11 ms·

"The drug, which was invented for Ebola but failed to work, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it." Sorry, b

"The drug, which was invented for Ebola but failed to work, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it." Sorry, but if the one blessed company with the patent can't keep up with demand, and millions are going to die because there are patent restrictions, then ignore the patent laws and save some lives. It wouldn't look too good if the American government tried to stop it, essentially saying "It's against the law to save their lives, and we're going to punish you for saving them."

raxxorrax 6y ago
The real scandal is that the drug doesn't really work the well. But the government can certainly sell this as a victory, especially since Trump was accused for promoting chloroquine and now he has access to both competing "solutions".
redis_mlc 6y ago
It's all good. None of them actually work anyway. The US needs to man up and get to herd immunity since testing and tracing is a fantasy.
ponker 6y ago
Gilead has already announced that they won’t enforce the patent for coronavirus treatment. That doesn’t mean it’s easy to make, but the patent is not the issue.
credit_guy 6y ago
Actualy Gilead is allowing generics manufacturers to produce remdesivir https://www.gilead.com/purpose/advancing-global-health/covid-19/voluntary-licensing-agreements-for-remdesivir https://www.gilead.com/purpose/advancing-global-health/covid...
- PeterStuer 6y ago
  Except they declare the terms of who gets to produce it and where they can be distributed. Conveniently they reserve the exclusive rights for the 'rich' countries to themselves.
  - ketzu 6y ago
    Is that supposed to make someone angry? Because this seems like an okay solution to make back investments and still allow cheaper access for poorer nations. Still if they can't keep up with demand and there are many lifes at stake, we should probably legislate a compensated invalidation of such a patent.
    - vertex-four 6y ago
      The US is not the entirety of the countries they reserve to themselves. This process was not decided on as the most efficient by any sort of entity with an interest in public health - it's a private company performing a "goodwill" gesture.
      - ketzu 6y ago
        > The US is not the entirety of the countries they reserve to themselves. Sorry, my statement on legislation was ambigious. First, "we" was meant as "we the people of our respective countries," not limited to the US in any way. Secondly, it would probably create some international problems, so a combined effort would be nice. But I think companies should be compensated in such a case (hence "compensated invalidation") in a way that a company can reasonably accept. > This process was not decided on as the most efficient by any sort of entity with an interest in public health - it's a private company performing a "goodwill" gesture. I didn't claim that. I said it seems like an okay solution to that challenge (to me). This is independent from who came up with the idea. As I felt it was phrased in a whay to supposedly make a reader angry, I questioned why that should be the case. Maybe that was over-interpreted by me. For the same reason I would accept this as an actual goodwill gesture. I have no trouble with the idea that richer countries have to pay more for making the development worthwhile and poorer countries benefiting from that at a cheaper price, as it seems like the humane thing to do to me.
      - redanddead 6y ago
        "goodwill" I'm certain that the CEO knows just how fickle the patent is and wants to maintain as much control, gain as much money, favors etc while reducing risks, liability, losses etc.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lksaar 6y ago
Canada already did that once in regards to Cipro (anthrax antidote patented by bayer) back in 2001. The Bush gov forced Bayer to sell it for way cheaper, by threathing to buy generics instead. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/24/business/a-nation-challenged-cipro-us-says-bayer-will-cut-cost-of-its-anthrax-drug.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/24/business/a-nation-challen...
- skylanh 6y ago
  I was curious about this, so did a little search: Other interesting results were: Canada forced to honour Bayer's patent on ciprofloxacin (BMJ. 2001 Oct 27; 323(7319): 956. PMCID: PMC1172996) > In an embarrassing mix-up, Canada's federal government will pay twice for a supply of the antibiotic ciprofloxacin (marketed as Cipro) that it ordered to protect Canadians in case they are faced with an outbreak of anthrax, as has happened in the United States. ... > After a meeting of officials from the health department and both companies on Monday, the government announced it will still pay the generic firm the amount of its contract— $C1.3m (£580 000; $824 000)—and will buy another 900 000 tablets from Bayer. Bayer's price is said to be $C2.50 a tablet, compared with Apotex's $C1.50. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172996/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172996/ Canadian government almost swamped by ciprofloxacin (BMJ. 2001 Nov 3; 323(7320): 1026. PMCID: PMC1173010) > Canada's federal government has narrowly avoided having to pay for twice as much of the antibiotic ciprofloxacin (Cipro) as it thinks it needs to protect its citizens in the case of an outbreak of anthrax. > The federal health department circumvented its own drug patent rules when it ordered about 900 000 tablets of the medication from a generic drug manufacturer, Apotex. The patent, held by Bayer AG, does not expire until 2004. Bayer reportedly threatened to sue. But after an announcement by the government that it would both pay the generic firm the amount of its contract—$C1.3m (£574 000; $825 000)—and buy another 900 000 tablets from Bayer, both drug companies let the health minister, Allan Rock, off the hook. ... > Under the patent act, the government could have obtained authorisation to have a non-patented version of ciprofloxacin on a non-commercial basis, but it failed to ask for this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173010/
whymauri 6y ago
Fortunately, it's possible millions will not die in this case because remdisivir is most likely a quality-of-life therapeutic for people in the recovery phase. Your intuition is real though and my existential terror is that a real viral entry treatment will be developed, and that it may become unavailable or means-tested in an exclusionary way.
- newsbinator 6y ago
  Imagine going about your life like a normal person into your 40's or 50's, then one day deciding as the CEO of a company that you'd rather millions of people die than let your investors down or let your company go out of business. I suppose there are fiduciary duty ramifications too that will potentially ruin your life, but still... one day you're a moral, law-abiding person, the next you're a mass murderer (by abstention). And then you have to be able to sleep at night too.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    How do you imagine millions of people will die again? I plan to disagree, but first I need to know what the hell you're trying to say.
    - newsbinator 6y ago
