I can understand the current global/political environment against mRNA accounting for a 90% fall in revenues and valuation. But if the mRNA tech is still progressing and promising for a variety of ailments like cancer, then the company still has substantial future value coming
The business model for pharma and drug discovery is unfortunately one that requires a lot of upfront investment for research and trials that may or may not pay off as revenue one day.
The technology they invented is incredibly promising for new vaccines and they should be attracting enough investment (through contracts or other deals) to continue innovating and saving lives. Maybe they can license it as a last ditch effort to build revenue, but unfortunately the public perceptions about vaccine efficacy is on the wane and government contracts are no longer there to support this vital work both in the present and as a hedge against future pandemics.
To put some numbers to trying to develop a single therapy (where candidates etc. will fail as you try them)
- Plan to sink $180-500M+ just in R&D
- Factor in failures, regulatory, clinical, recruitment, phase 1/2 trials and you arrive very quickly around $1.3-2.1 BILLION USD per therapy approved.
...there is a 90% chance that you will spend that $1B+ - and it will fail completely.
It's tough to get people to want a vaccine which knocks you off your feet for 3 days and needs to be repeated every 6-12 months. I'm very bullish on mRNA vaccine technology - but it's potentially a poor fit for rapidly changing viruses.
Quite a lot of the low-hanging fruit from pharma has already been picked. The modern business model for pharma involves coming up with a patentable new drug that does the same thing as an older drug that's now out of patent and available for manufacture as a generic.
Making pharmaceuticals subservient to the whimsy of the stock market is a bad idea. It introduces incentive distortions where none should be.
Too many people would rather risk suffering the disease than take the vaccine. These might be the same people criticizing pharma for alleviating symptoms rather than providing cures. mRNA is an interesting means of delivering molecules on-site without mucking about with the body’s general systems. But the ‘Net says drugs are bad so they have funding problems.
Hope such people reconsider their stance when the threat level is high enough. Err, threat to them and theirs as the threat to others isn’t high enough by definition.
> Too many people would rather risk suffering the disease than take the vaccine.
Apologies for being morbid, but that's what we call a self-fixing problem, isn't it? On a Darwinistic level, people either adopt an effective threat assessment approach or they die.
EDIT: Following up on some of the comments, note that I didn't actually say whether vaccine deniers do or do not have an effective threat assessment approach - I don't know. While I personally do believe in the effectiveness of vaccines, I definitely am not qualified to be making risk decisions for other people, and it's important for me to say this, because I don't want other people to make decisions for me. For example, I don't want others to tell me to not do extreme sports, or not to go out to the wilderness, or not to drink alcohol, etc, regardless of whether society feels that this increases my health risks. I strongly believe that a core part of being free is being able to make these decisions for oneself. I agree that we should have some way of preventing harm to others, but it can't be something that comes at the cost of removing people's bodily autonomy (or even just denigrating people for choosing differently).
Unfortunately, one of the key purposes of the vaccine - arguably more important than personal immunity - is reducing the chance of it propagating to other people, and reducing the intensity of the viral load if it does.
If you attend a graduate level CS course on network science, you'll come across network model of herd immunity and mathematical proof of why it is effective. People who developed the model didn't take first amendment into consideration. Otherwise the outcome might have been different.
Not really, those people go to a hospital where there is a duty of care. Hospitals don't get to just say "Nah, not gonna help you" and close the door for people showing up in the ED.
So those vaccine deniers get sick, lose their commitment, go to the ED, get some level of treatment/help/etc, and suck up resources and impact help for the guy who got vaccinated then got hit by someone running a red light....
I made a comment that got downvoted and flagged and then dang sent me a nasty gram.
"Chinese bat flu. Deadly enough to be a problem. Not deadly enough to be a solution"
Which is to say it's a real problem. The flu is a real problem, ask any nurse that works in a hospital. With vaccines Covid is 3X worse. But that's not enough carnage to break through most peoples normalcy bias. No ones getting enlightened, instead they'll get angry and lash out.
A type of Karma hitting them. U Pitt Medical Center had a ready to trial covid vaccine based on super sharp glucose spikes coated with some spike protein. Decent results in lab animals, ready for a human trial. Moderna bought it out by paying off UpittMC to sideline that and become a major testing partner for their mRNA product. Even if it is a legitimate advance the bullying of the media to down focus more tradational products and pulling a new tech from reaching testing is limiting our scientiffic discovery. They pushed the mRNA technology as their lawyers must have felt there were more legal and regulatory barriers to competition to give them a longer profit runway.
Moderna's covid vaccine was a state-of-the-art, low side effect one that I was jealous of. I had taken the almost same one of Prizer without problem. They made a miracle in just months while the regular vaccines have a decade long pipeline.
But a drug company has to produce new products if she wants to survive. m-RNA tech, although promising in theory and the beginning, couldn't produce a life saving block buster product and now the parent company might die or be buyed out.
Readit News
The technology they invented is incredibly promising for new vaccines and they should be attracting enough investment (through contracts or other deals) to continue innovating and saving lives. Maybe they can license it as a last ditch effort to build revenue, but unfortunately the public perceptions about vaccine efficacy is on the wane and government contracts are no longer there to support this vital work both in the present and as a hedge against future pandemics.
- Plan to sink $180-500M+ just in R&D
- Factor in failures, regulatory, clinical, recruitment, phase 1/2 trials and you arrive very quickly around $1.3-2.1 BILLION USD per therapy approved.
...there is a 90% chance that you will spend that $1B+ - and it will fail completely.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00043-x
https://greenfieldchemical.com/2023/08/10/the-staggering-cos...
Dead Comment
Making pharmaceuticals subservient to the whimsy of the stock market is a bad idea. It introduces incentive distortions where none should be.
Hope such people reconsider their stance when the threat level is high enough. Err, threat to them and theirs as the threat to others isn’t high enough by definition.
Deleted Comment
Apologies for being morbid, but that's what we call a self-fixing problem, isn't it? On a Darwinistic level, people either adopt an effective threat assessment approach or they die.
EDIT: Following up on some of the comments, note that I didn't actually say whether vaccine deniers do or do not have an effective threat assessment approach - I don't know. While I personally do believe in the effectiveness of vaccines, I definitely am not qualified to be making risk decisions for other people, and it's important for me to say this, because I don't want other people to make decisions for me. For example, I don't want others to tell me to not do extreme sports, or not to go out to the wilderness, or not to drink alcohol, etc, regardless of whether society feels that this increases my health risks. I strongly believe that a core part of being free is being able to make these decisions for oneself. I agree that we should have some way of preventing harm to others, but it can't be something that comes at the cost of removing people's bodily autonomy (or even just denigrating people for choosing differently).
So those vaccine deniers get sick, lose their commitment, go to the ED, get some level of treatment/help/etc, and suck up resources and impact help for the guy who got vaccinated then got hit by someone running a red light....
"Chinese bat flu. Deadly enough to be a problem. Not deadly enough to be a solution"
Which is to say it's a real problem. The flu is a real problem, ask any nurse that works in a hospital. With vaccines Covid is 3X worse. But that's not enough carnage to break through most peoples normalcy bias. No ones getting enlightened, instead they'll get angry and lash out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias
But a drug company has to produce new products if she wants to survive. m-RNA tech, although promising in theory and the beginning, couldn't produce a life saving block buster product and now the parent company might die or be buyed out.
"Why is a company whose entire valuation was based on covid-19 vaccine sales struggling now???"
Mysterious!
Dead Comment