Saturday, December 24, 2022

Panama aims for 'fair' deal with Canadian miner First Quantum

Story by By Valentine Hilaire and Steve Scherer • Yesterday 

PANAMA CITY (Reuters) -Panama's government is in talks with Canada-based miner First Quantum Minerals over the conditions under which it operates its flagship copper mine, the government's Chief Revenue Officer Publio De Gracia said on Friday.

The official from the country's economy and finance ministry said Panama was looking for a "fair" deal in which the company complies with the obligations its large operations demand.

"These activities are receiving important benefits and it is only fair that they comply with the obligations," he said, adding it was "more unfair" in view of the company's "very low" tax liability, exemptions and credits.

Panama's government on Monday ordered First Quantum to pause operations at the Cobre Panama mine after the company missed a deadline to finalize a deal that would have increased annual tax and royalties payments to the government to at least $375 million.


Related video: Can Canada capitalize on a potential treasure trove of critical minerals? (cbc.ca)  Duration 7:33    View on Watch


A key asset for both parties, Cobre Panama accounts for roughly 3.5% of the country's gross domestic product according to government figures, and according to a financial analyst generates around half of First Quantum's core earnings.

Canada's trade minister has been in contact with her counterpart in Panama in an effort to resolve the dispute, a Canadian government source said on Friday.

"Obviously, we have a keen interest in seeing resolution to this, and are optimistic that both parties are negotiating in good faith," said the source, who is familiar with the discussions.

First Quantum has disbursed more than $10 billion in the mine, according to its web page.

Zorel Morales, the director of Panama's mining chamber, said the dispute with First Quantum could have a dramatic fallout for the country, which has three other similar copper deposits that could generate up to $30 billion in future investments.

Some interested mining firms had categorically said that if the talks do not end well or end up in international courts they would not invest, added Morales, saying solving the dispute was "a matter of life or death" for the sector.

(Reporting by Valentine Hilaire in Panama City and Steve Scherer in Ottawa; Additional reporting by Elida Moreno in Panama City;Editing by Alistair Bell and Diane Craft)



STELTER: Many Canadians would welcome a return to mask mandates, poll shows

Opinion by Ryan Stelter • Thursday -Winnipeg Sun

All I want for Christmas is an N95 mask.


A wayward disposable face mask hangs on a street sign pole.

That is partly a joke as I will be taking some courses at the University of Manitoba next month so I likely will need some more masks as the school still has a mandate.

Interestingly, there are plenty of Canadians who would welcome a return to mask mandates, a new Angus Reid Institute poll shows.


I, like perhaps many of you, have not been so diligent in my mask-wearing as of late. Just 31% of Canadians polled say they are wearing a mask more than half of the time in public spaces.

Nearly a quarter of those who never wear masks say they would support a mask mandate if COVID-19 gets bad again while 65% of those who rarely but sometimes wear one also say they would accommodate a return to mandatory masking.

More than half of Manitobans polled (54%) would welcome a return to mandatory masking, which is a different outlook from July when only 49% would’ve liked to see a mask mandate.

Flu season has been a bad one, which has particularly hit children hard, coupled with COVID-19 still flying around it makes sense that there are those who would probably begrudgingly throw a mask back on if they become mandatory again.

This isn’t to say that we’re all eager to sling some N95s back over our ears, but I believe I speak for a lot of people when I say that I won’t enjoy it, but I’ll do it as it’s not the hardest thing in the world to do.

The science behind it makes sense and if wearing a mask can help prevent even one person — especially a child — from getting sick, I’d say it’s a success.

When it comes to vaccine passports, there aren’t that many who would welcome a reintroduction of those infamous QR codes. Only 21% support this while 42% say mask mandates nor vaccine passports should be reintroduced.

Not bringing back vaccine passports makes sense. It was helpful for a while and trust me, it didn’t create as much division as some will say. It turned restaurant employees into COVID-19 vaccine checkers and it also created a barrier for some who likely did get all of their shots. Whether it be access to technology or even identification.

It’s interesting to look back now at all the public health restrictions, which were in our lives not that long ago.

Perhaps it’s the fault of the government, or the media, but nearly half of Canadians aren’t thinking about COVID-19 that much anymore. Just last Christmas, we were bracing ourselves for the Omicron wave, which truly blew open the floodgates.

In Manitoba, 56% of people polled said they still think about the pandemic, which is higher than the national average.

Despite what this poll says, in all likelihood mask mandates won’t be reintroduced so you can breathe easy.

As it’s been since March 2022 when Manitoba dropped its restrictions — assess your own risk. You may not like that approach and wish the government did more, but this is the hand we’ve been dealt.

This means as we head into the holiday season filled with get-togethers and parties, stay home if you’re sick. It’s that simple. I believe the pandemic has created this idea that if you’re coughing up a lung but not testing positive for COVID, you’re fine. Nope, stay home.

