i appreciate your questions and the chance to talk to you about "light this candle." have a great night. thanks. one this last thing, i forgot my website. nealthompson.com. if anyone wants to read reviews of the book or any other information about the book. so thank you again.

now one book tv. washington argues a growing corporate presence in the medical industry yields didier issues for patience as drug development and research is nsg data on a for-profit basis. this is just over an hour. >> good afternoon. thanks for coming this afternoon. there are so many events taking place all over the campus but this is a very special one. many as pat science i teach medical journalism at the university of georgia college of journalism and mass communication. pleased to see so many of my colleagues and students here today. the author. washington is very special to me. bushehr indictment 20 years ago when we were both at the harvard medical school. she was on a fellowship and i edited the harvard health letter. we connected them and we have

been friends ever since. the last time she was at the university of georgia she was touring behind her but medical apartheid, which won a slew of awards including the national book critics circle of best nonfiction of the year award. we are pleased to bring her back this year and i want to thank all the people that have made the visit possible, the university of a georgia office of diversity, the graduate programs at brady college, the professional and residence programs for the journalism department, and my own graduate program and health and medical journalism. harriet is a journalist that morphed into an author and gandy and international reputation. she is eight morrill figure and a voice that we need to hear in the public dialogue. on the practical level she helps

explain to us why medicine works the way it does and why it costs so much. so let's welcome. washington. [applause] >> good afternoon. good afternoon. [laughter] >> all right. thank you so much and i give my heartfelt thanks for bringing you yet again. it's about coming home and for that i am very grateful. i have a lot to say to you today and i'm not going to get to all of it but i just want to caution you that if i should skip over a sly and it's something that you are fascinated by be sure to ask questions in the q&a section. also i am not in the habit of reading my slides. your academics and can read them for yourselves. i'm much more interested in

touching upon things that will analyze you. i want to talk a bit about my most recent work which is a critique of american medicine but it's a multilayer critique. what i was concerned about is the moral consequences of big corporations aligned with madison. although they may or may not have been well-intentioned, the consequences seen and unforeseen had been disastrous for all the fuss and i hope to eliminate exactly why. i like data. and you try to eliminate why to show you why those in medicine might not be exactly the way they appear even in the conventional news media or medical journalism as of them putting the medical journals. but first i want to go back and

comment a little bit and think about what medicine once was. and not pretending there's any kind of golden age of medicine during which there was no breasting after the culture of medicine was very different. and very different as a culture. there's another illustration of that in the fight that had actually i remember the march of dimes and i remember as a student coming to school every fall and we had apprehension about who wouldn't be there and which desks would be empty. there were always kids missing and they often had polio. when i got a fever orchil or stomachaches my parents first thoughts were i hope it's not polio. polio in many ways occupies the area of the culture that was a storage and was mysterious and was selectively carrying off parts of the population and we were hellbent on trying and we

did. the vaccine we see it now and what are you going to do now, we have this vaccine anybody it's been to be incredible and some as and make a lot of money on this. this wasn't unusual. this would be the mentality in the research culture, feeling that seeking profit from the patents wasn't a mobile search. it is interesting in that they're required a long arduous course of study and attracted

people and was competitive and very difficult. these people were not motivated on money. there were motivated by fame mechem intellectual composition and wanted to be seen as benefactors important to them. they wanted to win prizes. these are the motivations that drove them and drove them very well under the modality that we actually took a lot during the medical crisis. of course the polio vaccine many researchers are not concerned about money they worked at the university and they themselves were different. universities and corporations couldn't have looked different. corporations have to maximize the profits. universities were actually centered of science in the public interest. the centers of research that was

clearly on its focus on society being medical, social, whenever and attracted people who were drawn to that role. as we had quite unique role at jolie in pursuing the public interest and not a strew of medical research as well. in fact there were laws and regulations that founded the university's from the discovery that remained of the government subsidies and could not license the corporations. they couldn't sell them to corporations in those cases, so they were very clear on the corporations and universities. it's not there anymore and i will talk about what happened when it dissolved. so, one of the consequences is the cost of medication. and i think i noted your that when medicare and medicaid were finally passed in the 60's it's interesting with no provision for the cost of medication no

provision for the healthy, elderly and the poor pay for their drugs. why? because drugs were so cheap. drugs were cheap because the researchers working devised them and they were then marketed and there was an ennis against profiting and there were some that had a hard time when he actually sold his patent to a university he was afraid of what people would think if they knew that he had sold his drugs to a profit-making company. so drugs for cheap. they are not cheap anymore. there's also hi innovation if you look at the path of the figures you will find that there were hundreds of drugs devised every year, hundreds of new drugs and yet there was a mentality among the corporations and among the legislators that that wasn't enough because there

were lots that were not being made into drugs. many thousands of them as a matter of fact so there rose an animus that we had all of these patents on drugs we have hospitals and medical centers and corporations. we began complaining on the congress to get 28,000 patents. they just lie there collecting dust we spent $20 collecting so each congressman that we needed the law to ease the private corporations and their successful interest-rate product

because initially it is down, initially the congress wanted no part of it and importantly very powerful senator was against. following his lead, the senators voted it down. but even though he lost, he went on to lose the election, not a good year for him. jimmy carter was a lame duck. at the end of the year there's an emergency congressional session specifically to pass the financial legislation come and push one and push ii invigorated the law. he wanted another try of getting this passed because bob dole was his partner. but he was worried about fill all, it was the opposition to him, and for his part, he knew they were leaving. i think i will give him a break. he is leaving office and he's been a good boy.

