Abbot to stop new aids medicine coming to Thailand

[Louis Pio]

Abbott To Stop Launching New Drugs in Thailand in Response to Country's Compulsory License for Antiretroviral Kaletra (http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=1&DR_ID=43558)

Daily HIV/AIDS Report



Drug Access | Abbott To Stop Launching New Drugs in Thailand in Response to Country's Compulsory License for Antiretroviral Kaletra
[Mar 14, 2007]
Pharmaceutical company Abbott Laboratories recently announced that it has withdrawn applications to sell seven new drugs in Thailand in response to the country's decision to issue a compulsory license for the company's antiretroviral drug Kaletra, Reuters reports. The seven withdrawn drugs include a new version of Kaletra; an antibiotic; a painkiller; and medicines to treat blood clots, arthritis, kidney disease and high blood pressure, Reuters reports. According to Reuters, Abbott's decision to stop introducing new drugs will not affect the sale of drugs currently on the market in Thailand (Schuettler, Reuters, 3/14). Thai Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla in January signed the compulsory license, which allows Thailand to produce a lower-cost version of Kaletra, into law. World Trade Organization regulations allow governments to declare a "national emergency" and issue compulsory licenses without consulting the foreign patent owner. Thailand, which has 580,000 people living with HIV/AIDS, has won international recognition for its quick launch of a national drug program that provides treatment to more than 82,000 HIV-positive people. However, the government's commitment to providing universal access to care is facing increasingly high drug costs. The compulsory license could save the country as much as $24 million annually. According to a joint statement released in February by the health ministry and Abbott, the two sides agreed in principle to reduce the price of Kaletra in Thailand to increase access to the drug among HIV-positive people who have developed resistance to other antiretrovirals. The lower price will apply only to Thailand's public health programs and will not apply to private hospitals, people with high incomes or foreign patients. Abbott offered to lower Kaletra's cost to $167 per patient monthly, although representatives from the health ministry said that was still too high. Abbott and the ministry agreed to meet for further negotiations (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 2/15).

Reaction
Abbott spokesperson Jennifer Smoter said that because the Thai government "decided not to support innovation by breaking the patents, Abbott will not submit applications or register new medicines and will withdraw current applications in Thailand until the government changes its position." According to an unnamed source, Abbott notified the Thai government about its decision a few weeks ago after talks between the two sides ended unsuccessfully, the Wall Street Journal reports. Thawat Suntrajarn, director-general of the health ministry's department of disease control, said that he had been unaware of Abbott's decision. He added that it is "not good for anyone, even the American company, because they will lose the market" in Thailand. According to Thawat, the Thai government will continue to seek out drugmakers able to produce a generic version of Kaletra. Paul Cawthorne, head of the Thailand operation of Medecins San Frontieres, said that Abbott's decision is "appalling," adding, "If they really are going to do this, it reflects so badly on the multinational companies." Cawthorne said that in recent months Abbott told him the new formulation of Kaletra would be made available in Thailand by this summer. Abbott has said that it will not pull the older version of Kaletra from the Thai market, adding that both the older and newer versions of the drug are equally effective. The primary difference between the two versions is that the newer one is more convenient to take, according to Abbott (Zamiska, Wall Street Journal, 3/14).

Related Editorial
Abbott's decision to withdraw the drug applications in Thailand is an "entirely rational business decision" a Journal editorial says. "In the long run, Abbott's withdrawal may have a salutary impact if it demonstrates to Thai officials and other governments that they will pay a price for stealing intellectual property," the editorial says. "In seizing the patents, Thailand is taking advantage of vague language" in the WTO regulations, the editorial says, adding that there is "no such emergency in this case." The editorial says that the World Health Organization's executive board meets in May, and unless WHO Director-General Margaret Chan and other officials start "publicly supporting intellectual property rights, there's a good chance Thailand's actions will be replicated elsewhere." The editorial concludes, "That's bad news for pharmaceutical companies -- and for everyone who cares about drug innovation and public health" (Wall Street Journal, 3/14).

[colonelguppy]

so assuming the world adopts socialism, socialist communities would just give others medical supplies with no regard to profitability?

[Louis Pio]

Of course, no need for massive profits. The point is to cure people or help them not to be a total wanker making money on people's misery.

[pusher robot]

They are free to donate the drugs if they want to. That is their prerogative in a capitalist system. It seems that you would prefer that they have no choice, that they be forced to donate the drugs at their own expense.

I oppose the initation of force, so I disagree.

