domingo, 3 de julio de 2011

La gran estafa multimillonaria de las corporaciones Farmacéuticas


Primera parte de un documento en dos entregas que examina los métodos utilizados por las corporaciones farmacéuticas internacionales para controlar los mercados y las vidas. Junto a enfermedades neumocócicas como meningitis y neumonía, la diarrea relacionada con rotavirus es una importante asesina de niños en los países en desarrollo, de la que se piensa que destruye las vidas de 500.000 niños cada año. Un abrumador 85% de estos niños son africanos y asiáticos.

La necesidad de milagros médicos es mayor que nunca, pero la manipulación de los precios por las corporaciones farmacéuticas genera inmensos beneficios, mientras aumenta el precio de medicinas que pueden salvar vidas. La corporación farmacéutica basada en Gran Bretaña, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), ofreció recientemente un convenio para suministrar a naciones pobres 125 millones de dosis de la vacuna rotavirus –Rotarix– a 2,50 dólares la dosis, solo un cinco por ciento del precio habitual en los mercados occidentales. A través del grupo GAVI, la agencia de vacunas internacional financiada por países desarrollados como el Reino Unido, se espera que GSK y la multinacional farmacéutica Merck –que, entre ellas dominan el mercado de la vacuna rotavirus– suministren una línea segura de medicinas a bajo coste a unos cuarenta países en el futuro cercano. ¿Pero es realmente un descuento?, y si lo es, ¿quién paga el coste?

El mecanismo financiero que subvenciona la vacuna se llama Advance Market Commitment (AMC) [Compromiso anticipado de mercado], un proyecto creado por el G8, así como por el Banco Mundial y la Fundación Gates, como incentivo “atrayente” para que las multinacionales farmacéuticas consideren los mercados a largo plazo de los países en desarrollo para “bienes públicos” farmacéuticos como las vacunas. Rotarix ha despegado bien: Desde 2007 unos 50 millones de niños –mediante 100 millones de dosis– ya se han beneficiado de Rotarix; en 2009 las ventas globales de Rotarix llegaron a 440 millones de dólares –un aumento del 50% en comparación con 2008, y Rotateo de Merck llegó a 564 millones de dólares en ventas. El ejecutivo jefe de GSK, Andrew Witty, describió la estructura de los precios como, “ni como un artilugio ni como un gesto filantrópico aislado”, sino más bien como “parte de una estrategia concertada para cambiar nuestro modelo de negocios” –diseñado para combinar “el éxito comercial con contribuciones sustentables a largo plazo”.

Estructuras de precios y beneficios

Compañías farmacéuticas como GSK han afirmado frecuentemente que el alto coste de la “innovación”, es decir investigación y desarrollo (R&D, por sus siglas en inglés) es de entre 1.000 y 1.700 millones de dólares para introducir un nuevo medicamento al mercado. La recolección de 4.300 millones de dólares por AMC y GAVI para financiar la compra de vacunas se proyectó con la premisa de que hay que compensar el alto coste de R&D de las multinacionales farmacéuticas. Durante las últimas décadas, la industria farmacéutica de EE.UU. –más de la mitad de la cual incluye compañías basadas en Europa– ha sido en su mayor parte la industria más lucrativa en la economía de la nación, gracias a mecanismos como la ausencia de una estructura de precios impuesta por el gobierno.

“La libre fijación de precios y la rápida aprobación aseguran un rápido acceso a la innovación sin racionamiento”, dijo Daniel Vasella, ex jefe de Novartis (basada en Suiza), sobre las ventajas de hacer negocios en EE.UU. Las multinacionales farmacéuticas afirman que los consumidores estadounidenses están obligados a financiar la investigación y desarrollo necesarios para mantener el funcionamiento de la innovación global.

En Australia, Europa, así como en Canadá –la fuente de la “re-importación” de muchos medicamentos recetados por ciudadanos estadounidenses, donde las medicinas se venden a veces por la mitad del precio normal en EE.UU.– los gobiernos aseguran que las estructuras de los precios hagan que los medicamentos patentados sean asequibles. Aunque las multinacionales farmacéuticas generan considerables beneficios en esos países, cerca de un 50% de las ganancias de la industria farmacéutica global se genera en EE.UU. En 2006, por ejemplo, las ventas globales de medicamentos recetados ascendieron a más de 640.000 millones de dólares, de los cuales casi 300.000 millones fueron ventas generadas en EE.UU. Pero el verdadero engaño son menos las tácticas maquiavélicas utilizadas por las principales compañías farmacéuticas para aplicar Botox al resultado neto que el terrible mito detrás del “verdadero” precio de la innovación: la píldora de los mil millones de dólares.

De 1996 hasta 2005, las grandes compañías farmacéuticas gastaron 739.000 millones de dólares en mercadeo y administración: En este caso los costes de “administración” incluyen contabilidad, salarios de los ejecutivos (incluidas bonificaciones, opciones de compra de acciones, etc.), así como gastos de recursos humanos. “Mercadeo”, mientras tanto, consiste de publicidad directa al consumidor, argumentos de venta y muestras gratuitas para los médicos, junto con publicidad en las revistas médicas.

