View previous stories
	Conflict in Syria reaches new levels of Brutality by United Nations commission of inquiry   Aug 2013   Ballistic Missiles killing Civilians, many Children. (Human Rights Watch)   Human Rights Watch calls for End to Indiscriminate Attacks on Populated Areas.   Ballistic missiles fired by the Syrian military are hitting populated areas, causing large numbers of civilian deaths, including many children, Human Rights Watch said today. The most recent attack Human Rights Watch investigated, in Aleppo governorate on July 26, 2013, killed at least 33 civilians, including 17 children.   Human Rights Watch has investigated nine apparent ballistic missile attacks on populated areas that killed at least 215 people that local residents identified as civilians, including 100 children, between February and July. It visited seven of the sites. There were no apparent military targets in the vicinity of seven of the nine attacks investigated by Human Rights Watch. In two cases there were nearby military objectives that may have been the government force’s intended targets, but were not struck in either attack.   “You cannot distinguish between civilians and fighters when you fire ballistic missiles which have a wide-area effect into populated residential areas,” said Ole Solvang, senior emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Even if there are fighters in the area, you cannot accurately target them and the impact in some of these cases has been devastating to local civilians.”   When used in populated areas, ballistic missiles with large payloads of high-explosives have a wide-area destructive effect, and it will not be possible when using them so to distinguish adequately between civilians and fighters, which almost inevitably leads to civilian casualties. Military commanders, as a matter of policy, should not order the use of ballistic missiles in areas populated by civilians, Human Rights Watch said.   It is difficult to draw final conclusions about the legality of an individual attack without knowing the motivation or the information available to the attacking party. But the nine attacks Human Rights Watch investigated caused significant civilian damage with no apparent military advantage.   The repeated use of these high explosive weapons with wide-area effects in areas populated by civilians strongly suggests that the military willfully used methods of warfare incapable of distinguishing between civilians and combatants, a serious violation of international humanitarian law.   While using ballistic missiles in an armed conflict is not prohibited, their use is subject to the laws of war. A warring party is obliged to use means and methods capable of distinguishing between civilians and combatants, an attack should not cause disproportionate damage to civilian lives and property, and the party using the weapons should take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm.   http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/04/syria-ballistic-missiles-killing-civilians-many-children http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/10/10/syria-executions-hostage-taking-rebels   June 2013   The United Nations commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic is presenting its latest report on the human rights situation in Syria. The Commission found that war crimes and gross human rights violations continue to be perpetrated on an ever larger scale as the violence escalates.   Crimes against humanity are being perpetrated by government forces and affiliated militias as they carry out widespread attacks against civilian populations through indiscriminate shelling, unlawful killing, torture, enforced disappearance, and sexual violence. They are systematically inflicting sieges against towns perceived as hostile, while populations have been forcibly displaced.   Anti-government armed groups have also besieged towns, especially in Aleppo governorate. They are committing war crimes on an increasing scale, including extra-judicial executions, torture, hostage-taking, and pillage. The violations and abuses committed by anti-Government armed groups did not reach the intensity and scale of those committed by Government forces and affiliated militias.   The commission found reasonable grounds to believe chemicals have been used as weapons, but did not identify the chemical agent, or the perpetrator. The commission remains convinced that a political settlement is the only means of stopping the violence.   This report covers the period from 15 January to 15 May 2013. The findings are based on 430 interviews and other evidence, collected during this four-month period. To access the report go to: English– http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria/A-HRC-23-58_en.pdf   Arabic – http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria/A-HRC-23-58_ar.pdf
	US Supreme Court strikes down gene patents by MSF, American Civil Liberties Union & agencies USA   13 June, 2013   In a ruling which has wide ramifications for the bio-technology industry, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that because DNA is a product of nature, it can"t be owned. It strikes down patents held by US corporation Myriad Genetics, a company in the US that does certain tests for breast cancer and charges thousands of dollars.   Supreme Court Decides: Our Genes Belong to Us, Not Companies, by Sandra S. Park, ACLU Women"s Rights Project.   Should companies be able to patent human genes? Today, the Supreme Court answered that profound question with a resounding NO.   Seems like common sense, right? But over the last 30 years, the U.S. Patent Office has issued patents on thousands of human genes, including genes associated with colon cancer, Alzheimer"s disease, muscular dystrophy, and many other devastating diseases. The status quo meant that companies controlling gene patents had the right to stop all other scientists from examining, studying, testing, and researching our genes.   The case before the Court involved patents on two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, controlled by a Utah-based company named Myriad Genetics. We all have these genes, but people with certain mutations are at much higher risk of breast and ovarian cancer. It is therefore crucial for some people to have their genes tested in order to make informed medical decisions (as Angelina Jolie described in her recent op-ed). But the patents on the genes allowed Myriad to exercise a monopoly, dictating what types of testing were offered, at what cost, and the availability of second opinions.   Myriad argued that the genes become its "invention" once they are "isolated," or removed from the cell and body.   