Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attach...1&d=1256228663

How about now?

---

Hello again, Elliot:

All I get is a teeny little square that is absolutely unintelligible. But, it IS consistent with your other half assed efforts of late. They're unintelligible as well.

excon

Last attempt.

Out of interest who is manufacturing your vaccine, is it a government run organistation or a private company awarded the contract?

There is no single manufacturer . HHS has contracts with 5 manufacturers Sanofi Pasteur, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline ,MedImmune and CSL .Those evil big Pharma companies that create life-saving drugs.

The problem with the delay is in the cultivation of vaccine . It has to be made in an egg. That and the fact that there is also a demand for regular flu vaccine.

So any delay in bringing the product to market is with industry and not the government?

Don't know all the details. The gvt projections were certainly unrealistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Out of interest who is manufacturing your vaccine, is it a government run organistation or a private company awarded the contract?

---

From what I can tell, there is a mix of foreign and domestic companies making the vaccine. Here is the breakdown of who is producing the vaccine:

Novartis - 46% (Switzerland)
Sanofi Pasteur - 26% (France)
CSL - 19% (Australia)
MedImmune - 6% (USA - subsidiary of AstraZeneca)
GlaxoSmithKline - 3% (UK)

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

So any delay in bringing the product to market is with industry and not the government?

---

Not necessarily. It could be (and in part was) due to the government's over-regulation... they made several of the companies go back and do more unnecessary testing, which wasted production time. (There's that 'regulation' thing again.)

Furthermore, the government is SUPPOSED to be able to manage such timelines for such large projects. THEY claim to be able to do so, anyway. That is the basis for arguing that they would be just as or more efficient at managing health care as private companies. For them to be off by a few percentage points on production and availability amounts is understandable. For them to be 90% off their initial projections is unacceptable.

Elliot

If you were in their shoes, surely you wouldn't do anything different

If you brought a product to the market that turned out to cause side effects of massive deformaties in babies

This article is about the production of thalidomide, a real classic when it comes to letting chemical companies do what they want without intervention

Corporate Crime and Violence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

If you were in their shoes, surely you wouldnt do anything different

If you brought a product to the market that turned out to cause side effects of massive deformaties in babies

This article is about the production of thalidomide, a real classic when it comes to letting chemical companies do what they want without intervention

Corporate Crime and Violence

---

I know about thalidomide. I have a cousin who is highly developmentally disabled because her mother used the stuff when she was pregnant.

But the swine flu vaccine is just a variation of standard flu vaccines. It's not a "new drug" in the sense that thalidomide was. It's just a manipulation of an already existing product to make it more effective for a particular strain of flu. The seasonal flu virus goes through the same sort of manipulation every year to target the new flu strain, and the government doesn't require that level of testing. This testing was overkill.

Elliot

Give me a pill that has been over tested please - you can have the one that has been tested to an acceptable standard :)

I know of Glaxo and AstraZenica . But do they also manufacture in the UK or do they manufacture and R&D in nations where they can expect a profit from their efforts ?

Choosing profit over safety is not something I want to be a part off if I can help it

It is not an either or proposition. As Elliot has already explained ;it is in the manufacturers best interest to put a safe product on the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Give me a pill that has been over tested please - you can have the one that has been tested to an acceptable standard :)

---

That would be the one that either you personally or your national health plan can't or won't pay for because it's too expensive.

You can have that one.

I'll take the affordable one. :D

Elliot

This is what half assed health care means...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

That would be the one that either you personally or your national health plan can't or won't pay for because it's too expensive.

You can have that one.

I'll take the affordable one. :D

Elliot

---

The NHS has suffered from postcode lottery, so if there wasn't enough funds in the pot then it would not be provided for

However, another county could afford it and have provided the expensive pill to the patient

This is all now stoppping and if a pill is available from an NHS trust in one prt of the country, you can obtain

It may still require an argument to achieven this, but the possibility is there for freedom of choice

The expensive pills can still be boughtby the patient

But, Elliot, doesn't this create the system you want, the reqards go to those that have worked for it? And doesn't this create the system that I want, a basic level of health care for all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I know of Glaxo and AstraZenica . But do they also manufacture in the UK or do they manufacture and R&D in nations where they can expect a profit from their efforts ?

---

Hi Tom these companies manufacture and distribute in my country where there is a highly regulated pharmaceutical system so regulation just cuts back the profit a little. Drug companies are in the business of selling drugs so they will kick and scream but they understand about maintaining volume to recoup their R&D. you see Tom they can make a profit in most places, the markup is that good. Don't believe the hype that government cannot manage for the good of the individual and still keep business alive and well. By the way we don't have a system where the drug companies give away drugs to those who cannot afford it, everyone pays something or the Government covers it off for drugs that are part of the scheme