Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Who Owns The Vaccine Companies?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1164 posts

Posted 13 March 2020 - 12:26 AM

What I want to dive into in this thread is who owns the vaccine companies, Afterall aren't their injections going in our bodies so shouldn't we know? First thing I found.

 

Even in an industry dominated by a few huge companies, disruption happens sometimes—and 2017 was one of those times. GlaxoSmithKline surpassed Merck to top the vaccine industry by sales, generating $7 billion compared to Merck's $6.5 billion.

It stands to be a long-term switch, too; analysts predict the U.K. drug giant's momentum in the field will continue. The company doubled down on vaccines in 2014 with its massive Novartis asset swap, and GSK is now heading to nearly $11 billion in vaccine sales by 2024, according to a recent report. 

 

At the time of the asset swap, some pharma watchers questioned GSK's move away from higher-margin products such as cancer drugs. But since the deal, Glaxo's vaccines unit has been a reliable performer, often turning in percentage growth that tops the company’s struggling pharma segment. With the launch of Shingrix just getting started and recent moves to boost capacity, GSK executives see good things ahead in vaccines.  

Aside from sales rankings, entrenched products in vaccines face the threat of disruption as well, whether it’s an immediate sales dropoff because of a rival launch or an R&D program in the works at a competitor.

 

For instance, in the megablockbuster pneumococcal field—now dominated by Pfizer's Prevnar 13—Merck is making moves with a shot that guards against 15 viral strains. The company kicked off a head-to-head phase 3 trial this year against Pfizer's star shot. Pfizer, for its part, is advancing a 20-valent shot, now in midstage testing. Still, Pfizer’s Prevnar 13 is the bestselling product in the vaccine world, generating $5.6 billion last year, and it’ll be years before a new shot can challenge it. 

https://www.fierceph...by-2017-revenue

 



#2 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1164 posts

Posted 13 March 2020 - 12:30 AM

Money,money,money. Just from this do you think the vaccine companies are worried about your well being? Show me how? And find the owners.


Edited by Thoth101, 13 March 2020 - 12:33 AM.


#3 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2774 posts

Posted 13 March 2020 - 05:29 AM

Money,money,money. Just from this do you think the vaccine companies are worried about your well being? Show me how? And find the owners.

I would think that the owners are the stockholders like in most large corporate companies, ultimately the board of directors and CEO reports to the stockholder. You would need to find who owns stocks in these companies to find out who actually owns their assets as the stocks directly correlate with physical assets owned by the company. In that respect probably members of my family own stocks in these companies as I remember a several years back that several of them invested in biotechnology stocks, it is probably not a large portion but if you invest in a stock you can still go to stockholder's meetings for the company and dictate what they do by voting with shares as the number of votes cast. My point being that the owners of many companies are just average people that have bought stocks. Lastly, you are correct that they are out to make as much money as possible for the stockholders so the stocks will increase and the value of their company's assets as well, many of the CEOs and employees within the company own stock for the company. Like there is a story that a history professor once told me about this situation, in a light bulb company there was a loading warehouse employee that owned a large portion of their stock, so every time that the company made a decision the CEO had to meet with this loading warehouse employee to discuss the actions being taken by the company, because this loading warehouse employee had like 30% of the shares of stock for the company.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 13 March 2020 - 06:24 AM.

  • Thoth101 likes this

#4 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1164 posts

Posted 15 March 2020 - 11:53 PM

I would think that the owners are the stockholders like in most large corporate companies, ultimately the board of directors and CEO reports to the stockholder. You would need to find who owns stocks in these companies to find out who actually owns their assets as the stocks directly correlate with physical assets owned by the company. In that respect probably members of my family own stocks in these companies as I remember a several years back that several of them invested in biotechnology stocks, it is probably not a large portion but if you invest in a stock you can still go to stockholder's meetings for the company and dictate what they do by voting with shares as the number of votes cast. My point being that the owners of many companies are just average people that have bought stocks. Lastly, you are correct that they are out to make as much money as possible for the stockholders so the stocks will increase and the value of their company's assets as well, many of the CEOs and employees within the company own stock for the company. Like there is a story that a history professor once told me about this situation, in a light bulb company there was a loading warehouse employee that owned a large portion of their stock, so every time that the company made a decision the CEO had to meet with this loading warehouse employee to discuss the actions being taken by the company, because this loading warehouse employee had like 30% of the shares of stock for the company.

