Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine

Pfizer Halts Clinical Trials In Russia But Will Continue To Supply Medicine (time.com) 73

Posted by BeauHD from the putting-patients-first dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Time: Pfizer said it would no longer start new clinical trials in Russia and that it would donate all profits from its subsidiary in the country to Ukraine relief causes. At the same time, the drugmaker said in a statement that it will continue to supply medicines to Russia, out of fear that vulnerable patients such as children and elderly people who rely on its therapies could be harmed by any halt. The company "concluded that a voluntary pause in the flow of our medicines to Russia would be in direct violation of our foundational principle of putting patients first," according to the statement. Pfizer said it doesn't own or operate any manufacturing sites in Russia and plans to cease planned investments with local suppliers. Pfizer said it would work with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other regulators to move current clinical trials to alternative locations outside of Russia. Patients already enrolled in studies will continue to receive medications, the company said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pfizer Halts Clinical Trials In Russia But Will Continue To Supply Medicine More

Pfizer Halts Clinical Trials In Russia But Will Continue To Supply Medicine

Comments Filter:

  • that it would donate all profits from its subsidiary in the country to Ukraine relief causes

    Are they in .009 rubles/dollar? Even so, how are they getting it out? Why would they think Putin would allow them to back Ukrainian anything anyway? WTF?

    • that it would donate all profits from its subsidiary in the country to Ukraine relief causes

      Are they in .009 rubles/dollar? Even so, how are they getting it out? Why would they think Putin would allow them to back Ukrainian anything anyway? WTF?

      How dare you ask ... logical questions. Putin apologist!!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jzanu ( 668651 )
        Corporate accounting for a multinational corporation is an entire discipline. Putin has no say over how expenses and revenues are balanced between divisions and territories. And your comment shows that you ARE a Putin-cock-sucking apologist.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by waspleg ( 316038 )

        I mean, having made this announcement, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Putin just annexes their facilities CCP style. Maybe even giving them to some local company to run.

      • It's amazing to watch the American right twist themselves into knots over Putin.

        • Initially all the memes were funny. But then it went from Russia being the enemy to Putin being a leader they could all aspire to be like.

          The Tulsi Gabbard story is something to keep an eye on. https://www.thedailybeast.com/... [thedailybeast.com]

          • Seriously?

            While the combined total of those donations isn’t colossal by any means—a whopping $59.95—they do raise questions about why an alleged Russian agent, tasked with currying favor with U.S. politicians, would zero in on Gabbard, and only Gabbard.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Are they in .009 rubles/dollar? Even so, how are they getting it out? Why would they think Putin would allow them to back Ukrainian anything anyway? WTF?

      They don't need to "get it out". Use some common sense. As long as they know how much they are accumulating in Russia they can donate an equivalent amount to Ukraine.

    • Are they in .009 rubles/dollar?

      Surely you got that the other way round? Plus, given, the government's actions, chances are that you can't get better exchange rate than $0.005 per ruble in places where you can *actually* get dollars from a large amount of rubles now that the Russian government has banned such transactions.

    • Never try to apply logic to the statement of a PR "officer".

      Doubly so to the statement of an idiot which had a Cancel Culture overdose. Cancel Culture and Business do not mix. When you try to mix them you get something as utterly idiotic as this statement.

      The reality is more prosaic. Russia is applying the financial fraud section for "intentional bancruptcy", collating all consumer and labour code complaints into class action suits and in some cases filing cases under discrimination, hate speech and raci

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

        Never try to apply logic to the statement of a PR "officer". Doubly so to the statement of an idiot which had a Cancel Culture overdose. Cancel Culture and Business do not mix. When you try to mix them you get something as utterly idiotic as this statement.

        Can you spell out for me please what cancel culture you saw here? What the PR said:
        1. No longer start new clinical trials in Russia
        2. donate all profits from its subsidiary in the country to Ukraine relief causes
        3. continue to supply medicines to Russia
        4. doesn’t own or operate any manufacturing sites in Russia
        5. plans to cease planned investments with local suppliers

        The first "don't start new trails in Russia" is a no-brainer. There's no way to safely have investigators travel to Russia to set up pro

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RobinH ( 124750 )
      If they're not manufacturing in the country, then Russia has to import the medicine and pay foreign currency rates. So they probably can't afford the medicine anyway.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Are they in .009 rubles/dollar?