This Christmas will look different than years past, there will be families and friends getting together for the first time in a long time. Be mindful of what everyone’s gone through and be compassionate.

rstelter@postmedia.com

Twitter: @steltsy94
Canada's grants for master's, PhD students haven't increased since 2003. These researchers want that changed

Story by Mike Crawley • CBC - TODAY

Students doing graduate-level research say Canada risks losing its future scientists to other countries because the dollar amounts of annual grants have remained stagnant for nearly 20 years.


Sarah Laframboise, a PhD student in biochemistry at the University of Ottawa's faculty of medicine, is one of the leaders of the group Support Our Science, which wants the Trudeau government to increase the annual federal grants provided to graduate student researchers.© Pierre-Paul Couture/CBC

A Canada Graduate Scholarship from one of the three federal research funding agencies is $17,500 per year for a master's student or $21,000 per year for a doctoral student. Those amounts have not changed since 2003.

In return for that funding, the recipients are expected to work full-time on their research, and in some cases are explicitly banned from spending more than 10 hours per week on any other paid employment.

"Definitely below the poverty line in any capacity," said Sarah Laframboise, a PhD student in biochemistry at the University of Ottawa.

Laframboise is one of the organizers of a campaign called Support Our Science, calling on the Trudeau government to boost graduate student funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

The three federal agencies fund the research of thousands of grad students every year at universities across Canada.

"These students really deserve a living wage," said Laframboise. "They're struggling to pay rent, tuition, all of these costs."

Grants haven't grown with inflation

Support Our Science has held a rally on Parliament Hill, presented a petition to the House of Commons and prepared a submission for the federal government's budget consultations.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, François-Philippe Champagne, said he is aware of the call for more funding for graduate researchers.

Recommended video: Lost pigeon flew the coop, finding her way from France to Calgary (Global News)  View on Watch


"I'm very much seized about that. This is going to be part of our discussions with the minister of finance," Champagne told CBC News earlier in December, adding that students should "stay tuned" for the 2023 budget.


"It's clear that if we want to own the podium, we need to do more to support the researchers, the students and the scientists," said Champagne.

He said the Trudeau government has invested in science and research, but Laframboise argues that those investments have not resulted in better annual funding to graduate students.

Her group wants the government to increase both the value and number of scholarships and fellowships that the three agencies give to graduate researchers.

"They often spend 40 to 60 hours a week in the lab doing their research," Laframboise said. "So when we look at it from this perspective, these students really deserve a living wage."

Inflation has eroded the value of the grants. If the $17,500 amount for a master's student researcher had risen with inflation since 2003, it would today be worth $26,140, according to the Bank of Canada's inflation calculator.

A feeling of 'generalized anxiety'

Jessica Reid, a master's student in fish ecology at Carleton University in Ottawa, says she has had to seek extra funding beyond her NSERC award to support her research and cover her costs.

"I'm one of the fortunate ones," Reid said in an interview. "There's just this feeling of generalized anxiety. Sometimes you are trying to make ends meet, or you're trying to decide between groceries and other things."

When she learned that the NSERC grant to a master's student had not changed for nearly 20 years, Reid said she found it shocking.

"It's quite frustrating to hear that my research and my contributions aren't valued," she said. "You just can't help but feel a bit slighted."

Both Reid and Laframboise believe their research is important. Laframboise's biochemistry work focuses on cancer, using yeast.

"Yeast and humans share about 30 per cent of the same genes," she said. "I study a gene that in humans causes cancer, but in yeast we can study this in a much more robust, easy, cheaper way."

Reid is researching the impact of urban development on the fish of the Jock River, which flows into the Rideau River in Ottawa.

She says the stagnant funding is a factor in Canadian students deciding to leave the country for graduate degrees.

"Feeling like you can't thrive or you just don't have the resources to stay in this field is definitely going to dampen Canada's research ability in the coming years," she said.
The Sex of Your Surgeon Is, in Fact, a Matter of Life or Death

Story by Danielle Groen •

Early this year, a Canadian study published in JAMA Surgery confirmed what many patients, especially female patients, have long suspected: The sex of your surgeon absolutely matters when it comes to your outcome in the operating room. Female physicians got better results. But it turns out that the sex of the patient matters in the OR, as well—and can even mean the difference between life and death.


Angela Jerath, an associate professor of anesthesiology at the University of Toronto, and her colleague Christopher Wallis, an assistant professor of surgery in the department of urology, canvassed the records of more than 1.3 million men and women, operated on by nearly 3,000 surgeons in Ontario over 12 years. They controlled for as many factors as possible: the age, income, and health status of the patients; the age and experience level of the surgeons; whether the surgery was performed in a small community hospital or a major medical centre. Overall, Jerath and Wallis discovered, more than 17 percent of patients suffered adverse effects within 30 days of the procedure—8.7 percent of them had complications, 6.7 percent were readmitted to hospital, 1.7 percent died. Not the best.

But when they broke down those results by sex, something more troubling emerged. “We found that female patients treated by male surgeons had 15 percent greater odds of adverse outcomes than female patients treated by female surgeons,” Jerath says. Worse still: Women operated on by a male surgeon were 32 percent more likely to die.


