Bizarre Headline: “Big Pharma Blocks Imports of Generic AIDS Drugs” into Africa

January 25, 2013
Ocean

“Big Pharma” patrols the high seas in search of plunder and patent infringement.

This headline comes to us from the venerable Democracy Now! news hour of January 23, 2013:

“Fire in the Blood”: Millions Die in Africa After Big Pharma Blocks Imports of Generic AIDS Drugs

When I saw this headline rolling up my facebook feed as most shared from Democracy Now!, two thoughts hit me almost at once.

The first thought was that Democracy Now! is to be commended for bringing this monumental story to us. Millions of people are out there dying, and I haven’t heard boo about it from any other media source. This is standard fare. If you want to get the scoop, tune into Democracy Now!

To understand my second thought, you must realize that I am a libertarian Juris Doctor. As a law guy, I tend to take things rather literally. So upon encountering a headline alleging that Big Pharma is blocking imports of generic drugs, I promptly envision the private fleet of pirates that Pfizer and AstraZeneca must have hired to swashbuckle and maraud and pillage the vessels of competing merchants. I delighted in this anti-corporate progressive fantasy for about ten seconds before hypothesizing the reality:

“Big Pharma isn’t blocking anything,” I suspected. “I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that some government is blocking those imports at Big Pharma’s behest, and I’ll have to see the story to find out which one and why.”  Read the rest of this entry »


Links of August 9th, 2011: The Prophet Ron; S&P Debt Downgrade; Fashion Police; a Liter of Light; others…..

August 7, 2011
  1. Ron Paul predicted the fall of the housing market as early as 2003.

    I think I’m leaning toward Gary Johnson this time around because I like him better on social issues, but I will gladly pass this on, as I would be just about as satisfied with a Ron Paul win in 2012.

  2. Who are “Standard & Poor’s” and why do they hate America? Either they are with us or they are with the terrorists.

  3. If the DEA wishes to gain adherents, it really should renounce such a weak representation of its anti-marijuana stance. Long story short, anyone who advocates for the criminalization of medical marijuana patients primarily on the grounds that smoking it is harmful must also address vaporization as an alternative means of delivery. If they do not, then they are either too ignorant to have a valid opinion on the subject or they are deliberately engaging in sophistry. This past January, the DEA put out a position paper of their own, which I’ll have to address next time.  Read the rest of this entry »


Links for January 31, 2011: This is the War on Drugs. Any Questions?; Thoughts on the Depression of 1920.

January 30, 2011
  • “He was not a dealer,” Arlean Blair insists. “I know that he used … but he was not a drug dealer. A drug dealer has lots of money and nice things. If you looked in his house, he had nothing. He gave everything away to people who were having trouble. … It isn’t clear from evidence logs whether investigators found the drugs they were looking for. There was paraphernalia and ‘a small, pink plastic bag with a white crystal substance.’”

    The Weber County Attorney’s Office found the shooting to be legally justified under Utah Law. This is drugs. This is the War on Drugs. Any questions?

  • The Austrian School’s “Great Depression of 1920” line of reasoning goes like this: Following the First World War, America fell into a depression the first year of which was worse than that of the Great Depression. The government then did very little in the way of stimulus then, and the economy recovered basically on its own within a couple of years. By the 1929, America saw the onset of the Great Depression. Over a decade of New Deal government intervention did not get us out of that depression. To the contrary, New Deal meddling prolonged the Great Depression. Over a year and a half has passed since I first heard this account, and I have not come across so much as a peep in response from the interventionists….until now. The Austrian Review of Economics first published this article online in late October, 2010. I have not yet read this article because it costs $34 to download, but the author, Daniel Kuehn, responds to a critique of the article here.

  • Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.