Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Patents United States

Big Pharma Presses US To Quash Cheap Drug Production In India 255

Posted by Soulskill
from the protecting-a-business-model dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), are leaning on the United States government to discourage India from allowing the production and sale of affordable generic drugs to treat diseases such as cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. India is currently on the U.S. government's Priority Watch List — countries whose practices on protecting intellectual property Washington believes should be monitored closely. Last year Novartis lost a six-year legal battle after the Indian Supreme court ruled that small changes and improvements to the drug Glivec did not amount to innovation deserving of a patent. Western drugmakers Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche Holding, Sanofi, and others have a bigger share of the fast-growing drug market in India. But they have been frustrated by a series of decisions on patents and pricing, as part of New Delhi's push to increase access to life-saving treatments in a place where only 15 percent of 1.2 billion people are covered by health insurance. One would certainly understand and probably agree with the need for for cheaper drugs. But don't forget that big pharma, for all its problems still is the number one creator of new drugs. In 2012 alone, the U.S. government and private companies spent a combined $130 billion (PDF) on medical research."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Big Pharma Presses US To Quash Cheap Drug Production In India

Comments Filter:
  • by PCM2 (4486) on Friday February 07, 2014 @06:48PM (#46191229) Homepage

    I think it's terrible that the US would try to keep more people from getting access to effective, affordable remedies, such as beta blockers.

    • by slashmydots (2189826) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @03:03AM (#46193819)
      Effective my ass. Big drug companies want to keep you alive and still partially sick so you pay them your entire life savings. They don't cure anything. They just magically make all the symptoms disappear and keep you alive unless you stop taking them. You think they want to cure seasonal allergies? Hell no! They get a good chunk of my income on allergy meds. They can either make the money once on a cure or once a day forever. Hmm, I wonder.
  • by djupedal (584558) on Friday February 07, 2014 @06:50PM (#46191243)
    BPharma leaning on the govt.? This is right _after_ they land another donkey punch, right..? Cause we know who is using whom here... Calling it a 'lean' $eem$ to overlook an ongoing love affair, after all. Unless you mean they're leaning on the govt, for more profits and immunity when this turns bigger than it is now, because fake and adulterated consumer drugs in this and all the other markets the control aren't a new thing.
  • Jai Hind! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Applehu Akbar (2968043) on Friday February 07, 2014 @06:54PM (#46191269)
    This is real News for Nerds. We need to support this effort by India to bust the pharma monopoly if we are ever going to afford medical care in this country. It doesn't matter whether that care is public or private; either style of payment encounters the same tsunami of uncontrolled cost.

    But of course, reams of whiny butthurt over the proposed new appearance of Slashdot trumps all real issues this week. Will you crybabies please boycott the site as you have promised and let the rest of us get back to discussing real issues? You're like those Hollywood cokebrains who promise to leave the US whenever some Republican gets elected, but who let us down every time.

    • Re:Jai Hind! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by s.petry (762400) on Friday February 07, 2014 @07:07PM (#46191373)

      I agree with the meat of your statement. At the same time, what gets neglected in these debates is that the Government "should" have a small role in the industry. Primarily, making sure that the drugs being sold are safe.

      That "safe" has a few meanings, such as ensuring there are no materials in the drugs that should not be there. Ensuring that the drugs contain what they are supposed to contain, and that the levels are correct. Legally today, our supposedly "controlled" environment can get away with giving you 80% of what they are supposed to give you. They can put trace levels of mercury into vaccines too, so our "controlled" environment is not doing so well.

      Point being, yes there should not be this nasty monopoly. Further, there should be more law suits for false advertising against drug agencies, and many people should be in jail for releasing dangerous drugs without advising the public to the dangers (Guardasil).

      Our "Government" is failing on all accounts. Not the agents fault mind you, but the agencies fault.

      • Re:Jai Hind! (Score:4, Informative)

        by ebno-10db (1459097) on Friday February 07, 2014 @07:34PM (#46191569)

        They can put trace levels of mercury into vaccines

        You're talking about thimerosal. They stopped using that in 1999. I'm not a big defender of big pharma, but for the record. What's interesting is that the FDA banned it from livestock vaccines before they stopped using it on humans.

