In my last column, I made mention of the fact that in the last 50 years, we in the Western, industrialised world have focused on patented drugs as remedies for our ills. Now let me tell you why.

Some of you may believe that science has been the driving force behind this emphasis. In fact, while the scientific community has played a role, the primary reason for over-emphasizing patented drugs has far more to do with economics than science.

In 1883, in Paris, France, the heads of state of a small number of European countries, and of some of their colonies, gathered in the "City of Lights" to establish the first international law covering patents. The law they confirmed, called the "Treaty of Paris", was designed to protect the rights of inventors and scientists who had developed novel compounds, or processes for creating novel compounds, that were beneficial to human society.
For the first time, an attempt was made at establishing an international agreement that would allow inventors a short period of exclusive rights to the benefits of their creativity. The agreement allowed a mere 17 days of exclusive rights to the sale and distribution of a chemical compound, industrial process, or physical structure.

How very far we have come since 1883!

Back then, patents were held by persons alone. Their exclusive rights were very limited, both in time and in degree. Today, the situation is altogether different. What began as an attempt to prevent the legitimate efforts of individual inventors from being "stolen" from them by imitators, has turned into a licence to print money for corporations (who now own most patents). It has also resulted in the division of all remedies into two classes: those that can be patented, which are usually called "conventional", and those that cannot be patented, which usually end up being called "alternative" or "complementary".

Think of it for a moment. Can you patent massage therapy? Can you patent natural progesterone? Can you patent an exercise class? Can you patent counselling? Can you patent oil of oregano? Can you patent selenium supplements? Can you patent traditional Chinese medicine? The answer to all these questions is, of course, no.

On the other hand, you can patent Premarin. You can patent Tagamet. You can patent Ativan. Why? Because they are either synthetic molecules, related to natural substances, or natural substances derived by a very specific, unnatural and complicated man-made process. Today, patent law grants exclusive rights to their production and sale for a period of up to 20 years - a far cry from the 17 days granted in 1883!

Having exclusive rights to distribute and sell something for 20 years means that patent-holders can compel those buying their products to pay them grossly inflated prices, earning the patent-holder enormous sums of money, which then place them beyond the normal rules of society.

The corporation that manufactured Lipitor made $10 billion last year from the sale of that single product alone! How do you tell a company that makes that much money out of one single product that it has to "behave"? Especially when, according to the best estimates, it costs at most $200 million to develop the product from scratch?

Drug companies pursue patents as if they were pursuing the " Holy Grail", because in financial terms, that is what they are. They are monopolies. And monopolies mean big money. Everything else - massage, herbal remedies, vitamins, mineral supplements etc - have to scramble for a profit, unprotected by any form of exclusive rights. And that, dear readers, is the most important reason why healing has been divided into two camps, conventional on the one hand, and complementary or alternative on the other.

It is money that makes this particular world go round.

Want to search for other articles that may interest you?

Readers of this article also enjoyed...