Thailand Blacklisted From Receiving New AIDS Drugs

[Ijustwannateach]

Agree with you here, John K...... the real enemy, from all the points of view, is human greed. AIDS is a major international disaster- a continuing one, one that has only become worse as time has passed, which has every sign of being worse and worse and worse and worse in the future. Certain countries have nearly had their economies destroyed because of AIDS, and we can probably consider them a preview for many others. It's a pity that we can't have a major international project funded by multiple governments to find a d*** cure. Nobody would insist now that polio or smallpox vaccinations should be profit-oriented; neither should AIDS vaccine research need to be- if nothing else, where do these multinational corporations think their profits are going to come from if their customers are all dead or their customers' countries' economies are tanking from lack of healthy younger workers?

[cclub75]

Nobody would insist now that polio or smallpox vaccinations should be profit-oriented; neither should AIDS vaccine research need to be- if nothing else, where do these multinational corporations think their profits are going to come from if their customers are all dead or their customers' countries' economies are tanking from lack of healthy younger workers?

To put on the same scale the smallpox vaccine (found in... 18th century) and the new AIDS drugs... must be a form of irony...

And I don't believe it gives any force to your position...

[Ijustwannateach]

Guess that means you agree with me about polio, then.

[nick2k]

Agree with you here, John K...... the real enemy, from all the points of view, is human greed. AIDS is a major international disaster- a continuing one, one that has only become worse as time has passed, which has every sign of being worse and worse and worse and worse in the future. Certain countries have nearly had their economies destroyed because of AIDS, and we can probably consider them a preview for many others. It's a pity that we can't have a major international project funded by multiple governments to find a d*** cure. Nobody would insist now that polio or smallpox vaccinations should be profit-oriented; neither should AIDS vaccine research need to be- if nothing else, where do these multinational corporations think their profits are going to come from if their customers are all dead or their customers' countries' economies are tanking from lack of healthy younger workers?

actually, you have it all wrong. human greed is not our enemy. it is our friend.

without human greed, many of the inventions and discoveries in the last century like the personal computer, ms windows, the internet, the cell phone, and a whole host of other inventions would not have materialized if not for human greed.

yes, AIDS is a major problem. and without human greed to push companies to find a solution for it, there will never be a cure for it.

thank god for human greed.

..look how far china has come in so short of time because of - human greed.

[Ijustwannateach]

I'd like to think that something more than greed was at least in part responsible for the developments you listed; there is little point in arguing greys with someone who only believes in blacks and whites. If greed were the only engine driving human development, government would not be necessary to reign it in. Unfortunately, it is likely that human greed drives AIDS pharmaceutical development- it is probably more profitable to "treat" the disease over the lifetime of the rich, first-world victim than it is to vaccinate a potential victim living in a poor country with no money- and that is why so little vaccine research has been done by those companies compared to treatment research.

"S"

[Dakhar]

Heck if I made 5 million a year, I give half of the half left over that was ripped out of my hands via taxes, to those folks that can not afford the aggregiously priced drugs.

Sure I may only have 1 million left over, but really what would I do with that money to begin with? Eat more?

How much is enough? I would think like everything else, psychologically money has to get boring after a while. Just as one scoop of ice cream may not do it for you, but if you were handed 66 scoops, well after the first 5 you may say.....

Thats enough, I really don't need all the rest, is there anyone else that would like some?

I would really like to be more giving, but the odd thing is my Thai wife does not have the same spirit. In our 7 years together, I think we have given a total of around 1K USD to family members in need. Frankly we can afford to give more, but she is some kind of tight. I wonder sometimes what she wants to do with all that money.... waiting until I die or something?

But I digress, I hope we all never need to depend on these drugs, I hope the shoe is never on our feet..... but you never know the future.

The Thai govt. should have done a better job in trying to get prices cheaper, but even now, there is no lesson to be learned, because in order to save face, people will not admitt to error. If you can not discover or admitt to errors you will never learn....

