I pointed out a couple of links to back what I said.

Go ahead and trust the people who stand to make BILLIONS of dollars off of sick people. There is a whole world of information online that exposes the falicies in the medical profession. None of these mainstream doctors seem to want to investigate the nutritional aspects of HIV or AIDS. One thing noticed in many victims with low CD4 levels is that their selinium levels are at zero. Three of the amino acid levels are as well. Giving patients mega doses of this suppliments bring the CD4 levels back up... oh, but I guess an alien wrote up that medical report.

Environmental health factors also seem to play a big role in the high percentages of infections. Many Africans and Asians don't have access to clean water or clean air or healthy food. Hmmm, I guess their immune system should be just as strong as an average First World person... sure, that's gotta be right.

Keep on trusting doctors and pharmaceutical companies if you wish. I have read countless books and report on viruses every since the book "The Hot Zone" came out. That got me interested in viruses. I find it facinating. I also prefer to use common sense and scientific research done by unbiased professionals. Anyone who stands to get rich off of having people believe that they will die if they don't take the expensive drugs is immediately suspicious in my book.

Didn't shut me up now did it?

[slimdog]

So, Do you want my blood then....

[Prakanong]

So you have read countless books in viruses?

Are you a virologist then?

As for the medical report on selinium levels - where is the clinical trial data that was conducted according to the GCO standards - reference please.

Its funny how one institute n France and one in the USA both came up with the idea of HIV/AIDS after that series of deaths - were they colluding.

So what is your proposition - that HIV does not exist - its merely enviromental factors causing the low immunity and there is no actual HIV virus?

hat HIV can not be passed from person to person - its not infectious as its caused by outside factors such as lifestyle and dirty water - Sir John Snow would be proud of you - you do know who he is without googling don't you as you have read all those populist medical books

PS: I take you do not want the blood then? You can then refuse the expensive drugs and prove to the world nobody needs them and get yourself a prize

PPS: I have seen many of the conspiracy theorists shot down in flames with regard to this - go away and debate it on a board full of research scientists, virologists and others working on this and see how far your irrational arguments get you.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Prakanong

[Prakanong]

From Wikipedia

Yes the HIV antibody test can be said to have flaws if using Bayesian Statisitics but those tests can be followed up with further tests which will 100% prove the presence of the virus ie Viral Genetic material

A lot of the myth propogators only go so far - they are neither scientists nor clinicians and only have an laymans grasp. (as do)

As Galong is obviously a respected virologis having rad the populist book about it he must know better!

To debate with a paranoic conspiracy theorist is just like banging ones head on the wall - nothing will change their mind so its best to leave them in their own littel world so I will shut up on the matter.

He would not beleive anything I say anyway as I work for the largest biologicals company in the world and thus hvae a self interest - aye right

"Diagnosis of infection using antibody testing is one of the best-established concepts in medicine. HIV antibody tests exceed the performance of most other infectious disease tests in both sensitivity (the ability of the screening test to give a positive finding when the person tested truly has the disease ) and specificity (the ability of the test to give a negative finding when the subjects tested are free of the disease under study). All current HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 96% (except the HIV-TEK G by Sorin Biomedica) and are therefore extremely reliable (WHO, 2004).

Having the antibodies is different from actually having the virus because HIV antibodies are formed from exposure to HIV test vaccines which stimulate the body's response to HIV infection but do not fully simulate HIV.

Progress in testing methodology has enabled detection of viral genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells. While not widely used for routine testing due to high cost and requirements in laboratory equipment, these direct testing techniques have confirmed the validity of the antibody tests (Jackson et al., 1990; Busch et al., 1991; Silvester et al., 1995; Urassa et al., 1999; Nkengasong et al., 1999; Samdal et al., 1996).

