Healthcare Services and the Disabled

Women's Health at Risk with Genetic Patents

Recognizing Far-Reaching Implications of ACLU Anti-Gene Patent Case, Court Denies Myriad’s Motion to Dismiss
November 04, 2009
By Turna Ray
A New York federal district court has denied Myriad Genetics’ motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging its patents covering BRCA gene mutations associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer based on the novel circumstances presented in the case and the sweeping implications of the issues involved.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit in May on behalf of four scientific organizations — representing more than 150,000 medical professionals, researchers, women's health groups, and individual women — alleging that the BRCA gene patents held by the University of Utah Research Foundation and exclusively licensed to Myriad stifle research and limit women's treatment options. Additionally, the lawsuit, Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. US Patent and Trademark Office, et al., challenges the constitutionality of Myriad's patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, by asserting that Myriad’s exclusive licensing practices hinder the free flow of information and therefore obstruct the First Amendment protecting free speech [see PGx Reporter 05-13-2009].
However, Myriad and other defendants challenged the plaintiff’s ability to bring the lawsuit, by filing a motion-to-dismiss memorandum, calling ACLU's case "a thinly veiled attempt to challenge the validity of patents" [see PGx Reporter 08-05-2009].
In deciding to dismiss Myriad's motion to dismiss on grounds that it lacked technical merit, Robert Sweet, the federal district court judge on the case, recognized the "uniqueness" of the plaintiffs' case with regard to "scope and significance of the issues presented, and the consequences of the remedy sought." Furthermore, the court acknowledged the right of the plaintiffs, particularly "women facing the threat of breast cancer … who are in the midst of their struggle with the illness," to challenge the practice of gene patenting.
"The challenges to the patents-in-suit raise questions of difficult legal dimensions concerning constitutional protections over the information that serves as our genetic identities and the need to adopt policies that promote scientific research," the court said in its decision.
In its decision, the court cited the example of Plaintiff Wendy Chung, a professor of molecular genetics at Columbia University who studies genetic and environmental factors linked to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Although Chung's lab sequences BRCA1/2 genes of research participants, researchers cannot inform subjects of their mutation status because of Myriad's patents.
Additionally, the court cited numerous examples provided by the plaintiffs where academic studies that would essentially improve BRCA sequencing methods were stopped by Myriad, who informed researchers that their work would infringe the firm's patents.
For example, according to court documents, in 2005, Yale DNA Diagnostics Laboratory asked Myriad for permission to perform genetic screening of BRCA genes looking for large rearrangement mutations correlated with cancer risk. Studies had previously shown that Myriad's full sequencing test missed some large gene rearrangements associated with disease risk. However, Myriad informed Yale that BRCA testing could not be done by the university's laboratory as it would infringe the company's patents.

Newsletter: Pharmacogenomics Reporter Pharmacogenomics Reporter - November 4, 2009

http://www.genomeweb.com/dxpgx/recognizing-far-reaching-implications-aclu-anti-gene-patent-case-court-denies-my

The Propaganda Psychogenic Illness Phenomenon: You Are Not Sick--You're Just Nuts--

The Psychogenic Illness Propaganda Phenomenon

Well, it’s happened in the United States with Morgellen and Lyme Disease sufferers and now it is happening in China.

It is the use of labeling people “psychogenic” in a propaganda effort to limit responsibility and shroud grave concerns concerning public health and safety issues.

Today a report in the NY times describes the use of this propaganda strategy when more than 1,300 employees at a textile mill in China fell ill with symptoms of convulsions, breathing difficulties, vomiting and temporary paralysis. See the NYtimes article here for details.

SINGLEPAYERS GET BUSTED!

Singlepayer health reform was not allowed to be represented at a recent Senate committee discussing healthcare reform, despite the fact there is substantial public support for it. Angry and upset, singlepayer advocates decided to show up and protest. They were all carted off to jail.

Insurance companies pay big $ contributions $ to our government officials. They have lobbied against the single payer system. Obviously, the insurance industry has more influence than the public since singlepayer was excluded from options brought to the table for discussion that day. For more video and articles ...click here.

NEW YORK STEM CELL RESEARCHERS AND PROSTITUTION

Human embryonic stem cell researchers in New York want to legalize the prostitution of human egg donation. These practices are not in alignment with protecting the health and safety of women and specifically will target exploitation of lower income women. For more information see letter written to New York Stem Cell Research Program Ethics Board…

Infectious disease vs. chonic illness

Reports stating that "At least 170,000 Americans die each year from infectious diseases, and that number could increase dramatically during a major disease outbreak" may be true. But the number we need to get our minds around is...." how many people are developing idiopathic chronic illness?" My estimation will be much more than 170,000 Americans. Why does it appear that chronic illness is on the rise? What is this from? Why are epidemiologist ignoring this question?

STAND UP TO CANCER AND THEN FALL DOWN

Before you sit down and write your check to the “Stand up to Cancer” initiative, think about this…Cancer research is already supported by BILLIONS of tax dollars every year. The National Cancer Institute alone gets over $5 Billion dollars a year from your and my pockets. Are you saying “WOW”, yet?

And at the same time, when the academic, biomedical industry and pharmaceutical industry continuously push for more expensive high tech solutions to cure disease, they do not advocate the important steps to prevent disease. These industries do not support effective healthcare reforms that can save lives and prevent cancer. They have allowed our environmental laws to slacken which increases the rate of cancer. They promote dangerous high tech biological research in this country without any safety oversight to ensure public health and safety.

The money you give to charities should be directed in a way that will make a difference. Stop giving your hard earned money to these so called “sympathy-driven” large fund raising schemes or to wealthy large non-profit organizations or to biomedical institutions that continuously promote high tech solutions and ignore common sense solutions. If the cancer biomedical community cannot perform adequate research with the BILLIONS of dollars they now receive from public coffers every year, then it is very unlikely another billion out of our generosity will make a difference.

If you want to give money to a good cause toward cancer cures, how about supporting grassroots organizations that want to fix our failed medical system, increase environmental protection and place safe controls on dangerous biological research? Wouldn’t that make more sense in an effort to prevent and stop cancer? Give your money to agencies that will make a difference. Don’t “Stand up to Cancer, and then fall down.

RATING YOUR DOCTOR

Do you have a great doctor who you want to sing praises about?
Do you have a physician who has saved your life?
Or
Have you ever encountered an unethical or incompetent doctor?
Have you encountered a physician that has compassion comparable to a dead fish?
Does your physician care more about his salary than your health?

Is your physician trying to make positive changes within the healthcare industry to help society?
Or are the majority of them only trying to limit lawsuit actions to protect themselves?

Want to rate your doctor as good or bad?
Read this article.

“To a doctor, reputation is everything ….doctors shouldn't bear the brunt of dissatisfaction with the faltering healthcare system.”

Well who should then?
Why are not more physicians participating in changing our broken healthcare system?