[ichneumon]

the problem lies in the 1st world's total reliance on capitalism to develop new drugs, which is insane. drugs that treat diseases of the poor will never be profitable. not to mention vaccines, in which drug companies seem strangely disinterested...

the solution is a tax funded non-profit drug development company whose targets are chosen based on public need rather than potential profitability. BUT the megapharm company will never, never let this happen.

the kicker is that diseases of the poor are everybody's problem. germs do not respect class boundaries - they mutate and evolve to invade new populations just as fast as they bloody well can.

the other solution, the REAL solution is infosocialism, but that's a pipedream at this point.

[pusher robot]

What kind of "diseases of the poor" do you feel are going unaddressed by our pharmaceutical industry?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

They are free to donate the drugs if they want to. That is their prerogative in a capitalist system. It seems that you would prefer that they have no choice, that they be forced to donate the drugs at their own expense.
You are implying that any kind of system which redistributes resources constitutes a use of force or something. Thus by your logic tax constitutes a use of force and must be avoided, as does the construction of an assembly line, etc.

You are obviously having trouble accepting that the pharmaceutical industry is part of a system, a system that is globalizing and assimilating new markets and peoples, and as such should therefore be able to cater for said people.


What kind of "diseases of the poor" do you feel are going unaddressed by our pharmaceutical industry?
Well, they've been fairly slow to address the resurgence in TB.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:31 pm
Of course, no need for massive profits. The point is to cure people or help them not to be a total wanker making money on people's misery.
but why would they give them supplies if it isn't seen as beneficial for the community?

enless, of course, we assume that the world is under the authority of one socialist unit managing all of the worlds recources. but that's ridiculously impractical.

[pusher robot]

They are free to donate the drugs if they want to. That is their prerogative in a capitalist system. It seems that you would prefer that they have no choice, that they be forced to donate the drugs at their own expense.
You are implying that any kind of system which redistributes resources constitutes a use of force or something. Thus by your logic tax constitutes a use of force and must be avoided, as does the construction of an assembly line, etc.

Not at all. Redistribution can occur voluntarily; in fact, it happens every day, every time a transaction takes place. Taxes aren't voluntary, and I agree, should be avoided as much as is possible. Construction of an assembly line is done by people who, at every step, made a choice to voluntarily enter into a transaction.

What I see is that capitalism allows the drug company to redistribute by voluntary donation, or by some other mechanism not using force. When they choose not to donate, you don't blame the company for their choice, you (apparently) blame capitalism for allowing that choice at all. Therefore I must conclude that you are not in favor of them even having a choice in the matter.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Not at all. Redistribution can occur voluntarily; in fact, it happens every day, every time a transaction takes place.
I never said it couldn't; voluntary redistribution of wealth between individuals happens regularly, and while such transactions seem only to affect the individual participants and their immediate surroundings, it does no harm (well really it does, but that's another debate). However, as regards large-scale transactions such as this, which could potentially determine the fate of millions, I don't think the same rules apply. For one it is not a small-scale transaction between individuals, and it does indeed have far-reaching consequences outside the parochial mentality of the profit-oriented offending party. Thus I disagree that said party should have the final word in this transaction.


Taxes aren't voluntary, and I agree, should be avoided as much as is possible.
As much as possible. So you agree that they should exist. But to do what? Surely as a staunch capitalist you believe taxes should only be invoked to cover government spending on the bare essentials; bare essentials such as vindicating a human's right to life. That's all we would be doing by "forcibly" redistributing these pharmaceuticals.


When they choose not to donate, you don't blame the company for their choice, you (apparently) blame capitalism for allowing that choice at all.
Actually I blame capitalism for not expanding its system of redistribution on a global scale, and for allowing the survival of countless innocent men, women and children in the world's less fortunate countries (who have now assimilated into capitalism) to fall under the jurisdiction of an self-interested few who, without chance of maximum profit, have no motivation to ensure the survival of the former party. In other words, I blame capitalism for failing to vindicate economic globalization by ensuring the survival and well-being of its new-found patrons.

[ichneumon]

What kind of "diseases of the poor" do you feel are going unaddressed by our pharmaceutical industry?

consider sleeping sickness. african trypanosomaiasis is lethal and nasty. about 60,000 people are currently infected, 99.99% of them poor as dirt. it has very serious economic and social consequences in the endemic areas. the current drug of choice for late stage disease is melarsoprol, which is so caustic it can only be administered through a glass needle - it dissolves plastic ones, and it kills 10% of subjects. there is a MUCH better drug, eflornithine, but for decades no company would both to manufacture it. now, see, it is being made again because it was discovered that IT REMOVES UNWANTED FACIAL HAIR ON RICH EUROAMERICANS. so, at least, if we get some money, we can *buy* the drug.....