All eyes on India’s drug patent case

This week, India’s highest court will hear final arguments in a landmark case that could severely limit access to affordable medicine. The Swiss pharmaceutical company, Novartis, took the government of India to court after it denied the company a patent for a modified version of an existing cancer drug. This process, known as evergreening, is clever way to extend a drug’s patent life by tweaking it before its patent expires. You would think these minor tweaks would result in a superior drug capable of curing all ills or, at the very least, improve the existing formulation. But, in all too many cases, evergreening doesn’t result in enhanced benefits, though it certainly deepens Big Pharma’s pockets. And of course we all know they’re cash strapped. Stephanie Nolen of the Globe and Mail reports here.

They Go to Die: A TB/HIV and Human Rights Film

“If we turn an epi­demic into an emo­tion, we moti­vate change.” – Jonathan Smith

In his film, Jonathan Smith – an epidemiologist and Director of the Visual Ethnography Project at Yale University – aims to put humanity back into research. He’s invited into the homes of four mine workers living with HIV/TB co-infection and, in the broader context of human life, he takes viewers beyond cold epidemiological data and into the lives of the men. They are not unlike many others seeking work in the South African mining industry. But not all work is created equal: poorly ventilated mines are perfect terrain for TB transmission, and mines, combined with HIV, are currently the two largest driving factors of the TB epidemic in South Africa.

The message is simple: mine workers become sick and they go home to die because they’re not provided with the essential health care or medicine required to keep them alive. But death is not inevitable: HIV/TB co-infection is largely preventable and treatable – so long as there’s the will to do it.

Jonathan is on a mission to do just that: he’s seeking to raise enough funds to complete post-production of the film with the hope that viewers, like you, will create the pressure and impetus necessary to improve the working conditions in mines and impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of workers looking to make an honest living.

Interested in meeting Jonathan in person? Join him in Vancouver at UBC for a viewing of the film!

Date: 4:00PM, Friday, October 21st

Location:  Norm Theatre, Student Union Building, UBC, 6138 Student Union Blvd.

Admission: Free

More Info: http://ubc-uaem.org/

A portrait of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa

I came across this photo-essay in the Walrus archives. It’s easy to get lost in the enormity of the pandemic but I think these photos help humanize the data.

Another impressive declaration but will it help increase access?

On June 27th, over 30 international parliamentarians attended the Global Fund
Partnership Forum in São Paulo, Brazil. At the conclusion of the Forum, attendees adopted a statement titled, São Paulo Parliamentary Declaration On Access To Medicines And Other Pharmaceutical Products. It aims to achieve many things, including a commitment to: 

Oppose, and refrain from pursuing or adopting, provisions in bilateral and regional trade and investment agreements, that would undermine access to medicines and other pharmaceutical products, including provisions that would further limit the use of policy options such as compulsory licensing and parallel importing; data exclusivity restrictions; linkage between patent status and registration of generics; patent term extension; and enforcement measures and investment provisions that include intellectual property rights.

While stated commitments serve to send a clear political message, how well do they translate into action?

The most significant public health amendment to the TRIPs Agreement–known as the Doha Declaration–has yet to result in equitable access. Although 60 countries have utilized TRIPs flexibilities in order to gain access to lower cost drugs, the global intellectual property (IP) system continues to flex its muscle and effectively block affordable access. While there have been tremendous gains in the global scale up of essential medicine, particularly for HIV drugs, equitable access still remains precarious at best. There are many reasons for this, one of which is the movement toward greater IP protection, known as “TRIPS plus”, which essentially looks like the TRIPs agreement on steroids.

While the São Paulo Declaration gives me hope that smart people with political leverage are going to bat for a great cause, I wonder how much impact it will have on access. Is this (and other stated declarations) a necessary first step toward equitable access, or better yet, global IP reform? Or will it become just another optimistic statement that will crumble in the face of stringent IP rules that have systematically failed to meet the health needs of the global poor?

I tip my hat to the parliamentarians who helped draft this document. My only hope is that it translates into tangible health improvements for people who require medicine but can’t afford it.

Dear Government: please update the CAMR website

Much has occurred since 2004, the year Canada’s ambitious humanitarian law known as Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR) came into force. In 2008-2009, one order of an HIV-drug left Canada for Rwanda, which highlighted the need to simplify the law and make it more user-friendly. (This order marked the one and only time the law was used.) Later, two reform bills (S-232 and C-393) entered Parliament in an attempt to amend the unworkable law. They both died in the Senate however: S-232 following prorogation in 2009 and C-393 after it was effectively stalled by Conservative Senators and left to die on the order paper when Parliament dissolved in 2011. CAMR raised many eyebrows and a handful of stories emerged online and in Canadian newspapers. Heck, even celebrities such as K’naan started talking about CAMR. But according to the Government of Canada website dedicated to CAMR, nothing new has occurred since March 13th, 2008. I’m not suggesting the government give a shout out to K’naan but it wouldn’t hurt to update the “what’s new” section. Just sayin’.

Wonder Drug Inspires Deep, Unwavering Love Of Pharmaceutical Companies

Just kidding. That’s the title of a satire I found buried in the Onion archives. Pretty darn funny.

HIV positive babies?

Sounds like an oxymoron, right? Well, sadly, it’s not. HIV transmission from mom to baby (affectionately referred to as Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV) has almost been eliminated in wealthy countries due to effective prevention strategies but the same can’t be said for many poor regions. While the reasons for this are complex, one factor remains: there is very little market incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop paediatric HIV drugs that are appropriate and safe.

Thankfully, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi)—a not-for-profit organization that uses an alternative model to develop medicine for neglected diseases–is doing something about it. On July 18th at the 6th International AIDS Society (IAS) Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention, DNDi announced the launch of a new program that aims to address this unmet need. More details can be found here. According to Dr. Bernard Pécoul, the Executive Director of  DNDi:

“There are millions of children with HIV/AIDS in low- and middle-income countries, but their needs are absent from the HIV research and development agenda, and this is largely because they are poor and voiceless and do not represent a lucrative market. Working with partners, we hope to help fill this terrible gap and offer improved treatment options for children with HIV/AIDS.”

I can imagine a world where more people are able to live a healthy and fruitful life. Ideally, this begins with a healthy childhood. Props to DNDi for refusing to accept such a grim global reality.

