October #85 : AZT Fraud? - by Bob Lederer

POZ - Health, Life and HIV
Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join

Back to home » Archives » POZ Magazine issues

Table of Contents

Tough Act to Swallow

Worlds Collide

Alone on the Range

Two-Timin' Man

New Head, Same Hydra?

Mup Roar

Land of Oz

Merger Mania

AZT Fraud?

Off The Cuffs

Red Scare

Hardish Times

Fatwa Skinny

What's In A...?

Epis Appeal

Mining for Meaning

Losing Control

No Guest List

Hep Hooray

Home Remedy

Did You Hear?

Status Seeking

Editor's Letter



Sins of Transmission

Porn Again

Most Popular Lessons

The HIV Life Cycle


Herpes Simplex Virus

Syphilis & Neurosyphilis

Treatments for Opportunistic Infections (OIs)

What is AIDS & HIV?

Hepatitis & HIV

email print

October 2002

AZT Fraud?

by Bob Lederer

It may be a classic case of AIDS activist David taking on Big-Pharma Goliath, but some advocates complain that this little David is too big for his britches. On July 1, the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) filed suit against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), charging that the drug giant's 1985 patent on AZT -- which guaranteed a 20-year monopoly and led to a trend-setting five-figure annual price -- was obtained through fraud. AHF also claimed that the prices of two other GSK HIV meds (3TC and abacavir) are illegally exorbitant.

AHF, a nonprofit managed care provider that specializes in HIV and is largely government funded, is seeking $66 million in damages -- three times what AHF claims it paid GSK for drugs over four years -- plus an injunction against further price-gouging and a ruling that the AZT patent is invalid, thus setting a legal precedent for generic marketing in the U.S. "Burroughs Wellcome [GSK's predecessor] lied to the patent office about discovering AZT's ability to treat AIDS," said AHF prez Michael Weinstein, noting that it was the feds who first tested the drug for HIV. Calling the suit "entirely without merit," Glaxo rep Patti Seif said the firm "categorically rejects" the fraud allegation. "It was Burroughs Wellcome that linked AZT with AIDS treatment," she said.

But some activists question AHF's go-it-alone strategy. "Lawsuits are an important part of winning drug access," Health GAP's Asia Russell said. "But why is Glaxo the only company whose prices and policies are being challenged?" Replies Weinstein: "GSK is the Enron of pharmaceuticals. Unlike its competitors, it has no major charitable program and charges twice as much for antiretrovirals in the developing world" -- charges Glaxo denied. In June, Glaxo was one of three pharmcos to announce a two-year U.S. price freeze on HIV meds.

Other activists, requesting anonymity, suggested this motivation for what they called a legally shaky suit: Glaxo's rejection of AHF's request for $20 million for its clinics in Africa. Attorney Michael Davis, who represented PWAs in an unsuccessful 1990 patent suit against the firm, put those chances at "somewhere between whistling in the wind and a credible claim."

[Go to top]

Facebook Twitter Google+ MySpace YouTube Tumblr Flickr Instagram
Quick Links
Current Issue

HIV Testing
Safer Sex
Find a Date
Newly Diagnosed
HIV 101
Disclosing Your Status
Starting Treatment
Help Paying for Meds
Search for the Cure
POZ Stories
POZ Opinion
POZ Exclusives
Read the Blogs
Visit the Forums
Job Listings
Events Calendar
POZ on Twitter

Ask POZ Pharmacist

Talk to Us
Did you participate in an event for National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day 2016?


more surveys
Contact Us
We welcome your comments!
[ about Smart + Strong | about POZ | POZ advisory board | partner links | advertising policy | advertise/contact us | site map]
© 2016 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy.
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.