Here, Jerath unpacks those astonishing findings and explains how on earth we can fill the gap in care for female patients.

(Related: Women’s Health Collective Canada Is Addressing the Gap in Women’s Health)


Jerath Angela Highres 
Image: Sabrina Sisco

Why did you want to explore this area in the first place?

Chris Wallis had done some earlier work that looked at differences in outcomes between male and female surgeons, using a similar dataset from Ontario health care. That paper signalled that female surgeons across different specialities are having better outcomes than their male counterparts. And we weren’t really sure why. To be honest, we’re still trying to work out why. But one of the areas of interest was whether the interaction between the sex of the physician and the sex of the patient matters.

How did you go about measuring whether it matters?


We have the luxury of lots of health care databases in Ontario, and they’re completely anonymized. We looked at the pairings between the sex of the patient and the physician—so you’ve got four combinations—and we looked at its impact on death, readmission to hospital, or complications after surgery within 30 days. This was on around 21 surgical procedural groups, from things that are really complex, like cardiac bypass surgeries, to common bread-and-butter stuff, like having your hip or knee replaced. We were able to adjust for a lot of things that affect outcomes, like the age of the patient or the experience of the surgeon. We jam-packed those things into the model and came out with the numbers that you see.
Let’s talk about those numbers.

They’re pretty scary.

What did you think when you first saw them?

I was personally taken aback. We had a lot of internal discussions and went through the data again. Chris had done that earlier work, so we knew there was a signal here, but we just didn’t know how big the signal was going to be. It’s important to understand what those numbers might mean. They’re what we call relative numbers. Women having surgery with a male surgeon, relative to a female surgeon, had a 32 percent increased risk for death. That means if your risk for death coming in for surgery is, let’s say, one percent, then it’s 32 percent of that one percent—so the combined outcome is about 1.3 percent. That’s how to mentally compute what you’re seeing.

But should there be a difference at all?

No. And that needs a deep dive. We saw this difference across a lot of surgeries, and there were 1.3 million procedures in our database. Given that volume, we don’t sense that this is some technical thing in the operating room. The operating room is just one part of your surgical experience, which starts as soon as you step into the hospital and meet the team.

What do you think is going on here?

There may be differences around communication, understanding what a patient wants; perhaps there’s a difference in decision-making. Very few people die in the operating room. Most things happen after surgery, and picking up on those complications early can be life-saving. Perhaps men and women physicians are communicating with their teams differently. Perhaps they’re listening to patients differently. There are a lot of subtleties, which I will say don’t get taught at medical school, that might feed into some of those adverse outcomes. There are likely to be differences in style that we can all learn from.


Better communicators, better listeners—not to truck in gigantic generalizations, but that does sound like women to me. Has that been your experience working as an anesthesiologist in the operating room?


I’d say I work with great people, technically and clinically, everywhere. I find women will communicate a bit more. And if I’m concerned about something and we need to pause or think or go faster or whatever, I find they listen. It is a bit of a generalization. There are some men who do that really well. There are probably some women who do that really badly. But I’m starting to see more women surgeons—more women in leadership generally—from when I was a medical student 20 years ago. To get where they are, women often have to do much more; they’ve got to tap into tons of skills, go the umpteenth mile.

And have you noticed differences in female patients, in terms of how they might discuss their symptoms—or how they might be received by surgeons of the opposite sex?

I find women will ask more questions, but you know, how you ask your questions often dictates what’s underneath. Maybe you’re a bit nervous, or you need more reassurance about why something is important, or you may not want to do a procedure. A lot of conversation often means something else. How we perceive that information, as physicians, is so important.

How do we begin to fill this gap?

We’ve highlighted an issue, and now we need different researchers to come in. Understanding more about risk might be important. Are there patients we’re considering operating on who can get through the operation, but perhaps run into issues more frequently after surgery? And then we need researchers with an anthropological or psychology background to really dive into differences in communication style.
What has the response to this paper been like? I imagine some people in the medical community might be a bit…resistant to the findings.

It’s been a mixed bag. A lot of women feel vindicated and that their work has been recognized. There have been some male surgeons who have come up to me and said, “This is fantastic; you’ve highlighted an important area.” There’s a group in the middle who are quiet. And then there are people who are angry. We’ve had those emails, those messages on Twitter, where people feel their whole practice has been affected and are taking it very personally. Male surgeons in particular have taken it very personally.

Should they?

Our response has been that this is a very macro-level study. That’s what big data is really good at doing—it highlights something. But it’s generalistic. It can never make an inference on your individual practice.

Since we’re on a macro level, I imagine it’s a long process to turn around these disparities in care.

Probably. If there was, let’s say, a lot of funding, it would be easier to carve out lots of topics to start examining which would help accelerate us forward. But a subject like this, which is more embedded in the health equity and disparity space, is becoming more of a core subject. People are understanding that this isn’t just dinner-party conversation. There’s real science to behold here.

