Merci.
We have to be pragmatic about what CAMR can and cannot do. A bit of a strange argument occurred to me while sitting here, but I'll make it, really out of intellectual curiosity more than anything else.
You could make the argument that the CAMR is the most successful law of its kind in the world and that it shouldn't be messed with, because it has been used once, whereas the other 30 countries together have used theirs zero times. Now, I know it's a very strange argument to make that it's “successful”, but you could look at that reasoning as saying “Do nothing, because if it ain't broke, don't fix it”.
I think fixing it, as it were, or changing the law, is not likely to make this law more or less effective. It's going to be barely effective. You therefore are better off—and this is why I so appreciate your question, sir—looking at the other things you can do for global health. It is completely sick that there are billions of people at risk of very minor diseases, millions of people a year dying of AIDS and malaria. This is just completely unacceptable. But if we're going to be intelligent about it and not be bleeding hearts, we're going to ask ourselves, where is our specialty? What is it that we excel at that we can best do to help—while admitting there are another 30 countries with laws that are, in some respect, superior to CAMR and who are helping in this area? I think that's the wise way to go about it.
Where we can help is certainly in funding, and certainly in training. We're one of the few places where you can go to university in English or French. We can train scientists, technicians, and physicians from developing countries to work in health systems there. We can provide assistance to stop problems like the counterfeit generics. And, Mr. Masse, you very much misrepresented me in saying that I was advocating for these medicines. I'm not. I condemn them.