so he calls and says you know what, take that patent bill, you've earned it. very interesting language. he tells him he's got the bill passed before there's any vote he was right because of the end of the year the last era of the congressional assessment the bill was in the past. the act was passed in 1980 and as a result, the universities as license and sell the patents to the corporations and how they are going to have this 28,000 patents needed for the medications because all the new medication would be better off. not exactly. because what happened is that the universities and the corporations did indeed partner and make a lot of money by doing so that did not translate into the medications. part of it had to do with cultural changes in medicine the result it. fortunately medicine began to take on more and more of the

corporate mentality. now researchers like the corporations became jealous of the patents. this meant collaboration went down the tubes. we can't work together on the same problem because we want to have the patents. only if we own the patent can we summit to the drug companies and make a good deal of profit, so we cannot share our intellectual property with them. any collaboration must be done internally, and even then there are naturally lawsuits when they start to collaborate. also when jobs were devised and assigned to corporations, the now the researchers to do research so the research department of many medical schools began to look more and more like the department of a corporation. they're receiving their funds from the research, the research

dollars are actually paying the salaries of the research. where do the loyalties lie now, do they lie with the american people or is it with the corporate needs to maximize the patent profits? also, what happened to all of these new medications? did we end up having thousands of drugs or hundreds of drugs a year? no instead we see it in decline. there are hundreds of drugs approved before 1980. you are in the ballpark. last year there were 21. the year before, 26. in 2000 there were ten or 15. innovation has dried up. so although this change in medical research was sold to the

american people on the basis of having access to better drugs like we have access to fewer drugs are they better? not exactly. one can't generalize important drugs have been developed but a lot has been developed aren't even knew nor are they better. ..

drugs tend to be for larger real disorders. so the one promulgated by a breech baby is not the only cat in 1980. the decision by the supreme court found for the first time a product of nature can be patented. a living thing can be patented. so now we can take it out on gene, a genetic sequence, biologically important animal that programs was developed and said. on the plan appeared at that something was living was no longer a bar of patenting it appeared here are some legal challenges. this lemonade and i don't know if you read about it or followed it, but supreme court brought

back the keys of the breast cancer gene patent. there were other laws like the stevenson widener law that made it much easier in the patent was actually taken out on human beings, a product even though his doctor never told them when he moved 22 pounds he was doing it for research. he told jon miller he was doing it to treat leukemia when his doctor, or david cooley took out his line and isolated deactivated ingredient. he took a very pretentious precedented i think. i love the quote that really sums up what happened in 1880. he disappears to be detrimental to the communitarian and

transcend society. it's not the pac-10, not the patient at the center of american medical research. what do i mean when i say drugs are way too expensive? is that you are ready now when i tell you drugs are way too expensive. even the research was staggered to see how expensive some of them are. attacking the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your street name. how did this happen? drug companies interestingly don't deny the drugs are very expensive. they say that they are, but explain they have to be expensive because they invest so much money bringing them to market. in 2001, thomas e., the report that was hardly endorsed by the pharmaceutical manufacturers claiming that every new pill that came to the market cost $802 million to bring to market. it was upwards of a billion dollars. two years ago upwards of a billion dollars. now the claim $2 billion for

every new drug on the market and that is why the medications are so expensive. economists had looked at the sunset now, i think the figure you want is closer to 200 le dollars. that is not chump change, but it's not $2 billion either. the tb alliance at their own analysis and said now, there's 150, two or 40 million public the distance that the lower, 110 elion. so why the white diversions? mighty pharmaceutical claim they're spending 2 billion why do groups devoted to providing low cost medication to people here claim it so much cheaper? well because the pharmaceutical companies report it is deeply flawed. it's simply not accurate. first of all with a look at the cost of drugs, they only look at very atypically expensive drugs. these are drugs that are brand-new with no precedent. not copycat drugs.

