Activists call for Abbott boycott for withdrawing drugs

**dirtydog** · 15-03-2007, 03:13 PM

Activists call for Abbott boycott for withdrawing drugs

Thai HIV activists have condemned a drug manufacturer, accusing it of cancelling imports of vital medicines because its profits were threatened by government legislation.

The Thai Network of People Living with HIV/Aids and other non-government organisations called on the public yesterday to boycott Abbott Laboratories' products after it withdrew its anti-retroviral imports licence here.

The move was company retaliation against the recent government decision to force the compulsory licensing of HIV drug Kaletra, Aids Access director Nimitr Tien-udom said.

About 100 NGO staff gathered outside Abbott's office in Bangkok to condemn the move.

Nimitr said: "Now they have pulled off the mask, we can see how greedy they are."

Abbott Laboratories had sent a a letter to the Thai Food and Drug Administration withdrawing its application to register the drugs, including HIV treatment Aluvia, heart disease drug Simdax and Zemplar for treatment of chronic kidney disease, Nimitr said.

He said the group would put out a list soon of other Abbott products, which include formula milk, food and weight-loss supplements - for a public boycott.

Aids Access is researching what Abbott drugs are available in Thailand and medicines that can be used as a substitute.

The information will be shared with the Public Health Ministry, the National Health Security Office and patients.

Abbott's cancellation of drug imports would only have a slight impact on Thais, Nimitr said, and kidney patients could simply chose other treatments.

The Public Health Ministry had stockpiled five months' supply of Kaletra, the campaigner said, adding that a generic version of the drug would soon be available from India under the current compulsory licensing on the medicine.

Even if the Indian drug was not available in time, patients could use an old version of Kaletra, which is a combination of Lopinavir and Ritonavir, meaning people would have to take a second drug, rather than just one.

Health Minister Dr Mongkol na Songkhla said Abbott's decision would not have a significant effect on healthcare here because similar medicines were available from other companies.

The ministry would find out how many drugs were affected and replace them with products from other firms.
Abbott's officials were not available to comment.

Arthit Khwankhom
The Nation

watterinja · 15-03-2007, 04:27 PM

Wonder how much money Thailand contributed to Abbott's research program for the drug know-how they stole?

I'd tend to side with Abbott.

**Marmite the Dog** · 16-03-2007, 06:03 PM

^ Agreed.

Another fuck up from the Monkey House.

**klongmaster** · 16-03-2007, 08:10 PM

and here's me wondering about the link between the local abbot and drugs...

**dirtydog** · 16-03-2007, 10:08 PM

MSF condemns US drugmaker's ban in Thailand

Aid charity Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF) has condemned a US drugmaker's decision not to sell new medicines in Thailand, which is at loggerheads with Western pharmaceutical giants over generic drugs.

Chicago-based Abbott Laboratories said this week it would not market new drugs in Thailand in protest at the government's decision to override the patent on Abbott's anti-Aids drug Kaletra.

The medications withdrawn from the Thai market include a new version of Kaletra, as well as an antibiotic and a painkiller, a senior company official said.

MSF (Doctors without Borders) slammed the US giant's decision and argued Thai patients would "bear the brunt of Abbott's harsh decision."

"Our patients in Thailand, who still use the old version of the medicine, have been waiting for this new version for a very long time," David Wilson of MSF in Thailand said in a statement.

"The drug was registered in the US in October 2005, but still cannot be used in Thailand and many other countries where it is desperately needed. Refusing to sell the drug here is a major betrayal to patients," he said.

Abbott, for its part, accused Thailand of breaking patents "on numerous medicines."

Agence FrancePresse

Seems they really don't give a toss about Thais boycotting their drugs

**themook** · 18-03-2007, 12:14 AM

Doctors Without Borders can blow me, too.
It costs a great deal of money to develop, test and make a new drug available.
Only those who don't spend the cash, not to mention the blood, sweat and tears to develop such drugs would slam a company for protecting it's product.
When Thailand, or any other organization, funds a portion of the development of said drugs, only to watch another nation violate its patent will it learn its lesson.

