Who is the responsible for ARV price reduction?

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

In last so many discussions & in last so many meetings held for

antiretroviral drugs CIPLA & Aurbinodo immunus they are claiming

that " We are the responsible to lower the prizes of ART & they

promote their company.

We as a fighter against HIV must know which one is doing more

justice & doing hard work in this direction.Because it is our

moral responsibility to support company who is really working

hard on this issue.

Can forum members elaborate on this issue ?

Dr.Rajesh Buddhadev MD

E-mail: buddhadev@...

__________________________________

[Guest guest]

[This is in response to Dr. Budhdeve's posting on who is responsible for

lowering the cost of of ART. Moderator]

Dear All,

The very fact that they have offered ARV at massively reduced prices is the

engine that fueled the successful global activism around this issue. Yes,

they are going to make money doing this so their motivation isn't entirely

humanitarian. But it seems to me that they are the more reasonable end of

conducting business. Making a reasonable profit is not the problem.

Price-gouging people and, worse, going out vigorously fighting access to

inexpensive drugs for millions of men, women and children is viewed by many

of us as a form of genocide. This is what the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers'

Association (PHRMA) and companies like Glaxo Kline has sought to do.

Of course, Cipla and Auribindo are not the only ones offering generics.

Companies in Brazil, Thailand and New Zealand have also contributed to

ending PHRMA's hostage hold on all people with HIV/AIDS. Various groups

such as HealthGap and cptech have done an enormous amount in these areas.

See http://www.cptech.org for more info. In my country (the US), the

miserly response of the Bush administration has horrified many. While $10

billion a year may sound like a lot, from a purely economic standpoint, it

is chump change--and the return on the investment in terms of saved lives

and helping to prevent massive destabilization of economies from the loss

of those lives makes it well worth it.

Now, it is the individual governments that must come to the fore and

advocate for western countries to provide the billions necessary to assure

distribution. Many of us activists in the west are advocating for just

that. In the developing nations, the individual governments must be held

accountable for their successes and failures both in areas of prevention

and treatment. In places like Zimbabwe, this may prove difficult when the

leader is a psychotic who wants only to get his diamonds from the Congo. By

contrast, Nigeria's Obesanjo is MUCH wiser and doing great work to help his

people.

What do others think about what is happening in India under the Vajpayee

government? What areas need to be improved?

M.

E-mail:<gmc0@...>

______________________________

[Guest guest]

[This message is in reponse to " Dr. Rajesh Buhddhadevwg "

<buddhadev@...> who wrote about the antiretroviral drugs

CIPLA & Aurbinodo immunus as they are claiming that " We are

the responsible to lower the prizes of ART & they

promote their company " Moderator].

_____________________

Dear Dr.

It is not important to make a distinction between

these 2 companies, or for that matter between the

other companies that are also ifso facto involved in

the price reduction process. The reason is that there

has been a cameo effect after the first announcement

of price reduction by cipla. Even the withdrawl of all

taxes and duties by the gvernment on ARVs is a effect

of that cameo. No less significant part in all this

has also been played by organisations like the lawyers

collective that has started the nationwide access to

drugs campaign. Coalitions like MAANN [MSM AIDS

Agencies National Network] has also strongly pushed

the agenda of reduction of drug prices for positive

persons. INP plus and the various state networks of

postive peoples have sustained the campaign. The

credit and the failures should be shared by all. Any

claim of sole credit by any corporate house is not

true/valid.

If however we get into a debate on which of these

companies is doing more, then it may just sound like

we are advocationg for a particular corporate house as

opposed to the other [..for what reason may be

questioned], when it is a joint effort of advocacy by

corporate groups, human rights bodies, and AIDS

agencies.

Regards

Aditya Bondyopadhyay

E-mail: buddhadev@...

____________________________

[Guest guest]

[This is in response to Dr. Budhdeve's posting on who is responsible for

lowering the cost of of ART. Moderator]

In my country (the US), the miserly response of the Bush administration

has horrified many. While $10 billion a year may sound like a lot, from

a purely economic standpoint, it is chump change--and the return on the

investment in terms of saved lives and helping to prevent massive

destabilization of economies from the loss of those lives makes it well

worth it.

Point of clarification....the $10 billion is the annual cost calculated to

vigorously address AIDS globally and provide access to treatment to nearly

every person with AIDS. (Not everyone with HIV--as the US National

Institutes of Health have changed their guidelines--sensibly in my view--to

suggest that treatment is best when started later in the course of disease,

i.e., around 350 T cells).

The amount offered by the US, richest country in the world, to address the

biggest threat to global health and security is a measly $200 million.

Re CD4 Counts, cptech's Love noted:

http://www.affordcd4.com/

M.

E-mail: <gmc0@...>

________________________________________