they are a new molecular entity, totally different, totally nature. those are expensive, also quite rare. most drugs do not own the category. they also looked subcategory of those drugs, and if you drugs for which the government invested no money in the development it's also quite rare. they also invest money in researchers within the university and when the researcher finds something worth developing manically, only then does a a corporation step in as a partner and start controlling the additional research needed for fda approval, it appeared it appeared it appeared don't have initial support. also the report did not the report did not the report did not fair the largest in the country and fair the largest in the country and they are so high that for every dollar the

industry spends they only lose 66 cents. these are big benefits that did not factor in. also the church in opportunity costs. i'd never heard of opportunity costs before. opportunity was devised to jon stewart now and at first the financial sense that she pay that you surrender to pursue activities in one direction at the expense of another. the example of the book is if i have $10 i decided to go to the movies with it and buy a ticket. if i put in the savings account i earn interest. the lost interest as my opportunity costs. if i leave it in the bank long enough, the interest with double the $10 to $20 that's exactly what the did in this report. they said drug countries than all this money and research. now they could buy stock in starbucks with that money or they could devote money to global hunger relief and they

would have benefits from it, but they are giving that up to devote their funds to drug development. well, isn't that what they exist to do? i mean, if drug companies were to buy, expend all the resources and products, there wouldn't be drug companies anymore and that's where the cost is not apply. actually what they receive a tax benefit and actually it is not investment for them. it is part of what they do. it is the cost of business and often the cost does not apply. this would cut the remaining figure in half. so we can see how easily you can fall for the 2 billion figure as something closer to 100 million that is why the claim basis. so what are the high drug prices mean like you all know what mean. if we ourselves haven't suffered

that we know somebody or close to somebody that can buy the medication and can't take care, can't get health insurance or who have not had a test or treatment that they need. there's no mystery there. but here it is quantified today. half of the people in this country fall into those categories. even people employ to have health insurance are not immune because employers have consistently been making employees children more and more cost of research on their insurance and other medication. so now we have for the would have been and we understand what this means in terms of drug costs. but interestingly, this law, confluence of industry and research organizations does not effect patient that affects researchers as well. this is at the exxon deeply, deeply troubling and i wonder why people are now more aware of

this. chris parrish is the researcher industrially national university and he has devoted his entire career, 20 years to liver cancer drug, a promising liver cancer drug. it was stage three trial doing extremely well, what is called t.i. 88 at that point and it looked really promising. he acquired a corporate partner and was very happy about that because his corporate partner allowed them to finish work on the drug, have it tested. it funded his research. he didn't care he said that when he partnered with this group through his university, they told him, look, you know, we have to license or sell the patent to this new platform, this new company. you said i don't care i want to devise the drug and he did. at the end of the trials, right before he was about to gain approval, firemen shut it down. they ended the trial onset were

not going to pursue this to. we don't want it were not going to market it. why didn't they wanted? although it's not a large problem in this country, if the number three killer globally and there's not that many cheers for it. they said two other chart companies were deciding can't are drugs that would compete with it in the marketplace. paul farmer said we don't want the drug if it's going to be about a stir. it won't be about us to sue because the competition of other tribes. therefore we will pursue something else not worth our time and money to see this to the end. now what is a plot buster drug? a blockbuster drug is usually the drug they take them at least $1 billion in profits a year. talking about a $310 billion industry. so that's actually the watershed. not taking a billion dollars a year, you're not worth our time.

the interest of the peep hole whose life is now at a standstill in the interest of patients around the globe to that during two the corporate line. so what other things have we seen recently having to do with devising new and better trucks? are the drugs really better? that all depends on your point of view. the drug companies certainly so. globally it seems quite clear they're not better just because if you look at the diseases that kills people of the greatest numbers across the globe, these are the diseases they are not at all interested in devising any answer is simple. malaria, quite present affects people who are poor and can't afford the drug and therefore they are not making the assessment. there's one new malaria drug device recently. guess what kind of drug it is. it's not to treat malaria. as for wealthy western travelers

to avoid contracting malaria. even when drugs are device for people in the developing world, they're not device for those people to use. it is to protect people like us, wealthy westerners, relatively wealthy westerners. so what do you look at thickness, it's a perfect example because there are only drugs, most as bad as the disease. one of them is a compound of arsenic in antifreeze and you don't have to be a chemist and that's bad news. you can receive sleeping sickness and you take it because you're desperate and this will definitely kill you. the drugs may kill you. i think it is like one for people actually die from the treatment. moreover, if your disease progresses to the point where you go into a coma, bistro cannot bring you back from the brink. you can't how people in the

final stages of disease. this is an absolute tragedy. however, a drug with sound that was not only treat people safely, that would bring patients back to the brink. this is wonderful. the company -- i'm not going to name right now because i don't want to spend my life in litigation, but the company decided to call on the down. for a while in partnership with god there is the borders, a very good thing the company partnered with.yours without borders in order to find out people in west africa have access to the drug. the only did that for a few years ago dr. wiley was quite clear that no one in that part of the world could afford the trip. they were losing money consistently. i think it's wonderful they were willing to make sure people had the drugs, but the problem is typical. they only did it for five years, only for a short period of time.