Bayesian statistics can be used to argue that HIV or other testing is less reliable than it might seem to be. If HIV antibody testing is 5% false negative and 5% false positive, and HIV antibodies are present in 0.6% of all people, then Bayes' rule of inverse probability can be used to show that if a person selected at random tests positive, the probability that they actually have the antibodies is only 10%.

Positive HIV antibody tests are usually followed up by retests and tests for antigens, viral genetic material and the virus itself, providing confirmation of actual infection.

[Galong]

Wow, I had no idea that everyone would get so pissed off at me for questioning the medical profession. Having endured bad medical advice on many ocassions in the past, I don't automatically respect everything that the professionals put forth. "Question authority" was a popular bumper sticker back in the 70s. I still believe that to be useful advice.

Whatever, I was merely putting out some info in case someone was interested. Obviously, you guys know everything about this mysterious disease already.

In sum then...

1. No, I don't want anyone's blood thank you. To suggest such a thing was ignorant if not childish.

2. No, I don't have all the answers thank you very much. All I have is questions.

3. No, I'm not a virologists or whatever. I merely said that I like reading books on the subject. I've read quite a few and will keep on reading them. Call it a hobby or whatever, but I NEVER claimed to be an authority.

Learn how to read guys... and not between the lines.

[Mid]

Heart medicine? Well, as I only know two Thais who don't smoke and no Thais who consider that almost everything they eat is deep fat fried in PALM OIL, it's no wonder that heart disease is a biggy here. Come on, this is common sense.

Let's look at the wonderful drug dealers, oops I mean pharmaceutical companies, and what they're all about:

1. The HIV test is NOT dependable. There are numberous reasons for your test to come back as a false positive Read this.

2. The medical community has yet to actually isolate HIV. they are looking at how the body responds to something that they call HIV. Odd as it sounds, this is the truth.

3. Many of the drugs are toxic and can actually cause some of the diseases that are considered AIDS! AZT for example, was developed to fight cancer. The drug was so toxic that it was not allowed to be used for cancer. It's seems it's OK however to use it on AIDS patients... for some unknown reason.

4. There is NO proof that HIV causes AIDS! Don't believe me. Read about the recent German court ruling.

So, it appears likely that these lovely folks who really care about people dying could actually be promoting products that kill. They could be killing people who aren't actually infected... and the list goes on and on.

Whenever BIG money is involved, I get suspicious. This is potentially one of the biggest and most horrific scams of modern times.

[Galong]

OK then if its a myth we will arrange for some blood from an infected person and you can inject it into yourself without fear ok?

He can have some of mine if he wants....

Hey Slimdog, perhaps... well, if the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis is really onto something, I'll say maybe. They seem to think that purposely enlisting "one of the most sinister pathogens around — HIV." Might work towards the fight against cancer. Check it out here.

There's a whole bunch of info on false negative testing here. Imagine what would be going through your mind if you were told you were HIV+. The social stigmatism, the disgrace of having a disease that's supposed to be caught by naughty sex or homosexuals, the very thought that you did something wrong and you're going to now pay the ultimate (and likely very painful) price... your life. THEN, you find out the doctor was wrong.

Doctors make mistakes and plenty of them. The HIV test is NOT foolproof. OK, even if it's very trustworthy, what if you were one of the ones caught up in the statistics?

Take a look at the OraQuick HIV test. Then look at this site.

Is the test 100% foolproof? Nope, and especially when there could be other medical factors contributing the false positive. There are probably just as many scientific articles disproving the mainstream methods of testing and treating HIV and AIDS as there are supporting the status quo.

My point is that I don't trust doctors just because they're doctors. My degrees are in Industrial Management and Eastern Philosophy (yes, a strange combination) and what I learned at uni was to question everything and use logical thought processes to come to conclusions. I also learned that a person can have a PHD and still be a moron.

Attack me if you wish, but if you want an itelligent conversation, attack what I'm saying. It's not my words. I am merely conveying what others are saying. I am quoting 'doctors'

Tell me Slimdog, if I take some of your blood will I likely be arrested for drinking and driving if I get stopped? Kiddin'

[slimdog]

20 odd years ago when I was still a youngster I needed blood. Unfortunetely for me this was prior to blood being tested for hiv.

