5/25/2018 Biotech

1/23

**Biotech**

5/25/2018 Biotech

2/23

UQCuban Biotech High

Bio-Tech is Booming in CubaHigh Output and Development Rates

Evenson, JSD, 2007(Debra, Fall, Cuba's Biotechnology Revolution, MEDICC Review, Volume: 9 No.1, MK)

As a result of accelerated training of scientists and engineers beginning in the 1960s and substantial

state investment since the 1980s calculated at about USD$1 billion,[1] Cuban biotechnology has

become a major player in the Cuban economy and successfully established its place in the global

market. According to a World Bank report, Cuba has the capacity to meet about 80% of its

domestic demand for prescription drugs and had achieved annual biotech exports of around

USD$100 million in the 1990s.[2] A recent Ernst & Young report puts exports of biotech products at

USD$300 million in 2005.[3] Behind the commercial success of Cubas biotech industry are several

innovative vaccines, including the recombinant hepatitis B vaccine, which received pre-qualification

from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2001 for international use and is now sold in more than30 countries worldwide. Cuba also developed the worlds first effective vaccine against meningitis B,

VAMENGOC-BC , which is now exported primarily to Latin America, including Brazil, Argentina,

Colombia, Venezuela, and Uruguay. Based on this successful experience, in 1999, the British company

Glaxo-Smith-Kline entered into a licensing agreement with Cubas Finlay Institute to develop a

meningococcal B vaccine using Cuban technology, to be distributed in Europe and North America.

International acceptance of Cuban biotech is growing, with products now registered in more than 55

countries, principally in the Global South. A deep project pipeline, including innovative therapeutic

cancer vaccinescurrently in clinical trials in Cuba, Canada, and elsewheremean the countrys

market share is likely to keep growing. By 2004, Cuba had registered some 100 patents and applied for

another 500 patents throughout the world.[4] Cubas safety and research standards are reported to

*be+ equal or even exceed those of the US Federal Drug Administration and the European

Union.*5+

5/25/2018 Biotech

3/23

UQExpanding Now

Cuban biotech is high nowtheir sector is booming

NTI, World Relations Institute, 2013(2/13, NTI, Cuba: Biological,http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/cuba/biological/ ,6/27/13,

MK)

Cuban scientists pursue many research interests as they attempt to address the technological needs

and desires of those both within and outside of Cuba . In the past two decades, Cuba has successfully

developed a meningitis B vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine,[13] cattle tick "vaccine," and monoclonal

antibodies for kidney transplants. Cuba has also developed products through CIGB including vaccines for

pneumonia, diphtheria, anemia, and various other diseases.[14] Scientific institutions also have

conducted trials involving epidermal growth factor; cancer, AIDS, and hepatitis C vaccines; and pest-

resistant sugar cane. These activities clearly demonstrate Cuba's versatility in biotechnology research

and production.[15] As of February 2009, CIGB is "currently working on 20 new projects that include thedevelopment of 40 products to treat several diseases." [16] As the Cuban biotechnology industry has

expanded over the past decade, the nation has become a major source of both medicine and scientific

technology to the developing world. Cuba currently has technology trade agreements with at least 14

countries, with negotiations for trade underway with several other states.In the past decade, Iran,

China, India, Algeria, Brazil, and Venezuela have become the main recipients of Cuban technology.[17]

Cuba has also helped to initiate joint biotechnology enterprises within developing countries,

specifically Iran, China, and India, transferring technology from several different scientific institutions,

including the CIGB and the Center for Molecular Immunology.[18] Cuba has attempted to repay parts of

its debt to Brazil, Columbia, and Venezuela by exporting pharmaceutical products to these countries.

Cuban Biotech ThrivingEmbargo Prevents It From Reaching U.S.

Randal, Health Policy Writer, 2000

(Judith, 2000, Despite Embargo,Biotechnology in Cuba Thrives, Oxford Journals,

Volume 92, Issue 13, p.1034-1037, MK)

Among thoseaccomplishments is an extensive array of recombinant proteins, synthetic peptides,

monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) and antigens that have enabled their country to routinely screen its

blood and blood products for AIDS and viral hepatitis, its pregnant women for neural tube defects inthe fetus, and its newborns for certain biochemical birth defects.On the list of home-grown

recombinants, too, are interleukin-2 (for cancer treatment), alpha and gamma interferon, streptokinase,

erythropoietin, and several livestock and human vaccines, including a hepatitis B vaccine that has

virtually eliminated the disease in Cuba. Also in the Cuban biotech pipeline, although strictly

investigational to date, are recombinant vaccines against AIDS, hepatitis C, and dengue fever. (Dengue,

common in much of the tropics, is a debilitating mosquito-borne illness for which there is only

supportive treatment. Dengue fever can be life-threatening and even fatal.) And while Cuba has yet to

clone animals, Havanas Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (Spanish acronym CIGB) is

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/cuba/biological/http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/cuba/biological/http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/cuba/biological/http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/cuba/biological/

5/25/2018 Biotech

4/23

proud of the tilapia (an edible freshwater fish) that it has fitted with extra growth hormone genes.

Indeed, the CIGBs Jorge Gavilondo, Ph.D., and his colleagues there envision a day when transgenic

plants, or more specifically, their seeds, will be the repositories of key antibodies and are working

toward making that a reality. Clinical Research Moreover, to talk with Pedro Lopez Saura, M.D.,

Ph.D., is to learn how clinical research is done in Cuba. As vice-director for regulatory issues and clinical

trials at CIGB, he speaks knowledgeably of such matters as hospital institutional review boards, peer

review, informed consent for patients participating in trials, and other regulatory hoops that candidate

therapies must jump through in his country just as they do in larger countries with a modern research

enterprise. And when multicenter trials are called for, Cuba has a coordinating center that sets them up

and manages them. Its the equivalent of a CRO (contract research organization) in the United States,

Lopez Saura explained. Meanwhile, together with seeking touristsmainly from Canada and Europe

Cuba has been turning to biotechnology to earn foreign exchange. A part of its R&D effort, for

example, is to develop generic versions of prescription drugs that can be sold to niche markets

principally poor countriesas soon as the patents on them expire. (Cuba, unlike China, honors foreign

patents and has its own Office for Intellectual Property.) The government plows the profits from this and

other overseas sales of its biotechnology back into the R&D centers. But by no means can every

product of Cuban R&D be called me-too, as a vaccine from the Finlay Institute in Havana illustrates. It

is the worlds only type B bacteriali.e., meningococcalmeningitis vaccine, and since its introductionin 1989 (originally for domestic use), it has earned Cuba about US $40 million from sales to other

countries, principally Brazil. Last year, this vaccine was licensed to SmithKline Beecham, which means

that it may eventually also be available in the United States. The license, however, required special

dispensations from the U.S. government, which are hard to get. At one point, for example, Merck & Co.

officials met with President Fidel Castro to discuss AIDS research collaborations with Cuban scientists

but dropped the idea when they found too many U.S. legal complications in the way. The effect of U.S.

sanctions on Cuban biotechnology, in fact, can be more than bilateral. The countrys inability to buy

directly from U.S. suppliers, for example, has driven some of its investigators to spend time in the

better-equipped labs of European colleagues or to collaborate with them from afar, creating

considerable sympathy for the Cubans plight in the process. Another example is the Center for

Molecular Immunology (Spanish acronym CIM), a part of Havanas Western Scientific Pole and YorkMedical Inc. of Mississauga, Ontario, its joint venture partner. The center specializes in oncology and is

headed by Augustin Lage, M.D., Ph.D., whose brother Carlos Lage is President Castros finance minister.

CIM has in its R&D portfolio (among other things): MAbssome radioactively labeledthat target one

type of cancer or another for purposes of diagnosis or therapy; and a doubly recombinant vaccine that

has shown promise for controlling advanced non-small cell lung cancer and may be useful for certain

other cancers as well. (See story below.) Under York Medicals aegis, the vaccine and three versions of a

CIM MAb are in clinical trials in Canada. David Allan, York Medicals chief executive officer, is upbeat

about these productsnot least because Canadian regulatory authorities were sufficiently impressed by

their performance in Cuba to issue the approvals that were a prerequisite for the trials. But Allan also

worries about the effect of the U.S. embargo on things Cuban no matter their benefits. He fears that

no drug firm doing business in the United Statesand that includes multinationalswill risk trying to

commercialize products that originated in Havana. In sum, for all the prestige that scientists in Cuba

enjoy at home, it is difficult for them to find a place in the international sun

5/25/2018 Biotech

5/23

LinkSkilled Workers

Lift Would Bring Advanced Bio-tech and Skilled WorkersEncourages International

Spread

Fineman, Reporter at L.A. Times, 1998

(Mark, 8/14, L.A. Times, Little-known biotech industry vital to Cuba's economic

future, 6/24/13, MK)

WhenFranklin Sotolongo injected himself with the vial of experimental liquid that day in 1985, it was

one of the most emotional moments of his life. Sotolongo was leading a small team of Cuban scientists

strugglingto save their nation from an epidemic of group-B meningitis. Hundreds of children were

dying, and there was neither a cure nor a vaccine -- not only on their island, but anywhere.They

studied the research of scientists in Europe and the United States, and, after years of testing in monkeys

and mice, Sotolongo and his team had what they thought was a breakthrough. ``We tried it on ourselves

first,'' he says. ``We were sure there was nothing to worry about, but we felt the first risks should beours.'' Thirteen years later, group-B meningitis has been virtually wiped out.Cuba and Sotolongo's

government institute have the patent on a group-B meningococcal vaccine so effective that

international pharmaceutical giant SmithKline Beecham is appealing to Washington to waive its trade

embargo of Cuba to permit its own trials of the vaccine. But the vaccine is just one of many unheralded

breakthroughs in Cuba's little-known yethighly advanced biotechnology industry --one that has, with

its infusion of foreign exchange, helped the country weather the collapse of its Soviet benefactor. Fast-

growing fish Unencumbered by competing interests in a one-party state that views biotech as a key to

its medical and economic survival, Cuban scientists have developed an array of new vaccines and drugs

that are at the leading edge of biotech research. One team is hard at work in the first phase of human

clinical trials of a potential AIDS vaccine that scientists hope will be ready for commercial use in two

years. Another is perfecting what would be the world's first effective vaccine against cholera -- adisease that doesn't even exist in Cuba.Other scientists have used human placenta to develop a cream

that effectively reverses the effects of certain skin diseases. And still another has successfully cloned a

new species of fish that grows twice as fast as the natural variety. That `transgenetic'' fish, whose

growth genes have been modified by Cuban scientists will be Cuba's centerpiece at a five-day

international conference it is sponsoring in Havana in November. But Cuba's multimillion-dollar

biotechnology industry is not just for show or its own medical needs. Already, the Cuban government

successfully has marketed its group-B meningococcal vaccine in Argentina, Brazil and Colombia, where

sales have helped Cuba repay its debts to those countries. $290 million in sales Heber Biotech S.A., a

semi-private company created by the Cuban government in 1991 to market its high-tech

pharmaceuticals, is now selling products in 34 countries. Among them: an indigenously developed

interferon, a hepatitis B vaccine and an advanced streptokinase drug that destroys coronary clots. With

annual sales as high as $290 million a year, Heber, Sotolongo's Finlay Institute and other centers in

Cuba's biotech industry now rank behind only tourism, nickel production and tobacco as the country's

largest export earner. And it is poised for even bigger growth in the years ahead. The Finlay Institute's

high-tech Plant No. 3 is the cornerstone of that expansion effort. Packed with more than $100 million in

state-of-the-art imported equipment, the factory has the capacity to produce 100 million doses of

vaccines every year -- more than double what it has marketed in the past. And the institute has

prepared slick brochures and marketing campaigns to advertise its potential worldwide. The

Biotechnology Havana '98 Transgenesis conference scheduled to open Nov. 16 is subtitled `From the

5/25/2018 Biotech

6/23

Laboratory to the Market,'' and it will include commercial endeavors once unthinkable in this

Communist state; exhibit space already is renting for $50 per square foot. Medicines scarce And Heber

Biotech, marketing itself under the slogan ``Approaching Horizons,'' now has offices or direct business

relations in more than 50 countries, and it boasts that its sales increased more than six-fold between

1992 and '96. Through most of its 30-year history, Cuba's biotechnology research industry focused

almost entirely on preventing and curing diseases at home -- an island nation where medicines were

scarce, largely because of the United States' punishing trade embargo. After the collapse of the Soviet

Union, however, Cuba lost billions of dollars that kept its socialist economy afloat. The government was

forced to inventory its state industries for potential exports to raise the money it needed to continue

subsidizing food and providing free education and health care. Its biotechnology industry emerged near

the top of the list. In recent years, the government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in

biotech facilities and research. That has created something of a technology gap here: scientists using

advanced genetic techniques to clone fish in a land where the U.S. embargo has made antibiotics

scarce on hospital shelves and smoke-belching, '50s-vintage Chevys and Buicks commonplace on the

streets.

5/25/2018 Biotech

7/23

LinkPlan Key Exports

Embargo Lift Equals Better BiotechLeads to Legal Imports

CPAG, Center for National Policy, 2003(U.S. Cuba Relations, Time for a New Approach, pg. 12)

While internal failings and external pressures have kept Cubas economic system from reaching even a

fraction of its potential, the country does offer opportunities for U.S. exports and investment. Since

November 2001, Cuba has purchased $125 million in food from U.S. producers and recently signed

contracts for an additional $95 million. Total food imports are currently estimated at $1 billion per year.

As Cuba moves inevitablyalbeit slowly and fitfullytoward a more market-based economy, the size

of that market is likely to increase. Cuba also exports a number of products that are otherwise

unavailable in the U.S. market or whose substitutes are lower in quality. Cubas biotechnology

industry, for example, has developed effective meningitis and hepatitis vaccines to which Americans

have no legal access, while some of Cubas more traditional exports, which have always enjoyed areputation for superior quality, also cannot legally be imported. Current policy excludes U.S.

businesses and individuals from virtually all export and investment opportunities and gives other

countries a head start in positioning themselves to take advantage of future ones. It prevents U.S.

consumers from purchasing products from Cuba. And it does not provide an effective mechanism for

the resolution of intellectual property disputes or expropriated property claims.

5/25/2018 Biotech

8/23

Cooperation Key

US-Cuban cooperation key to prevent diseasedengue fever proves

Boom, Director of the Caribbean Biodiversity Program, 12

(Brian M. Boom, September 2012, Biodiversity without Borders: Advancing U.S.-Cuba Cooperationthrough Environmental Research, Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 3 (September 2012).

http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders. Accessed June 24, 2013,

RJ)

Disease Vector Species: A good example of a shared disease vector is the Aedes aegypti mosquito.

This species is the principal vector for the viruses that cause dengue fever, a non-curable, sometimes

fatal disease in humans. In the Western Hemisphere, the disease is known to occur throughout much

of Latin America and the Caribbean, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, but so far not in Cuba,

and only rarely in the continental United States. But this situation could change. According to the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is evidence that this mosquito is constantly

responding and adapting to environmental changes. Cuba has one of the worlds best centers for

dengue research with knowledge about how the island stays dengue free.10 Yet, Cuba and the

United States are not working together on dengue, a shared and growing threat . Both urgent

natural and man-made problems, such as hurricanes and oil spills, as well as more gradual, less

dramatic threats, such as habitat modification and pollution, threaten the native biodiversity shared by

Cuba and the United States. These threats are exacerbated by the lack of active, ongoing bilateral

scientific cooperation between Cuba and the United States in seeking solutions to such threats

http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-bordershttp://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/biodiversity-without-borders

5/25/2018 Biotech

9/23

InternalCuban BioTech Good

Cuba Has Great Bio-TechLargest Medicine Exporter in Latin America

Starr, Medical Writer, 2004

(Douglas, 12/1, NY Latino Journal, The Cuban Bio-Tech Revolution,

http://nylatinojournal.com/home/business_economics/med_biotech/the_cuban_biot

ech_revolution.html,6/25/13, MK)

Today the country is the largest medicine exporter in Latin America and has more than 50 nations on

its client list. Cuban meds cost far less than their first-world counterparts, andFidel Castro's

government has helped China, Malaysia, India, and Iran set up their own factories: "south-to-south

technology transfer."Yet at the same time as they were selling generics, the science-heroes of the

Cuban Revolution were inventing. Castro made biotechnology one of the building blocks of the

economy, and that has opened the door - just a crack - to intellectual property. To date his researchershave been granted more than 100 patents, 26 of them in the US. Now theyre setting their sights on the

markets of the West.After the 1959 revolution, Cuba made it a priority to find new ways to care for a

poor population; part of the solution was training doctors and researchers. Cuba currently exports

thousands of doctors to impoverished countriesand caters to an influx of "health tourists," mostly rich

Africans and Latin Americans seeking cheap, high-quality care. In 1981, half a dozen Cuban scientists

went to Finland to learn to synthesize the virus-fighting protein interferon. Castro sent them with

money for a shopping spree. They brought back a labs worth of equipment and took over a white

stucco guesthouse in the Havana suburbs; a decade later, Cuba was the pharmacy of the Soviet bloc and

third world. Most trade took the form of barter, and development experts estimate that by the early

"90s the business was worth more than $700 million a year. "And then, almost from a Monday to a

Tuesday," says Carlos Borroto, vice director of the Cuban Center for Genetic Engineering and

Biotechnology (known as CIGB in Spanish), "the Soviet Union collapsed." Cuba lost all its credit, 80

percent of its foreign trade, and a third of its food imports. Faced with economic calamity, Castro did

something remarkable: He poured hundreds of millions of dollars into pharmaceuticals. No one knows

how - Cubas economy, with its secrecy and centralized structure, defies market analysis. One

beneficiary was Concepcion Campa Huergo, president and director general of the Finlay Institute, a

vaccine lab in Havana. She developed the world's first meningitis B vaccine, testing it by injecting

herself and her children before giving it to volunteers. "I remember one day telling Fidel that we needed

a new ultracentrifuge, which costs about $70, 000," Campa says. "After five minutes of listening he said,

'No. Youll need 10.'" Campa and her colleagues still have to scrimp and scrounge. Labs are filled with

gear from Europe, Japan, and Brazil. The occasional device from the US has traveled the "long way

around" - through so many middlemen (and markups) that it may well have circled the globe. Scientists

develop their own reagents, enzymes, tissue cultures, and virus lines. Each institute has its ownproduction facility and conducts clinical trials through the state-run hospital system.

http://nylatinojournal.com/home/business_economics/med_biotech/the_cuban_biotech_revolution.htmlhttp://nylatinojournal.com/home/business_economics/med_biotech/the_cuban_biotech_revolution.htmlhttp://nylatinojournal.com/home/business_economics/med_biotech/the_cuban_biotech_revolution.htmlhttp://nylatinojournal.com/home/business_economics/med_biotech/the_cuban_biotech_revolution.html

5/25/2018 Biotech

10/23

ImpactVaccines

Utilization of biotechnology is extremely vital for the United States market for further

technological advancements and development of vaccines

Caraway, B.A. in Latin American Science, 3(Rose Caraway, Post Embargo Cuba: Economic Implications and the Future of

Socialism, December 2003,

http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/etext/llilas/ilassa/2004/caraway.pdf)The area of biotechnology has the potential to be extremely profitable for Cuba both financially as

well as socially, in terms of providing high quality medicines and vaccines for its citizens as well as the

global market. In addition, it is one of Cubas few export sectors that truly involves intense utilization of its

skilled labor forceextremely vital in producing more diverse, technologically advanced products for

export. Biotechnology scientists from around the world, including the United States, are exchanging

vital information with Cuba on the engineering of plants and animals for drug production.The island

has been particularly successful with the development of vaccines, such as one forehepatitis, and it hopes to

develop an effective HIV vaccine as well as anti-HIV medications. Cuba is presently in alliance with India and otherSoutheastern Asian countries, and has joint ventures with Japan and Canada in pursuit of

biotechnology development and sales.

5/25/2018 Biotech

11/23

ImpactTranshumanism

Removing Embargo Essential for AdvancementAllows US-restricted Drugs, Biotech

and Trans humanist Opportunities

Sirius, writer for h+magazine, a transhumanist site, and popular interviewer, 10(R.U., 10/21/10,hplusmagazine.com, Is the US Cuba Embargo Blocking the Future? An Interveiw with Alex Lightman,

http://hplusmagazine.com/2010/11/21/us-cuba-embargo-blocking-future-interview-alex-lightman/,

6/24/13, AC)

Its widely known in futurist circles that Alex Lightman the former Executive Director of Humanity+,

author of Brave New Unwired World: the Digital Big Bang and the Infinite Internet , and H+ magazine

contributor has been obsessing over ending the US embargo against Cuba. He has now released a

book, Reconciliation: 78 Reasons to End the U.S. Embargo of Cuba that employs economic and legal

facts to make a cogent argument against the embargo. I interviewed him via email about his new book.

H+: There are a thousand issues in the world. Why should Humanity+ types be particularly interested in

the issue of U.S./Cuban reconciliation? Alex Lightman: I can give you five good reasons to start with.

First, Cuba has over forty medical treatments that the rest of the world can get, but Americans cannot.

By allowing the US embargo to continue, transhumanists and anyone who wants the best possible

medical care not the best politically mediated medical care, are being deprived of potential

treatments. Second, Cuba is able to match most US health statistics, including lifespan, at a cost of$200 per person per year, vs. over $7,000 for each American jumping to $15,000 a year at 65. A core

transhumanist aspiration is to live longer, but a challenge to this is being able to afford the cost of life

extension. Cubas cost structure could have valuable lessons for us, or even could be a place that

Americans can visit for treatments(which are now all illegal). Third, Cubas system for biotechnology is

profoundly interesting and successful, and it behooves Americans to be able to visit and learn more

about it. Fourth, the US embargo of Cuba is now 50years and one week old. Rebecca D. Costa, in her

book The Watchmans Rattle, warns that societies that are unable to overcome gridlock, and postpone

their problems to the next generation, are societies eminently worthy of collapse. The US embargo of

Cuba has all the attributes that we would find shockingly obvious after reading the book. Fifth, US

reconciliation with Cuba is a relatively easy problem to solve. Transhumanists will want to be able to

use this resolution as a dry run for solving much tougher issues. H+: Hold on. Forty medical treatments

that are exclusive to Cuba in a globalized world? Treatments for hepatitis B and C that we dont have

(as per your book)? This doesnt make any sense on the face of it. Any treatments that work will get

noticed and distributed elsewhere. What treatments are you talking about? AL: RU, the whole point of

the embargo is to prevent Cuba from benefiting from globalization, which is another way of saying

Americanization. What aspects of globalization are not aspects of US finance, commerce, markets,

technology, culture? Treatments will not be distributed if, like the brother who brought a hepatitis

treatment back to his dying brother, saved him, and then faced prosecution under the Trading with the

Enemy Act that was created to prevent trading with our former enemy Germany (up to 10 years in jail

and $250,000 fine), which was to keep people in the US from distributing these treatments in the US.The US accounts for almost half of drugs sales, and at much higher average cost. Even with an

amazingly incompetent marketing capability, Cuba exports over $400 million a year worth of drugs to

over 60 countries. A few of the highlights are products related to monoclonal antibodies, treatment

for esophageal and tongue cancer(because of widespread smoking of cigars), and Escozul (blue

scorpion venom from Guantanamo Bay area). H+: But can you document this at all? AL: Here.

QUIMEFAs enterprise production programme 2007-2012 includes 73 products of which 31 substitute

imports. 73 minus 31 equals 42 products that are not substituting imports, but are exported because

5/25/2018 Biotech

12/23

they are unique. Domestic production concentrates on generic pharmaceuticals and vaccines.

