[Pharm-policy] Jamie Love's recent false postings on the listserver
James Love
love@cptech.org
Tue Mar 20 14:44:11 2001
Amir, as you know, the quote was from a note someone sent to me about a
talk you gave to a meeting in Harvard. It was posted to the health gap
list last Friday, asking you to respond, to the health gap list. "Maybe
Amir can comment," was the request. As you know, there was no response
to the healthgap list, and certainly no indication that the note did not
reflect your views. I think the note speaks for itself. It does say
"to the best of my memory and not word-for-word, but still pretty
accurate," so that does indeed leave some room to deny that was
reported. It was sent by someone with no axe to grind, but we have all
be misquoted before, sometimes in big name newspapers, so I have an open
mind. What exactly did you say at that meeting? If not what was
quoted, what? And, even more important, perhaps you can respond to the
issues raised in my note, "getting to marginal cost," which asks a
simple policy question. What policy instruments will ensure that
countries can get drugs at marginal costs? I think this is the more
important and substantive issue, particularly with the Norway meeting
coming up. Jamie
<...........this was the healthgap posting....>
Subject: Amir on March 5 demo strategy
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:43:12 -0500 (EST)
From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <healthgap@CritPath.Org>
This is a note someone sent me from a recent meeting
at Harvard about the March 5 demos. (edited a bit)
Maybe Amir can comment. Jamie
<-------------written by someone at harvard----------->
I was at the Harvard AIDS Coalition meeting last Thursday
when Amir Attaran made his comments about "anti-corporate"
groups.
Attaran had been invited to give information on the AIDS
epidemic in Africa and various strategies for fighting it.
There were a pile of flyers for the March 5 rally on the
table at the front of the room. At the end of his
presentation, Attaran said to the audience (this is to the
best of my memory and not word-for-word, but still pretty
accurate):
"I'm not telling you that you shouldn't go to the rally on
Monday (March 5). But I think you should know that some of
the people organizing these rallies have an anti-corporate
agenda. Their real agenda is to attack corporations. They
are exploiting the AIDS issue very skilfully to reach their
own goals, it's a very good issue for them. I just think
you should be aware of that, if you are thinking of going
to the rally.
Anyway, targeting the drug companies is no longer relevant.
The battle has basically been won. The drug companies have
already agreed to drastically lower their prices. There is
a general consensus that AIDS drugs should be provided at
marginal cost plus distribution costs. But these
anti-corporate activists aren't satisfied with that, they
want the drug companies to give away the drugs for free,
which just isn't sustainable."
This was the general gist of Attaran's statement.
Later in the meeting, [one of the organizers of the rally]
announced:
"If I understood Dr. Attaran, he was implying that the
organizers of the March 5 rally are pursuing some kind of
anti-corporate agenda rather than being concerned with the
AIDS epidemic. This is completely incorrect. Our goal is to
build a broad alliance to fight for affordable AIDS drugs"
....
Attaran seemed a little flustered.
He responded by saying that he hadn't intended to
imply that people shouldn't go to the March 5 rally (!),
but then reiterated that the battle to lower prices was no
longer a priority, the issue was pretty much settled,
adding "I really don't understand why the drug companies
are continuing with this case in South Africa...".
If Attaran had simply said that we were
anti-coporate, that would have been fine; he's pro, we're
anti. But what really disturbed me was Attaran's suggestion
that we were "using" the AIDS issue as a convenient way to
further a hidden agenda.
===
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
HEALTHGAP Mailing List healthgap@critpath.org
To unsubscribe from HEALTHGAP, send a message with a BLANK SUBJECT LINE
to listproc@critpath.org
In the body of the message state the following:
unsubscribe healthgap
IMPORTANT: If the unsubscription request fails, send a message to
healthgap-owner@critpath.org and request to be removed manually.