Un examen más minucioso del coste de los medicamentos
Durante el mismo período de 1996 a 2005, las compañías farmacéuticas gastaron 288.000 millones de dólares en R&D y 43.000 millones en propiedad y equipamiento, y generaron 558.000 millones en beneficios. Desde el principio, es posible ver que R&D está en penúltimo lugar en términos de gastos. Pero el desglose del propio R&D no es transparente: las compañías no detallan los gastos reales para el desarrollo de un medicamente en particular, y afirman que esa información incluye secretos comerciales exclusivos y/o confidenciales. Sin embargo, según Harvard Business Review: “El coste de un nuevo medicamento aprobado ha aumentado más de un 800% desde 1987, o 11% por año durante casi dos décadas”.

Corporaciones farmacéuticas como Novartis y GSK declaran que compañías que producen medicamentos genéricos –a menudo indias– pueden eludir costes semejantes, y vender sus medicamentos “copiados” por una fracción del precio del producto patentado, vendiendo frecuentemente entre 65% y 99% más barato que las firmas intercontinentales. El “coste de 1.000 millones de dólares” se deriva de un estudio de 2003 publicado en el Journal of Health Economics por Joe DiMasi et al del Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. Los autores y su organización afirmaron que el estudio fue objetivo, a pesar de que el propio Tufts Center está financiado en un 65% por las compañías farmacéuticas. Aunque los resultados se han normalizado como exactos por los medios, los hechos han sido desacreditados desde hace tiempo por especialistas independientes.

Los autores analizaron diez grandes corporaciones farmacéuticas (responsables entre ellas de un 42% de los gastos en R&D en EE.UU., donde se realiza la mayor parte de ese trabajo), examinando los costes de R&D de 68 medicamentos seleccionados al azar, y determinaron el coste del desarrollo de cada uno en 802 millones de dólares (elevado a 1.000 millones por el ajuste a la inflación).

Como los datos fueron presentados confidencialmente por las compañías farmacéuticas a los autores, no hay modo de verificar la calidad de la información, ni hubo alguna consideración del volumen potencial de manipulación corporativa de los precios entre compañías. Los nombres de las firmas no se mencionaron; tampoco los nombres de los medicamentos, los tipos de medicamentos; o su estatus –si se trataba de un medicamento prioritario, incluyendo tratamiento avanzado, o de un medicamento “para todos”– es decir una variación de productos que ya estaban en el mercado.

“Desmitificando” los costes
Para comenzar, la cifra de 802 millones de dólares no tomó en cuenta la forma opaca y extraña de contabilidad involucrada, comenzando con “costes capitalizados”. Según los autores, los gastos de R&D. “deben ser capitalizados a una tasa de descuento apropiada –el ingreso esperado del que se privan los inversionistas durante el desarrollo cuando invierten en R&D farmacéutica en lugar de una cartera igualmente arriesgada de valores financieros”. Como declaró Marcia Angell, doctora estadounidense, ex jefa de la redacción de The New England Journal of Medicine y catedrática senior en la Escuela de Medicina de Harvard: "Los consultores de Tufts simplemente lo agregaron a los costes generales de la industria.

Esa maniobra contable casi duplicó los 403 millones de dólares a 802 millones.” Por lo tanto, al tomar en cuenta costes actualizados por PhTMA (2006), el aumento de R&D general a 1.320 millones de dólares, más de 650 millones han sido simplemente incluidos como “investigación y desarrollo” por compañías farmacéuticas pretendiendo ganancias míticas que podrían haber sido generadas, si hubieran invertido en, digamos, Wall Street – y no en la “innovación” científica utilizada para justificar inmensas ganancias de patentes exclusivas. El estudio tampoco incluyó alivios impositivos y subsidios corporativos, así como la evasión fiscal deliberada y legal de impuestos corporativos (ni hablar de cualquier evasión tributaria ilegal). En la revista BioSocieties, el sociólogo Donald Light y la economista Rebecca Warburton “desmitifican” los costes del desarrollo de medicamentos en R&D analizando también los alivios impositivos involucrados en los costes de R&D.

La Oficina de Evaluación Tecnológica (OTA, por sus siglas en inglés) de EE.UU. reveló que: “El coste neto de cada dólar gastado en investigación debe ser reducido por el monto de impuestos evitados por ese gasto”. Los autores utilizaron datos de fuentes oficiales como el Tax Policy Center [Centro de política tributaria], para revelar ahorros impositivos adicionales de un 39%. Acumulativamente, los subsidios y créditos de los contribuyentes redujeron los costes generales de 403 millones de dólares a 201 millones.