[Martin]

When this OP appeared, I noticed some contributions that, in effect, criticised the Government for not being diplomatic about its introduction of this ruling, and saying "They seem prone to 'sticking two fingers up' to the West".

However, it could be simply that, first, they are not diplomats.

They have some military background and military officers do tend to make a decision which they then issue as an Order, rather than proposing it as a Motion For Debate!

And, second, they are of the older generation that cut their teeth and were brought up before all the 'touchy-feely' stuff started.

I am glad to see generic Plavix come available. I had to take it for the first few days after my angioplasty at the big government hospital by Khon Kaen University. I could afford the three-quid a day that it was costing me, but that is a day's wages to many Thais. However, the drug firms take no notice of ability to pay. Their pricing policy is clearly "Whatever the market will bear".

[Prakanong]

Wow, I had no idea that everyone would get so pissed off at me for questioning the medical profession. Having endured bad medical advice on many ocassions in the past, I don't automatically respect everything that the professionals put forth. "Question authority" was a popular bumper sticker back in the 70s. I still believe that to be useful advice.

Whatever, I was merely putting out some info in case someone was interested. Obviously, you guys know everything about this mysterious disease already.

In sum then...

1. No, I don't want anyone's blood thank you. To suggest such a thing was ignorant if not childish.

2. No, I don't have all the answers thank you very much. All I have is questions.

3. No, I'm not a virologists or whatever. I merely said that I like reading books on the subject. I've read quite a few and will keep on reading them. Call it a hobby or whatever, but I NEVER claimed to be an authority.

Learn how to read guys... and not between the lines.

Of course everyone has had bad medical advice - with a Dr its their "Opinion" given the evidence plus history and their experience.

If you got 10 opinions from well qualified clinicians though its highly likely you would get the right diagnosis as long as they had collected all the required date etc

In the case of HIV though evidence is the RNA was isolated back in 1984 - if there was no virus how could the RNA be isolated.

According to all scientific norms the HIV virus exists and does lead to AIDS in many cases.

All of the AIDS Myth dissidents arguments have long been put to bed as false. This includes you false positive bit as yes there can be false positives from the basic test but then this should lead to further testing of course as I have outlined above - saying the basic test is flawed then stooping is not going the whole way.

I have recently had two tests 6 months apart for visa's and WP;s - I know if one of those basic tests was + I would have been retested with the same test at another centre then I would have gone for the tests that are not just looking for anti-bodies.

To use the false positive as evidence the virus does not exist is just not rigerous enough - however I will concede this point gladly - If in certain countries etc someone is a false + and the health services there do not go into the further tests to absolutely prove they are + then I can imagine some people are on treatment they should not be.

Good that you read the type of book you do, have you read "The Coming Plague" by Lauries Garret - its ages since I did but it was facscinating - I especially liked the epidemiologists work - like detectives in search of the cause of the disease which is what a lot of them are - I am working closely with epidemiologists right now and I find it so interesting

I was picking out chapters from this book last week " The Vaccine Book" - some way way too technical for me but some about clinical trials were good and written by people I know of

http://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Book-Barry-R...m/dp/0121072584

Edited February 10, 2007 by Prakanong

[Prakanong]

"However, the drug firms take no notice of ability to pay. Their pricing policy is clearly "Whatever the market will bear".

These two statements seem to contradict each other

Drug companies do have differential pricing in different markets for some drugs.

However - I admit many do not often voluntarily offer the very cheapest at all times - some are getting better at this and I am happy to work for one that does.

Within 1 country though I find it hard to see how the drug companies can evaluate someones ability to pay before they set a price?

