[Ip-health] posting on drug seizure

[Miles Teg]

Perhaps the EU should come right out and state clearly that their
commitment to the Doha Declaration on TRIPs and Public Health is
counterfeit (especially since it is a declaration of rights that
developing countries had anyway!).

Amazingly EU member states are obliged to follow directives of the EC.
And let us remind ourselves of the character of the EC, it has not had
unqualified reports of its budgets for over a decade (i.e. accountants
cannot sign off their accounts as a true reflection of what is reported!).

But that is besides the point, if legal rights in the TRIPs are not
respected, then what is the use of trying to deal with people who will
do everything to undermine an agreement they have signed. I guess the EU
feels that the US Special 301 kind of outdoes them in extra-WTO
enforcement of IPRs.

The EU contributed a great deal (most?) to the WHO IMPACT Taskforce
which relies in large part on the EC directive and US practice as
templates.

And perhaps a comment from IMPACT on these seizures would go a long way
to clarify things. For a very active group their silence is notable by
its absence because what is happening with the seizures is its raison
d'etre. Strange, or am I in the wrong movie?

Part of the problem is that health standards setting on IPRs at WHO,
often at rich country request, is done informally where Civil Society
cannot watch and report. The die has been cast in the IGWG (On
innovation, public health and intellectual property) where the real
discussions took place behind closed doors. Much like IMPACT and ACTA.
Somehow this is okay because money is involved. Public Health concerns
contested in open fora are out of the question, because like the
Banksters, it is all about making money. Why is this acceptable at WHO?
Why are BONGOs (Business Owned NGOs) given pride of place while the bulk
of Health CSOs are kept out of WHO process?

I guess a lot will turn on the Conflicts of Interests report that WHO
has been requested to provide by some developing countries. The WHO
Secretariat felt that the Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest were an
internal management matter and that the Secretariat can manage it
themselves (even though the COI document was made available to member
states). What IMPACT shows, irrespective of the very cursory allusions
to conflicts of interests in the WHA documents (which seem to substitute
for the as yet non-existent COI report), the Secretariat is
unable/unwilling/uninterested in managing conflicts of interest where
Pharmasters or the rich countries' are concerned. However this is not
consequence free, as far as broader civil society participation is
concerned.

The precedent  being set in terms of tolerance of 'scandalous' (you make
up your own mind on an adjective) behaviour by CSOs/BONGOs who
participated in IMPACT. If pro-equity civil society is disciplined or
threatened with termination of Official Relations (These are relations
where WHO recognises CSOs and allows participation at some meetings) in
the future, then the same or similar standard of tolerance given to
IFPMA in this process MUST be granted to pro-Equity CSOs. Anything less
would indicate that some CSOs are more equal than others depending on
the size of your wallet. (It would be very interesting to see if there
is even an inquiry into the behaviour of BONGOs in this process.)

Or perhaps not, as CSOs seem to accept differential treatment of CSOs at
WHO primarily because it has an archaic Enhanced Interrogation Technique
for accrediting Civil Society. And let us also not forget to mention
that CSOs statements are vetted and sometimes, I am credibly informed,
"censored" in that they are prevented from making the statement. Of
course, since you have to be nice to be able to attend meetings and
maintain Official Relations, criticism is often muted under pain of EIT
on review of accreditation.

So the Pharmasters have the international regulatory environment
stitched up just like the Banksters did.

Perhaps this is cynical, but is it too much to expect WHO to promote
access to medicines and be vigorous about it?

I can only speculate but I guess it is. The WHO system seems to promote
those who protect big Pharmasters and rich countries' interests! This
seems to be the trend.

So let us be clear and constructive lest this be taken the wrong was (as
there is much misunderstanding and on Counterfeits at WHO):

It IS too expensive for WHO to come out openly and criticise the EU for
messing up drug supply to developing countries?