Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The AIH Transcript for September 1, 2017

Hosts: Susan Bonner and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

SUSAN BONNER: Hello, I'm Susan Bonner.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening, I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight.

SB: Never say never. The mayor of Berkeley California used to protest as part of the university town's proud commitment to free speech. Tonight he tells us why he wants to ban free speech week.

JD: The court of public opinion. Kenya's high court cites irregularities as it throws out the results of last month's presidential election. The court wants a new vote to be held within 60 days.

SB: Home is where the heartbreak is. We hear from a Houston resident who has just visited her waterlogged house to find her home is a write-off.

JD: Homelessness is where the heartbreak is. San Diego has been struck by the deadliest Hepatitis A outbreak the U.S. has seen in years. One advocate says the city's hard stance on housing is partly to blame.

SB: Savings accounts. Novartis releases a promising new cancer drug, but one activist questions who'll be able to pay the nearly half a million dollar price for a single treatment.

JD: And Smokey and the Bandit. An Ontario man tells us why he's been standing in front of the court with nothing but bright green briefs and a sign demanding the police return is bong. As It Happens the Friday edition. Radio that suspects he'll be making a joint submission.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Berkeley mayor, Harvey return, return bong guy

Berkeley Mayor

Guest: Jesse Arreguin

JD: The right wing organizers are calling it “Free Speech Week,” and it's all set to happen on one of the most historically left wing college campuses in the U.S.. Later this month a group at UC Berkeley is planning to host speeches by controversial commentators such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter. But, after a right wing rally in the city last weekend ended in clashes with the black clad, “antifa” or anti-fascist members, the mayor of Berkeley is calling for “Free Speech Week” to be shut down.

We reached Mayor Jesse Arreguin in Berkeley.

SB: Mr. Mayor, university campuses, and especially Berkeley, are supposed to be bastions of free speech. Does it give you pause to be the mayor calling for free speech week to be canceled?

MAYOR JESSE ARREGUIN: My concern is not the views of the speaker, but rather the way that various extremists use these events to promote violence in our city, and the City of Berkeley strongly stands for freedom of speech, but we are concerned with the announced visit of Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter and potentially Steve Bannon that we will see antifa groups and potentially alt-right protesters coming out to clash on campus and off campus. And it's happened in Berkeley for the last several months.

SB: Isn't it the responsibility of the police to maintain the peace and make sure that no one gets hurt?

JA: Absolutely. But this is a decision that's being made, not by the city of Berkeley, but by the university. And the university is not an island, there's a city around it, and the decisions on, you know, bringing speakers like Milo or even decisions on, you know, land use or parking, all has an impact on the citizens of Berkeley. And so, you know, whether or not speakers are allowed is ultimately the university's decision, but I feel as the mayor of Berkeley that I have to express my concern, and the concern that's been expressed by Berkeley residents about the impending visit of these controversial speakers.

SB: and last Sunday another incident — members of the extreme left antifa groups were accused of attacking right wing protesters in Berkeley — tell us about what happened there and what you thought of that group's action?

JA: Well, I think it's important to note that there were roughly 7 000 people that participated in the day's events. There are different rallies and marches that happened throughout the city, and the vast majority the people peacefully spoke out against bigotry, and hatred, and racism. But it's unfortunate that a small group of ninja-dressed extremists engaged in violence against conservatives and against the police. They threw smoke bombs, they were being aggressive towards the police, and this is the same group that we've seen in our park, and in Oakland as well, when protests have happened, that use peaceful protests as a platform to commit violence and commit vandalism. And, you know, their actions are completely unacceptable. We strongly denounce the use of violence by anyone to silence people that they disagree with. That is not what our city stands for, that's not what our democracy stands for.

SB: What do you think the effect of these protests by Antifa members is having on how people in the United States view those on the left side of the political spectrum?

JA: They do not represent a progressives — certainly don't represent progressives in the city of Berkeley. I'm a progressive, you know, we stand very strongly against the President's policies and actions, we stand for justice, we stand for equity. But these people they don't represent us. They're, you know anarchists, they are extremists. Their interest is committing violence and mayhem. Their presence in these protests not only puts people at risk, but also really cheapens and undermines the message that that these protests are trying to deliver.

