PHM-Exch> Intellectual property monopolies block vaccine access

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: Jomo <jomoks at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:10 AM*Intellectual property monopolies block
vaccine access *

*Anis Chowdhury and Jomo Kwame Sundaram*

https://www.ksjomo.org/post/intellectual-property-monopolies-block-vaccine-access

SYDNEY and KUALA LUMPUR: Just before the World Health Assembly (WHA), an 18
May open letter
<https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/pressreleaseandstatementarchive/2020/may/20200514_covid19-vaccine>
by world leaders and experts urged governments to ensure that all COVID-19
vaccines, treatments and tests are patent-free, fairly distributed and
available to all, free of charge.

*Pious promises*

Leaders
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/03/european-leaders-join-forces-to-combat-covid-19>
of Italy, France
<https://www.who.int/about/governance/world-health-assembly/seventy-third-world-health-assembly/speeches-and-news-releases>,
Germany, Norway and the European Commission called for the vaccine to be
“produced by the world, for the whole world” as a “global public good of
the 21st century”, while China’s President Xi promised
<http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-05/18/c_139067018.htm> a vaccine
developed by China would be a “global public good”.

The United Nations Secretary-General also insisted
<https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2020-05-18/remarks-the-world-health-assembly>
on access to all when available. The WHA unanimously agreed
<https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA73/A73_CONF1Rev1-en.pdf> that
vaccines, treatments and tests are global public goods, but was vague
<https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/us-scapegoating-overshadows-call-peoples-vaccine-world-health-assembly-oxfam>
on the implications.

          As COVID vaccines have become available, nearly 70 poor countries
are left out <https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55229894>. Many more people
will be infected and may die without vaccinations, warns the People’s
Vaccine Alliance
<https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/campaigners-warn-9-out-10-people-poor-countries-are-set-miss-out-covid-19-vaccine>,
advocating equitable and low-cost access.

As the rich and powerful secure access, poor countries will leave out most
people
<https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2020/december/20201209_we-must-have-a-peoples-vaccine>
as only one in ten
<https://fortune.com/2020/12/08/only-10-of-people-in-poor-countries-will-get-a-coronavirus-vaccine-next-year/>
can be vaccinated in 2021, making a mockery of the Sustainable Development
Goals’ over-arching principle of ‘leaving no one behind’.

*Waiving WTO rules *

The authors of “Want Vaccines Fast? Suspend Intellectual Property Rights
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/opinion/covid-vaccines-patents.html>
(IPR) argue that IPR are the main stumbling block. Meanwhile, South Africa
and India have proposed
<https://msfaccess.org/landmark-move-india-and-south-africa-propose-no-patents-covid-19-medicines-tools-during-pandemic>
that the World Trade Organization (WTO) temporarily waive its Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) rules limiting access to
COVID-19 medicines, tools, equipment and vaccines.

The proposal – welcomed
<https://twitter.com/drtedros/status/1317449471727407104?lang=en> by the
WHO Director-General and supported
<https://www.twn.my/title2/health.info/2020/hi201007.htm> by nearly 100
governments and many civil society organisations around the world – goes
beyond the Doha Declaration
<https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/policy/doha_declaration/en/#:~:text=The%20Doha%20Declaration%20refers%20to,freedom%20to%20establish%20the%20regime>’s
limited flexibilities for national emergencies and circumstances of extreme
urgency.

But Brazil, one of the worst hit countries, opposes the proposal, together
with the US, the EU, the UK, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, Australia and
Japan, insisting the Doha Declaration is sufficient.



*The empire fights back*

The US insists that IP protection is best to ensure “swift delivery” while
the EU claims there is “no indication that IPR issues have been a genuine
barrier … to COVID-19-related medicines and technologies” as the UK
dismisses the proposal as “an extreme measure to address an unproven
problem”.

          The Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations
Director-General claims it “would jeopardize future medical innovation,
making us more vulnerable to other diseases”, while *The Wall Street
Journal* denounced it as “A Global Covid Vaccine Heist
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-global-covid-vaccine-heist-11605829343>”,
warning “their effort would harm everyone, including the poor”.

          Citing AstraZeneca’s agreement with the Serum Institute of India
(SII) and Brazilian companies, other opponents assert that voluntary
mechanisms should suffice, insisting the public-private COVAX
<https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/covax-explained> initiative ensures fair
and equitable access.

But the US has refused to join
<https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/09/02/908711419/u-s-wont-join-who-led-coronavirus-vaccine-effort-white-house-says>
COVAX, part of the WHO-blessed, donor-funded Access to COVID-19 Tools
Accelerator (ACT-A
<https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/access-to-covid-19-tools-(act)-accelerator>),
ostensibly committed to “equitable global access to innovative tools for
COVID-19 for all”.



*Intellectual property fraud*

The Doha Declaration only covers patents, ignoring proprietary technology
to safely manufacture vaccines. Meanwhile, there is not enough interest,
let alone capacity
<https://www.ft.com/content/a832d5d7-4a7f-42cc-850d-8757f19c3b6b> among
leading pharmaceutical companies to produce enough vaccines, safely and
affordably, for everyone before 2024.

          Despite the Doha Declaration, developing countries are still
under great pressure
<https://theconversation.com/covid-19-drug-and-vaccine-patents-are-putting-profit-before-people-149270>
from the EU and the US. The rules allowing ‘compulsory licensing’ are very
restrictive, with countries required to separately negotiate contracts with
companies for specific amounts, periods and purposes, deterring and thus
often bypassing those with limited financial and legal capacities.

          South Africa cited the examples
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32581-2/fulltext>
of Regeneron and Eli Lilly, which have already committed most of their
COVID-19 antibody cocktail drugs to the US. In India, Pfizer has legally
blocked alternative pneumococcal vaccines from Médecins Sans Frontières
(MSF). In South Korea, Pfizer has forced SK Bioscience to stop producing
its pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV).

To be sure, patents are not necessary for innovation
<https://www.cigionline.org/articles/are-patents-really-necessary>, with
the *Harvard Business Review* showing IPR law actually stifling it
<https://hbr.org/2014/07/the-evidence-is-in-patent-trolls-do-hurt-innovation>.
Meanwhile, *The Economist* has condemned patent trolling
<https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/08/08/time-to-fix-patents>, which
has reduced venture capital investment in start-ups and R&D spending,
especially by small firms.



*Public subsidies*

Like most other life-saving drugs and vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines and
treatment technologies owe much to public investment
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-billion-dollar-covid-vaccines-basic-government-funded-science-laid-the-groundwork/>.
Even the Trump administration provided US$10.5 billion to vaccine
development companies.

Moderna’s vaccine emerged from a partnership with the National Institute of
Health (NIH). Research at the NIH, Defence Department and federally funded
university laboratories have been crucial for rapid US vaccine development.

Pfizer has received a US$455 million German government grant
<https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/pfizer-vaccine-s-funding-came-from-berlin-not-washington>
and nearly US$6 billion in US and EU purchase commitments. AstraZeneca
received more than £84 million
<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/funding-and-manufacturing-boost-for-uk-vaccine-programme>
(US$111 million) from the UK government, and more than US$2 billion from
the US and EU for research and via purchase orders.

But although public funding for most medicine and vaccine development is
the norm, Big Pharma typically keeps the monopoly profits they enjoy from
the IPR they retain.



*Voluntary mechanisms inadequate*

COVAX seeks to procure two billion vaccine doses, to be shared “equally”
between rich and poor countries, but has only reserved 700,000 vaccine
doses so far
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32581-2/fulltext>,
while the poorest countries, with 1.7 billion people, cannot afford a
single deal. Meanwhile, rich countries have secured six billion doses for
themselves.

Thus, even if and when COVAX procures its targeted two billion vaccine
doses, less than a billion will go to poor countries. If the vaccine
requires two doses, as many – including Gavi
<https://www.one.org/international/blog/gavi-vaccine-alliance-faq/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA8dH-BRD_ARIsAC24umZPU5ZJ1viu2dFxwcH7VhPnk9ANcZBoG6IAXuDAlW1UtfOrMQUzih0aAseAEALw_wcB>,
the Vaccine Alliance – assume, this will only be enough for less than half
a billion people.

Meanwhile, ACT-A’s diagnostics work seeks to procure 500 million tests,
only a small fraction of what is required. Even if fully financed, which is
not the case, this is only a partial solution at best.

But with the massive funding shortfall, even these modest targets will not
be reached. To date, only US$5 billion of the US$43 billion needed
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32581-2/fulltext>
for poor countries in 2021 has been raised.



*Profitable philanthropy*

As of mid-October, while 18 generic pharmaceutical companies had signed up, not
a single major drug company had joined
<https://theconversation.com/covid-19-drug-and-vaccine-patents-are-putting-profit-before-people-149270>
WHO’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP) to encourage industry
contributions of IP, technologies and data to scale up worldwide sharing
and production of all such needs.

Meanwhile, a few companies have ‘voluntarily’ given up
<https://theconversation.com/covid-19-drug-and-vaccine-patents-are-putting-profit-before-people-149270>
some IPR, if only temporarily. Moderna has promised to license its COVID-19
related patents to other vaccine manufacturers, and not enforce its own
patents. But their pledge is limited, allowing it to enforce its patents “post
pandemic”, as defined by Moderna
<https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2020/10/21/moderna-covid19-patent-pledge/>.


Besides profiting from licensing in the longer term, Moderna’s pledge will
enable it to grow the new mRNA market its business is based on, by establishing
and promoting a transformational drug therapy platform, yielding gains for
years to come
<https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/11/11/breaking-modernas-covid-19-patent-pledge/id=127224/>
.

AstraZeneca has announced that its vaccine, researched at Oxford
University, will be available at cost in some locations, but only until
July 2021 <https://www.ft.com/content/c474f9e1-8807-4e57-9c79-6f4af145b686>.
Meanwhile, Eli Lilly has agreed, with the Gates Foundation, to supply –
without demanding royalties from low- and middle-income countries – its
(still experimental) COVID-19 antibody treatment, but did not specify how
many doses
<https://uk.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-lilly-antibody/eli-lilly-in-deal-to-supply-COVID-19-drugs-to-low-income-countries-idUSKBN26T26H>
.

Indeed, as Proudhon warned almost two centuries ago, ‘property is theft’.



*Related IPS commentaries*

“Covid-19 Cannot Be Defeated by a Divided World”, 16 July 2020.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2020/07/covid-19-cannot-defeated-divided-world/

“Politics, Profits Undermine Public Interest in Covid-19 Vaccine Race”, 26
May 2020.
https://www.ipsnews.net/2020/05/politics-profits-undermine-public-interest-covid-19-vaccine-race/

“West First Policies Expose Myths”, 31 Mar. 2020.
https://www.ipsnews.net/2020/03/west-first-policies-expose-myths/

“Intellectual Property Raises Costs of Living”, 11 Feb. 2020.
https://www.ipsnews.net/2020/02/intellectual-property-raises-costs-living/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20201216/7b043169/attachment-0001.html>