Gilead to license several HIV/AIDS drugs to the Medicines Patent Pool

On July 12th Gilead, a US-based pharmaceutical company, announced their plans to license four HIV drugs and one fixed-dose combination to the Medicines Patent Pool. This marks the first agreement between the Medicines Patent Pool and a pharmaceutical company. (woohoo!) Although this is a significant step toward increasing global access to affordable meds, a few concerns remain. The agreement limits manufacturing to one country – India – which in turn limits competition (an important mechanism to drive costs down) and people living in middle-income countries – including China and Brazil – are excluded. You can find a more detailed explanation here.

Wondering what a patent pool is? This animation explains it nicely.

Contributor Bio: Stephanie Gatto

Stephanie is an access to medicines junkie armed with research tools and a penchant for social justice. She has a background in global public health and is a researcher in Vancouver BC.

James Cowan: Not all senators against bill C-393

Liberal Senator James Cowan and Leader of the Opposition shares his opinion on the state of Bill C-393 this weekend at the Toronto Star:

I am writing to correct a point made in this otherwise excellent article. Craig and Marc Kielburger made a strong case that Bill C-393 could have gone a long way to save potentially millions of lives. They went on to say that “Canada’s unelected Senate” stalled the bill that had passed in the House of Commons.

Canadians should know that it was not the whole of the Senate, but rather the Conservative majority that insisted on delaying action on the bill until the government fell on the no-confidence motion in the House of Commons. In fact, it was a Liberal senator, Yoine Goldstein, who introduced the first bill in Parliament in March 2009 to fix the problem with Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime, and help make it possible for people in developing countries to access affordable life-saving medicines. That bill unfortunately died on the order paper when Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament. Bill C-393, the NDP bill referred to by the Kielburgers, was virtually identical to Goldstein’s bill.

My Liberal colleagues and I — joined by both a Conservative and a Progressive Conservative senator — spoke strongly about the importance of this bill, and urged that it be considered promptly and passed into law before the expected election. To our disappointment, with their new majority in the Senate, the Conservatives were able to repeatedly adjourn debate on the bill, and effectively stalled it until the government fell.

The issue has not gone away. The need for affordable drugs in developing countries is as great as ever.My colleagues and I are already discussing the best way to move forward with this important initiative.

James S. Cowan, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate

Roche Wins as High Court Limits University Patent Rights

The United States Supreme Court recently announced their decision on a landmark case revolving around university patent rights on life-saving medical technologies. The technology in question, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (real-time PCR), is a highly effective tool in diagnosing infectious diseases and detecting new and emerging threats.

Originally developed by Stanford scientist Mark Holodniy, advancements in real-time PCR were claimed to be owned by the university, under the conditions of the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act that outlines universities’ legal rights for research funded by the federal government. Holodniy later signed agreements that transferred ownership of his PCR work to Cetus Corp, now owned by Roche Pharmaceuticals. Stanford argued that the Bayh-Dole Act superseded any agreement made afterwards by Holodniy and Cetus.

However, in the ruling led by Chief Justice John Roberts, it’s said that the 1980 law doesn’t displace the historical principle that inventors are allowed to have first claim on their work. This decision will certainly affect future cases of patent ownership and potentially all technologies that were jointly developed through federal funding, university research and industry collaboration.

The patent for real-time PCR will be held by Roche until 2021.

For more coverage on this case, the full article by Bloomberg News is available here.

A press release by Roche on the court’s ruling can be read here.

Passing drug bill imperative: AIDS in Africa could be stopped in its tracks if medications were available

Here is a recent op-ed written by Craig and Marc Kielburger of the non-profit Free the Children. Reprinted from the Edmonton Journal. Definitely worth a read…

– – –

We build schools in Kenyan villages where teachers die, but their students refuse to name the cause because of its potent stigma, even as coffins are lowered into graves.

We’ve seen husbands, mothers, and then their children, wither away from a mysterious illness rather than be ostracized with a diagnosis.

In North America, access to treatment makes it possible for people with HIV/AIDS to lead relatively comfortable lives. In developing countries, where antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) are prohibitively expensive, AIDS is a curse.

There’s still no cure, but Canada has a chance to save potentially millions of lives with a single legislation. Bill C-393 would reform Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime, a system so flawed it’s only been used to ship a single drug to Rwanda since it was first introduced six years ago.

Bill C-393 allows Canadian companies to manufacture generic versions of patented drugs, like ARVs, making it easier to deliver affordable medicine to developing countries. It passed the House of Commons on March 9, but stalled in the Senate, and then died on the order paper when the government fell.

When Parliament resumes June 2 there will be numerous pleas for the attention of Stephen Harper’s majority government. But this is more than a plea. Finally passing this bill is a moral imperative, and research released since its initial passing has made it an urgent one.

A few weeks ago, a major clinical trial found that treating HIV-positive people with ARVs led to 96 per cent reduction of transmission for the 1,763 participating couples in 13 sites all over the world, including Kenya.

The breakthrough was so great that results were released four years earlier than scheduled.

“We have a new vaccine and it’s called treatment,” Dr. Jennifer Cohn from Medecins sans frontieres, a medical relief organization with offices in Kenya, recently told the Nairobi Star. Advocacy organizations also predicted the virus could be eradicated in Kenya in just a few years.

Kenya is our second home -we’ve spent the past 15 summers there. We love the untouched beauty of its landscapes and the warmth of its people, but we’re sick with the knowledge that AIDS devastates the country.

Mary was a nurse in Kenya’s Rift Valley. She knew her husband had been unfaithful, and that she was in danger. But he refused to wear condoms -he’d paid her dowry, she was his property. When Mary was diagnosed with HIV, her husband abandoned her while she was pregnant with their second child. Women are more likely to be identified as carriers because of prenatal testing. Her child, who we will call Abby, was born HIV-positive.

Mary couldn’t afford proper treatment. When she died, none of her close relatives would adopt Abby for fear of “catching” the virus. The now two-year-old has little hope of receiving the medicine she desperately needs to survive.

Canadian pharmaceutical company Apotex Inc. has promised to make a generic duplicate of a pediatric ARV should bill C-393 pass. Dr. James Orbinski, founder of the medical humanitarian organization Dignitas International and staunch supporter of C-393, has said this alone would save millions of lives, since generic drugs reduce treatment costs from $10,000 to $100 a year -even less for children, like Abby.

