That damn Bill Clinton and those French bastards!

[valluco]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,1961008,00.html

Clinton launches low-cost Aids drugs

Randeep Ramesh in New Delhi
Thursday November 30, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a185/valluco/bill.jpg
Sonia Gandhi and Bill Clinton at the launch of the HIV/Aids initiative in New Delhi. Photograph: EPA


At least 100,000 HIV-positive children are to receive low-cost drugs for life – using money raised by a tax on flying.

The former US president Bill Clinton said today that the new charges on airline tickets, pioneered by France, meant his Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative had the buying power to negotiate with drug companies for big discounts.

This year the foundation will receive $350m (£179m), most of it from an airline ticket tax France began collecting this summer. The French government charges passengers €4 (£2.7) for every international economy seat they buy and €40 for first-class ones. Britain has backed the initiative, called Unitaid, with $25m, but used traditional aid money rather than charging fliers.

Mr Clinton said he was focusing on children in the developing world because he realised that not much was being done for them. “Only one in 10 children who need [treatment] to live get the drugs. That has to change.”

The foundation has been able to reduce sharply the price of anti-retroviral drugs. Mr Clinton, speaking after a visit to a new ward for children affected by Aids in New Delhi, said two Indian pharmaceutical companies, Cipla and Ranbaxy, have agreed to supply antiretroviral drugs for children at prices as low as 16 cents a day, or $60 annually.

“India should be proud of these companies they are saving countless lives every day,” he said. “We are negotiating for 19 products which are 47% less costly than what is available today.”

India, with 5.7 million HIV-positive people, has the highest number of cases in the world. The new deal would provide HIV treatment for 10,000 children in India alone by March 2007.

Mr Clinton added the new medicines were also easier to store, transport and use than current drugs – “this will help children everywhere from the Bahamas to Ethiopia.”

Mr Clinton was flanked by India’s most powerful politician, Sonia Gandhi, and the French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, a testament to the networking power that the former president still wields.

Mr Douste-Blazy said that by 2008 Unitaid, which has headquarters in Geneva, will have a budget of $0.5bn. “This is a global issue. We are seeing 1,900 new cases [of children infected with HIV] every day especially in the countries of the south.”

At the last count, India has 202,000 children who are HIV positive, one of the largest concentrations of youth infections in the world. The country has only just woken up to the fact Aids is silently killing off the supposed labour force of the future.

Ms Gandhi, who has made tackling Aids one of her government’s top priorities, admitted that the country had suffered in the past from a “painful paradox” which saw Indian companies supplying Aids treatments everywhere but India.

“That has changed. At the moment 8% of those affected get drugs [in India]. I am confident that momentum will continue,” she said.

[Clandestino]

who thinks this is the best way to use the money

[smeagol]

who thinks this is the best way to use the money
^ A good example of a compasionate conservative.

[exstatic]

who thinks this is the best way to use the money
"If they'd rather die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. Good night, gentlemen." - E.S.

[PixelPusher]

who thinks this is the best way to use the money
Who thinks disease and poverty in 3rd world nations doesn't have consequences for 1st world nations?

[Clandestino]

all i asked was if this was the best way to allocate money?

[smeagol]

all i asked was if this was the best way to allocate money?
I don't know. Maybe it could be used to invade Iran. :wtf

[exstatic]

all i asked was if this was the best way to allocate money?
...in a way that VERY much said you thought this was frivolous.

[Clandestino]

okay, so, these children in developing and overpopulated countries have aids. why spend so much money to keep them alive longer? the money could be better used to provide for the education or something along those lines, but for healthy kids.

[exstatic]

okay, so, these children in developing and overpopulated countries have aids. why spend so much money to keep them alive longer? the money could be better used to provide for the education or something along those lines, but for healthy kids.
Ladies and Gentlemen: the Republican party, in a nutshell.

HIV is a manageable disease if you have your drug cocktail. No reason to write off these children as you seem to want to.

[Clandestino]

so, you'd rather spend the money on someone who is going to die young rather than someone who has a chance to live a long and healthy life?

[exstatic]

so, you'd rather spend the money on someone who is going to die young rather than someone who has a chance to live a long and healthy life?
Know what? I could type my fingers off trying to explain this, and your small black heart just wouldn't get it. These kids don't have to die young if they get their drugs. Are you really this stupid or just uninformed? I doubt you'd want to spend any money on any disadvantaged kid for any reason.

AIDS prevention education might have spared some of these kids this lot in life, but that's a no-no to you fucking Republicans, too. Don't bother to reply. I'd kind of cleared my ignore lists while I was gone, but your stupid ass is definitely back on.