      In the case of Remdesivir, which is hard to make, imagine you're the CEO of Gilead and the government of a country tells you they need it, people are dying without it, they're going to mass produce it at scale, and you're going to tell them how to retool their factories to produce it, since it'll take extra months of trial and error if you don't, during which people are dying and the disease is spreading exponentially. Now you have a decision to make: ignore your patent and your fiduciary duty to investors, or defend your patent in court and your right to profit from the drug you invented. Yesterday you were a moral person, today you're faced with the chance to become one of history's greatest villains. That's the crux of my earlier comment, with which you can now proceed to disagree. (Note: in reality Remdesivir seems not to be an extreme life & death drug- it only shortens recovery time, so it wouldn't quite fit into the scenario I presented).
sjg007 6y ago
Countries can nationalize the patent in times of pandemics and produce it locally. But this drug is hard to make.
- bearjaws 6y ago
  This, I work in specialty pharmacies and Remdesivir is a complicated drug to produce. Currently Gilead believe they can bring down their production time from 8-12 months 6-8 months, that means we won't see a large supply of this drug until 2021.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    I have a noobish question. Looking at Remdesivir wiki page to try to get a feeling for why it's hard to make, their are some really odd chemicals used like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimethylsilyl_triflate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimethylsilyl_triflate Why is something like this, with its silicon and sulphur atoms as part of the backbone, needed? Why wouldn't the same but with a more typical fully-carbon backbone work? If it's too complex a question, skip it, but thanks if you can shed light.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - alextheparrot 6y ago
      The short “answer” is that the reaction step needs to form a carbon-carbon bond, which isn’t always trivial to make. A fully carbon backbone is likely not reactive in the way they need it to be here. Certain “weird” metals like zinc, tin, and silicon (And these are the more normal ones) have been found to be able to help with this type of chemistry. The reason for why these metals are useful gets into orbital mechanics, but the core idea is that they can facilitate carbon-carbon bond formation. The sulphur and fluorine are standard as part of the triflate functional group — it is a stable leaving group based on wanting electrons and being stable once it grabs those electrons (The sulphur can facilitate reasonable stabilisation).
rscho 6y ago
Wouldn't be a very surprising behavior from the US government...
bmmayer1 6y ago
That said, patent restrictions are arguably the only reason the drug exists in the first place. So let's not get out over our skis here.
- sitkack 6y ago
  That said arguably that there are many kinds of methods for funding the creation of drugs. The existing system isn't the only way. Your statement is literally, "stick with the status quo". The NIH should fund and produce these drugs, no patents, free for all to produce.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    What second or third order effects might happen? I’m not saying the status quo is the only reasonable equilibrium, but if you take the profit motive out of something (anything), I worry that you’ll get fewer of society’s resources directed towards that area. Maybe that’s money, attention of the brightest/most creative thinkers, willingness to do the outright drudgery required to invent, perceived status of the field, etc. If you want a lot of drug research, you probably want to ensure that successful drug research is lucrative. (Maybe less than today, maybe making unsuccessful research or negative reproduction more lucrative than today.)
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      The scientists doing the work could be getting paid the exact same by the government as opposed to investors looking to make 1000x returns. In fact, I’m pretty sure the taxpayers are subsidizing investors with all the free research and knowledge they get from taxpayer funded higher educational facilities.
      - Google234 6y ago
        Lol if you think investors are getting 1000x returns then why aren’t you investing in all the pharma companies :)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kjaftaedi 6y ago
What about India? Aren't they famous for having laws that ignore pharmaceutical patents? One would think this would be a rather large opportunity for them.
- spzb 6y ago
  Yes. It's mentioned near the end of the article.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    Where is the article?
    - spzb 6y ago
      Erm, the link at the top of this page that we're all commenting on...
BerislavLopac 6y ago
This Twitter thread explains in detail how the pharmaceutical pricing works: https://twitter.com/chimeracoder/status/1278041777883303936 https://twitter.com/chimeracoder/status/1278041777883303936
Consultant32452 6y ago
The last studies I saw showed Remdesivir didn't actually save lives. Unless some very different studies have come out, this is just a politically connected pharma company using the pandemic to get a fat check from the US government. This is just your standard every day corruption.
- perseusprime11 6y ago
  They use some medical mumbo jumbo to show that patients spend less time at hospitals compared to other drugs and therefore Remdesivir works. They know how to lobby the scientific community so we will never know the truth. Sick patients will use and pay out of fear. I would love to see an unbiased study at some point if at all that shows the relative efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine with and without zinc and Remdesivir and other drugs.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    The Tamiflu hustle.
- plicense 6y ago
  One of my friends is an anaesthetist dealing with Covid patients day in day out in India. She works for a Government hospital and they started trying Remdesivir 3 days ago. She said all three patients that they have given the drug to have died of arrest - she does insist though that its not because of the drug but she was saying that it isn't improving things if the patient is in late stages of Covid.
  - phalangion 6y ago
    I have no idea if remdesivir works or not, but that is the problem with drugs in a shortage scenario like we're currently seeing. If there aren't enough of them, you're going to save them for the most critical patients. But those patients are the most likely to die anyway. That's why randomized controlled trials are so important. Data from a hospital that's not randomizing distribution of the drug is not really helpful.
redanddead 6y ago
Trust me Canada, India and most likely the EU too won't be waiting for anyone. As a Canadian, I've seen our government repeatedly threaten to bypass US drug patents in the last trade war we had with the US. And frankly, the cheaper drugs are for the consumer, generic or otherwise, the better. I'm certain that a life-saving drug won't be getting skipped because of a patent dispute.

raxxorrax 6y ago

The real scandal is that the drug doesn't really work the well. But the government can certainly sell this as a victory, especially since Trump was accused for promoting chloroquine and now he has access to both competing "solutions".

redis_mlc 6y ago

It's all good. None of them actually work anyway. The US needs to man up and get to herd immunity since testing and tracing is a fantasy.

ponker 6y ago

Gilead has already announced that they won’t enforce the patent for coronavirus treatment. That doesn’t mean it’s easy to make, but the patent is not the issue.

credit_guy 6y ago

Actualy Gilead is allowing generics manufacturers to produce remdesivir https://www.gilead.com/purpose/advancing-global-health/covid-19/voluntary-licensing-agreements-for-remdesivir https://www.gilead.com/purpose/advancing-global-health/covid...

PeterStuer 6y ago
Except they declare the terms of who gets to produce it and where they can be distributed. Conveniently they reserve the exclusive rights for the 'rich' countries to themselves.
- ketzu 6y ago
  Is that supposed to make someone angry? Because this seems like an okay solution to make back investments and still allow cheaper access for poorer nations. Still if they can't keep up with demand and there are many lifes at stake, we should probably legislate a compensated invalidation of such a patent.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    The US is not the entirety of the countries they reserve to themselves. This process was not decided on as the most efficient by any sort of entity with an interest in public health - it's a private company performing a "goodwill" gesture.
    - ketzu 6y ago
      > The US is not the entirety of the countries they reserve to themselves. Sorry, my statement on legislation was ambigious. First, "we" was meant as "we the people of our respective countries," not limited to the US in any way. Secondly, it would probably create some international problems, so a combined effort would be nice. But I think companies should be compensated in such a case (hence "compensated invalidation") in a way that a company can reasonably accept. > This process was not decided on as the most efficient by any sort of entity with an interest in public health - it's a private company performing a "goodwill" gesture. I didn't claim that. I said it seems like an okay solution to that challenge (to me). This is independent from who came up with the idea. As I felt it was phrased in a whay to supposedly make a reader angry, I questioned why that should be the case. Maybe that was over-interpreted by me. For the same reason I would accept this as an actual goodwill gesture. I have no trouble with the idea that richer countries have to pay more for making the development worthwhile and poorer countries benefiting from that at a cheaper price, as it seems like the humane thing to do to me.
    - redanddead 6y ago
      "goodwill" I'm certain that the CEO knows just how fickle the patent is and wants to maintain as much control, gain as much money, favors etc while reducing risks, liability, losses etc.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lksaar 6y ago