We wonder how many people were infected while Canada’s unelected Senate stalled a bill that passed in the House of Commons with a vote 172 to 111 -including support from the Bloc and NDP, all but two Liberals and a handful of Conservatives.

But not a single Conservative cabinet minister supported the bill, and brand-name drug companies, threatened by the prospect of lost business, lobbied against it.

Ideally, competition on the global market would increase with added competition from generic companies better able to compete on price, driving costs down for poor people dying preventable deaths. This is a humanitarian aid bill meant to save lives, not money.
After years battling opposition and regulatory quirks in the House, only to be stalled to death in the Senate, Bill C-393 isn’t guaranteed a swift pass through this Parliament.

Canada’s political landscape has changed. The NDP say they will reintroduce the private member’s bill that was first passed in the minority Parliament.

Canada has two choices.

The Conservative government could bolster the country’s reputation on the world stage at no cost to taxpayers. In fact, passing the bill would make Canada’s foreign aid dollars go further because we, and developing countries, could purchase more medicine for less.

Or, our government could fail to act, leaving countless people to die needless deaths.

CIHR Reverses Drug Trial Policy

Canada’s national funding agency for health sciences, CIHR, made a controversial move to cancel a policy that required full public disclosure on results from drug trials. Without full disclosure of study results, the public may not be privy to important early details about drugs that may be ineffective or worse, significantly toxic. Transparency, a necessity for gathering evidence and truth in making healthcare related decisions, is believed to have been further undermined by the lobbying efforts of Canada’s pharmaceutical corporations. CIHR has increasingly drawn fire for its closeness with industry, having appointed last year an executive from Pfizer to their national board. Quoting Sir Iain Chalmers, co-founder of the U.K.’s respected Cochrane Collaboration research body: “It seems to me that CIHR has decided that it’s going to put my interests and the interests of other patients behind those of industry…. I think that’s tragic.”

The full article by the National Post is available here.

UNICEF Begins to List Prices Paid for Vaccines

UNICEF recently announced that it would list the prices paid for vaccines to pharmaceutical corporations and it’s now available online. The decision to withhold this information until recently came out of a concern to avoid confrontation with pharmaceutical organizations. This is not a surprising demand by the industry, considering that increased transparency on the true costs of treating illnesses has protected them from a level of scrutiny and competition that would undoubtedly lead to calls for lower prices.

For more details on UNICEF’s announcement, visit the New York Times article here.

Drugs and Profits: NYT Op-Ed on Avastin

Dr. Frederick C. Tucker recently wrote an opinion on the state of Avastin–a very expensive anti-cancer drug designed to suppress the growth of breast cancer tumors when used jointly with primary chemotherapy drugs such as Taxol. Avastin received accelerated approval by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but is now known for having significantly toxic side effects that outweigh quality of life, does not lengthen patient lives and whose approval is likely to be revoked.

Avastin itself is part of a new class of modern drugs generally referred to as biologics–medicines derived from an organic source. Akin in the way that vaccines are derived from pathogenic bacteria or viruses, many new biologic drugs are derived from recombinant DNA. The value of biologics has largely been contested and in cases like Avastin, where it costs an additional $90,000 to treat one cancer patient a year, we might ask why we are willing to spend so much on a drug that neither improves the quality of life nor extends it?

Now that Avastin’s effectiveness as an anti-cancer drug is questioned, Genentech, Avastin’s manufacturer, is frantically trying to find a way to hold its market share by commissioning more studies to demonstrate improved quality of life or prove it’s value for treating another unrelated illness–macular degeneration. As Dr. Tucker writes, drug companies are better off spending their money on discovering a genuinely innovative medicine instead of marketing a failed one.

Dr. Tucker’s full op-ed on the case of Avastin can be read here.

Are we human enough to discuss human rights?

While working on some research for an International Relations (my discipline) course on access to essential medicines, I came across the infamous Alma-Ata Declaration of 1978 and was pleased to find exactly what I was looking for:

“Article I: The Conference strongly reaffirms that health, which is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, is a fundamental human right…”

I thought for a moment about what a group of IR students would say about the ‘right to health.’ You see, IR students like to debate this whole idea of “basic human rights” (BHR). When deciding whether or not something is a BHR, we like to put all our cards on the table: colonialism, culture, religion, historical context, socioeconomic conditions, etc.. We like to calmly indicate that we wish to speak; when given the opportunity we speak slowly, so that everyone can understand how damn insightful we’re being while demonstrating our deep, inclusive understanding of said right/region/issue. It usually goes something like this:

“I would challenge the idea that (INSERT BHR) is a universal human right. Look at (INSERT COUNTRY)- the majority of their population is/believes in/practices (INSERT RELIGION/CULTURE/SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITION) and their (RELIGION/CULTURE/HISTORICAL/SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT)) wouldn’t value or support (INSERT BHR,) and in fact, contradicts that right entirely.”

We then sit back and observe the effect of the incredible insight we have just provided to our peers/the points we have just scored with our professor.

What is that you say? There are human rights that are transferrable across all of these things? NUH-UH! Everything can be contested! Don’t believe me? Let me provide an example. Last term in a fourth-year level seminar we were discussing what constitutes basic human security by mining our way through dozens of definitions from various states, organizations and documents. The definitions covered everything: death, injury, reasonable access to sufficient sources of food and water, safety from political persecution, freedom from movement, the list goes on.

We contested everything: women’s rights in Middle Eastern countries (“how could we possibly say they should prosecute sexual violence, or stop public stoning? Their beliefs just don’t support that”, or my favourite, “I don’t think we can say that women’s rights are universal human rights”), Female Genital Mutilation/Circumcision  (“a bigger infringement on rights”, one argued, “would be to oppose this culturally accepted practice”), and food/ political expression/ health/ happiness (these items were the subject of many eye rolls… “duh, these are solely WESTERN values”). At the end of it, we could all agree on one basic human right: the right to life, as in, you should be allowed to walk down the street without being shot down.

