Moderna's CEO on why he doesn't think waiving IP will increase mRNA vaccine supply: “If someone wants to start from scratch, they would have to figure out how to make mRNA, which is not in our patents.”
Right there, in black and white, are a few very important things. (1/10)
1. It confirms that Moderna’s statement in Oct 2020 about waiving patents was just PR stunt.
They deliberately left out the tech transfer part, and are saying here that the patents they would release wouldn’t be helpful anyways.
2. #TRIPsWaiver is only a prerequisite for expanding global manufacturing capacity.
It'll all come down to the details, and w/out tremendous pressure/scrutiny from the movement that made this happen in the first place those negotiations will ensure nothing substantive is done.
3. Drugmakers like Moderna will not do anything that comprises a dollar of their profits unless they are forced too.
The U.S. said it's decision was a moral one, a response to "extraordinary circumstances." Those extraordinary circumstances don't mean a thing to Moderna.
On that note, it's important to point out (as always) where the CEO made these comments: a first quarter earnings call.
4. It's on the U.S. to take the measures within its power to create the collaboration necessary to expand global manufacturing.
Moderna's CEO "quickly closed the door on providing tech transfer or monetary support to help a potential manufacturer make Moderna’s vaccine."
Of course he did. They won't do anything unless compelled. So, the U.S. has to compel them.
5. Moderna does not own all the relevant patents that go into its vaccine. The U.S. also has some.
"If the government successfully pursued its patent filings, the resulting patents would likely confer significant rights." - @PCMedsAccess citizen.org/article/the-ni…
With comments like what we're seeing from Moderna's CEO, not pursuing ownership is an acknowledgement from the Biden admin that their stance on #TRIPsWaiver was more for show than for anything else. endpts.com/moderna-ceo-br…
Publicity statements and gestures from pharmaceutical companies and governments won't end the pandemic. Immediate action will. (10/10)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“It will unleash a scramble for the critical inputs we require in order to make a safe and effective vaccine.”
“Entities with little or no experience in manufacturing vaccines are likely to chase the very raw materials we require to scale our production, putting the safety and security of all at risk.”
This @WSJ Editorial Board piece, which has the jingoism of Rudyard Kipling's writings, deserves a fuller response. But in this thread I'm going to focus on one particular sentence in the opinion to help enlighten the thinking of our 'friends' at the @WSJ. on.wsj.com/2IZPlFC
That sentence is:
"It’s not clear developing countries even have the ability to manufacture large-scale, complex technologies like Moderna’s mRNA vaccine or Eli Lilly’s monoclonal antibody cocktail—let alone distribute them."
Putting aside the @WSJ's superiority complex, it's worth looking at some examples in the past where similar statements made by those in the western hemisphere about the scientific/technological abilities of countries in the global south have been proven wrong.
Despite what the CEO of Celgene/BMS has said in this hearing, it's important to note that even though Natco will enter with a generic version of Revlimid in 2022 it will be a very restricted amount.
The settlement between Natco/Celgene prevents Natco from fully coming to market until 2026. Other generics are still in litigation with Celgene BMS because of all the "important patent innovations" that Celegene piled up.
One of those "important innovations" is a patent on the crystalline form of lenalidomide which expires in 2027. A graduate student in organic chemistry would know how to get a crystalline form of a compound because it's just so obvious.
The House Oversight Committee’s report on Celgene just dropped is a bombshell.
Internal strategy docs reviewed by Congress show that Celgene/BMS prioritised preventing “generic encroachment” and excluded competition by leveraging the U.S. patent system. oversight.house.gov/sites/democrat…
The report uses @IMAKglobal’s research to break down the details of Celgene/BMS’s patent abuse.
What is new are the insights we can take from the internal documents. Celgene knew the U.S. patent system could be manipulated, and they knew it gave them pricing control.
So, why, over 15 years, did their drug Revlimid go from $215 to $719/pill?
The report tells us what we already knew:
“pricing decisions...were driven almost exclusively by the need to meet company revenue targets and shareholder earnings goals.”
Thread (1/14): Tomorrow, drugmakers will be testifying on the tactics the industry uses to prop up drug prices.
Let’s take a look at the story of a poster child of patent abuse: Celgene’s cancer drug Revlimid.
Currently, the list price for a 1-month supply of Revlimid is a staggering $22,314.
Revlimid is Celgene’s blockbuster moneymaker. In 2017, it brought in $8.1 billion — or 63% — of Celgene's revenue.
But, the real story of Revlimid starts back in the 1950s.
Revlimid began as the falsely proclaimed wonder drug Thalidomide, which was banished from the market in the early 60s after it was found to have devastating birth defects in the children of mothers who took it.
Everyone in the #access2meds movement should see last week's tech hearings as a beacon. Monopolies have metastasized throughout our society thanks to a 40+ year economic agenda that has defined progress as giving power to a few. (1/5)
The hearings focused solely on tech, but just a peek at #pharma and one will quickly see the industry has all of the trappings of a monopolist’s candy store: widespread consolidation, the protections for perennial price increases, and most importantly...
...an antiquated patent system that provides pharma execs and their lawyer stonemasons the foundational bricks needed to fortify their revenue-generating “products” behind a facade of “innovation”.