Production is GMP compliant, and selected pharmaceuticals meet bioequivalence standards.

Economically, medical and pharmaceutical services remain priority export sectors. For more

background, check these: http://www.wsicubaproject.org/factbiotech.cfm

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/cuba.html H+: A vast majority of Americans are against the

embargo and even a small majority of Cuban Americans are now against it. Why do you think certain

political changes remain taboo long after the majority has moved on? AL: The vast majority of

Americans are against the embargo. However, even a majority of Cuban Americans in the US, in

Florida, even in Miami-Dade County are against the US embargo and for normalization of relations. And

the number of eligible voters of Cuban descent in Florida is 550,000, almost a rounding error. This

particular situation is explainedin my book. Certain political changes remain taboo because an iron rice

bowl and an iron triangle have been institutionalized. The iron rice bowl feeds tens of thousands of

people who make money from the continuation of the embargo. I dont know anyone who makes a

full-time living being against the embargo in the US. Theres no money in it. The iron triangle is money

from Washington, DC that goes to Miami, which sends a portion of it back to the campaigns of elected

officials, who vote to keep the money flowing to Miami so they get their cut. The 50 years of the

embargo are evidence that the US is not actually a democracy, but, rather, a plutocracy, or

government by money. To be more specific, there is a flow of billions of dollars of federal funds toCuban-American organizations, both for-profit and nonprofits, part of which goes to the Cuban-

American politicians and their fellow travelers to keep them elected and part of which goes to anyone

who is against a supporter of ending the embargo. These politicians then make sure to pass the

spending. So its federal money laundering on a grand scale. Want examples? $1.4 billion for sugar

subsidies to destroy the Everglades, one of the largest and most pointless terraforming projects in the

world. There was a cover story in The Atlantic ten years ago that should have ended it, but this waste of

money and a great ecosystem still continues. And there is the $500 million spent on Radio and TV

Mart. Besides stealing the name of Cubas greatest hero (imagine if Iran called its broadcasting George

Washington TV), its money thats spent paying people in Miami to create propaganda that goes only

to other people in Miami, by paying for the equivalent of infomercials in prime time. No Cuban Ive

met (and I tried hard) has seen TV Mart the signals are blocked. Many had heard Radio Mart.However, because the US does not allow Cuba to pay for content, Cuba just takes it. Something like 85%

of Cuban TV is from the US. Cuba uses US standards like NTSC, instead of PAL, to better pirate US

content. People were happy to see James Camerons Avatar on television. Most of the people I know are

more up to date on US movies than Americans, since movies are shown on Cuban national television

while they are still in US theaters. Returning to Radio and TV Mart, I will give you a specific example. I

have an associate whose friend is a painter. He gave a bid of $5,000 to TV Mart to paint some rooms.

They accepted the bid, and said, We will pay you $10,000, but you need to give a $1,000 donation to

each of these five Cuban-American politicians. He had no problem with this in principle its well

known in Little Havana that this is how it works. He checked with his accountant, found that it would

cost an extra $170 in taxes, and asked for $10,170. TV Mart refused, saying he should be a more

patriotic. This made him angry, so hes complaining but not about the campaigns (thats not even

worth mentioning), but, rather, that they wouldnt pay his taxes on the contributions. Multiply this by

tens of millions of dollars a year, and you have elected officials that cant accomplish anything because,

like naked short selling in the US stock market, these officials have effectively unlimited funds for their

own campaigns even though their policies cost Miami jobs, and make it one of the worst markets for

foreclosures in America. Without the political campaigns funds from Washington, why would people

vote against creating over 100,000 new jobs in Miami, which would be enough to fix their broken real

estate market? The cover illustration of my book Reconciliation shows a clock with the eleven US

presidents who have maintained the US embargo, all revolving around Fidel Castro. Obama shows no

5/25/2018 Biotech

13/23

signs of lifting the embargo before he leaves office, so I put a question mark for the 12 oclock position. I

do think the next US president will lift the embargo, because by that time the world will have united

against the US. H+: What are a few of the most surprising things that you think people might learn from

your book, about Cuba or about the embargo? AL: The key to achieving a transhumanist future is not by

just dwelling in the never-never nebulosity of endless possibility, but, rather, finding a place where there

is mindless gridlock because of supermemes that have gotten control, and caused all parties to enter

into an uncreative, unresourceful state. And to blow it up conceptually, and re-imagine and recreate the

situation. My thought is that ending the US embargo of Cuba is so trivially simple that getting this

accomplished should be like an initiation, a future supercentenarians equivalent of childs play to

learn and earn the right to lead the people of earth into a peaceful, sustainable, superhuman prosperity.

If you cant get over this Cuba nonsense, or something of equal real-world complexity thats frozen

and stuck in stupidity, you are just playing a real-world role-playing game, and you arent mature

enough to ethically advocate radical transformation. Let me give an example. I love Ray Kurzweil, and

take him seriously as a transhumanist because, while I was at MIT, I did some volunteering with blind

engineers at one of his companies. The blind have an unemployment rate of over 70%, when they, of all

people, really need work to feel a part of their community and society. Ray paid his dues. He solves

tough social problems, and that gave him the ethical right to talk about bigger changes. Peter

Diamandis, who was in my class of 83 at MIT, provided a major boost to space education, and then withthe X Prize he gave an amazing boost, both to private space, and brilliantly, to the resurgence of prizes

to accomplish social tasks. Peter also has big, bold statements, visions and changes he wants. But he

helped solve real-world social problems, and he earned the right to say cool, wacky things like I will live

to 700 years old, as he did in our interview last year. I give him full props for that. However, what I

think could be done, and hasnt been, is to set a task to the community of transhumanists that we could

ALL put our effort behind, and know whether we succeeded or not, and then ALL benefit from. My

understanding is that if transhumanists united in getting the embargo lifted, wed have billions of

dollars in brilliant biotech scientists and a government-run medical complex with expertise in diffusing

innovations to over 100 countries ready, willing and able to take us all as seriouslyas we take Ray or

Peter, or Elon or Richard Branson, in their futurist activities. So, what will H+ readers in particular get?

The understanding that they have the power to use their intellects and positive constructive ability toenvision and describe the future, and to get a stuck situation, uniting 187 countries in angry opposition

to the US, unstuck. The whole world minus transhumanists = failure. The whole world plus

transhumanists = success. I dont know any other problem or challenge so perfectly, deliciously solvable

that is poised for us to complete it. H+: How do you foresee this book impacting on the general

discourse around the Cuba embargo? AL: Patriotism is the last refuge for scoundrels. If smart people

without a dog in this fight (i.e. non-Cubans or non-Cuban-Americans) read this, and start talking about it,

and start asking, How can eleven US presidents in a row violate their oath to protect the US

Constitution, and have no one notice or care? then the book will have achieved its purpose. I also

think that it increases my chances of winning a Nobel Peace Prize from zero to one percent over the

next forty years, since when (there is no if, only when) the US embargo is lifted, I have no doubt that I

will get some credit if not during the period immediately around the ending of the embargo, then

afterwards, as America does actually add over 200,000 Cuba-related jobs. The highest estimates now

are only about 65,000 jobs, which is absurdly low. My estimates for GDP growth, exports, medicines,

medical tourism, oil and gas revenues are all going to suddenly look pretty future-savvy. Though, for a

futurist and a transhumanist, they werent relatively difficult to forecast. So, what I want to do is up the

ante to be a cool futurist or an awesome transhumanist. I want to play the game where you dont just

say talk about how the far future will improve the lives of yourself and your H+ friends. I want to

challenge other H+ people to make forecasts, predictions, and policy advocacy that will improve the

lives of poor people, unfree and oppressed people, and I see both Americans and Cubans as fitting those

5/25/2018 Biotech

14/23

categories. In short, I see Reconciliation: 78 Reasons to End the US Embargo of Cuba as the start of a

new kind of futurist literature, from the school of Blueprint Prophecy, in which you make good

predictions that make so much sense, ethically, financially, socially, that smart ethical people rally to the

high frequency bird call, say, Hell, yes, lets fix this! Then build on our momentum to solve ever

tougher challenges in our Eversmarter world.

