Lack of incentive for pharma companies to make better flu vaccines?

[C C]

https://www.wired.com/story/flu-vaccine-big-pharma/

EXCERPT: . . . We've long known that our flu vaccines aren't built to last, or to tackle every strain. But pharma companies don't have an incentive to research drugs that will make them less money—not while current vaccines are good enough to make them $3 billion a year. To drive those new vaccines forward, medicine needs a Manhattan Project-style investment, pulling on resources outside the drug industry to force a new generation of vaccines into existence. It’s well-known inside medicine, and little appreciated outside it, that flu vaccines aren’t as protective as most people assume. [...]

The dream is to develop a “universal flu vaccine,” one that could be given once or twice in toddlerhood like an MMR vaccine, or boosted a few times in your life as whooping-cough shots are. That is a substantial scientific challenge because the parts of the flu virus that don’t change from year to year—and thus could evoke long-lasting immunity—are hidden away in the virus, masked by the parts that change all the time. A handful of academic teams are competing to build such a new shot. [...]

Now consider this: Right now, millions of people, roughly 100 million just in the United States, receive the flu vaccine every year. If those shots were converted to once or twice or four times in a lifetime, manufacturers would lose an enormous amount of sales and would need to price a new vaccine much higher per dose to recoup. “What’s the business model here? Am I going to spend more than $1 billion to make a vaccine when I can only sell $20 million worth of doses?” Michael Osterholm asks....

MORE: https://www.wired.com/story/flu-vaccine-big-pharma/

[Yazata]

https://www.wired.com/story/flu-vaccine-big-pharma/

EXCERPT: . . . We've long known that our flu vaccines aren't built to last, or to tackle every strain. But pharma companies don't have an incentive to research drugs that will make them less money—not while current vaccines are good enough to make them $3 billion a year.

A technical/scientific issue shouldn't be confused with a political one. Pharmaceutical science doesn't know how to make a vaccine that's effective against all varieties of flu virus, whether existing now or emerging in the future. It's just asinine to blame that on capitalism.

[Syne]

Yeah, if a universal flu vaccine were already possible, that drug company would already be cornering that $3 billion a year market. And there's little reason to think companies wouldn't spend the research money needed for that kind of market.

[RainbowUnicorn]

https://www.wired.com/story/flu-vaccine-big-pharma/

EXCERPT: . . . We've long known that our flu vaccines aren't built to last, or to tackle every strain. But pharma companies don't have an incentive to research drugs that will make them less money—not while current vaccines are good enough to make them $3 billion a year. To drive those new vaccines forward, medicine needs a Manhattan Project-style investment, pulling on resources outside the drug industry to force a new generation of vaccines into existence. It’s well-known inside medicine, and little appreciated outside it, that flu vaccines aren’t as protective as most people assume. [...]

The dream is to develop a “universal flu vaccine,” one that could be given once or twice in toddlerhood like an MMR vaccine, or boosted a few times in your life as whooping-cough shots are. That is a substantial scientific challenge because the parts of the flu virus that don’t change from year to year—and thus could evoke long-lasting immunity—are hidden away in the virus, masked by the parts that change all the time. A handful of academic teams are competing to build such a new shot. [...]

Now consider this: Right now, millions of people, roughly 100 million just in the United States, receive the flu vaccine every year. If those shots were converted to once or twice or four times in a lifetime, manufacturers would lose an enormous amount of sales and would need to price a new vaccine much higher per dose to recoup. “What’s the business model here? Am I going to spend more than $1 billion to make a vaccine when I can only sell $20 million worth of doses?” Michael Osterholm asks....

MORE: https://www.wired.com/story/flu-vaccine-big-pharma/

smoke and mirrors
probably profesional propoganda

the real question is why is there no market competition when the market is soo large and the consumers soo many.

who sues(in the USA litigious capitalist money defines morality value system) the vaccine company for a vaccine that doesnt work ?

it is such a sham of socialist social engineering used by greedy capitalist psychopaths.

watch exclusionary policy define social boundarys of free expresion and liberty for lack of compulsory spending of a private profit product.