Just ask Bush

[slimdog]

Unfortunately, it is likely that human greed drives AIDS pharmaceutical development- it is probably more profitable to "treat" the disease over the lifetime of the rich, first-world victim than it is to vaccinate a potential victim living in a poor country with no money- and that is why so little vaccine research has been done by those companies compared to treatment research.

"S"

Whilst everyone would love to have a vaccine for hiv, there are a few important issues. One of which is testing people for the hiv virus, as any vaccine would by definition have to encourage hiv antibodies, which means that everyone would be hiv+. Testing for the hiv rna itself is a quite expensive process, and certainly would be unavailable for some of the poorest countries, which are normally the worst affected, whereas checking for the antibodies is relatively cheap, and simple.

[Jai Dee]

Activists call for Abbott boycott for withdrawing drugs

Thai HIV activists have condemned a drug manufacturer, accusing it of cancelling imports of vital medicines because its profits were threatened by government legislation.

The Thai Network of People Living with HIV/Aids and other non-government organisations called on the public yesterday to boycott Abbott Laboratories' products after it withdrew its anti-retroviral imports licence here.

The move was company retaliation against the recent government decision to force the compulsory licensing of HIV drug Kaletra, Aids Access director Nimitr Tien-udom said.

About 100 NGO staff gathered outside Abbott's office in Bangkok to condemn the move.

Nimitr said: "Now they have pulled off the mask, we can see how greedy they are."

Abbott Laboratories had sent a a letter to the Thai Food and Drug Administration withdrawing its application to register the drugs, including HIV treatment Aluvia, heart disease drug Simdax and Zemplar for treatment of chronic kidney disease, Nimitr said.

He said the group would put out a list soon of other Abbott products, which include formula milk, food and weight-loss supplements - for a public boycott.

Aids Access is researching what Abbott drugs are available in Thailand and medicines that can be used as a substitute.

The information will be shared with the Public Health Ministry, the National Health Security Office and patients.

Abbott's cancellation of drug imports would only have a slight impact on Thais, Nimitr said, and kidney patients could simply chose other treatments.

The Public Health Ministry had stockpiled five months' supply of Kaletra, the campaigner said, adding that a generic version of the drug would soon be available from India under the current compulsory licensing on the medicine.

Even if the Indian drug was not available in time, patients could use an old version of Kaletra, which is a combination of Lopinavir and Ritonavir, meaning people would have to take a second drug, rather than just one.

Health Minister Dr Mongkol na Songkhla said Abbott's decision would not have a significant effect on healthcare here because similar medicines were available from other companies.

The ministry would find out how many drugs were affected and replace them with products from other firms.

Abbott's officials were not available to comment.

Source: The Nation - 15 March 2007

[ThaiGoon]

Awesome!

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

I'd like to think that something more than greed was at least in part responsible for the developments you listed; there is little point in arguing greys with someone who only believes in blacks and whites. If greed were the only engine driving human development, government would not be necessary to reign it in. Unfortunately, it is likely that human greed drives AIDS pharmaceutical development- it is probably more profitable to "treat" the disease over the lifetime of the rich, first-world victim than it is to vaccinate a potential victim living in a poor country with no money- and that is why so little vaccine research has been done by those companies compared to treatment research.

"S"

Vaccine research is being and will continue to be conducted on a relatively large scale particularly in relation to other disease that is more common than HIV. The problem is HIV mutates. Even in an individual who contracts HIV, the virus will mutate during the course of the disease to a modified form from that which the patient initially contracted. The mutation causes drug resistence. It also makes finding a vaccine extemely difficult. A link to a list of ongong vaccine clinical trials is below.

A better approach to HIV might be genetic therapy if one can be developed. A genetic mutation found among some caucasians provides immunity from HIV infection. The country with the largest percentage of individuals carrying this mutation is Denmark. If a gene therapy can be developed it would provide lifetime immunity.

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/search;jsessi...p;submit=Search

[Dupont]

So more research required on the gene mutation that chiangmia american pointed out.

Who's going to pay for this? The Thai or African Governments? Castro and Chavez? The ANC? the 100 NGO's parading their stupid placards outside the offices of the drugs companies in Bangkok? The Anti-Globalisation movement?