Secreto fiscal

Además, como explica el artículo “Planificación Tributaria” de Ernst & Young, los costes de R&D usualmente se transfieren a jurisdicciones de alta tributación para compensar costes. Por otra parte, los beneficios generados por patentes frecuentemente se "re-ubican" en jurisdicciones de baja tributación. Las compañías farmacéuticas prefieren generar “gastos” de R&D en jurisdicciones de alta tributación como EE.UU. a fin de compensar los costes contra el ingreso gravable. Sin embargo, el coste de R&D no incluye impuestos “evitados”. No es sorprendente que la mayoría de las compañías farmacéuticas también estén ubicadas en jurisdicciones de impuestos bajos y secreto fiscal como Delaware en EE.UU., donde los beneficios se pueden transferir a beneficios pasivos y a compañías de propiedad intelectual. En un artículo [impreso originalmente en el periódico New Age, y publicado en línea en Al-Jazeera] escribí con John Christensen, fundador de la Red de Justicia Tributaria y ex consejero económico de Jersey, uno de los máximos paraísos fiscales del Reino Unido, revelamos cómo el secreto fiscal y la propiedad intelectual (IP) se explotan para beneficiar a las corporaciones farmacéuticas, en lugar de servir las necesidades de gente vulnerable. "Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, así como más de un 60% de las multinacionales de Fortune, mantienen todas entidades en Delaware, aprovechando a tope los instrumentos de opacidad legal y financiera.

Aparte del secreto fiscal y la nula revelación del beneficiario efectivo, Delaware permite que las sociedades matrices establezcan compañías holding en dos días, que no producen nada, que no realizan ninguna actividad económica en el Estado, y que en general albergan solo un accionista (la compañía madre). Semejantes entidades, que permiten que la compañía madre pague a la entidad recién creada un “honorario” por el uso de la IP, sirve como un conducto pasivo que convierte renta imponible en beneficio pasivo no imponible. El único sentido de la entidad es poseer y ‘administrar’ ingresos blanqueados generados de la IP.”

Los gigantescos gastos legales incurridos por especialistas en el desarrollo de patentes, defensa legal, la contratación de los paraísos fiscales y otros temas relacionados con la IP constituyen más costes, incluidos como R&D. Esta estrategia de optimización tributaria se parece de cerca a la de compañías de “alta tecnología” que dependen de capital intangible para la mayor parte de su riqueza. Según la revista Forbes, en 1999, tres de las cuatro personas más ricas del mundo hicieron su fortuna con derechos de propiedad intelectual. Debían su fortuna, dijo Michael Perelman, a “Microsoft, uno de los mayores propietarios de derechos de propiedad intelectual, algo muy apropiado para la denominada Nueva Economía en la cual el ‘Capital DOS’ ha suplantado a El Capital”.

Beneficios del tratamiento del SIDA

La administración de los derechos de propiedad intelectual puede ser ciertamente un negocio lucrativo. El primer tratamiento de VIH/SIDA, zidovudina [AZT], vendido con el nombre de marca Retrovir, fue fabricado por la compañía Burroughs Wellcome, incorporada posteriormente a GSK. En 1983, dos años después de que se informó por primera vez sobre el SIDA, los Institutos Nacionales de Salud [NIH] de EE.UU. y el Instituto Pasteur de París identificaron su causa –el retrovirus VIH. Ese mismo año Samuel Broder, jefe del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer (una filial de los NIH), estableció un equipo global para seleccionar instrumentos antivirales, incluida la molécula AZT descubierta por la Fundación del Cáncer de Michigan, subsiguientemente adquirida por Burroughs Wellcome.

El equipo NIH-NCI de Broder, junto a eruditos de la Universidad Duke, descubrió la efectividad de AZT contra el virus del SIDA y realizó los primeros ensayos clínicos en 1985. Como explica Marcia Angell en su informativo libro: The Truth About Drug Companies [La verdad sobre las compañías farmacéuticas], Burroughs Wellcome patentó inmediatamente el medicamento y “realizó los ensayos posteriores que posibilitaron que recibiera la aprobación de la Agencia de Alimentos y Medicamentos o Agencia de Drogas y Alimentos de EE.UU. [FDA] en 1987” después de un estudio de solo unos pocos meses.

La corporación cobraba a los pacientes más de 10.000 dólares anuales por el tratamiento y se auto-cumplimentó en demasía por el logro de la medicina salvavidas. Después de una carta auto-laudatoria de ese tipo del presidente ejecutivo de Burroughs Wellcome al New York Times, Broder y sus colegas del NCI y de la Universidad Duke respondieron airadamente, declarando: “La Compañía no desarrolló específicamente o suministró la primera aplicación de la tecnología para determinar si un medicamente como AZT puede suprimir el virus vivo del SIDA en células humanas, ni desarrolló la tecnología para determinar a qué concentración se puede lograr un efecto semejante en seres humanos. Además, no fue la primera en administrar AZT a un ser humano con SIDA, ni realizó los primeros estudios clínicos farmacológicos en pacientes. Tampoco realizó los estudios inmunológicos y virológicos necesarios para deducir que el medicamento podría funcionar, y que por ello valía la pena continuar con más estudios. Todo esto fue realizado por el personal del NCI trabajando con el personal de la Universidad Duke.” Acentuando la información, agregaron: “Por cierto uno de los obstáculos para el desarrollo de AZT fue que Burroughs Wellcome no trabajó con virus vivos del SIDA, ni quiso recibir muestras de pacientes con SIDA”.

Tácticas asesinas

Paradójicamente, el medicamento Retrovir fue clasificado por la compañía como “medicamento huérfano”, es decir: un medicamento para el cual existe un mercado de menos de 200.000 personas –y por ello no era probable que fuera lucrativo comercialmente. Esto se hizo para pedir un crédito de 50% del gobierno por los costes de los ensayos clínicos.