[smeagol]

okay, so, these children in developing and overpopulated countries have aids. why spend so much money to keep them alive longer? the money could be better used to provide for the education or something along those lines, but for healthy kids.

I get it. They live in overpopulated countries. We should not help them live longer lives. Better if they die. Then their countries would not be overpopulated. :depressed

[boutons_]

Racial, chauvinistic triage.

Let foreign kids die from AIDS, start phony wars, but forbid US govt stem cell research.

"culture of life" hypocrits.

[velik_m]

who thinks this is the best way to use the money

I think this is the best way to use the french money.

[101A]

Ladies and Gentlemen: the Republican party, in a nutshell.



I guess in your isolated little brain, you'd like to think so, huh?

This looks like a very admirable endeavor the ex-president has undertaken. Props to him, and for the French and British for stepping up and lending a hand.

It should be pointed out, however, that the US still spends more on AIDS, and in foreign aid relating to it, than any other country on earth. You must take private donations into account to realize this, however.

[Clandestino]

Racial, chauvinistic triage.

Let foreign kids die from AIDS, start phony wars, but forbid US govt stem cell research.

"culture of life" hypocrits.

i'd rather spend money on the foreign kids with a chance. war wasn't/still isn't phony... i'm for stem cell research

[Clandestino]

I think this is the best way to use the french money.

you're 100% right. otherwise, they'd just bribe a dictator with it.

[smeagol]

i'd rather spend money on the foreign kids with a chance. war wasn't/still isn't phony... i'm for stem cell research
So if you ever had a kid and he contracted aids, you wouldn't want anybody trying to help him because he has no chance of surviving?

WTF.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

conservatives are just better at switching between utilitarianism and deontology then most would give them credit for. (white = deontology , other= utilitarian)

[101A]

conservatives are just better at switching between utilitarianism and deontology then most would give them credit for. (white = deontology , other= utilitarian)

Are they?

Conservatives are this, conservatives are that...must make it easy to debate this generic conservative you have in your head, huh. You probably win against that one.

[DarkReign]

I guess in your isolated little brain, you'd like to think so, huh?

This looks like a very admirable endeavor the ex-president has undertaken. Props to him, and for the French and British for stepping up and lending a hand.

It should be pointed out, however, that the US still spends more on AIDS, and in foreign aid relating to it, than any other country on earth. You must take private donations into account to realize this, however.

Have you watched that documentary on AIDS on Showtime? That will explain exactly where American money is being used in the AIDS crisis. Over 90% of the money provided by the American government is spent on prevention, not treatment.

Admirable, yes. But when children are born HIV positive (which a majority of the infected are in fact children under the age of 16), the whole prevention thing is kinda moot.

They have entire villages populated with nothing but orphans. We are talking about villages with about 100 people, with 80 of them being parent-less children.

My point is, the money being provided by America pales second place by a wide margin, no doubt. But the stipulations attached to that money make little to no difference. They need treatment.

[johnsmith]

Have you watched that documentary on AIDS on Showtime? That will explain exactly where American money is being used in the AIDS crisis. Over 90% of the money provided by the American government is spent on prevention, not treatment.

Admirable, yes. But when children are born HIV positive (which a majority of the infected are in fact children under the age of 16), the whole prevention thing is kinda moot.

They have entire villages populated with nothing but orphans. We are talking about villages with about 100 people, with 80 of them being parent-less children.

My point is, the money being provided by America pales second place by a wide margin, no doubt. But the stipulations attached to that money make little to no difference. They need treatment.


That's interesting. I dated a girl in college that was an HIV educator, she was really informed on the entire thing. She used to explain to me why education and prevention were the most important funding we could provide and I'd argue with her just to argue that treatment is more important. I think it's sort of a catch-22 in regards to what's more beneficial and who is going to complain about what.

[101A]

Have you watched that documentary on AIDS on Showtime? That will explain exactly where American money is being used in the AIDS crisis. Over 90% of the money provided by the American government is spent on prevention, not treatment.

Admirable, yes. But when children are born HIV positive (which a majority of the infected are in fact children under the age of 16), the whole prevention thing is kinda moot.

They have entire villages populated with nothing but orphans. We are talking about villages with about 100 people, with 80 of them being parent-less children.

My point is, the money being provided by America pales second place by a wide margin, no doubt. But the stipulations attached to that money make little to no difference. They need treatment.

How about private $$$? Is the bulk of that earmarked for prevention, also? With such effective drugs out there to extend people's lives, I would hope some was going to that, as well.

However, to wax utilitarianly (sic) - and be relatively callous in my observations (I have an insurance background, btw), extending people with HIVs' lives, while not curing ridding them of the virus, obviously is not going to do very much to control the spread. In fact it almost definitely will contribute to the spread. I would assume, JS, that is something you girlfriend might have been talking about.

