[lbo-talk] Cuba's painful transition from sugar economy

Carl Remick carlremick at hotmail.com
Sun Aug 28 05:59:30 PDT 2005



>From: "James Heartfield" <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk>
>
>Carl writes:
>
>"The question is not: technology, are you for it or against it?
>It is: what kind of technology are you for? E. F. Schumacher and all
>that."
>
>That would be the E.F. Schumacher ...
>[t]he same E.F. Schumacher who wanted to stop technology transfer to the
>Third World, and limit them to 'intermediate' (code for outdated)
>technology.

[Ah, James, you're not the only one keen to put the Third World on the cutting edge of technology.]

Published in the July 1, 2002 issue of The Nation

Globalizing Clinical Research Big Pharma Tries Out First World Drugs on Unsuspecting Third World Patients

by Sonia Shaw

By the end of July a US district court will decide whether drug giant Pfizer should stand trial in the United States for presiding over a coercive, botched 1996 experiment on Nigerian children with meningitis. In a class-action suit filed last August, thirty Nigerian families say the company violated the Nuremberg Code by forcing an unapproved, risky experiment on unwitting subjects who suffered brain damage, loss of hearing, paralysis and death as a result.

If allowed, the case will open a rare window on a business generally shrouded in FDA and Big Pharma secrecy: the global commerce in human experimentation. Over the past decade, the drug industry has quietly exported its clinical testing overseas, where oversight is slim and patients plentiful. According to a largely unnoticed Health and Human Services (HHS) report, the number of foreign investigators seeking FDA approvals increased sixteenfold between 1990 and 1999. The actual numbers are probably much higher--companies aren't required to alert the FDA before taking their research overseas, nor does the FDA track research by location after approving new drugs.

Globalizing clinical research solves the pharmaceutical paradox that while the average American brings home more than ten prescriptions a year, just one in 350 is willing to play guinea pig for new drug testing. An abundance of poor, undertreated and doctor-trusting patients in Eastern Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia renders the quick, positive results corporate sponsors need to get new drugs approved fast. According to one review, a whopping 99 percent of controlled trials published in China bestowed positive results upon the treatment under investigation.

Although the HHS report found that the "FDA cannot assure the same level of human subject protections in foreign trials as domestic ones," industry officials say that companies have little interest in bending the rules. "Occasionally things go wrong," allows Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America official Caroline Loew. But generally speaking, she says, "companies that are investing $800 million in every single drug are not going to waste money on trials that don't meet [the FDA's] exacting standards." Loew says that companies test new drugs abroad so they can sell them to needy foreign patients.

Analysts disagree. "There may be a market" in some developing countries, says Tufts University's drug-development expert Kenneth Kaitin, "but they are really interested in the United States, Europe and Japan," which dominate more than 80 percent of the global drug market. Indeed, all this foreign experimentation can hardly be counted on to develop malaria vaccines or cure multidrug-resistant TB. "The diseases that are of most interest are mainly the degenerative diseases--arthritis, obesity, heart disease--the diseases of people in the developed world," says South African bioethicist Dr. Solomon Benatar. ...

<http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0614-06.htm>

Carl



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list