Author Topic: Bayer doesn't want healthy people  (Read 2048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5680
Bayer doesn't want healthy people
« on: March 05, 2013, 10:16:19 am »
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2013/03/05/india-bayer-patent-dispute.html

So Bayer is basically extorting Indians:

Quote
India's patent appeals office has rejected Bayer AG's plea to stop the production of a cheaper generic version of a patented cancer drug in a ruling that health groups say is an important precedent for getting inexpensive lifesaving medicines to the poor.

Last year, India's patent office allowed local drug manufacturer Natco Pharma Ltd. to produce a generic version of Bayer's kidney and liver cancer drug Nexavar on the grounds it would make the drug available to the public at a reasonably affordable price. It was the first use of compulsory licensing under Indian patent laws passed in 2005.

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board rejected the German drug maker's appeal of the 2012 ruling on Monday. It also ruled that under the license Natco must pay 7 per cent in royalties on net sales to Bayer.

Bayer sells a one month supply of the drug for about $5,600. Natco's version would cost Indian patients $175 a month, less than 1/30th as much.

Yeah. $5,600 for one month. In India.

And how about $1,800/month for an HIV drug?

Quote
The decision might encourage Indian drug makers to explore the compulsory license route to manufacturing drugs that are critical in the treatment of HIV patients.

"We have started to switch people we treat for HIV who develop drug resistance on to newer medicines. But these are expensive, which means not everyone who needs the medicine can afford it," said Menghaney.

She said a World Health Organization-recommended drug such as Raltegravir costs nearly $1,800 per person per year, an unaffordable sum for most HIV patients in India.

The WTO does allow this, apparently:

Quote
Under World Trade Organization rules, governments have the right to issue compulsory licenses to overcome barriers to access to cheaper versions of a patented drug without the consent of the company that invented the drug.

They also bar the practice of making small changes to treatments to keep obtaining patents:

Quote
Meanwhile, Swiss drug maker Novartis AG is awaiting a decision by India's Supreme Court on the rejection of patents for its cancer drug Gleevec. That case revolves around a different legal provision allowing India to block "evergreening" — extensions of patents based on minor changes to existing treatments.

The Supreme Court's ruling on the case is expected soon.

I am not surprised by any of this, at least so far as the drug companies' actions go.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Distind

  • Guest
Re: Bayer doesn't want healthy people
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2013, 07:56:34 am »
To be fair there is a MASSIVE amount of money that goes into research on these things and as private corporations they want a return on their investment. A wonderful argument why corporations are the last group in the world that should be doing this research.

Though it does do a wonderful job of pointing out how screwed mutinational companies are when trying to cater to mutiple parts of the globe. What the US can afford(which really isn't either of the prices listed either) is very different than india, but if they sell it cheaper in india the people in the US will find a way to buy it there and get it back to the US. At least short of something resembling an even level in global wages, but if that happened there'd be no where left to outsource the real work to so management can keep it's bonuses growing.

I mean really, how long before this drug starts hitting every other country in the world where someone can't afford bayer's version? I'd say a few weeks after production starts.

Offline Sylvana

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
  • Gender: Female
Re: Bayer doesn't want healthy people
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2013, 09:20:30 am »
To be fair there is a MASSIVE amount of money that goes into research on these things and as private corporations they want a return on their investment. A wonderful argument why corporations are the last group in the world that should be doing this research.

This has always bugged me, I understand the massive investment in getting the new drug out, and that they want to get a return, but all to often the price is hugely inflated. Wouldn't it make more sense from an economics point of view to lower the price making it more affordable and hence encouraging more people to buy. Especially with regards to long term drug treatments like HIV drugs.

I understand the way the patent works, but I cant help but feel that medicine is something that shouldn't be patented. Surely there is some way to profit from researching these medicines without using the patent rights to shaft the people who actually need the medicine. There must be some kind of compromise or middle ground.

Offline mellenORL

  • Pedal Pushing Puppy Peon
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Gender: Female
Re: Bayer doesn't want healthy people
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2013, 10:32:23 am »
The life-or-death need patients have for certain drugs is a major pricing lever used by big pharma. BTW, Bayer may also be responsible for the mysterious plague that is destoying the world honey bee population; two of their pest resistant chemical coated seed products grow crops that are saturated with pesticide within all the plant cells, including pollen and nectar. They are no better than Monsanto, in my book, which is to say I wish their CEO's and legal teams would all just spontaneously combust, for the betterment of the human race.
Quote from: Ultimate Chatbot That Totally Passes The Turing Test
I sympathize completely. However, to use against us. Let me ask you a troll. On the one who pulled it. But here's the question: where do I think it might as well have stepped out of all people would cling to a layman.

Distind

  • Guest
Re: Bayer doesn't want healthy people
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2013, 12:06:30 pm »
To be fair there is a MASSIVE amount of money that goes into research on these things and as private corporations they want a return on their investment. A wonderful argument why corporations are the last group in the world that should be doing this research.

This has always bugged me, I understand the massive investment in getting the new drug out, and that they want to get a return, but all to often the price is hugely inflated. Wouldn't it make more sense from an economics point of view to lower the price making it more affordable and hence encouraging more people to buy. Especially with regards to long term drug treatments like HIV drugs.
Simply put they want a return on their investment NOW. Toss money into it for years, only to get a trickle back over production costs? Never! Or so sayth my financee teacher. Though it doesn't really hurt that it's nearly impossible to properly quantify the costs of researching a particular drug. It pretty much comes to covering the costs of any and all R&D work being done by the company at that time. Plus we're talking life saving drugs here, people will go into massive amounts of debt to stay alive, or a great deal of the burden will be shifted off to insurance companies.

Quote
I understand the way the patent works, but I cant help but feel that medicine is something that shouldn't be patented. Surely there is some way to profit from researching these medicines without using the patent rights to shaft the people who actually need the medicine. There must be some kind of compromise or middle ground.
I'm starting to think patents are getting close to past their usefulness. Software patents do a wonderful job of showing just how absurd they can get. These days any prick with a computer engineering degree and some time can toss together a tablet, but we've got companies suing eachother over the most basic features of them. It's one thing to reverse engineer someone's process and/or rip off their product, it's another thing all together to just fucking do something that a massive number of people are capable of doing.