The Court rejected that view in a unanimous decision written by Justice Thomas:   "Myriad did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention."   The ruling should also impact the many other patents that were granted on "isolated" genes.   By invalidating these patents, the Court lifted a major barrier to progress in further understanding how we can better treat and prevent diseases. And in fact, the decision will help, not hinder, the biotechnology industry. Most of the industry is focused on using genes as a starting point to create new tools, tests, and therapeutics. While all of these applications could be patented, the genes themselves should remain in the public storehouse of knowledge, for scientists at universities and corporations to freely study and use.   A federal task force advising the Department of Health and Human Services also concluded in 2010 that gene patents were not necessary as an incentive to finding genes, or providing genetic testing.   We also argued to the Court that a form of DNA, called complementary DNA ("cDNA"), should not be patentable when it is a mirror copy of naturally-occurring human mRNA. The Court concluded otherwise in its decision today. While we disagree with that finding, the decision as a whole represents a huge shift in patent law.   The Supreme Court"s ruling shields parts of the human body from the assertion of private property rights. And because cDNA is not required for genetic testing, laboratories will now be able to offer testing of the BRCA genes to their patients.   We celebrate the Court"s ruling as a victory for civil liberties, scientific freedom, patients, and the future of personalized medicine. It also demonstrates the power of creating alliances and fighting for the public interest. The ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed the case four years ago on behalf of twenty plaintiffs, including organizations representing over 150,000 medical professionals, geneticists, breast cancer and women"s health advocacy groups, and patients.   Few thought we had a chance against the decades-long Patent Office practice as well as the entrenched industry position. But litigation can be a strong tool in producing change, never more than when diverse communities come together.   Here, the medical, scientific, and patient communities united, and were soon joined by many others, eventually including the U.S. government. We honor the contributions everyone made to our success today.   http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights-free-speech-technology-and-liberty/victory-supreme-court-decides-our-genes-belong   13 June 2013   International consultation focuses on affordable access to HIV medicines for middle-income countries. (UNAIDS)   The critical issues that middle-income countries face in ensuring they have access to affordable and high-quality HIV medicines were explored during a consultation held in Brazil’s capital Brasilia this week.   Responding to a situation where global debates around access to medicines tend to focus on lower-income countries, delegates from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, South Africa and more than 20 middle-income nations from all continents, together with representatives from civil society and international organizations discussed their specific needs, perspectives and concerns. It was recognized that this is especially crucial given that by 2020 the vast majority of people with HIV will be living in such countries.   Many middle-income nations are now paying a high price for AIDS medicines, particularly those used for second- and third-line treatment. In fact, even the WHO-recommended first- line treatment, the one pill a day 3-drug fixed dose combination, is out of the reach of some countries, including Brazil, China and the Russian Federation.   This has profound implications for treatment optimization and long-term affordability and sustainability—identified as the central challenges at the meeting. Middle-income countries, often seen as lucrative markets, may not benefit from international initiatives on access to drugs.   Most foot the bill themselves either through government funding or out of pocket expenditure and there is uncertainty as to whether the growing numbers of people on treatment will continue to get the life-saving medicines they need for as long as they need them. http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2013/june/20130613brazil/   April 2013   Pharmaceutical Extortion. (American Society of Hematology)   A group of cancer experts has issued a searing indictment of the "free market economy" principles that allow pharmaceutical companies to reap enormous profits while patients remain hostages to the industry, forced to either pay high drug prices or lose their lives.   In an editorial in Blood, the journal of the American Society of Hematology, over 100 leukemia experts from around the world argue that.   Unaffordable drug prices in CML [chronic myelogenous leukemia] may be preventing many patients from accessing these life-saving drugs. [...]   Grateful patients may have become the “financial victims” of the treatment success, having to pay the high price annually to stay alive.   The prices are too high and ultimately "harmful to the sustainability of our national healthcare systems".   While their focus is on CML drugs, the group writes that their findings are indicative of the "spiraling prices of cancer drugs in general." For example, 11 of the 12 cancer-treating drugs the FDA approved in 2012 were priced above $100,000 per year.   A case in point is the drug imatinib, sold by Novartis under the name Glivec, which provided about $4.7 billion in annual revenues in 2012.   The experts write that it was priced at nearly $30,000 per year in 2001 but skyrocketed to $92,000 per year in 2012, even though the original price already included research costs, "new indications were developed and FDA approved," and more people were taking it. Imatinib, they write, "may have set the pace for the rising cost of cancer drugs." The authors conclude that the Hippocratic Oath of "do no harm" they took compels them to argue against the high prices of these drugs that do harm to and may risk the lives of cancer patients.   Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines. (MSF)   In 1999, in the wake of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, MSF launched the Access Campaign. Its purpose has been to push for access to, and the development of life-saving and life prolonging medicines, diagnostic tests and vaccines for patients in MSF programmes and beyond.   “Some of the reasons that people die from diseases like AIDS, TB, Sleeping Sickness and other tropical diseases is that life saving essential medicines are either too expensive, are not available because they are not seen as financially viable, or because there is virtually no new research and development for priority tropical diseases. This market failure is our next challenge. The challenge however, is not ours alone. It is also for governments, International Government Institutions, the Pharmaceutical Industry and other NGOs to confront this injustice. What we as a civil society movement demand is change, not charity", said Dr. James Orbinski, president of MSF’s International Council in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace prize.   Deficient medicines, tests and vaccines obstruct MSF’s humanitarian work   MSF aims to bring the best medical care possible to some of the most disadvantaged people on earth. But our medical teams are often hindered in delivering that optimised care. There are many reasons for this but the Access Campaign’s key focus is on the difficulties people face in getting hold of adequate and effective diagnostic tests, drugs and vaccines for those diseases that predominantly affect people in the places where we work.   In response, therefore, in 1999, Médecins Sans Frontières launched the Access Campaign to alert the world about the desperate need to improve the medical tools at our and others disposal.   Major obstacles include high drug costs and lack of R&D   From the start we faced two major challenges: the high cost of medicines currently available and the absence of appropriate treatments for many of the diseases that affect patients in the areas where we work. That’s why we adopted a two track solution to the problem. On the one hand, we challenged the high costs of existing drugs - such as those to treat HIV/AIDS - and worked to bring prices down. On the other hand, we focused on stimulating research into new medicines for neglected diseases such as tuberculosis, sleeping sickness, kala azar and Chagas disease.   It turns out that solving the problems of both access and innovation are intertwined. And while there have been remarkable advances on both fronts, formidable tasks remain ahead, both to address existing challenges and to meet new ones. That’s why MSF is pursuing its campaign as vigorously as ever.   High prices caused by company monopolies   Many medicines are too expensive for patients or governments in developing countries to afford – newer treatments used for HIV are an illustration of this. One reason is that the growth in patent protection in developing countries has pushed up prices and stifled competition, because a patent can give the originator company a market monopoly for 20 years.   Research and development agenda doesn’t target medical needs   Another problem is that research and development is not geared towards the needs of people in poor countries. Drugs and diagnostic tests are being developed on the basis of their future market potential rather than on patients’ needs. Only 1% of the drugs that have come to the market in the past 30 years were developed for tropical diseases or tuberculosis, yet the existing drugs for these diseases are often toxic and are becoming less and less effective due to resistance.   Working to develop newer simpler models of care   Even when better medicines and tests become available, there are other barriers to be overcome. For example, one key problem delaying the further roll-out of HIV treatment is the chronic shortage of health staff, particularly in Southern Africa. MSF is working also to provide field research that will support the development of more simplified models of care to deliver treatment and that will benefit both patient and health care workers. MSF closely follows the developments in the world of access to medicines, vaccines and diagnostics.   The work of the MSF Access Campaign and many other actors has brought about significant advances over the last few years although important problems persist.   Large-scale treatment of HIV with antiretroviral (ARVs) drugs has become a reality and an international priority. This became possible thanks to price reductions triggered by generic competition for the first generations of ARVs that we promoted. Treatments that cost more than US$10,000 per patient per year are now less than $70. We also called for WHO to assess the quality of these medicines which WHO does today through the WHO pre-qualification system. However, urgently-needed newer HIV medicines remain much more expensive and large scale expansion of treatment will rely on the continuing flow of quality, affordable medicines.   An effective malaria therapy, known as artemisin-based combination therapy (ACT), has been introduced in most African countries. This treatment, recommended by WHO, was adopted following many MSF studies into drug resistance and its “ACT Now” campaign. Today we are working to effect a further change by calling for a switch from quinine to artesunate injection for the treatment of severe malaria.   Treatment of people with multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) has become an international public health priority following the work by several organizations, including MSF. We negotiated lower drug prices for MDR TB for MSF and others before WHO then took this task on. However, drugs for MDR-TB remain still too high today and the supply is insecure.   The Campaign has raised awareness of the urgent need for new ways to tackle the most neglected diseases. MSF co-founded the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative which already has delivered new treatments. While the scope of R&D and the funding available for diseases that primarily affect people in developing countries remains hugely inadequate, a few new health technologies are finally reaching the market such as new TB drugs and diagnostics and a new vaccine against meningitis A. The challenge is to now implement these tools rapidly and at affordable prices.   The right to balance public health needs with intellectual property rights was affirmed in the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health in 2001 - and some countries such as India, Thailand or Brazil have used international trade rules to prevent inappropriate patenting or to overcome patents and improve access for key medicines. MSF has been closely involved in these developments.   The Access Campaign also proposed the creation of a patent pool (which was officially established in 2010), and is at the forefront of alternative proposals to stimulate and reward needs-driven innovation that does not lead to high prices of the final products. http://www.msfaccess.org/ http://www.unsrhealth.org/
	View more stories