So why did it take so long?

Joined
23 May 2004
Messages
16,226
Reaction score
781
Country
United Kingdom
"A malaria vaccine developed by the same team behind the Oxford coronavirus jab has been found to be 77 per cent effective in providing protection against the mosquito-borne disease, in what is a major scientific breakthrough for the world.

This is the first time that a vaccine for malaria has surpassed the 75 per cent efficacy goal set by the World Health Organisation, raising fresh hope that the disease can be one day eradicated."

Kerching?
 
Sponsored Links
What price the 600,000 annual deaths. How much do you think the research costs? Maybe all vaccines / drugs should be developed by internationally government funded organisations and distributed at cost?

From the gruaniad

"The vaccine will be manufactured at large scale and low-cost, say the researchers, who have arranged a deal with the Serum Institute of India"

I suppose that remains to be seen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Almost all vaccine research and development is unsuccessful. Large-scale trials are expensive. So you have to be ready to tip money down the drain and see nothing for it.

Yes, it makes sense for public health measures to be publicly funded, and the rights not hoarded for profit.

A previous vaccine, by GSK, the world's major vaccine company, took 30 years to develop, and is around 40% effective. The new Oxford one seems to be 77%

As we all know, the world has turned its attention to vaccine development in the last two years, and has tipped untold resources and billions of dollars into it.

Necessity is the mother of....
 
Maybe all vaccines / drugs should be developed by internationally government funded organisations and distributed at cost?
That would be the sensible and humanitarian approach...

But big pharma decides otherwise...

Kerching!
 
Sponsored Links
I hear that in US, government contracts pay for development, for example for Covid, but government does not always own the rights, so the Pharma owns them.

And the unique American healthcare business allows incredibly high pricing.
 
That would be the sensible and humanitarian approach...

But big pharma decides otherwise...

Kerching!


In some parts of the world, there are unions of nations that are large enough, and wealthy enough, to fund research for the common good.
 
'At cost' for big pharma or 'at cost' for in house research and production?

Either, vaccines and drugs can cost many billions to produce. The bigger the number of people who will benefit, the cheaper it could be obviously.

The vast amount of money for research has to come from somewhere, clearly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is why it took so long apparently

"malaria vaccine had taken much longer to come to fruition because there are thousands of genes in malaria compared to around a dozen in coronavirus, and a very high immune response is needed to fight off the disease."

"That's a real technical challenge," he said. "The vast majority of vaccines haven't worked because it's very difficult."
 
Either, vaccines and drugs can cost many billions to produce. The bigger the number of people who will benefit, the cheaper it could be obviously.

The vast amount of money for research has to come from somewhere, clearly.
Well it appears that because of the 'virus' governments have decided to click the 'print money' button...

One wonders how many people could have been saved from other diseases had they decided to do this previously...

Could the 'cure' for cancer already be out there but it just needs to be more 'profitable' than ongoing treatment?
 
So the most successful vaccine made for the most deadly disease in history has been created & she’s still not happy. Elle is one miserable moaning cow.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top