it wasn't nearly enough to treat the real problem. they will be able to help the handful of people. they drew it from the west african market. generic name is a thorny scene. it does not name that you cannot buy a thorny scene. anyone can get it. you need a prescription. there's no sleeping sickness in this country, so why would we need a thorny scene. a thorny scene is the marketed for women who have facial hair. the commercials come on tv sometimes. if you're embarrassed by your facial hair and a one use a razor, it's a cream you put on your face $50 a month with a prescription. it will vanish your facial hair. so wealthy western women can buy this drive to banish their facial hair. but nine west africans cannot obtain it and that is what is

wrong with medicine today. that is what is wrong with the corporate partnership. i will take a minute to say that i criticized them heavily, but i also want to know that they are not in business to promote health in the matter with the spirit and say, no matter what the heart wrenching commercials say, they are not in business to maintain or restore how. bear in business to get a prophet. the government is supposed to promote health. our tax dollars get transferred to corporations. we have an investment here. we had that paying for drugs twice. when it goes on the market we pay inflated prices. the government should step in. another country's government sidestepped in and said two companies are drugs are too live

we have a drug you're choosing that's trivial. if you do not want to distribute the drug at a price or people can afford, were going to take that from you and give it to someone else. that could be done. what is interesting is the government has been in the country for radio receivers, certain television to ologies but not medication. so there's a responsibility here. the government has responsibility to do this. why don't they do a? it's not been done because a cozy relationship between companies and legislators. the lobbying is completely out of control. pay the highest number of lobbyists and they pay them the most. a lot of lobbyists and former legislators. haircutting colleagues to make sure that you prices don't go down, to make sure that we are locked into paying high prices and to make sure that they are permitted to sell their trivial

meditations that any interference with medications. of course i always say a word about the fact that there's so few medications for these killers. but for iraq tile dysfunction with that 14 drugs since 1496 and it doesn't kill anybody, although my 600 men have tried from taking them. there's something sad about or pharmaceutical scene tonight. so what has corporate control in the world image on the the left is anybody as a result of taking thalidomide and thalidomide was distributed if you end of his distributed pretty widely. given pregnant women as a

sedative. and to treat their sleeping problems. but after a while, even though it hadn't been improved, everybody knew article is everywhere, even as a kid, you couldn't avoid them and events at same thing that this'll never happen again. we can never allow this to happen again. now why are the american people affect it? there's only 11 people born with us in this country and thousands of the pier because of the fda. frances kelsey, and it pharmacologists and fda looked at the test and said the tests were done correctly. the drugmaker said we are going to see the fda. everyone else is selling at pier by while a few clicks the fda held firm. they said no, were not going to gamble lives of americans. and of course americans for safe this tragedy.

but what is happening today? the picture on the right is also a picture of the baby with the camellia and he also has a because his mother was given thalidomide. thalidomide is being tested thalidomide is being tested developing world. brazil, nigeria, cuba, other developing world. brazil, nigeria, cuba, other parts of africa. it is not being tested in the west. it's a horrible ethical misstep. it's not only people are being asked to assume all the risk and none of the benefits of the testing because it testiness for conditions for multiple myeloma and the essay. and they said hey, leprosy is rampant in places like wasilla nigeria, so we're doing them a favor. now were not because they strive should treat conditions that will never make its way to these people. they can't afford it and marked the point, pharmaceutical companies should not prescribe

drugs. for a long time, researchers told me that there was unspoken tenet that she didn't test drugs for uses in the topics were developing worlds because people there couldn't afford it and become anita navin want to explain why they were using the drug bear. but the data will also tell you economist michael kramer wrote that of the 12,333 drugs tested by pharmaceutical companies within a 25 year span, guess how much were developed for the people in the developing world for people in the tropics? four. these people are not but they are priority for testing of these drugs. said the testing is done by european and american researchers in these countries and their site for social justice violations. for example, thalidomide is

prescribed to people in the west people in the west for a condition like leprosy, very rare in the west are multiple myeloma. they are warned that if your one and you've got to take two forms of contraception. he can't become pregnant on this tribe. they are also labeled with a picture of the formed baby, but unfortunately i don't think that labeling is the most clear thing. if you don't argue no, you may wonder what it is you're looking at. if there's a baby on a capsule, what does that mean? these people are warned. however, it is quite certain in some trials people in the developing world are now warned. for example, the packaging material and must africa until 1978 described thalidomide as completely harmless without side effects than many people are illiterate, would not be able to read written warning and in the brazilian city reveals dixie

seven children had been born to women and they were distinctly traced to a man who'd been given thalidomide. it's also a question about whether thalidomide might be excreted in the midterm which means nine might take percussion stew. women are told to take contraceptives. they can't go to the drugstore and buy them spirit contraceptives are beyond their reach and also there are cultural reasons why they can obtain contraceptives. some of them countries are contraceptives are illegal or forbid their use. so these are people who are not able to protect themselves and yet this is where the research is being carried out. one might wonder why. the west to be a more logical place because he released women can protect themselves. but why is the research carried out in developing world?

