Thursday, September 24, 2009
Combining Two Failed HIV Vaccines Makes a New Failed Vaccine
Labels: another failed HIV vaccine
Lots of snake oil + government or insurance money = profits.
I agree with your concerns. However, governments usually make vaccines because the expense in development, production, and use is not profitable for most pharmaceutical firms. Most vaccines prevent the disease and are cost-effective and economical. Antibiotics are the same against microbes, but both agents are generally not profitable for drug makers. Hence, we see little antibiotic or vaccine development privately. Influenza is an exception since the vaccine is only effective against certain strains and the virus evolves rapidly, so influenza vaccine production is quite profitable annually because each year's vaccine is useless the following year.
Regarding your concerns though, see this URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/why-cholesterol-may-not-b_b_290687.html about cardiovascular disease and statins. You have to treat 50 people with expensive statins to see any benefits (decrease in death rate). You only have to treat one person with an infection with an antibiotic to see a benefit.
"In those at high risk for heart disease about 50 people would need to be treated for 5 years to reduce one cardiovascular event. Just to put that in perspective: If a drug works, it has a very low NTT (number needed to treat). For example, if you have a urine infection and take an antibiotic, you will get near a 100% benefit. The number needed to treat is "1". So if you have an NTT of 50 like statins do for preventing heart disease in 75% of the people who take them, it is basically a crap shoot."
Not much bang for all that buck so it would seem.
Links to this post: