Thailand Blacklisted From Receiving New AIDS Drugs

[Prakanong]

the big biotech firms in the west spend millions, if not BILLIONS to develop/invent the new drugs

wot a pile of horse manure .................

they won't touch anything with a 10 foot barge pole until the profitability study is done ,

long after the initial discovery / development work is done ,

the majority of these drugs start life under a government grant or private foundation grant .

"they won't touch anything with a 10 foot barge pole until the profitability study is done , "

You mean to say they only buy drugs ready for market - that 100% of the drugs they license get to market - why would anybody sell a drug at this stage?

Apply rational thought before engaging thumbs on the keyboard

Sorry you are talking manure!!

Lets clear up first discovery/research and development

Research is actually discovering the compound

Development - clinical trials to get it to market - most drugs fail

Show me one case of a drug company stepping in when the drug was developed ie had gone through phase 1 2 and 3 clinical trials

Bet you you can not unless other company went bust or could not afford to take it through

Bet you can not show me a public funded drug going far in a clinical trial - they license them out far before then

If you really are going to comment on the drug discovery and development process I suggest you learn about it first - you do not look silly then

Edited May 17, 2007 by Prakanong

[Prakanong]

I don't know, wikipedia states:

Ritonavir is manufactured as Norvir® by Abbott Laboratories. Research that led to the drug's development was financed in part by a $3,500,000 federal grant through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Kaletra is a combination of Ritonavir and Lopinavir

I do not want to get pedantic but we must define our terms or we get wired crossed

I would say the US Govt through grants to NIH funded the *Research* into the drug

Abbot if I understand correctly *Developed* the drug

Costs of developing a drug are considerably more than the initial research.

3.5 million for even a small scale clinical trial is peanuts - absolute peanuts and believe me I do have a view on this - I will not post it openly but if you really want to know some figures PM me.

The fact is many institutions both public and private can and do primary research. I have friends doing pre-clinical at Mahidol for example who have absolutely no interest in anything after pre-clinical - some scientists are like that.

These organisations even if they find a viable compound often can not take it further - they do not have the funds, skills infrastructure, global reach or the staff to do this - they can choose to license these to larger companies

Now these larger companies can and do their own research ie discovery themselves. It is in their interest after all as all profits are theirs - no royalties to share. There is a debate about how much they discover but that is for another time. I have worked at sited where there have been quite a few discoveries in very recent times and millions of children benefit from these every single year.

[Mid]

I don't know, wikipedia states:

Ritonavir is manufactured as Norvir® by Abbott Laboratories. Research that led to the drug's development was financed in part by a $3,500,000 federal grant through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Kaletra is a combination of Ritonavir and Lopinavir

[Prakanong]

I don't know, wikipedia states:

Ritonavir is manufactured as Norvir® by Abbott Laboratories. Research that led to the drug's development was financed in part by a $3,500,000 federal grant through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Kaletra is a combination of Ritonavir and Lopinavir

Is that all you got???

Nuff said

[Mid]

where there is smoke ....................

any how your obviously biased pro big phama so yep ,

nuff said

[Prakanong]

where there is smoke ....................

any how your obviously biased pro big phama so yep ,

nuff said

I for one do not want to stick up for Abbot - I think they are underhand

But some reality has to come into the discussion

Nobody is going to sell a 100% certainty if they do not have to and not for buttons either - it just does not work like that and the risks are heavily weighted against the licensing company

Institutions are no dummies at getting the best deal - they are learning fast.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Prakanong

[nick2k]

the big biotech firms in the west spend millions, if not BILLIONS to develop/invent the new drugs

wot a pile of horse manure .................

they won't touch anything with a 10 foot barge pole until the profitability study is done ,

long after the initial discovery / development work is done ,

the majority of these drugs start life under a government grant or private foundation grant .

you really don't know what you talking about, do you?

anybody with half a brain could do a google search and get a list of organizations and companies

who are operating to find cures for a variety of diseases.

if someone with half a brain could do that, I guess you don't have half a brain.