5/25/2018 Biotech

15/23

ImpactDisease

Climate Change makes diseases go globalHasham 11 (Alyshah, 1/25/13, International News Services, Climate Change spreads

Infectious Diseases Worldwide,http://www.internationalnewsservices.com/articles/1-

latest-news/17833-climate-change-spreads-infectious-diseases-worldwide,accessed

6/30/13, WP)As negotiators at the recent United Nations climate change conference in Cancun wrapped up their

work, one problem concentrating minds enough to secure a partial deal was the spread of disease on

the coat-tails of global warming. Infectious diseases are spreading to regions where they were

previously absent, driven by warmer temperatures and changing rainfall patterns. Europe and North America

have been seeing an increase in cases of West Nile disease, which as the name suggests thrives in tropical and sub-tropical regions. Warmer

temperatures are allowing the mosquitoes that carry the disease to roam further north. Its a similar

story for diseases such as dengue fever or tick-borne encephalitis(which causes brain inflammation).The UK is byno means an exception to this trend. A recent study from the University of Plymouth concluded that the most

dangerous climate-change linked threat to Britain's environmental health could be vector borne

diseases(such as Leishmaniasis - carried by the sand fly) which could spread to new areas because of warming

temperatures. It concluded: "Environmental change could in turn lead to changes in the epidemiology

of communicable diseasewithin the UK. And there is also the potential for disease being caused by

extreme weather conditions, potentially associated with climate change, such as the 2004 flooding in Boscastle,Cornwall, which caused an outbreak of Ecoli 0157. Worldwide, in 2008 the World Conservation Society identified a Deadly Dozen, 12 animal-

borne diseases that may more likely to spread due to climate change. The list includes bird flu, tuberculosis, Ebola, cholera, babesiosis,

parasites, Lyme disease, plague, Rift Valley fever, sleeping sickness, yellow fever and red tides (algal blooms).It is well established

that climate change is a fundamental factor in the spread of infectious diseases, said Dr Richard Ostfeld, adisease ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, in New York. The classic example is malaria moving upslope in the East African

highlands, in Zimbabwe and Mozambique with the warmer temperatures. Another is dengue, a disease also transmitted by mosquitoes that hasbeen increasing in severity in urban areas in developing countries. If all other factors (such as migration and population) remain constant, the

World Health Organisation predicts that an additional 2 billion people could be exposed to dengue (also called break-bone fever) by the 2080s.

Ostfeld says the case is often made that clean buildings and sanitation will cancel out the effects of climate change on the spread of diseases

an argument he does not agree withIt is misleading to be too sanguine about our infrastructure being able to protect us against diseases, said

Ostfeld. Speaking to Environmental Health News, he cited a West Nile disease outbreak in California during the bursting of the housing bubble

to make his point. Mosquitoes began breeding in the slimy green soup in abandoned swimming pools of foreclosed homes. And the H1N1

pandemic is still fresh in the public memory. However, establishing a relationship between disease and

environmental factors is a far step from associating those environmental factors with climate change.

The cholera epidemic in Haiti is probably related to a rise in temperatures and salinity in the delta

where the epidemic began, said Dr David Sack of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, USA.But determining the role of climate change is another story. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr Emily Shuman agrees

that climate has a strong impact on vector-borne and water-borne diseases. Droughts, for example,

often cause West Nile disease epidemics because the birds and mosquitoes carrying the disease are

driven to scarce water sources, enhancing transmission. The drought also k ills off natural predators of mosquitoes.Madeleine Thomson, a senior research scientist at the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), also in New York, said the

challenge lies in determining whether climate change plays a role in this drought, and what other factors were involved. The focus of climate

change and disease tend to be transmission, she added. It is important to think about how climate change impacts

the poor in developing countries, who are relying on rain-fed agriculture for food and income. Climate

change also leads to poverty and food insecurity. Both are major drivers in ill health, which increases

susceptibility to infectious diseases. Already inadequate health services in many developing nations

will be hard pressed to accommodate an increase in diseases, not to mention the problems that new

http://www.internationalnewsservices.com/articles/1-latest-news/17833-climate-change-spreads-infectious-diseases-worldwidehttp://www.internationalnewsservices.com/articles/1-latest-news/17833-climate-change-spreads-infectious-diseases-worldwidehttp://www.internationalnewsservices.com/articles/1-latest-news/17833-climate-change-spreads-infectious-diseases-worldwidehttp://www.internationalnewsservices.com/articles/1-latest-news/17833-climate-change-spreads-infectious-diseases-worldwidehttp://www.internationalnewsservices.com/articles/1-latest-news/17833-climate-change-spreads-infectious-diseases-worldwidehttp://www.internationalnewsservices.com/articles/1-latest-news/17833-climate-change-spreads-infectious-diseases-worldwide

5/25/2018 Biotech

16/23

and unfamiliar diseases will pose.Other studies warn of the possibility of new types of mosquitoes that may be more effective atspreading the disease. Another challenge is the lack of data. There is often not enough long-term disease data. Climate change is measured

through mathematical modeling, and may not always be used correctly by scientists studying disease. However, the gap between

epidemiologists and meteorologists is closing, with an increase in combined research said Thomson.

A global disease will not just threaten the health of the individualit will

unchecked lead to extreme negative effects on the global economy, undermine

social order, catalyze regional instability, and pose the threat of bioterrorism.Brower 03 (Jennifer, September 2003, The RAND institute,

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nie99-17d.htm,accessed 6/30/13, WP)The increasing transnational threat of infectious disease deserves special attention within this context

of the evolving definition of security in the postCold War era. State centric models of security are

ineffective at coping with issues, such as the spread of diseases that originate within sovereign

borders, but have effects that are felt regionally and globally. Human security reflects the new challenges facing societyin the 21st century. In this model, the primary object of security is the individual, not the state. As a result, an individuals security depends not

only on the integrity of the state but also on the quality of that individuals life. Infectious disease clearly represents a threat to human securityin that it has the potential to affect both the person and his or her ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. In addition to

threatening the health of an individual, the spread of disease can weaken public confidence in

governments ability to respond, have an adverse economic impact, undermine a states social order,

catalyze regional instability, and pose a strategic threat through bioterrorism and/or biowarfare. Whileinfectious diseases are widely discussed, few treatises have addressed the security implications of emerging and reemerging ill- nesses. This

report provides a more comprehensive analysis than has been done to date, encompassing both disease and security. It comes at a critical

juncture, as the magnitude and nature of the threat is growing because of the emergence of new illnesses such as Acquired Immune Deficiency

Syndrome (AIDS), Ebola, and hepatitis C; the increasing inability of modern medicine to respond to resistant and emerging pathogens; and the

growing threat of bioterrorism and biowarfare. In addition, human actions amplify these trends by putting us in ever-

greater contact with deadly microbes. Globalization, modern medical practices, urbanization, climatic

change, and changing social and behavioral patterns all serve to increase the chance that individuals

will come in contact with diseases, which they may not be able to survive. The AIDS crisis in South

