GibsonGirl said:
If we want to talk irony, let's talk real irony. The US government donates money to African countries to assist them in the HIV/AIDS epidemic. All fine and dandy, the US is seen helping under-developed nations and all is good. Yet, through the use of strict patent rules, the US forces these countries to purchase American anti-AIDS drugs that are FAR more expensive than their generic counterparts. This means that the drugs that are so desperately needed aren't getting to those who need them. Isn't that, hmm, defeating the purpose a little?
Yes, let's talk irony. . .
Your comments are a vast oversimplification of an extremely complicated problem that has no easy solution and is a half-truth. To say that the problem with generic drugs is solely the problem of the drug manufacturers is just plain false and many of the problems originate from within Africa.
Now mind you, as a health care provider, I am absolutely not a fan of the big drug companies, but this will serve to prove my point:
In 2003, the African National Congress, led by Thabo Mbeki refused to distribute drugs like AZT (the cornerstone of anti AIDS therapy) to the public even after the Clinton Administration removed South Africa (most cases of AIDS on the continent) from its sanctions watch list and ended its campaign against the Medicines Act. President Clinton announced that the United States would henceforth insure that "people in the poorest countries won't have to go without medicine."
South Africa was now
free to produce generics , but it’s newly elected President, Thabo Mbeki, had doubts about the safety of antiretroviral drugs. A high-ranking official in the health ministry had given Mbeki a copy of a book, "Debating AZT," which suggested that the drug was toxic. Mbeki then found a relatively obscure group of academics & journalists who called themselves "AIDS dissidents." This group made some pretty interesting claims about AIDS: that AIDS was a "life-style disease" caused by poverty and malnutrition; that HIV was a harmless "passenger" virus and, most notably, that antiretroviral drugs didn't help patients and often destroyed their immune systems. Of course, AZT is an outstanding drug that has side effects but has unequivocally been one of the best options to fight the virus since its inception.
Companies like Pfizer agreed to offer some drugs integral in the fight against opportunistic infections (Pfizer with Diflucan – an anti-fungal medication). Furthermore, 5 major drug companies in the US announced discounts on antiretrovirals medications of up to 90% in South Africa. As such, prices kept falling, which increased the pressure on the Mbeki regime to purchase the drugs and offer them free of charge in public clinics.
By 2001, antiretroviral therapy that cost $15,000/yr in the US was available in South Africa for $3000. The government could have reduced the price to $350 by buying generic antiretrovirals from India (a whole other problem). By that point, however, Mbeki had staked his reputation on the notion that the drugs were unproven and too risky. He couldn't reverse his course on the medications precisely because of how radical his stance on the medications were in the first place.
Things haven’t changed much since then. Although the drug companies are somewhat culpable, to say that the fault lies entirely with these entities is just incorrect and, as difficult as it is to admit, sometimes African countries are their own worst enemy, as is the case with the fight against AIDS in South Africa. It just isn’t a simple problem unfortunately.
) is so prevalent.
to indra, Do Miss America, and Axver's posts, as they've covered it all already 
. 