Next: How Heart Disease Affects Women Differently Than Men

The post The Sex of Your Surgeon Is, in Fact, a Matter of Life or Death appeared first on Best Health.
How equity, diversity and inclusion policies are becoming a tool for capitalism

The Conversation

Story by Aryan Karimi, Assistant Professor, Sociology, University of British Columbia • Thursday

In capitalistic economies like those in the West, wealth and status accumulation often drive our every endeavour.


At corporations and organizations like universities, policies meant to promote equity, diversity and inclusion are being used to enhance wealth and status.
© (Sam Balye, Unsplash)

Education, skills training and social networks, among other aspects, become tools that we use in this rat race to push ahead for our interests.

Such questionable ethics seem ripe for a reassessment.

I once believed equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policies for government and industry could help.

In 2016, while at the University of Alberta’s Office of Employment Equity, I co-authored a preliminary Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Educational Framework. At the time, my understanding was that EDI policies were primarily a set of tools that we could use to have conversations about individual stories and backgrounds, unconscious biases and our common traits as human beings.

As such, EDI conversations would mean that people could share their concerns and shed prejudices; they could feel that they were being seen and heard for who they are.

My goal was to implement EDI policies to prepare future generations for “democratic citizenship.” Increasingly, however, I am seeing a 180-degree shift in how EDI is understood and used at individual and institutional levels.

Three components of EDI


Recent employment data on public service employees and large higher-education institutions across Canada show a remarkably diverse workforce. This is an admirable achievement. But diversity shouldn’t be mistaken for equity and inclusion.

Liberal MP Arielle Kayabaga speaks as she joins Ahmed Hussen, minister of housing and diversity and inclusion, at a news conference in Ottawa in October 2022 on support for Black community initiatives.
© THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

The equity component of EDI policies emphasizes the need to lift up individuals. They require an equitable redistribution of institutional resources. The inclusion component calls for conversations to help us learn about different ways of life.

The problem is that in our capitalist economy, equity and inclusion have been sidelined. Instead, diversity — involving characteristics that include gender, race and sexual orientation — has become yet another tool to accumulate resources and social status.

Take the case of contested identity claims, the “pretendians” who claim to be of Indigenous heritage. In Canada and the United States, pretendians can leverage EDI policies and abuse their supposed Indigenous status to gain employment and financial resources or capital.

Read more: We need a better understanding of race, 'status' and indigeneity in Canada

Meantime, Indigenous people — many of whom don’t have basic resources to begin with — are left behind, if not intentionally kept back by the state and various institutions.

In both public and private sectors, EDI policies are seemingly falling short of creating an inclusionary workplace. Instead of providing institution-wide opportunities for dialogue among employees to create inclusionary spaces, institutions now see the diversity component of EDI as a means of ticking boxes and improving their institutional status.

Diversity becomes a ranking tool

For example, in the case of universities, it used to be common to count the total numbers of publications and professor-student ratio to rank them. Now diversity has become an additional metric.



This means that universities are motivated to hire from marginalized groups. This helps the institutions climb in the ranks, attracts more students who might be mindful of diversity and ultimately makes the university eligible to receive larger financial grants and donations.

Again, diversity has not necessarily meant a more equitable campus community, although some certainly pursue this goal. The newly hired members of the marginalized groups often remain on the margins of these institutions.

Read more: Being the 'only one' at work and the decades long fight against anti-Black racism

These individuals — token representations of diversity — help enhance the institutions’ rankings while losing their own voice and identity to the very same institutions. Their politics, stories and self-expression have to either fade into the institutionalized way of life at their workplace, or, to survive, they must learn not to challenge the dominant traditions.


A cyclist is seen on the University of Saskatchewan campus in Saskatoon, Sask., in May 2022.© THE CANADIAN PRESS/Heywood Yu

Diversity, but no equity or inclusion

EDI initiatives now seem to be focused primarily on diversity without equity and inclusion. And diversity has become a metric of assessing achievements and rankings. It’s no surprise that individuals and institutions like universities might use diversity to compete for resources and status.

Unfortunately, the singular focus on diversity doesn’t recognize an equitable redistribution of resources and an inclusionary workplace as important goals and values.

Research shows that diversity without effective communication and collaboration across groups results in “silo” scenarios. Power struggles increase as individuals team up as group members and categorize others as outsiders who must be kept from accessing resources.

Using diversity for status and financial benefit is the antithesis of EDI as a tool for democratic and equitable citizenship where all voices are heard and supported. There must be a better way to promote EDI without falling into the capitalistic trap of competitions for resources and status.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:
Gender parity and queer awareness needed in mathematics
Pharma's expensive gaming of the drug patent system is successfully countered by the Medicines Patent Pool, which increases global access and rewards innovation

Story by Lucy Xiaolu Wang, Assistant Professor of Resource Economics, UMass Amherst • 

Biomedical innovation reached a new era during the COVID-19 pandemic as drug development went into overdrive. But the ways that brand companies license their patented drugs grant them market monopoly, preventing other entities from making generics so they can exclusively profit. This significantly limits the reach of lifesaving drugs, especially to low- and middle-income countries, or LMICs.


