[Metrobeans]

M75 - Roche Release of Information Motion, Labour

Roche Release of Information Motion - Labour

This House believes that decision of Roche, the company which markets Tamiflu, to not release requested information concerning medical trials of Tamiflu. This information is required by independent scientists to determine whether Tamiflu would have been an effective treatment in the event of a widespread "Bird Flu" pandemic, and as such, it is in the public interest that this information should be revealed.

[CyclopsRock]

I don't think the government should buy medicines that it doesn't know the qualities of. If Roche doesn't want to release that information, it certainly shouldn't be forced to (I appreciate this is a motion, not a bill) but one would hope they'd lose custom as a result.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

I agree with this. While there may not be an immediate threat of an Avian flu pandemic, that is not to say there isn't risk of one occurring in the future and we check we are prepared, rather than just accepting what a drug company tells us as to the effectiveness of their drug.

[Birchington]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
I don't think the government should buy medicines that it doesn't know the qualities of.

Agreed. If the government wishes to respond to pandemics (usually blown way out of proportion with needless scaremongering), it is the duty of the government to ensure the drugs it is offering for distribution have been properly tested. If a drugs company has not released information of its medical trials, the government should not buy from them.

[TopHat]

But the government has no real choice. Tamiflu is one of two alternatives, the other being Relenza. However, Relenza is not suitable for consumption by certain people, as it is inhaled via the lungs, rather than taken as a pill. That means the government has to be spend vast quantities of money on vaccination for the people unable to take Relenza, because it can't independently assess how well Tamiflu would work in such a situation. The savings of be able to trial Tamiflu, and reduce the numbers who would require emergency vaccination, would be vast, both in financial terms and, if the worst came to the worst, in terms of lives saved. This is not a case of "X company has not informed the government, but the government can simply purchase from Y company instead", this is a case of "X company has not informed the government. There are no other lines of supply".

[toronto353]

The first sentence is missing some words as it's incomplete. Other than that, I think I may have found something from Labour that I don't hate. I think that the information should be released as we have, as former and possibly current (I'm not sure) buyers, a right to know. Well done to whoever wrote this motion.

[DebatingGreg]

Aye. It is in the public's interest for the information to be released.

[tehFrance]

After consideration, why should they release the details of the clinical trials? and how is it in the public interest to make the information public? all you will do is bring people's hopes up that there will be a cure/preventative solution within a certain time frame that Roche most likely cannot commit to therefore I vote no.

[calumsteele1]

hmmm im going to have to agree with tehfrance on this one, no from me.

[TopHat]

(Original post by toronto353)
The first sentence is missing some words as it's incomplete. Other than that, I think I may have found something from Labour that I don't hate. I think that the information should be released as we have, as former and possibly current (I'm not sure) buyers, a right to know. Well done to whoever wrote this motion.

You're right, it's missing the phrase "is condemnable". That's my fault entirely, I'm supposed to double-check them, but there's been such a large amount I was skim-reading a tad. I'll see if I can get the Speaker to edit it without needing it to be re-submitted for a second reading; after all, it doesn't change the intent nor the effect.

(Original post by tehFrance)
After consideration, why should they release the details of the clinical trials? and how is it in the public interest to make the information public? all you will do is bring people's hopes up that there will be a cure/preventative solution within a certain time frame that Roche most likely cannot commit to therefore I vote no.

Because the government needs to know whether it can save vast amounts of cost by purchasing Tamiflu instead of wide-scale vaccination programmes. The public interest is that the government saves a large amount of money, which it can then use to cut taxes/increase spending/whatever floats your boat, and also that in the event swine flu does become a more serious level of pandemic less lives are at risk.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by TopHat)
But the government has no real choice. Tamiflu is one of two alternatives, the other being Relenza. However, Relenza is not suitable for consumption by certain people, as it is inhaled via the lungs, rather than taken as a pill. That means the government has to be spend vast quantities of money on vaccination for the people unable to take Relenza, because it can't independently assess how well Tamiflu would work in such a situation. The savings of be able to trial Tamiflu, and reduce the numbers who would require emergency vaccination, would be vast, both in financial terms and, if the worst came to the worst, in terms of lives saved. This is not a case of "X company has not informed the government, but the government can simply purchase from Y company instead", this is a case of "X company has not informed the government. There are no other lines of supply".

Alternatives for what? Vaccinating against bird flu type things? Until you can prove your drug works, you don't have a vaccination, you have a pill that you're calling a vaccination. That's not an alternative. If they have released information that makes us all think it IS a vaccination, but not specific trials, then whatever, that's their right too.