So what about this ‘right to health’? Over the last two years I’ve come to learn much about the access to essential medicines debate through volunteer, research, and course work.  After learning a lot about patent law, the pharmaceutical industry, government regulation, and public health policy, I can confidently say that the issue is thoroughly depressing. Want an issue where the West and the rest don’t care? It’s health in developing countries. The culprits aren’t obesity, diabetes, cancer or heart disease, but diseases like malaria, TB, HIV/AIDS, and regional diseases like African Sleeping Sickness, that could be treated or cured with modern medicine we have readily available and generally don’t use all that much. But there is no money, no purchasing power, no affordable drugs, no viable market, and sporadic prevention programs. So people die.

In Canada, we had the opportunity with a recent bill to potentially make an impact on the access to medicines issue and prevent people from dying. All of the experts who work on the ground in these developing countries, who see the illness and issues at first hand, said this bill was what we needed to do. The UN Development Programme, Medicines Sans Frontiers, Stephen Lewis, James Orbinski and Richard Elliot, all stepped up to the plate to explain to our legislators and citizens why this bill would work in providing life-saving medicines to those that need them. Our Senators (mostly of the Conservative variety), who might know a bit about whatever it is they do, but know little to nothing about public health, said it wouldn’t work. They came up with all the excuses they could muster, none of them making any sense in relation to the bill’s content.  All the while, pharmaceutical lobbyists concerned about any change to Canada’s monopolistic patent law, trickled in and out of parliament. And you know what most people did? Believed them.

Did you really believe that ignoring the experts, and siding with Senators was the right thing to do? Is your biggest concern REALLY whether or not pharmaceutical companies will be okay after this bill? Or was it the easiest to believe?

Because if everything the experts were saying was true – that this bill would successfully provide life-saving medications without costing pharmaceutical companies or Canadians anything – you would be really, really upset.

And isn’t apathy easier, than being really upset and disappointed? Doesn’t that sound like a lot of work?

Are rights, like access to medicine that could save the life of your mother/child/brother/sister, really all that subjective? Or are we just afraid of realizing how objective they are, because we would be too disgusted with how often we violate them?

I recently watched a very honest and inspiring TEDx Toronto talk given by Sol Guy. He said if we’re debating human rights issues, then we have to be human. Only when we become more human, do we create change.

I know, I instantly pictured a bunch of half-human, IR-student zombies too.

Back to the grind. Now… where were we? Ah right, we want to host a carnival!

O.K. O.K. We’ve been a little neglectful of this blog. The Canadian election sort of sucked the wind from us, but here we are, back again with renewed vigor.

First order of business – let’s ramp up the Global Health carnival. We had a few submissions, but we also really want to make the first one EPIC! In light of that desire, we’re going to push the dates forward a bit – let’s move the deadline to May 31st, so that we have a proper chance to showcase some great work around the internets.

Also:

For those of you unfamiliar with the “carnival” vernacular, this is where we seek out submissions whereby writers highlight their kick ass blog posts which tackle the many and various themes surrounding global health. Then, we concoct a one stop blog post to highlight all of this fine writing.

Possible topics can be humanities driven: i.e. access to medicines, big pharma corporations, development issues, politics and health, etc. Or, they can be science driven: i.e. new data or research on this or that disease, new therapeutics that are cool or working well (preferably both), general science geekery. Submissions can even be creative or a little goofy in nature. It’s all good.

Plus, as mentioned before, we get in a habit of making a lovely to look at pdf file amenable for downloading and reading on what e-book/tablet device you may have.

Anyway, leave a link to your remarkable piece of writing in the comments, or point us in the right direction using a tweet via @myrightsvsyours

Game on!

What Would You Say to your Children about the Canadian Government? (My two cents)

It’s election time again and, as is the norm, we see teachers using the opportunity to talk to their students about things such as Prime Ministers, parliaments, senates, and, well, basically – how this thing we call the “Canadian Government” is meant to work. My own daughter who is in Grade 4 is in such a class, and has been asking me all sorts of questions: the most prevalent of which is “Who is Alice Wong?” Not a surprising question, since her face is fairly ubiquitous in Richmond, BC where I live, being set against the many blue Conservative signs and placards (she is our incumbent MP).

Because we’ve had a few elections of late, I have a habit of how I deal with such questions from my kids – these opportunities to talk politics. So far, being an educator and scientist myself, my training forces me to be objective, focusing primarily on the different philosophies that each of our political parties represent, including the general pros and cons of each. I tell my children that who you choose is a personal decision driven by what you think is important. Above all, voting is a privilege, as is the act of receiving a vote if you are campaigning. I think it best to not indoctrinate your kids with your own views, but rather to succinctly tell them that voting is something special, and deserves some effort to be informed on the issues. If you take that view, the rest will happen naturally.

Unfortunately, this time around, and to my surprise, I found myself facing my daughter and uttering the following: “I’m not really a big fan of Alice Wong.” This was quite a shift of attitude, and here is why: I have no issue with Conservative ideas and values (I actually agree with some of them), but I am tremendously concerned with the actions of the current Canadian Government.

How I came to this conclusion is due to many issues, but the one that has lit the proverbial “fire in my belly,” is a law that would fix policy to allow life saving drugs to be made at lower cost. There’s merit in this because it permits individuals, desperate in places like Africa, to be able to afford them. HIV/AIDS has the most disconcerting narrative: if you are diagnosed with HIV, now considered a chronic disease with very effective medicines, the choice between living and dying is based on your income. It’s that cold.

This law was called Bill C-393. And it was a good one. It was aimed to be innovative and to fix the previous law, which wasn’t working at all. It took care to protect Canadian pharmaceutical companies so that such generic drugs could only be sold to markets that weren’t in the industry’s bottom line. It had a built in “let’s monitor” clause. It was backed up by robust expert peer review, involving economists, policy analysts, health experts. Cost to taxpayers: zero. Because of all of these facts, it was passed by the Parliament in March – even many Conservatives broke rank and voted for it.

However, in a truly frustrating string of events, it was left to die in Senate, when Tory Senators (a large portion of which were appointed by Harper) continually delayed voting on it, until it was killed by default with the call of the election. A mini screenplay to describe this would consist of four acts, each one with the same dialogue: “We’d like to adjourn because such and such would like to speak, but oh, he’s left for the day, can we do this tomorrow?”

Why were there these four days of delay? Apparently, it’s because the pharmaceutical industry would rather keep things as is, even going so far as to distribute misleading counter arguments, all of which have been firmly discredited by the aforementioned expert peer review process. All of which were delivered top down to the mailboxes of Conservative Senators, and the rest, as they say, is history.

I know that critiquing Miss Wong in front of my daughter is somewhat unfair (despite being one of the few who voted against Bill C-393 in parliament), but she is representative of the bigger problem. She is a small cog in a remarkably unsettling machine. I know the value of strong leadership, but this should not trump ethical leadership. Can you imagine my daughter at school, learning not about how the “Canadian Government” works, but instead, the “Harper Government?”

MacGyver would be proud: Possible 3 cent HIV test.

Literally, an HIV diagnostic kit made from tape and paper.  Seriously, if there was also a mention of a paper clip in there, I’d haf expect MacGyver to be a co-author.

Anyway, here’s a quote from the blog post over at Discover Magazine:

A new device smaller and cheaper than a postage stamp could be used to diagnose diseases in developing countries, Harvard researchers report. The sophisticated microfluidic diagnostic devices, called microPADS, are made out of little more than paper and sticky tape and cost about three cents each. “The starting point with us was asking, ‘What’s the simplest, cheapest [material] we could think of?’ … And that was paper,” [The Scientist] said co-author George Whitesides. (read more)

For those who prefer the technical jargon, this was recently published at PNAS, but I’ve copied the abstract below:

“This article describes a method for fabricating 3D microfluidic devices by stacking layers of patterned paper and double-sided adhesive tape. Paper-based 3D microfluidic devices have capabilities in microfluidics that are difficult to achieve using conventional open-channel microsystems made from glass or polymers. In particular, 3D paper-based devices wick fluids and distribute microliter volumes of samples from single inlet points into arrays of detection zones (with numbers up to thousands). This capability makes it possible to carry out a range of new analytical protocols simply and inexpensively (all on a piece of paper) without external pumps. We demonstrate a prototype 3D device that tests 4 different samples for up to 4 different analytes and displays the results of the assays in a side-by-side configuration for easy comparison. Three-dimensional paper-based microfluidic devices are especially appropriate for use in distributed healthcare in the developing world and in environmental monitoring and water analysis.”

Drop a beat: Grannies rap about access to medicines

Canadian grannies and their families rap to K’naan’s Wavin Flag to demand that Canada make good on its promise to provide affordable medicines to countries in need. A child dies every 6 seconds in developing countries because of a lack of affordable, lifesaving medicines. Some 17 million children in Africa have been orphaned because of HIV/AIDS. Most are being raised by their courageous, desperately poor grandmothers. You can help–take action at http://www.aidsaction.ca/ and contact your local politicians today!

Donald Trump and Access to Medicine: My predictions.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that Mr. Trump is not a big fan of compulsory licensing.

But it’s tougher call on his stance with Neglected Diseases. I mean what is up with his hair: that condition must be pretty rare right?

Just saying…

Access 101: Introduction to Compulsory Licensing

If you’re new to the issue of access to medicines, you’ll see us talk often of intellectual property and how these laws and rules affect people’s ability to obtain life-saving medicines. Today I’ll discuss compulsory licensing but before I do, I need to talk a bit about intellectual property.

What is intellectual property? Well, intellectual property is a branch of law that deals with the rights and ownership of ideas–properties of the mind, so to speak. It’s grounded in the belief that individuals should be able to protect their ideas and profit off of them and in turn, the financial returns will also drive economic development. We usually see intellectual property in the form of:

• Copyright (the expression of ideas say in a textbook or journal article)
• Trademarks (think of Microsoft’s floating window logo and McDonald’s golden arches) or
• Patents (which applies to inventions like cameras or chemical compounds)

So this is all very well and good we might say–if I come up with some original work, I ought to be able to take ownership and make money to recoup the time and resources I spent coming up with that valuable idea. For the most part I would agree with that. But what about when this idea means the difference between life or death, sickness and health? What happens when people don’t have the means to afford the prices someone else sets? That’s where compulsory licenses (CL) come into light. CL’s are a legal means to force a patent-holder to grant use of a patent to the government or another party. Historically, CL’s are used in extraordinary situations to protect health and human safety, situations like:

• World War II, where the allies needed to manufacture a large number of specific engines in airplanes for minimum cost.
• 2001, where the Anthrax bacteria scare in the U.S. led their government to issue a compulsory license to maximize production of the antibiotic ciprofloxacin.
• The HIV/AIDS pandemic, where the cost to treat one patient for one year in the early 1990’s was well over $10,000.

So we see that there are very good reasons to use compulsory licensing when human safety is threatened and there is a clear precedent of its use and value. When faced with the rising problem of access to medicines in the developing world, the World Trade Organization incorporated means to address these imbalances by implementing mechanisms to use CL in the international trade agreement, TRIPS. Critics of the WTO have argued however that these measures are insufficient and do not allow CL to be effectively used by populations in need (read more in the links below).

Initially TRIPS only allowed a country to obtain a compulsory license for domestic markets, that meant if you’re a country like Rwanda that has no pharmaceutical industry, you will need someone industrialized (like Canada) to export medicine to you. TRIPS was updated to reflect this gap in something called the ‘August 30th Decision’–it allowed member countries to develop a legal mechanism for manufacturers to obtain a CL so they could export a life-saving medicine to developing countries. Canada was the first to do so by creating Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime; however, this is far from a functional solution which Dave Ng writes more about here.

Compulsory licensing is but one solution for a variety of problems that constitute the challenging in providing medicines for the 1-in-3 people around the world who still lack access. We have much to talk about the limitations of compulsory licensing, other mechanisms for improving access in terms of IP management and other logistical problems that prevent medicines reaching points of care from points of manufacturing.

For more readings on compulsory licensing in general and in practice, visit:

• “Compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals and TRIPS” WTO.
• “Overcoming Patent Barriers” Doctors Without Borders.
• “Delivering on the Pledge: Global Access to Medicines, WTO Rules, and Reforming Canada’s Law on Compulsory Licensing for Export” — article in McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Volume 3, Issue 1

Comments are always welcome below.

A chance for Canada to make good (for a change).

Here’s an interesting press release regarding Canada’s reputation as a do-gooder. It seems that it’s taken a hit over the last few years, but that there’s still opportunities to improve our image: a big one being our possible actions on the Access to Medicine front.

Anyway, here’s the just released press release. And don’t forget: If you’re a reader from Canada, don’t forget to check out aidsaction.ca. Here, you can look up your candidates and send off an email to support the Call to Action to reform Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime and help save lives!

