[Ip-health] Sirens of Sophistry

[George M. Carter]

 > BUSINESS EUROPE
 > FROM THE ARCHIVES: February 25, 2002
 > The Boys From Brazil
 > By RICHARD TREN

Ah, the boys of Sophistry are at it again!

snip....
 > FarMaguinhos is supposed to be using the revenues from the MSF sale to
 > fund research into AIDS and other developing-country diseases such as
 > malaria. But the low prices at which these generics are sold should prompt
 > skepticism about this claim.

First, this is a reversal of the commentary trying to claim that IP rights 
are not relevant to the price of drugs or to access.

 >A recent study by the Tufts Center for the
 > Study of Drug Development estimates that a drug company typically spends
 > over $800 million to bring a new medicine to market.

Horseshit.  But even if this WAS a completely accurate figure, the billions 
made on these drugs over their patent lifetime (and even after, albeit at a 
lower rate of rape), clearly offsets this minor cost.

 > But suppose FarMaguinhos did produce a magical new cure for malaria or
 > dengue fever.

Hmmmm...why not a local study by folks using Artemisia annua for 
malaria?  Inexpensive! Not patented!  And used for millenia--with some 
evience for success. How about carnitine for Dengue--as it can reduce TNF 
to normal levels and this seems to be the pathological sequela most tightly 
associated with the hemorrhagic form that kills children (mostly little 
girls). Not too costly--not patented!

How about the fact that the proprietary industry basically IGNORED these 
diseases lo these many years?

snip...
 > The prospect of the Indian generics producer Cipla, for example,
 > reverse engineering the Brazilian innovation after years of expensive
 > research would change their view faster than you can say patent office. 
Even
 > in the unlikely event that FarMaguinhos does give its future inventions 
away
 > for free and I lose my bet, how would the company fund more research? I
 > suppose it could always just copy and sell someone else's hard work to 
raise
 > money for its next miracle.

Honey, dearest, sweetheart, calling ARV therapy a "miracle" is just a 
teensy bit overboard. The drugs are toxic...adding excessive cost, however 
means that the chance of surviving til better treatments come along is 
merely a form of second degree genocide.

It also blocks evaluation of drugs like say neomycin derivatives that have 
interesting effects on HIV related proteins like the rev:rre 
complex.  They're not on patent.

Greed is not the engine of discovery, except for a narrow pipeline's worth 
of a VERY few novel ideas and a lot of me-too drugs.

...The patent-protection regimes in the developed
 > world are a compromise between the need for innovation and the need for
 > competition, providing a limited period of monopoly control over the
 > intellectual property. The recent moves to undermine that compromise in
 > South Africa and elsewhere are destroying the incentive to innovate in AIDS
 > treatment.

Now we come to the threat.  Let us have our profits or we'll cease studying 
these drugs!  The world cannot afford to be held hostage by the outrageous 
greed of industry.  If they didn't use IP as a means to justify that rape 
that is destroying DEVELOPED nation's healthcare systems, IP wouldn't be a 
problem.

 > According to Pharmaprojects, an independent research group, the number
 > of antiretrovirals in development rose steadily from 1990 to 1998, but 
since
 > the recent anti-pharma campaign has fallen back to 1990 levels.

Right. Why? The market is saturated and each new drug won't make a few cool 
billion off the bat. Fortunately, a few companies are still working on some 
drug development. But frankly, if they're just going to rape people for the 
cost and deny the drugs to those who cannot afford it, then clearly the 
system is horribly broken and in need of swift, serious reform.

snipping more sophist drool....

 > TAC routinely calls for greater competition within drugs manufacturing
 > so that the lowest possible prices can be achieved. Competition is all well
 > and good, but there are certain important rules that apply. Protecting
 > private property in a competitive free market is one of the most
 > fundamental; otherwise the TAC version of competition just becomes
 > sanctioned theft. Since when is that competitive?

An intellectual property right is one thing.  Profit derived therefrom is 
NOT a right, but rather a privilege.

The right to health for humans trumps the privilege of profit.

George M. Carter