19 ms·

‘Pharmacy of the developing world’ under attack from the US, EU, Japan

166 points by shekhar101 11y ago

petecooper 11y ago
>India under pressure from Pharma lobby to stop gneric medicines Title typo: should be `generic`.
PhantomGremlin 11y ago
Maybe the Indian generic companies should worry a little more about the frogs and flies in their manufacturing facilities. And maybe they shouldn't delete test results. Welcome to the global race to the bottom. I doubt that a little pressure from multinational pharma companies will do much to reverse the overall trend. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-03/indian-labs-deleted-drug-test-results-documents-show http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-03/indian-lab...
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >I doubt that a little pressure from multinational pharma companies will do much to reverse the overall trend. Good. An imperfect (with the odd frog), but cheap, system that can save thousands of lives is perfectly acceptable to me.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    Really? I'd rather die than eat some fly poop that found its way to my life-saving medication!
    - garagemc2 11y ago
      Than do that, but don't stop others. Have your originals, let those that need it have their generics. Just because you shop at waitrose doesn't give you the right to stop people shopping at Aldi!
      - saint_fiasco 11y ago
        StavrosK is being sarcastic. That's why he specified 'life-saving medication'.
        StavrosK 11y ago
        Thank you, you nailed it.
        garagemc2 11y ago
        My bad. Sorry.
        StavrosK 11y ago
        No problem, you can never tell with Poe's law.
        garagemc2 11y ago
        My bad. Sorry.
      - StavrosK 11y ago
        Apparently I needed the sarcasm tag. Who would take "I'd rather die than eat fly poop" seriously?
    - _-__--- 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Compounding_Center#2012_meningitis_outbreak_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Compounding_Center... The implications of dirty drug synthesis and medication compounding processes are dangerous and real. Deleted testing results are a red flag; however, keep in mind that lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence of the positive. I see this more as regulation being used to limit international competition than anything promoting general human welfare.
      - StavrosK 11y ago
        They definitely are real, but I'm not sure that the case is so clear-cut against generics. Would you rather save the lives of 100,000 people and cause 2,000 of them meningitis, or have 100,000 people die because they can't get cheap medication?
  - pinaceae 11y ago
    bullshit. grandiose statement, but once your precious baby gets born with no legs your stance will be a tad different. pharma topics are so hilariously ill suited for public discussion, so many half truths and misconceptions. like grandma discussing JS frameworks - or vaccinations. fun fact: pharma offers tiered pricing, matching economic structures. HIV treatments in Africa are basically free. india plays fast and loose with pharma patents, something not even china has done. so, if even the copy-happy chinese understand the benefits of a regulated pharma market, maybe there is something to it, no? the pharma/biotech industry has saved more lives than any uber, airbnb, slack, whatever tech unicorn. the one industry that comes close is big-agriculture with GMOs and fertilizers - and guess what, the same awesome discussion happens there. /sigh
    - lewiseason 11y ago
      > pharma topics are so hilariously ill suited for public discussion, so many half truths and misconceptions If the reason they're so ill suited for public discussion is the half truths and misconceptions, statements like this one aren't doing anything to help: > once your precious baby gets born with no legs your stance will be a tad different
      - iofj 11y ago
        Whilst I agree with you. I would like to point out that babies being born with no legs (generally with appendages missing) is in fact known to be one of the great screwups of pharmacology (though anyone reporting it today would undoubtedly hold the pharma industry responsible. In my opinion that is not a reasonable position to take. It was almost unheard of to do separate pregnancy testing (it's still not common at all), therefore blaming someone for not doing them is not fair). It is even a truism to say that medicine for pregnant women (when not relating to the pregnancy itself) is far behind "normal" medicine, as for most treatments it is not known what effect they'll have on the embryo, or if there will be interactions between the pregnancy and the treatment. Of course there is also a number of treatments that can't be used because they're known to be harmful, but not nearly as many. This crisis is one of the main reasons for this. But what caused babies with no legs: The softenon/thalomide disaster. Here's the full story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects_cris... More photos illustrating exactly what went wrong can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocomelia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocomelia The scary part is that it was a problem relating to the chirality of the molecule used. Very few chemical tests of the molecule would have even revealed that there were two kinds of the molecule, and there was no good reason to assume one would cause deformed babies. In other words: this was extremely likely (and sadly) an honest mistake. 20000 deformed babies were born, about half survived (I went to school with a very cute and smart one). One enantiomer causes babies with missing appendages, one does not. Both help against a number of cancers, various serious diseases and there is some use as a sedative and it helps against morning sickness during pregnancy. Getting the chirality right is bloody hard, even for people with advanced chemistry degrees (especially getting to the required purity). This disaster is also well known for being one of the main reasons our current pharma regime is what it is.
rickdale 11y ago