Drug patents don't necessarily spur companies to innovate so much as restrict access to their IP.
Andrii Zastrozhnov/iStock via Getty Images Plus

I am an economist who studies innovation and digitization in health care markets. Growing up in a developing region in China with limited access to medications inspired my interest in institutional innovations that can facilitate drug access. One such innovation is a patent pool, or a “one-stop shop” where entities can pay one low price for permission to make and distribute all the treatments covered by the pool. My recent research found that a patent pool geared toward public health can spur not only generic drug access in LMICs but also innovation for pharmaceutical companies.

Drug patents in the global landscape


Patents are designed to provide incentives for innovation by granting monopoly power to patent holders for a period of time, typically 20 years from the application filing date.

However, this intention is complicated by strategic patenting. For example, companies can delay the creation of generic versions of a drug by obtaining additional patents based on slight changes to its formulation or method of use, among other tactics. This “evergreens” the company’s patent portfolio without requiring substantial new investments in research and development.

Furthermore, because patents are jurisdiction-specific, patent rights granted in the U.S. do not automatically apply to other countries. Firms often obtain multiple patents covering the same drug in different countries, adapting claims based on what is patentable in each jurisdiction.

To incentivize technology transfer to low- and middle-income countries, member nations of the World Trade Organization signed the 1995 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS, which set the minimum standards for intellectual property regulation. Under TRIPS, governments and generic drug manufacturers in low- and middle-income countries may infringe on or invalidate patents to bring down patented drug prices under certain conditions. Patents in LMICs were also strengthened to incentivize firms from high-income countries to invest and trade with LMICs.



The 2001 Doha Declaration clarified the scope of TRIPS, emphasizing that patent regulations should not prevent drug access during public health crises. It also allowed compulsory licensing, or the production of patented products or processes without the consent of the patent owner.

One notable example of national patent law in practice after TRIPS is Novartis’ anticancer drug imatinib (Glivec or Gleevec). In 2013, India’s Supreme Court denied Novartis’s patent application for Glivec for obviousness, meaning both experts or the general public could arrive at the invention themselves without requiring much skill or thought. The issue centered on whether new forms of known substances, in this case a crystalline form of imatinib, were too obvious to be patentable. At the time, Glivec had already been patented in 40 other countries. As a result of India’s landmark ruling, the price of Glivec dropped from 150,000 INR (about US,200) to 6,000 INR () for one month of treatment.

Patent challenges and pools


Although TRIPS seeks to balance incentives for innovation with access to patented technologies, issues with patents still remain. Drug cocktails, for example, can contain multiple patented compounds, each of which can be owned by different companies. Overlapping patent rights can create a “patent thicket” that blocks commercialization. Treatments for chronic conditions that require a stable and inexpensive supply of generics also pose a challenge, as the cost burden of long-term use of patented drugs is often unaffordable for patients in low- and middle-income countries.

One solution to these drug access issues is patent pools. In contrast to the currently decentralized licensing market, where each technology owner negotiates separately with each potential licensee, a patent pool provides a “one-stop shop” where licensees can get the rights for multiple patents at the same time. This can reduce transaction costs, royalty stacking and hold-up problems in drug commercialization.

Patent pools were first used in 1856 for sewing machines and were once ubiquitous across multiple industries. Patent pools gradually disappeared after a 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that increased regulatory scrutiny, hindering the formation of new pools. Patent pools were later revived in the 1990s in response to licensing challenges in the information and communication technology sector.

The Medicines Patent Pool


Despite many challenges, the first patent pool created for the purpose of promoting public health formed in 2010 with support from the United Nations and Unitaid. The Medicines Patent Pool, or MPP, aims to spur generic licensing for patented drugs that treat diseases disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries. Initially covering only HIV drugs, the MPP later expanded to include hepatitis C and tuberculosis drugs, many medications on the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list and, most recently, COVID-19 treatments and technologies.

But how much has the MPP improved drug access?


I sought to answer this question by examining how the Medicines Patent Pool has affected generic drug distribution in low- and middle-income countries and biomedical research and development in the U.S. To analyze the MPP’s influence on expanding access to generic drugs, I collected data on drug licensing contracts, procurement, public and private patents and other economic variables from over 100 low- and middle-income countries. To analyze the MPP’s influence on pharmaceutical innovation, I examined data on new clinical trials and new drug approvals over this period. This data spanned from 2000 to 2017.

I found that the MPP led to a 7% increase in the share of generic drugs supplied to LMICs. Increases were greater in countries where drugs are patented and in countries outside of sub-Saharan Africa, where baseline generic shares are lower and can benefit more from market-based licensing.

I also found that the MPP generated positive spillover effects for innovation. Firms outside the pool increased the number of trials they conducted on drug cocktails that included MPP compounds, while branded drug firms participating in the pool shifted their focus to developing new compounds. This suggests that the MPP allowed firms outside the pool to explore new and better ways to use MPP drugs, such as in new study populations or different treatment combinations, while brand name firms participating in the pool could spend more resources to develop new drugs.