      • Re:Jai Hind! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by icebike (68054) on Friday February 07, 2014 @07:49PM (#46191663)

        That "safe" has a few meanings, such as ensuring there are no materials in the drugs that should not be there. Ensuring that the drugs contain what they are supposed to contain, and that the levels are correct.

        How about assuring that the drug doesn't doesn't actually kill you?

        Safety is one aspect, effectiveness is another. Neither should be left in the hands of drug developers.

        We've been down that path before. Every civilized country in the world over sees and regulates the development of drugs. Many countries simply accept the EU or US regulations because they are too small to support their own programs.

        We let big Tobacco self regulate right up to 2009. Had the FDA started regulating them in the 30s when it became apparent how bad smoking was who knows how many lives would have been changed.

      • Re:Jai Hind! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Applehu Akbar (2968043) on Friday February 07, 2014 @08:18PM (#46191925)
        There is no necessary connection between assuring drug safety and using the legal system to prop up a monopoly, although the FDA long ago mission-crept beyond its safety mandate to become a willing enabler of Bigger And Bigger Pharma. The FDA keeps compounds that have been selling in Europe and Canada off the US market for years, just to delay competition with one of the big domestic moneymakers. You're not going to convince me that European safety agencies are more lax than the FDA.

        Guys, were you aware that in April, 2012, the patent on Viagra expired? But this was not a great day in the history of masculinity because Pfizer was able to get a federal judge to extend its reign to 2019 on the usual mysterious technical grounds.

        • Re:Jai Hind! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by pepty (1976012) on Saturday February 08, 2014 @03:10AM (#46193849)
          The original patent on sildenafil expired in 2012 and now you can get generic sildenafil in the US. The '446 patent that claims using sildenafil to treat erectile disfunction hasn't expired yet. Canada threw out the '446 Viagra patent because it didn't spell out which of the eleventy bazillion compounds it claimed was actually tested and proven to work.
      • Re:Jai Hind! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Uberbah (647458) on Friday February 07, 2014 @09:03PM (#46192277)

        At the same time, what gets neglected in these debates is that the Government "should" have a small role in the industry. Primarily, making sure that the drugs being sold are safe.

        Why not a large role. As in, publicly finance 100% of drug research, since the worst university could piss away 50% of it's funding and still have a better return than Pharma, who spend more than that on stock options and advertizing.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Because corporates such as the Pharma companies own your politicians?

          I just love the line "But don't forget that big pharma, for all its problems still is the number one creator of new drugs.".

          Install government-backed monopolies. Let universities use any public grants to research drugs and then sell the patents from that research to said companies. Allow them to buy legislation and orgs like the FDA outright. Turn a blind eye to 1,000,000 dodgy and anticompetitive practices.
          Allow said companies to complete

    • let the rest of us get back to discussing real issues?

      Enjoy it while you can, because when Beta goes mandatory, there will not be any more comments.

    • by guises (2423402)
      I'd add: patents are definitely big news for nerds - we get endless stories about how tech patents are holding back innovation. So why can't we have patent reform? This story, fervent lobbying by drug companies relating to international generics, is the reason.

      Drug companies have pushed very hard to make sure that the United States insists that all patents be treated equal in every international trade agreement that they sign. People sometimes erroneously believe that this has something to do with softwar
  • by Alain Williams (2972) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Friday February 07, 2014 @06:55PM (#46191277) Homepage

    that poor people die because they cannot buy the cheap drugs that may save their lives than a few rich western pharma lose any profit. :-(

    Let them produce cheap drugs for local consumption. OK don't allow them to be imported to the west where (most) people can afford them. But condemning people to die just to protect your profits is, frankly, sick. Maybe not much different from tobacco companies, but still sick.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by user317 (656027)

      So let me be the devils advocate here,

      The argument is that if India does this the rest will follow and then the companies will not be able to make up their research costs to facilitate the development of new drugs, since the current batch of drugs was researched with the expectation of selling them worldwide.

      If pharmaceutical companies are making that much money, why doesn't India create their own state or private pharmaceutical companies (or buy a stake in Pfizer) and use the profits to pay for local drugs

      • by trims (10010) on Friday February 07, 2014 @07:34PM (#46191557) Homepage

        The current crop (and the future crops, too) of drugs were NEVER intended to have to recoup costs out of non-developed-world countries.