This is funny because I am literally on the phone with my bank to get them to lift the block on the charge for indian provigil. I didn't realize this was a big thing, but I am excited to try the provigil. I did ask my doctor for it for what its worth, but he said its too expensive to prescribe to me. I don't have insurance...
- MagicWishMonkey 11y ago
  I don't think it's legal to import prescription drugs from overseas, FYI. So it might not be a good idea to discuss the transaction with your CC provider.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > I don't think it's legal to import prescription drugs from overseas, FYI. So it might not be a good idea to discuss the transaction with your CC provider. Doctors can import prescriptions drugs from other countries if they wish too, with a special import form to justify the exception.
    - 1971genocide 11y ago
      Wow ! You cannot order any drug you want from overseas in American ? It seems like a blantent violation of basic freedom.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        It is. In America, you don't own your own body, and the authorities can determine what you can put into it. (See our other backwards drug laws for more confirmation of this)
        happyscrappy 11y ago
        Luckily the rest of the world doesn't have laws about what you can put in your body! /s And some jackass will say they had no choice because America.
qwerty85344324i 11y ago
Serious question for anyone opposes this. What incentive would pharma companies have to publish their secret formulas if Indian generics simply take the IP and drastically undercut prices, preventing the pharma companies from making any profit on the billions they invested in their research? What would compel these pharma companies to invest in any further research?
- joesmo 11y ago
  I think billions of dollars in profit should be enough, don't you?
  - qwerty85344324i 11y ago
    I don't understand what you're implying. A drug requires billions in investment. Why would a company invest billions into a new drug if they can't make that money back?
    - hittaruki 11y ago
      As an example one of the Pharma companies mentioned Novartis is very much profitable. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-28/novartis-third-quarter-profit-climbs-on-new-products http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-28/novartis-t...
      - qwerty85344324i 11y ago
        I am still finding it hard to understand this argument. Why do you think pharma companies like Novartis will continue to be profitable if all of their patents and future patents are ignored? Why would any pharma company invest billions into new research when their IP could just be stolen by an Indian generic and sold for pennies on the dollar?
        joesmo 11y ago
        Because they're still making billions? But hey, we're not making as many billions as we could. Let's just shut it all down for good. Your reasoning is stupid.
myth_buster 11y ago
The ominous quote "This is just the beginning" seems apt here. TPP bill [0] which is being negotiated in secret will result in more sustained damage [1]. Since R&D will be the single most critical argument, this table [2] could highlight it's fallacies. [0] https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp [1] http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news-stories/briefing-document/trading-away-health-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tpp http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news-stories/briefing-d... [2] http://i.imgur.com/3kmBKcS.png http://i.imgur.com/3kmBKcS.png
- carstimon 11y ago
  In case anyone else is looking, here's the story source for the last picture: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223
- oneJob 11y ago
  Timely. I'm reading "The Truth About the Drug Companies" by Marcia Angell. Per Wikipedia, Dr. Angell is "the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. She is currently a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts". So, a good person to write a book on the issue. Just one more example of how drug companies are taking their customers for a ride. Knowing that a drug has a finite patent life, a drug company will stagger the release of two drugs that are pharmacologically similar by patent-wise different. The drug company will introduce an "improved" drug (which we'll refer to as "nu") just as the old drug's (which we'll refer to as "pro", as in before) patent is about to expire. This is accompanied by pricing tactics such as raising the price of the "pro" drug above the "nu" drug so as to incentivize patients to switch, paying generic-producing companies not to make it, and giving hospitals preferential pricing on the "nu" drug so that it is prescribed at hospitals but then patients pay the higher rate when they go home. One of the most insidious effects of this strategy is that, the drug company is either purposely pricing people out of medicine they need or knowingly selling an inferior product for a decade or more. Highly recommend reading this book if interested on this subject: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-tru...
Alex3917 11y ago
This is hardly new. The Clintons threatened to impose trade sanctions on South Africa if they distributed HIV treatments to the poor, and that was twenty years ago.
- rev_bird 11y ago
  "The Clintons"? We're going to lump Hillary in with the policies of an administration that she married into?
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    Whatever. We all know Hillary was running the show back then. /s
  - Alex3917 11y ago
    It's a healthcare issue and she was head of healthcare reform.
forrestthewoods 11y ago
Of course they are. In the United States you also can't import cheap generic from Canada. Most intellectual property law is recognized and enforced internationally. Everyone on this board has a career because of IP law. We have a globally broken system in that America subsidizes the world medicinally. American companies research and develop many (not all) drugs. Americans then pay out their asshole for those drugs. Other countries then get to make those drugs for "free". Not free free. But they get to ignore the R&D costs. Eventually the camel's back will break. Research costs will become too high for 300m out of 7b to pay for. Then we can figure out a new system that works better. This is probably a good thing. I don't know what the system looks like though. No one does.