For immediate release

NEW POLL SHOWS CANADIANS CONCERNED ABOUT GLOBAL REPUTATION, BUT CONFIDENT IT CAN BE IMPROVED BY MAKING AFFORDABLE MEDICINES AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Grassroots campaign begins to build support for quick passage of bill after election

Toronto, April 26, 2011 – A new public opinion poll shows twice as many Canadians (35%) believe the country’s international reputation has declined in the last few years rather than improved (17%), with a third (37%) believing it has just remained the same. But according to the same poll, seven in 10 Canadians (71%) feel that it would improve the country’s reputation if Canada were to pass a bill making it easier to supply less expensive, generic medicines to people in developing countries for diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Canada was on the verge of passing such a law – Bill C-393 to reform Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR) – before it was delayed in the Senate and thus died on the order paper when the election was called.

“This poll confirms the tremendous opportunity presented to Members of Parliament and Senators willing to fix Canada’s broken Access to Medicines Regime,” said Richard Elliott, Executive Director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. “Not only will such a bill help get desperately needed medicines to people dying of treatable diseases, it will also improve Canada’s reputation as a good global citizen.”

With Canada’s foreign aid now frozen and the loss of a seat at the UN Security Council seen by some as a setback for the country’s international reputation, humanitarian initiatives such as legislation to fix CAMR – which will cost taxpayers nothing – presents a compelling rallying point.

In fact, a grassroots movement made up of grandmothers groups, student organizations, and health and human rights activists have launched www.AIDSaction.ca. It asks every candidate from the major federal parties in every riding to indicate whether they support fixing CAMR to help those most in need. The website will track candidates’ responses online in an interactive chart so voters across the country can see which candidates in their riding have already stated their support for fixing CAMR. It also makes it easy for voters to e-mail the candidates in their ridings to ask them where they stand if they haven’t yet replied.

“Canadians were strongly behind a bill that would have saved lives,” said Andrea Beal, co-chair of the National Advocacy Committee of the Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign. “We’re asking candidates to listen to the will of the people and support making affordable medicines accessible to developing countries. This new poll is just further evidence of why they should act.”

Created unanimously by Parliament in 2004, CAMR has been rendered practically useless because of red tape. Only one order of one medicine was ever filled, and to just a single country. The one generic drug company that did use CAMR has said it will not attempt to use the cumbersome process again, nor will any developing countries try. Critical to the goal of cutting through this red tape is the “one-license solution”, a key part of any CAMR-reform legislation.

Before Bill C-393 died in the Senate last month, public momentum was behind efforts to make affordable medicines available to people who need them. The legislation – which included the “one-license solution” – had the support of many prominent Canadians including international aid workers, human rights leaders, physicians and faith leaders. It was also supported by more than 70 000 Canadians who signed a petition or sent letters calling on Parliament to pass the bill into law. When the House voted on March 9, Bill C-393 passed by a strong majority – 172 to 111 – with support from MPs representing all parties.

“Canadians have shown over and over that they get it when it comes to the rights of all people to have access to medicines that will save their lives,” said Aria Ahmad, coordinator of the University of Toronto chapter of the international student group Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM). “We urge candidates for Parliament to listen to them.”

More background information on efforts to fix Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime including detailed arguments by international legal and health experts in favour of previous legislative attempts to do just that can be reviewed at www.aidslaw.ca/camr.

A Primer on the Subject of Access to Medicines

Here’s a piece I wrote for online reading at Scientific American. It basically tries to cover the main ideas and main challenges in Access to Medicines issues. Not a bad place to start to get into the swing of things. Also, If you’re a reader from Canada, don’t forget to check out aidsaction.ca. Here, you can look up your candidates and send off an email to support the Call to Action to reform Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime and help save lives!

– – –

30 minutes, 70 fates.

You don’t know it, but as I write this piece, there is some serious procrastination going on. My attention span is weak and sidetracked constantly by a variety of diversions, and if you must know, it’s taken me close to half an hour to write these first two sentences. Still, one could argue that none of us are strangers to procrastination, and 30 minutes is relatively short – only a minor instance of time in the grand scheme of things.

But a lot can happen in thirty minutes. Earlier, I had been looking over some 2009 UNAIDS statistics, and noting the numbers issued in the report. They are all very big, big enough certainly to require the pressing of buttons on calculators. More to the point, I learn that during my thirty minutes, approximately 70 people died from HIV/AIDS in Sub-Sahara Africa. That’s 1.3 million victims each year – in Sub-Sahara Africa alone. Many of these were parents leaving orphans, and many were young children just leaving. Most troubling, however, is the fact that all of them suffered their fate with a loss of dignity.

Why do I say this? I say this because people shouldn’t have to die from HIV/AIDS. There are good medicines out there, and they can control the disease. In fact, for those in the developed world, HIV/AIDS is now considered a chronic disorder, not a death sentence. If you are diagnosed, you are no longer forced to take a shortcut to demise. You can still have a long life, you can still be productive, and you can still live with dignity.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t an option for those who passed away. For them, the medicines were out of reach. They were simply too expensive. And from this, you come to realize a cold hard fact in this narrative: that the fate of a person living or dying from HIV/AIDS is determined by their income. This statement is fairly straightforward, with no mincing of words, or confused rhetoric. But for most, it feels fundamentally wrong, and yet, it is a simple reality of how the world works today. Why it works in this way, however, is complicated.

Dog vs Bubble: Access to Medicine metaphor? (yes, it’s a stretch…)

For instance: Let’s make the bubbles the Access to Medicines Regimes (i.e. Bill C-393), and the dog can be the Conservative Senators; and the baby gets to be Big Pharma.

O.K. O.K. I know it’s not the best metaphor, since this presumes that Big Pharma isn’t necessarily the bad guy – it just thinks killing policy that could save lives is inherently funny (in a I’m an innocent kid sort of way).

Anyway, can you think of a better metaphor in the comments section?

Whoa… This is what HIV looks like. Amazing how devastating this tiny thing can be.

This amazing model (which was also included in the 2010 best Science Visualization Images) can be found here with many others. In particular, when you go to the site, click the “label” button for a quick primer on the different structures on the virion.