the developing world is not a developing company. not the problem, but the decision has been a financial one. the article show the pharmaceutical companies can get one in every three trials in developing worlds and now is more than a year ago, maybe more now. one in three trials. why? they can connect cheaper trials, faster trials, important for fda approval and these trials are higher quality in the developing world. they can get better quality, more experience, more practice to work for less money. so although a lot of our discourse while providing drugs to the developing world has been well, we can afford to do this. these people are so poor that's why they can afford health care. or so poor they can't afford drugs that we can't be the world's beneficiary get in free drugs. companies certainly make that

claim. we wish we could get free drugs, but we can afford it. i say we have a debt here. countries are saving us a lot of money by allowing us to can do cheap trials they are, cheap, fast trials. so we are in baghdad. we have an obligation to provide them minimally with free drugs to offset the risks they're taking on. in some cases we should not be conducting trials they because people can protect themselves. so if you look at the disease burden around the world, it's a very consistent pattern. very, very high when it comes to diseases, yet other medications needed are missing. a lot of focus on hava as it should be, but there's other things much easier and cheaper to administer and disappeared for example, vaccines in the developing world. vaccines are easy and cheap

because you don't have to make a diagnosis. you don't have to provide a lot of time are monitoring. it's a one-shot deal. every child gets a vaccine. it easy to her and it's not very expensive necessarily. because bill gates foundation has part earned with a company among others to provide very cheap vaccines to the developing world. you have to keep in mind it's not western vaccines and medications for the special challenges include the fact that health care part tichenor's are scarce. you don't want it to be injectable. he wanted to be a pill. refrigeration is not always that chance. these have to be kept in mind and even so they were able to take a $70 vaccine and distribute it for 50-cent and developing worlds. it's really important to me that companies are part of the partnership and in my opinion this is where the future lies but then. as i talk about how this new

model, the current on all does not work for patients it does not look about how it means to them to have a dried-up type thing if your drugs. 15 drugs here. it's not nearly enough to make a profit. they are seeing patents expire. blog buster trucks have come off with rapidity in the last few years and drug companies are suffering. there's a making a great deal of money, but they found the number one spot to number three spot in just a few years. this is not working terribly well for them either. i think that they should become aware of the fact that the developing world presents a huge untapped market for them. instead of thinking in terms of charging you serious prices and bankrupting people in charging hundreds of thousands a year for

drugs, they should think about the fact that providing relatively cheap drugs to many, many people can prove ultimately as lucrative as they come up with a good model. there's people like the impact fund credit feel. very common is actively working on models they might consider adopting. and as an abscess has been deeply concerned about the effect of corporations on research ethics. research ethics have been deformed by corporate control. even at the center of the guardians, watchers, people who critique everything. even at the center of the guardians, watchers, people who critique everything. even engaging traveling at cavities, more and more are joining the ethical pharmaceutical companies. i see this as a distinct problem. and now, as someone who is doing things i resulting in the deaths of people, resulting in people

going bankrupt paying for their drugs, i am not going to be in the corporate work. i'm not going to advise them, but yet they do advise them on a tram linking to me as many of these people don't think they're doing anything wrong. there's unfortunately a mentality among many emphasize that we know in our heart that are motives are pure. we are doing god's work. we can't be corrupted. guess i have this check from pfizer and they backed out there, but it's not going to change the way act as a champion for the undeserved. well, in my period and made easily. so being able to cite the opinions in defense of some of their practices is a very developing a trend. another disturbing new trend is the fact that corporations have discovered that precluding people for clinical trust takes a lot of time because you took aim at trial, pay their

commission informed consent. consent has been a basic medical research since the mid-1940s after the nuremberg trial when the principal tenet was the voluntary consent of the subject is essential. that is not true today anymore. beginning in 1990 and continuing in 1996 there's a series of changes that have allowed researchers to conduct research on people who do not need their consent. if you're an conscience, you can be enrolled in research and people like that have been enrolled without your consent. they don't have to ask your consent for the research i tell you about it afterwards. they are not to obtain your family's consent. this plot is very easy to look up if you look under code of regulations 21. 50.23. 50.24. a chilling development in

american law has remained under radar for too long. i wrote a few articles about it because i am deeply concerned about this. the largest study they used the spot ended in 2007. the artificial blood of testing turned out to be harmful. it turned out to more people who received it has suffered heart attacks and deaths on people who got the standard care. you would think the leap from moratorium without consent, but instead come a new approved whose goal was to enroll 21,000 people. 21,000 people in 11 centers across this country and number one trauma centers have seen who suffer, come anything from a gunshot went to a car crash to a hard hat.