[TopHat]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Alternatives for what? Vaccinating against bird flu type things? Until you can prove your drug works, you don't have a vaccination, you have a pill that you're calling a vaccination. That's not an alternative. If they have released information that makes us all think it IS a vaccination, but not specific trials, then whatever, that's their right too.

No, Tamiflu is a treatment (or a supposed treatment). There is a vaccine for swine flu, but it costs an extremely high amount and couldn't be extended to everyone in the country, merely people judged to be at highest risk. For everyone else, we need some form of treatment. Relenza is acceptable for some people, but others would need treatment in pill format, which Relenza isn't. That's why we need information on Tamiflu. Either a) the information says Tamiflu works, and the government can purchase Tamiflu and save massive costs on purchasing the vaccines and also administer the vaccines it does have towards the people who really do need it, or b) Tamiflu doesn't work as well as it needs to, a central govt has to absorb the costs of a massive vaccination programme.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by TopHat)
No, Tamiflu is a treatment (or a supposed treatment). There is a vaccine for swine flu, but it costs an extremely high amount and couldn't be extended to everyone in the country, merely people judged to be at highest risk. For everyone else, we need some form of treatment. Relenza is acceptable for some people, but others would need treatment in pill format, which Relenza isn't. That's why we need information on Tamiflu. Either a) the information says Tamiflu works, and the government can purchase Tamiflu and save massive costs on purchasing the vaccines and also administer the vaccines it does have towards the people who really do need it, or b) Tamiflu doesn't work as well as it needs to, a central govt has to absorb the costs of a massive vaccination programme.

Sorry, the vaccine mistake was mine but that wasn't really my point. My point is this: Why do we take them seriously anyway without evidence that it works? There are people out there who are absolutely sure they can make perpetual motion machines - our energy problems solved! But they have no evidence, so we have nuclear and coal plants.

Presumably Roche have provided something to make us think it does actually work - do you know what this is, and why is this not enough? (All genuine questions).

[TopHat]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Sorry, the vaccine mistake was mine but that wasn't really my point. My point is this: Why do we take them seriously anyway without evidence that it works? There are people out there who are absolutely sure they can make perpetual motion machines - our energy problems solved! But they have no evidence, so we have nuclear and coal plants.

Presumably Roche have provided something to make us think it does actually work - do you know what this is, and why is this not enough? (All genuine questions).

There is limited evidence. For patenting reasons, a lot of the drug industry is self-regulatory. Essentially, Roche released information showing Tamiflu could cut hospitalizations by 60%, based on the result of 10 trials. When challenged to prove this further, Roche released some of the details, but not enough to be conclusive, and then refused to release anything further. Essentially, government thinks there is a good chance Tamiflu could be a good investment, but isn't able to be sure.

[Rakas21]

I intend to vote no.

Whilst the company should be required to release the information to the Department For Health before approval (i would hope they do so already) for public use, a private company should not be required to release information to just anybody.

[StatusRed]

Bear in mind people that it is independent scientists who are requesting the information to determine whether Tamiflu would actually be effective. Roche are refusing to release all of the information that these independent scientists have requested. Tamiflu was stockpiled in many countries due to the claim that it would be effective against Bird Flu; these scientists are only trying to determine whether that's true or not.

[TopHat]

(Original post by Rakas21)
I intend to vote no.

Whilst the company should be required to release the information to the Department For Health before approval (i would hope they do so already) for public use, a private company should not be required to release information to just anybody.

Read the thread.

[StatusRed]

(Original post by toronto353)
The first sentence is missing some words as it's incomplete. Other than that, I think I may have found something from Labour that I don't hate. I think that the information should be released as we have, as former and possibly current (I'm not sure) buyers, a right to know. Well done to whoever wrote this motion.

I wrote it, I'm sure I can fix the first sentence. Thanks.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by TopHat)
Read the thread.

I have.

This motion specifically states independent scientists want the data and i disagree with their legal right to it.

If anybody could find out whether or not the government currently sees all the data before approving it for public use then that would be much appreciated as i will have Moleman (Health sec) draw up legislation.

[TopHat]

(Original post by Rakas21)
I have.

This motion specifically states independent scientists want the data and i disagree with their legal right to it.

If anybody could find out whether or not the government currently sees all the data before approving it for public use then that would be much appreciated as i will have Moleman (Health sec) draw up legislation.

By independent, it means "independent from Roche", rather than "freelancers".