Bitter Pills:Medicines & The Third World Poor | Page 194

When we asked Pfizer to comment on Lall and Bibile's article, they strongly
defended their actions and stressed that "the facts of the case to which you refer
are substantially different from what we have recorded". Their reply, from
Dr. Hodin, Pfizer's Director of Public Affairs, concentrates on their role during
the cholera epidemic when tetracycline was urgently needed. Dr. Hodin's account
accepts that there was a delay. (Pfizer Sri Lanka was notified of the cholera
emergency on 7 November 1974. On 23 December they made a firm quote to supply
tetracycline. Discussion between Pfizer and the SPC continued into January 1975
- some months after the outbreak of the epidemic.) But Pfizer maintain that the
SPC was to blame for the delay because they failed to clarify whether the
tetracycline should be "supplied in capsules or tablets, sugar coated or not" and
to stipulate the size and packaging.(l36) Pfizer also say that they offered the SPC
a specially reduced price because of the emergency, and subsequently reduced
it further as SPC had received a lower quote. Pfizer conclude that the incident
"indicates the inability of that state agency (jthe SPC] to cope adequately with
the health needs of the Sri Lankan people,'' and emphasise that "we acted quickly,
persisted in our efforts to help, and were responsible, with reference to price and
other