Having said that I know we have a different price of vaccines for private and public sales withing a country so what do I know - I am bloddy confusing myself here ;-)

[UPSMan]

How can i start a new posting

[sriracha john]

According to all scientific norms the HIV virus exists and does lead to AIDS in many cases.

According to all the literature I've read and all the cases I've known, it's actually,

"100% of people that are HIV+ develop AIDS and 100% of people with AIDS die prematurely."

Edited February 10, 2007 by sriracha john

[ColPyat]

According to all scientific norms the HIV virus exists and does lead to AIDS in many cases.

According to all the literature I've read and all the cases I've known, it's actually,

"100% of people that are HIV+ develop AIDS and 100% of people with AIDS die prematurely."

That is not correct.

Most people do develop AIDS when HIV infected, but there are several known individuals who have over decades not yet developed AIDS, even though HIV positive. And with the event of anti retro virals it is not sure that people with HIV/AIDS have to die "prematurely".

[ColPyat]

[

Edited February 10, 2007 by ColPyat

[sriracha john]

While the development of medications and treatments have made premature death less premature, AIDS still leads to premature death in all cases. AIDS is an incurable, fatal syndrome in 100% of its sufferers.

Any links to these alleged cases of a definitively HIV+ person not developing into AIDS?

Edited February 11, 2007 by sriracha john

[Prakanong]

While the development of medications and treatments have made premature death less premature, AIDS still leads to premature death in all cases. AIDS is an incurable, fatal syndrome in 100% of its sufferers.

Any links to these alleged cases of a definitively HIV+ person not developing into AIDS?

Millions of people with HIV have not developed AIDS - now are you asking for the longest survivor because that is meaningless

Its like the yearly clinical trials for Hep B immumogenicity - we "Believe" the vaccine lcovers for life and each year we test a cohort and they are still immune and its pushed out another year but how can we ever prove its for life till these cohorts do not contract Hep B and they all die a happy old age in 40+ years time

The same type of study will be going on somewhere with HIV patients responding to the retrovirals I would have thought but as of today you can not make the statement either way.

Its impossible to say scientifically until absolutely everyone ie 100% of all people who have HIV die of AIDS that HIV is a death sentence though and many are still going strong 15+ years later.

It6 is just not a proveable statement either way - many Dr's now thing if HIV as just another chronic disease like Diabetes which can be managed (with the proviso its infectious)

Then again if you look at the references in the Vaccine book I refer to above the evidence points to the more infectious it is the higher the viral load so if these drugs do indeed lower the viral load to very low amounts the person might not be as infectious as with a high viral load but must still practice safe sex.

I hope I have not rambled too much

Edited February 11, 2007 by Prakanong

[ColPyat]

While the development of medications and treatments have made premature death less premature, AIDS still leads to premature death in all cases. AIDS is an incurable, fatal syndrome in 100% of its sufferers.

Any links to these alleged cases of a definitively HIV+ person not developing into AIDS?

Plenty of links about nonprogressors:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/04/hea...ence/snlive.php

http://www.thebody.com/treat/nonprog.html

etc...

[sriracha john]

While the development of medications and treatments have made premature death less premature, AIDS still leads to premature death in all cases. AIDS is an incurable, fatal syndrome in 100% of its sufferers.

Any links to these alleged cases of a definitively HIV+ person not developing into AIDS?

Millions of people with HIV have not developed AIDS - now are you asking for the longest survivor because that is meaningless

Its like the yearly clinical trials for Hep B immumogenicity - we "Believe" the vaccine lcovers for life and each year we test a cohort and they are still immune and its pushed out another year but how can we ever prove its for life till these cohorts do not contract Hep B and they all die a happy old age in 40+ years time

The same type of study will be going on somewhere with HIV patients responding to the retrovirals I would have thought but as of today you can not make the statement either way.

Its impossible to say scientifically until absolutely everyone ie 100% of all people who have HIV die of AIDS that HIV is a death sentence though and many are still going strong 15+ years later.