21,000 people. yet when i spoke of the fsa said i'm going to be disturbed about this, but i heard most often was yes, but you have to understand it's very rarely use. this is not something that affects most people. it's rarely use. outthink 21,000 people is rare. if i kill somebody, i can't vote to court and say i very rarely kill people. wrong is wrong. and yet it's been done and defended. and foreign consent is going the way of the dodo. one troubling aspect is if you look at these can then schemes, a lot of them use the word consent. when you read descriptions commit their united by their failure to provide consent. the failure to allow a person to say yes or no to medical research, a very troubling trend in american research and my concern is if we do not stop it now, it's going to continue to

escalate to people that aren't even aware of them. i want to wind up soon because i want to leave time for questions. again i want to summarize by saying in my opinion pharmaceutical companies have been responsible for a lot of pain and suffering, and lie to heart ache and may the chance to redeem themselves now. if they take the opportunity to embrace new schemes of research that will benefit people in the developing world and more people in this country, if they change the focus for maximizing patent profits to maximizing distribution of medications at a lower profit, they might ultimately make more money. if they don't see things that way, if there's some in the government should excite its power to force these companies to do with right if they choose not to do the right thing. that is essentially what i have to say to you. thank you so much for listening to me.

[applause] >> i was told if anyone has questions in a search we hope a lot of you do, give time for the mike to get over to use so that we can be sure to record them properly. >> i think motivation is a big fat during one's motivation switched from the center for research and collegial competition to profit, what happened was profit would town. but it is hard to take a side of that mentality. what other than saying because people get angry at the government. i mean, the incentive to get out more medicines is going to increase your profit. we find the same name in the american economy now today. corporations want to make more

money, but they can only do it if they recognize we are a team working together. there's no middle class to byproducts are not going to make more money. is there any kind of programmer understanding or push other then that groups like this to try and bring this awareness about? >> i think it is really important for people, especially little groups like this to make their legislators aware of the fact they are concerned about some of these developments because in california where xavier the chair after being approached by constituent drafted the law and dave walton joined the tent and was a lot against gene patents in. but that is only part of what has to happen. the problem, issue began in the law, in my opinion. it's got to be ended in the law. today curdles congress because right now we have legislators who have not been paid, as far as i know, but the legislators have been a lack goodbye yes. and yet their behavior is

squarely in mind with the interest of pharmaceutical, knees and against our medical interest. so we have to get rid of these lobbyists. they have no place in health care designs. they have no place in health care and yet they are exerting a huge interest. get rid of lobbyists in letcher legislature know that you are concerned about this. i always tell people, you know, i urge people to take action where they are. whatever group you're involved with, that's the group you should try to tell your outrage about this and have them approach her lawmaker together. and of course they want and you do it on your own. the law is where it ends because companies are not going to do the right thing of their own volition. if that been the case they would've done it already. they do it occasionally and sporadically. but not in the way that we need. up to you.

>> the fda has a statement that says only treads can cure your illness. i was reading about bike adventure game. it went into the statement that she made about lobbying and the congress and the pharmaceutical companies. but what do you think about the idea of revitalizing the option of our natural supplements in this country? because that -- revising herbal options are not sort of thing to help with curing illness. >> that's a very interesting question. i am not aware of the fda report you are alluding to. but the question about alternative complementary is

very interesting because we were discussing this very issue. my take on it is alternative and complementary curl like implemented before they are shown to words and their absurd by conventional medicine. the demarcation of factually artificial. i actually, probably not most people, but i view it not conventional. i look at what works and what doesn't work. to me that is the key distinction. to know what works, one has to test it rigorously. there's some sentiment i agree with that they don't have to go to western-style testing in order to be thought of as efficacious. interestingly neither does germany. they have on tradition of rigorously testing alternatives and supplementary medications. they have a very good body of evidence now for some things that were consent things that

don't work. we need to do rigorous testing, the way that alternative remedies are too often promulgated. it simply anecdote. people would say abuses for 20 years. this worked well they've tried a patient man who sings its praises. that's not evident. they may not be accurate, may not be affable of all people. i've grown to serious medication we have been at most sure our facts are not really get him though matter what medication it is. >> if it is being -- if they are testing it in third world countries for diseases that primarily affect the third world like leprosy, the other examples you mentioned, where is the economic incentive for them there and even during testing with thalidomide? >> that's a good question. and to me what i ask is if this

actually the reason why it's been tested? is if the application they have in mind? the figure he gave you about the medication out of 4300 odds, that would indicate it's not been used for the application, but that's a useful thing to say when someone like me asks where doing the standards for research in brazil and nigeria, then i cannot dictate. i wonder if that's the real motivation. tatiana >> i was wondering what you think about the ethics behind not. the second question is once it becomes extremely profitable, with the emphasis to ever have

it become obsolete? of disease actually were to be cured, would we not know about it because the drug is so profitable? >> right, the director consumer advocate more pharmaceutical companies bypass the physician can go right to you from the television guru and sing the praises of their drug and then do the side effects and problems way too quickly for mortal man to read or hear an then what happens? you put your doctor and demand that drug. no country except the u.s. and new zealand allows this. other countries do not allow this because they understand in bypassing the physician, these companies are not informing you correctly about the drug. they also know they are capitalizing on my person's lack of information to sell it to them and they also understand the sixers unobscured, the very

