There's more to Merck's Ebola vaccine than money

The world is on the verge of an effective Ebola vaccine, the World Health Organization declared Friday. A vaccine being developed by Merck (NYSE: MRK) and NewLink Genetics (NASDAQ: NLNK) was shown to be 100 percent effective in preventing Ebola, according to an interim look from a late-stage study in Guinea.

The results need to be confirmed, but WHO Director-General Margaret Chan called them "an extremely promising development."

Does this mean Merck and NewLink are going to make big bucks? Not necessarily. And Merck says that wasn't its aim in the first place.

"Our motivation to pursue this opportunity was to address a public health need," Merck Vaccines' Mark Feinberg said in a telephone interview. "We did not believe this was a commercial opportunity."

Link

Could it be true? Big Pharma interested more in saving lives than it is in turning over a profit? Call me cynical, but I find it difficult to believe that companies such as Merck are doing this solely for the benefit of humankind. I am not saying they are developing it only for materialistic gain, but it seems WAY too altruistic an action for Big Pharma.

This part caught my eye:

The vaccine, which was originally developed by the Canadian government, continues in testing. The WHO said timing for potential licensing is uncertain, and noted there may be the possibility for stockpiling after that.

Feinberg said that could potentially generate a profit, though he added that it was too early to speculate further.

What do you think?

Remember how everyone ran out to get a measles vaccine directly after the Ebola "scare"? I suspect with a few well timed News Stories and plenty of commercials they'll be stacking cash.

a reply to: Dark Ghost
What I want to know is, since when is a vaccine considered 100% effective. The flu shot has always been a hit or miss. Zostavax for shingles has a 50% success rate. How is it that Merck is suddenly able to crank out a miracle vax?

It doesn't seem koshur to me. I hope its true, but I find it very suspicious.

Nah, call me cynical but I just can't imagine it. I don't know what the question was that prompted his answer but he's hardly likely to say "well we're only doing it for the money" is he?!

From the same article...

"From a business perspective, the technology that we have discovered and validated through the malaria (think they mean Ebola, a typo?) vaccine work is also very relevant to other vaccines," Slaoui said, pointing to a shingles vaccine that uses the same technology and which could be, in his words, more "economically impactful."....The company, Feinberg said, also invested "very significant resources of the time and effort of a large number of Merck staff who have worked tirelessly on this program." He pointed out a lot of funding came from external sources and governments.

So the project has enabled new technology to be developed usung external funding which can be used by Merck for profit in the future.

Projects like this, Slaoui and Feinberg said, also engender a sense of purpose and pride among employees. "The opportunity to attract the best talent and retain them and inspire them is certainly something that is a core value at Merck," Feinberg said. "People at Merck genuinely identify with that and are proud their company pursues projects like that."

So projects like this will attract the best employees, talent = profit

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Dark Ghost
What I want to know is, since when is a vaccine considered 100% effective. The flu shot has always been a hit or miss. Zostavax for shingles has a 50% success rate. How is it that Merck is suddenly able to crank out a miracle vax?

It doesn't seem koshur to me. I hope its true, but I find it very suspicious.

You're right. Can't possibly be 100% effective. There are several strains of Ebola.

a reply to: Dark Ghost
There is money to be made some way. Merck nor New Link Genetics are non profit organizations. I wouldn't be surprised if a certain strain were made to match this .

Advertising and publisity.


Its good PR.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Dark Ghost
What I want to know is, since when is a vaccine considered 100% effective. The flu shot has always been a hit or miss. Zostavax for shingles has a 50% success rate. How is it that Merck is suddenly able to crank out a miracle vax?

It doesn't seem koshur to me. I hope its true, but I find it very suspicious.

You're right. Can't possibly be 100% effective. There are several strains of Ebola.

You could always ask Smallpox about this.....oh wait....

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Im still not coming anywhere near the vaccine, id take my chance with Ebola

originally posted by: DiddyMcC0y
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Im still not coming anywhere near the vaccine, id take my chance with Ebola

And the Darwin award goes to....

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I am always cynical and suspicious of big business and corporations, regardless of the individuals within the machine meaning well, the machine itself is driven by one thing - profit at all cost.

The nature of these large corporations means that no one individual has any moral burden, "blame" and responsibility can be easily removed from the individuals involved in a decision which may, in a distant way far removed from them, destroy the life of someone.

However, we have to also acknowledge that society is evolving at a very fast rate. Attitudes to large corporations are changing, and this change is growing every year. Back in the 1980's a corporation could be evil and get away with it by paying off a couple of people, now that information could go global within an hour and entirely sink that brand.

It's much harder to be corrupt in 2015 than it was in 1985, and it's much harder to continue a business with a clear cynical desperation for profit at all cost now than it was back then too.

This change in social attitudes and the increasing sense of personal responsibility we all feel toward various corporations will inevitably have an impact on how they do business.

Could it also be that these people understand that even they will not be immune to the impact such an outbreak would have on them? It might be unfair to consider these people to be so selfish, but when it's cancer they seem more than willing to charge the Earth for their drugs, but when it's something which could easily kill them and those they love they suddenly find compassion for others...

originally posted by: DiddyMcC0y
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Im still not coming anywhere near the vaccine, id take my chance with Ebola

Yeah ok...


With up to a 90% mortality good luck with that.

Call me when your organs stop seeping out your arse

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: DiddyMcC0y
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Im still not coming anywhere near the vaccine, id take my chance with Ebola

And the Darwin award goes to....

Makes you laugh right?

90% chance of dying of Ebola or a 0.01% of mild side effects from a vaccine and they take Ebola.

Lets just treat first batch like any new technology. Let's allow others to work the bugs out for us! We'll vaccinate ourselves very last and be as certain as we can of having a good product.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Canadian taxpayers picked up the tab on this one. The vaccine was developed in Winnipeg and ready to go a few years ago. Seems the Canadian government took a while to negotiate - first licensing the Intellectual Property Rights with a small subsidiary in the US then sealing the deal with Merck.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

Could it be true? Big Pharma interested more in saving lives than it is in turning over a profit? Call me cynical, but I find it difficult to believe that companies such as Merck are doing this solely for the benefit of humankind. I am not saying they are developing it only for materialistic gain, but it seems WAY too altruistic an action for Big Pharma.

I think they have realised we are on the verge of walking into there corporate offices and hanging the entire lot of them they are just corporate terrorists.