IPR and Medicines 28: Politicizing Innovation, Rewarding Rent-Seeking

Indian government's intellectual property rights (IPR) system for medicines seems hazy. For instance, it did not give full patent protection for medicines before, until India joined the WTO in 2005. Even then, many innovator drugs have no IPR protection, like the case of popular anti-leukemia drug molecule imatinib, brand "Glivec" or "Gleevec" made by Novartis.

According to wikipedia, anti-chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) drug imatinib, "more than 90% of patients will be able to keep the disease in check for at least five years, so that CML becomes a chronic, manageable condition."

So Novartis in effect is sort of a "hero" to many leukemia patients for coming up with this revolutionary drug. But many sectors in India (and elsewhere around the world) did not look at it this way. Rather, Novartis is looked upon as a blood-sucking multinational who profits from the sick and dying leukemia patients. Thus, its effort to seek IPR protection through a patent was not recognized by an Intellectual Property agency or office in India. So it went to the Indian Supreme Court to obtain such patent and after about a decade of legal and health debates, the SC has ruled against the company's request.

From wikipedia article about leukemia, there are four kinds of this disease. Their respective medication are as follows (image also from wiki):

(1) Acute lymphoblasticinduction chemotherapy.... For adults,... prednisone, vincristine, and an anthracycline ....L-asparaginase or cyclophosphamide. For children... (prednisone, L-asparaginase, and vincristine)Consolidation therapy or intensification therapy ...  antimetabolite drugs such as methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) 

(2) Chronic lymphocyticcombination chemotherapy with chlorambucil or cyclophosphamide, plus a corticosteroidsuch as prednisone or prednisolone....  fludarabine, pentostatin, or cladribine.... Younger patients may consider allogeneic or autologous bone marrow transplantation.

(3) Acute myelogenousMany different anti-cancer drugs are effective for the treatment of AML

(4) Chronic myelogenousstandard of care is imatinib (Gleevec) therapy

For Hairy cell leukemia,  . cladribine, ...  pentostatin... , rituximab ... Interferon-alpha. And for T-cell prolymphocytic...  purine analogues (pentostatin, fludarabine, cladribine), chlorambucil, and various forms of combination chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone CHOP, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone [COP], vincristine, doxorubicin, prednisone, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, bleomycin VAPEC-B). Alemtuzumab...

So there are many existing drugs against leukemia, depending on the cell type and on whether it is acute or chronic. So they are all non-patented or off-patent already in India?

Novartis and other innovator companies are brave to introduce their new and more revolutionary medicines to Indian patients without IPR protection. Or if they have have one, they have to live with the fact that a patent-confiscation government tool called compulsory licensing (CL) can be imposed by the Indian government anytime.

One result of this situation is an uneven competition. An innovator company that spent huge amount of money and many years in R&D and multiple clinical trials, must sell at a high price to recoup its high spending. Then generic producers that spent nothing to discover the original drug molecule but can produce their own brands of the same molecule can sell at a much lower price.

How can the former adjust with this reality? Plain old economic sense would dictate market segmentation -- different (or tiered) pricing for different buyers or patients with different budget. And for really poor patients, zero cost to them via public-private partnerships or via civil society partnerships. I am told by a friend that Novartis in India has various drug donation programs, like partnership with the Max Foundation, a cancer patient advocacy organization, and gave the Glivec International Patient Assistance Program (GIPAP) providing more than US$ 1.7 billion worth of Glivec to poor patients in India. In effect, the company was giving not cheap but free medicines to the poor, funded by high pricing to richer patients who can afford it.

I also read this interesting article, and I like the first of six "side effects" of the Glivec ruling in India: Patenting is a political act. It is not a scientific or economic act. One must go through strictly political process to obtain a patent. Or if one has it, go through the same political process to retain and protect it, until the patent has  expired. The author, William Looney, wrote,

what constitutes true innovation in an age where scientific advances are transforming the very definition of a drug?  This is a question that extends far beyond patent law into basic value judgments like how society should spend limited resources on medical technologies, in a way that balances patient access with the economic incentives needed to seed their development in the first place.  

It is not good to politicize innovation. There is too much politics in our lives already. Wages, fares, prices of certain commodities, setting up a business, closing a business, hiring and firing workers and managers, they are covered by politics. To extend politics to products of scientific discovery, when none of the money spent for such activity came from taxes, is OA.  

The climate for IPR in India has become more uncertain. Last year, the Indian government issued their first compulsory license, which permits local companies to make generic copies of a patented medicine for a small fee. Since January 2013, three additional compulsory licenses were issued for three different cancer drugs.