I suggest you use your quarter of a brain, and do the internet research to get a better idea about

how much it costs to find/discover/invent a new drug or cure for a disease.

let me help you on a start. the following websites are for a organization that is searching for a cure for

parkinsons, and the other is one for alzeiheimers. BOTH are talking about HUNDRED's of MILLIONs needed

to find cures. and get this. the 2 organizations that I am listing for your little quarter of a brain to look at are just

a couple from thousands out there.

talk about little brains..

http://www.michaeljfox.org/

http://www.jdfaf.org/

[endure]

And I suggest you all stop firing these personal insults at each other now. If you can't be civil, be quiet.

[Mid]

http://www.michaeljfox.org/

big biotech firms

but , what do I know .................................

[Plus]

Surely there was a long way between research funded by NIH and Kaletra on the market and NIH didn't grant the patent to Abbott for nothing.

What is significant is that without those 3.5 mil given to Abbott nothing would have happened at all, and, reversly, any other drug company would have jumped with billions if offered rights to develop drugs from results of that research.

Abbotts part that it was chosen to get paid.

The other side of the argument that NIH wouldn't have seed money to invest without paybacks from the likes of Abbott. I don't know how true that is. Does NIH have other sources of funding? There are other stakeholders, too - insurance companies, for example, not to mention government funds.

[Plus]

BOTH are talking about HUNDRED's of MILLIONs needed

to find cures

To that pharma opponents reply that they spend a LOT more to market the drugs than to develop them.

[nick2k]

http://www.michaeljfox.org/

big biotech firms

but , what do I know .................................

I won't answer that.

but on a constructive note, I will provide you a couple of websites to check out to prove my point. one is for a directory of biotech firms listing their discoveries, expenditures, etc. and one place where I worked at a long time ago.

http://www.gene.com/gene/research/index.jsp

http://www.hpc.unm.edu/~aroberts/main/top5%25.htm

like I said, BILLIONS are spent by organizations and companies to invent/discover new drugs. many of these drugs are research and discovered in the usa. and they should be rewarded for their hard work. not be criminalized as evil and have their drugs stolen from them.

yes, you heard me - STOLEN.

with a population of 65 million and only 20% educated to a high school level, thailand is ill prepared to go about it on their own. that is why they steal.

[Prakanong]

BOTH are talking about HUNDRED's of MILLIONs needed

to find cures

To that pharma opponents reply that they spend a LOT more to market the drugs than to develop them.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the drug companies you are talking about are private companies owned by shareholders the majority probably pension funds

They have to make returns on the money invested.

Why is it *Only* the drugs companies responsibilities to find *all* the cures?

Is it not their right to chose to spend their money where they wish - they are not public bodies

If you want more research funding by public bodies campaign for it - write to your politician etc

Do you ask farmers to research into solutions to famines?

Do you ask farmers to give their profits away?

[highdiver]

http://www.michaeljfox.org/

big biotech firms

but , what do I know .................................

I won't answer that.

but on a constructive note, I will provide you a couple of websites to check out to prove my point. one is for a directory of biotech firms listing their discoveries, expenditures, etc. and one place where I worked at a long time ago.

http://www.gene.com/gene/research/index.jsp

http://www.hpc.unm.edu/~aroberts/main/top5%25.htm

like I said, BILLIONS are spent by organizations and companies to invent/discover new drugs. many of these drugs are research and discovered in the usa. and they should be rewarded for their hard work. not be criminalized as evil and have their drugs stolen from them.

yes, you heard me - STOLEN.

with a population of 65 million and only 20% educated to a high school level, thailand is ill prepared to go about it on their own. that is why they steal.

you are absolutlely right however i belive that you are missing the point made earlier.

no one is claiming that the drug companies dont spend money on developmet and reserch. the big question is are they allowed to use the monopoly given to them by the public to over price the product using that excuse.

i have posested a weblink before from an interview with Dr. Marcia Angell the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine anf the auther of "The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.

