How a Big Pharma Company Stalled a Potentially Lifesaving Vaccine in Pursuit of Bigger Profits

Link

Pharmaceutical giant GSK pulled back on its global public health work and leaned into serving the world’s most-profitable market, the United States, which CEO Emma Walmsley recently called its “top priority.” As the London-based company turned away from its vaccine for TB, a disease that kills 1.6 million mostly poor people each year, it went all in on a vaccine against shingles, a viral infection that comes with a painful rash. It afflicts mostly older people who, in the U.S., are largely covered by government insurance.

Importantly, the shingles vaccine shared a key ingredient with the TB shot, a component that enhanced the effectiveness of both but was in limited supply.

It's a pretty good article with lots of info. I recommend reading all of it. As they explain, this was a pretty great business decision for GSK, they made over $14 billion dollars by switching to a different vaccine in lieu of one that could have saved millions of lives.

This is just so depressing and infuriating, I want to cuss, but I know I can't here. To know that you have the power to save millions of lives, but to make a choice to make money instead. It is so cruel. Modern wars don't kill this many people, I look at this as a crime against humanity.

What do you folks think? Is this a crime against humanity? Should it be investigated and prosecuted as such? If you have a chance to save a life but you choose not to, is that a crime? Is it like the Duty to Rescue, where if you pass an accident or a person dying and you don't help, you could actually get in some degree of legal trouble yourself. (not everywhere) Can that, or should it apply to a whole corporation?

But these people were not actually sick. This is just a vaccine. And that is also a distinction important to make. These people were not dying, their deaths only could have been prevented. That would make a big difference in court.

But who could even bring such charges, the International Criminal Court?

a reply to: Mahogany

As to whether a corporation can be held liable where an individual would for not extending aid where needed…
All I can point to is that not so long ago, the courts decided that “businesses were people” and as such had the same rights.

With that precedent, I would say it looks like liability to me.

ETA- mind you the legal “can of worms “ that gets opened holding companies liable for what they “coulda, shoulda” gets insanely dicey.

I’d say it’s more appropriate to say that businesses ARE NOT people too and avoid all the ridiculousness that comes with it.😉

a reply to: Mahogany

"Lifesaving vaccine" is an oxymoron.

Were in the "constitution of the world' does it say that people must receive all medical attention that is theoretically posible?

And were does it say that all business pursuits must be in line with providing all the people of the world all medical attention that is theoretically posible?

When was the last time you decided not to work and collect a paycheck so that you could help to provide medical attention to other people?

Just like every other business in the world; GSK is under no obligation to forgo profit in order to "save the most amount of people".

And if a medical product doesn't exist that could theoretically save your life it isn't a tragedy... it has been our common existence since the beginning.

We need to shed our puritanical beliefs about life and death..

a reply to: Mahogany

There are already proven TB vaccines. Were they working on another out of altruism?