[People_to_People_Forum] Re: Are we prepared for large-scale ARV use in poor countries?

[Guest guest]

At 06:36 PM 10/2/2003 -0700, you wrote:

>snip...

>Just having the medicine is not and cannot be the

>answer to any of our problems. I guess the question

>raised here was differentiating what we CAN do and

>what we should ideally do. What can we do? Providing

>medications piece meal to individuals might make us

>feel at peace with ourselves but it is not the

>solution. Yes the doctors and engineers might be able

>to afford it but they don't number more than several

>thousand as compared to the millions that are

>infected.

I think what this points to is how ABYSMALLY the developed nations have

failed to address this WORST pandemic in human history.

ARV IS NEEDED NOW. PERIOD. Are you living with HIV? Would you or do you

want access to ARV to survive?

How many did--but they're dead now. How many more are going to die? Without

OI meds and ARV.

YES--this just the FIRST BIG STEP--but it IS the first part of the answer.

I have faith in the ability of Africans to be trained and train

others--patients, advocates, traditional healers and physicians working

together--to achieve, clinic by clinic, hospital by hospital, village by

village, city by city--in using and taking ARV. Yes, the problem is

daunting--but that is ALL the more reason to make sure the tools are

available and there are more and more people learning to best use and help

people with HIV/AIDS. It STARTS with ARV access. But without that first

step, the " journey of a thousand miles " doesn't really begin.

First, the pharmaceutical industry set back even the POSSIBILITY of

considering ARV for years by blocking access to generics. Americans are now

dying of AIDS because of the prices they charge. We must continue to fight

their vicious, murderous greed.

The US and EU could be building factories to produce EVEN MORE ARV/OI meds

to address this and provide the drugs for free or very damned little.

IMAGINATION! ACTIVISM! ENERGY!! These are all what's lacking.

Clearly, resources exist to DO this. It is NOT impossible--but my country's

government is filled with tyrannical, murdering liars that would rather

waste billions (every few weeks!) on war and killing for oil based on lies

rather than address this global issue. It is despicable beyond all measure.

And that's why many of us here are fighting to assure that Bush is gone by

next year (if not impeached sooner).

But the EU could do more. Japan could do more. The US will do more.

And each African nation could do more. Some governments are really vilely

corrupt tho--I have no quick easy answer for that. But there are ways to

work around them. The World Bank and IMF could forgive loans, attached to

the idea that erstwhile interet payments are instead dedicated specifically

to healthcare infrastructure, say.

Think outside the box. Make new demands. Continue the mobilization already

begun by so many amazing activist groups.

It's hard for me to even write in this forum, knowing how Pfizer has been

instrumental in the deaths of at least hundreds of thousands by blocking

access to fluconazole over the years.

My prayer for these people that so worship the Dollar over human life is

that there IS some life after we die. And they get to meet, as it is their

turn to die, each and EVERY man, woman and child their greed has murdered.

M.

****

What Pharmaceutical Companies Don't Want You To Know About The Price Of

Prescription Drugs

Commentary by NLA's Senator Edith Prague published in The Day Published on

9/28/2003

Instead of leading the way toward affordable prescription drug coverage for

all Americans, pharmaceutical executives seem determined to squander the

good will they inherited from their predecessors for immediate corporate

gain and greed. The public health, our nation's economic health, and the

long-term health of the very companies they head are negatively impacted by

these short sighted and ill-advised corporate strategies.

Drug companies' corporate strategies include Pfizer's latest effort block

reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada to keep Americans from

paying lower prices for drugs. The executives of these companies ask us to

believe their actions are motivated by concern for our health and our

welfare. It is instead a rather desperate effort to stem the tidal wave of

public sentiment which increasingly demands fair prices. If the industry is

allowed to shut off this important Canadian safety valve, many more

individuals will suffer adverse health and economic outcomes because they

won't be able to afford to buy the drugs they need.

The pharmaceutical industry wants us to believe there are no alternatives

to the current discriminatory pricing scheme, which has Americans paying

the highest prices in the world for their prescription drugs, and which too

often requires many Americans with health conditions, particularly senior

citizens, to pay the very highest prices paid in America. Sadly, not all

receive the medications they desperately need, and too often people go

without, or take reduced dosages in an attempt to get by.

These pharmaceutical executives are determined to preserve their advantage;

if they have their way taxpayers, businesses, and individuals will have to

ante up yet more money every year for prescription drugs. They threaten

dire consequences if governments have the temerity to use their leverage as

large purchasers to negotiate for lower prices.