SB: As someone who calls himself a progressive, do you worry that that shutting down an event called Free Speech Week, it allows people who don't want free speech to win — it hands them victory.

JA: Well, I think it's important to note that, you know, I think Mr. Yiannopoulos is coining it “Free Speech Week” as a kind of thumbing his nose at the city of Berkeley and the University of California. And we stand for free speech, you know, Mr. Yiannopoulos will speak, and we will be prepared to work with the university to try to make sure that we can allow people to safely attend the event, and to hear what he has to say, but his presence is intended to provoke. His presence is intended to incite a large crowd. He’s not a just a conservative thought leader, he's a provocateur.

SB: But the people who are actually advocating violence are a small minority. Are you worried that you're being held hostage by them, by canceling events just because you're worried about violence?

JA: You know, I think the city of Berkeley and the university is in a really difficult position because we want to honor our commitment to freedom of speech, but at the same time we are concerned about the potential threat to public safety that these events have on students and residents of the city. And so we're trying our hardest to balance those two priorities — free speech and public safety — and we have, the city of Berkeley, I think has gone above and beyond to allow conservatives a platform to speak in our city. You know, there have been four events that have happened in Berkeley — unpermitted events, events that have not been officially approved or sanctioned by the city — where people just come and they've taken over our park because they want to hold a rally, and we've let that happen because we're not trying to shut down conservative voices, but rather to let people be heard. But what we're concerned about, and what we will not tolerate is people who are dressed in helmets, and shields, and weapons, and, you know, people dressed like ninjas, and have sticks, and have knives, and who are here not to speak, who are here not to protest, but who are here to fight. That’s our concern, that's what we're working to address.

JA: Couldn't the same worry about public safety be said of the millions who protested the Vietnam War in Berkeley in the 60s and 70s?

SB: I think that that's a very different situation, or Martin Luther King is a very different situation, because you didn't have a large organized group of anarchists dressed in black whose sole intent is to commit mayhem. And, you know, the many protests that have happened in the city of Berkeley, which I participated in, which are part of our city's DNA, you know, had been peaceful. They have not been, you know, situations where people come ready to fight. And so I think there's a difference between Berkeley's history of protest and social action, and what we are seeing in, you know, in our park, and on our streets, and on campus.

SB: Mr. Mayor, thank you for your time today.

JA: Thank you.

SB: Bye bye.

JA: bye.

JD: Jesse Arreguin is the Mayor of Berkeley California. That is where we reached him.

[Music: Hip Hop Strings]

Harvey Return

Guest: Suzette Cade

JD: The sun was back out in the skies over Houston today. The floodwaters are starting to recede and evacuees have begun returning to what is left of their homes. Officials have warned residents to restrict their visits to daylight hours and to watch out for wildlife — in particular — snakes. They are being urged to throw out any food that could have come into contact with floodwater. Suzette caid forced her way back into her home in northwest Houston today and that is where we reached her.

SB: Ms. Cade when you first arrived back at your home what did you see?

SUZETTE CADE: Oh just stuff everywhere — logs, cars turned around, water up to the door, that's about five-and-a-half, six feet — just a complete disaster. It looked like it was a hurricane had hit — that's what it looked like — but it was, I guess, so much water.

SB: Were you able to get inside the house at first?

SC: No ma'am. No we’re just now getting in the house. We just — we couldn't open the door a lot — so yesterday the water had went down. So we're just now getting in.

SB: What's it like inside your home?

SC: Looks like a hurricane — stuff everywhere. You know how you have a centre — what’s that piece called in the centre of the kitchen?

SB: The island?

SC: The island is turned upside down. It was one of those pieces that was sealed to the floor — and it's turned over — it's upside down right now.

SB: What does it smell like?

SC: We have septic, so it stinks. We've got gloves, boots, coats everything on.

SB: Is anything salvageable?

SC: No, no, nothing. We can't save anything because it went up so high. And I have five grandchildren that I keep every day, and all of their stuff is gone — school uniforms, supplies, their backpacks — everything.

SB: So what is it that you're doing in the home right now — you can't save anything — what are you doing there?

