Did Bayer Prevent Generic Version of Anti-Anthrax Drug Cipro? The following article is by the German group CBG/Coordinationagainst BAYER-dangers. The group has been monitoring the Bayer Corp.for more than 20 years. Did the Bayer Corporation pay other pharmaceutical manufacturers notto manufacture generic versions of Cipro, a brandname for theprescription antibiotic ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, which is usedagainst anthrax? Gilman and Pastor, LLP, is prosecuting a nationwide class action onbehalf of all persons or entities in the US who purchased and/or paidfor Cipro at any time since Jan. 8, 1997. “We allege that beginning on Jan. 8, 1997, Bayer AG entered intounlawful and anti-competitive agreements with Barr Laboratories, Inc.and Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. under which, in exchange for over $50million per year, Barr and Hoechst Marion Roussel agreed not tomanufacture or market a generic version of Cipro. These agreementsallowed Bayer to maintain a monopoly over the ciprofloxacin market”and to charge super-high prices for the drug, the suit alleges. “As aresult of the unlawful agreements, Plaintiffs and the Class have beendeprived of the ability to purchase generic ciprofloxacin at acompetitive price.” Price comparisons for a 500 mg tablet of Ciprofloxacin in US dollarsas of October 21, 2001 show the following: US Bayer wholesale 4.67; USBayer best federal government 1.83; Canada Bayer/government 1.58;South Africa/government 2.10; India generic 3 cents; Poland Bayer1.51; Poland Polfa Grodzisk generic 29 cents. In response to the drastic price differences between what Bayercharges and what the generic price could be, consumer activist andGreen Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and his associate JamesLove sent the following letter to Health and Human Services SecretaryTommy Thompson: “Dear Secretary Thompson: “We were shocked by your comments in the October 17, 2001Washington Post, indicating that you do not have the legalauthority to authorize generic production of ciprofloxacin, a drugused to treat victims of an anthrax attack. This, of course, is nottrue. As your own staff is well aware, you may use 28 USC 1498 toissue compulsory licenses for patents, and you could immediatelyauthorize the five companies who have already satisfied US FDArequirements for the quality of their products to speed themanufacturer of ciprofloxacin, and indeed this could and should bedone for any other medicine needed to confront the currentcrisis.… “Bayer, the giant German pharmaceutical firm, currently marketsciprofloxacin on an exclusive basis in the US. Drug stores arecharging in some cases more than $700 for a two month’s supply ofmedicine that can be obtained for as little as $20 in some foreigncounty generic markets, and now it seeks to be the exclusive companythat can supply 1.2 billion pills to the federal government. Bayerstands to make hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in thewake of the September 11 terrorist attack on Americans. “In the absence of adequate government stockpiles, families who cannotafford the hundreds of dollars per month per family member forciprofloxacin risk not having access to this product, should the needarise. This is an unethical and unnecessary form of rationing. Somegovernment officials and those who can afford the high prices havesecure supplies of ciprofloxacin. It is your duty to see that alltaxpayers and especially those who are less affluent are protected,and are protected as soon as is possible, not as soon as it ispossible for one firm, Bayer, to supply the market. And it would makesense to have redundant sources of supply, for all of the obviousreasons…. “Your official responsibility is to protect the public’s health, andnot to defend large profiteering pharmaceutical companies, which arealready making a fortune because of our country’s current problems.How do you define the patriotic choice here?” CBG/Coordination against BAYER-dangers, Postfach 15 04 18, 40081Duesseldorf, Germany. E-mail: CBGnetwork@aol.com; www.CBGnetwork.org;Fax: (+49) 211-333-940 Tel: (+49) 211-333-911. |