It6 is just not a proveable statement either way - many Dr's now thing if HIV as just another chronic disease like Diabetes which can be managed (with the proviso its infectious)

Then again if you look at the references in the Vaccine book I refer to above the evidence points to the more infectious it is the higher the viral load so if these drugs do indeed lower the viral load to very low amounts the person might not be as infectious as with a high viral load but must still practice safe sex.

I hope I have not rambled too much

Unfortunately, until such time as people have survived to a "happy old age," AIDS remains as I have reluctantly described.

Until such time as people have survived to a "happy old age," HIV+ remains as I reluctantly described as always leading to AIDS. While its encouraging that people have not developed AIDS for 16 years (per above link) and a few have even gone a little further, it remains an inadequate time.

In the history of diseases, it is a relative newcomer and much needs to be done to seek even better treatments, but as of now, no one has been cured of AIDS... no one has survived to a "happy old age" with AIDS, and no one that is HIV+ has lived to a "happy old age" without developing AIDS... thus my initial statement ... reluctantly stands true. I certainly hope for the day to come soon when it isn't.

* For the purposes of discussion, I'll accept your 40 years as the measurable amount of time to describe a "happy old age."

[sriracha john]

While the development of medications and treatments have made premature death less premature, AIDS still leads to premature death in all cases. AIDS is an incurable, fatal syndrome in 100% of its sufferers.

Any links to these alleged cases of a definitively HIV+ person not developing into AIDS?

Plenty of links about nonprogressors:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/04/hea...ence/snlive.php

http://www.thebody.com/treat/nonprog.html

etc...

Thanks for the links above and refer to the previous post.

[Prakanong]

While the development of medications and treatments have made premature death less premature, AIDS still leads to premature death in all cases. AIDS is an incurable, fatal syndrome in 100% of its sufferers.

Any links to these alleged cases of a definitively HIV+ person not developing into AIDS?

Millions of people with HIV have not developed AIDS - now are you asking for the longest survivor because that is meaningless

Its like the yearly clinical trials for Hep B immumogenicity - we "Believe" the vaccine lcovers for life and each year we test a cohort and they are still immune and its pushed out another year but how can we ever prove its for life till these cohorts do not contract Hep B and they all die a happy old age in 40+ years time

The same type of study will be going on somewhere with HIV patients responding to the retrovirals I would have thought but as of today you can not make the statement either way.

Its impossible to say scientifically until absolutely everyone ie 100% of all people who have HIV die of AIDS that HIV is a death sentence though and many are still going strong 15+ years later.

It6 is just not a proveable statement either way - many Dr's now thing if HIV as just another chronic disease like Diabetes which can be managed (with the proviso its infectious)

Then again if you look at the references in the Vaccine book I refer to above the evidence points to the more infectious it is the higher the viral load so if these drugs do indeed lower the viral load to very low amounts the person might not be as infectious as with a high viral load but must still practice safe sex.

I hope I have not rambled too much

Unfortunately, until such time as people have survived to a "happy old age," AIDS remains as I have reluctantly described.

Until such time as people have survived to a "happy old age," HIV+ remains as I reluctantly described as always leading to AIDS. While its encouraging that people have not developed AIDS for 16 years (per above link) and a few have even gone a little further, it remains an inadequate time.

In the history of diseases, it is a relative newcomer and much needs to be done to seek even better treatments, but as of now, no one has been cured of AIDS... no one has survived to a "happy old age" with AIDS, and no one that is HIV+ has lived to a "happy old age" without developing AIDS... thus my initial statement ... reluctantly stands true. I certainly hope for the day to come soon when it isn't.

* For the purposes of discussion, I'll accept your 40 years as the measurable amount of time to describe a "happy old age."

To be fair your statement does not stand as it is not proven either way as your arbitary figure of 40 years has not been reached yet but I will forgive you as you are obvioulsy not involved in designing protocols for clinical trials ;-))

All we can say is currently we do not have the data available to say either way - previously yes it looked like a death sentence but more and more Dr's opinons are now saying a "Chronic (infectious) disease manageable with the right drugs.