"These companies are justifying extremely high prices by saying they need this money to cover their high R&D costs, and they’re very innovative, and that we should be willing to spend the money in return for the innovation. In the book, I question those premises. I say that, yes, they spend a lot on R&D, but still they make more in profits, and they spend two to two-and-a-half times as much on what they call “marketing and administration.” If you want to argue that they need the high prices to cover R&D, it would make more sense to argue that they need the high prices even more to cover their marketing costs. I just want to put that in perspective. Also, their profits are enormously high. Until last year, [they were] the number one industry in the U.S. in terms of profits. whose top ten companies make more in profits than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined and made 17 percent of their sales in profits, whereas they spent only 14 percent on R&D. The median for the other Fortune 500 companies was between 3 percent of sales. So, you can’t make an argument that they’re just eking out a living, just managing to cover their R&D costs."

she then adresses the pricing issues and costs issues as follows

"This industry, despite its free-market rhetoric, is on welfare big-time. It lives on taxpayer-funded research to a very great extent, and it lives on government-granted monopoly rights in the form of patents and FDA-conferred exclusivity. An industry that is so beholden to the public has some obligation in return."

please read all the interview.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_401.html

the conclusion is simple the drug companies are getting the liscence for the drug from us the public. there is no reason what soever for those companies to turn back and use the drugs specialy the life saving drugs as a killer profit.

they are a business and they need to be profitable. but they can not rob the public.

[Prakanong]

http://www.michaeljfox.org/

big biotech firms

but , what do I know .................................

I won't answer that.

but on a constructive note, I will provide you a couple of websites to check out to prove my point. one is for a directory of biotech firms listing their discoveries, expenditures, etc. and one place where I worked at a long time ago.

http://www.gene.com/gene/research/index.jsp

http://www.hpc.unm.edu/~aroberts/main/top5%25.htm

like I said, BILLIONS are spent by organizations and companies to invent/discover new drugs. many of these drugs are research and discovered in the usa. and they should be rewarded for their hard work. not be criminalized as evil and have their drugs stolen from them.

yes, you heard me - STOLEN.

with a population of 65 million and only 20% educated to a high school level, thailand is ill prepared to go about it on their own. that is why they steal.

you are absolutlely right however i belive that you are missing the point made earlier.

no one is claiming that the drug companies dont spend money on developmet and reserch. the big question is are they allowed to use the monopoly given to them by the public to over price the product using that excuse.

i have posested a weblink before from an interview with Dr. Marcia Angell the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine anf the auther of "The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.

"These companies are justifying extremely high prices by saying they need this money to cover their high R&D costs, and they’re very innovative, and that we should be willing to spend the money in return for the innovation. In the book, I question those premises. I say that, yes, they spend a lot on R&D, but still they make more in profits, and they spend two to two-and-a-half times as much on what they call “marketing and administration.” If you want to argue that they need the high prices to cover R&D, it would make more sense to argue that they need the high prices even more to cover their marketing costs. I just want to put that in perspective. Also, their profits are enormously high. Until last year, [they were] the number one industry in the U.S. in terms of profits. whose top ten companies make more in profits than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined and made 17 percent of their sales in profits, whereas they spent only 14 percent on R&D. The median for the other Fortune 500 companies was between 3 percent of sales. So, you can’t make an argument that they’re just eking out a living, just managing to cover their R&D costs."

she then adresses the pricing issues and costs issues as follows

"This industry, despite its free-market rhetoric, is on welfare big-time. It lives on taxpayer-funded research to a very great extent, and it lives on government-granted monopoly rights in the form of patents and FDA-conferred exclusivity. An industry that is so beholden to the public has some obligation in return."

please read all the interview.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_401.html

the conclusion is simple the drug companies are getting the liscence for the drug from us the public. there is no reason what soever for those companies to turn back and use the drugs specialy the life saving drugs as a killer profit.

they are a business and they need to be profitable. but they can not rob the public.

I hope you notice Angell is talking mostly about US drug companies but she sometimes uses Euro ones where it suits her

She is almost exclusively talking about the American market when she is talking about a lot of things such as the FDA approval (that is the biggest though - some companies license elsewhere first) and she is especially talking (excliusively?) talking about the US re drug pricing?

Of course there is a case the US public is getting charged too much for medicine - its not just the drug companies though - people take a cut through many layers - yes the initial price might be higher from drug company to wholesaler in the USA then onwards but look at the markup through all the players not just one.

The fact is its the USA system - not my problem - not a problem in the UK where NICE sets the price nor in Canada - guess what - if you want you free market in drugs curtailed in the USA get off your fat <deleted> and do something about it

It the whole health care system though - just reducing drug prices is not the panacea for all the US health service ills but guess what - not my problem - its yours!