They shroud their prices and marketing practices in secrecy in hopes that

Americans will forget that basic fairness demands that businesses, states

and individuals all get a better deal from the industry.

They suggest there's no room for government to use market power to win a

better deal for federal and state programs and to use its bargaining clout

on behalf of folks who have inadequate or no prescription drug coverage.

The facts suggest they are asking Americans to buy into a myth they have

created.

Here are some facts they don't want you to know:

* In 2002 the pharmaceutical industry raked in profits five-and-a half

times greater than the median for Fortune 500 companies.

* In 2000, 2001, and 2002 the 10 drug companies in the Fortune 500 topped

key measures of profitability netting a profit of 17 cents for every dollar

of revenue and producing a return on assets of 14.1 percent.

* The drug industry ranked second among all businesses in return on

shareholder equity, more than two and one half times the median for fortune

500 companies.

* Pfizer, with $9.1 billion in profits in 2002, was the most profitable of

the Fortune 500 drug companies producing 26 cents of profit for every

dollar of revenue. Early this year Pfizer acquired Pharmacia, another

Fortune 500 drug company with $597 million in profits in 2002.

In spite of industry claims that fair prices would chill research and

development the facts suggest the industry has plenty of alternatives to

cutting back on worthwhile research and development. Last year Fortune 500

drug companies took 17 percent of revenues in profit while spending just

14.1 percent of revenues on R & D.

Seven out of the nine profitable Fortune 500 drug companies devoted more of

their revenues to profit than R & D.

Pharmaceutical companies generally lump marketing expenses in with

administration costs, consistent with an industry culture devoted to

preventing familiarity with their marketing and pricing practices.

Nonetheless we know that in 2002 Fortune 500 drug companies devoted 30.8

percent of their revenue to marketing and administration, and just 14.1

percent of the revenue they reported on research and development.

In 2000 and 2001, eight of the nine drug companies selling the most drugs

to America's seniors spent more than twice as much on marketing and

administration than on R & D, according to Families USA. The CEOs of these

companies reportedly earned an average of almost $19 million. This figure

does not include stock options.

Figures documented in the new Public Citizen report, " The Other Drug War,

2003, " reveal that the industry spent a record of $ 91.4 million on

lobbying activities in 2002, an 11.6 percent increase from 2001. Recently

Pharmeceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, the industry trade

association, announced plans to increase such efforts by 25 percent, and a

virtual army of lobbyists is reported to be swarming in our nation's

Capitol to influence the Medicare prescription drug debate.

These figures do not include spending on advertising and PR, direct mail,

telemarketing, or grants to advocacy groups and academics made to benefit

the industry's interests.

Finally, there are the campaign contributions used to directly and

indirectly buy influence with our government. In the 2002 election cycle

the industry spent at least $17.6 million on various media to support GOP

prescription drug legislation they helped design. They funded $8 million

dollars of ads in key congressional races including some here in

Connecticut supporting Congresswoman .

There is a strong need for elected officials to put the public interest

ahead of the corporate interests of the pharmaceutical industry. In the

absence of strong federal leadership, I will continue to do all I can in

our General Assembly to fight for fair pharmaceutical prices in Connecticut.

State Sen. Edith Prague lives in Columbia. A Democrat,she represents to

19th state Senate District.

Cheryl Rivers

Executive Director

National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices Box 58

Stockbridge,Vt. 05772 802-234-5553

[Guest guest]

Dear all:

I think we are talking about different things.

The question asks if we are prepared for large scale ARV treatment in

poor countries or not.Many of the answers are as if it is whether we

need them or not.

If people think we are prepared it will help to say so and explain.

Those who say no should do the same. Of course one can also say the

question is irrelevant or something else. Stating that meds are

needed is not the same as stating we are prepared.

Ashenafi

www.gap-a.org

> Pardon the tardiness in responding to all these threads but I have

been MIA for the past few days. I just saw this and I can't help but

agree with you on this one, . I am not living with HIV but that

means little. If I were, I would want access to medication at all

costs; I mean, who wants to die and leave their kids, if they have

any?! The statement " Just having the medicine is not and cannot be

the answer to any of our problems " is not entirely unfounded, it just

needs some modification. Don't know who authored it, but I can only

assume or hope they meant " ...answer to ALL of our problems. " There

is no doubt that we need to find a cure for HIV/AIDS however,

medications alone will not rid the world of HIV/AIDS, because the

related issues are deep. Meds can help us get HIV/AIDS to a

manageable level but, who would want to live with a disease even if

manageable in the first place? Those suffering SHOULD have access

to treatment and that they aren't, particularly when the

pharmaceuticals are making such profit, is nothing short of immoral

in my book. I think the person who made this statement meant to say

that medication are an important and crucial component to winning

this war against HIV/AIDS, but that alone, medications will not

succeed. Basically, it's not ALL about passing around cocktails, we

need to understand the illness, modify behaviour etc.