**dirtydog** · 20-03-2007, 11:32 AM

Activists call for boycott of US drug giant

Say Abbott's response to govt move immoral

Activist doctors, consumer rights and Aids groups have called for a boycott of medicines and other products of US drug giant Abbott Laboratories after the firm withdrew the registration of seven new drugs in Thailand.

They said the action by the drug firm, which produces the anti-Aids drug, Kaletra, in response to the government's decision to go ahead with compulsory licensing, was immoral.

Also withdrawn are new antibiotics and other medicines for the treatment of kidney disorders, high blood pressure and constricted blood vessels.

"Abbott is acting like it is taking patients hostage in a bid to pressure the government to abandon compulsory licensing," Saree Ongsomwang, of the Foundation for Consumers, said in a statement released yesterday.

The Public Health Ministry has approved compulsory licensing that allows for the importation or production of generic versions of patented drugs so low-income patients can afford them.

Abbott's Kaletra, an advanced anti-Aids drug, is one of three medications coming under compulsory licensing. The others are the anti-Aids drug Efavirenz, and Plavix, for patients with heart disease, produced by other companies.

The activists rebuked the company for placing profit before business ethics.

"We've already asked health establishments nationwide to join the boycott," said Rural Doctors Society president Kriangsak Watcharanukulkiat.

The groups have cooperated with international heath promotion organisations such as Medicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders), to ask people in other countries to take part in the boycott.

They also threatened to expand their boycott to other types of products made by companies affiliated to Abbot, should the company still insist on withdrawing its new drugs from Thailand.

Abbot is a major producer of a wide range of products, including medicines and nutrient and milk products.

"The company's action clearly shows it is being unscrupulous," said Rosana Tositrakul, coordinator of the Anti-Corruption Network of 30 Non-Governmental Organisations.

The Public Health Ministry has applied the compulsory licensing under the Thai Patent Act that allows the country to import or produce generic and cheaper versions of patented drugs. The World Trade Organisation also allows its member nations to declare a "national emergency" as a reason to use compulsory licensing.

"It took us seven years to convince the government to approve them," said Aids Access Foundation's local director Nimit Tienudom, defending the merits of the compulsory licences.

Unlike previous governments which dared not infuriate giant drug companies, the Surayud Chulanont government had taken a courageous move to protect the rights of patients, Mr Nimit said.
"All people will fight on by your side," said Mr Nimit, in reference to Public Heath Minister Mongkol na Songkhla.

Bangkok Post

**Marmite the Dog** · 20-03-2007, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Nimit

Unlike previous governments which dared not infuriate giant drug companies, the Surayud Chulanont government had taken a courageous move to protect the rights of patients, Mr Nimit said.

Indeed. That worked well, didn't it?

**dirtydog** · 20-03-2007, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by dirtydog

Also withdrawn are new antibiotics and other medicines for the treatment of kidney disorders, high blood pressure and constricted blood vessels.

Well I for one if ever needing these drugs will defineately boycott Abbot, yes maybe even sadly die for the cause. like fok i will

watterinja · 20-03-2007, 12:28 PM

The rich Thais can fly to Singapore for future treatment, using the new drug, or, deal with Abbott & agree to fund the drug's ongoing use in Thailand.

There will always be ways to bring in a generic alternative through 3rd-party sourcing if things become dire. Somehow, I don't think the rich Thais will bother to finance their poorer colleagues.

Abbott is in business to make profits for their shareholders & I doubt they will stay in business for too long if they give away medicines at below-cost prices to pirate nations under threat of patent-breaking. Thailand is going to have to play things a little more wisely in future, if they want any foreign medicines to enter Thailand. Abbott owes Thailand absolutely nothing other than willing supplier - willing buyer.

**dirtydog** · 20-03-2007, 09:24 PM

US business 'uneasy' about policies

(dpa) - Thailand's post-coup economic policies, particularly a recent decision to impose compulsory licensing for pharmaceuticals, have made most US businesses uneasy about future investments in the kingdom, a survey revealed on Tuesday.

