http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5214776.stm

Quote :

"laxo has bird flu 'breakthrough' Syringe dripping liquid The threat of a bird flu pandemic has companies racing for a cure UK drugs firm GlaxoSmithKline believes it has developed a vaccine for the H5N1 deadly strain of bird flu that may be capable of being mass produced by 2007. The vaccine has proved effective at two doses of 3.8 micrograms during clinical trials in Belgium, BBC business editor Robert Peston has learned. It is the size of the dose that is highly significant, Glaxo explained. Firms want the smallest effective dose so that they can get the maximum number of shots out of a quantity of vaccine. Glaxo has yet to publish the results of its tests. The news of the work on a potential vaccine came as Glaxo reported its profits had risen 14% in the three months to June to £1.32bn (US$2.4bn). Delivery Glaxo said that governments could order the vaccine for delivery and stockpiling in early 2007. All being well, we expect to make regulatory filings for the vaccine in the coming months Glaxo boss Jean-Pierre Garnier Check Glaxo's share price One of Glaxo's main rivals, the French drug company Sanofi Aventis, has also been working on a vaccine. A study published in the Lancet in May showed that Sanofi's vaccine had some effectiveness in some patients who were treated with two 7.5 microgram doses. In February, the NHS awarded a contract to another firm - Baxter International - for two million doses of its H5N1 vaccine to inoculate "key" public service workers. Government talks Drug companies are looking to develop treatments because of concerns that the H5N1 virus will combine with a human flu virus and mutate into a form which can spread between humans. Since 2003 there have been 231 cases of bird flu in humans, resulting in 133 deaths. Workers disposing of a dead chicken Bird flu has been spreading outwards from Asia A pandemic flu strain spreading between humans has yet to emerge. Since no one knows what such a strain would look like, companies cannot yet develop a targeted vaccine. But a number of firms, including Glaxo, are seeking to develop vaccines based on the existing H5N1 strains in order to give humans some form of protection. Glaxo says it will now start discussing with governments about whether they want the vaccine and how much they may want to order. Its vaccine, like others in development, is on a fast track for approval with the relevant licensing authorities in the US and Europe - the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA). "All being well, we expect to make regulatory filings for the vaccine in the coming months," said Glaxo chief executive Jean-Pierre Garnier. Prime desire Glaxo seems highly confident that demand for its vaccine will be huge, the BBC's business editor said. The UK and US have both indicated a desire to "prime" their respective populations with an initial inoculation. Glaxo boss Jean-Paul Garnier Glaxo's Garnier has spoken to US President Bush about the vaccine Mr Garnier said he recently met US President George W Bush to discuss the vaccination programme. Following that meeting, Glaxo received $272m (£148m) of funding, earmarked in part for the development of new technologies to produce vaccines. Glaxo said its new vaccine would give limited immunity to bird flu in the event of a pandemic. A second shot would be necessary for complete immunisation, the company said. If there were a pandemic outbreak in the early autumn, mass manufacture of Glaxo's vaccine could probably be started quickly through collaboration with rival pharmaceutical companies. Glaxo said it was also talking to the Gates Foundation about how to provide the vaccine to poorer, developing countries. Shotgun effect Despite the company's optimism, there were a number of unanswered questions, the BBC's business editor said. Firstly, there is uncertainty over how many doses can be manufactured quickly, and how easy it would be to make the transition from laboratory testing to mass production. And secondly, it is not clear how effective the vaccination would be if H5N1 were to mutate significantly. Chicken's head Chicken flu and other viruses often go through a process of mutation Glaxo says its vaccine is more akin to shotgun treatment than a "precision-rifle cure", which means that it appears to be effective against small mutations in the virus strain. However, it has yet to determine the effectiveness of the vaccine against big changes in the H5N1 strain. Glaxo said the cost of the vaccine is likely to be a little more than for conventional flu vaccines, which retail for about £4 per shot. According to Glaxo, the side effects or reactions to its bird flu vaccine have been very similar to those generated by a conventional influenza treatment, and have been limited to a fever in a number of patients. Drug companies including Glaxo have been looking to expand their vaccination programmes as fears rise about an outbreak of a viral pandemic and governments come under increased pressure to protect their populations. Glaxo bought Canadian vaccine company, ID Biomed, for $2bn last autumn and is now probably the second-largest manufacturer of flu vaccines after Sanofi. "

If the pharmaceutical companies weren't so profitable, they wouldn't have the investors or the capital to be able to tackle this issue which is a scare to populations worldwide.

Fuck the pharmaceutical companies. They're so evil. They make medicines that cure us. How dare they!

7/26/2006 8:56:41 AM

no no no no no, they only make medicines that treat us -- if they made medicines to cure us, they'd lose market share! With our evil market-based economy, they have an incentive to keep us sick!

You don't really think they haven't found an AIDS cure yet, do you?

