3 ms·

How Big Pharma Company Stalled Potentially Lifesaving Vaccine Pursuit Profits

7 points by thread_id 3y ago

fxtentacle 3y ago
"Importantly, the shingles vaccine shared a key ingredient with the TB shot, a component that enhanced the effectiveness of both but was in limited supply. From a business standpoint, GSK’s decision made sense." So they stopped developing a vaccination destined to save the poor from dying and instead prioritised a vaccine to help rich people feel better. As horrible or amoral as that sounds, it's kind of exactly what people are hoping for when yet buy stocks and want the line to go up.
- junofan 3y ago
  > whoever took over the TB vaccine’s development would need to pay GSK to ramp up production, which Breuer estimated would cost around $200 million. Sounds like supply can be increased. Maybe somebody else can pay for development and manufacture? Doesn’t seem horrible for GSK not to fund an unprofitable(?) drug.
  - thread_id 3y ago
    I don't think they are stating that it can't be profitable, just that they won't make as much profit as a drug they can sell to rich nations: "Though a good TB vaccine would be used by tens of millions of people, it has, in the parlance of industry, “no market,” because those who buy it are mostly nonprofits and countries that can’t afford to spend much. It’s not that a TB vaccine couldn’t be profitable. It’s that it would never be as profitable as a product like the shingles vaccine that can be sold in the U.S. or Western Europe." At the scale they are talking about the maginal cost of developing each unit will decrease significantly. They can still make money and save lives. In practice here, the global powers are allowing a commercial enterprise to set global policy for who and how pathgenic diseases get addressed. Ceding this power to GSK doesn't sound like a prudent decision. Especially when they gained access to this drug technology through government enabled and funded research.

3 ms·

How Big Pharma Company Stalled Potentially Lifesaving Vaccine Pursuit Profits

7 points by thread_id 3y ago

fxtentacle 3y ago
"Importantly, the shingles vaccine shared a key ingredient with the TB shot, a component that enhanced the effectiveness of both but was in limited supply. From a business standpoint, GSK’s decision made sense." So they stopped developing a vaccination destined to save the poor from dying and instead prioritised a vaccine to help rich people feel better. As horrible or amoral as that sounds, it's kind of exactly what people are hoping for when yet buy stocks and want the line to go up.
- junofan 3y ago
  > whoever took over the TB vaccine’s development would need to pay GSK to ramp up production, which Breuer estimated would cost around $200 million. Sounds like supply can be increased. Maybe somebody else can pay for development and manufacture? Doesn’t seem horrible for GSK not to fund an unprofitable(?) drug.
  - thread_id 3y ago
    I don't think they are stating that it can't be profitable, just that they won't make as much profit as a drug they can sell to rich nations: "Though a good TB vaccine would be used by tens of millions of people, it has, in the parlance of industry, “no market,” because those who buy it are mostly nonprofits and countries that can’t afford to spend much. It’s not that a TB vaccine couldn’t be profitable. It’s that it would never be as profitable as a product like the shingles vaccine that can be sold in the U.S. or Western Europe." At the scale they are talking about the maginal cost of developing each unit will decrease significantly. They can still make money and save lives. In practice here, the global powers are allowing a commercial enterprise to set global policy for who and how pathgenic diseases get addressed. Ceding this power to GSK doesn't sound like a prudent decision. Especially when they gained access to this drug technology through government enabled and funded research.