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

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.