Africa provides a disturbing example of how a pathogen can affect security at all levels, from

individual to regional and even to global.Approximately one-quarter of the adult population in South Africa is HumanImmunodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive, with the disproportionate burden of illness traditionally falling on the most economically and personally

productive segment of society. The true impact of the AIDS epidemic is yet to be felt. Deaths from full-blown AIDS are not projected to peak

until the period between 2009 and 2012, and the number of HIV infections is still increasing.The disease is responsible for

undermining social and economic stability, weakening military preparedness, contributing to

increases in crime and the lack of a capability to respond to it, and weakening regional stability. Specificeffects include creating more than two million orphans, removing about US$22 billion from South Africas economy, and limiting South Africas

ability to participate in inter- national peacekeeping missions.Many causes played a role in the development of the crisis, including

promiscuous heterosexual sex, the low status of women, prostitution, sexual abuse and violence, a popular attitude that dismisses risk, as well

as the failure to acknowledge the magnitude of the problem in the early and middle stages of the epidemic. The South African government has

made a relatively small effort to curb the epidemic, in part due to President Thabo Mbekis public questioning of the link between HIV and AIDS,

and this has had devastating results. This example serves as a lesson to other countries; if unaddressed, infectious disease can negatively and

overwhelmingly affect a states functions and security.Currently the United States is managing the infectious disease threat; however, there

are many indications that, if left unchecked, pathogens could present a serious threat to the smooth

functioning of the country. Many of the global factors that serve to increase the threat from

pathogenic microbes are particularly relevant for the United States. These include globalization,

modern medical practices, urbanization, global climatic change, and changing social and behavioral

patterns. Deaths from infectious illnesses average approximately 170,000 per year, but the scope of the situation is much larger whenstigmatization, productivity losses, and other psychological and economic costs are taken into account. In addition, the ability of pathogens to

mutate and to spread into previously unknown habitats means that the toll could increase significantly. In the second half of the 20th century

almost 30 new human diseases were identified, and antibiotic and drug resistance grew at an alarming rate. This trend applies equally to animal

diseases. As citizens continue to travel, import food and goods globally, engage in promiscuous sex, use

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nie99-17d.htmhttp://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nie99-17d.htmhttp://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nie99-17d.htm

5/25/2018 Biotech

17/23

illegal intravenous drugs, encroach on new habitats, and utilize donated blood, their chances of

coming in con- tact with new or more virulent organisms increases.The added threat of bioterrorism intensifies therisk of encountering a life- threatening microbe.virus, Lassa virus, Yersinia pestis, Francisella tularensis, and Bacillus anthracis.

The pandemic is comingvaccinations are the way to prepare ourselves to ensure

that the next one isnt the big one.Quammen 12 (David, 9/22/12, The New York Times,

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/anticipating-the-next-

pandemic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0,accessed 6/30/13, WP)BAD news is always interesting, especially when it starts small and threatens to grow large, like the

little cloud on the distant horizon, no bigger than a mans hand, that is destined to rise as a

thunderhead(1 Kings 18:44). Thats why we read so avidly about the recent outbreaks of Ebola virus

disease among villages in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and about West Nile fever in the areaaround Dallas (where 15 have died of it since July). And thats why, early this month, heads turned toward Yosem ite National Park after the

announcement of a third death from hantavirus pulmonary syndrome among recent visitors there.Humans die in large numbers

every day, every hour, from heart failure and automobile crashes and the dreary effects of poverty;

but strange new infectious diseases, even when the death tolls are low, call up a more urgent sort ofattention. Why?Theres a tangle of reasons, no doubt, but one is obvious: whenever an outbreak occurs, we all ask ourselves

whether it might herald the Next Big One.What I mean by theNext Big One is a pandemic of some newly

emerging or re-emerging infectious disease, a global health catastrophe in which millions die. The

influenza epidemic of 1918-19 wasa bigone, killing about 50 million people worldwide. The Hong Kong

fluof 1968-69 was biggish, causing at least a million deaths. AIDS has killed some 30 million and counting.Scientists who study this subject virologists, molecular geneticists, epidemiologists, disease ecologists stress its complexity but tend to

agree on a few points.Yes, there probably will be a Next Big One, they say. It will most likely be caused by a

virus,not by a bacterium or some other kind of bug. More specifically, we should expect an RNA virus (specifically, one that bears its genomeas a single molecular strand), as distinct from a DNA virus (carrying its info on the reliable double helix, less prone to mutation, therefore less

variable and adaptable). Finally, this RNA virus will almost certainly be zoonotic a pathogen that emerges from some nonhuman animal to

infect, and spread among, human beings.The influenzas are zoonoses. They emerge from wild aquatic birds, sometimes with a pig as an

intermediary host on the way to humanity. AIDS is a zoonosis; the pandemic strain of H.I.V. emerged about a century ago from a singleCameroonian chimpanzee. Ebola is a zoonosis. The Ebola viruses (there are five known species) abide inconspicuously in some as yet

unidentified creature or creatures native to Central African forests, spilling over occasionally to kill gorillas and chimps and people. SARS is a

zoonosis that emerged from a Chinese bat, fanned out of Hong Kong to the wider world, threatened to be the Next Big One, and then was

stopped barely by fast and excellent medical science.And the hantaviruses, of which there are many known species (Andes virus, Black

Creek Canal virus, Muleshoe virus, Seoul virus, Puumala virus and dozens more), come out of rodents. The species of hantavirus at large in

Yosemite is called Sin Nombre nameless virus, and is the same one that erupted famously, and lethally, at the Four Corners in 1993. Its

primary host is the deer mouse, one of the most widely distributed and abundant vertebrates in North America. The virus makes its way from

dried mouse urine or feces into airborne dust, and from airborne dust into human lungs. If that happens to you, youre in trouble. Theres no

treatment, and the fatality rate for hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, the infection in severe form, runs at about 40 percent.You dont have to

go to Yosemite and sleep in a dusty cabin to put yourself close to a hantavirus. Although one expert, recently quoted by Scientific American,

called it a very rare kind of virus, that view doesnt square with the studies Ive read or the testimony of hantavirus researchers Ive

interviewed. The virus seems to be relatively common, at least among deer mice. A 2008 study done at Tuolumne Meadows in Yosemite found

that 24 percent of local deer mice had the antibody for the virus, signaling a past or current infection. One mouse in four is worryingly high.

Among these mouse populations nationwide, the prevalence of the antibody seems to vary from as low as zero to as high as 49 percent, or one

in two mice.The question this raises is: Why arent more people dying from Sin Nombre virus? The answer seems to be that, although very

dangerous when caught, its not easy to catch, despite its presence in mouse-infested sheds and trailers and garages and barns across much ofAmerica. This is because it doesnt pass from person to person only from mouse to mouse, and from mouse excretions to one unlucky

person or another, each of whom represents a dead-end host. (The dead of that dead-end may be figurative or literal.) Its not a very rare

virus; its a common virus known only rarely to infect humans, and with no ramifying chains of human contagion. So the Next B ig One is not

likely to be Sin Nombre.Nor is it likely to be Ebola, which is transmissible from human to human through direct contact with bodily fluids, but

can be stopped by preventing such contact. Furthermore, Ebola burns so hotly in its victims, incapacitating and killing so quickly, that it is poorly

adapted to achieve global dispersal. Only one human has ever been known to leave Africa with a rampant Ebola virus infection and that was

a Swiss woman, evacuated in 1994 to a hospital in Basel. If you want to be grateful for something today, be grateful for that: Ebola doesnt fly.

WE should recognize such blessings, and try to focus our deepest concerns on real global dangers. Too often, were distracted from good

scientific information by yellow journalism and the frisson of melodrama. Ebola is charismatic, the demon that people love to fear. Other lurid

candidates, like hantavirus and SARS, also get their share of headlines. When you mention emerging diseases, peoples responses tend to fall at

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/anticipating-the-next-pandemic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/anticipating-the-next-pandemic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/anticipating-the-next-pandemic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/anticipating-the-next-pandemic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/anticipating-the-next-pandemic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

5/25/2018 Biotech

18/23

the two ends of a spectrum. Some folks are mesmerized by the dark possibilities and the garish but unrepresentative cases. Others are

dismissive, rolling their eyes at the prospect of having to contemplate still another category of dire monition. They want you to cut to the chase.

Are we all gonna die? they ask. Or they say: Fine, so what can we do about these bugs?Yes, we are all going to die, though

most of us not from a strange disease newly emerged from a mouse or a chimp. And there are things

we can do: get a flu vaccination; support calls for research; avoid coughing people on airplanes; apply

mosquito repellent; wear a mask when you sweep out your old shed; dont eat any chimpanzee meat

from an animal found dead in the forest

Disease lead to extinction

Yu, Dartmouth Undergrad, 9(Victoria, Undergraduate at Dartmouth, University publication, Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate,

Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, 22 May 2009, 6-31-13)

A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps

the best-known case wasthe bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in

the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other

infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging a process that maintains the

possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction.Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a

potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable

cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIVs rapid and constant evolution. Specifically,two factors account for the

viruss abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIVs use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a

proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8).

Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale

global infection:HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS

itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for

more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more

consequential.The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (pointmutations that lead to new

strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a

new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can

spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a global influenza pandemic, according to theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when

bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the

Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required

to convert the original viral strain which could only infect birds into a human-viable strain (10).

5/25/2018 Biotech

19/23

ImpactGeneric Drugs Good

Studies prove, generic drugs work just as well

Berkley Wellness, the leading online resource for evidence-based wellness

information, 13(2/26/13 Berkley Wellness, How Good are Generic Drugs?http://www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/article/how-good-are-

generic-drugs6/30/13 MG)

The FDA (as well as Health Canada) requires generics to measure up to the originals in terms of strength, quality, purity and safety.

Generics must deliver to the body the same amount of active ingredient, at very close to the same rate, as their brand-name

counterpartsthis is called bioequivalence. (Some generics are made by the same manufacturers that make the

branded drugs and are then sold to the generics companies, in which case the drugs are truly

identical.) The FDA requires manufacturers to do bioequivalence testing of generics, though not

necessarily of all formulations; it rarely does the testing itself. Complicating matters is the fact that

generics for a specific drug are typically made by several companies. Even though brand name and generic drugshave the same active ingredient, the drugs can differ in shape, color and inactive ingredients, such as preservatives and fillers. A

generic tablet may be harder or softer than the original, which could affect how quickly it dissolves and is absorbed. And a generic of a

time-release drug may employ a different mechanism to gradually release the active ingredient. For these and other reasons, generics

may not be the exact bioequivalent of the originals. The FDA does allow some leeway for generics (as well as for differences amongbrand-name drugs). Its reviews of thousands of studies have found that the absorption of generics differs

from the brand names by only 3 to 4 percent, on average, comparable to differences among batches

of many brand-name drugs. Such a small difference wont matterfor most drugs, but for some it may reduceeffectiveness and/or safety. Moreover, that average difference disguises a wider range of variability in bioequivalence.

Generic drugs are basically equivalent to the name brand drug

Hupila, Summer Intern, Consumer Health Information Corporation, 08(Mathew 2008 CHIC, 5 Common Questions About Generic Drugshttp://www.consumer-

health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.php6/30/13 MG)

Are Generic Drugs as Safe and Effective as Brand Name Drugs? The short answer to this question is usually yes. A company

must prove that its generic version of a drug is both safe and effective before it can be sold to thepublic. The company that made the original brand name drug proved during years of testing that the

drug is both safe and effective. A company that makes a generic drug must show that its version of

the drug is 80%-125% bioequivalent to the original brand name drug. For example: a brand name drug is takenand it is found that 100mg of medicine reaches the persons bloodstream. Fora generic version of the drug to be considered safe and

effective, the active drug in the tablet or capsule must release between 80mg and 125mg reach the bloodstream (80-125%). This

means that some companies might make generic versions that have 80mg reach the bloodstream and other companies might make

generic versions that have 125mg reach the bloodstream. This difference isnt a problem in most drugs. There are a few drugs,

however, in which this can be an issue. For example, some drugs are only safe and effective when the amount of medicine is within a

small range in the bloodstream. This small range is called a narrow therapeutic window. This means that a small change in dose can

cause a large change in the way the drug acts in the body. Below the therapeutic window, the drug is not effective. Above the

therapeutic window, the drug could be harmful because too much drug is getting into the bloodstream. It is critical that the medicine

be given in a dose that falls in the safe and effective range. Lets say a person is taking one of these drugs with a

narrow therapeutic window. They have been taking a generic version of the drug that is 80%bioequivalent to the original brand name drug. After a few months, their pharmacy orders a generic

version of the same drug that is made by a different company. This new version is 125% bioequivalent

to the original brand name drug. This means that the new version of the drug could contain as much

as 45% more active drug than the old version.

http://www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/article/how-good-are-generic-drugshttp://www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/article/how-good-are-generic-drugshttp://www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/article/how-good-are-generic-drugshttp://www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/article/how-good-are-generic-drugshttp://www.consumer-health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.phphttp://www.consumer-health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.phphttp://www.consumer-health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.phphttp://www.consumer-health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.phphttp://www.consumer-health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.phphttp://www.consumer-health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.phphttp://www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/article/how-good-are-generic-drugshttp://www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/article/how-good-are-generic-drugs

5/25/2018 Biotech

20/23

Generic drugs are just as efficient as brand name

Lipschitz, the author of the book "Breaking the Rules of Aging.", 08(Dr. David 2008 creators.com Studies Show Generic Drugs Are as Effective as Brand Nameshttp://www.creators.com/health/david-

lipschitz-lifelong-health/studies-show-generic-drugs-are-as-effective-as-brand-names.html6/30/13 MG)

It always makes sense to go for the generic drug whenever you have a choice. When it comes to choosing generic drugs

over a brand name, American consumers are at a disadvantage . Through savvy marketing campaigns and strategiccampaigning by generous pharmaceutical representatives, hundreds of mill ions of dollars are spent every year to promote the newest

medications. Generics are thrown to the wayside no marketing, no promotions, nothing. The end result is patients requesting

specific brand-name drugs. What's more, many patients insist that the generic simply doesn't work. And when insurance companies

refuse to pay for the more expensive therapy, mayhem breaks out. What's the deal? Is there any difference between generic and

brand-name therapies? Here's the bottom line: In more than 50 years of clinical experience, there is no scientific

trial that has ever shown brand-name medications are superior to their generic counterparts. The Foodand Drug Administration requires that the active ingredients be identical. There can be a difference, however. The composition of the

pill or the capsule may be different. It may vary in shape, have different fillers or flavoring and possess a different color. But, to fully

understand the effect of any differences,the FDAalso requires the makers of the generic drug to perform pilot

tests to demonstrate that the subject's blood levels of the active ingredient, and the method and rate

at which it is cleared from the body must be identical to the brand-name equivalent. Despite this, many

people doctors and patients refrain from using generic drugs. Detractors of generic medicationsoftencomplain that the

generic pill may be absorbed differently from patient to patient, or that there may be adverse reactions, such as allergies,to an ingredient in the generic drug. Another concern is that the source of the drug may change as one company competes withanother to offer their generic at a lower cost. Recently, Naomi Wax wrote an article in the Los Angeles Times in which she discussed

the hidden downside of generic drugs. She has depression, and strongly felt that she responded differently to generic Zoloft, causing

her symptoms to worsen. She then found out that many patients, when switched from the brand-name Wellbutrin XL 300 to the

generic version of the antidepressant, complained of worsening depression, panic attacks, anxiety and thoughts of suicide. Wellbutrin

XL is a slow-release medication, which means that the drug is gradually released from the tablet over a 24-hour period. Studies by a

private laboratory showed that 34 percent of the active ingredient in the generic drug was released in two hours, compared to 8

percent in the brand name. It was postulated that the difference in release was contributing to the symptoms. Wax states that the FDA

is investigating this complaint. While it is possible that a slow-release medication could be different from one pill to another,

significant differences between generic and brand-name drugs are extremely rare. And for every one personwho complains that the generic is ineffective, millions take it without any adverse reactions. When it comes to choosing brand-name

therapy over generics, many patients see the powerful effect of the mind over the body. If you believe that a medication will not help

you, there is a good chance that it won't, and vice versa. My advice about generic medications is simple: For most medical illnesses,

the tried, true and older therapies are often as effective as or more effective than the new. If a generic medication isavailable, always insist on using it before trying a brand-name alternative. Because of the difference in

costs, generic drugs must always be the first choice. However, if you switch from a brand name to a generic, keep anopen mind and rest assured that it will work. Be positive it helps. If the generic does not seem to work, discuss the problem with

your pharmacist or doctor. Find out whether others are experiencing similar problems. If you are absolutely convinced that the drug is

ineffective, do not count on sympathy from your insurance company. A better alternative will be to work with your physician, who can

prescribe an alternate medication that hopefully will be more effective

Generic drugs are a lot cheaper than name brand drugs

Hupila, Summer Intern, Consumer Health Information Corporation, 08(Mathew 2008 CHIC, 5 Common Questions About Generic Drugshttp://www.consumer-

health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.php6/30/13 MG)

