SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • David, thank you for the note. It appears there is... »
  • The link to the US proposal seems to be broken, an... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Advocates Back WHO Resolution On Chagas With Access To Diagnosis, Treatment

    Published on 18 May 2010 @ 7:04 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Two groups this week are urging the World Health Assembly to address access to diagnosis, treatment and new drugs for a tropical disease that is the leading parasitic killer in the Americas and spreading. At a side event on the first day of the assembly, civil society actors also expressed concern about the shrinking input of civil society in the annual WHO members’ meeting.

    Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, or Doctors without Borders) and the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) in a joint briefing yesterday on Chagas disease, commented positively on Resolution EB124.R7 [pdf], on “Chagas Disease: Control and Elimination,” which they said is expected to come up as soon as tomorrow and to be adopted by the WHA. But they said key elements are missing from the resolution.

    Chagas disease is an infectious disease caused by the Trypanosoma cruzi parasite. The disease is endemic in several Latin American countries. It causes 14,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 10 to 15 million people suffer from the disease, according to MSF.

    In 2009, MSF and DNDi joined forces to launch a campaign to raise awareness about Chagas disease, said Gemma Ortiz Genovese, MSF neglected diseases senior advocacy and liaison officer. The resolution on Chagas is a great opportunity, she said, but the resolution does not contain references to diagnosis and treatment of the disease, and the advocates are urging member states to integrate those key points in the declaration before adopting it.

    A vast majority of people who have been diagnosed with Chagas do not have access to treatment, said Francisco Roman, vice-president of MSF Spain. The two current available drugs have an important toxicity, side effects, and partial efficiency, so new drugs are needed, he said. Financing research and development (R&D) is a key solution and governments have to find alternative means of financing.

    For a long time limited to Latin America, Chagas disease has now spread to Europe, Japan, Australia and North America, mainly through congenital transmission from mother to child, or through blood transfusions, according to Nathalie Strub-Wourgaft, clinical development director for DNDi. In endemic regions, Chagas disease is transmitted through blood feeding bugs. Many Chagas infected people do not present noticeable symptoms, some will go on living with the parasite without health related issues, however, 30 percent of patients in the chronic phase will develop serious heart or digestive problems, some of which leading to death.

    The most-needed development is for a treatment in paediatric dose, Stub-Wourgaft said, as treatments are more effective on a young population. It is also crucial that patients are treated before they are 50 years old. Diagnosis is thus of the utmost importance.

    The barriers to access to treatment are not related to intellectual property protection, as there are no patents on the two current treatments, which have been on the market for a number of years, but to supply procurement and the under-notification of countries of the number of cases of Chagas disease.

    Financing R&D is a challenge as current donors, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) governments and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have squeezed budgets due to the economic crisis and might shift their priorities to climate change, energy, and food security, said Pascale Boulet, IP and policy advisor for DNDi.

    Milestone prizes could be an interesting option, she said, as it would pay for substantial reward for specific steps in the discovery process or clinical drug candidates that meet specific criteria. That could increase interest in the sector and maybe draw new actors, such as biotechnology companies. Funds could be sought from usual donors, she said.

    Other mechanisms such as the UNITAID airline ticket tax, voluntary solidarity contribution or a currency transaction tax could be explored too, she said.

    De-linkage of R&D Essential

    Separating R&D from the price of the products is an important principle, said Michelle Childs, director of policy advocacy for MSF.

    The WHO has a central role, she said, by defining priorities. It is important that endemic countries are R&D partners, funders and in the decision-making process. De-linking is a key concept that enables reconciliation of innovation and access, she said, asking that the WHO help member states to frame, develop and support R&D policies based on the de-linkage principle.

    Civil Society Input in Assembly Reined In

    At the opening of the briefing, Tido von Schoen-Angerer, director of the MSF Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines, said that they had been advised by the WHO that no room would be available for NGOs during the Assembly due to time and space issues. Later on, the WHO decided to allow one room per day to NGOs. “We are quite concerned,” said von Schoen-Angerer, as this limits civil society participation and contribution to the World Health Assembly (WHA). This is a significant change compared to previous years, he said, and an “awkward” situation where other international organisations such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, sometimes have provided more space to civil society than is the case for the WHA.

    A representative of Health Action International said “it is important to know that [WHO Director General] Margaret Chan repeated again today her commitment to engagement of civil society, but the evidence is kind of suggesting otherwise,” and James Love from Knowledge Ecology International said that at several institutions, there had been efforts to reduce input of civil society.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at csaez@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Miles Teg says:

      For a real story on Bill and Melinda Gates ripoff of developing country researchers please see:

      http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GatesPhilanthropyStemCells.php

      they came, they met commited public health researchers, they waved the cash, got the info, and split … nice one… must make you proud… stolen goods… is stolen goods…


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.