Jeremiah Norris, the author of a recent article published in your paper, works for the Hudson Institute, which is described in his bio as a think tank ("WHO: Long on agenda, but short on the facts," Nov. 4, page 8). This think tank is funded by pharmaceutical giants including Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and its output regularly reflects the views of its corporate sponsors.
Norris' ill-conceived rant suggests it is health infrastructure, not drug prices, that matters in developing countries.
The reality, however, is that both factors are vital.
If AIDS drugs in developing countries still cost US$10,000 a year per person -- as they did at the beginning of the decade and before the introduction of effective generic drugs led to a 99 percent drop in prices -- mass treatment of people with AIDS in the developing world would be impossible.
Even with the massive infrastructure problems that beset developing countries, lowered prices for AIDS drugs has made it possible for more than 2 million people with AIDS to receive treatment -- and live rather than die.
Norris goes so far as to assert, against all evidence, that the system creates incentives for research and development into "neglected diseases," which predominantly affect people in developing countries. In this, his position is even more knee-jerk than the Hudson Institute's pharmaceutical industry funders. The brand-name industry is at least willing to concede the need for mechanisms to supplement patents.
Many public health advocates hope for something more far-reaching: that drug developers be generously compensated, but by mechanisms other than ultra-high drug prices.
Norris' fantastic claims notwithstanding, no one, least of all the WHO, says the agency should be placed in charge of global research and development.
But public health advocates do believe we can and must find ways to support R&D that do not result in the rationing of life-saving medicines in developing countries and the denial of life-saving treatment to people simply because they are poor.
Robert Weissman, WASHINGTON
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS