Health GAP Talking Paper
www.globaltreatmentaccess.org | www.healthgap.org

It's amazing how poor journalism is in responding to the array of lies that the U.S. and PhRMA put out to justify their refined system of pharmaceutical apartheid. Without addressing the whole list of lies, several key lies get told over and over again and the mainstream media refuses to correct them.

LIE NO. 1 - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW MEDICINES WILL END IF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES HAVE ANY RIGHT TO BYPASS PATENTS.

Drug company research is not dependent on its markets in developing countries! 80% of the global market on drugs is in the rich markets of North America, Europe, and Japan. Only 20% of sales are in all developing countries combined and only 1.3% is in Africa. Although PhRMA loves every penny of profit it can squeeze from any rich consumer anywhere, it's ability to research new medical discoveries is not ultimately dependant on profits earned on 20% of its sales (especially since those sales are often less profitable already because of price concessions in poorer markets). When the U.S. government repeats this lie over and over again ("are you going to have a patent system or not") and when the proprietary industry does the same ("any widespread or significant dilution of patent protection for medicines is a setback for patients all over the globe who are eagerly awaiting new medicines"), responsible journalists should point out that this is economic nonsense, every time, in every article.

LIE NO. 2 - THE VIAGRA EXCUSE

The U.S. says that if poor countries have access to medicines for non-infectious diseases, like heart disease, diabetes, and asthma, then next they'll want cheaper generic medicines for Viagra and baldness. Developing countries, on the other hand, have asserted that they have multiple true public health needs and that they will approach those needs appropriately according to public health principles. I'm sure we can all snicker about Viagra, but should journalists let the U.S. can away with the preposterous argument that the true motive for the access-to-medicines movement in developing countries is allieviation of impotence? The impotence, if any, is political. The U.S. refuses to stand up to the drug companies and it refuses to grant poor countries that same sovereignty that it reserves for itself. Rich countries with large markets and ample pharmaceutical capacity can issue compulsory licenses pursuant to TRIPS for any disease whatsoever. Why should developing countries with small markets and little or no capacity be denied that same right?

LIE NO 3 - INDIA AND BRAZIL ARE MANIPULATING THE NEGOTIATIONS TO SERVE THEIR GENERIC INDUSTRIES

The U.S. argues that the TRIPS negotiations have been hijacked by a few developing countries and misguided NGOs to promote the interests of generic drug industries in India and Brazil. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - the U.S. has directly inserted drug industry representatives onto its negotiation team! And PhRMA issues fauning press statements praising the USTR for holding "its" ground. Brazil does have some domestic pharmaceutical capacity at this time, which it is using almost exclusively for its own internal market. And India does have a robust generic industry with international ambitions and reach. However, since the entire post-Doha negotiations are about countries accessing cheaper generics, it seems slightly odd for the U.S. to complain that generic producers might benefit. The developing world needs a reliable source of high quality, lowest cost generic medicines to treat a wide array of public health needs, most especially AIDS, TB, and malaria. It is not manipulative to try to create the new trade rules by which people in need can access those medicines.

LIE NO 4 - DIVERSION RISK

The U.S. and PhRMA have warned about the risk of discounted brand name drugs and even cheaper generic versions being diverted to rich markets in the North. Why hasn't this happened before? There are billions of generic pills being produced each year around the globe that have not been diverted into the U.S. and Europe. Not only do U.S. and Europe outlaw such diversion, but they guard their borders with remarkable efficiency. As a matter of law and of practicality, the U.S. and Europe are in total contol of the diversion risk. Rich consumers in London, Paris, and New York are not going to buy black market, smuggled heart medicines out the the trunk of a Chevy. Can't one journalist, sometime, expose this lie as a patent absurdity?

The U.S. engages in other lies, many of which also border on slander. The USTR and PhRMA wail about poor medical capacity, they wail about inadequate distribution schemes, they wail about corruption, and they wail about Africans being too stupid to tell time and to take their medicines. All of these (except the last), unlike the four big lies above, are partially true and require action. But there is ample underutilized capacity to deliver more medicines now, there are distribution schemes that can get coca-cola and beer to every remote corner of the globe, and the corruption abroad is no worse than the corruption at home, but we still let people get medicines.

It's probably fruitless to ask the government to stop telling lies. But, in the alternative, would a few honest journalists begin to expose them?

Professor Brook K. Baker, Health GAP