As more politics raid products of innovation, more rent seeking behavior is rewarded. This is not the proper role of government, to pick winners and losers based on certain subjective if not arbitrary criteria. The proper role of the government in this case, is to leave players to do their own thing so long as public health is not endangered. So if there are 30 or 50 innovator companies who would race with each other in producing a new medicine against prostate cancer or breast cancer or other killer diseases, so be it. These are on top of existing drugs and treatment against those diseases that are off-patent already. Let those innovator companies price their own products. For sure, competition among them will force them to develop various types of pricing and drug donation programs.

Less politics, less government intervention in the drug innovation business and competition. This is one cool way to ensure that present and future patients suffering from killer diseases can find solace and hope to lengthen their lives.

-------------------

See also:
IPR and Medicines 24: Balancing Costly Innovation and Cheaper Drugs, March 20, 2012
PR and Medicines 25: Patents, Diagnostics and Technology Transfer, October 02, 2012
IPR and Medicines 26: Novartis' Glivec and India's IPR Ruling, April 01, 2013, 
IPR and Medicines 27: More on Glivec and India's SC Decision, 

EFN Asia 17: Zubair Malik as President of FPCCI

The Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia facebook page announced today,

Zubair Ahmed Malik has been elected unopposed as the president of the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI) in the annual elections for the year 2013. He was nominated by the Businessmen Panel Group and has been former president of the Islamabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry in 2004.

Zubair, in red dress in the above photo, is a friend since 2004, when I first participated in EFN Asia annual conference in Hong Kong. I would see him yearly since then, except in 2007 and 2008 where I was not invited. The country director of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty (FNF) in Pakistan, Olaf Kellerhoff, is very proud of this feat by Zubair. Olaf is also a friend of mine, he's a giant, could be 6'10" or almost 7 footer in height.

In the 2010 EFN Asia Conference in Jakarta, Zubair was one of the panel speakers. And I was one of the panel moderators and he was on my panel. Below are portions of my introduction of the panel before I gave the floor to him and his co-speaker, Aco Patunru from Indonesia.

These three graphs I developed then, simply show three things. (1) in the absence of people mobility and free trade across countries, there is widespread disequilibrium and disparity in wages among people worldwide. With (2) freer mobility of people and goods across countries and continents, the average wage in rich countries and in poorer countries tend to narrow down. And (3) if full free trade of goods, services and people happen, this gap will become even more narrow, the world will approach the commodity price equalization (CPE) theorem.

Then I introduced the two speakers. Aco Patunru is young, very articulate, very intelligent. I first met him in 2006 during the EFN Asia conference in Kuala Lumpur. He spoke on the panel on international trade and when he was asked during the open forum what to do with the stalled multilateral talks at the WTO, he said one solution is unilateral trade liberalization by countries.. Many in the audience, me included, gave him a loud applause for his frank and direct answer.

Then I introduced Zubair. By profession, he is a businessman, a successful entrepreneur and hence, fully appreciates the value of free enterprise, free market and individual freedom.

Three weeks ago, Zubair came to Manila then Cebu for a business trip. A week before he came, we arranged for a meeting, I would visit him in his hotel, Diamond Hotel in Manila, March 17 evening. We did not finalize things days before he arrived, and I was also in Palawan for three days. I went to his hotel that night but he was out. Should be in another business meeting.

Congrats Zubair, and see you again in the next EFN Asia conference.
--------------

See also:

EFN Asia 13: Welfare Populism and Poverty, November 13, 2012

EFN Asia 14: Conference 2012 Resolution on Populism, November 21, 2012, 

EFN Asia 15: Distortions of Welfare Populism,  January 17, 2013 

EFN Asia 16: Participation in Jeju Forum for Peace 2013, March 19, 2013

Pol. Ideology 38: Branding Via Clans, Not Philosophy

* This is my 5th guest post in antipinoy.com, posted today.
------------

Late February this year, I posted this short comment in my facebook wall,

“I googled "Nancy Binay", nothing significant, nada. So this is true.”

39 years old, no prior elective post, held only family-managed NGOs. Never joined a prestigious corporation. Simply being a "Binay". She's likely to win, and she will author Senate bills that will regulate private enterprises, private individuals, civil society.

A friend told me that she went to UPSE in the 90s, but did not finish there, transferred to another college. Her car's plate number while in UP was simply BINAY, not the LTO-issued letters + numbers.

According to this rappler story, she finshed BS Tourism in UP in 1997, held NGO posts like Brighthalls Children’s Foundation, Bigay Pagmamahal Foundation, Serbisyong Tunay Foundation, Inc, Jejomar C Binay (JCB) Foundation, 

http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections-2013/17958-nancy-binay-the-accidental-candidate

If Nancy Binay lands in the top 6 this coming May elections -- almost a never-heard political identity until this campaign period -- then VP Jojo Binay will most likely be our next President in 2016. The family's media handlers made a good political brand for the family: "Kay Binay, gaganda ang buhay". And Makati's high taxes, high bureaucracies regime to finance a welfarist nirvana will be imposed on the rest of the country.

