3 ms·

Donations make great headlines but rarely sustainable fixes. Pfizer do seem to be odd one out here. "They continue to offer donations that give Pfizer a tax bre

Donations make great headlines but rarely sustainable fixes. Pfizer do seem to be odd one out here. "They continue to offer donations that give Pfizer a tax break". That seems damning, but I know nothing about global drug pricing, and current developing world issues, so let's take 20 lunchtime minutes and see what I can find out. wholesale price $17.00 (developing world src:wikipedia) AMC subsidised price $3.50 GSK Offer $3.05 MSF Want $1.66 For a vaccine introduced in the US in 2000 and France, Germany, and the UK in 2006. There's a need to research further strains mainly found in the developing world. There's also the AMC programme (Gates Foundation and 5 Govt contributions), GAVI (Gates, World Bank, WHO, Unicef). GSK charge less than Pfizer as their vaccine covers slightly fewer strains. GAVI seems to have been remarkably successful [1], and $10bn in funding over its lifetime, 75% infectious disease control, 25% basic healthcare. They're in more countries than currently targeted but rollout within countries is slightly behind. Countries are still applying to join GAVI. They have systematically increased manufacturers for vaccines, including developing world producers for all. Two or three more manufacturers of Pneumococcal vaccine are in pipeline. Not clear when, but MSF seem to indicate next year for first. -- So, what do I get from that? 20, OK 25 minutes doesn't get you much, reports tend to be long. :) I've a new found respect for Bill Gates. From a world where vaccination rates were declining in the 90s, he's achieved a huge change. $3.50 a dose is perhaps a better ask, given strains covered and other subsidised prices. Get that then ask everyone to go lower. Or ask $1.66 and get ignored. Can't quickly find out research cost of these, or production cost, so impossible to estimate what cost price becomes, or additional costs to research additional developing world strains. High price doesn't only mean profiteering. Products appear to be in pipeline from GSK (in collaboration with London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and Medical Research Council, Gambia) - near Phase III, Serum Institute of India - under development, Merck has a candidate going into Phase II. So competition coming soon(tm). [1] http://gaviprogressreport.org http://gaviprogressreport.org

skj 10y ago
Bill Gates? Just in case, MSF is Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), not Microsoft.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is, I believe, the largest funder of GAVI.
slim 10y ago
MSF just said that donation is actually harmful and you're still praising Bill Gates? I suggest you spend 20 minutes thinking about the impact of medication funneled through corrupt gov. in third world countries. And the influence of gates on those govs.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  The actual quote from the MSF piece: "To avoid these risks and to limit the use of in-kind medical products donations, the World Health Organization (WHO), and other leading global health organizations such as UNICEF and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, have clear recommendations against donation offers from pharmaceutical corporations." My emphasis. GAVI, an organisation Gates was involved in creating, and has given $2.5bn (a little under 22% of their total budget) to since 99 is agreeing the recommendation. They're in 75 of the poorest nations on earth - of course there is some fraud and corruption, but vaccination is progressing very well and more countries are continually joining. I'm sure they try to minimise it. He's put another $1bn into two other vaccination programmes: polio and malaria. Yes, I stand by what I said. Would you prefer MSF, a fine charity with an honourable history but almost endless call on their limited resources do it? In addition to the training, basic healthcare, vaccination, disaster relief, clean water supply, and refugee missions? And probably a dozen other things I forget. They're not immune to fraud and corruption either - no organisation that size can be. I'm sure they try to minimise it too. What would you do?
  - slim 10y ago
    I would exempt third world from intellectual property by amending human rights charter

skj 10y ago

Bill Gates? Just in case, MSF is Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), not Microsoft.

jcranmer 10y ago
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is, I believe, the largest funder of GAVI.

slim 10y ago

MSF just said that donation is actually harmful and you're still praising Bill Gates? I suggest you spend 20 minutes thinking about the impact of medication funneled through corrupt gov. in third world countries. And the influence of gates on those govs.

anexprogrammer 10y ago
The actual quote from the MSF piece: "To avoid these risks and to limit the use of in-kind medical products donations, the World Health Organization (WHO), and other leading global health organizations such as UNICEF and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, have clear recommendations against donation offers from pharmaceutical corporations." My emphasis. GAVI, an organisation Gates was involved in creating, and has given $2.5bn (a little under 22% of their total budget) to since 99 is agreeing the recommendation. They're in 75 of the poorest nations on earth - of course there is some fraud and corruption, but vaccination is progressing very well and more countries are continually joining. I'm sure they try to minimise it. He's put another $1bn into two other vaccination programmes: polio and malaria. Yes, I stand by what I said. Would you prefer MSF, a fine charity with an honourable history but almost endless call on their limited resources do it? In addition to the training, basic healthcare, vaccination, disaster relief, clean water supply, and refugee missions? And probably a dozen other things I forget. They're not immune to fraud and corruption either - no organisation that size can be. I'm sure they try to minimise it too. What would you do?
- slim 10y ago
  I would exempt third world from intellectual property by amending human rights charter