Slashdot Mirror
Canada's Ebola Vaccine Nets Millions For Tiny US Biotech Firm
Anita Hunt (lissnup) writes: Iowa-based NewLink Genetics has secured a US$50million deal with pharmaceutical giant Merck for the experimental Ebola vaccine developed by Canadian government scientists. NewLink bought the exclusive commercial licensing rights to Canada's VSV-EBOV in 2010 with a milestone payment of just US$205,000. This is an interesting new twist in a story we've discussed previously, and which continues to draw media attention.
...since it's no longer the crisis du jour.
What with the elections over, everyone stopped talking about it.
Like it magically no longer mattered. And the disease just went away.
(of course, it'll raging in Africa...but apparently we dont care about that)
And the promised massive epidemic sweeping the nation....never materialized.
Why, it's almost like all those people at the CDC....they actually knew what they were talking about....after 40 years of experience....
I'm just shocked. Absolutely shocked that a virus whos primary factor in transmission is poor hygeine in poor countries couldnt stand up to the healthcare system in an advanced nation...or even the US*. And all that fear mongering, and calls for travels bans, and mandatory quarentines for people who werent sick wasnt necessary.
SHOCKING I SAY!
Hmmm. I wonder if the talking heads and politicians will ever get around to admitting they were wrong, and apologizing.
(*its a joke! lighten up)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
NewLink Genetics didn't seem that big.
Canada just made a very bad deal with them. Then again hindsight and all that, an unproven ebola vaccine was worth less in 2010 than in 2014...
To read the topic you have to first put a little finger near your mouth.
Merck Revenue in 2011 alone was a thousand times that.
The first $500k of the deal were to pay the golden pen they used to sign it. The second $500K, paid dinner, cognac, cigars and the first round of whores.
By not having Harper involved. This doesn't conflict with the oil sands so the Evil Harper Government doesn't care. Of course you could say someone's head should be rolling for allowing a government funded vaccine to be sold off to a US corp for a pittance (which is what the article is about).
all of the money lost by not selling unproven crap to the public for a quick buck. Remember son, you can't just cherry pick a single instance using hindsight to make your case for greed.
How would it seem so, since the very article that you link says "BioProtection Systems Corporation (BPS), now a wholly owned subsidiary of NewLink Genetics Inc., has performed at or above expectations thus far." Outside critics don't get to retroactively cancel a contract signed five years ago because progress under the contract doesn't meet their post-hoc expectations.
Funny, the very article that you linked to says that "[l]ast week, we announced the beginning of clinical trials of the vaccine in Canada." Do you have any direct knowledge of the typical work and time involved in setting up clinical safety trials? I doubt it. Note the following:
Preclinical Testing: A pharmaceutical company conducts certain studies before the future drug is ever given to a human being. Laboratory and animal studies must be done to demonstrate the biological activity of the drug against the targeted disease. The drug must also be evaluated for safety. These tests take on the average 3 1/2 years.
TFA.
Because mass producing an experimental drug that has not been shown to be safe, much less effective, in vivo goes against more than a half century's worth of applied medical knowledge and ethics, notwithstanding the losses you would suffer if you stockpiled a drug that failed clinical trials? But hey, you can assume safety since nobody has been hurt yet, right?
Canada creates a highly viable experimental vaccine for a very dangerous and scary virus, and US pharmaceuticals seek to pwn it up in their own market.
The distinction is that Canada did NOT create an FDA-approved vaccine. The difference between a vaccine and an FDA-approved vaccine is that you have to start with about 15 of the former and spend $100M on each to end up with just one of the latter, typically.
Commercial pharma companies sell each other early discovery compounds on the cheap all the time, so it isn't really a scandal when governments sell them. Early drug candidates don't cost much because it turns out that 95% of them don't work.
Imagine that a hurricane floods out a car dealership. A week later the water has drained away. An auction is held for all the cars on the lot. Do you think they will sell for their sticker prices? They'll certainly sell, but for a fraction of what they would get in undamaged condition.
Now imagine that you take a lot full of 1000 flooded cars. You perform a complete teardown and inspection on all of them. You end up with 990 cars that are in horrible condition, and 10 that by some miracle happened to get through with minimal damage. Now if you auction them all individually the 990 will sell for their value as scrap (even less than the average price paid sight unseen), and the 10 will sell competitively to ordinary used cars. The cars didn't change at all, but the knowledge of them did change.
Another example is buying vintage packs of baseball cards and such. The pack sells for a value that represents the average likely value of its contents. If you open it up the contents instantly become either much less valuable, or much more valuable.
It is no different for drugs. If you take a bunch of research leads they might all look equally promising, but after you invest millions in clinical trials it becomes apparent which ones will make money. If you sell your lead at the beginning you get a lot less for it. On the other hand, if you hold onto it you might find you held onto a bunch of junk cards when you could have gotten a portion of the value of a prized card for it.