[Mid]

she then adresses the pricing issues and costs issues as follows

"This industry, despite its free-market rhetoric, is on welfare big-time. It lives on taxpayer-funded research to a very great extent, and it lives on government-granted monopoly rights in the form of patents and FDA-conferred exclusivity. An industry that is so beholden to the public has some obligation in return."

please read all the interview.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_401.html

the conclusion is simple the drug companies are getting the liscence for the drug from us the public. there is no reason what soever for those companies to turn back and use the drugs specialy the life saving drugs as a killer profit.

they are a business and they need to be profitable. but they can not rob the public.

bingo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jdinasia]

BOTH are talking about HUNDRED's of MILLIONs needed

to find cures

To that pharma opponents reply that they spend a LOT more to market the drugs than to develop them.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the drug companies you are talking about are private companies owned by shareholders the majority probably pension funds

They have to make returns on the money invested.

Why is it *Only* the drugs companies responsibilities to find *all* the cures?

Is it not their right to chose to spend their money where they wish - they are not public bodies

If you want more research funding by public bodies campaign for it - write to your politician etc

Do you ask farmers to research into solutions to famines?

Do you ask farmers to give their profits away?

When in fact I .. yes me <US taxpayer etc ...>... Pay for much of the R&D particularly in AIDS drugs etc ... and then a Big Pharma co takes it the last step and makes HUGE profits based upon my tax dollar .... then yeah... Those companies may be publicly traded but they are also beholden to the public. It is about time for more oversight into this field just like insurance!

<and you will find that Gov'ts and Uni's do much of the work in famine research ...again public money going in .... even in Thailand where they are now releasing a flood resistant strain of rice >

Edited May 17, 2007 by jdinasia

[ThaiGoon]

you are absolutlely right however i belive that you are missing the point made earlier.

no one is claiming that the drug companies dont spend money on developmet and reserch. the big question is are they allowed to use the monopoly given to them by the public to over price the product using that excuse.

i have posested a weblink before from an interview with Dr. Marcia Angell the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine anf the auther of "The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.

"These companies are justifying extremely high prices by saying they need this money to cover their high R&D costs, and they’re very innovative, and that we should be willing to spend the money in return for the innovation. In the book, I question those premises. I say that, yes, they spend a lot on R&D, but still they make more in profits, and they spend two to two-and-a-half times as much on what they call “marketing and administration.” If you want to argue that they need the high prices to cover R&D, it would make more sense to argue that they need the high prices even more to cover their marketing costs. I just want to put that in perspective. Also, their profits are enormously high. Until last year, [they were] the number one industry in the U.S. in terms of profits. whose top ten companies make more in profits than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined and made 17 percent of their sales in profits, whereas they spent only 14 percent on R&D. The median for the other Fortune 500 companies was between 3 percent of sales. So, you can’t make an argument that they’re just eking out a living, just managing to cover their R&D costs."

she then adresses the pricing issues and costs issues as follows

"This industry, despite its free-market rhetoric, is on welfare big-time. It lives on taxpayer-funded research to a very great extent, and it lives on government-granted monopoly rights in the form of patents and FDA-conferred exclusivity. An industry that is so beholden to the public has some obligation in return."

please read all the interview.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_401.html

the conclusion is simple the drug companies are getting the liscence for the drug from us the public. there is no reason what soever for those companies to turn back and use the drugs specialy the life saving drugs as a killer profit.

they are a business and they need to be profitable. but they can not rob the public.

Great informative post krab.

[ThaiGoon]

sorry darling.

can not debate with you any more.

it seems you favour fiction over facts.

there has not been one post that you had the facts right.

and when you stand corrected by other members including myself with hard evidence you ignore it and invent more and more fiction.

by the way maybe if you do google and search the subject before you might actually know what your posting.

good luck in saving your job in the drug comapnies.

[Prakanong]

BOTH are talking about HUNDRED's of MILLIONs needed

to find cures

To that pharma opponents reply that they spend a LOT more to market the drugs than to develop them.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the drug companies you are talking about are private companies owned by shareholders the majority probably pension funds

They have to make returns on the money invested.

Why is it *Only* the drugs companies responsibilities to find *all* the cures?