        In fact, pretty much ALL drug research is based solely on the American market. That is, everything else outside the American market is gravy (or, in this case, pure profit). The metrics are driven by how long it takes to recoup money from the USA's market.

        The reason why is that the US drug market (due to a combination of large population, and completely unregulated pricing) is so much more lucrative than anywhere else, by an order of magnitude even more than Western Europe. That's right - the USA alone brings in more profit THAN THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD for a drug.

        Letting India manufacture these domestically (and, heck, the entire rest of the developed world) wouldn't affect drug research and investment strategies one little bit. The big fear from drug companies is reimportation, where drugs manufactured in India are imported back into the USA for sale, without the major patent premium being paid. This is fairly trivially avoidable.

        So, yeah, in the end, it's about squeezing that last dime in profits out of people, and not fundamentally giving a damned about anything else.

        • by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Friday February 07, 2014 @11:05PM (#46192981) Homepage Journal

          Letting India manufacture these domestically (and, heck, the entire rest of the developed world) wouldn't affect drug research and investment strategies one little bit. The big fear from drug companies is reimportation, where drugs manufactured in India are imported back into the USA for sale, without the major patent premium being paid. This is fairly trivially avoidable.

          So, yeah, in the end, it's about squeezing that last dime in profits out of people, and not fundamentally giving a damned about anything else.

          Modafinal is a drug available from India on the cheap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
          commercially it was being sold as Provigil.

          The article I didn't read hits upon this drug, I've purchased it a few times from India as Provigil (with a prescription), it's come I'm sure as modafinil.

          Provigil's patent was to expire in 2012 thus begot Nuvigil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org] which is slower acting, Provigil's patent was renewed for a very long time, I haven't got an answer to when, but told it's no time soon.

          Nuvigil runs around $20 a tablet, Provigil $25 a box of 50 (India), Provigil isn't being sold anymore (in the US) that I know of just kept for it's patent.

          Modafinal is your basic generic drug, everything after is research.

          In the case of Newvigil, it being such an exceptional drug they are asking for more than it's worth, where as Modafinal being virtually the same thing, is asking it's manufacture price and a bit of profit.

        • by msobkow (48369)

          Early five digits. :D

        • by msobkow (48369)

          I think their concern is that US courts might start following the Indian court's views on what constitutes "obvious" tweaking for the sole purpose of extending a patent.

          That fear is worth spending hundreds of millions in court to salve the terror of lost revenue on a global (including US) scale.

          Not that they deserve money for trivial reforumulations, such as the "safer" Oxycontin packaging. The main drug itself has not changed so there should never have been a patent extension allowed. Packaging is j

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Uberbah (647458)

        The argument is that if India does this the rest will follow and then the companies will not be able to make up their research costs

        The problem for the devil's argument is that Pharma spends double the amount on advertizing that they do on research. This is about a greedy industry seeking to extract every last dollar it can, even if it means some poor folks on the other side of the planet will die. Not recouping research costs.

        • by geekoid (135745)

          "The problem for the devil's argument is that Pharma spends double the amount on advertizing that they do on research. "
          nope.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/ma... [forbes.com]

          • you quote FORBES to tell us that we should be thankful and grateful for the generosity of Pharma?

            since when is forbes speaking for the little guy? they are whores to big business and anything they say should be assumed to be highly biased.

            its pretty well known that pharma wastes more money (ads) than they use for real research. and, a lot of research is done at universities, where we have already funded!

            • by pepty (1976012)
              Pharma spending isn't a teeter totter between marketing and R&D. To a first approximation the more a pharma spends on marketing the more money it has available for R&D.

              Universities do great research on drug targets and tool compounds, but don't actually research new drugs that much, at least not compared to biotech/Pharma. That said, about 20-25% of new drugs are invented in universities.

          • Yup..

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]

            "Pharmaceutical Companies Spent 19 Times More On Self-Promotion Than Basic Research: Report "

      • by rtb61 (674572)

        So the obvious counter to this, is all pharmaceutical research goes government and public funded. Successful drugs are then open to production by all facilities with licences to produce pharmaceuticals. Skipping all the 1000% profit margins, ludicrous luxury holidays for doctors, scams to sell patented drugs and all the other psychopathy currently associated with the industry.

