Drug companies don't want an AID vaccine

[Ace Pace]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In an unusually candid admission, the federal chief of AIDS research says he believes drug companies don't have an incentive to create a vaccine for the HIV and are likely to wait to profit from it after the government develops one.

That means the government has had to spend more time focusing on the processes that drug companies ordinarily follow in developing new medicines and bringing them to market.

"We had to spend some time and energy paying attention to those aspects of development because the private side isn't picking it up," Dr. Edmund Tramont testified in a deposition in a recent employment lawsuit obtained by The Associated Press.

Tramont is head of the AIDS research division of the National Institutes of Health, and he predicted in his testimony that the government will eventually create a vaccine. He testified in July in the whistleblower case of Dr. Jonathan Fishbein.

"If we look at the vaccine, HIV vaccine, we're going to have an HIV vaccine. It's not going to be made by a company," Tramont said. "They're dropping out like flies because there's no real incentive for them to do it. We have to do it."

"They will eventually -- if it works, they won't have to make that big investment. And they can make it and sell it and make a profit," he said.
Struggles for vaccines

An official of the group representing the country's major drug companies took sharp exception to Tramont's comments.

"That is simply not true. America's pharmaceutical research companies are firmly committed to HIV/AIDS vaccine research and development with 15 potential vaccines in development today," said Ken Johnson, senior vice president of PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

"Vaccine research is crucial to controlling the AIDS pandemic and our companies are well aware of the need to succeed in this vital area of science," Johnson said.

In an e-mail response for comment, Tramont said the HIV vaccine mirrors the history of other vaccines. "It is not just a HIV vaccine - it's all vaccines - that is why there was/is a shortage of flu vaccines," Tramont wrote.

The quest for an AIDS vaccine has been one of science's biggest disappointments despite billions of dollars and years of research. Part of the dilemma is that such a vaccine must work through the very immune system that AIDS compromises.

The failure in the last couple years of one of the more promising vaccine candidates has bred some frustration.
Hope delayed

The United Nations' top HIV/AIDS official acknowledged earlier this year at a conference that it was no longer realistic to hope that the world will meet its goal of halting and reversing the spread of the pandemic by 2015. A British delegate to that conference predicted it might take 20 years before such a vaccine is created.

The International AIDS Vaccines Initiative, a not-for-profit group that is pushing for an AIDS vaccine, said there are more than 30 vaccine candidates being tested mostly on a small scale in 19 counties, but it acknowledges many are pursuing a similar theory of science that may prove futile.

"If the hypothesis is proven incorrect, the pipeline of candidates now in trials will be rendered mostly irrelevant. Strong alternative hypotheses have been largely neglected," the group said.

IAVI estimates total annual spending on an AIDS vaccine is $682 million.

"This represents less than 1% of total spending on all health product development," IAVI said. "Private sector efforts amount to just $100 million annually. This is mainly due to the lack of incentives for the private sector to invest in an AIDS vaccine -- the science is difficult, and the developing countries that need a vaccine most are least able to pay."

This is fucking disgraceful, well you useless money grubbing companies, DONATE THE FUCKING MONEY YOU EARN SO THERE MIGHT BE A CHANCE TO STOP THIS.

[Robert Walper]

This is neither surprising or new. We'd probably be shocked at what cures and health drugs are possible today, but are not implemented because it would hurt the health care industry (profit wise).

[Destructionator XV]

Recently, I have been really growing to hate business. Business ethics is quite the oxymoron.

I think the government should tax the hell out of these bastards or otherwise force them to do the right thing.

[Josh]

Recently, I have been really growing to hate business. Business ethics is quite the oxymoron.

I think the government should tax the hell out of these bastards or otherwise force them to do the right thing.

Yes, create further disincentive by taxation. Not so brilliant, Adam.

Fact is, yes, the vaccine would not be profitable and quite possibly cause them to run at a loss, so a calculated decision has been made to let government research programs handle the bulk of research in that area.

Not a humanitarian approach by any means, but corporations stay in business by making money.

[Lord Stormbringer]

This is fucking disgraceful, well you useless money grubbing companies, DONATE THE FUCKING MONEY YOU EARN SO THERE MIGHT BE A CHANCE TO STOP THIS.

No, it's the naturally inclination of business. Corporations are rarely very alturistic. That's why they're businesses not charities. Try to tone back the gorram hysterics when you discover the essential fact of capitalism, it just makes you look like a fool and a whiner. It's not pretty but we don't live in happy fairy land.

And realistically, why should they put up hundreds of billions of dollars on a purely speculative venture that's unlikely to have a pay off equal to the risk taken and capital invested? Those drug companies you're saying should be footing the bill are already getting absolutely hosed with regards to AIDS medications; patents have been disregarded wholesale and entirely. Having most of the nations who would be buying this already announcing they intend to screw you royally is a major disincentive to further pursue efforts. They've shot themselves in the foot quite well there and it's little consolation to see that prediction come true.

And of course, that leaves aside the fact that HIV is a purebred bitch to try and vacinate against. As your own article points out, it's taken decades and they're not even sure the underlying theories are correct with how a vaccine should work! So far as I know, they've never vaccinated against a virus of the basic type of HIV; whipping up some flu vaccine this isn't. Like they were twenty years ago, they're saying it may be another twenty years. So that's another huge disincentive to risk large amounts of investor money.

In short, a private HIV Vaccine effort is hampered by the lack of basic working theory and a lot of short sighted political gamesmanship.

This is neither surprising or new. We'd probably be shocked at what cures and health drugs are possible today, but are not implemented because it would hurt the health care industry (profit wise).

Probably considerably less than the more cynical believe. Or rather, there are very few "cures" and a lot of "if we had a few billion" more dollars" cures. Despite what a lot of Ivory Tower Eggheads and politically minded Lying Sacks of Socialist Shit would have you believe, if a cure is possible or can be developed reasonably it usually is. It might not be cheap (hey, complicated treatments take commenserate financing) but they are developed.

[SirNitram]

'Cures' are a huge profit ticket; you can expect folks to produce lots of those, and indeed they do(Hence the proliferation of antibiotics).

Vaccines, which is what the article talks about, are profit black holes. Maximum of one sale per customer, and after a certain point, no sales ever, because sufficient market penetration means the virus dies out.

Corporations will avoid vaccines like crazy. No matter what rhetoric is spewed about 'lying socialists', this is the way it is. They must make a profit, and thus they will avoid anything that removes the virus. This is doubly so with HIV, because a number of pharmacuticals produce therapeutic drugs that are sold continuously to those with AIDS. Actually stomping out the virus would obliterate this steady source of profit.

That's the free market.

[Lord Stormbringer]

Corporations will avoid vaccines like crazy.

Let me say that that sounds a lot like bullshit. Vaccines get produced on a regular basis; chicken pox, hepatitis, mums, etc, etc, etc. These aren't being avoided. You're ignoring the fact that all though they're one-time, they typically aren't cheap and with AIDS being as widespread as it is a reliable vaccine will be needed by the billion. They're sure as hell going to make them.

On the other hand, if you expect the drug companies to foot multi-billion dollar research efforts that, if successful, will probably take decades to develop a product, then you're nuts. HIV has been dodging a vaccine for twenty years now and probably will for another twenty. Given the politics and economics, they'd be crazy to risk the kind of money. They're not going to throw money away just because some proto-socialists whine about it. I think you're, as usual, arguing a bitterly cynical course just to prove your politics. Name for me one vaccine that has never been produced because it'll wipe out a virus?

[Lord Stormbringer]

Nitram, may I point out that we've only managed to "wipe out" one virus: smallpox. And there's still production of vaccine for that.

Polio may be elminated in a decade or two. But we're still producing vaccine for that.

A vaccine doesn't magically banish a virus; immunization programs take decades, even centuries and in the mean time we'll still need that vaccine.