"Three-quarters of the business executives who were asked about their attitude towards Thailand have expressed a growing concern about the business environment here," said US Chamber of Commerce senior vice president Daniel Christman.

"The compulsory licensing issue has been behind much of this reaction," Christman told a press conference.

Thailand has recently imposed local compulsory licensing on an antiviral HIV/Aids drug and two anti-blood-clotting agents, in a bid to lower domestic prices for the estimated 600,000 people living with the deadly virus in the country and those suffering from heart disease.

The US Chamber of Commerce in Thailand has lodged complaints with the Health Ministry for the compulsory licensing decision, which will force companies to lower their domestic prices or face competition from generic drugs, because the affected firms were not consulted and no efforts were made to compromise on the pricing issue.

A compulsory copyright license is an exception to copyright law that is usually philosophically justified as an attempt by the government to correct a market failure. It has been rarely used in the past.

Christman, who met with Thai Health Minister Mongkol Na Songkhla during his two-day trip to Thailand, said he was particularly upset that the ministry now seemed intent on applying the compulsory licensing on non-HIV/Aids related drugs such as blood thinners.

"It looks as though this tool will be the standard operating practice rather than the exception," said Christman.

He noted that usually only underdeveloped countries resort to compulsory licensing as a technique for lowering pharmaceutical prices.

In a recent survey of US business aboard, Thailand was ranked among the weakest in Southeast Asia in terms of intellectual property rights protection, a major investment factor for US firms.

The Philippines, Malaysia and Singapore were all ranked above Thailand, with only Vietnam and Indonesia ranked below the kingdom.

US drug-maker Abbott Laboratories, one of victims of Thailand's compulsory licensing, earlier this week announced plans to withdraw its applications for registration of new drugs in the country as a result of the government's decision.

Abbott's announcement has prompted health advocacy groups such as Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF) to call for boycotting the US-based pharmaceutical giant's products worldwide.

Thailand's Public Health Ministry in January lifted the patent protection for the HIV/Aids drug Kaletra made by Abbott Laboratories and the anti-clotting agent Plavix, made by Sanofi-Aventis of France and Bristol-Myers Squibb of the US.

The decision was praised by international health advocate agencies including the World Health Organisation and MSF.

In a recent survey of US businesses abroad, Thailand was ranked among the weakest in Southeast Asia in terms of intellectual property rights protection, a major investment factor for US firms.

The Philippines, Malaysia and Singapore were all ranked above Thailand, with only Vietnam and Indonesia ranked below the kingdom in the survey.

**dirtydog** · 21-03-2007, 07:37 PM

Oxfam accuses US drugmaker of putting patents before Thai patients

International aid agency Oxfam on Wednesday accused a US drugmaker of abandoning Thailand's sick and trying to intimidate the government over its decision to break a patent on a key Aids drug.

The Britain-based charity called on Abbott Laboratories to reconsider its move last week to stop marketing new drugs here in protest at the government's decision to override the patent on Abbott's Aids drug Kaletra.

"Patients must be the primary concern for both pharmaceutical companies and governments," Yowalak Thiarachow, head of Oxfam in Thailand, said in a statement.

"Abbott is playing a nasty game to intimidate the government of Thailand for taking actions to lower the costs of medicines for Thai people."

The Thai government recently shocked pharmaceutical companies by issuing so-called "compulsory licences" for three drugs, an action that temporarily suspends a patent and allows cheaper, generic versions into the market.

Agence France-Presse

**Marmite the Dog** · 22-03-2007, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by dirtydog

"Patients must be the primary concern for both pharmaceutical companies and governments,"

What a crock of shit. Companies are formed to make money.

**dirtydog** · 25-03-2007, 03:39 PM

Abbot takes a tranquilliser,tells Thais: 'Talk to my boss'

Abbott Laboratories is declining requests for comments on the boycott of its products launched in Thailand last Monday - and the actions that led to it - although a US official lobbying on behalf of the drug maker here has derided the boycott.