        • by dbIII (701233)

          So the obvious counter to this, is all pharmaceutical research goes government and public funded

          Almost all of the new stuff already is. A vast amount of the commercial stuff ends up being little more than patent extension. Most of the rest is jumping on a public funded solution after a promising clinical trial.
          One of the most disgusting excuses for a vast difference in prices between a US version of a vaccine and the prices in the rest of the world was "development costs". The vaccine in question was fun

  • by timothy (36799) Works for Slashdot on Friday February 07, 2014 @06:59PM (#46191309) Homepage Journal

    It sounds odd, or the start of a joke, but I'm serious.

    She ordered some variety of medicine from an online pharmacy (which one, I don't know) and had some heavy cognitive dissonance. 'Did I just give money to scammers?' She waited slightly longer than she expected to, and had the thought that she really had been taken for a ride ... but then they arrived, and (to her surprise) were postmarked India.

    "They were cheap, and worked."

    She'll be displeased to hear about just how far regulatory capture can go, in this arena ...

    timothy

    • by ebno-10db (1459097) on Friday February 07, 2014 @07:14PM (#46191417)

      Yup. A friend of mine needed some medications, taken on a regular basis. IIRC he had some limited insurance, but it didn't cover squat in medication. He ordered them online from a pharmacy in Canada. A legitimate outfit - had to show he had the prescriptions and whatnot. The meds were drop shipped from Switzerland and India, complete with funny foreign return addresses and stamps. He saved a bundle. There were the real McCoy too, not some brand X knockoff. Switzerland and India was where they were made.

      Even better is doggy Prozac. Apparently they have Prozac for dogs - and it's the exact same stuff, from the same factory, but at a fraction of the price. This one is 2nd hand, from my neighbor the veterinarian, but she's not a BS artist. A coworker's wife had a Prozac Rx, so hubby writes an Rx for their dog, and she takes it.

      • Even better is doggy Prozac. Apparently they have Prozac for dogs - and it's the exact same stuff, from the same factory, but at a fraction of the price. This one is 2nd hand, from my neighbor the veterinarian, but she's not a BS artist. A coworker's wife had a Prozac Rx, so hubby writes an Rx for their dog, and she takes it.

        Looks like he finally found a way to stop her from eating the dogfood.

      • by glavenoid (636808)

        I don't know how I feel about antidepressants for dogs, or any other non-human animal for that matter. Can dogs be demonstrably depressed to a degree that they require medication rather than love and exercise? Or is this something that people who got a dog too big for their yard give to placate their pet when it spends 90% of its miserable life in a tiny kennel in the basement so it doesn't shed fur all over the sofa?

        • by glavenoid (636808)

          Damn, now I'm depressed thinking about that poor miserable dog in the kennel in the basement. Maybe I need some doggy prozac.

    • by Rich0 (548339)

      For the most part the online pills are as genuine as the stuff on thepiratebay. Sure, you can get burned either way, but it usually works (granted, being burned by counterfeit drugs is a much more serious problem).

      The issue is that just as with thepiratebay somebody needs to actually pay to make the drugs. I'm all for that being the NIH or whatever, but right now very little is spent on drug clinical trials by anybody other than pharma companies. We need to change that if we really want to have a differe

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The Medicare/Medicaid drug reimbursement is already more than the private cost of research (plus reasonable production costs for those drugs).

  • by chispito (1870390) on Friday February 07, 2014 @07:02PM (#46191325)
    Big Oil, Big Automotive, Big Chance-I-Stop-Paying-Attention.

    Just because you think all large companies are evil doesn't mean everyone else does.
    • by Uberbah (647458)

      As soon as I hear "Big " Big Oil, Big Automotive, Big Chance-I-Stop-Paying-Attention.

      You mean, you were looking for an excuse to stop listening. And found one.

      Just because you think all large companies are evil

      Straw man. Look, this isn't hard story to grasp. Large, influential industries that wouldn't think a second before sending your job overseas for third world labor want the USG to make sure said third world labor pays first-world prices for their drugs.

