{"id":255220,"date":"2020-05-18T06:05:48","date_gmt":"2020-05-18T10:05:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=255220"},"modified":"2020-05-18T06:05:48","modified_gmt":"2020-05-18T10:05:48","slug":"drugmakers-tout-covid-19-vaccines-to-refurbish-their-public-image","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/05\/18\/drugmakers-tout-covid-19-vaccines-to-refurbish-their-public-image\/","title":{"rendered":"Drugmakers Tout COVID-19 Vaccines To Refurbish Their Public Image"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
But it is uncertain which, if any, of the firms trying to claim center stage now \u2014 J&J for vaccines, Gilead for its antiviral or Abbott for its testing machines \u2014 deserve the leading role or will have it when new products arrive on the market and are priced. (Pexels photo)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Johnson & Johnson researchers working on a vaccine against the coronavirus are \u201cjust like the heroes in the hospitals\u201d fighting to save patients, J&J CEO Alex Gorsky said on the \u201cToday\u201d show a few weeks ago.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a message he likes to deliver. In recent weeks, Gorsky has talked about J&J\u2019s efforts on NBC\u2019s \u201cToday\u201d and twice on CNBC and Fox. Nobody asked him about high drug prices, J&J\u2019s role in the opioid crisis or lawsuits alleging its baby powder caused cancer.<\/p>\n

J&J and the rest of the pharmaceutical industry have seized on the coronavirus crisis as a way to polish an image tarnished by unaffordable medicine, patent lawsuits and an addiction epidemic.<\/p>\n

The potential payoff is clear: If drug companies can produce a successful vaccine or therapy against the biggest infectious threat in a century, \u201cmaybe you can start to undo some of that reputational damage,\u201d said Michael Kinch, head of the Centers for Research Innovation in Biotechnology <\/a>at Washington University in St. Louis. \u201cI have to wonder if that\u2019s some of the motivation.\u201d<\/p>\n

A top pharmaceutical executive recently told him: \u201cWhen I entered this industry, we were the most respected industry in the world. Now we\u2019re below tobacco.\u201d<\/p>\n

But it is uncertain which, if any, of the firms trying to claim center stage now \u2014 J&J for vaccines, Gilead for its antiviral or Abbott for its testing machines \u2014 deserve the leading role or will have it when new products arrive on the market and are priced.<\/p>\n

Their star turn comes after what critics say have been decades of underinvestment in vaccines and medicines for the most common viral diseases in favor of more lucrative drugs that are less important to public health. The industry is talking about serving the public good while setting itself up for profits, downplaying the government\u2019s role as a research partner and exaggerating prospects for victory, they say.<\/p>\n

J&J\u2019s vaccine candidate \u201chas a high degree of probability of being successful against the COVID-19 virus,\u201d Gorsky said on NBC\u2019s \u201cToday.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Gorsky \u201cdoesn\u2019t know that yet,\u201d given the difficulties of vaccine development and the many chances for failure, said Dr. Paul Offit, co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania\u2019s Perelman School of Medicine. \u201cWe should be humble about this virus, about what the likelihood is for protection.\u201d<\/p>\n

Three years ago, President Donald Trump said drug companies were \u201cgetting away with murder\u201d<\/a> by charging so much for medicine. In early March, he instead called pharma CEOs \u201cgeniuses\u201d <\/a>at a White House meeting and said \u201cwe\u2019re very proud\u201d of their work.<\/p>\n

J&J is producing an eight-episode streaming series called \u201cThe Road to a Vaccine,\u201d<\/a> in which CNN personality Lisa Ling interviews company officials, patients and scientists. A Financial Times profile on Gorsky was so flattering the company put out a press release <\/a>drawing attention to it.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen science wins, we all win,\u201d says a new ad from Pfizer,<\/a> which recently began human trials<\/a> on a coronavirus vaccine. Executives at Gilead, maker of the antiviral remdesivir, \u201crecognize the human suffering, the human need here,\u201d company CEO Daniel O\u2019Day said on CBS\u2019 \u201cFace the Nation\u201d on May 3.<\/p>\n

\u201cScience is how we get back to normal,\u201d says a new campaign<\/a> from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry\u2019s biggest lobbying group.<\/p>\n

Trump administration officials, and even Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease expert on the president\u2019s coronavirus task force, say a vaccine could be available within 12 to 18 months \u2014 far faster than any other such treatment has been developed.<\/p>\n