"If Thailand is leading the global crusade, I don't put a lot of stock in its success," quipped the US official, who asked not to be named.

Abbott's office in Bangkok is forwarding all media requests to its headquarters in Chicago.

Communications staff there, however, are not allowed to answer questions. They have been instructed to telephone journalists who request information from their Bangkok office and read two sentences over the phone.

"You have to quote me exactly," Dirk Van Eeden, a communications director for Abbott International, said before reading the statement: "Thailand has chosen to break patents on numerous medicines, ignoring the patent system. As such, we've elected not to introduce new medicines there."

He said he could not explain how Thailand had ignored the patent system or provide information because of the "particularly sensitive" situation Abbott was in.

He did not explain why his colleagues in Bangkok were not permitted to read the sentences.

An Abbott communications officer in Bangkok said she could not answer questions "in case she made a mistake".

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Public Health has released a 96-page document explaining its position on the issue, including the legality of its move under global trade rules and the numerous precedents it had followed.

The document includes letters of support from the Clinton Foundation, UNAids, 22 US Senators and the World Health Organisation, among others.

In January the ministry used a mechanism provided by global trade rules to override a patent on an HIV/Aids drug produced by Abbott so that it could import or produce a generic version to those who could not afford the patented one.

This will save 8,000 Thai lives, the ministry said.

Spending on HIV/Aids medications in Thailand has surged tenfold over the past six years. Thailand's effort to provide universal access to the drugs is not sustainable and the country needs greater access to generic versions, studies by Thai and international agencies show.

Thailand began issuing so-called "compulsory licences" on life-saving medications in November last year, following a seven-year lobbying effort by local and international non-government organisations.

The mechanism is enshrined in global trade rules and has frequently been used by

other countries. Abbott faced a similar dispute with Brazil over a threat to use a compulsory licence for the same life-saving drug there.

Meanwhile, the company is now facing criticism from a coalition of Christian shareholders who say its decision to retaliate against Thailand over the patent dispute could damage the value of its stock as well as the image of its brand.
Abbott's decision not to introduce new medicines in Thailand has been denounced by medical associations as a violation of medical ethics.

The Nation

**friscofrankie** · 25-03-2007, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Companies are formed to make money.

You have any idea the obscene amounts of money these (US) Government protected companies make off the back those that suffer? (as well as those that only pay health insurance?

patents on medicines that save lives or make the suffering of terminal patients more bearable are an abomination. Simply protecting the profits of those companies already rich beyond that of most countries.

Heroin is illegal in the US but Dilaudid is perfectly legal, the effects of either are indistinguishable recreationally or medically. simply protection for big business?

The day must come when the drug research is taken out of the hands of for-profit companies and supported by government in independent labs (NGOs do make money for those involved) & universities. The profit factor withholds many helpful drugs for those that need them. Let's face it if these companies could not lock-down the market (monopoly?) they wold be less inclined to pour money into research for them, Just as they are unwilling to research less profitable though necessary medicines now.

Originally Posted by dirtydog

Abbott's decision not to introduce new medicines in Thailand has been denounced by medical associations as a violation of medical ethics.

Dollars to Do-nuts the AMA ain't one of 'em

**lom** · 25-03-2007, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by friscofrankie

The day must come when the drug research is taken out of the hands of for-profit companies and supported by government in independent labs

First we take Manhattan...

**dirtydog** · 26-03-2007, 01:06 AM

Money saved on HIV drugs to be used for prevention

The government will spend millions saved through compulsory licensing of expensive Aids medicines on an HIV-education campaign aimed at sex workers, their clients and the promiscuous.

The Public Health Ministry has saved between Bt500 million and Bt600 million by controversially overriding the patents on some HIV/Aids drug cocktails. This allows cheaper generic versions to be produced locally instead of having to buy the expensive original product.

Public Health Minister Dr Mongkol na Songkhla said the savings meant the ministry could kick off its prevention campaign without waiting for the new budget round.

"In addition to treatment, prevention is key to fighting HIV/Aids," he said.

In 1991 state spending on prevention campaigns was about Bt420 million. But that was slashed under the previous government's low-cost universal healthcare scheme, he said.

Today HIV/Aids education campaigns receive just Bt20 million a year. This results in lowered public awareness of HIV infection, Mongkol said.

The Disease Control Department revealed new HIV infection rates in certain population groups was on a worrying upward trend. It blamed this on lack of awareness.

"We have 100-per-cent condom access but 100 per cent of the people do not use them," Mongkol said.

Last week the ministry met with UNAids, which expressed concern over HIV infection trends in Thailand - a country that had succeeded in reducing new infections among sex workers and clients, he reported.

At present, about 70 per cent of new HIV-infection cases are sex workers and clients. The remainder are those engaging in casual, unsafe sex, he said.

The country's past world-acclaimed success in fighting HIV among sex workers may be hard to revisit. Prostitution has changed and much of it now remains under the radar, he added.
The ministry will lead other government departments and non-governmental agencies such as People Living with HIV/Aids to bring the issue back into the public eye, Mongkol promised.

Arthit Khwankhom
The Nation

**Marmite the Dog** · 26-03-2007, 12:46 PM

Sorry Frankie, but I disagree.

A pharmaceutical company develops a medicine off it's own back (generally speaking) and IMO is entitled to reap the rewards. The same goes for any patent. Thailand obviously doesn't agree with the idea of patents because the governments here have continually turned a blind eye, or in this case tried to use a law (which is meant to help lesser countries than Thailand) to steal a product from a company.

I agree with the general sentiment that it would be a lovely world if drug companies became noble and gave away their drugs to all deserving cases, but it'll never happen.

And as for governments controlling the process. Would you really want a terrorist organisation like the US government controlling drug development? I certainly wouldn't.

**dirtydog** · 28-03-2007, 03:18 AM

Govt to pay royalty for compulsory licences

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will compensate pharmaceutical companies affected by the Public Health Ministry's decision to enforce compulsory licensing - at a rate of 0.5 per cent of sales of generic medicines.

"We have invited the companies to the negotiating table on April 10," FDA secretary-general Dr Siriwat Thiptharadon said yesterday.

He was speaking in his capacity as chairman of the panel in charge of negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies affected by compulsory licensing.

Compulsory licences force patent holders to grant the use of a copyright, or other exclusive rights, to a government or others in "philosophically justified", non-commercial cases. The patent holder can receive some royalties.

Late last year, the Health Ministry enforced a compulsory licence for the HIV drug Efavirenz. Earlier this year, it invoked a compulsory licence for the HIV/Aids drug Kaletra and the anti-clotting agent Plavix.

According to Siriwat, MSD (Thailand), which holds the Efavirenz patent, has acknowledged the royalty offer and has offered to sell 600 mg Efavirenz pills at Bt726 per bottle, which was quite close to the FDA proposed price of Bt650 (excluding incentives for the firm).
Siriwat said Sanofi-Aventis (Thailand), which holds the Plavix patent said it would inform its parent company about the royalty offer from FDA.

The Nation

and Abbott probably said go fck yourself.......

**friscofrankie** · 28-03-2007, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

A pharmaceutical company develops a medicine off it's own back (generally speaking) and IMO is entitled to reap the rewards. The same goes for any patent. Thailand obviously doesn't agree with the idea of patents because the governments here have continually turned a blind eye, or in this case tried to use a law (which is meant to help lesser countries than Thailand) to steal a product from a company.

The companies make more than enough profit and there are more than enough drugs out there. If they develop it then I understand the need for profitability. I am saying that this type or research need to be either subsidised by governments to remove the need for such high costs or the companies need to be regulated on the return on investment they can expect. The government should in this case serve the people they are employed to serve.

The generic copies seem to be able to be produced by other companies at a much more efficient cost. Do you think that just maybe abbot is gouging a tiny bit? Decent medical insurance in the US is about $450 per month for a family of four, and healthcare costs world wide are through the roof, partly because the drugs are so expensive

They (major drug companies) make more profit than any 10 (hell 100) Columbian drug lords. They can cut the price a fair bit before it hurt them too fucking much. Profiteering off the backs of the suffering & dying; pretty low in my book. No sympathy.
If it would save, or markedly improve the quality of, my live I'd steal it too.

**Marmite the Dog** · 28-03-2007, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by friscofrankie

The generic copies seem to be able to be produced by other companies at a much more efficient cost.

This may be true. And it may also be true that some/many companies are very much over charging for their drugs. If the price is too high, then don't buy. There are alternatives which are cheaper.

What I would like to see from other governments is for them to ignore the drugs which are too expensive. Why should the UK government pay over the top for its drugs also? I think this is all that can be done to try and force these private drugs companies to reduce their prices, as I believe in free markets and prices controlled by market forces, not by governments.

**friscofrankie** · 28-03-2007, 10:58 AM

The UK has socialized medicine is that correct? Basically the government controlling the "health care" market. Being an American I see what an uncontrolled (protected?) health care industry can do to over-inflate health related costs.

Good government provides services and essentials to it's population; education, law enforcement, roads, sanitation. Why not health care?

By funding research and putting the results into the public domain the cost of development will not be a factor, but competition would be.

Thing about your argument is, Abbot holds a patent on these drugs under discussion and they contend that these (cheap) drugs should not be on the market.

I understand the costs of development are not borne by the copying companies.
I understand that Abbot needs to recoup these costs.

I submit that Abbot most likely received some assistance in development of these products and is price-gouging, while under protection of their patent. The fact that others have replicated the product cuts into their bottom line and if we followed the rules they would have us do, there would be no competitively priced alternatives and these drugs would not be available to many of the people in most need.

If all drugs manufactured by Abbot Laboratories are boycotted in this country it will hardly break the bank.

Abbot is in business to make money just like any other drug dealer. They will do anything they can get away with to protect their wallet. By removing the protection they enjoy they would be forced to compete in the market.

It is a complex issue, and I am over-simplifying, admitted. The fact remains, by supporting these patent rights, participating governments are attempting to regulate the market in favor of the companies.

**Marmite the Dog** · 28-03-2007, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by friscofrankie

The UK has socialized medicine is that correct? Basically the government controlling the "health care" market.

To a degree. In effect you pay the same for a packet of aspirin as you do the latest high-priced wonder drug. In practice, your doctor will recommend you buy your aspirin from the local chemist and will not prescribe the latest wonder drug because it will break the budget for the practice/hospital which has been set by the government.

Of course, if you pay from your own pocket, you will get the drugs there and then as well as any other treatment needed (Which then leads on to private vs public health care and how the public health care system is a shambles in the UK).

Originally Posted by friscofrankie

Good government provides services and essentials to it's population; education, law enforcement, roads, sanitation. Why not health care?

Isn't it usually the case that a government pays a hell of a lot more for a commodity than the general public because they have too much money to throw around and the suppliers tend to play on that. It would be nice if this didn't happen, as it would save our respective governments millions to spend on other things.

In places (ie. the UK) where government provides health care, the system is hugely inefficient, very expensive to the tax payers and tends not to provide a particularly good level of health care.

Originally Posted by friscofrankie

The fact remains, by supporting these patent rights, participating governments are attempting to regulate the market in favor of the companies.

Or, are they supporting free markets?

**dirtydog** · 09-04-2007, 03:19 PM

Abbott shuns Aids drug talks

By Apiradee Treerutkuarkul

The patent holder of the HIV/Aids treatment Kaletra has turned down an invitation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a meeting to discuss compensation for the drug listed for compulsory licensing.
The rejection of the invitation is being seen by many as the company's attempt to show its disapproval with Thailand's move to break the company's patent for the drug, allowing the state to produce or import cheaper, generic versions.