- jacobolus 11y ago
  American taxpayers fund most of the basic research through public grants to universities. The pharmaceutical industry pays for clinical trials, marketing, and bribing doctors and government officials all over the world.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > The pharmaceutical industry pays for clinical trials, marketing, and bribing doctors and government officials all over the world. Bribing goes both ways. Politicians and Doctors actively WANT to be bribed as well, let's not pretend they are victims.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- myth_buster 11y ago
  Americans then pay out their asshole for those drugs. Other countries then get to make those drugs for "free". Not free free. But they get to ignore the R&D costs. Eventually the camel's back will break. Research costs will become too high for 300m out of 7b to pay for. This "Drug industry scare card" is easily refuted [0] (check the table). But as the table below shows, drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs - in some cases twice as much - than on developing them. And besides, profit margins take into account R&D costs. [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223
creamyhorror 11y ago
Look how Novartis and other drug companies are pricing their cancer drugs: https://www.change.org/p/secretary-of-health-and-human-services-protest-high-cancer-drug-prices-so-all-patients-with-cancer-have-access-to-affordable-drugs-to-save-their-lives https://www.change.org/p/secretary-of-health-and-human-servi... Prices have increased more than tenfold between 2000 (average price $5,000-$10,000 per year) and today (average price of new cancer drugs exceeds $120,000 per year). http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/opinion/why-drugs-cost-so-much.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/opinion/why-drugs-cost-so-... Novartis, the company that makes the leukemia drug Gleevec, keeps raising the drug’s price, even though the drug has already delivered billions in profit to the company. In 2001 Novartis charged $4,540, in 2014 dollars, for a month of treatment; now it charges $8,488. In its pricing, Novartis is just keeping up with other companies as they charge more and more for their drugs. They know we can’t say no. http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/utterly-broken-drug-market-high-cost-surviving-cancer-n369261 http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/utterly-broken-drug-mar... Lauren Baumann is one of the lucky ones. Though she has cancer, chronic myeloid leukemia, it is manageable, as long as she takes a daily pill called Gleevec. Gleevec is considered a wonder drug, turning Lauren's leukemia from a death sentence to a disease she and thousands of others can live with. The problem is, even with health insurance and a full-time job, Lauren can't afford the monthly co-pay for Gleevec. It can be as high as $2,000 a month — twice the average mortgage payment in the U.S. "I feel like you get punished," says Baumann. "I didn't ask to get cancer; I didn't ask to get sick. I was 26 and I was perfectly healthy." This is essentially extortion due to price inelasticity of demand. $9,000-$12,500/month to survive, for the rest of your natural life! Patients+insurers have to pay whatever price the companies ask. For something as crucial as a life-saving drug, maybe the prices shouldn't be set only by market forces? Maybe generics should be allowed for import after patents expire the first time around? (There are analyses of drug discovery costs around, and even after all those costs and reliance on basic research funded by taxpayer money, pharma companies make a very healthy profit. Much of the money goes into marketing, which we wouldn't need so much of in a system similar to the NHS which approves drugs for dispensing countrywide.) Please sign the above Change.org petition (first link) and spread it! I normally don't make appeals, but this is one truly egregious case of unethical profiting. An international panel of 115 doctors co-authored a paper decrying these ridiculous prices and offering 7 solutions, including allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices once again (which they now aren't allowed to!): http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/07/23/155-angry-doctors-propose-7-solutions-for-terrifying-cancer-drug-prices/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/07/23/155-ang...
dandare 11y ago
I call your hypocrisy. Drug trials are expensive and the ROI is not stellar at all. Without the prospect of copyrighting the result there would be way less efficient yet safe drugs for all of us. As a fact pharma companies - despite the conspiracy - are nowhere the biggest or richest companies of the world (Pfizer roughly #48). So why did you decide that actually pharma companies - and not for example YOU - should sponsor the treatment of the poor of this world? Do you equally expect Nestle to feed the hungry for free because it produces food?
- ivanca 11y ago
  This is about IP. Not about a limited resource like food. And is very easy to understand economically: is the same reason why in Finland and other countries traffic tickets amounts are based on the income of the driver, following the same logic costs of drugs should be tied to the ability of a country to pay them. TL;DR you can't pretend asking $1.000 to an American is the same as asking $1.000 from a Nigerian
  - dandare 11y ago
    Read my post again. I am not saying the needy should pay the same as the rich - I am saying there is no reason why only the pharma companies should pay the bill for the needy.
  - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
    I'm mildly annoyed at the absurdity of people writing TL;DR after typing out three whole sentences. In case people don't know - another way to start your last sentence is: In summary...
    - CPLX 11y ago
      Thank you. This phenomenon is, in my opinion, among the most annoying things the internet has ever produced.
saosebastiao 11y ago
Drug companies do a great job at developing drugs, but then turn around and spend twice as much marketing them. Doesn't it seem like it would be a better system if government(s) set up drug development bounties, and pay the bounty in exchange for the patents? Drugs immediately gain generic availability, and the drug companies no longer need to sell their shit with Super Bowl commercials in order to make a profit.