Such a schedule would be inconceivable without previous research by pharma companies, industry officials say.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are 70 vaccines in development for COVID-19 and several of them are already in human testing,\u201d said PhRMA spokesperson Priscilla VanderVeer. \u201cA lot of this is happening because the industry believes in vaccines, and many companies have made investments in vaccines.\u201d<\/p>\n

J&J officials, whose vaccine research has been aided by tens of millions of dollars in federal support <\/a>over the years, say their recent experience developing a vaccine for the Ebola virus and potential vaccines for HIV, Zika and other bugs gives them the ability to move quickly. The company\u2019s newly expanded plant <\/a>in the Netherlands is able to make hundreds of millions of doses a year, they say.<\/p>\n

But drug companies have been drifting away from vaccine research for decades, say independent authorities. They make far more money treating chronic ailments with regular pills or injections for years than on preventing disease.<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause vaccines are largely unattractive financially, we\u2019ve dismantled a lot of capabilities to develop them,\u201d Kinch said. \u201cIf you look at the net number of vaccine-preventable infections, it actually hasn\u2019t changed in about 20 years.\u201d<\/p>\n

Recent vaccine successes include treatments against human papillomavirus and Ebola and a new vaccine for shingles. But today only four companies make vaccines for the U.S. market, said Offit. That\u2019s down from 27 in the 1950s and 18 in 1980, he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cVaccines are something you give once or a few times in a lifetime,\u201d he said. \u201cThey are never going to be blockbusters.\u201d<\/p>\n

Drug companies invested in potential vaccines against Ebola, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), Zika and other infections in recent years only to lose money<\/a> when concerns over the diseases faded.<\/p>\n

Vaccine research has largely been left to small biotech companies and academic scientists funded by the government and nonprofits such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The World Health Organization lists 83 potential candidates<\/a> for coronavirus vaccines, almost all in early development.<\/p>\n

Such a number \u201cshows there is substantial capacity on the development side,\u201d if not on the manufacturing side, said Dr. Walter Orenstein, a professor at Emory University and former director of the U.S. immunization program for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.<\/p>\n

But small firms can\u2019t afford the major expense of bringing the drugs to market \u2014 testing them on humans, and then manufacturing and distribution. Only a huge company can do that.<\/p>\n

On Feb. 11, Fauci was lamenting <\/a>that no major U.S. drugmaker had committed to making a coronavirus vaccine. He called it \u201cvery difficult and frustrating.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since then, as the disease and potential market have exploded, J&J\u2019s Janssen division and a joint venture between giants Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline have backed potential vaccines, as has Pfizer.<\/p>\n

On March 30, J&J and the Trump administration announced a vaccine partnership <\/a>that includes a massive, $456 million investment <\/a>by U.S. taxpayers and similar spending by the company. On April 16, Moderna, a small biotech company, said it will receive up to $483 million <\/a>in federal funds to speed the development of its vaccine candidate.<\/p>\n

With so much government money at stake, corporate recipients should make detailed disclosures of how it is spent, said David Mitchell, the founder of Patients for Affordable Drugs, a consumer group.<\/p>\n

Money will be an issue again, too. In February, Alex Azar, Health and Human Services secretary, said he was unable to promise<\/a> that a coronavirus vaccine would be affordable for everybody. Gilead, whose stock has jumped 20% this year, will be guided by \u201cprinciples of affordability\u201d in marketing remdesivir, O\u2019Day said recently. But it hasn\u2019t set a price.<\/p>\n

J&J has said it will offer its vaccine \u201con a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use.\u201d It is the only developer so far promising to limit profits on coronavirus vaccines. Mitchell said the company should spell out what that means and pledge to forgo all profits for the treatment, not just during the emergency.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen taxpayers are involved, we should have a say in what the price is and what the profit is,\u201d he said. \u201cThere is plenty in Johnson & Johnson\u2019s history to show why you should be cautious in dealing with them.\u201d<\/p>\n

A J&J spokesman did not respond when asked to comment on the Patients for Affordable Drugs proposal.<\/p>\n

Kaiser Health News<\/a>\u00a0is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Johnson & Johnson researchers working on a vaccine against the coronavirus are \u201cjust like the heroes in the hospitals\u201d fighting …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":249522,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-255220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-health","mauthors-jay-hancock","mauthors-kaiser-health-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255220","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=255220"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255220\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":255221,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255220\/revisions\/255221"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/249522"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}