"Price balance
Chief executive Andrew Witty denied accusations that the firm was profiteering from the demand for the swine flu drug.
He told the BBC that the firm had invested up to $2.5bn (£1.5bn) in the past three years to ensure that it could meet the government's demand for the drug.
And Mr Witty added that the firm was not charging more than it did for other seasonal flu drugs.
It was reported that the firm was charging the NHS £6 for each dose of Relenza, which cost it £1, but the company said this was "wrong".
Mr Witty would not be drawn on the costs of manufacturing the drug, but said typically the production cost was about 25% of the sale price.
"We are trying to strike a balance between society and our shareholders, who want to see a return on the risks we take.""(emphasis mine)
Is it me or this phrase sounds a little bit hypocrite?
Posts
4 comments:
the have invested over the last three years and it became news what? 6 months ago?
Hypocrisy! I'm going right to the link, thanks Ana.
GlaxoSmithSwine!
http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2009/07/glaxosmithswine.html
Fid
National Vaccine Information Center has a page titled
Swine Flu Vaccine: Will We Have A Choice.
Fast Tracking of Experimental Vaccines With Novel Adjuvants
"Whenever the CDC declares a public health emergency, that declaration allows the Food and Drug Administration to permit emergency use authorization for drug companies to fast track creation of experimental drugs and vaccines that do not have to be tested as thoroughly as vaccines that go through the normal FDA licensing process.
In this case, Congress responded to the public health emergency declaration by giving a group of drug companies one billion dollars to fast track experimental swine flu vaccines that may include whole live, killed or genetically engineered human and animal influenza viruses, chemicals, and potentially reactive oil based adjuvants that manipulate the immune system to boost the vaccine’s potency."
Post a Comment