No, once again, its going to be research and development from private companies that those on the left so love to hate and despise and possibly some philanthropy from the likes of Bill Gates, Bono etc. Don't confuse Bill Gates wealth with greed, its ambition, and ambition is what drives most people along. The money gives them the opportunity to further that ambition and produce ever better products.

Time you student lefties woke up, smelled the coffee and looked around at all the things that did not exist 20 years ago, and wonder how they came about. Little of it was invented by rabbles marching and shouting anti US and Capitalist slogans like playground children. Feel free to discard or not use your PC, I-pod, mobile phone, car, the skytrain, hospitals and the latest drug technology. UP TO YOU!

That Thais cannot afford this drug is a direct consequence of the corruption, despotism greed and theft that has plagued THIS country down the centuries. Not just big business that is bad and immoral.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Dupont

[Prakanong]

Unfortunately, it is likely that human greed drives AIDS pharmaceutical development- it is probably more profitable to "treat" the disease over the lifetime of the rich, first-world victim than it is to vaccinate a potential victim living in a poor country with no money- and that is why so little vaccine research has been done by those companies compared to treatment research.

"S"

Whilst everyone would love to have a vaccine for hiv, there are a few important issues. One of which is testing people for the hiv virus, as any vaccine would by definition have to encourage hiv antibodies, which means that everyone would be hiv+. Testing for the hiv rna itself is a quite expensive process, and certainly would be unavailable for some of the poorest countries, which are normally the worst affected, whereas checking for the antibodies is relatively cheap, and simple.

Developing a vaccine for HIV is very problematic - people I know in the industry are talking 15 - 20 years.

Its because of the special propeties of the virus but its hoped as time goes on and vacine technology improves manifold one will be found.

Who would have thought 20 years ago we would have vaccines for preventing cancer on the market (Cervical) and vaccines for the treatment of other cancer's being tested with good early results!

There are a few HIV vacines in trial right now - very early human stage. These will mainly be safety tests.

PS Polio vaccine is still made commercially - both Salk and Sabin - for the developing world many types of vaccines are given away at nominal cost usually paid for my multi-national org's like the UN and EU as ell as NGO's

[Prakanong]

I'd like to think that something more than greed was at least in part responsible for the developments you listed; there is little point in arguing greys with someone who only believes in blacks and whites. If greed were the only engine driving human development, government would not be necessary to reign it in. Unfortunately, it is likely that human greed drives AIDS pharmaceutical development- it is probably more profitable to "treat" the disease over the lifetime of the rich, first-world victim than it is to vaccinate a potential victim living in a poor country with no money- and that is why so little vaccine research has been done by those companies compared to treatment research.

"S"

Vaccine research is being and will continue to be conducted on a relatively large scale particularly in relation to other disease that is more common than HIV. The problem is HIV mutates. Even in an individual who contracts HIV, the virus will mutate during the course of the disease to a modified form from that which the patient initially contracted. The mutation causes drug resistence. It also makes finding a vaccine extemely difficult. A link to a list of ongong vaccine clinical trials is below.

A better approach to HIV might be genetic therapy if one can be developed. A genetic mutation found among some caucasians provides immunity from HIV infection. The country with the largest percentage of individuals carrying this mutation is Denmark. If a gene therapy can be developed it would provide lifetime immunity.

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/search;jsessi...p;submit=Search

A little note about your link - it posts protocols after 6 weeks of being finalised

There is another site that gives the results within 6 months of Study end

These were undertakings given the the New York Attorney General and are taken very seriously.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Prakanong

[Prakanong]

Anybody wanting to read more about vacines for all sorts of diseases as well as HIV could have a look at the following book although you would have to be very interested

"The Vaccine Book"

Edited by

Barry R Bloom

Paul-Henri Lambert

An excellent resource and available on Amazon

Its a pretty standard text in the vaccines departments of many companies.

