Drug makers feel burned by string of vaccine pleas
statnews.com
statnews.com
That doesn't sound very hard to me. Hire people who have the skills necessary, pay them a fair wage (lower probably than they'll make in a corporation, but they'll be working for the people rather than a robber-baron), and let them make vaccines. Aside from the cost, is it really that difficult to do this? We've spent much more on war.
Drug company profits generally come from serving the needs of the well-to-do in the global north. We will obviously need new vaccines and antibiotics as time goes on. I wonder if the expensive research infrastructure setup to target the high-profit drugs is the same as the one we would build to target vaccines and antibiotics. There's an element of systemic & structural dissonance here too - if we start dying from drug resistant strains of endemic diseases, those high profit drugs probably aren't going to keep selling well.
We need to think seriously about how to construct a drug development ecosystem that balances our needs. I don't think it's as simple as "nationalize the drug companies" (though I think they are pretty morally bankrupt).
The problem is, does "the most good" mean treats the largest number of people, or treats the most virulent conditions, or something else.
Right now, we're largely using "the most good" to mean "the most good for shareholders," which is how we ended up with a bunch of different wiener pills and breast cancer is still a thing.
And discovering viagra was a complete accident while trying to develop a pill for cardiovascular disease.
I am not sure that breast cancer is a good example. There have been a lot of exciting advances in breast cancer therapy including therapy that tries to cure the cancer but still preserves the breast. Five year survival rate is near 90%. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
An alternative framing is that, "doing the most good" is determined by what the public is willing to pay for. The public thinking cancer treatments are very good because the impacts are immediate and obvious. The public also cares deeply about their wiener.
I think that's a very seriously flawed metric to measure what's "doing the most good".
That said, it is a hell of a lot better than most of the alternatives.
Here's an explanation from a founder on why the numbers for anti-biotic R&D don't work.
https://endpts.com/biopharma-has-abandoned-antibiotic-develo...
FTA: >new antibiotics typically end up with list prices in the $2,000 — $3,000 range (for a one-time cure!) while payers gladly shell out tens or hundreds of thousands for cancer drugs or medicines for rare genetic diseases. Low sales volumes (due to stewardship) and low price points (due to DRG-driven pricing pressures) result in minimal sales for novel antibiotics. Achaogen’s new antibiotic was seeing unimpressive sales of around a million dollars per quarter before the company folded. At these sales figures, the company would have never recouped the cost of developing the drug.
Of course, we don't want antibiotics to cost $10k a unit, much less $100k. Thus my question about the implicit assumption that the same development pipeline that's working on $100k+ cancer drugs is suitable for antibiotic development.
Of course what you want is antibiotics to cost a dollar and be as safe as apply pie and as plentiful as salt water. But that's not really an options. Our options are the status quo, heavily subsidize antibiotic research and pricing, reduce regulations so they can be developed incredibly cheaply, or change regulations to drive up sales.
So why can't pharma companies move their operations to countries with fewer regulations?
Maybe it's time we back up and rethink what we really want here. It seems like the root cause is the highly risk-adverse regulation environment. The Government could take a bigger role in drug/vaccine development, but it seems unlikely that getting the Government more involved will result in a faster-moving and less risk-adverse development system that can rapidly apply sufficient resources to address a sudden threat, and then follow through with the development even after the immediate threat has already abated. It seems like the solution is to make the regulatory/approval environment less strict and expensive instead. That will allow anyone who develops drugs, whether large or small private companies or Government agencies, to get them to the public more rapidly.
There's a military-industrial complex that isn't perfect, but works. If it's important enough then there should be a health-industrial complex to develop the technologies, medicines, treatments, etc.. that would be too expensive/unprofitable to develop otherwise.
Total privatization is not a good idea, as having companies bid for contracts at least introduces some competition into the process, and some incentive to innovate.
The comparison of the two industries is a stretch, IMO. Completely different business models.
In both of these, the proposed business model is that you make what the government asks you to make. And of course you build your factories in certain senator's backyards, and so on... it's not going to be done for precisely the minimum possible cost. But it can get done.
So what's the problem here? Do you want people in other countries to die of preventable diseases or something?
Renewed funding heavy vaccine and antibiotic development would save millions in the US and abroad, sooner than we think.
And as far as I can tell, Pharma cos stand to make some solid revenue from this, so lets get the risk/reward commensurate with the value society gains from this line of work.
It's particularly bizarre to me that flu shots just deliver an amazing public benefit, why charge anything? The government spends a fortune on development and distribution costs. Why not just pay for the administration, or even provide incentives to drive more adoption? If you paid a bounty to CVS/Walgreens/WalMart, they would hand out coupons or free donuts to lure people in and get much high vaccination rates.
What a goddamn waste. I would hope someday all governments pay a fixed share of national income / national budget to the UN which then centrally funds vaccine and other pharma (antibiotics!) development and distribution worldwide...
>A number of flu vaccine manufacturers were left on the hook with ordered but unpaid for vaccine during the mild 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic.
Expecting pharma to act as charitable NGOs seems like an unstable solution. Moreso as the PR vale decreases with public attention span.
Who is working on the vaccines for 2019-ncov?
We know how many diseases start, why almost no discussion of prevention when vaccines are brought up as if they are the only way (or even best way) to deal with diseases?
I would love to hear your thoughts on how flu or measles can be reliably prevented on a population basis without the use of vaccines?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190423133644.h...
She fed me several spoonfuls through the day. The next day I was working in the yard. It was by far the shortest episode of the flu I have ever had.
So why not discuss all other options for preventing disease?
If you say there are none, there is no point in trying to educate you from nothing, go google some stuff about prevention.
These categories (and maybe others) are widely known (no disputes what so ever) in the medical industry.
So why do people get so irrational around any discussions about vaccines? They simply don't help everyone, this is a fact.
And as long as everyone else interacting with those people are vaccinated, those people will benefit from herd immunity. That is: vaccines are prevention, even for those people who cannot be vaccinated.
> So why do people get so irrational around any discussions about vaccines?
Because "discussions about vaccines" almost always ends up being a dogwhistle for "vaccines are harmful" and/or "people who can be vaccinated shouldn't be vaccinated".
Vaccines are a sacred cow to too many people. They have flaws and aren't perfect.
Vaccines are an effective first line of defense. If you are able to be vaccinated, there is zero good reason to not do so (besides perhaps cost, but they're typically a lot cheaper than other methods of prevention). It ain't about "sacred cows"; it's about what actually works and is safe and effective and practical, and vaccines are all of the above.
But just brining up "prevention" some how generates irate irrational responses.
Yes, vaccines have become a sacred cow. If you say vaccines are perfect, your are unscientific and pushing propaganda.
If you can't openly discuss the flaws of vaccines, then it's a sacred cow to you.
A challenge: discuss the imperfections of vaccines.
Nobody said that.
Nearly everyone I meet is so irrational that there can't be a scientific discussion about vaccines.
Can you propose one single negative to vaccine use?
Can you?
Because it's practically impossible to "prevent" diseases like this Coronavirus outbreak.
Of course, I suspect what you mean by "prevention" is "stop all these diseased brown people from traveling to where the nice clean white people are".
Are you saying they have labelled themselves incorrectly?
The CDC's page on coronavirous discusses prevention:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/about/prevention.html
Do you think the CDC's list for prevention is pointless? Here's the CDC's list of prevention actions (besides avoiding contact):
* Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially after going to the bathroom; before eating; and after blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing.
* If soap and water are not readily available, use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol. Always wash hands with soap and water if hands are visibly dirty.
* Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands.
* Avoid close contact with people who are sick.
* Stay home when you are sick.
* Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.
* Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces using a regular household cleaning spray or wipe.
As for pharma, well they 've contributed to the establishment of the current model according to which their FDA-approved monopolies are their moneymakers, everything else is a loss. The solution is to deregulate both ways, shorten or partially abolish drug patents
So you want to go back to the days of growing your own tomatoes in your own garden, and abandon trade and modern technologies?
No it does not. This is patently false.
Suggesting that the human race stop traveling to stop any potential diseases from traveling also is delusional.
Do you believe this "we" will include mothers with children dying from currently incurable cancers?