Posted on 06/19/2021 5:37:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
It all sounds so simple: to hasten the end of the pandemic globally, suspend intellectual property protections on Covid-19 vaccines to allow swift production of low-cost copies the world over. The Biden administration has bought into exactly that strategy at the World Trade Organization.
But some simple ideas are also simplistic, and this one is dangerously so. Waiving patent rights for Covid-19 vaccines will actually slow their availability in the developing world, thereby prolonging the pandemic.
The production of these breakthrough Covid-19 vaccines requires sophisticated processes, procedures, staff training, material, and manufacturing. Under typical patent-protected arrangements for new global production facilities, patent-holders voluntarily license their product information to qualified third party-manufacturers. The patent-owners work closely with the licensees to stand up facilities that meet rigorous technological specifications and standards for safety. Even under ideal conditions, it can take a year or longer to build out this infrastructure the right way.
The WTO waiver blows up this careful process by allowing pretty much anyone to go into the business of producing Covid-19 vaccines. Suddenly, it's the wild west out there, with legitimate producers trying to compete with aggressive cost and corner-cutters, to say nothing of the outright fraud that has long driven the lucrative counterfeit drug trade. All the research demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines goes out the window under such conditions.
Nor is such a process going to produce faster results. Historically, under compulsory rather than voluntary licensing arrangements, it has taken even legitimate generic manufacturers years to receive the formulas, work out logistical challenges, and scale up production. In one case of compulsory licensing, it took over four years to bring a generic AIDS drug to Rwanda.
The World Health Organization regularly publishes a list of "essential" medications, the vast majority of which patent protections have long expired. Any generic manufacturer can therefore set itself up producing them. Yet the WHO reports that availability of these medicines in many parts of the developing world remains spotty, at best. The quality of many of these essential medicines is also questionable.
Yet none of the drugs on the WHO list are in the same universe of complexity as the Covid-19 vaccines. The patent system is not the problem here.
But, some ask, why should private companies enjoy the property rights to innovation driven by government funding? This question likewise misses the mark. In a study of 478 drugs less than 10 percent had a public-sector patent associated with it.
While providing no gain, compulsory licensing promises lots of pain. Shunting aside patent and intellectual property rights sends a dangerous signal to innovative biopharmaceutical companies and their investors. Biopharmaceutical research is risky. It costs almost $3 billion, on average, to bring a single medicine to pharmacy shelves.
Biotech investors take these risks because of strong patent protection like those in the United States. Scientists in America now develop over half of all new drugs worldwide.
It's important to understand the current advocacy for a "temporary" IP waiver. A small but vocal and influential public health policy cohort believes that IP protections are the most significant cause of global healthcare disparities. Their philosophies repeat and reinforce many misconceptions about the problem of improving global access to medicines.
The reality is that, in order to save the world, we must all work together as partners. A free-market healthcare paradigm for drug development, although far from perfect, works. A well-appointed armamentarium of Covid-19 diagnostic tools, therapeutics, and vaccines – all invented in under one year, speaks to the power of today's innovation ecosystem. That ecosystem is built on IP protections.
Right now, under voluntary licensing, global production capacity for Covid vaccines and treatments is expanding and accelerating. A move to nullify IP will not result in a single resident of the developing world getting vaccinated one minute sooner.
>The World Health Organization regularly publishes a list of “essential” medications, the vast majority of which patent protections have long expired.
Two of which are Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.
Amazing how they became so “dangerous” overnight.
Somewhat related, every drug rep I know is smoking hot.
I think that effects the Dr’s decisions…
Kaslin you’re at it again. I imagine you were one of the Free Traitors back when “free trade” was a hot topic here?
Waiving patent protection on these is not a bad idea, because it would disincentivize the terrible game of downplaying and banning cheap therapeutics.
It’s not “waiving.” It’s destroying a valid patent. The government does not have the right to retroactively change the rules for creators of intellectual property. This would destroy the patent. The patent IS protection for intellectual property. Its purpose is to assure the creator gets the benefit from his/her work.
Invalidating the patent is effectively transferring the right to one’s intellectual property to another person without compensation. This is theft. No one but the government dares pass laws that legalize stealing.
The American public is so stupid that it hears the word “waive” and it thinks that the government is doing something noble and wonderful.
Bkmk
Good point. I would make another point here: I always thought the drug companies were expected to give up something in return when they were given immunity from product liability lawsuits for these vaccines.
See Post #8. I don’t have a strong feeling about it either way, but I would find it completely disingenuous for anyone in the pharmaceutical industry to pontificate about “property rights” while hiding behind government-imposed legal immunity protections that you and I don’t have.
How about real numbers in the US?
Here is a fun post from another forum:
LATEST DEATH & INJURY DATA FOLLOWING COVID-19 INJECTIONS, FOR EUROPE, UK & US (UP TO 19 JUNE, 2021)
Europe, up to 5 June, 2021:
Deaths: 13,867
Injuries: 1,354,366
U.K. up to 9 June, 2021:
Deaths: 1,332
Injuries: 949, 286
U.S. up to 19 June, 2021:
Deaths: 5,993
Injuries: 394,525
Deaths & Injuries, Combined total for Europe, U.K. & U.S, up to 19 June, 2021:
Deaths: 21,192
Injuries: 2,698,177
Sources:
Europe (EudraVigilance)
U.K (MHRA Yellow Card System)
U.S (CDC/ VAERS)
I have not verified the numbers via the listed sources. Interesting how the US is miraculously much lower in their numbers of injuries/deaths than the EU and UK.
First of all I am a she, the last time I checked, and the author's name is Peter Pitts.
My name are the last 3 letters from my maiden name, and the last three letters from my married name.
In other words Kaslin
A patent or immunity from prosecution for adverse reaction and deaths. Not both.
“The patent IS protection for intellectual property. Its purpose is to assure the creator gets the benefit from his/her work.”
When the government pays, that enables the government to say, no IP protection on this one. IIRC, the US government dumped a substantial amount of money into this arena to get things moving, rather than the private pharmas having to front the costs.
More on this can be found at Upcounsel, and other IP-aware entities.
https://www.upcounsel.com/government-owned-patents
The patent holder can be held responsible for bad outcomes, right?
Kaslin must be our #1 article poster on FR. You are off base assuming she must agree with whatever is in every article she posts.
Hi Kaslin - I don’t think I said you were a he. I think I referred to an anonymous moderator using “he” which is standard English.
Don’t defend the pharms companies here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.