The MPP was also able to lessen the burden of post-market surveillance for branded firms, allowing them to push new drugs through clinical trials while generic and other independent firms could monitor the safety and efficacy of approved drugs more cheaply.

Overall, my analysis shows the MPP effectively expanded generic access to HIV drugs in developing countries without diminishing innovation incentives. In fact, it even spurred companies to make better use of existing drugs.

Technology licensing for COVID-19 and beyond

Since May 2020, the Medicines Patent Pool has become a key partner of the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, which works to spur equitable and affordable access to COVID-19 health products globally. The MPP has not only made licensing for COVID-19 health products more accessible to low- and middle-income countries, but also helped establish an mRNA vaccine technology transfer hub in South Africa to provide the technological training needed to develop and sell products treating COVID-19 and beyond.

Licensing COVID-19-related technologies can be complicated by the large amount of trade secrets involved in producing drugs derived from biological sources. These often require additional technology transfer beyond patents, such as manufacturing details. The MPP has also worked to communicate with brand firms, generic manufacturers and public health agencies in low- and middle-income countries to close the licensing knowledge gap.

Questions remain on how to best use licensing institutions like the MPP to increase generic drug access without hampering the incentive to innovate. But the MPP is proving that it is possible to align the interests of Big Pharma and generic manufacturers to save more lives in developing countries. In October 2022, the MPP signed a licensing agreement with Novartis for the leukemia drug nilotinib – the first time a cancer drug has come under a public health-oriented licensing agreement.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:

The US drug industry used to oppose patents – what changed?

Lucy Xiaolu Wang receives research funding from Cornell University and the Institute for Humane Studies.
PROTECTIONI$T NATIONALI$M
Brexit has cracked Britain's economic foundations

Story by Hanna Ziady • CNN

It’s been two years since former Prime Minister Boris Johnson signed his Brexit trade deal and triumphantly declared that Britain would be “prosperous, dynamic and contented” after completing its exit from the European Union.

Brexit costs government £40bn a year in lost tax revenue
Duration 2:33  View on Watch

The Brexit deal would enable UK companies to “do even more business” with the European Union, according to Johnson, and would leave Britain free to strike trade deals around the world while continuing to export seamlessly to the EU market of 450 million consumers.

In reality, Brexit has hobbled the UK economy, which remains the only member of the G7 — the group of advanced economies that also includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States — with an economy smaller than it was before the pandemic.

Years of uncertainty over the future trading relationship with the European Union, Britain’s largest trading partner, have damaged business investment, which in the third quarter was 8% below pre-pandemic levels despite a UK-EU trade deal being in place for nearly two years.

And the pound has taken a beating, making imports more expensive and stoking inflation while failing to boost exports, even as other parts of the world have enjoyed a post-pandemic trade boom.

Brexit has erected trade barriers for UK businesses and foreign companies that used Britain as a European base. It’s weighing on imports and exports, sapping investment and contributing to labor shortages. All this has exacerbated Britain’s inflation problem, hurting workers and the business community.

“The most plausible reason as to why Britain is doing comparatively worse than comparable countries is Brexit,” according to L. Alan Winters, co-director of the Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy at the University of Sussex.

The sense of gloom hanging over the UK economy is captured by striking workers, who are walking out in ever larger numbers over pay and conditions as the worst inflation in decades eats into their wages. At the same time, the government is cutting spending and hiking taxes to fill the hole in its budget.

While Brexit isn’t the cause of Britain’s cost-of-living crisis, it has made the problem more difficult to solve.

“The UK chose Brexit in a referendum, but the government then chose a particularly hard form of Brexit, which maximized the economic cost,” said Michael Saunders, a senior adviser at Oxford Economics and former Bank of England official. “Any hope for economic upside from Brexit is pretty much gone.”



NHS nurses strike over pay outside St Thomas' Hospital in London on December 20, 2022. - Maja Smiejkowska/Reuters


Businesses count the cost

Although Britain voted to leave the European Union in June 2016, its exit from the single market and customs union was finalized only on December 24, 2020, when the two sides finally agreed a free trade deal.

The Brexit deal, known as the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, came into effect on January 1, 2021.

It eliminated tariffs on most goods but introduced a raft of non-tariff barriers, such as border controls, customs checks, import duties and health inspections on plant and animal products.

Before Brexit, a farmer in Kent could ship a truckload of potatoes to Paris just as easily as they might send it to London. Those days are no more.

“We hear stories every single day from small businesses about the nightmare of forms, transportation, couriers, things getting stuck for weeks at a time… the epic length of the problems is just gobsmacking,” said Michelle Ovens, the founder of Small Business Britain, a campaign group.

“The way things have panned out in the last two years has been really bad for small businesses,” Ovens told CNN.

Researchers at the London School of Economics estimate that the variety of UK products exported to the European Union declined by 30% during the first year of Brexit. They said that this was likely because small exporters had exited small EU markets.

Take the example of Little Star, a UK company that makes jewelry for children. Its business took off in the Netherlands and it had plans to expand to France and Germany next. But since Brexit, only two of more than 30 of its Dutch customers are prepared to handle the costs and paperwork to obtain stock from the company.