A brand name drug has to go through 10-15 years of research and testing in animals and people

before it can be sold to the public. During this testing, the company making the drug must prove thatit is safe and effective for people to use. All of this testing can cost over $1 billion. Once the new drug is approved, thecompany that made and tested it receives a patent. This means that no other company can make the drug until the end of the patent,

which is usually 10-15 years after the drug is released. When a patent for a brand name drug expires, any other

company can copy the drug and sell a generic version. These other companies must only prove that

their product is the same as the brand name drug. This means that generic drug companies do not

have to spend as much time and money because they do not have to invent or test the drug for safety

and get FDA-approval. This is why generic drugs cost less. When a patent for a brand name drug

http://www.creators.com/health/david-lipschitz-lifelong-health/studies-show-generic-drugs-are-as-effective-as-brand-names.htmlhttp://www.creators.com/health/david-lipschitz-lifelong-health/studies-show-generic-drugs-are-as-effective-as-brand-names.htmlhttp://www.creators.com/health/david-lipschitz-lifelong-health/studies-show-generic-drugs-are-as-effective-as-brand-names.htmlhttp://www.creators.com/health/david-lipschitz-lifelong-health/studies-show-generic-drugs-are-as-effective-as-brand-names.htmlhttp://www.consumer-health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.phphttp://www.consumer-health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.phphttp://www.consumer-health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.phphttp://www.consumer-health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.phphttp://www.consumer-health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.phphttp://www.consumer-health.com/services/5CommonQuestionsAboutGenericDrugs.phphttp://www.creators.com/health/david-lipschitz-lifelong-health/studies-show-generic-drugs-are-as-effective-as-brand-names.htmlhttp://www.creators.com/health/david-lipschitz-lifelong-health/studies-show-generic-drugs-are-as-effective-as-brand-names.html

5/25/2018 Biotech

21/23

expires, there are usually a number of companies that begin to make a generic version of the drug.Since there is more than one company making the drug, the price is lowered even farther due to competition between all of the

different generic drug makers.

Cuba has good, cheap, generic drugs

Dan, editor at CCTV.com, 12(Zhang 4/8/12 CCTV.com, Cuba's technology keeps medical costs down

http://english.cntv.cn/program/newshour/20120408/112348.shtml6/30/13 MG)

Countries across the globe are observing World Health Day despite the challenge of providing low-cost medical care. Generic

drugs are an important factor in keeping costs down. Cuba has its own technology to make them.

Cuba has long prided itself on its free healthcare. Almost all the major indicators, from infant mortality rates to average

life expectance, are as good as most of the developed world. But it hasnt been easy. Cuba has no access to American

made medicines, because of the decades old US trade embargo. So instead it decided to develop a

pharmaceutical industry of its own. Now the authorities here have signed a four year agreement with the World HealthOrganisation for the transfer of Cuban generic drug technology to poorer nations. Margaret Chan, Director General of WHO, said,

"One thing that WHO and Cuba can do very well is in technology transfer, in knowledge transfer, so that other countries in the region

and outside the region can produce high quality affordable generic medicines, diagnostics and medical devises." Medical assistance

has become a major part of Cubas soft diplomacy. Thousands of Cuban health workers are involved overseas medical missions

overseas. These doctors, for example, are helping combat cholera in Haiti. Roberto Morales, Cuban Minister of Public Health, said, "It

isnt just about looking after our own population, as Fidel Castro has repeatedly said, medicine is about serving humanity." Cubas

bio-technology sector produces about 80 percent of the prescription drugs it needs. As well as

generics drugs, Cuba also invented the worlds first meningitis B vaccine and has a range of cancer

therapy drugs which are now being commercialised in joint ventures around the world.

http://english.cntv.cn/program/newshour/20120408/112348.shtmlhttp://english.cntv.cn/program/newshour/20120408/112348.shtmlhttp://english.cntv.cn/program/newshour/20120408/112348.shtml

5/25/2018 Biotech

22/23

ImpactBioterror

Solves bioterror

Bailey, Science Correspond for Reason Magazine, 1[Ronald, award-winning science correspondent for Reason

magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column. Bailey is the author of the book Liberation Biology: TheMoral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature

Writing 2004. In 2006, Bailey was shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities who have made the "most

significant contributions" to biotechnology in the last 10 years. 11/7/1, The Best Biodefense, Reason,

http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/07/the-best-biodefense]

But Cipro and other antibiotics are just a small part of the arsenal that could one day soon be deployed in defending America against

biowarfare. Just consider whats in the pipeline now that could be used to protect Americans against

infectious diseases, including bioterrorism. A Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Research Association survey found 137

new medicines for infectious diseases in drug company research and development pipelines, including 19antibiotics and 42 vaccines. With regard to anthrax, instead of having to rush a sample to a lab where it takes hours or even days to culture,

biotech companies have created test strips using antibody technologies that can confirm the presence

of anthrax in 15 minutes or less, allowing decontamination and treatment to begin immediately. Similar test

strips are being developed for the detection of smallpox as well. The biotech company EluSys Therapeutics is working on an

exciting technique which would "implement instant immunity." EluSys joins two monoclonal antibodies chemicallytogether so that they act like biological double-sided tape. One antibody sticks to toxins, viruses, or bacteria while the other binds to human red

blood cells. The red blood cells carry the pathogen or toxin to the liver for destruction and return unharmed to the normal blood circulation. In

one test, the EluSys treatment reduced the viral load in monkeys one million-fold in less than an hour.

The technology could be applied to a number of bioterrorist threats, such as dengue fever, Ebola and

Marburg viruses, and plague. Of course, the EluSys treatment would not just be useful for responding to bioterrorist attacks, but

also could treat almost any infection or poisoning. Further down the development road are technologies that could

rapidly analyze a pathogens DNA,and then guide the rapid synthesis of drugs like the ones being developed by

EluSys that can bind, or disable, segments of DNA crucial to an infectious organism's survival. Again, thistechnology would be a great boon

for treating infectious diseases and might be a permanent deterrent to future bioterrorist attacks . Seizing Bayerspatent now wouldnt just cost that company and its stockholders a little bit of money (Bayer sold $1 billion in Cipro last year), but would

reverberate throughout the pharmaceutical research and development industry. If governments begin to seize patents on the pretext of

addressing alleged public health emergencies, the investment in research that would bring about new and effective treatments could dry up.

Investors and pharmaceutical executives couldnt justify putting $30 billion annually into already risky and uncertain research if they couldnt be

sure of earning enough profits to pay back their costs. Consider what happened during the Clinton health care fiasco, which threatened to

impose price controls on prescription drugs in the early 1990s: Growth in research spending dropped off dramatically from 10 percent annually

to about 2 percent per year. A far more sensible and farsighted way to protect the American public from

health threats, including bioterrorism, is to encourage further pharmaceutical researchby respecting drug

patents. In the final analysis, Americas best biodefense is a vital and profitable pharmaceutical and

biotechnology industry.

That solves Extinction

Steinbrenner, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow, 97(John Steinbrenner, Senior FellowBrookings, Foreign Policy, 12-22-1997, Lexis, 6-31-13)

Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosivesand lethal chemicals as potential weapons of

mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are

not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in

adaptive behavior; pathogens do bothof these things. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The

use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever

they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is

detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of

radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is

http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/07/the-best-biodefensehttp://reason.com/archives/2001/11/07/the-best-biodefense

5/25/2018 Biotech

23/23

an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological

agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few

pathogens - onesmost likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be

contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that

could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying

cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza

epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagionof this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.