A vaccine against tuberculosis, the world’s deadliest infectious disease, has never been closer to reality, with the potential to save millions of lives. But its development slowed after its corporate owner focused on more profitable vaccines.

Ever since he was a medical student, Dr. Neil Martinson has confronted the horrors of tuberculosis, the world’s oldest and deadliest pandemic. For more than 30 years, patients have streamed into the South African clinics where he has worked — migrant workers, malnourished children and pregnant women with HIV — coughing up blood. Some were so emaciated, he could see their ribs. They’d breathed in the contagious bacteria from a cough on a crowded bus or in the homes of loved ones who didn’t know they had TB. Once infected, their best option was to spend months swallowing pills that often carried terrible side effects. Many died.

So, when Martinson joined a call in April 2018, he was anxious for the verdict about a tuberculosis vaccine he’d helped test on hundreds of people.

The results blew him away: The shot prevented over half of those infected from getting sick; it was the biggest TB vaccine breakthrough in a century. He hung up, excited, and waited for the next step, a trial that would determine whether the shot was safe and effective enough to sell.

Weeks passed. Then months.

  • Eccentric@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The point is that a TB vaccine wouldn’t be administered much in the US, but mostly to people in extreme poverty in South Africa and Eastern Europe. The article says that the organizations most likely to buy the vaccine would be local governments and non-profits, which can afford to pay a much lower price than insurance companies in the US. That’s why a TB vaccine is a lower priority than shingles, because the market for a TB vaccine would be people living in extreme poverty in developing countries, while shingles is mostly a concern for affluent people with insurance in the US, even though a TB vaccine would save many more lives.

    • wheres_my_pinata@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I should have been more clear. I totally get, and agree, with your point. And I realize that my topic was implied in the article because of that point. I was just disappointed the author didn’t explicitly call out the payers too. The whole system is broken, it’s not just the pharma companies. I think it’s important to shine a light on the entire ecosystem if we’re ever going to have a prayer of combatting it.

      • Eccentric@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry if I came off as patronizing. You’re right, that’s definitely a problem and it’s a shame life saving treatments can’t get made because they’re less profitable than gaming our broken system