      • by AcidPenguin9873 (911493) on Friday February 07, 2014 @09:16PM (#46192381)

        Large, influential industries that wouldn't think a second before sending your job overseas for third world labor

        Except that they didn't do that when developing these drugs. They paid first-world salaries for research, development, testing, more testing, still more testing, even more testing, and then regulation compliance. Without those first-world costs, there's no drug that you want to sell for third-world prices.

        want the USG to make sure said third world labor pays first-world prices for their drugs.

        The world wants the US to foot the bill for their drug research, and then once that hard part is done, sell the drugs for materials and menial labor cost? I don't think so. If the prices are so far out of balance, why don't they start their own drug research institute with third-world salaries, testing, and regulations?

        • by dryeo (100693)

          They've already had their 17 years of patent protection and charged enough to recoup their costs and make a decent profit which is the social contract with patents. Now they change the colour of the pill or some such minor change and expect another 20 years.

          • Now they change the colour of the pill or some such minor change and expect another 20 years.

            In this particular instance, you're probably right.

            My general point stands though. If the Indian government wants to provide access to modern pharmaceuticals at prices that Indians can afford, time for their government to issue some big-money loans to start an Indian pharmaceutical research group. India doesn't have that kind of money? Sell some debt and pay interest on it, just like the U.S. has been forced to do for years. If all these countries had to do their own original research, maybe the U.S. de

    • Big Apathy want's you to do!

  • They want big business to profit of sick people and don't like stuff like medicare or medicaid

  • But is the US government actually responding to said leaning, or are they currently ignoring it?
  • FTFY (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    >big pharma [...] is the number one creator of new drugs
    >big pharma [...] is the number one creator of upper-class-only drugs

    Fixed that for you. Do I have to fix the shitty beta too?

    What's the point of creating new drugs if no one can make and use them?

    >big pharma [...] is the number one creator of upper-class-only drugs

    And are we worried that will change? The number one creator will instead be the middle-class "commoners"? Makers gonna make? Gonna make something THE HUMAN FUCKING RACE will benefit

    • by manu0601 (2221348)

      big pharma [...] is the number one creator of upper-class-only drugs

      Fixed that for you.

      I would even say it as "big pharma [...] is the number one creator of profitable drugs "

      Look at statins. They are inefficient at reducing death, and have many adverse effects. The goal of this drug is not health, it is profit.

  • by Bob9113 (14996) on Friday February 07, 2014 @07:55PM (#46191697) Homepage

    But don't forget that big pharma, for all its problems still is the number one creator of new drugs. In 2012 alone, the U.S. government and private companies spent a combined $130 billion (PDF) on medical research.

    Ahh, very large numbers without context. Does such a good job of sounding like it means something. Here's some context: 70% increase in profits [thinkprogress.org] in the past 10 years, and we have way more drugs available than we can afford. Increasing government imposed restrictions on competition to drive up market price is what you do when a critical industry is having problems, not when they're flush with cash and demand and prices are skyrocketing. It's freaking econ 101 ferfucksake.

    Also: Fuck beta. I am not the audience, I am one of the authors of this site. I am Slashdot. This is a debate community. I will leave if it becomes some bullshit IT News 'zine. And I don't think Dice has the chops to beat the existing competitors in that space.

    • by MtHuurne (602934)

      But don't forget that big pharma, for all its problems still is the number one creator of new drugs. In 2012 alone, the U.S. government and private companies spent a combined $130 billion (PDF) on medical research.

      Ahh, very large numbers without context.

      There is a little context:

      Last year Novartis lost a six-year legal battle after the Indian Supreme court ruled that small changes and improvements to the drug Glivec did not amount to innovation deserving of a patent.

      So some of that research is being spent on patentable variations rather than better cures, which is a waste of time and money when looking at the complete healthcare system. Commercial research also produces actually useful drugs, but perhaps it would be more efficient to let governments lead

    • by geekoid (135745)

      You know those article have been debunked, right?