Now whether your opinion is correct or theirs is it is not possible to prove either way - just because it was all bad in the past does not make it so in the future and real research with real data needs to be looked at an not just anecdotal.

Two anecdotes do not make data as someone once said.

[sriracha john]

While the development of medications and treatments have made premature death less premature, AIDS still leads to premature death in all cases. AIDS is an incurable, fatal syndrome in 100% of its sufferers.

Any links to these alleged cases of a definitively HIV+ person not developing into AIDS?

Millions of people with HIV have not developed AIDS - now are you asking for the longest survivor because that is meaningless

Its like the yearly clinical trials for Hep B immumogenicity - we "Believe" the vaccine lcovers for life and each year we test a cohort and they are still immune and its pushed out another year but how can we ever prove its for life till these cohorts do not contract Hep B and they all die a happy old age in 40+ years time

The same type of study will be going on somewhere with HIV patients responding to the retrovirals I would have thought but as of today you can not make the statement either way.

Its impossible to say scientifically until absolutely everyone ie 100% of all people who have HIV die of AIDS that HIV is a death sentence though and many are still going strong 15+ years later.

It6 is just not a proveable statement either way - many Dr's now thing if HIV as just another chronic disease like Diabetes which can be managed (with the proviso its infectious)

Then again if you look at the references in the Vaccine book I refer to above the evidence points to the more infectious it is the higher the viral load so if these drugs do indeed lower the viral load to very low amounts the person might not be as infectious as with a high viral load but must still practice safe sex.

I hope I have not rambled too much

Unfortunately, until such time as people have survived to a "happy old age," AIDS remains as I have reluctantly described.

Until such time as people have survived to a "happy old age," HIV+ remains as I reluctantly described as always leading to AIDS. While its encouraging that people have not developed AIDS for 16 years (per above link) and a few have even gone a little further, it remains an inadequate time.

In the history of diseases, it is a relative newcomer and much needs to be done to seek even better treatments, but as of now, no one has been cured of AIDS... no one has survived to a "happy old age" with AIDS, and no one that is HIV+ has lived to a "happy old age" without developing AIDS... thus my initial statement ... reluctantly stands true. I certainly hope for the day to come soon when it isn't.

* For the purposes of discussion, I'll accept your 40 years as the measurable amount of time to describe a "happy old age."

To be fair your statement does not stand as it is not proven either way as your arbitary figure of 40 years has not been reached yet but I will forgive you as you are obvioulsy not involved in designing protocols for clinical trials ;-))

All we can say is currently we do not have the data available to say either way - previously yes it looked like a death sentence but more and more Dr's opinons are now saying a "Chronic (infectious) disease manageable with the right drugs.

Now whether your opinion is correct or theirs is it is not possible to prove either way - just because it was all bad in the past does not make it so in the future and real research with real data needs to be looked at an not just anecdotal.

Two anecdotes do not make data as someone once said.

Actually, they aren't my statements nor my opinions, but those voiced by the physician in charge of the American military health care system.

Actually, it wasn't my figure of 40 years, it was yours... which I accepted to be a reasonable guideline for determining what constitutes a "happy old age."

All I was pointing out was that according to the data that is available and is proven up to this date.... his statements, as described by me, remain true.

To repeat, it will indeed be a glorious day when they are not. We'll only know for certain if it's a "chronic (infectious) disease manageable with the right drugs" in 20 odd years. I hope it develops that way or even becomes something to a lesser degree.

Thanks for your input.

Edited February 12, 2007 by sriracha john

[slimdog]

Compulsory licencing 'on hold': Public Health Minister

BANGKOK, Feb 13 (TNA) - Thailand's Public Health Ministry has said it has no intention to override additional drug patents in the near future while defending its controversial decision to issue compulsory licences for three original drugs.

Thailand's campaign to bring affordable healthcare to all in need has run counter to the perceived proporietary interests in multinational pharmaceutical firms which hold the patents to several key drugs that Thailand sees as too expensive for local patients and their families.

Public Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla insisted Monday that the government did carefully and thoroughly consider its earlier move to effectively 'break the patents' of two AIDS drugs and a heart disease medication because it was aware of possible negative repercussions from the international pharmaceutical industry.

But he stressed that the move was necessary if the government wanted to ensure broader access to necessary medicines.

Last week, the Health Ministry issued compulsory licences for the heart disease drug Plavix, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis and Abbott Laboratories' Kaletra to treat HIV/AIDS. In November, it overrode the patent for Efivirenz, an anti-retroviral drug made by Merck.

The ministry has appointed a new panel to review whether it would be necessary to take similar action on any other drugs still under the patents of pharmaceutical giants. A committee set up by the previous administration recommended a list of 10 medicines including diabetes, cancer and cholesterol reduction pills.

Dr. Mongkol said no decision has been reached while the review is still on-going. "We don't do it without necessity or rationale," the minister stressed.

When asked if the move could upset the pharmaceutical industry and dissuade original drug manufacturers to introduce innovative treatments to the Thai market, Dr. Mongkol said he would take into account the length of time during which the drugs in question have been introduced locally.

In addition, there would necessarily be appropriate committees to consider the pros and cons of adopting compulsory licensing before any recommendation is sent to him, the minister said.

He hoped that the policy on compulsory licensing would lead to a dialogue between health authorities and the pharmaceutical industry over public access to inexpensive and quality medical treatment over the long run.

"If companies see that their drugs are in the market for some time, they can bring prices down on their own. Then we don't have to enforce compulsory licensing because we honestly don't want to. It only creates ill feelings between us," Dr. Mongkol said. (TNA)-E110

[Jai Dee]

Fight escalates over Aids drug

More than 50 people with HIV or Aids rallied at the Commerce Ministry yesterday to lobby the Intellectual Property Department not to accept a complaint from pharmaceutical companies that oppose compulsory licensing.

Nimit Tien-Udom, director of the Aids Access Foundation, said Aids patients feared that if the complaint was accepted, it could disrupt the Health Ministry's move to enforce compulsory licensing, which would benefit people with HIV/Aids.

The department is considering whether to accept the petition from drug manufacturers or not. It will ask the Patent Committee, which drug makers are members of, to consider if the Health Ministry has the authority to impose compulsory licensing.

Nimit said: "Patients that need to use those specialised drugs hope to access them with lower prices and enforcing compulsory licensing will encourage them to reach it."

HIV patient had to spend about Bt20,000 per person a month for special drugs - Bt14,000 of which is paid for the drug Kaletra. But an unlicensed drug cost only Bt4,000.

The Public Health Ministry announced last month a plan to enforce compulsory licensing of Kaletra, a drug used to treat HIV patients, and Plavix, which is used for heart-disease patients. Heart disease is a major cause of death in Thailand.

The ministry implemented the regulation, which relies on international trade protocols sanctioned under the World Trade Organisation. It cited constraints and unfair pricing by the pharma industry as two main reasons for compulsory licensing.

However, the pharmaceutical companies oppose the move.

Tilleke & Gibbins, legal consultants for Merck & Co, an owner of the Efavirenz Aids drug patent, filed a petition to the Intellectual Property Department on whether the Public Health Ministry had breached patent laws.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers' Association of Thailand (PReMA) also issued a statement yesterday against the move, saying it was unprecedented anywhere in the world.

"It is clear that the Thai government has taken a policy decision to use compulsory licences as a tool to negotiate prices that do not recognise the costs associated with developing new and better medicines, PReMA president Teera Chakajnarodom said.

