Brazil has threatened to break the patent on an anti-Aids drug in order to make a cheaper generic version.

Health Minister Humberto Costa said the price of the Kaletra drug was so high it represented a risk to public health.

The government has given US company Abbott Laboratories 10 days to either agree to lower its prices or allow generic copies.

Abbott said patients would lose out in the long run if Brazil went ahead with its threat.

If Abbott does not make an adequate offer, Brazil will start producing a generic drug at a state-run laboratory in Rio de Janeiro, Mr Costa said.

Chicago-based Abbott said in a statement that such a move would put "the government's desire to cut health care spending ahead of patients' need for new and better treatments."

The company said it already sold its drugs to Brazil at a financial loss, but it said it was "willing to work with the government to find a mutually agreeable solution".

Brazil's health ministry estimates that 600,000 of the country's 183 million citizens have HIV/Aids.

The country has won praise internationally for providing free anti-retroviral drugs to anyone who needs them.

Under Brazilian law, the government can break drug patents if it is deemed to be in the public interest. This would be the first time it would have done so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4621735.stm

I don't know much about his but all can say based on the article is:

yay brazil

this is guy is from my state

This is a tough one. In the end, I'm going to side with a nation looking to stem it's AIDS epidemic. However, drug companies aren't as purely evil as many people like to think. They rely on patents, and yes, higher prices for those patented drugs, to fund their research on the thousands of drugs that never make it.

Now, I also realize many drug companies make hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. So, sacrificing one patent for the greater good wins out for me.

this idea is from the past adminstration (FHC) so as a good idea that is of course that Lula is keeping it

I'm pretty much right there with you, except that drug companies spend more on advertising than they do on research, and would rather market and sell a new drug to compete with an already existing one that works better rather than actually find a new drug that treats a disease better or that treats a new disease that currently has no treatments available. Oh, and most of the best pure reasearch is done at universities with government grants, and then the drug companies swoop in at the end to buy patent rights.

So yeah, I'll go with fuck the patent in order to fight AIDS in Brazil.

Yeah, you're right in the end. When there were a number of drug companies, not the monopolies that are starting to form, the statements I made were more true. I still don't view them as pure evil. Just another business, but there are a lot of people employed by drug companies who truly want to make a difference. Just the CEOs are the one's making ultimate decisions.

I'm in agreement as well, and I'd like to add that half of the advertisements don't even make any sense. They'll show some guy at a picnic, then at the office, then say "Ask your doctor if XYNOPHY is right for you." I still have no idea what XYNOPHY is supposed to do dammit! I'm not just going to ask my doctor if I should take it.

I believe the FDA has a rule that you can mention either the brand name, or the condition it treats, but if you mention both in the same ad, you also have to devote time to listing all its side effects.

Oh, and I've always thought that the best way to get drug costs down is to limit the patent length. I might philosophically disagree with re-banning ads, but I wouldn't really complain about it much if they did re-ban them.

Well that makes sense. Shouldn't I know the side effects anyway?

I'm going to put an ad out telling people they need my new barosolonameter but I'll not saying what it is. When they order one, I'll send them a piece of paper with a crayon mark on it.

Hats off to the above action (I don't know enough about the Brazilian government to say hats off to it in general)

If you look at the result of Indian-knockoff AIDS drugs you will see the huge risk this presents. The generics are not always isomerically identical, and ended up being less effective and bred greater resistance into AIDS strains in Africa. (see Triomune, used by MSF and WHO).

Recently, a organization called "The Global Fund" bought $41 million worth of generic malaria drugs because they were chaeper than the patented versions. They ended up ebing completly ineffifective.

I don't know enough about this to take a stance, but AIDS is unique in it's ability to evolve resistance to drugs and if therapies are given under non-optimal conditions (and prescriptions not taken exactly right; people who take less or skip pills to spread the dosage out) the chance of resistance becomes a threat.

Exactly. If you buy drugs outside of the US, you put yourself at risk because these drugs are not the same.

Furthermore, Abott Labs is a great company. I can't believe anyone would support this and take jobs away from another US company.

Also, Abbott expects Kaletra, its HIV drug, to be approved for a once-daily dosage basis in the summer. The company is also filing a supplemental new drug application this summer for a version of the drug that will eliminate the need for refrigeration. Kaletra is the No. 1 prescribed protease inhibitor, a class of drugs that stop the HIV virus from replicating.

I'm guessing eliminating the need for refrigeration is huge in 3rd world companies. But then again, why don't we just let foreign countries figure it out for themselves.

Hmmmm, a few hundred jobs vs. a few thousand (or more) lives.

I'm going with the lives on this one.

I don't agree with PJDoll very often, so when I do ... I have to chime in with a

Well we shall see if these generic Brazilian drugs are as good as the American ones. I'll put my $$$ on Abbott Labs.

And Abbott Labs is continuing to do more research with AIDS drugs, but what is the benefit for them if other foreign companies can copy their work?

If you can't afford the better drugs, they're 0% effective.

Here's my thoughts on the matter:

For drugs such as the ones for people with AIDS, cancer, etc, the government should pony up the cost for research. Not just the US government, but all governments, and the drugs or treatments should be available to everyone, regardless of income.

For drugs such as those for people with slow tear ducts, erectile dysfuntion, or itchy skin, let the company set the price and let those drugs pay for the research for the drugs that never make it.