Products that took two days to ship are now taking three weeks, while import duties and sales taxes have made it much harder to compete with European jewelers, according to Rob Walker, who co-founded the business with his wife, Vicky, in 2017. The company is now looking to the United States for growth opportunities.

“Isn’t it mad that we have to look to the other side of the Atlantic to do business, because it’s so difficult to do business with people 30 miles away?” Walker said.



A truck passes a Union Jack, at the Port of Dover on April 1, 2021. The UK government has delayed post-Brexit checks on EU food imports until the end of 2023.
 - Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg/Getty Images

A British Chambers of Commerce survey of more than 1,168 businesses published this month reported that 77% said Brexit has not helped them increase sales or grow their businesses. More than half said they were finding it difficult to adapt to the new rules for trading goods.

Siteright Construction Supplies, a manufacturer in Dorset, told the Chamber that importing parts from the European Union to fix broken machines has become a costly and “time-consuming nightmare.”

“Brexit has been the biggest-ever imposition of bureaucracy on business,” according to Siteright.

Nova Dog Chews, a producer of snacks for canines, said it would have lost all its EU trade had it not set up a base in the bloc. “This has cost our business a huge amount of money, which could have been invested in the UK had it not been for Brexit,” it added.

A UK government spokesperson told CNN that the government’s export support service has provided exporters with “practical support” on the implementation of the Brexit deal. The deal is “the world’s largest zero tariff, zero quota free trade deal,” the spokesperson added. “It secures the UK market access across key service sectors and opens new opportunities for UK businesses across the globe.”

Permanent damage to trade


Britain won’t easily replace what it has lost by forfeiting unfettered access to the world’s largest trading bloc.

The only substantive new trade deals it has struck since exiting the European Union, which did not simply roll over the deals it had as an EU member, have been with Australia and New Zealand. By the government’s own estimate, these will have a negligible impact on the UK economy, increasing GDP in the long run by just 0.1% and 0.03% respectively.

By contrast, the UK Office for Budget Responsibility, which produces economic forecasts for the government, expects Brexit to reduce Britain’s output by 4% over 15 years compared to remaining in the bloc. Exports and imports are projected to be around 15% lower in the long run.

Initial data has borne this out. According to the OBR, in the fourth quarter of 2021, UK goods export volumes to the European Union were 9% below 2019 levels, with imports from the European Union 18% lower. Goods exports to non-EU countries were 18% weaker than in 2019.

The United Kingdom “appears to have become a less trade-intensive economy, with trade as a share of GDP falling 12% since 2019, two and a half times more than in any other G7 country,” the OBR said in the March report.

The decline in exports to non-EU countries could be a sign that UK businesses have become less competitive as they battle higher supply chain costs following Brexit, according to Jun Du, an economics professor at Aston University in Birmingham.

“The UK’s trading ability has been damaged permanently [by Brexit],” Du told CNN. “It doesn’t mean it can’t recover, but it’s been set back for a number of years.”

Research by the Centre for European Reform, a think tank, estimates that over the 18 months to June 2022, UK goods trade is 7% lower than it would have been had Britain remained in the European Union.

Investment is 11% weaker and GDP is 5.5% smaller than it would have been, costing the economy £40 billion ($48.4 billion) in tax revenues annually. That’s enough to pay for three quarters of the spending cuts and tax rises that UK finance minister Jeremy Hunt announced in November.

A heavy economic toll

The United Kingdom is projected to have one of the worst performing economies next year among developed nations.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development expects the UK economy to shrink by 0.4%, ahead only of sanctioned Russia. GDP in Germany is forecast to be 0.3% smaller.

The International Monetary Fund forecasts growth of just 0.3% for UK GDP next year, ahead of only Germany, Italy and Russia, which are expected to contract.

Both institutions say high inflation and rising interest rates will weigh on spending by consumers and businesses in Britain.

According to the Confederation of British Industry, a leading business group, the fall in private sector activity picked up pace in December and has now declined for five consecutive quarters.

The downward trend “looks set to deepen” in 2023, principal economist at the CBI Martin Sartorius said in a statement.

“Businesses continue to face a number of headwinds, with rising costs, labor shortages, and weakening demand contributing to a gloomy outlook for next year. ”

— Julia Horowitz contributed to this report.




On the Question of Free Trade

Karl Marx



[Marx delivered this address before the
Democratic Association of Brusels, 9 January, 1848]



At the end of 1847, Brussels had hosted a "Free Trade Congress," which was designed to further the general Free Trade campaign English manufacturers were waging. In 1846, the English bourgeoisie repealed England's Corn Laws and were ready to take their cause abroad.

Marx asked for a slot to speak, but the Congress closed before his name could come up on the lists. So instead he delivered his speech to the Democratic Association -- of which he was among the vice-presidents.

When the Free Trade question raged again in the late 1880s, Marx's speech was reissued in English, with a lengthy introduction by Engels. "Free Trade vs. Protectionism" is a question that remains periodically relevant as long as capitalism exists. Indeed, when the recent US-Canada-Mexico Free Trade negotiations took place in the early 1990s, even the New York Times felt compelled to quote Marx's speech.
Marx's speech was transcribed in French in February 1848 and published in Brussels. Later that year, it was translated into German and published in Germany.


https://cooperative-individualism.org/marx-karl_on-the-question-of-free-trade-1848.htm


 

CONVERSION THERAPY
"Homo healers“ are not forbidden – but they should be
Story by Refresh News • 8h ago


Provided by Refresh Lifestyle CAEN

When you’re sick, you go to the doctor. And if you’re homosexual, then you go into treatment. Sounds logical doesn’t it? That is at least the point of view of some organizations, mainly Christian ones, that offer such treatments: “re-educate” homosexuals. That’s no longer the case in New York. The US state banned so-called conversion therapies, at least for minors, a few days ago. It’s the 15th state to outlaw the expertly-disapproved practice of converting homosexuals to heterosexuality.

But hey, that doesn’t matter! In Germany you can still do it. Political parties have repeatedly pushed for a ban, and doctors and psychotherapists warn of the serious damage caused by the „re-education“. Nevertheless, conversion therapies are still allowed in our country. How can that be? And how does conversion therapy actually work?
 
Mental pressure, cold showers and nude dances

What happens when trying to get a “patient” on the path to heterosexuality can only be guessed at. There are only a few testimonials on the internet. Former participants report from talk therapies, in which they are drummed into thinking that they are not „normal“, that their physical feelings are not right. And they are alone in that. Others even tell of physical torment and weekends away from civilization, with cold showers and nude dancing. Even if no organization openly offers conversion therapy, evangelical and Christian groups with such offers are particularly noticeable: In 2014, the Christian association for life orientation in Germany made headlines with itthat he classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder and promotes treatments. That came out in a question that the Greens asked in the Bundestag at the time. Other clubs that appear there: The Association of Catholic Doctors, the White Cross, desert power and the Offensive Young Christians.



Doctors and the church are also against the therapy

In the eyes of these associations, homosexuality is a disease that can – and must – be cured. Sexual orientation has long been recognized as such: the American Psychiatric Association removed it from its diagnostic classification system as early as 1974, and the World Health Organization followed suit in 1992. Scientists and doctors have long agreed that homosexuality is not “abnormal”. The German Medical Association, the World Medical Association and civil rights organizations have years ago public statements submitted, in which they expressly reject conversion therapies. Even the evangelical church in central Germany did that. Only politicians have not yet managed to ban the „re-education therapies“ by law.

„Charlatans who make sick instead of healing“


And that’s dangerous. Experts classify the consequences of such therapy, especially for young people, as serious: there is talk of Fears, social isolation, depression and even suicide. Volker Beck, then a member of the Bundestag for the Greens, formulated it even more strikingly some time ago: „Homo healers are charlatans and make people ill instead of healing.“ So: Conversion therapies are a violation of human rights. And have long been banned.

New York and EU: A wake-up call? Hopefully!


Because for the clubs it is probably one thing above all: quick money. For example, homosexuals pay 600 dollars for conversion therapy in the USA – for a single weekend. And in Germany? It could even happen that the health insurance pays in the end. This also settles the bills for psychotherapeutic sessions on which no therapy goal is noted.

Germany is damn late. The US shows them how, and the European Parliament voted by a large majority just last year to ban conversion therapy by law.This actually lays a foundation stone that Germany should urgently build on now.







DONATE TO UNRWA

 



As we approach the end of the year, we tend to look back and reflect on how this year has passed and what it meant for us. We also look ahead and hope that next year will be happier, healthier, and safer. 

Nadine is reflecting too. She is an eloquent and passionate 11-year-old Palestine refugee who wrote a letter to the world. A letter that speaks straight to the heart, expressing the hope of millions of Palestine refugee children.

The suffering of Palestine refugee children pushes their psychological and physical condition to the brink. Nadine is a child with hopes and dreams. She asks the world for a chance to live peacefully and enjoy her fundamental human rights, such as education, proper nutrition, safety, and security. 

 During this holiday season, seize the opportunity today and lend a caring hand to Palestine refugees. As Nadine said, we will not forget your kindness.  

Tis the season of giving

With immense gratitude,
Yasmine El-Maghrabi
Digital Engagement Officer, UNRWA

Trans Mountain pipeline fine for bird disturbances upheld while penalty slashed

Yesterday 

A review panel is upholding a fine against the Trans Mountain pipeline for violations that resulted in disturbing bird nests.

But the Canada Energy Regulator is dramatically slashing the amount of the penalty from $88,000 in the original ruling to $4,000.

In February, the regulator found the pipeline company hadn't given its contractors enough environmental training.

That resulted in the destruction or disturbance of the nests of three robins and one Anna's hummingbird.

Trans Mountain appealed the ruling, but a majority of the panel agreed with the investigator who laid the charge.

In its written decision, the panel concluded Trans Mountain broke the rules by failing to adequately implement environmental safeguards it had promised.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 23, 2022.