- tsotha 11y ago
  Drug companies do spend a lot of money on marketing, but not every drug is the same. The ones you see on Superbowl commercials are usually drugs you don't need, like mild pain killers and allergy medications. My suspicion is the only reason these kinds of drugs aren't OTC is this way the drug company can get your insurance to pay. I doubt they spend much marketing drugs to treat cancer or AIDS.
- effie 11y ago
  This sounds like a great idea! It could potentially remove the massive conflict of interest drug companies are soaked in.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ksk 11y ago
The science that these drugs are based on was given to the public domain for free by scientists all around the world throughout history. Lets see if these greedy companies are willing to pay those scientists whose results they freely use. Knowledge that helps save lives should not be under copyright (nor should it be a for-profit enterprise, but that is a separate argument).
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  The free market has been pretty efficient at inventing lifesaving gadgets and processes. They are protected by patent and copyright. Its arguable they wouldn't exist otherwise. Its a lazy view that 'everything we need should be free' that ignores basic facts about invention and innovation.
  - ksk 11y ago
    If we're being generous - your argument is weak. Most governments heavily subsidize core scientific research through public funds. It is decidedly NOT a free market. The free market has always been horrible at anything to do with public good. >Its a lazy view that 'everything we need should be free' that ignores basic facts about invention and innovation Nobody said that.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Oh come on - "Knowledge that helps save lives should not be under copyright (nor should it be a for-profit enterprise, but that is a separate argument). " That's what I was getting at. Devices and processes are what patents are for, for a reason. Scientific research - ok, that's a different beast. I probably changed the subject there, sorry.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >The science that these drugs are based on was given to the public domain for free by scientists all around the world throughout history. Lets see if these greedy companies are willing to pay those scientists whose results they freely use. The scientists are normally working for hire, which means everything they discover belongs to the company or university that employs them, and universities do maintain and aggressively defend large patent portfolios. Very little of this is "given to the public domain for free". Also, drug targets are a dime a dozen. That's the easy part. What's difficult and expensive is getting a drug through the regulatory process. If drug companies aren't going to see a profit that will all have to be publicly funded.
theworstshill 11y ago
US Pharmaceutical companies don't give a damn about their own compatriots, so why wouldn't they try to monopolize the world? Back in 2010-2011, a few friends of mine showed me how an online pharmacy works, I couldn't believe it - vast majority of people ordering Indian generics are Americans. The reasons? - Costs. Theyve told me it sometimes takes multiple resends of medicines for them to get through the border. Don't know how well US clamped down on it in the past several years.
theworstshill 11y ago
The piece at the very end is enlightening: "SWISS PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY NOVARTIS first took the Indian government to court in 2006 over its patent law because Novartis wanted a more extensive granting of patent protection for its products than offered by Indian law. The company had been refused a patent in India on a cancer drug it produces. In a first case before the High Court in Chennai, Novartis claimed that the Act did not meet rules set down by the World Trade Organization and was in violation of the Indian constitution. Novartis lost this case in 2007, but launched a subsequent appeal before the Indian Supreme Court in a bid to weaken the interpretation of the law and empty it of substance. All of Novartis’s claims were rejected by the Supreme Court in a landmark decision announced on 1 April, 2013." So much for world trade organization benefiting the world through more competition and a lowering of prices. Fuckers.
werber 11y ago
There should be a global consortium for socialized medicine. It's insanely problematic to have for profit companies demanding the right to kill the poor.
raphinou 11y ago
I heard a country in europe stopped drugs import from india on quality concerns. Is that true? Is that the real reason or is there more behind that decision?
- DanBC 11y ago
  There's a recent trade deal where concerns about data led to ban on 700 meds. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ded8ca4-3b8a-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c.html#axzz3jquJ67jM http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ded8ca4-3b8a-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f59... That follows similar concerns in the US. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/asia/medicines-made-in-india-set-off-safety-worries.html?referrer=&_r=0 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/asia/medicines-ma... http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2H06Y20140318 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2H06Y20140318 (I've given up guessing what a clean URL should be. Now I'm just going to post whatever stupid URL a site gives me.)
- girishso 11y ago
  I have many friends working in Indian pharma companies, working mostly on generics. There have been some instances where USFDA has forced shutdown of the entire plants, due to non-compliance of the USFDA norms (1). But most of the time, they ban some Indian generics, and let the same Indian company manufacture certain generics that USFDA/US needs. My friends say, generics are subjected to such stringent testing by USFDA that even the branded drugs are not. 1. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm382736.htm http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/uc...

