Under pressure from US President Donald Trump, the Indian government on Tuesday lifted its partial ban on export of hydroxychloroquine, used for treatment of malaria. However, the Indian government claimed that decision to lift the partial ban hydroxychloroquine was taken by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and has nothing to do with the comment from the US president.
According to Los Angeles Times , the decision (to lift ban) came after Mr Trump appealed to Indian prime minster Narendra Modi in a phone call, and then told a White House news conference Monday that India could face “retaliation” if it did not release the drug.
"(Mr) Trump has aggressively touted hydroxychloroquine as a possible 'game changer' in the pandemic despite a lack of conclusive evidence that it works to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. The US gets nearly half its supply of the drug from India," the report says.
Responding to a question whether he was worried about "retaliation to the US ban on export of medical goods" from India, president Trump had said, "I would be surprised if he (Modi) would, you know, because India does very well with the US."
"I do not like that decision. I did not hear that that was his decision. I know that he stopped it for other countries. I spoke to him yesterday, we had a very good talk and we will see whether or not that is his...For many years, they have been taken advantage of the US on trade. So I would be surprised if that were his decision. He would have to tell me that. I spoke to him Sunday morning, called him, and I said, we would appreciate you allowing our supply to come out. If he does not allow it to come out. That would be ok. But of course, there may be retaliation. Why would not there be," the US president had said.
Back home, Anurag Srivastava, official spokesperson of ministry of external affairs (MEA) however said that media reports are not true and these were "attempts by section of the media to create unnecessary controversy" over the issue of Covid-19 related drugs and pharmaceuticals.
To ensure there are adequate stocks of medicines for the requirement of India's own citizens, he said, some temporary steps were taken to restrict exports of a number of pharmaceutical products. "In the meanwhile, a comprehensive assessment was made of possible requirements under different scenarios. After having confirmed the availability of medicines for all possible contingencies currently envisaged, these restrictions have been largely lifted," the spokesperson added.
On Monday, the DGFT notified lifting restrictions on 14 drugs, including paracetamol and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which are kept in a licensed category and their demand status would be continuously monitored. The stock position could allow Indian companies to meet the export commitments.
In view of the humanitarian aspects of the pandemic, Mr Srivastava says, it has been decided that India would licence paracetamol and HCQ in appropriate quantities to neighbouring countries who are dependent on Indian capabilities. India, he said, will also be supplying these essential drugs to some nations which have been particularly badly affected by the pandemic.
According to the report from LA Times, hydroxychloroquine, which is already being used by doctors in the US and other countries to treat the coronavirus, has sharply divided Trump’s pandemic task force.
White House trade advisor Peter Navarro has championed the drug, which has been shown in limited studies in France and China to reduce some symptoms of COVID-19. But Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has pushed back against those claims, saying the drug has not been subjected to rigorous clinical trials. The drug can also have severe side effects, including heart damage, the report says.
In
other interesting report, the New York Times revealed that "if hydroxychloroquine becomes an accepted treatment, several pharmaceutical companies stand to profit, including shareholders and senior executives with connections to the president. Mr Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine."
The Scotland-based non-profit International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC) has stressed that the study in question that appeared in its International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents (IJAA) "did not meet its standard".
According to a society statement, the "ISAC Board believes the article does not meet the Society's expected standard, especially relating to the lack of better explanations of the inclusion criteria and the triage of patients to ensure patient safety".
"Although ISAC recognises it is important to help the scientific community by publishing new data fast, this cannot be at the cost of reducing scientific scrutiny and best practices. Both Editors in Chief of our journals (IJAA and Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance) are in full agreement," said Andreas Voss, ISAC President.
Quote begin.
Responding to a question whether he was worried about "retaliation to the US ban on export of medical goods" from India, president Trump had said, "I would be surprised if he (Modi) would, you know, because India does very well with the US."
"I do not like that decision. I did not hear that that was his decision. I know that he stopped it for other countries. I spoke to him yesterday, we had a very good talk and we will see whether or not that is his...For many years, they have been taken advantage of the US on trade. So I would be surprised if that were his decision. He would have to tell me that. I spoke to him Sunday morning, called him, and I said, we would appreciate you allowing our supply to come out. If he does not allow it to come out. That would be ok. But of course, there may be retaliation. Why would not there be," the US president had said.
Quote end.
So the question here is whether the term used was 'it' or 'there' in the statement 'But of course, there may be retaliation.'
While Trump is known for his off the cuff comments, there is a possibility that he was NOT talking about retaliating against India but admitting to the possibility of a retaliation BY India for the American ban on import of medical goods from India.
India Govt in return asked
âž¡Unrestricted Access to USA market for its Pharma companies
âž¡Lift all bans levied by US FDA
âž¡FDA will not harass Indian Pharma companies henceforth
USA accepted all demands in 24 hours