[John K]

Agree with you here, John K...... the real enemy, from all the points of view, is human greed. AIDS is a major international disaster- a continuing one, one that has only become worse as time has passed, which has every sign of being worse and worse and worse and worse in the future. Certain countries have nearly had their economies destroyed because of AIDS, and we can probably consider them a preview for many others. It's a pity that we can't have a major international project funded by multiple governments to find a d*** cure. Nobody would insist now that polio or smallpox vaccinations should be profit-oriented; neither should AIDS vaccine research need to be- if nothing else, where do these multinational corporations think their profits are going to come from if their customers are all dead or their customers' countries' economies are tanking from lack of healthy younger workers?

actually, you have it all wrong. human greed is not our enemy. it is our friend.

without human greed, many of the inventions and discoveries in the last century like the personal computer, ms windows, the internet, the cell phone, and a whole host of other inventions would not have materialized if not for human greed.

yes, AIDS is a major problem. and without human greed to push companies to find a solution for it, there will never be a cure for it.

thank god for human greed.

..look how far china has come in so short of time because of - human greed.

That is a bit like saying Fitness centers like California wow secretly fund the development of inventions like the Segway and other things that help people get fat.

It is so upsetting. Again a bit off topic but countries are fighting over the bird flu virus too. Some countries don’t want to share virus samples because they want to be able to make a profit on making the vaccine.

It is all about greed at the expense of other human lives.

[garro]

I would consider myself a humanist rather than a leftie but whatever. The rich western countries and the obscene pharmaceutical companies will eventually realise that it is unprofitable to try and profit off the worlds most needy.

A similar situation occured in European countries in the early last century when governments realised that the only way to hold off a revolution was the provision of free healthcare and a welfare state.

People will not sit back and watch their loved-ones die. Instead they will be driven to join 'terrorist' organisations not because of dogma but out of desperation. I think you will find that eventually the West will be glad to help their poorer neighbours if it means them and their loved ones have a bit of security.

Strange days indeed.

[garro]

Time you student lefties woke up, smelled the coffee and looked around at all the things that did not exist 20 years ago, and wonder how they came about. Little of it was invented by rabbles marching and shouting anti US and Capitalist slogans like playground children. Feel free to discard or not use your PC, I-pod, mobile phone, car, the skytrain, hospitals and the latest drug technology. UP TO YOU!

Sorry Dupont but this may come as a shock to you. I know that in school you were probably taught that the US has invented everything but the terrible truth is nearly everything has come from outside the US. Science, the written word, medicine, transportation,roads and even your precious capitalism all came from Europe and the middle-east. These developed before the introduction of capitalism. BTW, the language you are posting in didn't originate in the US either and the first computer came from the Chinnese.

[drummer]

RE: drug resistance... Drug resistance is cause by far more things than simply people not taknig the rest of their medicine. Bacteria trade genes in little packets (plasmids) with each other. A bacterium that doesn't normally affect human health can trade genes with a bacerium that does.

We are putting MASSIVE amounts of antibiotics into livestock, and this is getting into the environment at large. This is likely to be a far greater problem then Joe Schmoe or Lek Suppanoponuporupha not taking their whole prescription, although this is a problem too. The widespread use of neosporin and other antibiotic creams is another one. The simple overprescription of antibiotics when none is really necessary to begin with is yet another major problem.

Regarding drug companies, and drug research. There are a LOT of doctors, doing a LOT of research, basically comlpetely on their own volition. They like helping people. They like their job. Most do it primarily because it makes them feel good. Of course there is the money, but there are a lot of doctors - a lot of TALENTED doctors who aren't making a mint.

Point is, in the realm of medicine, the people doing the research are motivated to help others, not to make themselevs rich. Medicine is not widgets, no matter what Adam Smith tells you!

Major drug companies are consistently among the HIGHEST PROFITING compnies of ANY type (second largely only to oil companies - look up Forbes magazine!!) They are truly massive companies, and make truly massive amounts of money. They make SO much money that there is obviously no capilalist system in place! Competition ought to drive the price down.

I would suggest that a system whereby a simple large cash prize was awarded for anything that got approved. Perhaps also make (more) public funding available for research programs. This would save tons of money overall, level the playing field for the littler guys, and keep a financil incentive to drive research. Then open up competition for drug manufacturing to anyone. (with safety monitoring + standards, like the ones we have now)

Drug manufacturers still make money making the drugs, and research is still spurred. Of course, even this would not be ideal, because cooperation between researchers, and sharing of information would also help a great deal...