FDA secretary-general Siriwat Thiptaradol said Abbott confirmed that it would not join tomorrow's meeting, aimed at negotiating the drug price and the royalty fee. Dr Siriwat said Abbott had told the FDA that it found the offer unacceptable.

He said, however, that representatives of MSD and Sanofi-Aventis, patent-holders of Efavirenz and the heart drug Plavix, are expected to attend the meeting.

The session will be the second round of meetings.

The first round, which was held late last month, ended inconclusively as the pharmaceutical firms told negotiators they had to discuss the matter with their parent companies.

Previously, the FDA had informed the patent holders that the state was willing to compensate them with only 0.5% of the revenue generated from the generic drug sales. This was in keeping with Article 51 of the patent law, he said.

The Public Health Ministry issued compulsory licences in November and early January to produce or import generic versions of the costly drugs for emergency use in the country.

However, Abbott bluntly rejected any offer, claiming such a state policy would only jeopardise its research and development plans for new drugs. The US-based drug company earlier opposed the government's decision to go for compulsory licensing and threatened to withhold the introduction of new drugs here, including an improved version of Kaletra.

In February, the drug company made an offer during a meeting with senior health officials at the Disease Control Department to cut the price of Kaletra used at state hospitals from 11,580 baht per patient per month to lower than 4,000 baht. There has been no further discussion on the offer.

"The state has to be responsible for all patients suffering from HIV/Aids and heart disease, while the private firms have to stick to the principle of profit making. Our standpoints are different. That's why we have to discuss this to seek the most acceptable solution for both sides," said Dr Siriwat.

Kaletra's global sales total US$1.1 billion (41.8 billion baht) annually.

However, the FDA secretary-general said he was not worried about resolute standpoint and that health officials were looking for other options of pharmaceutical products made by the company.

Representatives of both MSD and Sanofi have told the FDA all their decisions would come from discussions with their mother companies.

So far, MSD has offered to reduce the price of Efavirenz to 726 baht per bottle, but the government can buy the generic version of the anti-retroviral treatment from India at just 650 baht per bottle.

Sanofi-Aventis, however, has offered a "special package" for the heart disease drug to respond to the government's policy of extending access to medicines, and a special quota of 3.4 million tablets of Plavix for 34,000 patients in Thailand.

Dr Siriwat said the government also planned to ask Novartis to reduce the price of Gleevec, a leukaemia treatment, instead of adopting a philanthropic programme in order to genuinely extend drug access for patients suffering from cancer.

Bangkok Post

**dirtydog** · 11-04-2007, 12:05 PM

HEALTH

Abbott agrees to lower price of Aids drug

US-based drug maker Abbott Laboratories has agreed to lower the price of its Aids drug Kaletra from 5,938 baht per patient per month to 3,488.20 baht. Siriwat Tiptaradol, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) secretary-general, said the new price could make Kaletra cheaper than the generic version.
The firm's proposal to cut the drug price is seen as a means to end the dispute with the Public Health Ministry over the high price of Kaletra that led to the ministry's decision to break the drug patent earlier this year.
Speaking after yesterday's meeting with representatives from patent-holding companies, Mr Siriwat said Abbott insisted that it disagreed with the issuance of compulsory licenses, so it opted for a discount on the drug's price instead.
Aids Access Foundation's director Nimit Tienudom hailed the firm's discount proposal. ''This is what the patients and health activists have been waiting for. This is apparently a consequence of the government's decision to break the drug patent,'' said Mr Nimit.

Bangkok Post

Thread: Activists call for Abbott boycott for withdrawing drugs

Thread Tools

Display

Activists call for Abbott boycott for withdrawing drugs

MSF condemns US drugmaker's ban in Thailand

Abbott's response to govt move immoral

US business 'uneasy' about policies

Oxfam accuses US drugmaker of putting patents before Thai patients

Abbot takes a tranquilliser,tells Thais: 'Talk to my boss'

Money saved on HIV drugs to be used for prevention

Govt to pay royalty for compulsory licences

Abbott shuns Aids drug talks

Abbott agrees to lower price of Aids drug

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions