Present Danger

The world has the means to treat HIV/AIDS, but does it have the will?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Monday, World AIDS Day, UNAIDS and the World Health Organization launched an initiative with the goal of providing 3 million people with anti-retroviral drugs by 2005. In the industrialized world, HIV has changed from a death sentence to a treatable condition which, while chronic, can be held stable for years by anti-retrovirals. This is in stark contrast to the developing world, especially Africa, where AIDS continues to kill millions each year.

HIV drugs are expensive, and cost is often cited as the biggest reason why AIDS sufferers in the developing world can’t get the medicine they need. And though the U.S. is helping to do its part by setting aside $2.4 billion to fight AIDS, some say that America’s strict positions on drug patents won’t help make drugs more affordable. Only 400,000 of the 40 million people around the world with HIV are currently receiving proper treatment for the disease. The WHO plan, called the “3 by 5” (3 million by 2005) aims to change this via radically simplified testing, diagnosis and drug treatment by specially trained healthcare workers.

But the good that’s happening shouldn’t obscure the grim facts. A recent U.N. report finds that the global AIDS crisis is getting worse, not better, and that this past year has been the most harmful in the epidemic’s history, with 3 million dead and 5 million newly infected. The report also warned that if nothing is done to curb the disease, the epidemic will skyrocket in countries like Russia, China, India and Indonesia.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan recently pointed out the discrepancy between developed countries that have access to life-saving drugs, and other parts of the world, which don’t:

“I feel angry, I feel distressed, I feel helpless and I also feel that, to live in a world where we have the means, we have the resources to be able to help all these patients, what is lacking is the political will.”

The key to fighting AIDS is making treatments and medicine more affordable. It can be done: Médecins Sans Frontières, a health organization that has pioneered free drug treatment in some of the poorest parts of Africa. In the clinics they provide, they are able to get cheap drugs and have seen significant results. The Guardian outlines how MSF defied the odds:

“Médecins Sans Frontières has pioneered free drug treatment for HIV in the most destitute parts of Africa, something many in the US and Europe said would be impossible. The drugs were too expensive and too difficult to take, the diagnosis needed hi-tech tests and patients would have to be monitored long-term by doctors, they said. … MSF has patiently demolished every argument.”

The example set by Médecins Sans Frontières is what the U.N. hopes to base its latest initiative on, but Dr. Morten Rostrup, the president of the group, says it will only work at no cost to the sick: “The treatment has to be free; if the treatment is not free, they will not meet their goals.”

One way to make drugs more affordable is by making patented, brand-name drugs in generic, cheaper forms. In late August, the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreed to let poor countries waive intellectual property rules and import generic versions of patented drugs to treat epidemics like AIDS. The agreement means that developing countries can issue compulsory licenses to other countries—those governments can let generic drugmakers break patents in order to provide them at lower costs.

But is this working? Not necessarily. Some countries find that negotations with drugmakers failed to reduce prices to acceptable levels, and are starting to take matters into their own hands. In September, Brazil announced it was prepared to start producing or importing generic versions of three patented AIDS drugs. The Brazilian Health Ministry issued a decree stating the government could declare a national health emergency that would give it the authority to break patents on three antiretroviral drugs.

Lately, the U.S. has been praised for stepped-up efforts to fight HIV/AIDS; congress recently agreed to provide $2.4 billion in 2004 as part of a 5-year $15 billion plan to combat AIDS in Africa. But Tommy Thompson, U.S. Health and Human Services secretary recently pointed out the gravity of the problem when he said that not enough is being done to fight HIV/AIDS:

“This war has caused more casualties than any other war. We need America, the European Union and everybody. Nobody is going to be spared unless we all come together in the fight against this disease.”

Critics agree with Thompson’s assessment that not enough is being done, though for many the U.S. is part of the problem. Watch-dog groups say that th e U.S. is using pressure tactics so that developing countries won’t break patents. The Guardian reports that research by Oxfam, a British anti-poverty organization, shows that the U.S. has a list of 27 governments they are prepared to impose trade sanctions on as punishment for insufficient patent protection for medicines, many of those developing countries. The Guardian reports:

“Many of the US complaints relate to the production of generic drugs in countries such as India, Brazil, Argentina and Egypt, with manufacturing capacity and the ability to export to poor nations in Africa. One of the demands raised increasingly by the US is that those countries respect the confidentiality of data from the drug companies’ clinical trials for at least five years – delaying generics companies’ efforts to make and register copies of new medicines.”

The hand of the US government can also be detected in individual company battles. In Thailand, Bristol Myers Squibb successfully fought production of a generic version of its Aids drug Didanosine or ddI. The US threatened trade sanctions and action for compensation. Thailand bowed to the pressure, but last October a court ruled that the scope of the BMS patent had been wrongfully expanded and a further legal review may allow generic production to begin.”

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof discusses the impact that corporations can have on efforts to stem the international AIDS crisis. He says Latin American countries are especially wary of buying generic drugs for fear of offending the U.S.:

“Even now, some governments in Central America choose to let their people die rather than distribute cheap generic AIDS drugs that would save more lives but might irritate the United States. And now America is trying to make it more difficult for these countries to use generic drugs.

Even now, ahead of the FTAA, Guatemala and Honduras avoid using generic anti-retrovirals for fear of offending the United States. Guatemala, for example, has 67,000 people, including 5,000 children, with HIV or AIDS. Most will die. Astonishingly, the country spends most of its scarce money on brand-name AIDS drugs rather than cheaper generics, which could treat three times as many people. Honduras does the same, preferring to let people die than use generics.

Why would these countries do this? The doctors and public health officials I interviewed said that Central American nations had a strong desire to curry favor with Washington, perceived as hostile to generics.”

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate