Top 5 Vaccine Companies by Revenue-2012

[emmy526]

• 1
  Sanofi
   
• 2
  Merck
   
• 3
  GlaxoSmithKline
   

• 4
  Pfizer
   
• 5
  Novartis
   

 

 

• NEXT

 

 

 

 

 

Read more: Top 5 Vaccine Companies by Revenue - 2012 - FierceVaccines http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-reports/top-5-vaccine-companies-revenue-2012#ixzz2NYedt1dT

[Marnica]

I can't wait to read the posts about how compared to drugs, vaccines are not really money makers for these companies.

IMO 8 billion dollars a year is not chump change.

[serenbat]

$ It's ALL "Pasteur" Sanofi does! $ that company makes nothing but vaccines

They have a facility near me. 

Edited by serenbat - 3/15/13 at 4:46pm

[Dakotacakes]

Pharmaceutical companies make money selling pharmaceuticals including vaccines. No doubt about it. They make some of the largest profits of any type of corporations. No one has ever said otherwise. COMPARATIVELY, they make more on pharmaceuticals other than vaccines. if they stopped making vaccines completely, pharmaceutical companies would still be making some of the largest profits of any type of corporations.

Incidently Sanofi does much more than just vaccines. Three that I know of myself include Clomid, Ambien and Eloxatin. Eloxatin is a cancer drug that there is actually an article on forbes about I remember reading and printed out years ago which is how I remembered this

http://www.forbes.com/2004/06/08/cx_mh_0608costs.html

Exoxatin is $250,000 for less than a two year supply it is not a vaccine and is from Sanofi.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Dakotacakes 

Pharmaceutical companies make money selling pharmaceuticals including vaccines. No doubt about it. They make some of the largest profits of any type of corporations. No one has ever said otherwise. COMPARATIVELY, they make more on pharmaceuticals other than vaccines. if they stopped making vaccines completely, pharmaceutical companies would still be making some of the largest profits of any type of corporations.

Incidently Sanofi does much more than just vaccines. Three that I know of myself include Clomid, Ambien and Eloxatin. Eloxatin is a cancer drug that there is actually an article on forbes about I remember reading and printed out years ago which is how I remembered this

http://www.forbes.com/2004/06/08/cx_mh_0608costs.html

Exoxatin is $250,000 for less than a two year supply it is not a vaccine and is from Sanofi.

I'm aware of this. My point was that whenever the topic comes up about how lucrative vaccines are someone always chimes in and says, well they are not that lucrative actually and point out how much more revenue is brought in by the blockbuster drugs. I think we are all aware of how much revenue is generated by the drugs and nobody has tried to dispute that. The point is is that the role vaccines play in companies bottom line gets minimized IMO. The fact is that if they were not making decent profits from vaccines, they wouldn't make them. I think you have actually illustrated the point I was trying to make. 

[serenbat]

I corrected mine to show that just Sanofi Pasteur is the largest devoted just to vaccines, they have a parent company but on their own they are just doing vacs.

Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines division of Sanofi, is the largest company in the world devoted entirely to human vaccines.

This was a differnt company prior to the merger, it was viewed as profitable by Sanofi. 

Edited by serenbat - 3/15/13 at 4:47pm

[prosciencemum]

I agree that if vaccine companies didn't make money from vaccines they wouldn't make them. I just disagree that would be a good thing for humanity.

I think Rrrrrachel before has shared some stories of pharmaceutical companies pulling out of vaccines (do a search), so it is actually happening at some level.

[serenbat]

consumer confidence drives demand and we know that confidence is waining and so do the vaccine companies 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

consumer confidence drives demand and we know that confidence is waining and so do the vaccine companies 

Yeah - probably why they feel the need to play down any hints of safety issues.

 It's a point I've tried to make before - and I think is a reason anti-vax group actually could be hurting openness about vaccine safety. The companies feel they need to go on the defensive, and so are more reluctant to be open and/or admit any real problems which exist.

[serenbat]

Quote:

Yeah - probably why they feel the need to play down any hints of safety issues.

 It's a point I've tried to make before - and I think is a reason anti-vax group actually could be hurting openness about vaccine safety. The companies feel they need to go on the defensive, and so are more reluctant to be open and/or admit any real problems which exist.

spin it all you desire - you can't put the cart before the horse

if the safety was there first the confidence would be as well, it's NOT! Nice try.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Yeah - probably why they feel the need to play down any hints of safety issues.

 It's a point I've tried to make before - and I think is a reason anti-vax group actually could be hurting openness about vaccine safety. The companies feel they need to go on the defensive, and so are more reluctant to be open and/or admit any real problems which exist.

Seriously???

Good to know. From now on, I'll keep my mouth shut about all consumer safety issues. It's not the fault of manufacturers that some products are unsafe. It's my fault for pointing out that they're unsafe and thereby forcing these companies to conceal their un-safety. If that's the case, let's just abolish the consumer safety movement altogether. Who knew we'd all be better off smoking cigarettes, driving lemons, licking lead paint, and hosing our kids down with DDT?

ETA: Has it occurred to you that so many corporations might be on the defensive because they have a lot to defend?

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Turquesa 


Seriously???

Good to know. From now on, I'll keep my mouth shut about all consumer safety issues. It's not the fault of manufacturers that some products are unsafe. It's my fault for pointing out that they're unsafe and thereby forcing these companies to conceal their un-safety. If that's the case, let's just abolish the consumer safety movement altogether. Who knew we'd all be better off smoking cigarettes, driving lemons, licking lead paint, and hosing our kids down with DDT?

ETA: Has it occurred to you that so many corporations might be on the defensive because they have a lot to defend?

For heaven's sake, Turquesa, didn't you know?  Rule #1--IT IS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT WHEN VACCINES ARE UNSAFE.

I mean, come on, the US government has officially declared vaccines to be unavoidably UNSAFE, and therefore we are not allowed to sue the vaccine manufacturers for a reaction due to a design defect (like, say, a reaction to thimerosal or aluminum adjuvant, etc.), even if a safer alternative is available.

Seriously, though--there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for vaccine manufacturers to be "reluctant  to be open and/or admit any real problems which exist," to quote prosciencemum.    That's just spin for "let's lie about our product safety and blame someone else for our lying."

[serenbat]

Quote:

It's my fault for pointing out that they're unsafe and thereby forcing these companies to conceal their un-safety.

how dare you!? 

baa-ha, baa-ha, baa-ha - life is just soooooo much easier if you just get herded around and act a sheep

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by serenbat 






if the safety was there first the confidence would be as well, it's NOT! Nice try.

But I am confident - as are most of the world as far as I can tell. Vaccination rates are well over 80% in most places.

[serenbat]

Quote:

But I am confident - as are most of the world as far as I can tell. Vaccination rates are well over 80% in most places.

you just fail to stay on topic-divert & spin 

glad you feel this way, the companies know the tide is turing! 

[dinahx]

Vax companies HAVE threatened to pull out of making a vax before, notably during the 'Shot in the Dark' DTP controversy after several large awards. However since then, they have been awarded absolutely unprecedented liability protections, and this is NOT lost on them, that is why Vax is a large growth area, because they don't need to worry about liablity as in Pharmaceuticals. Also, from watching my BIL work as a career lab rat, I will tell you that it is SO much cheaper to study vaccines. They don't compensate trial participants based on their risk but based on their TIME. Pharm trials involve 2 week stays, follow ups, in house observation by medical professionals, they pay 2-3000/per. Vax trials pay 300 per . . . No in house observation, no controlled diet, phoned in follow ups. That is why he almost prefers them, he thinks of them as 'quick cash'.

[Rrrrrachel]

All vaccines are not shielded from liability. Only ones on the routine schedule.

There used to be ~26 companies making vaccines. Now it's down to 5. So yes, companies quit. That was one of the problems vicp was designed to fix.

[dinahx]

Um, NO, Pharmaceutical companies have been subject to Mergers and Consolidations, like Banks, like Media.

I think any Vax on the RECOMMENDED (vs mandated) schedule are protected from liability. Like Influenza, not on the Mandated schedule in any state but liablity protected. 

There were actually two major protections, the first was to protect HCP from liability (after which contraindictations shrunk considerably) and then there was the Eli Lilly protection act.

[Rrrrrachel]

So you're saying some companies haven't stopped manufacturing vaccines? The decreased number of manufacturers is just a product of mergers?


I only know of one schedule, the routine schedule put out by acip, which includes the flu shot. Those are the vaccines that are covered under vicp. That protection isn't universal. Injured parties can still opt out of vicp and pursue compensation in civil court.

[serenbat]

more growth on the way.................... http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130416-911939.html