Is it not their right to chose to spend their money where they wish - they are not public bodies

If you want more research funding by public bodies campaign for it - write to your politician etc

Do you ask farmers to research into solutions to famines?

Do you ask farmers to give their profits away?

When in fact I .. yes me <US taxpayer etc ...>... Pay for much of the R&D particularly in AIDS drugs etc ... and then a Big Pharma co takes it the last step and makes HUGE profits based upon my tax dollar .... then yeah... Those companies may be publicly traded but they are also beholden to the public. It is about time for more oversight into this field just like insurance!

<and you will find that Gov'ts and Uni's do much of the work in famine research ...again public money going in .... even in Thailand where they are now releasing a flood resistant strain of rice >

P

Pay for much of R&D ?

how much exactly? - what % of drug company profits is based on your tax dollar

Its not Halliburton you know ;-)

Heree is something for you to do - lets compile a list of all Blockbuster drugs ie annual sales of greater than 1 billion USD - should not be hard. You can ignore Kaletra here to make it easier - its not a blockbuster and the taxpayer put in only 3.5 million anyway - how much have they got back on that and if not a profit why not?

Lets look at how many were *Discovered* with US Taxpayers money then lets look at how much it cost to get them to market - should not be hard

You Americans think you are paying for everything - well you might be in Iraq but do not kid yourselves - its a nice soundbite but not true in reality - stop kidding yourselves

I am very happy with drug prices in the UK - not too many complaints there

Drug prices in Singapore - do not here whinging there

Candada - never heard a squeak

America - if you do not like it get off your &lt;deleted&gt; and do something - if I thought I was getting my arse shafted I would but I guess you would rather whinge!

Edited May 17, 2007 by Prakanong

[highdiver]

sorry darling.

can not debate with you any more.

it seems you favour fiction over facts.

there has not been one post that you had the facts right.

and when you stand corrected by other members including myself with hard evidence you ignore it and invent more and more fiction.

by the way maybe if you do google and search the subject before you might actually know what your posting.

good luck in saving your job in the drug comapnies.

:D

hey mate !! you are back from the cold.. nice to have you back

[jdinasia]

BOTH are talking about HUNDRED's of MILLIONs needed

to find cures

To that pharma opponents reply that they spend a LOT more to market the drugs than to develop them.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the drug companies you are talking about are private companies owned by shareholders the majority probably pension funds

They have to make returns on the money invested.

Why is it *Only* the drugs companies responsibilities to find *all* the cures?

Is it not their right to chose to spend their money where they wish - they are not public bodies

If you want more research funding by public bodies campaign for it - write to your politician etc

Do you ask farmers to research into solutions to famines?

Do you ask farmers to give their profits away?

When in fact I .. yes me <US taxpayer etc ...>... Pay for much of the R&D particularly in AIDS drugs etc ... and then a Big Pharma co takes it the last step and makes HUGE profits based upon my tax dollar .... then yeah... Those companies may be publicly traded but they are also beholden to the public. It is about time for more oversight into this field just like insurance!

<and you will find that Gov'ts and Uni's do much of the work in famine research ...again public money going in .... even in Thailand where they are now releasing a flood resistant strain of rice >

P

Pay for much of R&D ?

how much exactly? - what % of drug company profits is based on your tax dollar

Its not Halliburton you know ;-)

Heree is something for you to do - lets compile a list of all Blockbuster drugs ie annual sales of greater than 1 billion USD - should not be hard. You can ignore Kaletra here to make it easier - its not a blockbuster and the taxpayer put in only 3.5 million anyway - how much have they got back on that and if not a profit why not?

Lets look at how many were *Discovered* with US Taxpayers money then lets look at how much it cost to get them to market - should not be hard

You Americans think you are paying for everything - well you might be in Iraq but do not kid yourselves - its a nice soundbite but not true in reality - stop kidding yourselves

I am very happy with drug prices in the UK - not too many complaints there

Drug prices in Singapore - do not here whinging there

Candada - never heard a squeak

America - if you do not like it get off your &lt;deleted&gt; and do something - if I thought I was getting my arse shafted I would but I guess you would rather whinge!