166 points by shekhar101 11y ago

>India under pressure from Pharma lobby to stop gneric medicines Title typo: should be `generic`.

Maybe the Indian generic companies should worry a little more about the frogs and flies in their manufacturing facilities. And maybe they shouldn't delete test results. Welcome to the global race to the bottom. I doubt that a little pressure from multinational pharma companies will do much to reverse the overall trend. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-03/indian-labs-deleted-drug-test-results-documents-show http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-03/indian-lab...

forgetsusername 11y ago
>I doubt that a little pressure from multinational pharma companies will do much to reverse the overall trend. Good. An imperfect (with the odd frog), but cheap, system that can save thousands of lives is perfectly acceptable to me.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  Really? I'd rather die than eat some fly poop that found its way to my life-saving medication!
  - garagemc2 11y ago
    Than do that, but don't stop others. Have your originals, let those that need it have their generics. Just because you shop at waitrose doesn't give you the right to stop people shopping at Aldi!
    - saint_fiasco 11y ago
      StavrosK is being sarcastic. That's why he specified 'life-saving medication'.
      - StavrosK 11y ago
        Thank you, you nailed it.
        garagemc2 11y ago
        My bad. Sorry.
        StavrosK 11y ago
        No problem, you can never tell with Poe's law.
        garagemc2 11y ago
        My bad. Sorry.
    - StavrosK 11y ago
      Apparently I needed the sarcasm tag. Who would take "I'd rather die than eat fly poop" seriously?
  - _-__--- 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Compounding_Center#2012_meningitis_outbreak_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Compounding_Center... The implications of dirty drug synthesis and medication compounding processes are dangerous and real. Deleted testing results are a red flag; however, keep in mind that lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence of the positive. I see this more as regulation being used to limit international competition than anything promoting general human welfare.
    - StavrosK 11y ago
      They definitely are real, but I'm not sure that the case is so clear-cut against generics. Would you rather save the lives of 100,000 people and cause 2,000 of them meningitis, or have 100,000 people die because they can't get cheap medication?
- pinaceae 11y ago
  bullshit. grandiose statement, but once your precious baby gets born with no legs your stance will be a tad different. pharma topics are so hilariously ill suited for public discussion, so many half truths and misconceptions. like grandma discussing JS frameworks - or vaccinations. fun fact: pharma offers tiered pricing, matching economic structures. HIV treatments in Africa are basically free. india plays fast and loose with pharma patents, something not even china has done. so, if even the copy-happy chinese understand the benefits of a regulated pharma market, maybe there is something to it, no? the pharma/biotech industry has saved more lives than any uber, airbnb, slack, whatever tech unicorn. the one industry that comes close is big-agriculture with GMOs and fertilizers - and guess what, the same awesome discussion happens there. /sigh
  - lewiseason 11y ago
    > pharma topics are so hilariously ill suited for public discussion, so many half truths and misconceptions If the reason they're so ill suited for public discussion is the half truths and misconceptions, statements like this one aren't doing anything to help: > once your precious baby gets born with no legs your stance will be a tad different
    - iofj 11y ago
      Whilst I agree with you. I would like to point out that babies being born with no legs (generally with appendages missing) is in fact known to be one of the great screwups of pharmacology (though anyone reporting it today would undoubtedly hold the pharma industry responsible. In my opinion that is not a reasonable position to take. It was almost unheard of to do separate pregnancy testing (it's still not common at all), therefore blaming someone for not doing them is not fair). It is even a truism to say that medicine for pregnant women (when not relating to the pregnancy itself) is far behind "normal" medicine, as for most treatments it is not known what effect they'll have on the embryo, or if there will be interactions between the pregnancy and the treatment. Of course there is also a number of treatments that can't be used because they're known to be harmful, but not nearly as many. This crisis is one of the main reasons for this. But what caused babies with no legs: The softenon/thalomide disaster. Here's the full story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects_cris... More photos illustrating exactly what went wrong can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocomelia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocomelia The scary part is that it was a problem relating to the chirality of the molecule used. Very few chemical tests of the molecule would have even revealed that there were two kinds of the molecule, and there was no good reason to assume one would cause deformed babies. In other words: this was extremely likely (and sadly) an honest mistake. 20000 deformed babies were born, about half survived (I went to school with a very cute and smart one). One enantiomer causes babies with missing appendages, one does not. Both help against a number of cancers, various serious diseases and there is some use as a sedative and it helps against morning sickness during pregnancy. Getting the chirality right is bloody hard, even for people with advanced chemistry degrees (especially getting to the required purity). This disaster is also well known for being one of the main reasons our current pharma regime is what it is.

rickdale 11y ago

This is funny because I am literally on the phone with my bank to get them to lift the block on the charge for indian provigil. I didn't realize this was a big thing, but I am excited to try the provigil. I did ask my doctor for it for what its worth, but he said its too expensive to prescribe to me. I don't have insurance...

