5 ms·

Is there no end to what the US Govt will do for large lobby groups? Here the US seems to be opposing the rights of Lat-Am countries to use emergency measures t

by r0h1n 13y ago

Is there no end to what the US Govt will do for large lobby groups? Here the US seems to be opposing the rights of Lat-Am countries to use emergency measures to protect their citizens against "Chagas disease" because that would deny its pharma companies a lucrative & desperate market. >> Take the following snippet, from Article QQ.A.5: >> (a) The obligations of this Chapter do not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health by promoting access to medicines for all, in particular concerning cases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, [US oppose: chagas] and other epidemics as well as circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency. >> Here, "[US oppose: chagas]" indicates the word "chagas" is disputed, with the United States opposing its inclusion in the treaty. This is a reference to Chagas disease, a form of trypanosomiasis, a parasitic disease primarily affecting Latin America. U.S. opposition can probably be attributed to pressure from the pharmaceutical industry.

lukeschlather 13y ago
> Is there no end to what the US Govt will do for large lobby groups? Clearly, from the snippet you reference, the US Govt is striking a compromise. If there were no end, the US would oppose the whole section, not just the inclusion of chagas.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  This is rich. So developing countries ought to be happy because the US does not oppose all their efforts to control large-scale public epidemics using emergency measures, but only some. Pray tell me, how is this a "compromise" for anyone other than US pharma companies angry at being denied the ability to milk poorer governments? Please remember: this exemption isn't for all medication or treatment, but for "HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other epidemics as well as circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency"
- coldtea 13y ago
  >* If there were no end, the US would oppose the whole section, not just the inclusion of chagas.* What benevolence!
lylebarrere 13y ago
Most of the US position has been set by large lobby groups. They're the only one who have been allowed access to the negotiations or draft text until this leek.
cma 13y ago
The listed diseases were listed as exempt no matter what; any other disease in an emergency was listed as exempt. Therefore with the us wording patent-knockoff chagas cures would be allowed in a chagas emergency. Still, we need a better way to fund drug research. These treaties should be doing things like cooperative payments towards research. But that wouldn't be "free trade" so the ayn rand/milton friedman/greenspan zealots would have a fit =(
- r0h1n 13y ago
  > with the us wording patent-knockoff chagas cures would be allowed in a chagas emergency. I'm not clear what you meant by that. Are you saying the US objection was to allow generics treatment of Chagas in any form? FYI - here is the WHO fact sheet on Chagas disease. Seems like a major public health issue for Lat-Am countries. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs340/en/index.html http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs340/en/index.htm...
  - pjc50 13y ago
    The US is requiring Lat-Am countries to enforce US patents on Chagas treatments, rather than let them be manufactured locally at lower cost.
jonnybgood 13y ago
>"Is there no end to what the US Govt will do for large lobby groups?" This is not an issue. "Large lobby groups" also include organizations such as the EFF, ACLU, unions, and foundations such as the Gates Foundation. And let's not forget the biggest lobby group of all: the American citizenry. If you ever wrote your elected representative to vote a certain way, you are lobbying. >"...because that would deny its pharma companies a lucrative & desperate market." Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't make sense. HIV/AIDS is also a lucrative desperate market with no vaccine currently available. Heck, why is the US okay with malaria being on there even? Also, wouldn't the Latin-Am governments purchase supplies and any future vaccines from the pharma companies? In a national emergency, the government throws more money at the issue. So, when there is a Chagas vaccine, the Latin-Am government can throw more money at the pharma company who is producing the vaccine. How is the pharma industry benefiting from the US striking out Chagas?
- Carioca 13y ago
  > "taking measures to protect public health by promoting access to medicines for all" actually means "break the patent". We did just that here in Brazil in the 90s with some AIDS drugs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Brazil#Drug_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Brazil#Drug_patent...
  - jonnybgood 13y ago
    Okay I see. Thank you for the link.
- alwaysinshade 13y ago
  let's not forget the biggest lobby group of all: the American citizenry Does the citizenry have the same level of access to negotiating parts of the TPP as the lobby groups who paid admission? IIRC, the citizenry have been completely cut out of the process. They didn't even know the contents of the TPP. What r0h1n possibly implied is that the US Govt backs interests that are paid for.
  - 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 13y ago
I don't find this a very plausible argument. Malaria and TB aren't big problems in the states either, so why not treat them the same way? TB drugs ain't cheap.
fit2rule 13y ago
Given that nearly the entire US Gov't gets high on its pharmaceutical supply daily, it shouldn't be any surprise that Pharmaceutical, Inc. is running the US Gov't on a junky supply line. There is little that can be done except stop providing massive profits to drug dealers. Good luck with that.

by r0h1n 13y ago

lukeschlather 13y ago

> Is there no end to what the US Govt will do for large lobby groups? Clearly, from the snippet you reference, the US Govt is striking a compromise. If there were no end, the US would oppose the whole section, not just the inclusion of chagas.

r0h1n 13y ago
This is rich. So developing countries ought to be happy because the US does not oppose all their efforts to control large-scale public epidemics using emergency measures, but only some. Pray tell me, how is this a "compromise" for anyone other than US pharma companies angry at being denied the ability to milk poorer governments? Please remember: this exemption isn't for all medication or treatment, but for "HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other epidemics as well as circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency"
coldtea 13y ago
>* If there were no end, the US would oppose the whole section, not just the inclusion of chagas.* What benevolence!

lylebarrere 13y ago

Most of the US position has been set by large lobby groups. They're the only one who have been allowed access to the negotiations or draft text until this leek.

cma 13y ago

The listed diseases were listed as exempt no matter what; any other disease in an emergency was listed as exempt. Therefore with the us wording patent-knockoff chagas cures would be allowed in a chagas emergency. Still, we need a better way to fund drug research. These treaties should be doing things like cooperative payments towards research. But that wouldn't be "free trade" so the ayn rand/milton friedman/greenspan zealots would have a fit =(

r0h1n 13y ago
> with the us wording patent-knockoff chagas cures would be allowed in a chagas emergency. I'm not clear what you meant by that. Are you saying the US objection was to allow generics treatment of Chagas in any form? FYI - here is the WHO fact sheet on Chagas disease. Seems like a major public health issue for Lat-Am countries. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs340/en/index.html http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs340/en/index.htm...
- pjc50 13y ago
  The US is requiring Lat-Am countries to enforce US patents on Chagas treatments, rather than let them be manufactured locally at lower cost.

jonnybgood 13y ago

>"Is there no end to what the US Govt will do for large lobby groups?" This is not an issue. "Large lobby groups" also include organizations such as the EFF, ACLU, unions, and foundations such as the Gates Foundation. And let's not forget the biggest lobby group of all: the American citizenry. If you ever wrote your elected representative to vote a certain way, you are lobbying. >"...because that would deny its pharma companies a lucrative & desperate market." Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't make sense. HIV/AIDS is also a lucrative desperate market with no vaccine currently available. Heck, why is the US okay with malaria being on there even? Also, wouldn't the Latin-Am governments purchase supplies and any future vaccines from the pharma companies? In a national emergency, the government throws more money at the issue. So, when there is a Chagas vaccine, the Latin-Am government can throw more money at the pharma company who is producing the vaccine. How is the pharma industry benefiting from the US striking out Chagas?

Carioca 13y ago
> "taking measures to protect public health by promoting access to medicines for all" actually means "break the patent". We did just that here in Brazil in the 90s with some AIDS drugs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Brazil#Drug_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Brazil#Drug_patent...
- jonnybgood 13y ago
  Okay I see. Thank you for the link.
alwaysinshade 13y ago
let's not forget the biggest lobby group of all: the American citizenry Does the citizenry have the same level of access to negotiating parts of the TPP as the lobby groups who paid admission? IIRC, the citizenry have been completely cut out of the process. They didn't even know the contents of the TPP. What r0h1n possibly implied is that the US Govt backs interests that are paid for.
- 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 13y ago

I don't find this a very plausible argument. Malaria and TB aren't big problems in the states either, so why not treat them the same way? TB drugs ain't cheap.

fit2rule 13y ago

Given that nearly the entire US Gov't gets high on its pharmaceutical supply daily, it shouldn't be any surprise that Pharmaceutical, Inc. is running the US Gov't on a junky supply line. There is little that can be done except stop providing massive profits to drug dealers. Good luck with that.