7/26/2006 9:09:53 AM

paging salisburyboy

CONSPIRACY!

7/26/2006 9:13:40 AM

^^ plus that completely overrides market forces. You don't think that if a company can find a cure as oppose to treat and sell it and completely undercut the other companies, they woulnd't do it? You would have to believe a huge conspiracy with all the drug companies in on it who promised not to release anything like that. That's completely ridiculous and you're over the deep end if you believe that. A company can stand to profit quite handsomely if they found a cure for aids. Coudln't you see the headline now?

COMPANY CURES AIDS, STOCK UP 11981987%

7/26/2006 9:23:13 AM

(he was laying the sarcasm on pretty thick)

7/26/2006 9:26:05 AM

shit.

Fuck.

oops


well hopefully that at least dispels that argument.

7/26/2006 9:27:06 AM

Yep, people will be more willing to bankrupt their family and friends to buy a cure rather than a treatment.

I wonder if it would be socially acceptable for a drug company to demand to see last years tax return in order to determine a personalized fair price.

7/26/2006 9:43:36 AM

i prefer getting scared at the blanket threats of terrorism instead of the blanket threats of a disease

7/26/2006 9:47:13 AM

^^ They wouldn't do that. They would sell it at market price. The mere threat of competition from other companies is enough for them not to go splurging and selling the thing at astronomical levels. Plus, think of the user base here... if they have a drug that no one can afford, might as well not have any drug at all.

But I'm sure the US Government plus the western world will subsidize the hell out of something like this.

7/26/2006 10:09:55 AM

That would be the purpose of the tax returns, to make sure everyone can afford it. A poor person is charged $2,000, a rich person is charged $200,000.

7/26/2006 10:44:13 AM

This thread is moronic.

7/26/2006 11:27:49 AM

lol vaccines for bird flu is so silly lol

7/26/2006 11:39:12 AM

Fuck George Bush. He's so evil. He makes plans that protect us from terrorism. How dare he!

7/26/2006 11:41:44 AM

Quote :

"I wonder if it would be socially acceptable for a drug company to demand to see last years tax return in order to determine a personalized fair price."

Some of them actually adjust their prices for poorer families. Haven't you heard their PR campaigns?


Also, this thread is retarded, and like all abonorio posts, doesn't actually address his opponents' arguments.

7/26/2006 12:29:06 PM

Quote :

"Some of them actually adjust their prices for poorer families"

Excellent, that solves the pricing paradox.

Previously people didn't stand for it, so sellers had to institute "Military", "student", "senior citizen", etc, discounts in an effort to price based on income. If you can do it explicitly then it gets simpler for everyone.

7/26/2006 12:38:14 PM

Quote :

"This thread is moronic."

7/26/2006 12:41:48 PM

Quote :

"Also, this thread is retarded, and like all abonorio posts, doesn't actually address his opponents' arguments."

I made the thread dipshit. It's up to you to address my argument.

7/26/2006 1:46:11 PM

instead of a discussion, we get a bunch of baiting. this is why soap box rules!

7/26/2006 2:05:25 PM

I guess this should fit in on that "private enterprise investing in risky scientific advances" that some of the left don't think exist.

And I know what they'll do, they'll point to the $30 a government gave them at some point as the deciding factor in this breakthrough.

7/26/2006 2:17:54 PM

There was a report on NPR where a frustrated WHO director said something along the lines of

"Drug companies are terrified at the prospect of developing an AIDS vaccine because they fear they'd be forced to give it away for free."

I wouldn't read too much into this as there already is a precedent of distributed flu vaccinations. While this news is good for the future, it would be wise to notice the millions will die from AIDS and millions more will be infected.

7/26/2006 2:23:51 PM

I am confused. Someone posted this to try to show that private research occurs without government incentive? This is an article about a company manufacturing a vaccine it wants to sell to the US/UK governments. The former is certainly true, but one need only read the first couple sentences to see this is a bad example.

7/26/2006 2:32:35 PM

that's not why I posed it. I posted it to show that the "massive and unjust profit" of the pharmaceutical companies make it possible to prevent worldwide epidemics.

7/26/2006 2:33:56 PM

True enough, but if they are smart then they have nothing to fear.

There are still countries on this planet that respect private property. Just relocate the vaccine to one of these havenes and make people come to you. It will cost a lot more, but you don't need to worry about it being stollen.

Of course, if you're developing a cure I suspect someone else is too, so you might go for speed instead. Before announcing the cure, build up huge stockpiles so you can cure everyone (at price) all at once before the governments of the world have a chance to interfere.

7/26/2006 2:35:23 PM

Quote :

"I made the thread dipshit. It's up to you to address my argument."

The thread is a counter-argument to an argument that doesn't even exist. How should I go about addressing something like that?

7/26/2006 4:13:02 PM