>

> Mwende Edozie

> www.twanatwitu.com

[Guest guest]

At 11:18 PM 10/5/2003 +0000, you wrote:

>Dear all:

>

>I think we are talking about different things.

>

>The question asks if we are prepared for large scale ARV treatment in

>poor countries or not.Many of the answers are as if it is whether we

>need them or not.

>If people think we are prepared it will help to say so and explain.

>Those who say no should do the same. Of course one can also say the

>question is irrelevant or something else. Stating that meds are

>needed is not the same as stating we are prepared.

I think it's scary how many people think people do not need them? (Or like

the pharmaceutical industry says: " Gee, there's no market in Africa for our

products. " Translation? They're too poor to afford our murderous prices.)

As to preparedness--I think that the answer is YES. But it also means that

there are lots of steps that can happen concurrently with ARV access.

Training in best use (e.g., don't mix stavudine and zidovudine),

scheduling. It means more access to syringes for ONE use and blood work.

I think the big thing is going to be training of nurses, doctors and

traditional healers as well as committed community activists to all take

part. While trying to slow the lesioning of nurses to EU and USA from

Africa. That means assuring a decent wage to overwhelmed, overworked and

sometimes sick healthcare workers.

Another big question is WILLING. Thabo Mbeki appears not to be, for example.

So there can be no one sweeping answer to all of this. It must be answered

nation by nation, village by village, person by person. It must be with

every NGO, hospital, clinic and volunteer who can help.

And there needs to be more hue and cry. For those of us in the United

States, it means doing everything possible to get rid of the Bush

administration and its terrible lies while holding them to task for the $3

billion for this year. The world's very existence depends on these guys

being kicked out of office as swiftly as possible. And then we should

demand our government fund the WHOLE $10 billion for GFATM (getting rid of

Tommy ASAP too).

OK...there's a mix of goals, wishes and ideas...there are practical models

upon which these can be brought to fruition that already exist.

I think a massive infusion of ARV is not to be worried about too soon,

unfortunately. But I KNOW that it can be done swiftly.

There just has to be the will and sense of urgency and demand.

What are other thoughts? Another way to look at it would be to describe

some of the programs and challenges they've faced. Like Farmer's Haiti

program, as one example of a pilot project in a very poor rural region.

M.

[Guest guest]

awaktola <awaktola@...> wrote:

Dear all:I think we are talking about different things. The question asks if we are prepared for large scale ARV treatment in poor countries or not.Many of the answers are as if it is whether we need them or not.If people think we are prepared it will help to say so and explain. Those who say no should do the same. Of course one can also say the question is irrelevant or something else. Stating that meds are needed is not the same as stating we are prepared.Ashenafiwww.gap-a.org > Pardon the tardiness in responding to all these threads but I have been MIA for the past few days. I just saw this and I can't help but agree with you on this one, . I am not living with HIV but that means little. If I were, I would want access to

medication at all costs; I mean, who wants to die and leave their kids, if they have any?! The statement "Just having the medicine is not and cannot be the answer to any of our problems" is not entirely unfounded, it just needs some modification. Don't know who authored it, but I can only assume or hope they meant "...answer to ALL of our problems." There is no doubt that we need to find a cure for HIV/AIDS however, medications alone will not rid the world of HIV/AIDS, because the related issues are deep. Meds can help us get HIV/AIDS to a manageable level but, who would want to live with a disease even if manageable in the first place? Those suffering SHOULD have access to treatment and that they aren't, particularly when the pharmaceuticals are making such profit, is nothing short of immoral in my book. I think the person who made this statement meant to say that medication are an important and crucial component to winning

this war against HIV/AIDS, but that alone, medications will not succeed. Basically, it's not ALL about passing around cocktails, we need to understand the illness, modify behaviour etc.> > Mwende Edozie> www.twanatwitu.comhttp://www./group/http://www./group/aids-africa (a group made up of Africans worldwide)Join Digital Africa- an information technology group that discusses IT in Africa at http://www./group/digafrica