[johnsmith]

How about private $$$? Is the bulk of that earmarked for prevention, also? With such effective drugs out there to extend people's lives, I would hope some was going to that, as well.

However, to wax utilitarianly (sic) - and be relatively callous in my observations (I have an insurance background, btw), extending people with HIVs' lives, while not curing ridding them of the virus, obviously is not going to do very much to control the spread. In fact it almost definitely will contribute to the spread. I would assume, JS, that is something you girlfriend might have been talking about.


That is absolutely what she was talking about. I know it sounds morbid and unpleasant, but the truth of the matter is, the "cocktail" is too costly to give to the millions of individuals with HIV. Education and prevention could help more, IN MY OPINION!!!!!

Honestly, I think this argument is like the abortion argument, you're either on one side or the other and it's up to God, or nature, or whatevery you want to believe in to decide who's right or wrong. IN MY OPINION.

[clambake]

With so many lives on the line, why does it cost so much?

Greed. Bottom line. We know these drugs work.

[johnsmith]

With so many lives on the line, why does it cost so much?

Greed. Bottom line. We know these drugs work.


I totally agree with that one.

[DarkReign]

How about private $$$? Is the bulk of that earmarked for prevention, also? With such effective drugs out there to extend people's lives, I would hope some was going to that, as well.

However, to wax utilitarianly (sic) - and be relatively callous in my observations (I have an insurance background, btw), extending people with HIVs' lives, while not curing ridding them of the virus, obviously is not going to do very much to control the spread. In fact it almost definitely will contribute to the spread. I would assume, JS, that is something you girlfriend might have been talking about.

In no way was I trying to imply that "Im right, youre wrong". Its clearly obvious that this is a gray issue.

I also wasnt trying to imply that the American money provided should be used in treatment alone, or even a majority of it.

Just that near none of it is being used in treatment. A statement of fact, not protest.

[101A]

In no way was I trying to imply that "Im right, youre wrong". Its clearly obvious that this is a gray issue.

I also wasnt trying to imply that the American money provided should be used in treatment alone, or even a majority of it.

Just that near none of it is being used in treatment. A statement of fact, not protest.


Wasn't trying to sound beligerent, DR, just posting thoughts; not arguing with you, either.

It frustrates me that the only meaningful data that is easily found all relates to what the govt. is doing, when, in fact, private donations from Americans far outdistance what we do as a community through the gov. Stossel had a show about this last week - along with some other stuff we've already hashed out on this board.

[101A]

With so many lives on the line, why does it cost so much?

Greed. Bottom line. We know these drugs work.

Believe me, I am no champion of the Pharmaceuticals industry, but it is a fact that research for new drugs is financed by the sale of existing ones. They cannot give them away.

However, relted to this: I believe the country of Brazil is producing the more succesfull drugs itself, ignoring patents, and giving it to its citizens. Not sure my facts on that, I just remember something like that from a Frontline I caught.

[johnsmith]

Believe me, I am no champion of the Pharmaceuticals industry, but it is a fact that research for new drugs is financed by the sale of existing ones. They cannot give them away.

However, relted to this: I believe the country of Brazil is producing the more succesfull drugs itself, ignoring patents, and giving it to its citizens. Not sure my facts on that, I just remember something like that from a Frontline I caught.


Damn, Brazil always thinks of stuff first.
:spin

[clambake]

Why doesn't the govt. buy the recipe? Might be a good way to spend the money.

[Yonivore]

Damn, Brazil always thinks of stuff first.
:spin
And, I'm sure they spent millions, possibly billions, researching and developing those drugs...or not.

[101A]

Why doesn't the govt. buy the recipe? Might be a good way to spend the money.


Umm, because raiding the US patent office (these things are public), and usurping what is the property right, guaranteed by that same government, of a pharmaceutical company, would do damage to the economy of this country well beyond anything the govt. has cooked up to this point.

Can you say, "Worldwide Economic Calamity"? I knew you could.

[PixelPusher]

Umm, because raiding the US patent office (these things are public), and usurping what is the property right, guaranteed by that same government, of a pharmaceutical company, would do damage to the economy of this country well beyond anything the govt. has cooked up to this point.

Can you say, "Worldwide Economic Calamity"? I knew you could.
Drug patents eventually expire and become public anyway (like the cheaper knock-off brands of ibufrofen you can get now).

A potential problem from the opposite pole of this issue is an overabundance of frivilous patents. (http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-6138026.html)

[velik_m]

this is an interesting read on drugs/patents (from a not so distant past):
http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0204trips.html

(it's too long to quote)