LINK: Visual Science HIV Image

Let’s Talk Prescriptions, Canadian Style

I understand the free market system, I really do. I understand the necessity of incentive and that companies are accountable to their shareholders. I get it. But I also think there are limits.

I recently heard some very convincing arguments for why we should privatize healthcare and save taxpayer money. Those who can afford insurance shouldn’t be responsible for those who can’t. It was hard to hear. Thankfully I then came upon this article by Marc-André Gagnon which reinforced my beliefs that privatizing everything does not lead to the greatest benefits.

He points out that Canada has the fastest rising drug costs in the world, over 10 percent per year. Where is it less expensive? Countries with universal pharmacare (i.e. France, Britain, Sweden). A shift to universal Pharmacare in Canada? Could save at least 2.9 billion (more details in the article).

What I felt was the most significant point in the article was that drugs are not necessarily prescribed because of efficacy but because of drug company promotional campaigns. What we need is a shift to something called ‘evidence-based medicine’, this means drugs are prescribed because they will help you not because they are the latest invention.

BC’s Therapeutics Initiative encourages evidence based medicine:

“Because of this, not only do British Columbians have the best therapeutic choices and the best health outcomes in Canada, they also pay on average 8.2 per cent less per capita for their drugs”

That sounds pretty good to me.

Guardian article on challenges with HIV drugs for children.

Here’s a quick news piece by Sarah Boseley at the Guardian:

The first major study of [HIV} drug resistance in young people, which looked at 1,000 European children born with HIV, raises questions about the suitability of anti-retroviral drugs for the young.

Drugs fail because the virus becomes resistant to them. This can happen if people take them erratically or stop taking them. Resistance sets in with adults, but more slowly.

But part of the problem, say Nathan Ford and Alexandra Calmy, is that the drugs available are not tested on children or turned into formulations that are easy for children to take. The doctors work for Médecins sans Frontières, which treats some of the 2 million children living with HIV, who were infected during childbirth – most of them in the developing world. Half of the children born with HIV die before their second birthday, they point out.

LINK: HIV study claims one in eight children resistant to drugs. (Thanks for link, Richard!)
LINK: Risk of triple-class virological failure in children with HIV: a retrospective cohort study (Lancet paper)

Saying you have HIV in Llama font doesn’t seem to help.

This is what the text “You have HIV. Also, you can’t afford the medicines. Sorry.” looks like in Llama Font. Apparently, it’s suppose to make bad news sound o.k., but I’m not so sure in this case.

(This might actually make a great cover for the Global Health Carnival pdf).

Sneaky: European Free Trade Talks can also affect prices of drugs in Canada

Yup. Apparently, our previous post on data exclusivity and the like, will also effect prices in places like Canada as well.

Specifically:

Provisions in a new trade deal being negotiated between Canada and the European Union could add about $2.8-billion a year in costs to Canadian drug plans if implemented, a new report warns.

The estimate includes $1.3-billion more for public drug plans and $1.5-billion for private drug plans.

This is because the EU is asking for a number of things, including lengthening the terms of data exclusivity. Given that in Canada, “Generics account for 54 per cent of prescription drugs and brand-name drugs 46 per cent,” moves such as this will obviously prevent or at least greatly delay the existence of generics in the market. Crucially, and what is a bit dodgy about this whole thing, is that such moves will do these things even if a patent has already expired. It’s just another sneaky way for the pharmaceutical industry to keep control.

Anyway, read the whole Globe and Mail article at the link below.

LINK; EU trade deal could cost Canadian drug plans billions

One more contributor bio: Natasha Ovtcharenko

Natasha Ovtcharenko is an undergraduate student at the University of Toronto studying Political Science and Human Biology: Global Health. An active member of Universities Allied for Essential Medicines and a research assistant at the Initiative for Drug Equity and Access, she is constantly learning about the different dimensions of intellectual property rights and access to medicines. When not reading up on the latest updates on the EU-India FTA she can be found exploring Toronto’s coffee shops and art galleries.

Announcing the Global Health Carnival! Submit submit submit!

(Friday Night Lights from edvard brun on Vimeo)

Actually, we’ll think of a better sounding title in the coming days, but now seems as good a time as any to announce that this blog is going to restart the (DUM DUM DUM) Global Health Carnival.

For those of you unfamiliar with the “carnival” vernacular, this is where we seek out submissions whereby writers highlight their kick ass blog posts which tackle the many and various themes surrounding global health. Then, we concoct a one stop blog post to highlight all of this fine writing.

This could be pieces on relevant new science combatting diseases like HIV/AIDS or a neglected disease like malaria; it could be pieces that address the busy world of health policy; it could be pieces that provide a take from folks within the pharmaceutical industry; it could be opinion pieces on the megafacepalm-ness of governments who essentially make things difficult for all. It all works! And, to provide some further bait, we’ll also go to the effort of producing a snazzy pdf for the carnival – suitable for easy reader on your e-reader, or iPad.

Since it was via discussions on twitter that led to this carnival’s resurrection (Thanks @cgorman and @marynmck), let’s also use both Twitter and email to submit. You can send you links to @myrightsvsyours or by sending me an email at db@interchange.ubc.ca. We’ll also try to do this monthly, which makes sense to make our first official deadline on May 1st (with the intention of putting up the carnival post a few days after that). I know that’s not a lot of time for this first one, but let’s see what we can get this first time around.

Game on!

TRIPS = not just vacations

All this talk about access to medicines brings up the question, who regulates this stuff? Who decides that patents are 20 years long? And who decides that data exclusivity is (usually) around 5-10?

The answer is that it’s largely controlled by the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, conveniently shortened to TRIPS. The agreement is pretty extensive  but the gist of it is, patents last 20 years and governments can set the conditions around what qualifies for a patent themselves. MSF sums up that aspect nicely:

“Countries should therefore determine what kind of inventions deserves patents in the area of pharmaceuticals, in light of their own social and economic conditions. Some governments, such as Brazil, Thailand or India, have done precisely that.  In today’s world, for many patients, that decision can be a question of life or death. ”

Data exclusivity? Vaguely referred to as “data protection” against “unfair commercial use” with no specific time frame. That’s left a lot of room for negotiation and debate.

The quote from MSF’s Access Campaign and the rest of their TRIPS briefing can be found here

Why do Data Exclusivity and Investment Rules suck?