Canada already did that once in regards to Cipro (anthrax antidote patented by bayer) back in 2001. The Bush gov forced Bayer to sell it for way cheaper, by threathing to buy generics instead. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/24/business/a-nation-challenged-cipro-us-says-bayer-will-cut-cost-of-its-anthrax-drug.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/24/business/a-nation-challen...

skylanh 6y ago
I was curious about this, so did a little search: Other interesting results were: Canada forced to honour Bayer's patent on ciprofloxacin (BMJ. 2001 Oct 27; 323(7319): 956. PMCID: PMC1172996) > In an embarrassing mix-up, Canada's federal government will pay twice for a supply of the antibiotic ciprofloxacin (marketed as Cipro) that it ordered to protect Canadians in case they are faced with an outbreak of anthrax, as has happened in the United States. ... > After a meeting of officials from the health department and both companies on Monday, the government announced it will still pay the generic firm the amount of its contract— $C1.3m (£580 000; $824 000)—and will buy another 900 000 tablets from Bayer. Bayer's price is said to be $C2.50 a tablet, compared with Apotex's $C1.50. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172996/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172996/ Canadian government almost swamped by ciprofloxacin (BMJ. 2001 Nov 3; 323(7320): 1026. PMCID: PMC1173010) > Canada's federal government has narrowly avoided having to pay for twice as much of the antibiotic ciprofloxacin (Cipro) as it thinks it needs to protect its citizens in the case of an outbreak of anthrax. > The federal health department circumvented its own drug patent rules when it ordered about 900 000 tablets of the medication from a generic drug manufacturer, Apotex. The patent, held by Bayer AG, does not expire until 2004. Bayer reportedly threatened to sue. But after an announcement by the government that it would both pay the generic firm the amount of its contract—$C1.3m (£574 000; $825 000)—and buy another 900 000 tablets from Bayer, both drug companies let the health minister, Allan Rock, off the hook. ... > Under the patent act, the government could have obtained authorisation to have a non-patented version of ciprofloxacin on a non-commercial basis, but it failed to ask for this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173010/

whymauri 6y ago

Fortunately, it's possible millions will not die in this case because remdisivir is most likely a quality-of-life therapeutic for people in the recovery phase. Your intuition is real though and my existential terror is that a real viral entry treatment will be developed, and that it may become unavailable or means-tested in an exclusionary way.

newsbinator 6y ago
Imagine going about your life like a normal person into your 40's or 50's, then one day deciding as the CEO of a company that you'd rather millions of people die than let your investors down or let your company go out of business. I suppose there are fiduciary duty ramifications too that will potentially ruin your life, but still... one day you're a moral, law-abiding person, the next you're a mass murderer (by abstention). And then you have to be able to sleep at night too.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  How do you imagine millions of people will die again? I plan to disagree, but first I need to know what the hell you're trying to say.
  - newsbinator 6y ago
    In the case of Remdesivir, which is hard to make, imagine you're the CEO of Gilead and the government of a country tells you they need it, people are dying without it, they're going to mass produce it at scale, and you're going to tell them how to retool their factories to produce it, since it'll take extra months of trial and error if you don't, during which people are dying and the disease is spreading exponentially. Now you have a decision to make: ignore your patent and your fiduciary duty to investors, or defend your patent in court and your right to profit from the drug you invented. Yesterday you were a moral person, today you're faced with the chance to become one of history's greatest villains. That's the crux of my earlier comment, with which you can now proceed to disagree. (Note: in reality Remdesivir seems not to be an extreme life & death drug- it only shortens recovery time, so it wouldn't quite fit into the scenario I presented).

sjg007 6y ago

Countries can nationalize the patent in times of pandemics and produce it locally. But this drug is hard to make.