"Individual pharmaceutical companies will certainly consider the very significant risk this policy poses when deciding whether to bring their latest medicines to the Thai market. Far from providing poor patients with the best medicines, the compulsory licence policy might block access to new treatments in Thailand."

Source: The Nation - 15 February 2007

[slimdog]

Thailand to 'unpatent' 14 drugs: Report

Thailand is planning to break the foreign patents of 14 HIV/Aids, cancer and heart drugs, a move that may prompt companies to withhold new drugs from the Thai market, the Reuters news agency reported in a dispatch from Bangkok on Wednesday evening.

the article also states:

"Individual pharmaceutical companies will certainly consider the very significant risk this policy poses when deciding whether to bring their latest medicines to the Thai market," he said.

"Far from providing poor patients with the best medicines, the compulsory licence policy might block access to new treatments in Thailand."

Full story: http://www.bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=116803

another article in The Nation by Philip Stevens against the Thai governments proposals on the introduction of three new Compulsory licence agreements can be found at:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/02/14...on_30026809.php

[Martin]

Is this developing into a classic "Sovereign Nation stands up to Multinational Corporations" skirmish?

Thailand is only a small country (no bigger than France, and with only as many people as the UK), but there is the precedent of David having stood up to Goliath.

Three cheers for the Thai Government for having the guts that the French and UK (and other) Governments don't have.

Good luck to this older generation of Thais, taking on younger generations of the arrogant West.

[Jai Dee]

Thailand plans to break patents on 14 drugs: firms

Thailand is planning to break the foreign patents of 14 HIV/AIDS, cancer and heart drugs, a move that may prompt companies to withhold new drugs from the Thai market, pharmaceutical firms said on Wednesday.

"This action is completely unprecedented anywhere in the world," said Teera Chakajnarodom, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers' Association of Thailand, which has 43 member drug firms.

The 14 drugs targeted by the Health Ministry also included antibiotics, Teera said in a statement.

The ministry has announced compulsory licenses for three of the 14 drugs, allowing it to buy or make generic versions of the two HIV/AIDS drugs and a heart disease medicine.

Ministry officials were not immediately available to comment.

On Monday, Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla told Reuters a ministry panel was studying drugs Thailand needed and could make or buy copies while haggling for best prices of patented versions. He did not name the drugs being studied.

Foreign drug makers say Thailand's military-appointed government gave no notice to the affected companies before issuing the compulsory licenses.

"When governments resolve to take away the property of the private sector, they need to begin with consultation and end with the consent of the property owner," Teera said.

Last month, the Health Ministry issued compulsory licenses for the heart disease drug Plavix, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis and Abbott Laboratories' Kaletra to treat HIV/AIDS, after a similar move on another AIDS drug last year.

The licenses, which Thai health officials said would save the country up to 800 million baht ($24 million) a year, drew praise from AIDS activists but flak from Washington and the drug industry, which are urging the ministry to rescind them.

Teera said the Thai government was using the licenses as a tool to negotiate cheaper prices that did not reflect the high cost of developing new medicines.

"Individual pharmaceutical companies will certainly consider the very significant risk this policy poses when deciding whether to bring their latest medicines to the Thai market," he said.

"Far from providing poor patients with the best medicines, the compulsory license policy might block access to new treatments in Thailand."

Under World Trade Organization rules, a government is allowed to declare a national emergency and license the production or sale of a patented drug without the permission of the foreign patent owner.

The World Health Organization has said developing nations should try to negotiate with drug companies before overriding patents.

Source: Reuters - 15 February 2007

[Jai Dee]

People rally at the Department of Intellectual Property in Bangkok February 14, 2007, calling for officials not to cooperate with international pharmaceutical firms in stopping the enforcement of the compulsory licences on AIDS and heart disease drugs. Thailand is planning to break the foreign patents of 14 HIV/AIDS, cancer and heart drugs, a move that may prompt companies to withhold new drugs from the Thai market, pharmaceutical firms said on Wednesday.

Source: Reuters - 15 February 2007