SC: We're just checking everything out. We're just, you know — because you couldn't get through the front door, because everything had pushed up that floated — so we're just taking everything out. We're just taking everything out and throwing it in dumpsters, and just doing what we can. We had, we have a pool in the back — the deck is completely up and gone elsewhere —the whole deck.

SB: We've heard about concerns over health hazards in the water.

SC: Yes ma'am. That's one of the concerns here — because everybody in our neighborhood has septic tanks, so it stinks in here — that's why we got masks, and gloves and boots on.

SB: There's even a warning about snakes.

SC: Yeah. Yeah we've seen fish — there’s fish floating around here — and we live like in a wooded area anyway, so there’s a whole lot of snakes now.

SB: Do you think, Ms. Cade, you'll be able to clean your home up to the point where you'll feel safe?

SC: I don't think so. I think that we honestly — like you know my neighbors are talking and this is the third time we’ve flooded — this is the worst time though. I don't see how you can take a house that almost has ceiling damages and clean it. You know, you would have to take, you know, a water hose — and just you know what I'm saying? Some stuff you can wash down, but a house? And it smells. How do you clean a house that has that much water?

SB: When you first saw what you're describing to us — all of this damage — how did you react?

SC: Oh man I was crying, I was, you know, crying. But then, you know, like there's a lady she's 41 years old, she lived in Beaumont, and they were in a car and they got out — she had a 3 year old daughter, she hung on to her — the mother died, and then she saved her daughter's life. So, you know, when you hear something like that, this is nothing really — material stuff that we worked all our lives for gone —but, you know, we have our lives so I thank God for that.

SB: Do you believe that you will be compensated for your belongings and your home?

SC: I don't know. I really don't. We had flood insurance so — I don't know because this is the third time. You know, we had a hard time last time, we'll just do the best we can — thank God for life.

SB: Ms. Cade were you able to take any valuables with you, that you can now look at and say, well at least we have this?

SC: I have my purse, I have a notebook because I do all my bills manually, so I took my, you know that that had like all our information and stuff like that in it. I did take that, and you know, because what we were trying to do is, we really basically were trying to take everything and throw it on top, you know thinking that you know it wouldn’t get too high. So we weren't really thinking about taking everything.

NEIGHBOUR: We’re just coming to bring you some food.

SC: Oh, OK. I appreciate that so much.

NEIGHBOUR: If you guys need any help with your laundry? Were you able to salvage any of your laundry?

SC: Not right now, we just got in, we couldn’t even get in the door so we’re just now getting in.

NEIGHBOUR: OK we’ll come drive back by if you guys wanna pull out with laundry, we’re offering to help wash.

SC: OK, yes ma’am. I appreciate it so much.

SB: Ms. Cade who was that?

SC: Just a lady coming by just, you know, offering help. She sees us out here and her daughter walked up and brought me something to eat, and she’s offering to do laundry.

SB: It sounds like everyone is really trying to work on this together — that everybody's pulling together.

SC: Yes ma'am. Yeah everybody's trying to, yes ma’am.

SB: You were telling me that you didn't take as many valuables as you might of because having lived through floods before you thought you knew what to expect so you put some things up high.

SC: Yes ma'am. So we did that, and basically everything that we put I was turned over. There is really nothing — the furniture, everything has been moved. So there's really nothing to save, you know.

SB: Where do you go when you're finished cleaning up — where will you stay?

SC: We’re going to try and go to a hotel.

SB: But you're essentially homeless.

SC: Yeah. We always help homeless people but now we're essentially home. But, you know, like my husband said, it could have been worse. So I'm just going to hang in here.

SB: Well we wish you the best. I can hear that you've got a lot going on around you, and I know you've got a lot to get to, so we'll let you get back to it, and thank you for your time.

SC: All right yes ma’am Thank you.

JD: We reached Suzette Cade at her home in northwest Houston.

[Music: Jazz Rhythm]

Return Bong Guy

Guest: Jeffrey Shaver

JD: He has a full beard, he has long hair, and he can be seen standing outside the courthouse in Kitchener, Ontario. Also, most days he is wearing only a tight pair of underwear. Why? Well his sign says it all. It reads, “return my bong.” We reached Jeffrey Shaver in Kitchener.

SB: Mr. Shaver, I can't quite believe that I'm asking you this, but what are you wearing right now?

JEFFREY SHAVER: I am fully clothed right now actually.

[LAUGHTER]

SB: So you're not just in your underwear?

JS: Not today, it was a little more chilly today than it was on Tuesday.

SB: OK let's go back to the essential question here — who has your bong?

JS: That right now would be in the possession of the Waterloo Regional Police Department. The charge for possession of marijuana is still outstanding, so that's why we still have possession of the bong and marijuana.

SB: So you were arrested last October for possession of marijuana — why is it that you think those charges were unfair?

JS: Well approximately five months before those charges I registered with a license producer, was authorized by my doctor, and I began being supplied with medical marijuana. And on October 20th I attempted to present my documentation supporting that, when I was arrested, and that documentation was not accepted.

SB: All right so — you may have a case — but why did you decide that the best way to fight this was to protest outside the courthouse in your underwear?

JS: Well the case has been progressing extremely slowly, and I now have very damning evidence. Just three days after that initial charge I returned to the police station and I smoked marijuana on the front lawn. However, I was charged again, but that charge was ultimately dismissed in December because they accepted my license. So what I have here is a situation with the crown where they're not willing to accept some documentation from me.

SB: I'm still having a hard time seeing how you get from those legal arguments to standing outside a courthouse wearing very little clothes.

JS: But it is mostly, I mean, just to get attention to the matter. I have been at the courthouse for the last four months —I've been smoking marijuana in the designated smoking area at the courthouse — so I have been I have been doing this with clothes on for last little while. But it was just recently I decided to do to get some more attention on the matter.

SB: Were you smoking marijuana before you took your clothes off.

JS: Of course, yes, yes.

SB: So might that have contributed to your decision to take this route as a way of protest?

JS: It was a plan, like I mean, I intended to do this when I left my house, and I've done this on a few occasions at the local police station as well in Cambridge. There were some pictures of mine that got to Reddit and theCHIVE.

SB: Where did the idea come from?

JS: Oh I just, I guess, I did some research on what, you know, what the limits for indecent exposure and normally for protest, and I decided I would settle on just keeping my underwear and would go from there to get some more attention on the matter.

SB: What kind of reaction have you been receiving from people?

JS: It's been mostly positive, and especially, I mean, people see someone with a bong and a lot of people just walk by it, or they see someone in the underwear and walk by it, but you see them both together and I'm like right outside the courthouse, right inside the police station, and you can't help just wondering what's going on. And they normally laugh and smile. So it's been, a it's been a good experience overall.

SB: Do you really want to be known as the naked return-my-bong-guy?

JS: Well, I needed to do something because nothing has been going on and I've actually arrested a third time, and that arrest was actually dismissed in three days. And this one is still going on, and even the office of the Independent Police Review director, has even concluded on that date in question, that my my possession of marijuana was lawful. But still — that was in May, and that information has been forwarded to the crown — and still there's been no action taken on it to this date. So I needed to do something to push it forward.

SB: How hopeful are you that you'll get your bong back? — I mean, it is getting colder out there.

JS: Well I have already received two of them back before, the last one been in May. I received I received one back from the Waterloo Regional Police in late-March, early-April, and then one back from the OPP in May.

SB: Well, tomorrow the forecast is 21 and sunny, so what will you be wearing then?

JS: Well, we'll see. The courts are closed on the weekend, but of course, the police stations are operating so I don't have any major plans for anything on the weekend, but next week maybe we'll see how that happens.

SB: You're disrobing days are not over though, are they?

JS: Probably not, unless I see some action come forward on my case next week. I think I'll have to be continuing with my actions here.

SB: Mr. Shaver I've got a personal question for you — are you in any kind of a relationship?

JS: Not right now. No.

SB: You worry about how this might affect your prospects on that front?

JS: Not overly, no. I mean, I'm standing up for what I believe in and hopefully that will be seen by anyone I’d be in a relationship with.

SB: Well, they'll see that and much more. Thank you for talking to us.

[LAUGHTER]

JS: Thank you.