      Sure. That explains everything right there. They didn't say there were going to donate a *lot* of (hard currency) money to Ukraine. They were going to donate the profits they get from Russian operations which are presumably denominated in roubles. They don't have to "get it out" of Russia; they can dig it out from under the sofa cushions.

  • Would this stuff work against the next Islamist country that engages in horrific unprovoked attacks? Inquiring minds want to know.

    (I mean if we were using our usual playbook for these situations, our response would be to increase Russian immigration to our countries, to combat the "real problem" (TM) of increasing anti-Russian "hate" ... )

    • Would this stuff work against the next Islamist country that engages in horrific unprovoked attacks?

      Which "Islamist" country has invaded its neighbors?

      Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, but Iraq was not "Islamist" and faced a response from the rest of the world far more severe than what Russia is facing.

      our response would be to increase Russian immigration to our countries

      Absolutely. Russia is suffering from population decline and brain drain. The smartest move we can make is more immigration of educated young Russians to the West.

      • So the smartest move when they're suffering from brain drain, is to accelerate the drain? Sounds a bit opportunistic and selfish, no? I thought it would be more to help them rebuild but have some vested interest to make it worthwile (outside investors and so on)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Jzanu ( 668651 )
          Not again. Putin has shot himself in the face. The West rebuilt Russia with FDI after the Berlin Wall fell. Fool once, not twice. This time Russia gets the war it should have faced then, and Russia will die as true countries capable of cooperation rise from its ashes.
          • Did they really help rebuild Russia? I have a history blank on that, as I thought only east Germany got help after the wall. If they did, sure fair enough, not twice.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Jzanu ( 668651 )
              It started slowly but there was a substantial spike in 2005-2006 of FDI [worldbank.org] that continued at that higher level until Putin declared war against Ukraine 2014. Here [bruegel.org] is a 2020 report discussing details. Putin not only pissed away the massive difference between 2013 and 2020, starting this war, he has continued flaying Russia by ostracizing Europe which was responsible for "between 55 percent and 75 percent of Russian FDI stock". All for the petty whimpering dreams of an old man who doesn't realize he's already de
              • he has continued flaying Russia by ostracizing Europe

                It took 30 years for Russia to climb out of the hole it was in before 1991. Putin has dropped it back even deeper in less than 3 weeks.

                That has to be some kind of record.
              • Thanks for that info!

    • Would this stuff work against the next Islamist country that engages in horrific unprovoked attacks? Inquiring minds want to know.

      (I mean if we were using our usual playbook for these situations, our response would be to increase Russian immigration to our countries, to combat the "real problem" (TM) of increasing anti-Russian "hate" ... )

      It might not even work for Russia.

      One criticism of sanctions is that they don't work - all the sanctions the West has imposed in the past can be argued as working or not working, depending on what aspects you want to focus on. A typical example would be Iran, who continued their research into nuclear weapons for years despite fairly strong sanctions.

      With the Russian invasion, we now have an experiment on whether sanctions *can* work and it's about as pure and objective as you're likely to get. The entire We

      • Despite this, the Ruble refuses to go to zero, and efforts to prop up the price seem to be working (currently at .0091, up from the past 2 weeks).

        That doesn't sound like they're working. Up to less than one cent on the dollar still means they're spectacularly fucked.

        Estimates of Russia running out of money are anywhere from mid June (US estimates) to early May (Ukraine estimates)

        The question isn't so much when does Russia run out of money as when does Putin run out of personal capital.

        The Russian stock market has been closed for 2 weeks precisely to avoid blowback from the attack.

        Which is itself a kind of blowback that prevents Russian corporations from getting investment from other Russian corporations. It's not being done to protect the economy, which is already in shambles, but to prevent anyone new from becoming rich by buying stocks while they are depre

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      Would this stuff work against the next Islamist country that engages in horrific unprovoked attacks? Inquiring minds want to know.

      Which Islamist country are you thinking of? Saddam Hussain invading Kuwait? Syrian civil war? Darfur? Iraq? Afghanistan? Boko-haram? Yemen? Ukraine? The only one I can think of which was an Islamist country invading another one was Saddam Hussain, which yes was indeed met with far more military force than Russia is facing.