Yes and I understand we can buy stocks in most companies and it makes sense the more stocks you own in the company you have more power towards it and make decisions just like the warehouse employee.. So then don't it make sense that mostly millionaires to billionaires own large amounts of stocks in the most popular vaccine companies. If I recall correctly Obama a few years back bought a lot of stock in a vaccine company which I think was Merck but I could be wrong. Not long after that was the big push for the flu shots and he made millions.

 

I would not be surprised at all if Bill Gates has tons of stocks bought in the vaccine industry. So we have to remember these are the types of people running the show on these things. I am not saying that all millionaires or billionaires are evil but most are not out for the best interest of humans but for the best interests of their pocketbooks and control. Later this week I am going search for the main stock holders of these different vaccine companies.



#5 Thoth101

Thoth101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1164 posts

Posted 16 March 2020 - 03:39 AM

Just something I came across:

 

Pharmaceutical Companies’ Role in State Vaccination Policymaking: The Case of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination

 

Objectives. We sought to investigate roles that Merck & Co Inc played in state human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization policymaking, to elicit key stakeholders’ perceptions of the appropriateness of these activities, and to explore implications for relationships between health policymakers and industry.

 

Merck promoted school-entry mandate legislation by serving as an information resource, lobbying legislators, drafting legislation, mobilizing female legislators and physician organizations, conducting consumer marketing campaigns, and filling gaps in access to the vaccine. Legislators relied heavily on Merck for scientific information. Most stakeholders found lobbying by vaccine manufacturers acceptable in principle, but perceived that Merck had acted too aggressively and nontransparently in this case.

 

Conclusions. Although policymakers acknowledge the utility of manufacturers’ involvement in vaccination policymaking, industry lobbying that is overly aggressive, not fully transparent, or not divorced from financial contributions to lawmakers risks undermining the prospects for legislation to foster uptake of new vaccines.

 

A remarkable burst of legislative activity followed. Within a year, legislation relating to the vaccine was introduced in 41 states and the District of Columbia, including bills in 24 states that would mandate HPV vaccination for 6th-grade girls.3

 

Interest in the political forces behind HPV legislation remains high.4 Following media reports that Merck was heavily involved in promoting school-entry mandates, questions arose about the extent and appropriateness of industry involvement in vaccine policy. The presidential candidacy of Texas Governor Rick Perry recently prompted a new round of public and media scrutiny of the issue after opponent Representative Michele Bachmann accused the governor of ordering girls to receive the HPV vaccination because of his financial and political ties to Merck.5 We aimed to investigate these industry roles and elicit key stakeholders’ perceptions of their appropriateness and effects on policy outcomes.

 

Merck engaged in direct lobbying to varying degrees in all of the states we studied. Merck proactively contacted legislators to discuss strategies to maximize uptake of Gardasil, either directly through company employees or by using local political consultants, prominent physicians, or public relations firms.

 

Many respondents reported that company representatives proposed specific legislation, often drafting the bills and searching for a sponsor. In most states, their efforts focused on a school-entry mandate. Respondents pointed out that Merck’s activities were not unusual, although the public seemed to have been unaware that private companies played such a role in the legislative process. One commented, “Just about every vaccine mandate that we have lately has been the result, at least partially, of the drug industry’s efforts.”

The intensity of Merck’s lobbying efforts varied across states

 

In addition to direct-to-physician marketing, Merck mobilized medical professional organizations and other interest groups.16 Most respondents from medical and public health organizations described this outreach as fairly routine, although one indicated that the pressure was considerable: “At one point, the CDC rep for the state was being bombarded by pharmaceutical reps, so she asked if she could form an advisory committee around her.” Merck also appears to have expanded its efforts to support interest groups financially. One organization that had long worked in the area of cancer prevention reported that both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of a competing HPV vaccine, came forward with unrestricted donations for the first time after Gardasil was introduced.

 

Read on:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC3483914/


Edited by Thoth101, 16 March 2020 - 03:46 AM.