subtle, the very strong pressure in physicians. partly because they are human and understand if you don't get the jokes from now from a come and look the drugs from someone else. it's an enormous amount of pressure in the three other countries don't permit it and why we should not either in my opinion. and your question about, teacher companies -- are they really interested in curing a disease? the disease should be called what that might dry up their revenue stream. that's a perennial question and quite frankly i'd do know that for whatever reason -- to be honest with you, i don't think that's a question we really need to answer because i don't think we're in much danger these companies devising new drugs to actually cure disease for a much more direct financial reason and that is companies are much more interested in a quick return on their dollar can often find a cure, which is rigorous and link

the. that means finding things like tess, devising a test for a particular drug, genetic element the basic test for the element, take a patent out on that. now nobody else can use your test. you wouldn't hire you wouldn't hire a device to test for hepatitis c, the price of hepatitis c in london and great britain skyrocketed six times as high because they've been using a cheaper test by another comp me and they wrote them letters and send cease and desist. rio the patent. yet these are test and that's what they did. the emphasis on cheaper revenues, patent expectation devising test, drugs for lifestyle disorders, gastric distress. the dpc has never tell you if you have daily gastric distress, stop living on pizza and hamburgers. they don't say that. if we take our pill.

they capitalize on people's insecurities. toenail fungus, dysfunction. they've got half the men in america convince their normal occasional failure to function as a disease, which is very profitable for them. i think because of the focus i'm not sure we have to go to the point where we say it's a worthwhile to find a cure because it's not worth their while to find a treatment for certain ailments. it's worth their while to find cheaper, easier ways to pat exploitations. >> so we are in a used diversity campus -- university campus and technology transfer has been very good to university is an

universities are always striving to make it better by patents or corporate entities. should we all be defending our technology transfer activities? but can i go back? what i'm asking is can we go back to that time when researchers actually had to make a choice between academia and business and they couldn't actually devote -- can never actually go back? >> we can go back. however we go back i don't know. but it's true the university can make a great deal of money. very successful universities. unfortunately, bonanza it does not filter down to people. the people who don't need money that need effective treatments they can afford. so we could repeal which i propose the night the pair but i'm pretty sanguine. i'm not thinking that's going to happen anytime soon.

i realize it may not happen at all that would be a good start. i think sometimes are so afraid of not being progressive, not going forward. there's this nigerian proverb and a concept is called sand co. and what it says it is not wrong to go back for that which you have forgotten. in this case we have forgotten something. an ideal to make money we have forgotten patients at the center. it would be a very good idea to basically assess a divorce between corporations and universities. now that may not have been, probably not going to happen. so what. so what should we do? we should do what i suggested. the government should divert very serious pressure on pharmaceutical companies. they should first exert pressure -- first get rid of lobbyists. first kill all the liars, first let's get rid of all the lobbyists. then exert very strong pressure on these companies who partner

with groups like doctors without borders to attend occasionally and successfully to adopt new marketing models and health impact fund, which says instead of charging a lot of money for drugs come you are going to be paid for your drugs based on how many lives he saved, how many people you help. that's a beautiful model because not only does it become a windfall, but do not model every life is saved. the same is saving lives at american and africans. the government should put serious pressure on these companies to adopt these models. and if they don't, the government should force them. to show my son come in a civil atomic models. that is what i think should have been. >> how correcting methodology you think the massive amount of advertising dollars have on the

news industry? >> the news industry, not medical journal commented news industry. >> yeah, if you look at the nightly news for example, two thirds of them are drug advertisements. what would happen to that inducing as an impact has an impact on coverage? >> i'm not in a position for sir. it's money in all its forms that can be corrupt team if you're not careful. it varies from publication. publishers who have a strong sense of journals in the pennant.

who's the guy at alia took over the serial killer because he was a serial for fortune and beadwork raiment had some effects on the news coverage fair. definite advertising as a way of exerting pressure. in my career i've seen it done. i have seen a case where we ran stories or did not run stories as a result of advertising. so i cannot speak with any authority on how have to have been, but i am sure that it has been. >> what has been the most tangible, hopeful result of your boat from a drug company, from lawyers, from the government? >> they love it. most hopeful. i wouldn't say that the most

hopeful reaction has come from the drug companies at all. i think they've been very smart. they have not acted much to do, which is the smart thing to do. they want to draw as little attention to it as possible, so they've essentially ignored it, which is fine with me. the most hopeful aspect of what i have discovered is certainly seen that the partnerships between drug companies and groups like the ones i've mentioned, doctors without borders community foundation, they're ephemeral, never last very long, but they are beginning to bear fruit. we have seen action at them doing with the need to do. these companies will work hand-in-hand with these groups devoted to the health of people and we had some kind of healthy media. i'm not against them making a profit. i'm just against them making such a huge profit on the backs of other people that other people suffer and die. that is what i'm against.

