Apologists, ideologues and their lies

I’m really tired of drug company apologists. Take Thompson Ayodele, for example, the executive director of the conservative “think tank” Initiative for Public Policy Analysis. In a recent op–ed piece published in the Mail & Guardian, he trotted out old, tired and discredited arguments in support of uniform high levels of patent protection for medicines.

In Drug patents are beside the point (Friday, 2 May 2008), the Lagos–based free marketeer presented complex health systems issues as a zero–sum game: they say it’s all about the patents; we say it’s all about other issues. Either they’re wrong or we’re right. Either you’re with us or against us. And who could possibly argue that corruption in Nigeria is not a problem?

In defense of his position, he lists a gamut of other reasons why poor people don’t get the medicines they need. And it’s true that “children in developing countries die unnecessarily from diseases that are easily preventable and cheap to treat”, that too many “Africans have to pay for treatment from their own pockets” and that “public health systems are failing to deliver.”

But the problem with ideologues such as Mr Ayodele is that they misuse elements of truth in advancing their true agendas.

In this country, we’ve become quite accustomed to this sort of game. In fact, some of our leaders have become surprisingly good at it. Take the president as an example. He rightly noted the link between poverty and Aids, and then leaped to the conclusion that poverty is the cause of Aids. As first year social science students can attest, correlation does not equal causation.

Then there is the Minister of Health, who also makes creative use of the facts. Rightly, she notes that people are free to make choices regarding medical treatment. But she conveniently ignores that the right can only be exercised with access to appropriate information. You may choose untested “remedies”, but you need to know that there is no evidence supporting their use.

And who could forget Manto Two, the honourable member of the KwaZulu–Natal executive council responsible for health? Like Jeremiah Wright, she too has conspiratorial views about the origins of HIV. Ditto her mutterings about HIV prevention trials, which ignore the ethics and practice of clinical research. On her planet, trial participants are encouraged to have unsafe sex.

I could go on and on and on. But I won’t. The point is made. So back to Mr Ayodele’s tiresome tirade and litany of lies and misrepresentations.

Forcing patent holders to license generic manufacturers will not address problems of corruption, but can –- when done in appropriate circumstances -– ensure a sustainable supply of affordable medicines. State–owned laboratories may not be able to produce medicines affordably, but the big private generic companies make cost–effective production an art form.

And so on and so on and so on -– until one gets to Mr Ayodele’s main point: the public sector is bad; the private sector is good. But even then, his arguments unravel as he makes them. If competition is so good, then why is it not good for the production of medicines? If corruption is indeed a problem, why does he only focus on public -sector corruption?

Which all takes me back to my original point –- the tedium of engaging with those who do big Pharma’s bidding. In line with his right–wing colleagues in sister organisations across the world, much of Mr Ayodele’s pretence at principled scholarship is as transparent as it is weak. But it does fool some. And because of that, it can’t be left standing without serious challenge.