|
November 1, 2001
Alexander
Cockburn
FBI
Eyes Torture
William Blum
Unleashing the
CIA
October 31, 2001
Tom Turnipseed
Terrorize
the Poor,
Subsidize the Rich
Chris Clarke
Thank God
for Berkeley
Steve
Perry
The
Silent Genocide
October 30, 2001
Rep. Ron Paul
War on Terror
Bad as War on Drugs
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Flying
Blind:
The Predator's Problem
Ali Abunimah
Dear Colin
Powell
St. Clair/Cockburn
Atomic
Trains Grounded
Maud Hurd
We Need a Real
Stimulus Package
Dr. Susan
Block
We're
All Afghans Now
Tariq Ali
Busted in Munich
Francis
Beer
Toward
the Terrorist
Anti-World
October 29, 2001
Alexander Cockburn
The Left
and the Just War
John Pilger
Hidden
Agenda
of the War on Terror
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published Oct. 15, 2001
8-Page Special
Issue
War Diary
CIA's Assassination Plan a
History of Torture in US Prisons
bin Laden
and Bush Business Connections
Aisha Ikramuddin on the Hidden
Hype of US Food Bombs
Peter Linebaugh
on Pakistan
Christopher Hitchens' Love for Mrs. Thatcher
Jiang Zemin
Tells Bush: Nuke 'Em
Search
CounterPunch
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
Responses to 9/11:
Chomsky, Russell Banks,
Zinn, and Alice Walker
A Free ebook from
Seven Stories Press
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
November 1,
2001
The Drug Companies'
Killer Deal
Dying for Patents
By Dean Baker
Over the centuries, people have sacrificed
their lives for many reasons -- love of country, devotion to
their faith, or commitment to a political ideology -- but now
people are being asked to give their lives for something new:
patent protection.
In case you missed it, this
situation may come to pass in the United States, because the
German pharmaceutical company Bayer holds the patent on Cipro,
the preferred drug for treating anthrax. While Bayer has agreed
to cut the government a break on the price it charges for Cipro,
it still will not be able to deliver the massive quantities
being sought by the government until January.
By contrast, there are several
Indian generic producers who make a high quality version of
the drug. They are prepared to deliver as much Cipro as the
government needs almost immediately, at approximately one tenth
the discount price agreed to by Bayer. Out of respect for Bayer's
patent, the U.S. government has refused to deal with these Indian
pharmaceutical producers.
While it is not likely, it
is certainly possible that there will be some massive anthrax
attack directed against a major city at any time. If the country
lacks the necessary stockpiles of drugs, then we could see hundreds
or even thousands of unnecessary deaths.
If this nightmare still sounds
too hypothetical, consider the case of the tens of millions
of people who are H.I.V. positive in developing nations. At
their patent protected prices -- which can exceed $10,000 a
year, AIDS drugs are completely unaffordable to people in poor
countries. However, generic producers can make the same drugs
for $300 a year or less. This is still expensive for desperately
poor people, but it is a price that can be realistically met
with international aid and support from private charities. In
short, patent protection can sentence millions of people to
death in developing nations.
The pharmaceutical industry
doesn't deny these basic facts, but they quickly fire back that
they need patent protection to support their life-saving research.
They argue that the patent monopolies allow them to earn enough
money to fund the research that produces these drugs in the
first place.
This claim is at best half
true. Much of the most important research was funded with our
tax dollars by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In many
cases, the industry just came along in the final phases of testing
in order to claim the patent rights. In fact, according to the
industry's own numbers, more research is actually supported
by the government and private foundations and charities, than
by the pharmaceutical companies
Of course the industry does
useful research -- but the question is what price are we paying
for it? In the case of case of Cipro, Bayer's patent-protected
drug ordinarily sells for about 20 times the price that the
Indian generic producers would charge. While the difference
may not always be that large, even if the patent-protected price
is just four times the cost of the generic, it means that we
are paying $100 billion a year in higher drug prices due to
patent protection.
For this $100 billion in higher
drug prices, according to the industry, we are getting about
$20 billion in research (net of tax credits). This means that
unless the industry research is five times as effective -- on
a dollar-for-dollar basis -- as the research supported by NIH
or private foundations, we are losing on this deal. Of course,
much of the industry research goes to copycat drugs, designed
to get around competitors' patents, or lifestyle drugs, like
Rogaine and other remedies for baldness. Therefore, it seems
unlikely that every research dollar spent by the big pharmaceutical
companies is worth five dollars spent by NIH or private foundations.
But the really great thing
about supporting the research through the public or non-profit
sector is that once a drug is developed, we wouldn't have to
deny people access because of patents. The costs of the research
would have been paid up front. In meeting the health needs of
our population -- and the populations of developing nations
-- the only issue that would need to be considered would be
the actual cost of producing the drugs. We would no longer have
to worry about the pharmaceutical industry's claims to have
a right to earn monopoly profits.
Throughout human history, many
people have given their lives for questionable causes. But no
one should have to sacrifice their lives for patent protection.
Dean Baker is Co-Director of the Center
for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.
|