there is a happy medium. whether we will achieve i don't know. i think it is possible and so i'm hoping things work out that way. >> so you mention way. >> so you mentioned earlier the fact that you can make a start to vaccines for 50 cents a dose. i don't know whether you are thinking the meningitis vaccine initiative. >> that was one of them. >> because there is a transfer of intellectual property from the u.s. government to an offshore drugmaker, a true partnership and funded by more than $100 million of gates foundation money and they made a 50-cent vaccine that works. cost $80 to $100 a dose of the pediatricians office in the united states. spratt brings to my mind the idea of offshore drug manufacturing. you know india is a major drug manufacturer now. do you think international drug

manufacturers are part of the solution, part of the problem. where do they fit in? >> unfortunately they are not doing very well right now i'm part of it has to do with the trips agreement, the world trade organization agreement has been dealing with intellectual property, the state to impose on the developing world. indiana has been able to duplicate import drugs cheaply and distribute to the developing world but cannot do that illegally anyway because india thought covering patents on manufacturing processes, not on composition. so they could duplicate a drug legally and distribute it. what they had to change was the latest manufactured. the trip has forced india to adhere to the patent system of the west, with the composition of the drugs is what is good. so india can no longer duplicate the drugs as cheaply as it used

to. this i think is an enormous problem, imposing patent stricter probably to protect our intellectual property. but as a statement but, i do think a lot of this is even our intellectual property because a lot of it was from the third world to begin with. so for that reason, the law as it is is going to make it very difficult for our sure companies to work unless they are in concert with the american pharmaceutical companies who are now part of the problem. so do laws need to be eased if not revoked. they need to beat you so developing companies can find their own ways of providing drugs to their people since we have decided not to do that. they should not be your first to respect our patterns when we are not forced to respect their patents. the way to set up now is not reciprocal. the developing world's patents can be ignored, they should be able to ignore our patterns impunity. that is only justice.

>> e-mail, you said a lot of unpleasant things about large pharmaceutical companies and i'm not questioning what she said, but she said to me privately that there have been moments of generosity, momus were receiving drug companies behave in good ways. would you mention one or two of those? >> i have been discussing them. i've been talking about the partnerships they've made some of the gates foundation and with the health impact fund and with other groups that are dedicated to the health of people in the developing world. as you mention, the low-cost vaccine. i've mentioned this. they're very important. the problem is they have not sustained partnership. if there's a sustained partnership to mobile to stop these problems in the bugle to make a profit and stay in

business. that is what i would like to see and i suspect it is that they would like to see as well. anybody else? thank you so much. [applause] >> is there a nonfiction author of book you'd like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv@c-span.org. more from oklahoma city. governor mary fallin tells us about what she considers to be the most important political books available. she was elected first female governor of oklahoma and 2010. >> for students interested in getting into politics, but books have you read over the years, in the course of your life actually that you recommend reading of water? >> well, what of my favorite books that i hope suitable look at and it's actually encouraged

many students, especially graduation rates for students is one of my favorite books that's been worn out right now but i've read of many come many years ago that talks about abraham lincoln's principles and how he was able to get things done. one of the things that talks about his he would go out among his troops, especially during the time of war. he would depend upon his top lieutenants per se to get him back information. also he valued the advice of other people. he didn't have to think he knew all the answers. he sat out last council from other people. he also is a very honest man and that is why we called him honest abe, which is a very important character quality in any type of leader. he was just a great wrong model for not not only are students looking towards the future, maybe doing something in

politics, but even for people like myself would've been in politics for time. >> i notice you have other books there. how do they impact your life? >> this is one i hope to finish reading. it is called the black swan. it's about the improbable. as people we tend to think about things we know. but it is what we don't know that brings out the creative spirit in ourselves. we talk about events in history, events and current day that causes unpredictable things to happen on down the line. he talks about the thought of how people that embedding google, how it changed the world instantaneously. it's a very fascinating but. this is one i haven't started it all that is one of my favorite people. billy graham. a book called, nearing home.

i see is the scum he is not talking about nearing home, going to have him. and it reflects upon his life. i'm looking forward to reading that. he certainly had a life that has touched so many people around the world. he's had a huge impact on the soul of people and now he is perfect even this boat pair once again i have not read it yet. going to be with his father, so i think it would be a fascinating to on-demand business councils so many and talks about his faith and led so many people to strengthen his faith in his reflect the nomad and what is going to mean for his paternity. and what of my favorite authors i enjoy who has many, many books as joyce meyers. she is a world-renowned minister, a lady that has many books on leadership and overcoming challenges in her life. she was an abused child in her

early years of her life. she went through a lot of struggle that's about how ordinary people can do extraordinary things in their lives. i was psyched to be encouraging and inspiring books on most topics. there's always more things i'd like to read, but limited time. but these are some of my favorite topics. >> for more information on this and other cities on the local content to her go to the website. here's a look at the festivals across the country. i'm trying:

>> and now on booktv, christopher daly recounts 300 years of reporting in the united states. he examines the current argument that journalism is in danger and points to numerous obstacles the news industry has faced. this is just under an hour.