Online petition to stop Novartis Pharmaceuticals

India produces its own medicine for treating AIDS and is currently being challenged by the pharmaceutical company Novartis. Novartis also took the South African government to court to try to get our goverment to stop the lowering of prices for medication for the poor. If Novartis wins, more medicines will get patented and more people will not be able to afford them. Please help Médecins Sans Frontières and sign the petition against Novartis. Médecins Sans Frontières treat over 80% of AIDS patients with Indian made medication. Article here, petition can be found here. Thanks for your help. Cheers, MajorB

why would I sign a petition against Novartis? They did the research, got the patent and developed the drug and took it through the regulatory process. The cost of each drug sold mostly goes to recouping those huge developmental costs before any profit can be made for shareholders.

Whereas the Indian companies just ripped off the Novartis drug.They did no research and other than the cost of materials every sale even at these low prices is profit. That's what generics companies do, they are not valiant saviours of people with AIDS , they are grubby little capitalists, that's all. They were allowed to 'steal' the formula for Novartis' drug because India does not recognise foreign patents.

However, India indicated it might reverse that policy recently, although they haven't yet. Which is why Novartis is challenging them in court. If they succeed and India does respect foreign patents it would mean that Novartis could challenge this company that had ripped off its treatment and was selling it throughout India and exporting it worldwide undercutting Novartis' sales. It seems to me entirely appropriate from a business point of view, for Novartis to do this.

I should also note that Novartis already provides many of its leading AIDS drugs for free or at cost price in many African countries. This was a bold move in response to heavy criticism over the unavailability of AIDS medicines in the countries most ravaged by the disease. They did not have to do it but they did.

Personally, I do not think it is the role of pharmaceutical companies to behave like charities when it is rich governments of Europe and North America that shold be shouldering the development and treatment costs for AIDS-ravaged Africa. It is their failure to provide any of the aid they have promised over the years, and the failure of AIDS activists to hold these governments to account over this that means we are in the current mess.

Don't attack the pharmaceutical companies, which will be the source of future treatments - attack our mean governments who have consistently failed to act.

I agree with BTC.

Drug development costs money and with this we would only be stunting its development.

We need to stop viewing the pharmaceutical companies as the bad guys. They are the ones developing these drugs and we need to assure that they can continue to do so. Unless our governments can come up with the vast sums of money required to fund drug research, which will never happen, we have to keep supporting the pharmaceutical companies.

To each their own. Doesn't change the fact that the poorest of the poor will not be able to afford the correct treatment if Novartis wins. Human lives are worth more than patent laws, irrespective of who fucked up where. We have to deal with the results of having fucked up. It's too late to turn back the clock as always when looking at the work of NGO's. And if you were poor and couldn't afford the correct life-saving treatment, or if a family member of yours were dying and you couldn't afford the correct treatment, I'd like to hear your opinion on this once again.

To which court is Novartis taking India? As far as I know the trade agreements of the WTO have exceptions for cases where a state cannot guarantee the survival of its citizens if they'd have to pay market prices. The question is whether India really is in a situation where they cannot pay the price. There is little value for a company in suing people who would be otherwise dead as they cannot pay for the medication -- nevertheless, if this is the case, they need to make sure those drugs won't get sold and then reimported into the regular market.

Although I understand your plea MB, I agree with BTC and ER, drug testing costs money, I know in Canada they just raised the date for generics to come out, used to be after 10 years, but with the extensive drug testing needed before medications can be placed on the market (we have more testing than in the US) the companies pleaded with the government of Canada, and generics cannot be produced til 15 years after first patent. Yes, it protects the 'Big Bad Pharm Companies' but it also protects us, those people that need the medications... see the other side, a med makes the open market, not tested, not really a generic knock off but a cheap replica of a drug, then people develop problems with the medication, who is to blame then?

I have little (correction: NO) sympathy for the the pharma companies and their poor little shareholders. Medicine is about healing sick people, not making money off of them.

Diabetics can be thankful that more honourable men were responsible for the discovery of insulin:



Frederick Banting

And, of course, if every one of these evil corporations looking to get as many big fat wads of sweaty money as possible from the poor, unsuspecting public did that then I wonder if we would be as far advanced in medicine as we currently are. Probably not I would think, and you probably would not have to sign this petition as there would be no HIV suppressant drugs to argue over.

Agree totally with BTC ER and Carm, medical people are some of the highest paid - hence Gills argument is terrible. Ask docs to work for free and see what happens.

Background here. Novartis took them on in the Chennai High Court in India in September for the first time.

I agree that intellectual property should be protected, but I do believe that an exception should be made in the field on medicine and medical technology because these are technologies which save lives. Novartis protects its rights, developes better medications but the implication of patent laws is that people/country/governments who can pay the patent fees will get the better treatment and only them. So it's fine for us well-fed, well-educated people who can allow themselves the luxury of hanging around on internet forums for a fair part of our working time to say "Novartis developed those drugs and did the research and still does even more research to make better drugs to help people" when we are the people who can afford to buy the treatment. People who are too poor should also have access to those medicines. What makes us better? We were born lucky, that's it. Imagine the tables were turned and India was rich, we were born with HIV and living in slums without parents and and Indian people would say, "ah no, let them pay for it first otherwise Novartis will not get paid for their research to make better drugs for us rich people."

Regarding doctors working for free: MSF workers work basically for free. People who support them also do it for free. Regarding MSF's policy towards patent problematics and medical treatment, I quote:

MB, once you have successfully forced all the research pharmaceutical companies into bankruptcy who do you suggest should develop the next generation of drugs? The generic manufacturers certainly won't.

I agree with the sentiment that poor people should have access to drugs but discouraging companies from developing new drugs by removing patent rights is NOT the way forward. It is clearly very short sighted and to the detriment of the very people you aim to help because future drugs which may aid them will never be developed. Instead, it might be better if rich western governments, or international organisations, would set aside money we pay in taxes to subsidise these drugs. This way, the poor get the drugs and the drug companies are encouraged to invest in research and development.

One question that can be asked is how much of that R&D is spent on more effective drugs rather than drugs with IP value?

Anybody has any idea how much it cost Novartis to develop this specific drug? (including the costs for all the failed attempts that never led to anything, not to mention exposure to litigation in case the drug has unexpected side-effects etc.)

Do they actually publish this kind of information? I would assume it's part of their shareholders or analysts presentations somewhere, but can't be bothered to look for it...

well, obviously the drug companies won't ever research and develop drugs that bring them no profits. However, governments should be looking at ways to enhance current drug development not hinder it. If drug companies are failing to produce new treatments in areas where they are unlikely to make profits under current conditions then give them incentives, encourage them to do MORE research, not less.

it would be hard to quote figures that include all the failed attempts (and basic research that never gets anywhere) even if you could be bothered to research it.

It's not unusual that companies spend long years and a lot of money on developing a drug that fails in the last phases of testing. Even extensive testing on animals does not guarantee that the drug will react the same in humans and a lot of drugs fail at this point.

They say for a drug from idea to market costs around 1 billion US

And it would be interesting to know the percentage of completely useless drugs pushed by Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies which have been proven by Bfarm and others to have no positive effects whatsoever.

MB, there are ways round that. Those drugs won't make the approved lists of drugs which can be prescribed (as is the case in the UK), therefore hindering sales.

I agree drug companies aren't totally Saints and will try and re-coup money where possible, even if the proven benefits are slim. However, they are also not the pariahs they are made out to be and we should not be punishing them for researching and developing useful drugs.

This whole thread isn't about whether drug companies are saints or not. It's about doing something to stop the dying in developing countries where others have failed for whatever reasons.

doing something in the way of a short-term fix or a real long-term solution? have you honestly thought about the long-term consequences of this route?

Do you have a better idea?

yes. I already suggested them. read my previous posts.

why don't you set up an online petition to encourage all governments, or international organisations, to spend more money subsidising drugs for poor countries?

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Swiss drugmaker Novartis AG on Monday said its first-quarter profit rose 32%, helped by the popularity of drugs to treat hypertension.
Novartis said its first-quarter net income rose to $1.96 billion, as revenue rose 13% to $8.3 billion...


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nova...9BE5CAE8A1D1%7D

oh golly, Novartis have increased their profits. They MUST be evil. Let's seize all their assets and nationalise the company and see how many drugs will be developed thereafter!

Does anybody know how long the patent protection on any specific drug lasts until it automatically expires?

isn't it 15 years in most countries? or is 20. I forget.

I don't get this point. What makes you believe any pharmaceutical company does rely on selling drugs to the poor people in India or Africa and would go bankrupt otherwise? The problem is not that people who cannot afford the drug are using it, the only problem I can see is that those drugs could be imported into the regular market, but there can be measures to avert this.

Where do you draw the line between "poor country" and "rich enough country", though?

What about this? Stop talking and take action http://www.worldaidsday.org/getinvolved2.asp

My goodness. Forget this. Either sign the petition or don't.

it is a very dangerous route to chose. If you decide that one country has the right to ignore internationally recognised patents, the other will follow suite. And as Tom_a points out, where do you draw the line? Which countries should be forced to recognise the patents and which should be allowed to ignore them? Step by step, countries would move away from recognising patents and drug companies' profits will be eroded to such an extent that their ability to invest in future drugs will be seriously undermined.

I won't be signing it, thanks. Find a link to petition that will do some real long lasting good for poor countries and I would consider it.

Any country should be able to choose the intellectual property law, or lack of, that suits their needs the best. There will be consequences to weigh up of course, but I dont think any country or group of countries should be allowed to bully others into agreeing with their particular interpretation of patent law.

If india can save lives by modifying patent law in a way that makes foreign patents unenforcible in India, they should do so.