  • Usually it just means you need to start testing & data collection from scratch instead of using pounds of emperical evidence. The last thing they want are naturally-grown drugs (think hemp) they have no intellectual control or explaoitative profit revenue from. Half the shit that ends up on the market ends up to be a "patentable" analog of some other shit, perpetuated by lack of preventative or psychological health checkups, bad or misguided research, & all those fresh doctors that refuse to parti
    • by Rich0 (548339)

      Virtually all the drugs on the market had their clinical trials paid for by pharma companies. For each one there were many more that had an equal level of spending but were demonstrated to be unsafe and thus never made it onto the market.

      It is true that the initial mechanisms and sometimes even the lead molecules are discovered elsewhere, but there are thousands of these discovered every year and most of them will do nothing good for your health, It takes billions of dollars in trials to figure out which

  • Huge success (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HalfFlat (121672) on Friday February 07, 2014 @08:35PM (#46192073)
    Hundreds of billions spent on drug development, primarily driven by state investment and infrastructure, and billions of people in India and elsewhere gain significant health benefits. Really, this is the way it is supposed to work. That some private individuals are not making as large a personal profit is purely their own problem.
  • No magic bullet. (Score:5, Informative)

    by westlake (615356) on Friday February 07, 2014 @08:41PM (#46192117)
    There is no quick, cheap, safe path to the development of a new drug.

    Someone has to pay the bill.

    Glaxo spent more than $350 million over 25 years to develop [a malaria] vaccine for military personnel and travelers and expects to invest an additional $260 million to complete development. But Glaxo was reluctant to pay for pediatric trials in impoverished nations on its own, so the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provided $200 million through the nonprofit PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative to drive development and testing over the finish line.

    Hope for a Malaria Vaccine [nytimes.com] [Oct 1013]

  • Bad either way... (Score:3, Informative)

    by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Friday February 07, 2014 @08:42PM (#46192145) Homepage

    I am not a shill for the drug companies by any means. That being said, I think the third world's energies would be better spent dealing with their quality issues before they got butt hurt over this move by big pharma's lobby. In reality, drugs sourced from India and/or China are a crap shoot. Read Derek Lowe's blog "In the Pipeline [corante.com]" for information on this industry and pharmacological chemistry.

    Yes, India may be getting unfairly punished for it's ability to manufacture drugs inexpensively, but unfair things go on all the time - just look at Slashdot beta!

  • The big problem is that some pharma manufacturers in India make crap.
    They know they're making crap and they're proud of it.
    Ripping people off is part of business culture everywhere, but they don't seem to make a distinction between cheating people out of their money and cheating them out of their lives.

    The problem is that everyone knows they're making crap in India, but no one can come right out and say it because lawyers will be all over whoever says it. regardless of proven past practices.

    Here's an exampl

  • > But don't forget that big pharma, for all its problems still is the number one creator of new drugs. In 2012 alone, the U.S. government and private companies spent a combined $130 billion (PDF) on medical research."

    That is not true. That research is done in universities often with taxpayer money and big pharma snaps it up for a song. Watch Big Bucks, Big Pharma https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] or read Marcia Angell - The Truth About the Drug Companies, Ben Goldacre
  • by bayankaran (446245) on Friday February 07, 2014 @11:25PM (#46193061) Homepage
    Corporates have no problem when outsourcing is cheaper to their bottom line...the same drug companies which want US to take punitive action against India will have the their IT operations outsourced to India as its cheaper.
    They want it both ways...pure psychopathic behavior.
    Here is the exact quote from Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers...âoeWe did not develop this product (Nexavar) for the Indian market, letâ(TM)s be honest. We developed this product for western patients who can afford this product, quite honestly, it is an expensive product.â
    Poor Indians should die. If this is not psychopathic behavior I don't know what is! This guy needs help.
    And don't tell me "it costs a lot to develop these drugs". Yes, it does and the costs are recovered with sufficient profit margin from the first world.
  • Big pharma is worried about India, when in fact, they should be concerned about CHina. Far more theft occurs there then elsewhere.
  • It's good to see a government actually putting the interests of its people (millions of them) above that of a few rich business owners...

    It's a choice between a bit less profit for some rich drug companies, or millions of people suffering and dying, because these people simply cannot afford what the drug companies are trying to charge.

    The whole idea of people profiting from human suffering is utterly abhorrent.
    As for research, research of this kind by for-profit companies is a huge conflict of interest - th

Innovation is hard to schedule. -- Dan Fylstra

Working...