DO NOT SEND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS TO THE LIST ITSELF.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
amir_attaran@harvard.edu wrote:
>
> Dear Jamie,
>
> By this letter, I am demanding that you apologize publicly for your
> message, below. The quote below which you attribute to me is not accurate,
> and you know it. By the e-mail that you forwarded me last week
> (16.3.2001), the author of the dispatch from which you excerpt this quote
> admits that it is transcribed:
>
> "to the best of [the writer's] memory and not word-for-word"
>
> You know this fact, and know of the quote's inaccuracy, and yet you choose
> to present the quote as strictly accurate, and then call it "offensive on
> several levels". Since when is it fair play to take a quote of admittedly
> doubtful accuracy, and call it "offensive"? I am both insulted and
> unimpressed by this tactic for an ad hominem attack.
>
> The truth is that this second-hand quote is highly selective and inaccurate
> of what I said, as you should know having discussed these issues with me
> PERSONALLY, face-to-face for several hours after these comments were made.
> Why do you then need to dredge up a second-hand, admittedly inaccurate
> quote from an anonymous writer to call "offensive"? That seems very
> curious to me.
>
> Even if this and your previous attacks on me were factually accurate (which
> MANY are not), then perhaps it is the grist for a collegial disagreement,
> not for the sort of ad hominem attacks that you are meting out, some of
> which verge on defamation.
>
> I repeat that I DEMAND you make an UNQUALIFIED public apology and
> retraction on all your listserves at once, at a minimum for this posting,
> and were I lavish the time to detail the inaccuracies in the other messages
> you have posted, I would think it my right to demand an apology and
> retraction for those as well. This is a serious request, and whether you
> now apologize and in the future cease and desist from this sort of conduct
> is going to reflect on your professional stature in this community.
>
> Sincerely,
> Amir Attaran
>
> PS - I would take it as a measure of your good faith and fairness if you
> posted this message to all the same listserves you have been posting your
> "anti-Amir" messages on.
>
>
> love@cptech.org
> Sent by: To: ip-health@venice.essential.org, pharm-policy@venice.essential.org
> ip-health-admin@venice.ess cc:
> ential.org Subject: [Ip-health] Getting prices to marginal cost
>
>
> 03/20/2001 04:14 AM
>
>
>
> In comments at Harvard about a March 5 demo on the South Africa case, a
> Harvard employed lawyer/scientist and member of this list was quoted as
> saying (to my surprise):
>
> "Targeting the drug companies is no longer relevant.
> The battle has basically been won. The drug companies have
> already agreed to drastically lower their prices. There is
> a general consensus that AIDS drugs should be provided at
> marginal cost plus distribution costs. But these
> anti-corporate activists aren't satisfied with that, they
> want the drug companies to give away the drugs for free,
> which just isn't sustainable."
>
> Implicit in this statement, which is offensive on several levels,
> is that there is some meaningful consensus that AIDS drugs
> should be provided at marginal (plus distribution) costs.
> But of course, over the past decade, that has not been the
> practice where these products are under patent, and it is not the case
> now in many countries, and certainly for many drugs.
>
> So my question is: What policy instruments can assure that prices of
> drugs will even be close to marginal costs? If there is indeed a
> consensus that this should be the case in poor countries, then there
> should also be policies that would make this happen.
>
> Compulsory licensing and competition among generic suppliers is one
> instrument that will do this, assuming that enough countries actually do
> this to create a competitive market for the generic products. In the
> case of HIV drugs, the whole world has benefited from the Brazil
> purchases of generic products, which as more or less made the global
> market. Every company offer has followed moves by generic suppliers.
>
> It also seems to me that good policy is not made on one disease alone.
> I suffer from Asthma and so does my 9 year old son, and I like to apply
> the Asthma test for policy. Will it give the poor access to the best
> Asthma products? Everyone else can imagine different products for which
> they understand the need for access to medicines. I don't think it is
> useful for any one illness advocate group to cut a separate deal for a
> handful of drugs and declare victory in terms of the public heatlh.
>
> Jamie
> --
> James Love
> Consumer Project on Technology
> P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> http://www.cptech.org
> love@cptech.org
> 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharm-policy mailing list
> Pharm-policy@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/pharm-policy
--
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
http://www.cptech.org
love@cptech.org
1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176