MagicWishMonkey 11y ago
I don't think it's legal to import prescription drugs from overseas, FYI. So it might not be a good idea to discuss the transaction with your CC provider.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > I don't think it's legal to import prescription drugs from overseas, FYI. So it might not be a good idea to discuss the transaction with your CC provider. Doctors can import prescriptions drugs from other countries if they wish too, with a special import form to justify the exception.
  - 1971genocide 11y ago
    Wow ! You cannot order any drug you want from overseas in American ? It seems like a blantent violation of basic freedom.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      It is. In America, you don't own your own body, and the authorities can determine what you can put into it. (See our other backwards drug laws for more confirmation of this)
      - happyscrappy 11y ago
        Luckily the rest of the world doesn't have laws about what you can put in your body! /s And some jackass will say they had no choice because America.

qwerty85344324i 11y ago

Serious question for anyone opposes this. What incentive would pharma companies have to publish their secret formulas if Indian generics simply take the IP and drastically undercut prices, preventing the pharma companies from making any profit on the billions they invested in their research? What would compel these pharma companies to invest in any further research?

joesmo 11y ago
I think billions of dollars in profit should be enough, don't you?
- qwerty85344324i 11y ago
  I don't understand what you're implying. A drug requires billions in investment. Why would a company invest billions into a new drug if they can't make that money back?
  - hittaruki 11y ago
    As an example one of the Pharma companies mentioned Novartis is very much profitable. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-28/novartis-third-quarter-profit-climbs-on-new-products http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-28/novartis-t...
    - qwerty85344324i 11y ago
      I am still finding it hard to understand this argument. Why do you think pharma companies like Novartis will continue to be profitable if all of their patents and future patents are ignored? Why would any pharma company invest billions into new research when their IP could just be stolen by an Indian generic and sold for pennies on the dollar?
      - joesmo 11y ago
        Because they're still making billions? But hey, we're not making as many billions as we could. Let's just shut it all down for good. Your reasoning is stupid.

myth_buster 11y ago

The ominous quote "This is just the beginning" seems apt here. TPP bill [0] which is being negotiated in secret will result in more sustained damage [1]. Since R&D will be the single most critical argument, this table [2] could highlight it's fallacies. [0] https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp [1] http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news-stories/briefing-document/trading-away-health-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tpp http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news-stories/briefing-d... [2] http://i.imgur.com/3kmBKcS.png http://i.imgur.com/3kmBKcS.png

carstimon 11y ago
In case anyone else is looking, here's the story source for the last picture: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223
oneJob 11y ago
Timely. I'm reading "The Truth About the Drug Companies" by Marcia Angell. Per Wikipedia, Dr. Angell is "the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. She is currently a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts". So, a good person to write a book on the issue. Just one more example of how drug companies are taking their customers for a ride. Knowing that a drug has a finite patent life, a drug company will stagger the release of two drugs that are pharmacologically similar by patent-wise different. The drug company will introduce an "improved" drug (which we'll refer to as "nu") just as the old drug's (which we'll refer to as "pro", as in before) patent is about to expire. This is accompanied by pricing tactics such as raising the price of the "pro" drug above the "nu" drug so as to incentivize patients to switch, paying generic-producing companies not to make it, and giving hospitals preferential pricing on the "nu" drug so that it is prescribed at hospitals but then patients pay the higher rate when they go home. One of the most insidious effects of this strategy is that, the drug company is either purposely pricing people out of medicine they need or knowingly selling an inferior product for a decade or more. Highly recommend reading this book if interested on this subject: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-tru...

Alex3917 11y ago

This is hardly new. The Clintons threatened to impose trade sanctions on South Africa if they distributed HIV treatments to the poor, and that was twenty years ago.

rev_bird 11y ago
"The Clintons"? We're going to lump Hillary in with the policies of an administration that she married into?
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Whatever. We all know Hillary was running the show back then. /s
- Alex3917 11y ago
  It's a healthcare issue and she was head of healthcare reform.

forrestthewoods 11y ago

Of course they are. In the United States you also can't import cheap generic from Canada. Most intellectual property law is recognized and enforced internationally. Everyone on this board has a career because of IP law. We have a globally broken system in that America subsidizes the world medicinally. American companies research and develop many (not all) drugs. Americans then pay out their asshole for those drugs. Other countries then get to make those drugs for "free". Not free free. But they get to ignore the R&D costs. Eventually the camel's back will break. Research costs will become too high for 300m out of 7b to pay for. Then we can figure out a new system that works better. This is probably a good thing. I don't know what the system looks like though. No one does.