    • Islamist country that engages in horrific unprovoked attacks?

      Generally, even 'countries' (meaning the governing body/entity), even if they are Sharia based, don't do the above. Not that long ago, we could only name regimes with atrocities (that nearly no one would argue about) on one hand, but the last half-decade, we've wandered onto the second.

      Now, if you're talking about the specific brand of awful groups that would target schools and hospitals of the country they're trying to be in charge of . . . pretty much everything from across the spectrum of war and di

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kmoser ( 1469707 )
        A pharmaceutical company that claims to put "patients first" is lying. It's always "profits first, patients (a distant) second." Any shred of empathy they claim to have is largely to advance their ulterior motive of positive PR. It's not personal, it's just business.
  • At what point are we going to consider that sanctions are going too far? Essentially, with this move Pfizer is denying medicine to Russia. More so, this move won't affect people responsible for the invasion - Putin inner circle would just get medicine they personally need smuggled through intermediate countries.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      To further elaborate - my understanding is that you need to conduct clinical trials to sell new pharmaceuticals in a country. No clinical trials, no new drugs available to the population.

      • The US will accept foreign clinical trails in some circumstances:
        https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

        No idea what Russia's policy is, but nothing is stopping them from adopting a similar policy.

      • Not really - countries ave medical regulators, and these regulators decide what criteria new drugs must meet in order to be sold. Many regulators, e.g. the FDA, look favourably on trials done in-country as it's easier to ensure that the trials were done to your standards. But it's not an ironclad rule, and a regulator is perfectly entitled to accept a drug based on clinical trials that were performed in another country. Even the FDA does this sometimes, and smaller countries do it routinely.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        By this move Pfizer is specifically deciding *not* to deny medicines to Russia.

        And IMHO, that's very much the WRONG move. Not out of some sort of desire to make the Russian people suffer, mind you. But simply because drug manufacturing is a wide range of long, complex multistep processes with esoteric feedstocks and extreme quality control requirements. Being able to manufacture drugs yourselves requires one to dedicate significant financial and engineering resources towards that.

        If one cuts Russia off fr

        • One can say, "Well, they'll blame the west for people's suffering", and sure, they always do that. But they've also been pushing hard on this propaganda campaign that Mother Russia can fend for herself. If she fails to provide for her people after telling them that she can, that's a problem. Putin's regime's political foundation is the notion that he brings prosperity and pride to Russia.

          Well with the exceptions in the sanctions that's going to be something hard to point to. Oil and gas is both the foundation and the pride of Russia.

        • The problem with this idea is that Russia is still exporting people and we would like them to be vaccinated people. Russia can't make this medication, their vaccine is garbage. So we can let them have medicine now for promises of payment later (the Ruble being too weak to be useful for buying much of anything right now) for the purpose of reducing the spread of the virus globally.

          Of course, it would be better to export those medications to Africa for the same purpose, but nobody expects them to eventually p

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rei ( 128717 )

            Sputnik is not "garbage". It's at least as good as AstraZeneca. It's Sinovac's vaccine that's garbage.

            Russia's problem is not vaccine access; it's vaccine hesitancy. Ironically encouraged by their propaganda campaign of attacking western vaccines (to try to promote Sputnik).

            BTW, unlike Pfizer, Eli Lily is doing it right: link [lilly.com].

        • By this move Pfizer is specifically deciding *not* to deny medicines to Russia.

          And IMHO, that's very much the WRONG move.

          I thought the entire world needed to be vaccinated to stop Covid. Why are you pro covid?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by DVLNSD ( 9457327 )
      Go back to school!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by SumDog ( 466607 )

      I mean, they're denying medication that killed 1,200+ people in the first three months of use, so I'd consider this a win for the Russian people.

      • I mean, they're denying medication that killed 1,200+ people in the first three months of use

        Go for it. Show the evidence for this lie. Considering covid right now is killing 1,300 every day, your lie is truly pathetic.
    • At what point are we going to consider that sanctions are going too far?

      I'd say when the sanctions aren't lifted after the war is over, waar criminals have been handed over to be judged in The Hague and reparations have been paid. Until then, it can be discussed if they've gone far enough long enough.

      Also, from your claim that Pfizer would be denying medicine to Russians, the only logical conclusion is that you are a semi illiterate partisan. Surprising, for a supposedly smart guy.

      • At what point are we going to consider that sanctions are going too far?

        I'd say when the sanctions aren't lifted after the war is over, waar criminals have been handed over to be judged in The Hague and reparations have been paid. Until then, it can be discussed if they've gone far enough long enough.

        I'm not sure that's enough any more. I think nuclear disarmament must be on the table. Rogue nations with nukes are inherently much more troubling than rogue nations without nukes. Or than reasonably-behaved nations with nukes. Putin has chosen to move Russia from the "reasonable nuclear power" category to the "rogue nuclear power" category, and that won't change merely by ending the invasion.

        After the war is over, Russia will have to somehow move either to "reasonable nuclear power" or "non-nuclear powe

        • At what point are we going to consider that sanctions are going too far?

          I'd say when the sanctions aren't lifted after the war is over, waar criminals have been handed over to be judged in The Hague and reparations have been paid. Until then, it can be discussed if they've gone far enough long enough.

          While I agree in theory, why would Putin ever surrender if that is the only acceptable fate in store for him? Unless you think that he feels for the suffering of his people and his soldiers but there is no evidence to support that.

          • At what point are we going to consider that sanctions are going too far?

            I'd say when the sanctions aren't lifted after the war is over, waar criminals have been handed over to be judged in The Hague and reparations have been paid. Until then, it can be discussed if they've gone far enough long enough.

            While I agree in theory, why would Putin ever surrender if that is the only acceptable fate in store for him? Unless you think that he feels for the suffering of his people and his soldiers but there is no evidence to support that.

            He won't surrender. He might declare victory and leave, lying about what his goals were. Think Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech.

          • I agree, my reply was more tongue in cheek to a pro Russian guy. So, the sanctions aren't going to go too far. Ever. Because before that, they will be lifted. Even though at this point, despite tremendously brave Russians like the TV director with the anti war sign, I really don't care if the sanctions put the second b in ruble. Holding a hospital hostage...? All the shelling and then claiming is Ukrainian forces? Pointing out that in the separatist region there was shelling and so the world should be appal
    • At what point are we going to consider that sanctions are going too far?

      When Russia is deliberately shelling civilian neighborhoods, when Russia is deliberately shelling and killing pregnant women, when Russia is deliberately shelling cancer hospitals, when Russia is deliberately shelling civilians trying to leave towns and cities, there is no such thing as going too far when it comes to sanctions. Expecially with all the lies Russia put out about how it wasn't going to invade Ukraine.

      At this poi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by qaz123 ( 2841887 )
        And what makes you think they are doing it deliberately?? Look at the pictures of Fallujah or Mosul of Iraq. Even more destruction. Done by Americans. Half a million of Iraqis died. Were the Americans shelling those civilians deliberately too?
        • Putin really needs to up his game and kill millions to be considered seriously like the USA.
        • And what makes you think they are doing it deliberately??

          You Putin dick suckers have to always resort to whataboutism, don't you? Russia is doing the exact same thing in Ukraine that it did in Aleppo, Syria which is to destroy buildings and kill civilians in the process.

          The video evidence shows entire blocks of housing destroyed in places such as Mariupol and Kharkiv, as well as eight different hospitals being deliberately struck. It should be noted that in Syria, when a list of hospitals, field

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by qaz123 ( 2841887 )
            It's inevitable that when an army is trying to take a city it will be partially destroyed. Including residential buildings. The videos and pictures from Fallujah shows all residential buildings destroyed too. Was you that indignant then too?

  • The Russian people are divided on this whole mess. You want to push more people to the pro-Putin side, cut off their meds.

    • The Russian people are divided on this whole mess. You want to push more people to the pro-Putin side, cut off their meds.

      The whole Russian economy needs to crumble to the ground.
      Only then will the Russian people notice they have a limp-dicked leader who can't live up to the promises he is telling to his people.
      Only then will they wake up and remove him themselves.

      Putin claims to be a strong leader standing up to the west. And that the Russian economy was prepared for sanctions, and that it can put up with them and prosper regardless.
      Russian people need to be shown, that is very much not the case.

      Sure people will rally ar

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close