http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/157994/20110606/vaccine-drug-prices-glaxosmithkline-merck.htm

excuse my cynicism, but that is Good. That’s good right? which will save thousands of lives from terrible disease. Not just a PR exercise due to competition from developing Eastern pharma companies then?. If huge western pharmaceutical corporations have the ability to save lives for a few pence each.. what else initiative is needed? shouldn’t that be enforced! they still make **** loads of profit and have happy shareholders. won’t somebody think of the children?!

A couple of years back gsk pushed for open source information on cancer and hiv research too. Shared loads of intellectual property.

Aw is quite a nice bloke too.

He came across very well on R4 this morning. He said it’s not a charity thing, they can afford to sell for this price in the 3rd world countries because the guaranteed volumes enable economies of scale and the price they’ll charge will just cover their costs. In return and to compensate they’ll charge more to the countries that can afford to pay more (that article says $2.50 a dose in the 3rd world, $50 in the US for example)

It seems a common thought to many is that Big Pharma should be contributing more to the developing world, we’ll see how prepared we are to (indirectly) do our part too because our taxes will be the balancing factor ultimately. And as AW said; unless GSK makes profits on existing drugs and vaccines, then there would be no future funding for the stuff we 1st world countries all want (Alzheimers, heart disease, cancer….)

His best point was that developed markets want innovation and new treatments, and that they should be prepared to foot the bill. Developing countries want access – hence selling at cost price (paid for by Microsoft shares).

Of course if this one comes off, then GSK might be seen in a different light: 1 Million deaths/year – mainly children, 27 years already in development and no prospect of a profit. It’s not all constant gardening.

Cos they care? I think they should be forced to give a shit! by law! cos they can. and they have sommuch cash!

he did come over well on R4 but they are doing some stuff for money.
Better they are doing some good stuff than bad stuff for money. It would be better if all multi billion pound companies did something good because they felt a moral twinge rather than for a good marketing spin. It costs them absolutely **** all to do this yet now we are talking about this as if they are good and nice. We[ western consumers] will foot the bill so thank yourself not them…they just want the money and to look nice whilst doing it which helps them get more money and a nice foothold/influence in new markets.

so we save these kids with this stuff we can produce for minimal amount of expenditure

$300M development so far for malaria, another $100M to come and still at least two years away with no prospect of a profit. It’s not the manufacturing costs, it’s the 20 plus years of development that needs paying for.

The £2.50 is the manufacturing cost that the Gates Foundation will fund. The additional £47.50 profit from US sales will presumably be reinvested into finding new medicines and go to keeping shareholders (anyone with a pension scheme) happier.

I hope this is a nice moral twinge then for nice cuddly massive corporations then! ooh, that’d be so nice. It’s just business

They may well be doing it because they think they should or because they can. Not all big businesses lack a conscience (just most of them IME)

But they wouldn;t be doing it if it wasn’t adding value to their shareholders/share price…

He came across very well on R4 this morning. He said it’s not a charity thing, they can afford to sell for this price in the 3rd world countries because the guaranteed volumes enable economies of scale and the price they’ll charge will just cover their costs. In return and to compensate they’ll charge more to the countries that can afford to pay more (that article says $2.50 a dose in the 3rd world, $50 in the US for example)

So why did it take so long for Big Pharma to come to this conclusion? He did sound OK on R4 I agree but I think western Big Phrma is dead despite this. I wouldn’t touch shares in GSK. Did no-one watch The Constant Gardener on TV last night?

“sounding OK on R4” what does that mean?

and they have sommuch cash!

The costs involved in testing a new drug are astronomical.
The pay-off is good if you make it work, but the penalty for failure is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. And the money you make if it’s good goes into offsetting the cost of the other 10 drugs you had that failed at the animal-testing point. And the cost of the next 10 drugs you think might be worth something, but will probably fail.

If you gamble with such high stakes, I think it’s only fair that the rewards should tally with the risks taken.

$300M development so far for malaria, another $100M to come and still at least two years away with no prospect of a profit. It’s not the manufacturing costs, it’s the 20 plus years of development that needs paying for.