En 2005 se acusó a GSK de aumentar artificialmente sus beneficios a corto plazo al no aumentar la producción para satisfacer la demanda en drástico aumento, creando así “escasez” de su producto patentado. Esto se vio como un último intento de explotar la patente que debía expirar en septiembre de 2005. Poco después, el gobierno de EE.UU. aprobó versiones genéricas del medicamento. En África se conoce a GSK –literalmente– por sus tácticas asesinas. Cuando el distribuidor en Ghana, Healthcare Ltd. importó una versión genérica del medicamento (una combinación de AZT y 3TC – conocida como Combivir) de una compañía farmacéutica india llamada CIPLA, que la suministraba a un precio asequible (90 centavos de dólar por píldora) en lugar del precio patentado estadounidense (10 dólares por píldora), GSK amenazó al distribuidor con los tribunales, llevando a Healthcare Ltd. a cesar las ventas. Sin embargo, incluso mientras GSK acusaba a CIPLA de violar los derechos de la patente, GSK no poseía los “derechos” de Combivir en la oficina regional de patentes de África Occidental. AZT y otros tratamientos para el SIDA siguieron siendo medicamentos que fueron éxitos de venta para GlaxoSmithKline, generando 2.400 millones de dólares en beneficios en los primeros seis meses de 1997, gracias en particular a AZT y 3TC.

En 1998, se referían al SIDA como “crisis sanitaria a escala mundial”, considerada por muchos como “una epidemia”. Consecuentemente GSK ganó miles de millones de dólares con una patente, controló un mercado y determinó las vidas –y las muertes– de miles de millones de personas en todo el mundo, mediante algo que ellos no habían inventado. Afirmaron, sin embargo, que ellos concibieron que funcionaba. Esta noción bastó para excluir a los científicos del NCI, incluido Broder, de ser mencionados como inventores. ¿Pero es un ejemplo aislado?

La segunda parte de “La gran estafa de los miles de millones de dólares de las corporaciones farmacéuticas” se publicará próximamente.

Un artículo de Khadija Sharife.
World Poverty and Human Rights de Harvard, y autora de Tax Us If You Can Africa.



INGLES

Part of a document in two installments examines the methods used by international pharmaceutical corporations to control markets and lives. Along with pneumococcal disease such as meningitis and pneumonia, diarrhea associated with rotavirus is a major killer of children in developing countries, which are thought to destroy the lives of 500,000 children each year. An overwhelming 85% of these children are African and Asian countries.

The need of medical miracles is greater than ever, but the price gouging by pharmaceutical companies generate huge profits, while increasing the price of medicines that can save lives. The pharmaceutical corporation based in Britain, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), recently offered an agreement to supply poor countries 125 million doses of rotavirus vaccine Rotarix-to-$ 2.50 a dose, only five percent of the regular price Western markets. Through the GAVI group, international agency funded vaccines developed countries like the UK is expected to multinational pharmaceutical company GSK and Merck, which between them dominate the market for rotavirus vaccine, provide a secure medicines at low cost some forty countries in the near future. But is it really a discount?, And if so, who pays the cost?

The financial mechanism to subsidize the vaccine is called Advance Market Commitment (AMC) [Advance Market Commitment], a project created by the G8 and the World Bank and the Gates Foundation as an incentive "appealing" to the multinational pharmaceutical consider the long-term markets of developing countries to "public goods" pharmaceuticals such as vaccines. Rotarix has taken off well: Since 2007 some 50 million children by 100 million doses, and have benefited from Rotarix, in 2009 global sales of Rotarix reached $ 440 million, an increase of 50% compared with 2008, Rotateo Merck and reached $ 564 million in sales. GSK chief executive Andrew Witty, described the structure of prices as "not as a gimmick or as a philanthropic gesture isolated," but rather as "part of a concerted strategy to change our business model," designed to combine "commercial success with sustainable long-term contributions."

Pricing structures and benefits
Pharmaceutical companies like GSK have often stated that the high cost of "innovation", ie research and development (R & D, for its acronym in English) is between 1,000 and 1,700 million dollars to introduce a new drug to market. The collection of 4,300 million for AMC and GAVI to fund the purchase of vaccines are designed on the premise that we need to offset the high cost of R & D of multinational pharmaceutical companies. In recent decades, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry -More than half of which includes companies based in Europe has been largely the most profitable industry in the economy of the nation, through mechanisms such as the absence of a price structure imposed by the government.

"The free pricing and fast approval ensure fast access to innovation without rationing," said Daniel Vasella, former head of Novartis (Switzerland-based) on the benefits of doing business in the U.S. The pharmaceutical companies argue that U.S. consumers are forced to fund research and development necessary to maintain the functioning of global innovation.

In Australia, Europe and in Canada, the source of the "re-importation" of many prescription drugs by U.S. citizens, where medicines are sometimes sold at half the normal price in the U.S. - governments say pricing structures that make patented drugs are affordable. Although the pharmaceutical companies generate substantial benefits in these countries, about 50% of the profits from the global pharmaceutical industry is generated in the U.S. In 2006, for example, global sales of prescription drugs amounted to more than 640,000 million, of which almost 300,000 million were generated in U.S. sales But the real deception are less Machiavellian tactics used by major pharmaceutical companies to apply Botox net income that the terrible myth behind the "real" price of innovation: the pill a billion dollars.

From 1996 to 2005, large pharmaceutical companies spent $ 739,000 million in marketing and management: In this case the costs of "administration" include accounting, executive pay (including bonuses, stock options, etc.). And as human resources costs. "Marketing", meanwhile, consists of direct to consumer advertising, sales pitches and free samples to physicians, along with advertising in medical journals.

A closer examination of the cost of medicines
During the same period of 1996 to 2005, pharmaceutical companies spent $ 288,000 million in R & D and 43,000 million in property and equipment, and generated 558,000 million in profits. From the beginning, one can see that R & D is second to last in terms of expenditures. But the breakdown of R & D itself is not transparent: companies do not detail the actual expenditures for the development of an individual doctor, and claim that exclusive information includes trade secrets and / or confidential. However, according to Harvard Business Review: "The cost of a new drug approved has increased by over 800% since 1987, or 11% per year for nearly two decades."

Pharmaceutical companies like Novartis and GSK state that companies that produce generic drugs, often can avoid cost-Indian alike, and sell drugs "copied" by a fraction of the price of the patented product, often sold between 65% and 99% cheaper than intercontinental firms. The "cost of 1,000 million dollars" is derived from a 2003 study published in the Journal of Health Economics by Joe DiMasi et al the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. The authors and their organization said the study was objective, despite the very Tufts Center is funded 65% by pharmaceutical companies. Although the results are normalized as accurate by the media, the facts have been long discredited by independent experts.

The authors analyzed ten large pharmaceutical corporations (responsible among them 42% of expenditure on R & D in the U.S., where it does most of that work), examining the costs of R & D of 68 drugs selected at random and determined the cost of developing each in $ 802 million (increased to 1,000 million by the adjustment for inflation).

As data were submitted confidentially by pharmaceutical companies to the authors, there is no way to verify the quality of the information, nor was there any consideration of the potential volume of corporate manipulation of prices between companies. The names of the firms were not mentioned, nor the names of the drugs, the types of drugs, or their status-whether it was a priority drug, including advanced treatment or medication "for all" - that is a variation products already on the market.

"Demystifying" the costs
To begin, the amount of $ 802 million did not take into account how strange opaque accounting and involved, starting with "capitalized cost". According to the authors, the costs of R & D. "Must be capitalized to an appropriate discount rate, the expected revenue from that deprive investors during development when they invest in pharmaceutical R & D rather than an equally risky portfolio of financial assets." As stated by Marcia Angell, American physician, former head of the Editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School, "Tufts consultants simply added to the overall costs of the industry.

This maneuver accounting almost doubled $ 403 million to 802 million. "Therefore, taking into account current costs for PhTMA (2006), increased R & D overall to 1,320 million dollars, more than 650 million have been simply included as "research and development" by pharmaceutical companies seeking to gain mythic could have been generated had they invested in, say, Wall Street - and not "innovation" used to justify enormous scientific gains exclusive patents. The study also included tax breaks and corporate welfare and tax evasion and willful corporate tax law (let alone any illegal tax evasion). In the magazine BioSocieties, sociologist Donald Light and Rebecca Warburton economist "demystify" the costs of drug development in R & D tax breaks also analyzing the costs involved in R & D.

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA, for its acronym in English) U.S. revealed: "The net cost of each dollar spent on research must be reduced by the amount of tax avoided by that expenditure." The authors used data from official sources such as the Tax Policy Center [Tax Policy Center], to reveal additional tax savings of 39%. Cumulatively, subsidies and credits taxpayers reduced the overall cost of $ 403 million to 201 million.

Tax Secret
Moreover, as the article explains, "Tax Planning" by Ernst & Young, the costs of R & D is usually transferred to high tax jurisdictions to offset costs. Moreover, the benefits generated by patents often "re-located" in low tax jurisdictions. Pharmaceutical companies prefer to generate "costs" of R & D in high tax jurisdictions like the U.S. to offset the costs against taxable income. However, the cost of R & D does not include taxes "avoided." Not surprisingly, most pharmaceutical companies are also located in low tax jurisdictions and tax secrecy and Delaware in the U.S., where profits can be transferred to passive benefits of intellectual property and companies. In an article [originally printed in the New Age, published online on Al-Jazeera] wrote with John Christensen, founder of the Tax Justice Network and former Jersey economic adviser, one of the leading offshore UK reveal how the tax secrecy and intellectual property (IP) are exploited to benefit the pharmaceutical corporations, rather than serving the needs of vulnerable people. "Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and more than 60% of multinational Fortune, keep all entities in Delaware, using butt instruments legal and financial opacity.

Apart from the tax secrecy and disclosure of the beneficial owner null, Delaware allows parent companies to establish holding companies in two days, who produce nothing, do not make any economic activity in the state, and generally host only one shareholder (the parent company). Such entities, which allow the parent company paid to the newly created entity a "fee" for using the IP serves as a passive conduit that benefit becomes taxable income tax liability is not. The only sense of the entity's own and 'manage' bleached income generated from the IP. "

The huge legal expenses incurred by specialists in the development of patents, legal advocacy, the recruitment of tax havens and other IP issues are more costs included as R & D. This tax optimization strategy closely resembles that of companies 'high tech' dependent on intangible capital for most of their wealth. According to Forbes magazine, in 1999, three of the four richest people in the world made his fortune with intellectual property rights. They owed their fortune, said Michael Perelman, "Microsoft, one of the biggest owners of intellectual property rights, something very appropriate for so-called New Economy in which the 'Capital DOS' has supplanted the capital."

AIDS Treatment Benefits
The management of intellectual property rights may indeed be a lucrative business. The first treatment for HIV / AIDS, zidovudine [AZT], sold under the brand name Retrovir, manufactured by Burroughs Wellcome Company and subsequently incorporated into GSK. In 1983, two years after it first reported on AIDS, National Institutes of Health [NIH] U.S. and the Institute Pasteur in Paris identified the cause and the retrovirus HIV. That same year, Samuel Broder, head of the National Cancer Institute (an affiliate of the NIH) established a global team to select instruments antivirals, including AZT molecule discovered by the Michigan Cancer Foundation, subsequently acquired by Burroughs Wellcome.

NIH-NCI team Broder, along with scholars from Duke University, discovered the effectiveness of AZT against the AIDS virus and the first clinical trials conducted in 1985. As Marcia Angell explains in his informative book, The Truth About Drug Companies [The truth about drug companies], Burroughs Wellcome patented the drug immediately and "subsequent trials made it possible to receive approval from the Food and Drug Agency or Food and Drug U.S. [FDA] in 1987 "after a study of only a few months.

The corporation charged to more than 10,000 patients per year to treatment and too much self-administered by the achievement of lifesaving medicine. After a self-laudatory letter of this type of Burroughs Wellcome chief executive of the New York Times, Broder and colleagues at the NCI and Duke University responded angrily, saying: "The Company does not specifically developed or provided the first application of technology to determine whether a doctor like AZT can suppress live AIDS virus in human cells, and developed the technology to determine what concentration you can achieve a similar effect in humans. Furthermore, it was the first to administer AZT to a human with AIDS, nor did the first clinical pharmacology studies in patients. Nor did the immunological and virological studies necessary to infer that the drug might work, and that it was worth continuing with further studies. All this was done by the NCI staff work with staff at Duke University. "Accentuating the information, added:" Certainly one of the obstacles to the development of AZT was that Burroughs Wellcome did not work with live AIDS virus nor wanted to receive samples from patients with AIDS. "

Killer Tactics
Paradoxically, the drug Retrovir was classified by the company as "orphan", ie a drug for which there is a market of less than 200,000 people, and therefore was unlikely to be commercially profitable. This was to take a credit of 50% of government for the costs of clinical trials.

In 2005, GSK was accused of artificially raising its short-term profits by not increasing production to meet demand drastic increase, thus creating "scarcity" of your patented product. This was seen as a last attempt to exploit the patent due to expire in September 2005. Soon after, the U.S. government approved generic versions of the drug. Africa is known GSK-literally-for his murderous tactics. When the distributor in Ghana, Healthcare Ltd. imported a version of the drug (a combination of AZT and 3TC - known as Combivir) a pharmaceutical company called Cipla India, who supplied at an affordable price (90 cents per pill) instead of U.S. patented price (10 dollars per pill), GSK threatened the dealer with the courts, leading to Healthcare Ltd. to stop sales. However, even while accusing GSK Cipla of violating the patent, GSK had no "rights" of Combivir in the regional patent office in West Africa. AZT and other treatments for AIDS drugs that were continued sales success for GlaxoSmithKline, generating 2,400 million dollars in profits in the first six months of 1997, thanks in particular to AZT and 3TC.

In 1998, referred to AIDS as "global health crisis," considered by many as "an epidemic." Consequently, GSK made billions of dollars a patent, and found a market controlled the lives-and deaths-of billions of people around the world by something they had not invented. They said, however, that they conceived it worked. This notion was enough to exclude scientists from the NCI, including Broder, to be listed as inventors. But is it an isolated example?

The second part of "The Hoax of the billions of dollars of pharmaceutical companies" will be published shortly.

An article by Khadija Sharif.
Khadija Sharif is a journalist and visiting scholar at the Center for Civil Society (CCS) based in South Africa, and contributor to the Tax Justice Network. It is South African correspondent of The Africa Report magazine, associate editor of the magazine World Poverty and Human Rights at Harvard and author of Tax Us If You Can Africa.

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/06/20116297573191484.html
Khadija Sharife es periodista y académica visitante en el Centro por la Sociedad Civil (CCS) basado en Sudáfrica, y colaboradora de la Red por la Justicia Tributaria. Es la corresponsal sudafricana de la revista The Africa Report, editora adjunta de la revista

43 comentarios:

Anónimo dijo...

Hellо! Ι know this is soгt of off-topіc but I needed to ask.
Doeѕ builԁing a well-establіshed
blog like уours take a lot of woгk? I'm brand new to running a blog however I do write in my journal everyday. I'd like to
start a blοg sο I сan ѕhаге my expеrience anԁ thοughts onlіne.
Pleaѕe let me κnoω if you have any kind of idеas or tips for
new aspіring blog owners. Appreciate it!


Ηere is mу web-site - thai massage videos
Feel free to visit my blog : pressure points

Anónimo dijo...

hello there and thank you for your information – I have
certainly picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise some technical issues
using this web site, since I experienced to reload the site lots of
times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK?
Not that I'm complaining, but slow loading instances times will very frequently affect your placement in google and could damage your high quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and could look out for much more of your respective exciting content. Ensure that you update this again very soon.
my web page > online roulette casino

Anónimo dijo...

ρrofеѕsional haiг's-breadth treatment worth �50 and can cause gum disease, sass sores, bad hint, cavities and tooth exit. and so start dismissal discussion and some other radical without FMS standard a pretender handling with a disunited magnotherapy device. To do so, you have to ask yourself a back muscles tighten up due to factors such as overuse or pitiable stance. For the terminal touch, cup your reservations fill debauched. Unlike Swedish massage, Sensual Massage massage pad down down the stairs beautiful stones come in diverse sizes.

Here is my web page ... homepage

Anónimo dijo...

Your аrticle haѕ сonfігmeԁ useful to us.

It’s very useful and you're clearly quite educated in this region. You get opened up my personal sight to be able to various views on this kind of topic with interesting and solid content material.
Also visit my homepage :: Xanax Online

Anónimo dijo...

Youг own reрort providеs
proven helpful to me pеrsonally. It’ѕ veгу uѕeful anԁ you are сertainlу
quіte expеriеnceԁ in thiѕ areа.
You have рopрed my eyes to numerous vіeωs
on this kіnԁ of tορiс togеther with intriquing,
notable and ѕtrоng content matегial.
Here is my web site valium

Anónimo dijo...

Yes! Finally someone writes about displays.

Feel free to visit my site ... rockabullbulldogz.com

Anónimo dijo...

Hi there all, here every person is sharing these knowledge, therefore it's nice to read this blog, and I used to go to see this weblog daily.

Feel free to surf to my weblog - smart circle directv sam's club

Anónimo dijo...

Thanks for a marvelous posting! I certainly enjoyed reading it,
you may be a great author. I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will often come back from
now on. I want to encourage you to ultimately continue your great writing,
have a nice weekend!

My website - buy Maxoderm

Anónimo dijo...

An outstanding share! I have just forwarded this onto a colleague who has been
doing a little homework on this. And he actually bought me breakfast due to the fact that I
discovered it for him... lol. So let me reword this.
... Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending some time to
talk about this matter here on your web site.

Stop by my page essential amino acids

Anónimo dijo...

Hey there would you mind letting me know which webhost you're utilizing? I've loaded your blog
in 3 different web browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster
then most. Can you suggest a good hosting provider at a reasonable price?
Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!

My webpage buyproenhance.eklablog.com

Anónimo dijo...

Hey there! This is my 1st comment here so I
just wanted to give a quick shout out and say I really enjoy reading
through your articles. Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that deal
with the same subjects? Thanks!

Take a look at my web-site; breast actives

Anónimo dijo...

I'm impressed, I must say. Seldom do I encounter a blog that's equally educative and amusing, and without a doubt,
you have hit the nail on the head. The problem is something that too few folks are
speaking intelligently about. I'm very happy I came across this during my hunt for something concerning this.

Look into my web blog - http://huayuan815.com

Anónimo dijo...

When I initially commented I clicked the "Notify me when new comments are added"
checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails
with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove me from that service?
Appreciate it!

Take a look at my homepage sytropin genf20

Anónimo dijo...

Why viewers still make use of to read news papers when in this
technological world all is presented on web?



Here is my web-site - male Enhancement that works

Anónimo dijo...

Hello, this weekend is fastidious for me, because this occasion
i am reading this wonderful informative paragraph here at my home.


Feel free to surf to my web-site: provillus

Anónimo dijo...

Link exchange is nothing else however it is only placing the other person's weblog link on your page at appropriate place and other person will also do similar in favor of you.

Check out my web page ... buy alteril

Anónimo dijo...

Hi there mates, nice article and good arguments commented here, I
am actually enjoying by these.

My page ... http://www.vw-club-zeesen.de

Anónimo dijo...

First of all I would like to say terrific blog!
I had a quick question that I'd like to ask if you do not mind. I was interested to know how you center yourself and clear your head prior to writing. I've had a
hard time clearing my mind in getting my ideas out. I do enjoy writing however
it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes are usually lost simply just trying to figure
out how to begin. Any recommendations or hints?
Thanks!

Take a look at my homepage: black ant male enhancement review

Anónimo dijo...

Good respond in return of this question with genuine arguments
and explaining all concerning that.

Also visit my homepage: glandular fever

Anónimo dijo...

If some one wants to be updated with most recent technologies then
he must be visit this site and be up to date everyday.



Feel free to surf to my homepage; under active thyroid

Anónimo dijo...

It's the best time to make some plans for the future and it's time to be happy.
I've read this post and if I could I want to suggest you some interesting things or tips. Perhaps you could write next articles referring to this article. I desire to read even more things about it!

Here is my page :: http://revitolproducts.weebly.com/revitol-pore-minimizer-cream.html

Anónimo dijo...

This post will assist the internet users for building up
new blog or even a blog from start to end.

My site ... provillusstore.net

Anónimo dijo...

Howdy! This is my first comment here so I just wanted to give
a quick shout out and say I genuinely enjoy reading through your articles.
Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that go over
the same topics? Many thanks!

my blog buy provillus

Anónimo dijo...

I know this web site presents quality based articles and other material, is there any other site which gives these kinds of data in quality?


my web-site: revitol eye cream

Anónimo dijo...

Useful info. Lucky me I found your website by chance, and I am shocked
why this coincidence didn't took place in advance! I bookmarked it.

Here is my web site: buy profollica

Anónimo dijo...

I think that what you posted made a bunch of sense.
But, consider this, suppose you added a little information?
I ain't saying your information isn't good.
, but suppose you added a post title to maybe grab folk's attention? I mean "La gran estafa multimillonaria de las corporaciones Farmac�uticas" is kinda vanilla. You could glance at Yahoo's home
page and note how they write article titles to grab viewers to open
the links. You might add a related video or a picture
or two to grab people interested about everything've got to say. Just my opinion, it could make your posts a little bit more interesting.

Check out my page order tinnitus control

Anónimo dijo...

Having read this I thought it was very informative.
I appreciate you finding the time and energy to
put this short article together. I once again find myself spending way too much time both reading and leaving comments.
But so what, it was still worthwhile!

Also visit my weblog - buy breast actives

Anónimo dijo...

I’m not that much of a internet reader to be honest but your sites really nice,
keep it up! I'll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back later on. Cheers

Also visit my web blog ... Virility Ex No Mercado Livre

Anónimo dijo...

Nice post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed!
Extremely useful info specially the last part :
) I care for such info a lot. I was looking for this certain information for a very long time.
Thank you and best of luck.

My web page virility ex reviews

Anónimo dijo...

When someone writes an paragraph he/she keeps the image of
a user in his/her mind that how a user can know it. Thus that's why this paragraph is amazing. Thanks!

Look at my web blog: Venapro In stores

Anónimo dijo...

What's Going down i'm new to this, I stumbled upon this I've discovered It absolutely helpful and it has aided me out loads. I am hoping to contribute & aid other customers like its helped me. Good job.

Also visit my website :: venapro.herbalcurenow.com

Anónimo dijo...

What's up, this weekend is nice for me, as this moment i am reading this great informative post here at my residence.

Feel free to visit my homepage; african superman male enhancement

Anónimo dijo...

It's very simple to find out any topic on web as compared to books, as I found this post at this web page.

Feel free to surf to my website buy Proactol

Anónimo dijo...

For latest information you have to visit web and on
web I found this web site as a best web page for latest
updates.

Feel free to visit my blog; breast actives

Anónimo dijo...

Good day! This post could not be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my previous room mate!
He always kept talking about this. I will forward this page to him.

Fairly certain he will have a good read. Thank you for sharing!


My web-site - phallosan

Anónimo dijo...

Wow, awesome blog format! How long have you ever been blogging for?
you make running a blog look easy. The total look of your site
is great, as well as the content!

Feel free to visit my webpage buy dermasis

Anónimo dijo...

A common misconception about developping ab physical exercise is that to get your wellness in ascendance, understand that positioning ends is key.

They bear a vast amount of antioxidants and
will over-training, you require to return a multi-faceted approach.
Looking For to take The be commanded by engaging into ab exercisings.


Here is my homepage - truth about abs reviews & ordering - http://truthaboutabsdon.com

Anónimo dijo...

With all the freedom debt relief programs constitute a debt settlement company
- GHS Solutions. There is a way to lower your interest rates are therefore lower in case of secured debts.
We all want free things in life, means that you have no problem in
making the discussions with credit counsellor more
fruitful.

Review my blog; debt relief services

Anónimo dijo...

But why is it, that the autoinsurance company ratings, know how they work out their premiums.
However, you no have option but to get hold of Cincinnati
autoinsurance policy, which would later be submitted to insurance companies
and drivers to take notice. You must also know all the facts
about the daily usage of the car includes two petrol and two diesel.

Do I Need It? It could also be the same or different.


Here is my web-site ... go right here

Anónimo dijo...

Here are 4 tips to will i ever get a girlfriend and get the problem sorted
out by using this medication and you will be able to really get a grasp of your amazing personality.
She so pretty How to get my ex will i ever get a girlfriend back.
Breaking up with the same mentality of a winner.

Anónimo dijo...

We are surrounded with so many things in my life made me feel not
so good looking ones having women how to attract
women tips crawling all over them, so that the date can be cancelled until next time.


Take a look at my blog; ways to attract women

Anónimo dijo...

Use the guide and personalize it. But if she didn't prepare the morning coffee, big deal! Always dress in a manner that the woman only feels this way when she is good and may make a good impression with them. Sure, they do appreciate a good looking guy with a full head of hair. I don't care what led to the break initially that must be
taken into consideration.

my website: how to attract beautiful women

Anónimo dijo...

You really make it seem so easy along with your presentation but
I find this matter to be really one thing that I believe I might by no means
understand. It seems too complex and extremely broad for me.

I'm taking a look ahead to your next post, I'll attempt to get
the hang of it!

Also visit my homepage; semenax ingredients