LOL ... again ... when faced with facts you attack

1) US tax dollars do fund research

2)The Thai's are legal in their breaking the patents in question (ie AIDS meds)

Yours .. or my personal ability to pay for medicine is not the question Since I only take one medicine that is not OTC ... and that about 1 time a month ... and buy a month's supply (that works out to a year's supply for me ....) in Thailand where I live ... and pay 276 baht total for it at Chula Hospital in BKK ... including an emergency room visit and the visit fee .... I am quite happy with things here <oh yeah .. I am IN Thailand ... >

[Plus]

Let's not forget even bigger picture - current pressure on big pharma is a normal market reaction to percieved overpricing.

[ThaiGoon]

sorry darling.

can not debate with you any more.

it seems you favour fiction over facts.

there has not been one post that you had the facts right.

and when you stand corrected by other members including myself with hard evidence you ignore it and invent more and more fiction.

by the way maybe if you do google and search the subject before you might actually know what your posting.

good luck in saving your job in the drug comapnies.

:D

hey mate !! you are back from the cold.. nice to have you back

Cheers krab Highdiver.

[Mid]

Public Health Minister Mongkol will become the next chairman of UNAIDS Board

May 20, 2007 : Last updated 04:54 pm (Thai local time)

"I have accepted an invitation for me to take the post," Mongkol said Sunday. He was speaking after he had a discussion with UNAIDS Executive Director Dr Peter Piot, who has officially expressed support for Thailand's decision to enforce compulsory licensing on Aids medicine since late last year.

[highdiver]

Article Date: 09 May 2007 - 12:00 PDT

Brazilian President Silva Issues Compulsory License For Merck's Antiretroviral Efavirenz

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Friday issued a compulsory license to produce a lower-cost, generic version of Merck's antiretroviral Efavirenz, the AP/Forbes reports (Sequera, AP/Forbes, 5/4).

World Trade Organization regulations allow governments to declare a "national emergency" and issue compulsory licenses on any grounds without consulting the foreign patent owner

Brazilian Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao late last month signed a decree declaring that the country would purchase from an India-based drug maker a generic version of Efavirenz if Merck did not offer the drug at a lower price. According to the decree, Efavirenz is a "public interest" medicine.

that india drug maker is going realy good Thailand and Brazil

Temporao at a news conference last month said the country did not issue the decree "as a threat, nor to lower the price of other medicines, but to guarantee its program of attending (AIDS) patients." Brazil gave Merck seven days to negotiate a lower price for the drug. Officials from the Brazilian Ministry of Health last week rejected an offer from Merck to sell Efavirenz at a 30% discount in the country, an unnamed spokesperson with the ministry said on Thursday. Brazil asked Merck to reduce the cost of Efavirenz to 65 cents per dose from $1.57 per dose.

An unnamed source said that Merck offered to sell the drug for $1.10 per patient daily, but Brazil rejected the offer. Merck sells Efavirenz for $1.80 per daily dose in most middle-income countries (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 5/4). According to the AP/Forbes, a generic version of the drug would save Brazil about $240 million by 2012, when Merck's patent on Efavirenz expires.

[jdinasia]

Public Health Minister Mongkol will become the next chairman of UNAIDS Board

May 20, 2007 : Last updated 04:54 pm (Thai local time)

"I have accepted an invitation for me to take the post," Mongkol said Sunday. He was speaking after he had a discussion with UNAIDS Executive Director Dr Peter Piot, who has officially expressed support for Thailand's decision to enforce compulsory licensing on Aids medicine since late last year.

Article Date: 09 May 2007 - 12:00 PDT

Brazilian President Silva Issues Compulsory License For Merck's Antiretroviral Efavirenz

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Friday issued a compulsory license to produce a lower-cost, generic version of Merck's antiretroviral Efavirenz, the AP/Forbes reports (Sequera, AP/Forbes, 5/4).

World Trade Organization regulations allow governments to declare a "national emergency" and issue compulsory licenses on any grounds without consulting the foreign patent owner

Brazilian Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao late last month signed a decree declaring that the country would purchase from an India-based drug maker a generic version of Efavirenz if Merck did not offer the drug at a lower price. According to the decree, Efavirenz is a "public interest" medicine.

that india drug maker is going realy good Thailand and Brazil

Temporao at a news conference last month said the country did not issue the decree "as a threat, nor to lower the price of other medicines, but to guarantee its program of attending (AIDS) patients." Brazil gave Merck seven days to negotiate a lower price for the drug. Officials from the Brazilian Ministry of Health last week rejected an offer from Merck to sell Efavirenz at a 30% discount in the country, an unnamed spokesperson with the ministry said on Thursday. Brazil asked Merck to reduce the cost of Efavirenz to 65 cents per dose from $1.57 per dose.

An unnamed source said that Merck offered to sell the drug for $1.10 per patient daily, but Brazil rejected the offer. Merck sells Efavirenz for $1.80 per daily dose in most middle-income countries (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 5/4). According to the AP/Forbes, a generic version of the drug would save Brazil about $240 million by 2012, when Merck's patent on Efavirenz expires.

and the days of Big Pharma making huge profits on desperately needed medicines dwindles and dwindles .... Hope they rething soon!

[Scott]

It's relatively simple: This is an ineffective gov't that can't get it's act together, so they decide to break the patent on some drugs for the poor and muster a bunch of nationalistic feelings and rhetoric. I have seen precious little concern about those suffering from AIDS and doubt very much this is their true motive.

And as far as the heart medication--I highly doubt that that is an epidemic afflicting the poor.

Where are the millions of dollars in corruption that could go to pay for the medication--that is if they really cared?

It's a simple case of stealing no matter how you look at it and unfortunately the country is rather good at doing things like that. I thought it was just a matter of lack enforcement of laws before, but now I think the real nature of things is showing.

I don't think anyone wants to see the exorbitant prices that some of these drugs cost, but stealing is stealing.

It's a case of winning the battle but losing the war.

[TokyoT]

2. your theory about R&D and the cycle of developing a drug is correct its the bills part that you got wrong.

most drug companies run about 15-20% R&D expenses. production costs of 10-15%,they use nearly 40% for what they call "administration and marketing. the reaminig profit ranges from 15-27% profit...

So the drug companies are not just "human loving " scientists in white jackets trying to cure the world. they are making a killer profit. buy ripping patients off. and since the own the patent for the drug you have a choice buy or die.

I would like to recomend to you to look at the following and see a diferent view of how those drug companies opperate.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_401.html

Not sure how I get the bills part wrong – someone still has to pay the bills.

Killer profit 15-27% profit is hardly a killer profit. IMHO the 15-27% profit margins you are talking about is not out of line, considering the product they provide. I would have been more impressed if you would have specifically targeted Abbott (because they run about a 50%+ profit margin).

Don’t get me wrong I am not attempting to defend the system that is in place but I do not think attacking the drug companies will change the way the system works. I don’t think the drug companies are the problem, do you really think they want to be spending 40% on administration and marketing? The goal of the drug companies is certainly to maximize profit and drive up their share prices, so it is not likely that they are hiding profits; if anything it is more likely they are overestimating profits.

Why do you think the NIH fund or Universities do research and then allow the drug companies to actually turn this into (so called) massive profits? Because the NIH and the Universities generally do not want to deal with the risk/cost involved in carrying out the entire process.

BTW - How difficult would it be for NIH to put restrictions on the future profit margins from drugs developed with its research?

There certainly is a risk that comes from including more and more drugs in the CL campaign and with more and more countries going the CL route. That is why the WHO cautioned Thailand from taking that route in the first place. As we are all painfully aware the drug companies are in this for the profit and the larger the CL campaign grows the bigger the threat that campaign becomes to the drug companies profits. What motivation will they have to license future drugs in countries like Thailand and Brazil? The continued push for the expansion of the CL campaign runs a risk of creating a better situation for some now, at the expense those in need in the future.

You can bet the big drug companies are doing a bit of rethinking, but I am not so sure it is the type of rethinking that Thailand or Brazil want to see.

[drummer]

I don't have time to catch myself up on the whole conversation, but I just heard an "in-depth" report by the NPR (the US's BBC) about Thailand and Brazil's Big Pharma battle ...

... not a WORD about Thailand' getting blacklisted. You think it would have come up. They talked specifically about Kalestra, and even had time to get into talking about refrigeration.

Instead, they said that Big Pharma told Thailand that if they kept doing things like licence Kalestra, then Big Pharma would not be able to research new drugs at all. &lt;deleted&gt;??

Gotta love the "liberal" press out here. GEEZ.