bearjaws 6y ago
This, I work in specialty pharmacies and Remdesivir is a complicated drug to produce. Currently Gilead believe they can bring down their production time from 8-12 months 6-8 months, that means we won't see a large supply of this drug until 2021.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  I have a noobish question. Looking at Remdesivir wiki page to try to get a feeling for why it's hard to make, their are some really odd chemicals used like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimethylsilyl_triflate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimethylsilyl_triflate Why is something like this, with its silicon and sulphur atoms as part of the backbone, needed? Why wouldn't the same but with a more typical fully-carbon backbone work? If it's too complex a question, skip it, but thanks if you can shed light.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - alextheparrot 6y ago
    The short “answer” is that the reaction step needs to form a carbon-carbon bond, which isn’t always trivial to make. A fully carbon backbone is likely not reactive in the way they need it to be here. Certain “weird” metals like zinc, tin, and silicon (And these are the more normal ones) have been found to be able to help with this type of chemistry. The reason for why these metals are useful gets into orbital mechanics, but the core idea is that they can facilitate carbon-carbon bond formation. The sulphur and fluorine are standard as part of the triflate functional group — it is a stable leaving group based on wanting electrons and being stable once it grabs those electrons (The sulphur can facilitate reasonable stabilisation).

rscho 6y ago

Wouldn't be a very surprising behavior from the US government...

bmmayer1 6y ago

That said, patent restrictions are arguably the only reason the drug exists in the first place. So let's not get out over our skis here.

sitkack 6y ago
That said arguably that there are many kinds of methods for funding the creation of drugs. The existing system isn't the only way. Your statement is literally, "stick with the status quo". The NIH should fund and produce these drugs, no patents, free for all to produce.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  What second or third order effects might happen? I’m not saying the status quo is the only reasonable equilibrium, but if you take the profit motive out of something (anything), I worry that you’ll get fewer of society’s resources directed towards that area. Maybe that’s money, attention of the brightest/most creative thinkers, willingness to do the outright drudgery required to invent, perceived status of the field, etc. If you want a lot of drug research, you probably want to ensure that successful drug research is lucrative. (Maybe less than today, maybe making unsuccessful research or negative reproduction more lucrative than today.)
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    The scientists doing the work could be getting paid the exact same by the government as opposed to investors looking to make 1000x returns. In fact, I’m pretty sure the taxpayers are subsidizing investors with all the free research and knowledge they get from taxpayer funded higher educational facilities.
    - Google234 6y ago
      Lol if you think investors are getting 1000x returns then why aren’t you investing in all the pharma companies :)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kjaftaedi 6y ago

What about India? Aren't they famous for having laws that ignore pharmaceutical patents? One would think this would be a rather large opportunity for them.

spzb 6y ago
Yes. It's mentioned near the end of the article.
- sukilot 6y ago
  Where is the article?
  - spzb 6y ago
    Erm, the link at the top of this page that we're all commenting on...

BerislavLopac 6y ago

This Twitter thread explains in detail how the pharmaceutical pricing works: https://twitter.com/chimeracoder/status/1278041777883303936 https://twitter.com/chimeracoder/status/1278041777883303936

Consultant32452 6y ago

The last studies I saw showed Remdesivir didn't actually save lives. Unless some very different studies have come out, this is just a politically connected pharma company using the pandemic to get a fat check from the US government. This is just your standard every day corruption.

perseusprime11 6y ago
They use some medical mumbo jumbo to show that patients spend less time at hospitals compared to other drugs and therefore Remdesivir works. They know how to lobby the scientific community so we will never know the truth. Sick patients will use and pay out of fear. I would love to see an unbiased study at some point if at all that shows the relative efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine with and without zinc and Remdesivir and other drugs.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  The Tamiflu hustle.
plicense 6y ago
One of my friends is an anaesthetist dealing with Covid patients day in day out in India. She works for a Government hospital and they started trying Remdesivir 3 days ago. She said all three patients that they have given the drug to have died of arrest - she does insist though that its not because of the drug but she was saying that it isn't improving things if the patient is in late stages of Covid.
- phalangion 6y ago
  I have no idea if remdesivir works or not, but that is the problem with drugs in a shortage scenario like we're currently seeing. If there aren't enough of them, you're going to save them for the most critical patients. But those patients are the most likely to die anyway. That's why randomized controlled trials are so important. Data from a hospital that's not randomizing distribution of the drug is not really helpful.

redanddead 6y ago

Trust me Canada, India and most likely the EU too won't be waiting for anyone. As a Canadian, I've seen our government repeatedly threaten to bypass US drug patents in the last trade war we had with the US. And frankly, the cheaper drugs are for the consumer, generic or otherwise, the better. I'm certain that a life-saving drug won't be getting skipped because of a patent dispute.