... in a market that has no equal access competition.

it is the lie that keeps on giving

if the duck n cover brainwashed socialist hating americans were not soo easily told what to think, they would probably make vaccines government funded.

but look at all the lies preached about the value of first responders...
how much does the average soldier earn ?
what a culture of snake oil sales psychopaths

LoL

[Leigha]

The flu is preventable without the vaccine, it's not inevitable that everyone will get it. Or most people will get it. The medical world doesn't make any money or much of it, if people take care of themselves and learn how to boost their own immune systems. It only gets rich off of sick people. Not to say vaccines are a bad idea, I got a flu shot this year. But, it's supposedly only 10% effective? lol I just think that the modern medicine doesn't want to educate people, they just want to treat symptoms, because that's the easiest way for the pharmaceutical industry to maintain its cash cow status. Of those who die from the flu who aren't infants/toddlers, or the elderly...I'd like to know their BMI, and if they were smokers. I find it extremely hard to believe that the majority of people with strong immune systems who take care of themselves through a healthy diet, exercise, etc are dying from the flu. But, this is something the medical world doesn't want people to know, instead they instill fear by implying if you don't get a flu shot, you'll end up with the flu. And that ''anyone'' can die from this particular flu virus, which I think is a lie. Yea, anyone who is in crappy shape to begin with, smokes, etc...if they get the flu, odds are they might be in the ER or could risk death. I just wish the medical world was more honest, and forthright, but they don't make money if they become educators.

An example, there was recently a 27 year old guy who died ''from the flu.'' You see this headline and you shudder in fear. He was in good shape physically, etc so what happened? He had an underlying adrenal problem. The flu exacerbated that condition, but didn't cause his death. But, the average person reading about this guy will be like...oh my gosh, I must get the flu vaccine so I don't end up like him!

Not saying that this flu isn't dangerous, it can be. But, in MOST cases, it doesn't kill people or land people into the ER, all by itself. (unless they're infants/toddlers, or the elderly)

[Syne]

Amen, Leigha.

[Leigha]

You might be the only person who agrees with me, Syne.

And let me say, I'm not against vaccines in general. I'm just against causing panic, and lying to the general public, in order to push a vaccine.

The only coincidence though I've read about however, is that most of the people who have become very sick from the flu, or died from it, were not vaccinated. Coincidence? Or did they really die from something else, and the flu tampered with an already compromised immune system? I just wonder.

[Syne]

I'm not against vaccines either. Even the flu vaccine for vulnerable populations (young, old, immune compromised).

And I don't know if the scare tactics are largely from the drug companies, doctors, media, or (likely) a mix of all three. There's also the possibility that they, rightly, assume most people won't pay attention unless they sensationalize it.

Aside from developing pneumonia, usually due to neglecting symptoms, I would assume most deaths are an exacerbated condition.

[RainbowUnicorn]

You might be the only person who agrees with me, Syne.

And let me say, I'm not against vaccines in general. I'm just against causing panic, and lying to the general public, in order to push a vaccine.

The only coincidence though I've read about however, is that most of the people who have become very sick from the flu, or died from it, were not vaccinated. Coincidence? Or did they really die from something else, and the flu tampered with an already compromised immune system? I just wonder.

heard immunity is probably the biggest driver for people with small children which is a considerable proportion of society.
the other is financial encumberment.
many profesionals think getting a flu vacine will save them loosing a week off work. many companys espouse this and also use heard immunity as a way to try and force employees to get the vacination.
i am pro vaccines (i think i mave mentioned before)...
a good example of the lack of self education is asking people what is in the medication they take when they get a cold(what is in the cold medication they take?)

unfortunately the nature of pure capitalism drives social culture and thus with people making money off selling things regardles of the efficacy of the item that still drives social myths and religous like belief in un-questioning concepts.

a good example is asking/surveying parents to see how many have done a first Aid & CPR coarse and know the basics.
when asked to list the value of their life they place their children at or near the top.
thus it would be simple logic to asses the value of learning attached to the core structure of that soo-touted value.

it seems the human animal has 2 conflicting drivers
1 the drive to learn more and be better at things
2 the drive to do less and have more free time and less concern.

staying with the core scientific concept of which you are refering, it would be interesting to have modern science look at the spanish flu pandemic to see why something that has generally been part of human life for hundreds of thousands of years would vary soo wildly in its death rate.

http://time.com/3731745/spanish-flu-history/

Nearly a century after it made its grisly debut, the mysteries surrounding Spanish flu continue to plague epidemiologists. In 2005, as Slate has reported, scientists succeeded in sequencing the virus’ RNA — eight years after exhuming a flu victim’s frozen corpse from an Alaskan grave to obtain a sample. But they still don’t know exactly where the virus came from or how it achieved such staggering lethality, killing more than half a million Americans and an estimated 50 million people worldwide in a single year.

Some researchers believe the story began on the morning of this day, Mar. 11, 1918, when a soldier in Fort Riley, Kans., went to the camp infirmary with a fever. According to the PBS documentary Influenza 1918, more than 100 soldiers had reported to the infirmary by noon. Within a week, that number had quintupled. Several dozen soldiers died there that spring, before the contagion seemed the ebb; the official cause was pneumonia.

p.s understanding why this death rate varys/varied soo wildly probably would deliniate a large step forward in science(virology/immunology).