OG, there are exceptions to patents. This is reflected i.e. in WTO agreements:
(Excerpt from the section on TRIPS, taken from http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/issu3_e.htm)

I feel the courts should decide whether a country qualifies as poor enough.

I thinks its for one self to sign it or not.

But all experts who are debating on the costs for research and future drug development, whats the future. If the people are dying at this rate, there is no need for any research more, there will be no mankind at least to treat them with the future drugs.

Errrr, no. Just that India's policy isn't reducing Novartis to rack and ruin...and I hope not, I have shares;)

The population is increasing (drastically), not decreasing.

Actually you have a point, stop all phramaceutical research and we won't have to deal with this problem of over population and over taxation of our ecosystem anymore.

btw, forgot to say this: If you really believe this is the right step forward, don't give up pushing the idea just because a few of us on TT think otherwise, fight for it, push it, make us believe otherwise. By giving in to the slightest bit of counter-argument you will never push this through.

I see that quite a few people do not hold high regard for the phamaceutical companies out there.

May I suggest that one form of action those people can take (aside of course from signing the petition) is to found their own pharmaceutical company. If these comapnies that are out there right now are so evil, then have nothing to do with them at all. Start a company where benevolence in the main principle and profit and loss mean nothing. Simply hire the best and brightest people to research and find cures for many of the diseases that ravage our world.

How this company will independently sustain itself and come up with the money to pay for all the testing, research, and bright researchers (who I am certain some of them would work for little in the long term, but to retain many of these people for decades may require some $$$), distribution and then to raise more money to do the same thing again for new or other types of diseases? I have no idea!

I think it is more a case is that many people do not hold vast mega-corporations in high regard.

I just dont hold international patent law in high regard. Mega-corps and pharmaceuticals companies are ok though.

Waste of fucking time. Online "petitions" aren't worth the paper they're printed on. They're meaningless and pointless. They're nothing but ego-stroking for the participants who somehow feel that by clicking a link and typing their names, they've done something (though they really haven't) and they can spend the rest of the day wallowing in smug self-satisfaction which is nothing more than self-delusion.

It costs $1-2 billion to make a drug and get it to market, and more than half of all attempts never make it past the first or second rounds of testing. BILLIONS. Only big companies can afford this, and they have to recover their costs.

woof.

"I just dont hold international patent law in high regard. Mega-corps and pharmaceuticals companies are ok though. "

Well KZA, I concede that some patent law seems somewhat absurd ( such as DNA patenting- from what little I read about it). But international patent law is necessary. Suppose you are an IT specialist in Germany. And you, after many years of hard work and tens of thousands putting your own money in this pursuit, invent this new software which can make the worklife of anyone who uses an office computer easier.

Now suppose, I just happen to be in Germany and happen to come across your software. I fly back to chicago, copy your software and sell it for much cheaper than you would (since I do not have any cost to recoup) all over North America before you established your own licensed goods here. Basically what I did was nothing short of stealing. It is international patent laws which would prevent me from continuing my theft.

Where does that figure come from and does "to market" include marketing and golf holidays for doctors.

@chi-town In the case you described (which seems to be more about copyrights than patents) I would say the model I tried to use in the first place was flawed. There are much better ways to make money developing software, and I dont just mean giving the software away, although that is one good option. I should know, I am a software developer, and patents do more to stand in my way than help me. But software is a bad example. Movies and Music would be better examples to illustrate the need for international intellectual property law, but even there I think we would be better off without such laws, yes I realise its an extreme position and would cost lots of people potential earnings, as people discover new ways to make use of cheaper forms of content distribution without the big companies that used to be neccesary to do it.

But to be a bit more pragmatic, I do see a need in the short to medium term for some sort of international intellectual property law, my utopian vision is a long way off, but the current system is severly flawed and in need of major reform. Not really the thread to discuss all the complicated issues involved though.

Software can be covered by copyright so direct copying is protected in the same way as it is for a book.
One interesting thought if the people behind the Internet Protocols and the web had decided to patent those idea and try to milk them commercially would they now be ubiquitous?

No it wouldnt. Another interesting thought is what if patents and copyrights were around in the days when we invented the wheel, or the printing press, or paper? Imagine if they were each controlled by a legal monopoly?

it is 10, 15 or 20 years depending on the awarding body and the technology. As most drugs will take upwards of 10 years to reach the market this usually only leaves a very short window to recoup costs before a generic company is allowed to copy it and sell it for huge profit. i believe the issue for Novartis is that the Indian generic company was NOT producing the generic mainly for India's starving poor but rather for the export market, thus drastically undercutting Novartis' sales worldwide.

MSF is also being disingenuous in suggesting Novartis will prevent genrics for any long duration of time. They are unlikely to have more than a couple of years left for this product, after which all generic companies will be able to copy it.

there are also a fairly large number of off-patent antiretrovirals around now. MSF could be using them - they do work.