Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wish I had expressed my thoughts on an Ebola vaccine earlier. I figured the reason there wasn't a lot of research being done on such a vaccine was that the outbreaks in the past had involved small numbers of people. Ebola wasn't really a public health threat until this year.
That is a very comprehensive response. There are numerous examples of small markets where governments sponsor or ask companies to develop expensive drugs. Some are reimbursed and some are not. It is seen as a component of corporate responsibility and while I understand the arguments against from the companies point of view, good will towards others is seen as a universal good.
As an example Infliximab was developed by Johnson and Johnson at the request of the Federal Government for Crohns Disease. Not a large market but the suffering it caused was dramatic in young people. So J&J began Centocor which over years developed a medication Remicade which is now a guzillion $ success for many forms of Crohns, arthritis, and spawned the "next" generation of anti TNF medications. So there is potential value in these risks.
There are incentives to develop what are referred to as orphan drugs.
I still think that Dr. Margaret Chan's use of the word "greedy" was uncalled for.
Yes; I understand. However, Dr. Chan is one to speak her mind as we see. Many would agree with her. I posted the article to reflect W.H.O.'s frustration with many opportunities to develop a competent vaccine as early as 10 years ago and to have it ready. I think you'll agree that if Ebola had the track record it does in France or Texas the vaccine would already be delivered and in use today.
This has been a wake up call for the world. The "next" one may not be as localized or as charitable in it's vector or it's transmission.
I wish I had expressed my thoughts on an Ebola vaccine earlier. I figured the reason there wasn't a lot of research being done on such a vaccine was that the outbreaks in the past had involved small numbers of people. Ebola wasn't really a public health threat until this year.
WHO only declared Ebola a emerging international threat in August, less than three months ago.
Yes; I understand. However, Dr. Chan is one to speak her mind as we see. Many would agree with her. I posted the article to reflect W.H.O.'s frustration with many opportunities to develop a competent vaccine as early as 10 years ago and to have it ready. I think you'll agree that if Ebola had the track record it does in France or Texas the vaccine would already be delivered and in use today.
This has been a wake up call for the world. The "next" one may not be as localized or as charitable in it's vector or it's transmission.
With vaccines, and most other additives, the costs and sacrifices are knowingly hidden, through omission and deflection, unknowns, and "acceptance".
Bruce Lee was pretty much immune to physical assaults, but would not likely have made a winning NASCAR driver. He was very much susceptible and attractive to "rare" assaults.
Research on ebola has been going on for a long time, but only for military purposes.
Almost 40 years.
Kind of hard to get worked up about a vaccine for a virus that previously killed only a small number of people in very remote locations , during the occasional outbreak.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.