A friend commented that the propagation of dynasties like Binays is a result of “having too much liberty." He is wrong. This is a case instead of too much government.

Government can tell businessmen how much they can keep out of their gross revenues, government can tell us when we can NOT drive our own car. In some sectors, government can tell companies how much they should price their products, how much discounts they should give to sectors senior citizens and persons with disabilities (PWDs). That is why the most scheming, the most opportunistic people in the population are attracted to politics, especially to high positions like Congress and the Senate. They need not own businesses but they can regulate and tell businesses how they should behave, via regulations and legislation.

Political branding

Theoretically, political branding should be via political parties with distinct political ideologies  -- socialist, fascist, nationalist, liberal, conservative, etc. This distinction is absent in our political parties and coalitions. All political parties here are welfarist-populist, voters hear generally the same promises from politicians of endless subsidies. So to distinguish themselves from others, the politicians shifted to  personality- or leadership-oriented campaign. And that is where known political names and personalities rise: Aquinos, Binays, Enriles, Estradas, Arroyos, Revillas, Villars, and so on.

“Is there no end really to this political dynasty in our country?” Another friend asked.

I think the answer is Yes. There is No end to political dynasty until political parties go back to ideology-based campaigns. Politicians do not go through a strict political convention where they are scrutinized by party members who are fully cognizant of their political philosophy and ideology. Liberals can never and should never be in the same party as socialists and conservatives and vice versa. But here, they share the same bed because they do not live with those specific political philosophy anyway.  It is mainly a question of "winnability", money and political network.

“With the kind of government we have, no matter how we bark..in many aspects in our lives as Filipinos..we are helpless...i mean the majority ...considering how dirty politicians play their tricks…” Still another comment.

Right so. All the campaigns for "BIG but good governance" will result only in more disappointments. The anti-corruption campaign and sentiment since People Power Revolution or Edsa1 in 1986 has produced no significant reduction in corruption, but government has expanded larger and larger, from local to national levels. The campaign should be for less government, not “good governance.” How? At least by NOT supporting many new legislation, new subsidy programs unless government will also shrink or abolish some existing subsidy programs.

“We, the people are the victims...forever?” Another friend asked.

To a large extent, the answer is YES. Government is coercion. It is not a tennis club or rotary club or church fellowship or other voluntary orgs that when you get tired, you just resign from membership and stop paying your annual dues. In government, even if you have corrupt legislators, lazy policemen, rude local governments, etc., choice is zero. We just have to continue paying for them. 

Nonetheless, I am not attracted to the philosophy of anarchy (zero authority, zero government). There is some use to certain government coercion. Like going after armed murderers, thieves and hold-uppers, land grabbers and bank robbers, other criminals. Or resolving disputes among neighbors, among corporations, among clans, if existing non-government dispute settlement mechanisms do not work. Before they start stabbing or shooting each other, government steps in to enforce the rule of law. Promulgating the rule of law is the single most important function of government. All other functions are either secondary or unnecessary.

-------------

See also:
Pol. Ideology 33: Anarchy or Minarchy, July 13, 2012
Pol. Ideology 34: More on Anarchy or Minarchy, July 17, 2012
Pol. Ideology 36: On Capitalism, Akbayan, Drugs Legalization and Toqueville, October 10, 2012
Pol. Ideology 37: Collectivism, Conservatism and Liberalism, October 12, 2012

Rule of Law 19: How to Strengthen RoL?, March 25, 2013

Mining 11: Big Projects in the US, UK, Canada and Australia

Among the arguments hurled against large scale mining in the Philippines is that the rich countries are heavily regulating if not closing some of the big mining projects there to protect their environment, so we should not allow -- or at least heavily regulate -- big mining to continue in our country and protect our own environment too. The message here, both explicit and implicit, is that "mining = environmental destruction". So the policy implication is that "less or no mining = less or no environmental damage." This is wrong.

As repeatedly argued in my previous articles here, no mining, no modern life. And no modern life means even more environmental destruction. Proof?

High rise residential and commercial condo buildings with lots of residential and office units, with swimming pools and badminton courts, some even have basketball courts, save lots of land. Instead of clearing more land for housing, commercial space, roads and sports facilities, just one building with three or four towers on a half-hectare piece of land can accommodate them all. Thus, more land for agriculture, forestry and meadows can be preserved.

And those buildings, towers, shops and malls, with their electricity and internet connection, appliances and electronic gadgets, are all products of mining. That is why the anti-mining hysteria is full of contradiction if not hypocrisy.

Anyway, these slides below are about some of the biggest mining projects in the rich countries of the US, UK, Canada and Australia. Which debunk the claim of certain sectors that big mining projects are being stopped in rich countries to protect their environment. These slides are from a presentation by Atty. Ronald Recidoro of the Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (CMP) during a forum at De La Salle University (DLSU) Manila last January.

Below, the Bingham Canyon in Utah, USA, is the biggest mining excavation in the planet, operating since 1903 until now, and measuring 2 ¾ miles across at the top and ¾ of a mile deep. So huge.

Further below it is Hibbing, Minnesota, USA, operating since 1895 and producing 8 million tons of iron ore yearly. That's several thousand truck trips per year.

Below is the largest coal producer in UK, found in Nottinghamshire, UK and has been operating since 1974.

Next is "The Super Pit" in Kalgoorlie, Western Australia. Been operating since 1893, measures about 3.5 kms long, 1.5 kms. wide, and 0.36 km. deep. As shown in the photo, thousands of people depend on it for direct and indirect jobs created.

Below, the Argyle in Kimberley, Western Australia. Operating since 1985.

Next is The Diavik in Northwest Territories, Canada, produces 8 million carats of diamonds yearly, wow.

The Ekati in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada, not far from the Arctic Circle. Operating since 1998, has produced 45 million carats of diamond from 1998-2009. That's lots of wealth for Canada.

Further below, another example of responsible mining, rehabilitating and reforesting a mined out area. Almost zero trace that it used to be a denuded area totally clear of any piece of vegetation.

One can say that those rich countries are rich because of their utilization of their mineral deposits, because they allowed big, accountable mining firms to dig deep and produce important mineral products, from coal to iron to gold to diamond. If an economy is rich, it can provide more jobs, more products and services for its citizens and other people around the world.

The role of government in this case is to promulgate the rule of law. There are laws and regulations that allow firms and businesses to extract mineral deposits from the ground without causing major environmental damage and health risks to the nearby communities and residents. Make sure that the mining companies stick to those laws, penalize them if they violate, reward them with non-intervention and respect of private property rights if they comply with those laws.
----------

See also:
Mining 7: Mining Taxation and Government, March 08, 2013
Mining 8: Rio Tuba Mining in South Palawan, March 17, 2013
Mining 9: Supreme Court Hearing on RA 7942, March 27, 2013
Mining 10: Urban Tailings vs. Mining Tailings, March 31, 2013

IPR and Medicines 27: More on Glivec and India's SC Decision

A friend in our local health coalition, CHAT, commented in my earlier article, Novartis' Glivec and India's IPR Ruling and argued that

(A) medicine to be patentable should be NEW. This in essence only disallows evergreening of patents which seems to be what Novartis tried in the India case. And which most super power countries like the US and EU where most MNCs are from, would like to change through the insertion of TRIPs plus provisions in bilateral FTAs.  

Precisely why the TRIPs flexibilites are in place is to promote the primacy of public health and ensure that developing and undeveloped countries like ours and India (I presume) can have greater access to medicines. 

A friend from the innovator pharma camp told me today that

What does not get written about is that Novartis provided 95% of all originator Glivec for free to those patients who had been prescribed the medication in India! The remaining 5% were reimbursed, insured or participated in a generous co-pay program. Facts like these just don't get the media mileage.

The New York Times continue with its gloating and implicit celebration of the India Supreme Court ruling, with news today like Health Care Advocates Cheer Supreme Court Decision, saying,

...The case represents a high-stakes showdown between defenders of intellectual property rights, who say generic versions stifle innovation by drug makers, and Indian drug companies and international aid groups, who warned that a ruling in favor of Novartis could have dried up the global supply of inexpensive medicines to treat AIDS, cancer and other diseases.

Huh? IPR advocates (me included) say that "generic version stifle innovation"? Where did they get that? ALL patented drugs will become off patent after sometime, and generic versions come in, and this has little or zero effect on promoting or stifling drug innovation. What stifles innovation is the uncertainty of patent confiscation by the government. An IPR for an innovator company in the form of drug patent (or song or book copyright or company trademark and logo) can be confiscated through compulsory licensing (CL) and the use of a new, commercial molecule will be given to somebody else, say a government pharma corporation or a private crony corporation.

Anyway, there is an interesting article that I saw today, 

Novartis Loses The Glivec Patent Fight In India, 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1313001-novartis-loses-the-glivec-patent-fight-in-india?source=email_rt_article_readmore

The author, Derek Lowe, wrote:

Novartis (NVS) has never had a patent for imatinib (Glivec/Gleevec) in India. I'm not completely sure why that is, but I would think it's because that back when the compound was being developed was the era when Indian drug patents did not exist. As the country has entered the WTO, it has had to comply with the world's intellectual property framework and it's safe to say that the dust has not yet settled from this process. 

So when Novartis filed for an imatinib patent in India, it was for a different polymorph of the drug, which it ihoped would be patentable chemical matter. The Indian patent office disagreed in 2006, saying that this was merely a reformulation of an existing compound (which had been approved in the U.S. in 2001), and rejected the application. Novartis has been appealing that decision through the Indian court system ever since, and this latest ruling is the last from the Indian Supreme Court. As the court's decision says: 

In the application it claimed that the invented product, the beta crystal form of Imatinib Mesylate, has (i) more beneficial flow properties: (ii) better thermodynamic stability; and (iii) lower hygroscopicity than the alpha crystal form of Imatinib Mesylate. It further claimed that the aforesaid properties makes the invented product 'new' (and superior!) as it 'stores better and is easier to process'; has 'better processability of themethanesulfonic acid addition salt of a compound of formula I'; and has a 'further advantage for processing and storing.'

Here is Novartis' take:

Glivec has been awarded patents in nearly 40 other countries, including China, Russia and Taiwan, but the IPAB is denying one for India. The IPAB acknowledges that Glivec satisfies the international requirements for novelty and inventiveness, but it does not find Glivec to meet the requirement under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act of 2005. This act introduced a new efficacy enhancement hurdle for patenting new forms of known compounds. We believe that Section 3(d), the Indian legal paragraph intended as a hurdle for evergreening, should not be applicable to the breakthrough medicine Glivec, which has changed the lives of patients with rare cancers.

I like the author's concluding statements:

...(I might note that all the preening in the Indian press about the country being the "pharmacy to the world" would be more justified if any of the drugs being made had actually been discovered in India, through the ingenuity of Indian drug companies, risking Indian capital and shareholders' money. But they weren't.) What it does mean is that Indian drug patent law has gone from being nonexistent a few years ago, to being one of the strictest around. I hope that it's applied uniformly. Novartis has lost what was not a very strong case, to be honest, but the courts in India will hear stronger at some point.

So to my friend's query if Glivec in beta-crystalline form was a novel drug or not, the nearly 40 countries where it got a patent said Yes, it is a novel drug, that is why a patent was granted in those countries.

What is clear to me at this point are the following:

1. Glivec/Gleevec was a real, revolutionary, cancer-killer medicine. Physicians and patients were looking for it. Kudos to Novartis -- and not to anyone else -- for inventing it, for spending a billion dollars (industry average) in medicine R&D.

2. Because of this usefulness and revolutionary-ness of Glivec, many generic manufacturers in India salivated at the profitability of copying it even if they did not spend a single dollar in various clinical trials involving hundreds or even thousands of cancer patients. Since they did not spend any to invent this revolutionary drug, they can copy and sell it even at 10 percent or four percent of the innovator's price and still make a good profit.

3. This case does not seem to fall under the TRIPS flexibilities of WTO because there was no patent to null in the first place. There was no need to issue a compulsory licensing (CL), a tool in the TRIPS flexibilities and also in our RA 9502 (Cheaper Medicines Law of 2008), because there was no patent to start with. 

One implication of this case is that innovator companies -- of which there is few (or zero?) in India -- will have second thoughts whether to bring to India new, more disease killer medicines, or not. Or delay launching it there when the patent elsewhere is about to expire. In which case, patients will have to use old and existing, off-patent drugs. If they wish to get those more powerful drugs, they may have to fly to the US or Europe or Japan or HK, etc. and seek treatment there. And this makes healthcare becomes even more expensive.

Lest I will be accused of being "unsympathetic" or "antagonistic" to generic pharma, I am not. Generic producers have a role to play in public healthcare. After the patent of a popular and revolutionary medicine has expired, generics come in and provide their own versions at a lower price to the public. In the WHO's Essentials Medicines List, I read that about 99 percent of those medicines are off-patent and are available at various brands at various low prices. Thanks to generic pharma.

It is only in that short "patented period", usually only 8-10 years of the total 20-years patent life of a drug molecule (the 10-12 years are eaten by various clinical trials and approval process by the FDA) that is being debated.

Because of the important and useful role of innovator pharma companies in discovering new more powerful, more disease-killer medicines, certain government policies should not be antagonistic to them. Instead of just 100 or so innovator companies worldwide, we should have 300 or 1,000 of them worldwide. Let there be more competition among innovator companies, the same way that we wish to see more competition among generic companies. Competition and not more government regulation, is almost always a more effective tool to bring down prices.

Abolition or at least drastic reduction, of government taxes on medicines, will be a good start. This move will drastically reduce medicine prices and hence, address public clamor for cheaper medicines.

For a full copy, 112-pages long, India Supreme Court decision, see here,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/133343411/Novartis-patent-Judgement
------------

See also:
IPR and Medicines 23: Profitability of Innovator Pharma Companies, March 16, 2012
IPR and Medicines 24: Balancing Costly Innovation and Cheaper Drugs, March 20, 2012
PR and Medicines 25: Patents, Diagnostics and Technology Transfer, October 02, 2012
IPR and Medicines 26: Novartis' Glivec and India's IPR Ruling, April 01, 2013

Anti-Smoke Belching Racket, Part 5

The Anti-Smoke Belching Units (ASBUs) of various city governments in Metro Manila are now among the modern highway robbers and road terrorists.

These photos I took last February 14, 2013, afternoon. I was riding an air-con bus and have a good, elevated view of the other side of Buendia, Makati CBD-bound.

These people flag down closed vans, AUVs and pick ups that run on diesel engines. They NEVER stop jeepneys or government (red plate) vehicles that also run on diesel engines.

Below are some troubling comments from ordinary motorists. The 5th comment, below, was made only this morning. People normally do not give their full name as they are helpless when confronted by a gang of those local bureaucrats who are "empowered by the law" to flag down and stop ordinary citizens from free travel, on arbitrary and flimsy reasons. These comments also serve as "tips" for motorists driving diesel engine cars, vans and pick ups.
----------

(1) Blog comment from Anonymous
January 18, 2013

true!!! SOBRA YANG MGA ASBU NA YAN.. SAKSI AKO SA SOBRANG PANGONGOTONG NG MGA YAN! brand new ang car namin, sportivo model 2010series at casa maintained pero yr 2011 hinuli kami ng mga yan along edsa buendia.galing kami sa funeral service non and bigla nila kmi pnatabi checking dw for anti smoke belching.. nagulat kami syempre dhil yung mga ksabayan nmin na d hamak nmn n grabe ang labas ng mga itim n usok d nman nila cnita,kami pa ang napag-tripan. 

iba cla, kung ano lang ang trip nila parahin as in alam n kc nila kung ano ang diesel car.. kya prepared na cla s dapt nila parahin..

tumabi kami at nakiusap s knila..kaka check up lng ng car at bagong change oil kya npka imposible nmn n smoke belching na yan. besides wla pa 1yr ang car since ng mngyari ang pnghuhuli nila/..

so d nila kmi pnancn,nkipagtalo pa ang partner ko s knila dhil nga ayaw nila kmi pakinggan..pnababa nila ang partner ko from the driver seat at inupuan ng isang naka itim n shirt na may ASBU print at tinapakan ng ubod ng tagal ang silinyador..

after non ang failed dw sa test nila.. so,binakbak nila ang plate nmin at sabi n tubusin dw s ofis nila s makati.. from der, pnagbayad kami ng 1500k.. at ang sabi ng mama n may hawak ng plate number named mr.danny ,kung gus2 daw nmin na wag na masita o ung masita man kami ulet better dw na i-renewed dw namin yung receipt worth 1k n lng pra juz incase masita yun nlng dw i-present namin..

imagine,pagkabayad nmin ng 1k,,.wala ng test test pa n ginawa sa car basta nilagyan n lng ng 1.sumtinig yung receipt na nagsasabi na passed na..

WHAT THE...!!! nANG KAKAPAL NG MGA MUKHA!!! grabe sa KOTONG MGA ASBU NA YAN.. 

at sa totoo lng until now madalas pa din kami pnapara ng mga yan jan s c5 naman..mdalas cla anjan lalo na pag wik ends..pero tinatakbuhan n lng tlga nmin cla.. PAPARAHIN ULET KAMI TAPOS ANO BAYAD NA NAMAN SA WALNG KAKWENTA KWENTANG PANGHUHULI-DAP NILA NA AN!!!SOBRA NAMAN KC.. DAPAT MAKARATING S KINAUUKULAN MGA GAWA NILNG GANYAN..

(2) Blog comment from Anonymous 

February 09, 2013 

Nabiktima rin ako kanina ng mga hayop na yan. bago lang sasakyan namin adventure gls sports diesel syempre ginawa ng mga walangya binomba ng binomba accelerator kya syempre sobra usok, thus bagsak ka sa test. ang kakapal ng mga mukha! dami na pala nagrereklamo dyan bakit pinagtatagal pa yan? and to think di naman kami kakanan papuntang makati, naghanap talaga sila ng mga sasakyang diesel para siguradong bagsak sa test dahil bobombahin nila ng todo! suma total kailangan kunin ang lisensya ng driver ko sa makati na 5 taon na kong di nagpupunta. ANG KAKAPAL NG MGA PAGMUMUKHA! It's more CORRUPT in the Philippines!

(3) ELLA ESLERA, Makati City
Posted in Philippine Daily Inquirer
February 18, 2013 at 12:51 am

Smoke emission test required every 2 months?

Barely two weeks before Christmas, my Cebu-based older brother was in Metro Manila on official business. To facilitate his travels, he borrowed my car, a 2005 Hyundai Starex, which is in tip-top condition as it is regularly maintained. While driving along Buendia (Gil Puyat Avenue) near Dian, he noticed about five private cars (AUV, pickup, other diesel-powered cars about 5-7 years old) lined up on the right side of the road with about four or five Makati traffic enforcers (in yellow and green uniform) talking to the drivers.

My brother was driving slowly, taking extra caution because buses were passing by the area, when traffic enforcers/officers waved for him to stop. He acceded and parked on the right side of the road totally perplexed as to what could have been his traffic violation. “Sir,  bakit  po? Ano  po  ang  violation  ko?” he asked one of the officers. “Nagpa-smoke emission test ka ba nito?” the officer replied. Knowing that my car is maintained well, my brother replied, “Opo, nung  huling  registration.”

The officer asked for the smoke emission certificate. When my brother showed it to him, the officer said the test had expired. My brother said how could it be, the smoke emission test was just done the previous September as part of the car’s registration process. The officer said that in Makati, smoke emission test is required every two months. My brother said he did not know of such requirement as he is from Cebu. Then the police officer said, “Naku papano ’yan, babaklasin na namin tong plaka.”

My poor brother was so shocked something like this could happen to him. Keeping his cool, my brother explained to the police officer his lack of awareness of the ruling and the seeming absence of announcements on this regard. He begged and pleaded with the officer to let him go. My brother’s angels must have been there watching over him because the officer gave back his driver’s license, though not after saying, “Sige eto na, ikaw na ang bahala.” My brother thanked the police officer and drove away thinking if what the officer meant with “ikaw na ang bahala” is the same as what you and I may be thinking. The thing is, my brother did not give in. He just went away after getting his driver’s license.

After hearing of this, I got so irritated, disappointed and upset, and questions hounded my mind. Is there really such a ruling? If there is, is it legal? Why did the officer stop my car, which was not emitting black smoke? Why were the officers only picking on private cars while leaving “untouched” buses that spew thick black smoke?

Though I do not drive my car to Makati every day, in this land of double and even triple taxation, a smoke emission test every other two months would be an additional big burden for us fixed-income earners who contribute a big chunk of our salaries to the government. I would like to bring these concerns to the attention of Mayor Junjun Binay, MMDA Chair Francis Tolentino and the LTO chief.

(4) Blog comment from Anonymous

March 16, 2013

suggestion lang sa mga asbu, huliin nyo na lang mga talagang smoke belcher, mag motor kayo sa kalye,dun kayo mag abang sa mga may stop light para mapansin nyo agad kung sino talaga dapat huliin. pag go ng signal light ay sure na mabubuking kung alin sa mga sasakyan ang dapat huliin. yun mga bus at jeep bakit di nyo sinisita. nakakaabala kayo eh.kayo kaya abala hin namin, ano kaya mararamdaman nyo?

(5) Blog comment from Alfred
April 02, 2013

kakahuli ko lang kahapon dito, lagi akong nakikipagpaptintero sa mga ito sa loob ng maraming taon dahil eto ang ruta ko tuwing pupunta ako sa manila at sa pasay, taga alabang kase ako at hindi maiiwasan dumaan sa magallanes bridge

anyway kahapon ko lang na experience na habulin ako dahil lagi ko tinatakbuhan ito, ang unang banat ko sa enforcer kung anong violation ko, napakayabang nung traffic enforcer bakit daw hindi ko sya tinigilan, sabi ko wala naman silang probable cause para iflagged down ko, sabi nya hindi daw kailangan ng probable cause kasi may operation daw sila, sabi ko hindi mo pwede i flagged down ang sasakyan ng walang probable cause, sabi nya kung gusto ko daw ng probable cause bumaba daw ako at itest namin ang sasakyan, sabi ko hindi probable cause ang tawag dun, may operation daw sila at pwede daw nila itest lahat ng dumadaan na sasakyan, sabi ko hindi pwede yung ganun, napakarami nya pang sinasabi hindi ko na iniitindi dahil halatang kung ano ano lang, naramdaman nya sigurong wala syang makukuha sa akin ang sabi nya lang gusto nya lang daw humingi ako ng pasensya dahil tinakbuhan ko sila, ako naman para matapos sabi ko ay "sorry na po sir" (parang syota lang) ayun sabi nya sa susunod daw na tumakbo ako ay tutuluyan nya na daw ako hulihin, sabi ko ay pasensya na ulit at umalis na ako

dadaan pa ba ako sa magallanes bridge? oo naman wala naman ako choice pero makikipag patintero pa rin ako sa kanila, ang diskarte dyan ay medyo slow down ka muna kasi ay lagi traffic dun para pag ikaw na ang dadaan ay maluwag na, tapos ay bigla harurot pag nandun ka na, medyo gigitna sila sa daan pero pag mabilis ka ay hindi sila gigitna

P300 ang minimum na suhol dito according sa mga kaibigan ko nahuli na din, kung delivery van/truck ka naman payag sila P100 lang

tanggal plaka/kuha lisensya pag hindi ka nagsuhol at dadalhin mo sa malapit sa makati fire station pati sasakyan mo para itest ulit nila na sigurado namang babagsak ulit at magbabayad ka ng extra fine ulit 

nagtataka ako student pa lang ako about 10 years ago panahon pa ng soon to be president ay meron na yan, pinagpatuloy lang ng anak ang hanapbuhay, pero kahit minsan ay never na imbestigador to or na tulfo, siguradong malakas ang head nila

anyway balik ako sa pakikipagpatintero sa kanila since wala naman ako choice, goodluck na lang sa iba. 

--------------

See more comments here:
Anti-smoke belching Racket, January 17, 2011
Anti-Smoke Belching Racket, Part 2, September 15, 2011
Anti-Smoke Belching Racket, Part 3, November 25, 2011
Anti-Smoke Belching Racket, Part 4, September 25, 2012
MMDA, LGUs and Towing Racket, November 26, 2012

IPR and Medicines 26: Novartis' Glivec and India's IPR Ruling

A very good friend of mine here in Manila has a brother with leukemia. His physician recommended Gleevec or Glivec (generic molecule is "Imatinib") made by Novartis, as the medicine that can help him beat the disease. The problem was that Gleevec was very expensive, so the family approached a foundation. The foundation conducted a credit investigation re the financial capacity of the patient's family and determine how much free medicines they can get. The investigation agency suggested a "Plan 9", meaning Novartis through a foundation will give them nine months worth of medicines for free, but the family must buy the first three months supply of Glivec. This was sometime in September 2011.

A capsule of Glivec (photo here from wikipedia) then would cost P1,204.00, the 12 percent VAT + import tax + other taxes and fees included. The patient would need six boxes (60 capsules per box) or 360 capsules for three months, that would cost them P433,440, but the supply for the next nine months would be given free by Novartis.

The family looked for other options. One was to buy the medicine not from the Novartis med rep at the private hospital where the patient goes, but from the company med rep at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). Second option was to buy from India or elsewhere, and after several emails with their friends in Delhi, they found that a generic alternative, Imatinib Mesylate, is available in India at a much lower price. 

There's a special case in India about Imatinib or Gleevec. The Indian High Court rejected the patent application of Novartis. So while Gleevec is patented in many countries, it was not in India. So many generic manufacturers produced their own versions of imatinib. And since they spent nothing on the long process of various clinical trials and medicine R&D that takes up to 12 years sometimes, they simply copied it from Novartis, they could sell the medicine at a much lower price. One Indian manufacturer could sell it at only about four percent of the original price of Novartis, exclusive of Philippine taxes like VAT.

Today, I read this news report from the NYT:

Top Court in India Rejects Novartis Drug PatentBy GARDINER HARRISPublished: April 1, 2013 

NEW DELHI — India’s Supreme Court rejected a Swiss drug maker’s patent application for a major cancer drug Monday in a landmark ruling that allows cheap copies of important medicines to continue being distributed in much of the world. 

The ruling allows Indian generic companies to continue making copycat versions of the Novartis drug Gleevec, which can have a miraculous effect on some forms of leukemia.

But the ruling’s effect will be felt well beyond the limited number of patients in India who need Gleevec because it will help maintain India’s role as the world’s most important provider of cheap medicines, which is critical in the global fight against HIV/AIDS and other diseases.

Novartis had hoped that India’s adoption under international pressure of a new patent law would lead the country to grant the company an exclusive license to produce Gleevec, which can cost up $70,000 per year. Indian generic versions cost about $2,500 year....

In recent decades, the United States has become increasingly insistent that countries wishing to do business there adopt far more stringent patent protection rules, with the result that poorer patients often lose access to cheap generic copies of medicines when their governments undertake trade agreements with the United States. 

The ruling Monday is bound to be seen with some concern by the United States and the international pharmaceutical industry and may be yet another blow to India’s standing among major multinational companies, many of whom view protection of their intellectual property as vital to their business interests.