Strict patent laws encourage innovation
In response to Braden Smith's column, (""U.S. has double standard in drug-patent policy,"" Oct. 25), in which Mr. Smith made absurd comments about pharmaceutical companies and their business practices, I feel the need to enlighten those who had the unfortunate opportunity of reading such a biased and narrow-minded story.
Without copyright protection for companies like Bayer, the producer of Cipro, there would not be enough incentive for pharmaceutical or technology companies to innovate. As a result of the costs and risks that pharmaceutical companies take, they deserve to charge a significant risk premium for the use of their intellectual property.
Smith argues that the United States has a double standard in its drug-patent policy. The United States is in negotiations with Bayer to buy Cipro in bulk, but won't provide additional aid to South Africa to assist in it purchasing HIV/AIDS drugs to treat millions of infected South Africans, nor will American companies relax their patents to allow generic producers to replicate their drugs. Remember that these generic drug makers did not provide any assistance in developing these drugs. Also, these AIDS cocktails merely postpone death, they do not cure the disease.
South Africa needs to direct its focus to prevention. Frustrated by the fact that hundreds of South African babies are born with HIV every day, AIDS activists and doctors have sued the South African government demanding that it distribute a drug that could cut that number in half. A single dose of nevirapine, which is produced by the German company Boehringer Ingelheim, given to the mother during labor followed by a dose to the baby shortly after birth, can reduce the transmission rate to about 13 percent. Focusing on prevention rather than extending the lives of those already infected could save 20,000 babies a year and would cost less than $30 million. South African religious leaders are also to blame, bishops pronounced, the ""widespread and indiscriminate promotion of condoms...an immoral and misguided weapon in our battle against HIV-AIDS."" By undermining abstinence and marital fidelity, they said, ""condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV-AIDS."" According to Catholic doctrine, the use of condoms is not ethically permissible.
Smith summed up his argument by stating ""drug companies need to be told that there is a limit to how much profit can be made off the suffering of developing countries,"" as if to insinuate the producers of these drugs went to South Africa and intentionally infected the citizens with HIV. Let me pose this question: How much profit is the producer making by refusing to sell its drug cheaply in South Africa? None.
Should we allow generic drug manufacturers (which did not share in the initial research and development costs) to produce and sell cheaper replicated drugs, which would curb demand for the more expensive and authentic drugs? Do you think Bayer or the manufacturer of AIDS drugs would have spent their time and resources developing new drugs if they knew that the drugs wouldn't have patent protection and that any other company could lawfully copy their medications and sell them cheaper? Of course not! If it weren't for patent laws, Cipro and AIDS drugs wouldn't exist and everyone would die. Patent laws are sacred; they protect the right that we all have to our own intellectual property.
This is all undermined by the fact that Bayer and AIDS drug manufacturers are making money, which of course, after all, is evil. Right?
Babcock Hall's BGH policy shocking
What the hell is in my milk? This question keeps resonating in my head after hearing that Babcock Hall Dairy Plant is choosing not to guarantee its milk is rBGH free. The fact that I don't have the right to choose whether I want Bovine Growth Hormones in my milk and that BGH are not exactly helping to keep family dairy farms in the business is quite frustrating.
Hearing John Stauber speak Thursday on the history of rBGH/rBST and the apathy of the Babcock Hall Dairy Plant, I was shocked along with many other people. If we live in a democratic society, why is it that consumers do not have the right to choose if they want their milk jacked up with hormones? The dairy industry should be accredited with doing a fantastic public relations job in brainwashing the public that rBGH benefits them, while not mentioning anything about mastitis and its effect on cows. It is even more infuriating to hear the apathetic attitude from the Food and Drug Administration on testing the effects of BGH on humans.
What is just as bad is that this may be contributing to devastating socio-economic effects. Milk production in cows injected with BGH increases by about 10 percent, therefore causing prices to fall across the board, not to mention the fact that, from a socio-economic standpoint, BGH is a loser product. The fact that Babcock Hall Dairy Plant will not guarantee that its milk is BGH free, thereby supporting the use of BGH, is unacceptable. I urge all people to research what I'm talking about. Should you arrive at the same conclusion, call Babcock Hall Dairy Plant and tell them how appalling their actions are.
