Reports Search

1. Suman Majumdar

   Brendan Crabb

2. Emma Pakula

   Stuart Turville

Since it was detected in August 2023, the JN.1 variant of COVID has spread widely. It has become dominant in Australia and around the world, driving the biggest COVID wave seen in many jurisdictions for at least the past year.

On December 22, 2023, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department Office for Global Affairs requested comments “on the Implications of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Commitments/Regimes and Other Proposed Commitments Being Considered Under a WHO Convention, Agreement or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.”

See comments submitted by Public Citizen and civil society below:

In a significant decision this week, the WHO Executive Board has set in motion the process to help WHO raise resources through an “Investment Round” later in 2024. This is even as other detailed measures are being put in place for greater transparency and accountability to not only ensure how WHO manages and spends its money, but also how it uses its resources to set priorities. Member states are taking active and serious interest in reforming the way WHO conducts its business. But some stakeholders are also wary whether efficiency in spending could be used as a political tool to tightly circumscribe what WHO can and cannot do.

There is a global lack of preparedness and reactive responses when confronted with emerging epidemic threats, a concerning lack of investment in the R&D vaccine and therapeutics pipeline, and signs of waning focus on pandemic preparedness, according to a new report by the International Pandemic Preparedness Secretariat (IPPS).

By Nirmalya Syam and Muhammad Zaheer Abbas, PhD

There is a global lack of preparedness and reactive responses when confronted with emerging epidemic threats, a concerning lack of investment in the R&D vaccine and therapeutics pipeline, and signs of waning focus on pandemic preparedness, according to a new report by the International Pandemic Preparedness Secretariat (IPPS).

Lower Drug Costs Are Just a Federal License Away. But They Require Biden Administration Leadership

It’s a longstanding government failure to never use federal “march-in”

licensing rights to lower drug prices. It’s also a mistake to limit them to only a few cases

JANUARY 23, 2024

BY JAMES LOVE

In December the White House announced a new draft guidance that allows federal agencies to grant nonvoluntary licenses to patents on inventions funded with taxpayer dollars. These are called “march-in” rights, and they allow the government to force licensing, when necessary, to remedy an abuse or nonuse of such patented inventions.

The draft guidance fundamentally changes policy on federally funded inventions, including drugs and other products that rely on inventions that are sold at high prices by pharma and biotech companies. In doing so, it flexes a muscle that past administrations feared to brandish.

…  The addition of SII to the CEPI manufacturing network will be a significant boost to vaccine production efforts in Global South regions and will mean the world is better prepared to achieve the 100 Days Mission to develop new vaccines against known or novel infectious diseases within three months of a pandemic threat being recognised. To prepare for such a scenario, CEPI is investing up to $30 million to build upon SII’s proven track record of rapid response to outbreaks of infectious disease, expanding the company’s existing ability to swiftly supply investigational vaccines in the face of epidemic and pandemic threats. This would then enable CEPI-backed vaccine developers to quickly transfer their technology to SII within days or weeks of an outbreak to begin rapid production and equitable distribution of affordable vaccines to affected populations. … Given SII’s already proven production capabilities, in the event of an outbreak the company may be called upon to promptly supply investigational vaccines for preclinical and clinical testing as well as large-scale supply.

Misinformation, waning interest and entrenched positions threaten the World Health Organization’s (WHO) two pandemic-related negotiations aimed at strengthening future pandemic responses, according to a briefing given to the WHO executive board meeting on Monday. Draft agreements from the two processes – to establish a pandemic accord and to update the International Health Regulations (IHR) – are due to be presented to the World Health Assembly in May. But agreement will only be reached if member states are prepared to compromise and push back against “fake news, lies and conspiracy theories”, said WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. A global misinformation campaign is pushing the notion that the pandemic agreement and changes to the IHR will “cede sovereignty to WHO and give the WHO Secretariat the power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries”, said Tedros. “We cannot allow this milestone in global health to be sabotaged by those who spread lies, either deliberately or unknowingly.

… As an international medical humanitarian organisation that provides medical care to people during crises, Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) has responded to many infectious disease outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics over the last 50 years. These experiences have shown that timely, equitable and affordable access to medical products such as medicines, vaccines and diagnostic tests is crucial for an effective response to health emergencies. Based on our experiences, we believe that governments must take the following steps to ensure that the global pandemic accord safeguards access to medical products. … [1. Prioritise global equitable access and medical humanitarian needs in international stockpiling and allocation efforts; 2. Address intellectual property challenges for the protection of the right to health and access to medicines; 3. Ensure medical products that benefit from public contributions are accessible to people who need them; 4. Safeguard transparency, accountability and the public’s right to information by restricting confidentiality and trade secrets; 5.