jacobolus 11y ago
American taxpayers fund most of the basic research through public grants to universities. The pharmaceutical industry pays for clinical trials, marketing, and bribing doctors and government officials all over the world.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > The pharmaceutical industry pays for clinical trials, marketing, and bribing doctors and government officials all over the world. Bribing goes both ways. Politicians and Doctors actively WANT to be bribed as well, let's not pretend they are victims.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
myth_buster 11y ago
Americans then pay out their asshole for those drugs. Other countries then get to make those drugs for "free". Not free free. But they get to ignore the R&D costs. Eventually the camel's back will break. Research costs will become too high for 300m out of 7b to pay for. This "Drug industry scare card" is easily refuted [0] (check the table). But as the table below shows, drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs - in some cases twice as much - than on developing them. And besides, profit margins take into account R&D costs. [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223

creamyhorror 11y ago

Look how Novartis and other drug companies are pricing their cancer drugs: https://www.change.org/p/secretary-of-health-and-human-services-protest-high-cancer-drug-prices-so-all-patients-with-cancer-have-access-to-affordable-drugs-to-save-their-lives https://www.change.org/p/secretary-of-health-and-human-servi... Prices have increased more than tenfold between 2000 (average price $5,000-$10,000 per year) and today (average price of new cancer drugs exceeds $120,000 per year). http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/opinion/why-drugs-cost-so-much.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/opinion/why-drugs-cost-so-... Novartis, the company that makes the leukemia drug Gleevec, keeps raising the drug’s price, even though the drug has already delivered billions in profit to the company. In 2001 Novartis charged $4,540, in 2014 dollars, for a month of treatment; now it charges $8,488. In its pricing, Novartis is just keeping up with other companies as they charge more and more for their drugs. They know we can’t say no. http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/utterly-broken-drug-market-high-cost-surviving-cancer-n369261 http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/utterly-broken-drug-mar... Lauren Baumann is one of the lucky ones. Though she has cancer, chronic myeloid leukemia, it is manageable, as long as she takes a daily pill called Gleevec. Gleevec is considered a wonder drug, turning Lauren's leukemia from a death sentence to a disease she and thousands of others can live with. The problem is, even with health insurance and a full-time job, Lauren can't afford the monthly co-pay for Gleevec. It can be as high as $2,000 a month — twice the average mortgage payment in the U.S. "I feel like you get punished," says Baumann. "I didn't ask to get cancer; I didn't ask to get sick. I was 26 and I was perfectly healthy." This is essentially extortion due to price inelasticity of demand. $9,000-$12,500/month to survive, for the rest of your natural life! Patients+insurers have to pay whatever price the companies ask. For something as crucial as a life-saving drug, maybe the prices shouldn't be set only by market forces? Maybe generics should be allowed for import after patents expire the first time around? (There are analyses of drug discovery costs around, and even after all those costs and reliance on basic research funded by taxpayer money, pharma companies make a very healthy profit. Much of the money goes into marketing, which we wouldn't need so much of in a system similar to the NHS which approves drugs for dispensing countrywide.) Please sign the above Change.org petition (first link) and spread it! I normally don't make appeals, but this is one truly egregious case of unethical profiting. An international panel of 115 doctors co-authored a paper decrying these ridiculous prices and offering 7 solutions, including allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices once again (which they now aren't allowed to!): http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/07/23/155-angry-doctors-propose-7-solutions-for-terrifying-cancer-drug-prices/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/07/23/155-ang...

dandare 11y ago

I call your hypocrisy. Drug trials are expensive and the ROI is not stellar at all. Without the prospect of copyrighting the result there would be way less efficient yet safe drugs for all of us. As a fact pharma companies - despite the conspiracy - are nowhere the biggest or richest companies of the world (Pfizer roughly #48). So why did you decide that actually pharma companies - and not for example YOU - should sponsor the treatment of the poor of this world? Do you equally expect Nestle to feed the hungry for free because it produces food?

ivanca 11y ago
This is about IP. Not about a limited resource like food. And is very easy to understand economically: is the same reason why in Finland and other countries traffic tickets amounts are based on the income of the driver, following the same logic costs of drugs should be tied to the ability of a country to pay them. TL;DR you can't pretend asking $1.000 to an American is the same as asking $1.000 from a Nigerian
- dandare 11y ago
  Read my post again. I am not saying the needy should pay the same as the rich - I am saying there is no reason why only the pharma companies should pay the bill for the needy.
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  I'm mildly annoyed at the absurdity of people writing TL;DR after typing out three whole sentences. In case people don't know - another way to start your last sentence is: In summary...
  - CPLX 11y ago
    Thank you. This phenomenon is, in my opinion, among the most annoying things the internet has ever produced.