Plus the fact that should they actually come up with something special, a blockbuster as it’s known in the trade, they have a limited time to make nack costs and turn it into profit before generics steal the market.

No one ever whines at the generics companies, but they too could be doing their bit.

hh45 – I’ll have your GSK shares if you don’t want them…

GSK don’t give a **** about peoples health they just care about money and profit, they have killed many very ill people over the years and frankly I hope the CEO rots in a very painful death 🙂

that is all 😉

It’s good business sense. Nothing more.

I worked for a large oil & gas corp for a while in the health, safety and environmental side. Had some very illuminating conversations with one particular EVP about the reason for pressing high standards into the project management and tendering processes. If you do you win more contracts, lose less money from spillages and accidents and keep the public at arms length. It’s all about the bottom line. Always has been.

When i said he came across well; I mean he presented his / GSK’s position in a clear and reasonable way. And importantly to me, he DIDN’T try to pretend this was pure charity, in fact he denied that very point. He as good as admitted that he had to make enough to cover reinvestment costs in other drugs that ‘we’ (developed nations) are clamouring for. And the estimate above of the ‘other ten that fail’ is miles off, think more like 1000’s or 10,000’s to 1 failure rate at some point in drug development. And then that by striking this deal he’d managed to guarantee volumes which in turn had enabled a better manufacturing position and cost. And then finally that to recoup some of the lost profit, he’d be making us pay more for the volumes that are used in the 1st world countries (which we will through tax etc.). We’re all saying it’s a good thing to send these vaccines to the 3rd world so why don’t we cover some of the cost too.

Sure, it’s a marketing exercise too, but I don’t see it as a cynical one and even if it is, if it benefits those countries that need it most I’ll swallow it with a pinch of salt anyway.

Pik n Mix. Nice. In fact the current CEO has been in post for about 3 years and has imho done good (ethical) things since being there – a change to their policies on publishing adverse data as another example. Your comments are wide of the mark.

We’re all saying it’s a good thing to send these vaccines to the 3rd world so why don’t we cover some of the cost too.

Bill gates foundation is covering all the costs of manufacture we are being charged more to offset the profit loss by the company who are contributing absolutely nothing whatsoever to this and gianing a large market /influence abroad as a result
Big company does something that has no cost implication for themselves to increase sales in the long riun of the back of charities and westerners whilst trying to generate good publicity for this is a more apt [ though less catchy] description of this set of events.

GSK don’t give a **** about peoples health they just care about money and profit, they have killed many very ill people over the years and frankly I hope the CEO rots in a very painful death

Are you pretending that the drugs that GSK and others have designed, developed and sold don’t save lives ? Yes, they need to make profits, because it can cost $1Bn to get a new drug to market. The pharmaceutical business exists to save and prolong lives, which it does. Compare our average lifespans to those of 100 years ago.

The pharmaceutical business exists to save and prolong lives, which it does.

If they could not make make profit would they still save lives – even you accept this point so why say this is why they exist- it is not it is how they make money.
Increased lifespan is primarily due to a better diet and sanitation rather than miracles cures from pharamceutical companies,

Are you pretending that the drugs that GSK and others have designed, developed and sold don’t save lives ? Yes, they need to make profits, because it can cost $1Bn to get a new drug to market. The pharmaceutical business exists to save and prolong lives, which it does. Compare our average lifespans to those of 100 years ago.

IIRC typically 2/3 of that ‘to market’ cost is in marketing.
Bearing that in mind, i’ve wondered if it would make more sense for a government to just buy out a couple of huge companies, and get the drugs cheaper. Probably a bit naive of me though 🙂

I think the big lifespan increase has bee mostly down to sanitation improvements, poverty reduction/ nutritional improvements.

I think the big lifespan increase has bee mostly down to sanitation improvements, poverty reduction/ nutritional improvements

and mass vaccination and antibiotics (amoxycillin was invented by GSK)…

There have been state-owned pharma (Sanofi in France), but it is really only the free-market economy that has delivered the goods. Governments couldn’t handle the risk on return on investment. Free markets hedge this risk in a broad portfolio of industries.