JD: We reached Jeffrey Shaver in Kitchener, Ontario, and we have more on this story including some photographs of Jeffrey in his protest get up on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih

Back To Top »

Part 2: Kenya election, Hepatitis A San Diego, new cancer drug

Kenya Election

Guest: Salim Lone

JD: Invalid, null and void. With those words Kenya's Supreme Court made an unprecedented decision today — it threw out the results of August's presidential election and ordered a new vote within 60 days. It is a remarkable blow to the incumbent Uhuru Kenyatta — he won with 52 per cent of the vote. Today's decision is a victory for long time opposition leader Raila Odinga — he had challenged the results, arguing that the electronic voting results were manipulated in favor of Mr. Kenyatta. Salim Lone is an adviser to Raila Odinga, we reached Mr. Lone in Princeton, New Jersey.

SB: Mr. Lone, Mr. Odinga has not had a lot of luck in in politics. He's been denied several challenges and now this surprise decision from the Supreme Court. Have you spoken to him — and what was his reaction to this ruling?

SL: Yeah, he was very nice to call this morning. I'll tell you for 10 minutes we spent laughing, because this ruling is just so far reaching, and so totally unexpected. He had been saying publicly that he had faith that the court would do the right thing. But privately, I can tell you most of us were worried. Especially because in the last election, in 2013, when we had a brilliant, courageous, chief justice, that court faced with a similar situation of overt rigging, decided not even to hear a 900-page dossier of evidence —they disqualified it on technical grounds. So this is just a huge breakthrough and we give full marks to the Supreme Court.

SB: What reasoning did the Supreme Court give that this election was invalid?

SL: Well, it was very simple actually, if you know what happened. The evidence is vast of fraud, from beginning to end. The Electoral Commission began streaming results which were totally unlawful. The law requires that when you stream the results you have backup — what's called a “Form 34” signed by all the political parties for each polling station — they began releasing those results without the backup. In other words, they were making up these figures — there was no way to tell whether these figures are right or wrong.

SB: I know that that is what Mr. Odinga argued, but let's stick to specifically what the Supreme Court said in the ruling — the court uses the word irregularities and illegalities.

SL: I think, you know, regardless of the word one uses, the fact is that it was not lawful to begin streaming results with no backup.

SB: The Supreme Court puts the blame on the Electoral and Boundaries Commission — what is your reaction to that?

SL: Well, first of all it's true. We know that the real cause of this rigging isn’t because the commission loves to rig, it is because of enormous pressure and a long history of manipulation, and placing people in the right places from the government — the Jubilee government.

SB: Just to be clear, the court ruling does not say that — it does blame the Electoral Commission — in fact, it specifically says that it finds no fault with Mr. Kenyatta.

SL: It does, but you asked me what is my reaction, and our reaction is that of course while the commission was the one carrying out the unlawful work that was done, it was done because of pressure — fear, intimidation, bribery whatever you call it. Otherwise the Electoral Commission has no reason to manipulate this election.

SB: Now the court has ordered another vote to take place within 60 days — and it orders that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission oversee this rerun — that's the same group that you're saying manipulated this election. So how do you see that working?

SL: Well, I mean this is a crisis for Kenyans, because how does the same group of people turn around now and expect Kenyans to think it will be a free, fair, transparent, and credible election. We have no confidence whatsoever.

SB: So what will you do to that?

SL: Yeah. So this is something that's very important and we want to discuss all sorts of possibilities, including international involvement. We cannot say we'll have the election in 90 days — it has to be in 60 days — so time is of the essence.

SB: You mention a call for international monitoring in their rerun vote. There were international monitors overseeing this vote — the E.U., the African Union, the US, they all said there was no major fraud on polling day — what role do you see these groups playing this time around?

SL: We have to confront the simple fact that the institution of international election monitoring is at a crisis point in Kenya. The monitors, this time, including former Secretary John Kerry of the United States, they publicly said that President Uhuru was the rightful winner of the election, even before the electoral commission had actually declared the official results.

SB: So why did they do that? Are you suggesting the international monitors had a preference in this election?

SL: Well, it's certainly possible that their preference of what they thought would be stability in the country — that maybe the status quo is best. Maybe if the government is defeated there might be real unrest in the country, problems etc.

SB: That's a remarkable accusation to level at international monitors.

SL: It's not an accusation — I'm speculating. They seem to be — the Western governments — quite comfortable with the status quo, and so-called stability, that is actually quite dangerous. A president was declared to have won without the data the international observers had sanctified that declaration of the election, and right away began to realize that maybe they made a mistake.

SB: But some of these international monitors advised Mr. Odinga to take his concerns to the Supreme Court, which is what he did, so isn't that an indication that their interests were in the pursuit of a fair and free election?

SL: If they saw evidence that it was not free and fair, then I'm not so sure that you're right. What we need is a system that ends with people voting. There is no need to go to a court — that's the system you want — you to go to a court in an extreme situation.

SB: What if the outcome of the next vote is the same, and Mr. Odinga does not win?

SL: Well Mr. Odinga always said that he would accept an outcome from the free and fair election, because we know from our experience that when rigging is done, in Kenya because we are so open, because we are so democratic, because we’re so advanced, rigging cannot take place in secret. And now it's been confirmed by the court. We are certainly very, very keen to make sure that Kenyans they believe that when they vote the next time, they don't have to worry about whether that will be counted or not.

SB: Mr. Lone thank you for talking to us today, appreciate it.

SL: Thank you.

JD: Salim Lone is an adviser to Kenyan opposition presidential candidate Raila Odinga, We reached Mr. Lone in Princeton, New Jersey.

[Music: Ambient]

Hepatitis A San Diego

Guest: Michael McConnell

JD: It is believed to be the deadliest outbreak of Hepatitis A in the U.S. in decades. The disease has killed at least 15 people in San Diego since the outbreak began last November. More than 260 people in the city have been hospitalized — a large majority of them are homeless. The cause of the outbreak has not been determined, but contaminated food and water are the source of most outbreaks. Michael McConnell is the former Vice-chair of the Regional Task Force on the Homeless in San Diego. We reached him in San Diego earlier this week.

SB: Mr. McConnell local health officials are saying that as many as 70 percent of the people who've been hospitalized with Hep A are homeless — can you tell us about the homeless population and what living conditions they face in the city?

MICHAEL MCCONNELL: Well, we have a large unsheltered population of people experiencing homelessness in San Diego County, and a very large group of people who live in the downtown area where the bulk of resources are located. And so it creates conditions that are problematic for the spread of these types of diseases. The city does a poor job of providing basic needs — sanitation, restrooms hand-washing, places to throw garbage — so I'm not overly surprised that this is continuing to be a huge outbreak.

SB: I understand that in the city and the surrounding area homelessness is on the increase, and yet fewer people are actually finding their way into shelters — is that part of the problem?

MM: It is. It can be very difficult to access our system. Just think of a maze where there's front doors everywhere, but everybody has an eligibility criteria list, and everybody has their own waiting list. And so it can be very difficult for somebody experiencing unsheltered homelessness, who also has maybe a substance use issue, or mental health issues, or physical health issues, to actually really get the assistance that they need, and we just don't make it easy for them.

SB: So how are they living then — just on the streets? What kind of living conditions are they facing?

MM: Well, we have large encampments here in San Diego, and it literally is, people with a tent on the sidewalks, and in some cases flowing into the streets themselves, to where it makes some of the lanes impassable to cars even. Folks over the years have been pushed to the outskirts of downtown where there's neighbourhoods that are poorer, that haven't been developed as much, so the city has crowded into these very small areas — these streets and underpasses — and it creates a very problematic environment for, actually, everybody —certainly for the people who were homeless, but for everybody to house people, and businesses, and tourists.

SB: What do we know about how this specific outbreak started?

MM: Well, the county health officials are saying they don't know exactly where it came from. So my understanding is that typically it originates in food contamination.

SB: And one medical expert has been quoted as saying that he believes it's food contamination, and the food might have come from some of the community groups who were attempting to feed the homeless.

MM: Well, that's another issue that we have here because the city and the county have not provided for just the very basic needs for people who were living on the streets — sanitation, healthy food, safe food — community groups are picking up the slack, and have been for a long time. So they go out on the streets and try to take care of the needs of these folks who are living in this horrible situation. And so I don't know if we can really fault them for doing so when the city and the county won't provide.

SB: You know, I'm just thinking back to what you said about the encampments — people trying to help feed them — what kinds of public sanitation facilities do they have access to?

MM: Well, there are some facilities in downtown — and then also in public parks — and then there's a day center for people who are experiencing homelessness, that they can use during the day hours that has facilities. One of the problems is also that we have a Park right near the epicenter of street homelessness in downtown that has public restrooms that have been closed for quite a while now, and recently were just reopened, actually, because of media pressure, and advocates putting pressure on the city because one of the best ways to slow down the spread of this disease is just washing your hands. But yet the city and the folks running this public restroom were making it harder to access one of the primary ways to cut down on the spread of the disease.

SB: So what has the city done in response?

MM: Well, they are finally ramping up and getting clinicians out on the streets to do the vaccines — which is the number one way stop the spread — is to actually vaccinate a large percentage of the at risk population. I think they're a long way from the percentages they need. Secondly you have to provide sanitation. And they've been stressing that, but nothing is being done about the increase sanitation, other than going out and giving up packs of sanitation supplies to people on the street. We need a lot of places for people to be washing their hands — going to the restrooms. We really need it all hands on deck effort here and we're just not seeing it yet.

SB: And in the meantime so many people are suffering under this outbreak. Can you tell us any stories about people you might've come across personally and how they've been affected by this outbreak?

MM: Well, it's, you know, it's a whole variety and some people have just disappeared from the streets, and we don't even know what happened to them. But there has been quite a few people that I've seen and known go to the hospitals — some of them have ended up in intensive care, and seem to have ongoing issues from this. Other folks are getting released from the hospital and seemed to be no worse for wear. So it's a whole variety of situations that are going on. But when you're basically coming right back to the street something else is going to happen, and you're not going to be able to take care of your physical and mental health very easily. And we have to have a better plan, not just for folks impacted by this this horrible outbreak, but just for people experiencing homelessness in general. We can't just cycle people through our emergency rooms, and our jails, and just send them right back into the horror that is the streets of San Diego.

SB: Do you believe that this outbreak is the catalyst to get the kind of change you're talking about?

MM: I certainly hope something is. When it involves homeless people for some reason there just seems to be a lack of urgency in general. And so at some point we're going to have to start caring more about our neighbours in need, and treating this like any other emergency or crisis that comes along. We need something done — we need a real all-hands-on-deck effort.

SB: Michael McConnell thank you very much.

MM: Thanks for having me, appreciate it.

SB: Bye, bye.

JD: Michael McConnell sat on a task force on homelessness in San Diego. We spoke with him earlier this week. Since that interview San Diego County's top official has demanded that at least 30 additional handwashing stations be installed throughout the city — the city has pledged to act quickly. There's more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih

[Music: Country]

New Cancer Drug

Guest: David Mitchell

JD: It is the first gene therapy approved for use in the United States — and the drug Kymriah — reportedly has the potential to revolutionize treatment for the most common type of childhood cancer. The drug uses patient's own cells to fight the disease. There is a catch however — the drug is owned by Novartis and it is charging $475 000 per treatment. While many doctors justify the cost by pointing to the years of research needed to get to this point, and to the fact that the drug is customized to each patient — some feel the price is excessive. David Mitchell is president of the U.S. advocacy group Patients For Affordable Drugs, we reached him in Washington D.C..

SB: Mr. Mitchell, before we get onto the subject of cost, can you tell us a bit about how this treatment works, and why it could be a breakthrough for children with cancer?

DAVID MITCHELL: The treatment is incredibly exciting. They take your own T-cells out of your body, send them to a plant in New Jersey, reengineer them with a genetic change, and then give you back those cells with an element that causes those cells to go hunt and kill cancer cells. It's not just revolutionary for children and their families it can be revolutionary for all cancers, and it is most likely to be used in other blood cancers first. It's been approved for a pediatric leukemia here in the United States, but it will be used for other blood cancers subsequently. And it's very exciting for me because I have an incurable blood cancer and I'm hopeful that within the next couple of years these CAR-T treatments are approved for my blood cancer, which is called multiple myeloma.

SB: How many people have been treated in clinical trials? What do we know about the effectiveness coming out of those tests?

DM: Only about 120 people, I believe, in the Novartis clinical trials have been treated, but their results have been ver,y very encouraging. Eighty-three per cent of children who had no other option achieved a response. Now how long that response lasts remains to be seen, and there are toxicities that can be dangerous. They recommend that someone who gets this reengineered cell back into their body hanging around a hospital for four weeks. So the treatment is revolutionary. It gives hope, but it comes with dangers.

SB: You talk about how it comes with dangers it also comes with a pretty high sticker cost. I heard the excitement in your voice when you talked about that someday it might help you with your cancer, but how did you react when you heard about the cost, which is approaching half-a million-dollars-per patient?

DM: We think the price is excessive. Two years ago the chief financial officer of a competing company estimated that the base price was going to be $150 000 per treatment. And at that time analysts were estimating up to $300 000 at most, per treatment. When we try to work the numbers — as best we can and it's hard because, of course, Novartis does not disclose any numbers — we can't get over $300 000 compared to the price that Novartis is set of $475 000.

SB: Now Novartis says that it's spent years developing the drug, preparing it for market, getting it to market. It has to be customized for each patient — it can take weeks for a single treatment — that's an expensive prospect, no?

DM: It is an expensive prospect. I think you have to bear in mind however, that in the United States of America tax payers pay for the research for 50 to 60 per cent of all the drugs new drugs that come to market. In this case taxpayers have invested, through our National Institutes of Health, more than two- hundred-million-dollars to develop the basic science that underpins this CAR-T drug. Tax payers made the investment in the basic research when the risk was the greatest. Novartis said, “ooh, hey it works, let's get in the game,”and then they brought money to the table. They should be compensated with a fair price, and fair profit for that — we still think the price is excessive.

SB: Given the system that you have in the United States — the health care system, the way the drug companies operate — would these drug companies even take this kind of a risk and invest all those years of development to make a drug like this if they didn't feel they could make a big profit from it?

DM: Well, that's what they say, on the other hand they claim 94 per cent of the drugs they try to develop fail, and they want the price of drugs in the United States to cover the cost of all their failures — and therefore they're not really taking a risk. We're really the ones who are covering the risk, not them.

SB: In Canada this treatment is not yet available, but we notice that some researchers are saying they're working on something similar, that would be affordable for our public health care system. Does that lead you to believe that that is something that can be made affordable?

DM: Yes it does. But remember that here in the United States we pay probably two or three times what other wealthy nations pay for their drugs, including your wonderful country — so it does encourage me. I sure would like to get pricing in this country like you're able to get in Canada.

[LAUGHTER]

SB: So what's to be done in the United States then?

DM: I believe we have to change our whole system. We're reflecting a systemic problem of the way we allow drugs to be priced in this country. We have a system that says in order to reward drug companies for their work to bring a drug to market, that they get a period of exclusivity, and during that time they have monopoly pricing power, and they exercise that monopoly pricing power at the expense of patients, consumers, and taxpayers. We have to change it, we have to change the way our system operates. So instead of operating for wealthy drug companies, and insurers, pharmacy benefit insurers, it actually operates more for patients.

SB: Well thank you for telling us about this drug, and in this fight that you're having with the company. Appreciate your time.

DM: Suzanne thank you very much for your interest.

SB: Goodbye.

JD: David Mitchell is President of the U.S. advocacy group Patients For Affordable Drugs, we reached him in Washington D.C., and for more on this story go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih

[Music: Guitar & Bass]

Catherine Mayor Promo

JD: Come Monday, Carol Off will be back in the chair next to me as we launch a brand new season of As It Happens. And on Monday you will hear Carol's feature interview with Catherine Mayor, author journalist and former editor of Time. She is suing Time alleging discrimination. Here's a taste of that conversation.

CAROL OFF: What is it going to be like for you to be in this public fight in the way that you are becoming the story?

CATHERINE MAYOR: Deeply unpleasant. I mean, it's not that life was a bed of roses before in terms of just reflex hostility, but being the person who stands up and makes the fuss, a lot of people see you as the problem and not the things you are talking about.

CO: Which is the argument that you give that this is what women are trained not to do — is to make a fuss.

CM: This is one of the ways in which women also unintentionally, help to perpetuate systems that are keeping them down is precisely because we do that.

JD: That’s journalist Catherine Mayor speaking with Carol. You can hear that full conversation when Carol returns Monday.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Sept. 1 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This