[drummer]

Time you student lefties woke up, smelled the coffee and looked around at all the things that did not exist 20 years ago, and wonder how they came about. Little of it was invented by rabbles marching and shouting anti US and Capitalist slogans like playground children. Feel free to discard or not use your PC, I-pod, mobile phone, car, the skytrain, hospitals and the latest drug technology. UP TO YOU!

Sorry Dupont but this may come as a shock to you. I know that in school you were probably taught that the US has invented everything but the terrible truth is nearly everything has come from outside the US. Science, the written word, medicine, transportation,roads and even your precious capitalism all came from Europe and the middle-east. These developed before the introduction of capitalism. BTW, the language you are posting in didn't originate in the US either and the first computer came from the Chinnese.

Actually, I think that almost everything in his list was available, if not common, 20 years ago.

There is very little doubt, however, the competition drives innovation faster than anything else. Of course, many aspects of pure capitalism INHIBIT competition, not encourage it. The problem with pure capitalism is th people, in fact, cheat the system. They get unfair advantages passed through gov't, they bully + buy out the little guys. Lassaiz faire isn't any better. in fact, its worse!

Systems that naturally maximize efficiency work great, however. Its simply a matter of having those systems in place and not affected by those with the money to buy a favorable decision. (If only we could come up with one of those systems for designing systems!!! )

[Laulen]

It is a sad state of affairs when pharmaceutical companies take unilateral action against a nation state like this.

It is understandable that they should want to protect their innovative new drugs and to recoup massive research and development costs in the creation of these drugs. However, they lose sight of the fact that every new, innovative product is likely to have a limited 'shelf life' in the global market; someone else will come along with an even better treatment.

Meanwhile, those without a voice; the weakest, most ill, those in dire poverty; all these will experience a lingering death, and in some cases, in great agony!

What does this say about man's humanity to man(woman)?

[Prakanong]

I work in Big Pharma and I even find the following disgusting if true - Abbot deserve all they get over this if convicted. The company I work for strives for great CSR and really means it I hope.

"Meanwhile, in other Abbott Labs news...

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee is considering holding hearings to investigate whether pharmaceutical company Abbott Laboratories artificially inflated the price of its AIDS drug, Norvir, in 2003, according to a committee staffer.

The aide confirmed that the panel, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), has been probing the issue during the new legislative session but could not say when hearings would occur if the committee decided to proceed with them.

Melissa Brotz, a spokeswoman for Abbott Laboratories, stated that “we are cooperating with the inquiry.”

Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, called the inflated prices of AIDS drugs “the most egregious example of abuse,” citing high costs for drugs like Norvir as a significant reason for why 500,000 Americans infected with HIV go untreated.

In December of 2003, Abbott Laboratories made the decision to increase the price of Norvir by approximately 500 percent, with the cost of annual dosage reportedly hovering near $8,000. While lawmakers and AIDS advocates argued that Norvir was unreasonably priced considering that the drug was invented and developed through federal funds, Abbott Laboratories countered that the decision was intended to aid the company in continuing its work in HIV medication as well as other areas.

The move triggered a response from GOP lawmakers as six House Republicans sent a letter in April of 2004 to then-Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) requesting that the committee investigate the matter while dismissing Abbott’s defense. “… (A)ccording to [Abbott Laboratories’] lawyers, Norvir’s manufacturer has already earned enough profit through sales to more than recoup the costs of research and development,” the letter read.

Barton did not conduct any hearings in response to the letter, according to a GOP staffer. Lisa Miller, a staffer with the minority side of the committee, did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

The lawmakers who made the request included Reps. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), among others.

Norvir is a protease inhibitor (PI), which works to block the protease enzyme that the HIV virus needs in order to infect new cells. The drug has been on the market since 1996 and was initially sold as a stand-alone PI before being marketed as a booster, intended to work in concert with other drugs as part of the AIDS cocktail.

