Sorry, but if the one blessed company with the patent can't keep up with demand, and millions are going to die because there are patent restrictions, then ignore the patent laws and save some lives. It wouldn't look too good if the American government tried to stop it, essentially saying "It's against the law to save their lives, and we're going to punish you for saving them."
So in theory it could save lives if it keeps Karen and Becky out of the ER.
https://www.gilead.com/purpose/advancing-global-health/covid...
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/24/business/a-nation-challen...
Other interesting results were:
Canada forced to honour Bayer's patent on ciprofloxacin (BMJ. 2001 Oct 27; 323(7319): 956. PMCID: PMC1172996)
> In an embarrassing mix-up, Canada's federal government will pay twice for a supply of the antibiotic ciprofloxacin (marketed as Cipro) that it ordered to protect Canadians in case they are faced with an outbreak of anthrax, as has happened in the United States.
...
> After a meeting of officials from the health department and both companies on Monday, the government announced it will still pay the generic firm the amount of its contract— $C1.3m (£580 000; $824 000)—and will buy another 900 000 tablets from Bayer. Bayer's price is said to be $C2.50 a tablet, compared with Apotex's $C1.50. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172996/
Canadian government almost swamped by ciprofloxacin (BMJ. 2001 Nov 3; 323(7320): 1026. PMCID: PMC1173010)
> Canada's federal government has narrowly avoided having to pay for twice as much of the antibiotic ciprofloxacin (Cipro) as it thinks it needs to protect its citizens in the case of an outbreak of anthrax.
> The federal health department circumvented its own drug patent rules when it ordered about 900 000 tablets of the medication from a generic drug manufacturer, Apotex. The patent, held by Bayer AG, does not expire until 2004. Bayer reportedly threatened to sue. But after an announcement by the government that it would both pay the generic firm the amount of its contract—$C1.3m (£574 000; $825 000)—and buy another 900 000 tablets from Bayer, both drug companies let the health minister, Allan Rock, off the hook.
...
> Under the patent act, the government could have obtained authorisation to have a non-patented version of ciprofloxacin on a non-commercial basis, but it failed to ask for this.
Currently Gilead believe they can bring down their production time from 8-12 months 6-8 months, that means we won't see a large supply of this drug until 2021.
https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/11082-investigational-c...
One would think this would be a rather large opportunity for them.
As a Canadian, I've seen our government repeatedly threaten to bypass US drug patents in the last trade war we had with the US.
And frankly, the cheaper drugs are for the consumer, generic or otherwise, the better. I'm certain that a life-saving drug won't be getting skipped because of a patent dispute.
Smells to me like someone in the remdesivir marketing department is doing very well... Are there any scientific studies that don't have vested interests and show it's a good treatment?
Covid-19 doesn't kill you. Those most sick in their 2nd and 3rd weeks are usually made very sick by their immune system's own inflammatory immune response (cytokine storm).
What this means is that Remdesivir could be very effective for patients that have known exposures and are in high risk categories.
...but, for most clinicians, since it needs to be given intravenously, it's not usually part of the clinical response (for the moment).
This is why the manufacturer (Gilead) is working on an oral delivery system. ...and we should all be supportive of that, because a broad use anti-viral might be very useful for covid-19 as well as other future viral diseases.
Still - what's going to save us from covid-19 is going to be a vaccine (and some degree of herd immunity).
Currenly, remdesivir is not approved for the treatment of COVID-10 in the EU, but a decision along these lines is expected this week.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/14/gilead-should-ditch-remd...
And a fascinating tale how cat owners are buying the black market version to treat FIP:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/05/remdesiv...
How does this go together with the claim that "Remdesivir is patented by California-based Gilead"?
India does not recognize patents on medicine.
See, for example: India: Patents And The Indian Pharmaceutical Industry [1]
> With regard to pharmaceuticals, in the case of substances intended for use or capable of being used as food, drugs or medicines or substances produced by chemical processes, patents are granted only for the processes of manufacture of such substances and not for the substances themselves. Hence, pharmaceutical products are currently not granted patent protection under Indian law.
(And note that the "process of manufacture of such substances" is in practice interpreted so tightly that it covers very little.)
[1] https://www.mondaq.com/india/patent/865888/patents-and-the-i...
Also, not all countries respect patents.
See this post:
There is patent. So, it is not legal unless countries change patent law.
I know nothing about the patent law, but according to the article, drug is patented. Assuming the process is not open-source, I'd argue that other countries would be looking for alternative vaccinations.
From the article:
> The drug, which was trialed in the Ebola epidemic but failed to work as expected, is under patent to Gilead, which means no other company in wealthy countries can make it. The cost is around $3,200 per treatment of six doses, according to the US government statement.
can't tell if this is a supply chain (production) problem or patent laws dilemma.
Basically if you have a company in India willing to manufacture for say $200, Gilead will still charge the same amount, so licensing is likely to end up being at cost for 3rd party manufacturers with all profits going to Gilead.
But if Gilead does do that then a whole lot of countries will suddenly start asking why they’re having to pay so much to a US company that isn’t manufacturing the drug, and is getting a 80-90% cutof the revenue.
It’s better for gilead to try to maintain a veneer if “quality productions costs this much” in order to justify their pricing.
First the US buys all the chloroquin, now this. Next they will come for all our sugar pills too!
Dexamethasone is cheap, easy to make, and reduces mortality. We don't want remdesivir, which is why you're not seeing regulatory action to seize control of the rights.
https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/first-drug-to-reduce-mortality-i...
https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/06/29/how-remdesivir-wor...
My guess is that Gilead played Trump and will now backtrack to make a licensing deal so that the EU can produce its own at a lower price.
There’s nothing stopping Gilead from allowing more licensing now that it has squeezed all it can from its best customer.
But, would our reaction be still the same if Guardian's headline said China or Russia did this? Probably not. Perhaps we would even talk about putting new sanctions.
I think the right move would be allowing other companies to produce enough of it. If that means financially supporting Gilead, let's do that. Then nobody has to take all the stockpile.
Nope. There are about a billion other reasons both should be sanctioned to the point of embargo, but this isn't one. Nations have been fighting each other for resources for months now. That's to be expected in a high-demand, low-supply environment where each wants to save as many of her citizens as possible, and I wouldn't blame China or Russia for taking similar actions. For instance, I don't really blame China for having restricted exports of PPE because of greater need at home. I'd rather America get her hands on more stuff, but I'd expect any competent government to act in the interests of her citizens and so can't fault China (at least, not for this).
> I think the right move would be allowing other companies to produce enough of it. If that means financially supporting Gilead, let's do that. Then nobody has to take all the stockpile.
This is definitely a good approach, but this drug is pretty hard to make, so I'm not sure another company could just start making it easily [0]. However, Gilead has already been working with partner companies to ramp up production [1], which will allow them to benefit from all the work Gilead has put in to figuring out how to produce it at scale.
[0]: https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/03/26/problem-remdesivir-maki...
[1]: https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/30/gileads-remdesivir-has-s...
The media...just...suck...