saosebastiao 11y ago

Drug companies do a great job at developing drugs, but then turn around and spend twice as much marketing them. Doesn't it seem like it would be a better system if government(s) set up drug development bounties, and pay the bounty in exchange for the patents? Drugs immediately gain generic availability, and the drug companies no longer need to sell their shit with Super Bowl commercials in order to make a profit.

tsotha 11y ago
Drug companies do spend a lot of money on marketing, but not every drug is the same. The ones you see on Superbowl commercials are usually drugs you don't need, like mild pain killers and allergy medications. My suspicion is the only reason these kinds of drugs aren't OTC is this way the drug company can get your insurance to pay. I doubt they spend much marketing drugs to treat cancer or AIDS.
effie 11y ago
This sounds like a great idea! It could potentially remove the massive conflict of interest drug companies are soaked in.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ksk 11y ago

The science that these drugs are based on was given to the public domain for free by scientists all around the world throughout history. Lets see if these greedy companies are willing to pay those scientists whose results they freely use. Knowledge that helps save lives should not be under copyright (nor should it be a for-profit enterprise, but that is a separate argument).

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
The free market has been pretty efficient at inventing lifesaving gadgets and processes. They are protected by patent and copyright. Its arguable they wouldn't exist otherwise. Its a lazy view that 'everything we need should be free' that ignores basic facts about invention and innovation.
- ksk 11y ago
  If we're being generous - your argument is weak. Most governments heavily subsidize core scientific research through public funds. It is decidedly NOT a free market. The free market has always been horrible at anything to do with public good. >Its a lazy view that 'everything we need should be free' that ignores basic facts about invention and innovation Nobody said that.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Oh come on - "Knowledge that helps save lives should not be under copyright (nor should it be a for-profit enterprise, but that is a separate argument). " That's what I was getting at. Devices and processes are what patents are for, for a reason. Scientific research - ok, that's a different beast. I probably changed the subject there, sorry.
tsotha 11y ago
>The science that these drugs are based on was given to the public domain for free by scientists all around the world throughout history. Lets see if these greedy companies are willing to pay those scientists whose results they freely use. The scientists are normally working for hire, which means everything they discover belongs to the company or university that employs them, and universities do maintain and aggressively defend large patent portfolios. Very little of this is "given to the public domain for free". Also, drug targets are a dime a dozen. That's the easy part. What's difficult and expensive is getting a drug through the regulatory process. If drug companies aren't going to see a profit that will all have to be publicly funded.

theworstshill 11y ago

US Pharmaceutical companies don't give a damn about their own compatriots, so why wouldn't they try to monopolize the world? Back in 2010-2011, a few friends of mine showed me how an online pharmacy works, I couldn't believe it - vast majority of people ordering Indian generics are Americans. The reasons? - Costs. Theyve told me it sometimes takes multiple resends of medicines for them to get through the border. Don't know how well US clamped down on it in the past several years.

theworstshill 11y ago

The piece at the very end is enlightening: "SWISS PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY NOVARTIS first took the Indian government to court in 2006 over its patent law because Novartis wanted a more extensive granting of patent protection for its products than offered by Indian law. The company had been refused a patent in India on a cancer drug it produces. In a first case before the High Court in Chennai, Novartis claimed that the Act did not meet rules set down by the World Trade Organization and was in violation of the Indian constitution. Novartis lost this case in 2007, but launched a subsequent appeal before the Indian Supreme Court in a bid to weaken the interpretation of the law and empty it of substance. All of Novartis’s claims were rejected by the Supreme Court in a landmark decision announced on 1 April, 2013." So much for world trade organization benefiting the world through more competition and a lowering of prices. Fuckers.

werber 11y ago

There should be a global consortium for socialized medicine. It's insanely problematic to have for profit companies demanding the right to kill the poor.

raphinou 11y ago

I heard a country in europe stopped drugs import from india on quality concerns. Is that true? Is that the real reason or is there more behind that decision?

DanBC 11y ago
There's a recent trade deal where concerns about data led to ban on 700 meds. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ded8ca4-3b8a-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c.html#axzz3jquJ67jM http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ded8ca4-3b8a-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f59... That follows similar concerns in the US. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/asia/medicines-made-in-india-set-off-safety-worries.html?referrer=&_r=0 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/asia/medicines-ma... http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2H06Y20140318 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2H06Y20140318 (I've given up guessing what a clean URL should be. Now I'm just going to post whatever stupid URL a site gives me.)
girishso 11y ago
I have many friends working in Indian pharma companies, working mostly on generics. There have been some instances where USFDA has forced shutdown of the entire plants, due to non-compliance of the USFDA norms (1). But most of the time, they ban some Indian generics, and let the same Indian company manufacture certain generics that USFDA/US needs. My friends say, generics are subjected to such stringent testing by USFDA that even the branded drugs are not. 1. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm382736.htm http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/uc...