That federal funds were used to develop Norvir was at the crux of a 2004 request by consumer advocacy group Essential Inventions to have the federal government invoke its “march-in” rights to claim title for federally funded inventions in order to grant licenses to other companies, in this case for the creation of generic versions of Norvir. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) would ultimately reject the request, stating that march-in was not warranted and that the Federal Trade Commission was the appropriate agency. Waxman, as well as then-Rep. and current Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), called for the Government Accountability Office to investigate the NIH decision that October.

A lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2005 by the Service Employees International Union Health and Welfare Fund, alleging Abbott Laboratories violated federal antitrust laws by increasing Norvir’s price so that two other drugs taken in conjunction with it — Reyatz and Lexiva, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb and GlaxoSmithKline respectively — would become more expensive. This, the lawsuit alleged, would open up the market for a separate PI also produced by Abbott, known as Kaletra.

The case is slated for 2008, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. "

[backflip]

"Thailands own fault i'm afraid, can't have your cake and eat it. "

Exactly. Thailand stole intellectual property, and is now upset that it can't steal some more. Another poster commented that Thai patients can use other Abbott therapies, that are unperturbed by this situation. Absolutely. Too, there are other companies selling HIV protocols. I bet if Thailand continues its theft, from other drug companies, more drugs will become unavailable.

Finally, there is a difference between "bacteria" and "virus". Since HIV is caused by a virus, how about NOT referring to "antibiotics"?

[Bagwan]

I fervently hope that Abbott are taken to the cleaners. That said, Thailand has a lot to answer for.

I was concerned for the state of health of my new GF and took her to the pre-eminent hospital in Pattaya. She was found to be suffering from tuberculosis and chlamydia and was critically anaemic. I was told that her life expectancy was 3 months. The hospital said that they would discharge her unless I agreed to meet the cost of her treatment. Later tests proved that she was HIV+.

Anti viral medication could not be administered until she was free of TB and that medication terminated. She was prescribed VIR, the generic cocktail manufactured by the Government Pharmaceutical Organisation and made available at 1200 baht for a 28 day supply. The hospital charged 2600 baht. Exploitation? Usury? There are no marketing costs and the transport and storage element must be minimal. Two years later the price rose to 2800 and my guess is that now the price has risen above 3000 baht. So much for compassion and health care in Thailand.

She now attends another, less grasping hospital, and is thriving but I am concerned that her medication may become ineffective and we will have to seek alternative treatments. BTW she has never been part of the P4P or bar scenes, her misfortune been entirely due to an irresponsible wayward husband. I pray that the disease has taken it's toll of him - and myocardial infarctions for the executives of Abbott.

[Jai Dee]

Bayer says Abbott-Thai dispute dangerous

Germany's Bayer supported Abbott Laboratories' decision to stop launching new drugs in Thailand in protest at the army-backed government's move to override international drug patents. "I fully support Abbott and I fully support the very strong stance the industry is taking. This is not the way forward," said the head of Bayer's healthcare unit, Arthur Higgins.

"It is a very dangerous development," Higgins added on Thursday.

"I do not believe it is in the long-term interest of the Thai people because Abbot has already said they will not bring any other new products to the Thai market. That is what will happen."

He did not say whether Bayer would also halt launches in Thailand if one of its drugs was affected. It generated 2005 sales there of 36.3 billion Thai baht ($1.10 billion).

Abbott's decision came after Thailand declared a "compulsory licence" in January allowing it to make or buy generic versions of Abbott's Kaletra to treat HIV/AIDS.

Drug companies are sensitive to such moves because they have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into research and development of new drugs before they come to the market.

Abbott said it has elected not to introduce new drugs in Thailand because the government has chosen to break patents on numerous medicines, but the company said the move would not affect Abbott drugs already on sale in the country.

Abbott is believed to be the first pharmaceutical maker to withhold new drugs from Thailand since the government shocked drug makers late last year with its first compulsory licence, for Efavirenz, an HIV-AIDS treatment made by Merck & Co.