O.K. First the tough part: bringing yourself to want to read about “Data Exclusivity” and “Investment Rules.” Granted, not the most common buzz words you hear about in media, but it’s actually very interesting. More so, if you have even a peripheral interest in what all the fuss is with regards to the EU-India Free Trade Agreement talks.

Anyway, there’s a great piece from MSF that does a pretty good job of outlining the problems with granting Data Exclusivity and tweaking Investment Rules when it comes to generic drug production.

Here’s the part on Data Exclusivity, if you’re more keen to just get on with reading it than clicking through to the whole article:

Data exclusivity (DE) is a backdoor way for multinational pharmaceutical companies to get a monopoly and charge high drug prices, even when their drug has been found to not deserve a patent, or the patent has expired – DE would apply to all drugs.

If India accepts DE, the agency in charge of approving medicines for use in the country would not be allowed to register a generic version of a medicine for a period of time – usually 5 to 10 years. To register a generic, producers rely on the clinical trial data provided by the originator company to show the drug is safe and effective. All the generic has to prove is that it is identical to the originator product. But if DE were in place, the originator company’s clinical trial data would be protected by ‘exclusivity’ and generic producers would therefore have to submit their own safety & efficacy data to register the generic medicines. This would oblige them to repeat clinical trials—something that would take years and be incredibly expensive, not to mention unethical, as it would involve withholding a drug that has already proven to be effective from some of the participants in the trial.

LINK: Briefing Note: Data Exclusivity & Investment Rules in EU-India FTA

Voting: An Access to Medicines Perspective

If you’re looking for the most access to medicines friendly party in this election, I’d say the NDP is looking pretty good right now.

Jack Layton has done two monumental things for C-393 so far in my opinion. In the English language debate he noted the audacity of the Senate to block a bill passed by the House of Commons. Then, in his official party platform, he explicitly states that his party will aim to remove the red tape for the export of generics. –> http://www.ndp.ca/platform/leadership-on-world-stage#section-6-3

You might also notice that on the newly launched www.aidsaction.ca, the NDP have all endorsed C-393, contrast that with the rest of the parties. Hmm…look’s like someone’s got their priorities straight.

Note: this post is based on personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the position of UAEM

IT’S ALIVE PEOPLE! (http://AIDSaction.ca) #aidsaction

Janet says:

Dear friends,

AIDSAction.ca is now live – a grassroots online community where you, personally, can make positive change related to the human rights issues facing people affected by and vulnerable to HIV/AIDS, in Canada and internationally.

And there’s no better time to take action than right now – during the 2011 federal election! Please visit http://www.aidsaction.ca to ask candidates in your riding to indicate their support for fixing Canada’s (broken) Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR) and stand up for those most in need. You can also visit our interactive Candidates Chart to see which candidates in your riding have already stated their support for fixing CAMR.

If you want to make your voice heard, AIDSAction.ca is one way to do it! Please spread the word widely and ask your personal networks to stand with you as you work to make our world a better place.

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

LINK: AIDSaction.ca

What is a patent pool? And more importantly, are Speedos strictly forbidden?

The answer the first question can be seen by checking out this video:

Also:

Consider signing this petition by the Stop AIDS Campaign – inviting Johnson and Johnson to join the MSF “Patent Pool Party” by sharing their rights to Darunavir (an important antiretroviral!)

More information here: http://www.stopaidscampaign.org.uk/

Sign here: http://stopaidscampaign.org/poolparty/

For the second question, I’ll have to get back to you, but man… I sincerely hope so.

Great primer on “India+EU+screwing up generic production=people dying” situation

O.K. this article was excellent to get up to speed with something that’s worth the time to get literate about. Granted, the subject doesn’t sound that exciting to the folks who aren’t normally interested in such things – buy hey… That’s what this blog is all about: Getting you familiar with these Access to Medicines topics.

The basic idea is as follows: The EU and India are negotiating how they can be buddies in terms of trade. However, a downstream effect of this, is that generics produced in India (which are a LOT), that also happen to revolve around patents held by European pharmaceuticals (also a LOT), will get phased out in the process. The overall consequence is that production of these drugs, which are currently employed by folks like MSF and in places that desperately need them, will be halted.

Here is the link (below) to check out, but just in case the Lancet has a “limited access policy”, I’m going to reprint the text below the fold for all prosperity since it’s a decent overview of the situation.

LINK: India—EU free-trade pact could stifle generics industry

Rick’s Rant – Senate Defeats Bill with no Debate

Rick Mercer rants about how the unelected Canadian Senators (members of our second chamber of ‘sober thought’) kill important bills passed by elected members of parliament like C-393 and C-311. Bills that would have enabled us to better protect human lives and our natural environment–quite ridiculous for a modern democracy to endure, no?

So much for sober thought–though inebriated people tend to provide lively discussion more often, I’ll admit.

Sidenote: I wonder if Rick has as much trouble finding empty alleyways to shoot out of as I do.

More of this please. Green Party steps up for Bill C393

Game on!

4 February 2011 – 3:14pm
OTTAWA — The Green Party applauds Parliament’s decision to allow NDP MP Paul Dewar to be recognized as Bill C-393’s new sponsor. The bill would amend the Canadian Access to Medicines Regime to allow developing countries access to affordable medications. Submitted as a private member’s bill by now retired New Democratic MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis, the bill had been waiting for a new sponsor before a final debate. “We are so pleased to see this spirit of cooperation on such a critical issue,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May.

Now that Bill C-393 has been rejuvenated, the Green Party of Canada urges all MPs to vote in favour. “Millions of people struggling with AIDS/HIV, particularly in developing countries, would be helped by the passage of Bill C-393,” said Elizabeth May, Green Party Leader.
Almost a third of the more than thirty million people living with HIV still do not have access to medicine, according to UNAIDS. This Bill would allow Canadian companies to produce and distribute AIDS medication at a low price, something that is currently prevented by barriers within the Canadian Access to Medicines Regime. “The Canadian Access to Medicines Regime is not working and needs to be fixed,” said May. “This bill is how we do that and in turn ensure Canada is on the front line of helping ensure global access to medication.”

“Surely the connection between maternal health in developing countries and the need for affordable AIDS drugs is evident to all. Opposing Bill C-393 would undermine maternal health – not to mention child health,” said Dr. Georgina Wilcock, Green Health Critic.

LINK: Greens support amendments to Canadian Access to Medicines Regime