Thailand also issued one for Plavix, a heart disease medicine made by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis, the first time a developing nation has done so for such a treatment.

Although legal under world trade rules, the licences, which allow governments to make or buy generic versions of medicines needed for public health measures, stunned drug makers who received no prior warning.

Malaysia and Indonesia were the first in southeast Asia to issue licences for AIDS drugs three years ago, but Thailand has gone further in challenging Big Pharma by targeting other drugs.

Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla told Reuters last month he was studying whether to issue compulsory licences for other "essential medicines" to fight cancer, heart disease and other leading causes of death in Thailand.

Source: Reuters - 16 March 2007

[nick2k]

It is a sad state of affairs when pharmaceutical companies take unilateral action against a nation state like this.

It is understandable that they should want to protect their innovative new drugs and to recoup massive research and development costs in the creation of these drugs. However, they lose sight of the fact that every new, innovative product is likely to have a limited 'shelf life' in the global market; someone else will come along with an even better treatment.

Meanwhile, those without a voice; the weakest, most ill, those in dire poverty; all these will experience a lingering death, and in some cases, in great agony!

What does this say about man's humanity to man(woman)?

food is essential for life. if someone refuses to give me food to eat, I will starve. yet people force me to pay for the food that I eat. how greedy can a person be? how cruel and inhuman. I don't think this is right. so, I will go steal the food so that I can survive. ..this is my right as a human being.

oh. now, you are telling me you won't give any more food after I stole the first time. you are evil. you are bad. I will now go and steal the food from someone else. I don't need you. you will one day learn the evil of your ways. how can you refuse me food to eat?

ahhhh. now you have someone better to eat. but you don't want to give me any? oh. you want me to pay? are you crazy? why should I have to pay? you better give me some of that new food, or I will make you regret it.

...sound familiar?

if I went out to the store, and just picked up some food to eat without paying for it, I wonder how the people at the store would feel? probably like how the pharmaceuticals are feeling right now.

you know something. I bet the above example is still too complicated for the powers who be - how wrong stealing is.

thailand should pay something for the drugs.

[John K]

MSF condemns US drugmaker's ban in Thailand

Aid charity Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF) has condemned a US drugmaker's decision not to sell new medicines in Thailand, which is at loggerheads with Western pharmaceutical giants over generic drugs.

Chicago-based Abbott Laboratories said this week it would not market new drugs in Thailand in protest at the government's decision to override the patent on Abbott's anti-Aids drug Kaletra.

The medications withdrawn from the Thai market include a new version of Kaletra, as well as an antibiotic and a painkiller, a senior company official said.

MSF (Doctors without Borders) slammed the US giant's decision and argued Thai patients would "bear the brunt of Abbott's harsh decision."

"Our patients in Thailand, who still use the old version of the medicine, have been waiting for this new version for a very long time," David Wilson of MSF in Thailand said in a statement.

"The drug was registered in the US in October 2005, but still cannot be used in Thailand and many other countries where it is desperately needed. Refusing to sell the drug here is a major betrayal to patients," he said.

Abbott, for its part, accused Thailand of breaking patents "on numerous medicines."

Agence FrancePresse

[Pepe']

I have been involved in research and treatment of HIV positive and full blown AIDS patients here at the Owen Clinic at UCSD Medical Center in San Diego California.

The Owen Clinic is considered to be the cutting edge center for the treatment of HIV +/AIDS patients in the world.

I am on a non salaried academic appointment to associate staff here. That means I don't get paid for the two four hour shifts per week I spend at the hospital. I have been involved with this project since 1997.

So I believe I'm qualified to speak.

I think interesting points have been made in the various camps.

A different perspective.

All I would like to say is that everything is karma.

Also HIV infection is 99.9999% preventable.

Simply wearing a condom well we would be having a very differt conversation.

IV drug use, what can be said?

[A_Traveller]

A deadly game of pharmaceutical apartheid

Abbott is now doing what drug companies have long threatened to do when developing countries use lawful flexibilities to access more affordable generic medicines - it is threatening to take its marbles and go home....

Abbott is upset because Thailand has lawfully issued a compulsory licence on an important anti-retroviral medicine, Kaletra. According to Abbott (and its think-tank apologists and Wall Street Journal defenders), Thailand issued this licence without prior negotiations for a price discount or for a voluntary licence. However, contrary to Abbott's claim, both international law (the WTO TRIPS Agreement, Article 31) and the Thailand Patent Act permit Thailand to issue compulsory licences for governmental, non-commercial use without prior negotiation.....

Author

Professor Brook K Baker lectures at Northeastern University's School of Law's Programme on Human Rights and the Global Economy.

This article, which IMHO is well worth reading in full, is from the Nation newspaper and is linked below:-

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/03/16...on_30029417.php

/edit link//

Edited March 16, 2007 by A_Traveller

[jdinasia]

I have been involved in research and treatment of HIV positive and full blown AIDS patients here at the Owen Clinic at UCSD Medical Center in San Diego California.

The Owen Clinic is considered to be the cutting edge center for the treatment of HIV +/AIDS patients in the world.

I am on a non salaried academic appointment to associate staff here. That means I don't get paid for the two four hour shifts per week I spend at the hospital. I have been involved with this project since 1997.

So I believe I'm qualified to speak.

I think interesting points have been made in the various camps.

A different perspective.

All I would like to say is that everything is karma.

Also HIV infection is 99.9999% preventable.

Simply wearing a condom well we would be having a very differt conversation.

IV drug use, what can be said?

Are you sure about that Pepe?

Someone working in the field would consider that wives are usually NOT in a position to insist that the husband MUST WEAR A CONDOM ... etc etc ....

"Hi honey ... you have a penis so I no longer trust you ... even though we have been married 20 years ... start wearing a condom!" ... yeah that would work!

REALLY PEPE ... that is the most simplistic of posts I have EVER seen from someone claiming to work in the field!

Edited March 16, 2007 by jdinasia

[Pepe']

This Month's HIV/AIDS Facts

These facts contain commonly accepted public health information about the prevention and transmission of HIV and AIDS.

Question: I’ve heard of a female condom. What is it?

Basic Answer: The female condom is made of polyurethane. Shaped like a tube, the female condom has a ring at each end and is closed at one end. Unlike the male condom, the female condom allows women to protect themselves without having to convince male partners to put on condoms.

Detailed Answer: The female condom is made of polyurethane. Shaped like a tube, the female condom has a ring at each end and is closed at one end. To use the condom, a woman puts the closed end in her vagina; the tube then lines the inside of the vagina and covers part of the labia on the outside. The condom is held in place by the two rings, one circling the cervix and the other outside the vagina.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the female condom for use in the United States in 1993. The FDA required that the package label stress the need for people to use the conventional male latex condom for “highly effective protection” against HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Although current research on the effectiveness of the female condom against STDs is encouraging, further research is needed. Laboratory tests, however, show that particles as small as sperm and viruses, such as HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), cannot pass through the polyurethane.

Even so, experts consider that by providing more HIV prevention choices, the female condom may help in the fight against HIV. For women who have sex, the female condom is the first barrier method developed for use by women to help prevent HIV infection and other STDs. Unlike the male condom, the female condom allows women to protect themselves without having to convince male partners to put on condoms. However, female condoms should not be used with male condoms.

Not all women find the female condom easy or pleasant to use, nor can a woman hide the condom when it is in place. Experts are calling for development of a vaginal microbicide (used like a spermicide) that would kill viruses and other germs as an additional woman-controlled strategy against HIV.

SOURCES:

* Family Health International, AIDS Control and Prevention Project (AIDSCAP) Women’s Initiative. The Female Condom: From Research to the Marketplace. August 1997.

* Institute of Medicine. The Hidden Epidemic: Confronting Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Eng, T., and Butler, W., eds. 1997.

* Family Planning Perspectives, 1994; vol. 26, no. 2. "Comparative Contraceptive Efficacy of the Female Condom and Other Barrier Methods." Trussell, J., et al.

* U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Statement by the Food and Drug Administration. April 27, 1993.

For current statistics, contact the CDC National AIDS Hotline