Merck’s Rotateq vaccine is not a non-profit vaccine and is contained in Merck’s quarterly sales numbers if you read their financial results. Last year, it was at 171M a quarter, which means it was nearing the coveted billion dollar a year mark.

I believe you were likely reading about Merck working with PATH who is a non-profit organization. They are jointly running clinical trials in Africa. This type of marketing data, will then be used to justify the mass deployment of the vaccine to third world countries.

The North American and European sales will continue to produce generous profits for Merck.

WRT to Dr. Offit, he was (and probably still is) working as a consultant for Merck which means he certainly stands to gain financially from the financial benefits of his sponsor.

Do you think that patients come in and demand MMRII from merck? How about the branded flu vaccine from Chiron? How about the DTAP variants? Do you even know how many are available in the US and Canada?

In a lot of cases with recommended vaccines in the schedule, bulk orders get put in by large organizations (government, HMO’s, hospitals), and they don’t base their purchase decision on who was first to market. They base it on availability, and cost.

The FDA is trying to encourage more vaccine development, not less. Why would they design a system that provides a dis-incentive for multiple product offerings? The opposite is true. They are trying to promote vaccine development, not guarantee monopoly to the first past the post.

Your incorrect assertions are not welcome just because you think you’re being diplomatic in delivering them.

The last time I looked up the definition of bi-partisan committee it consisted of more than one person. Of course sweeping unsubstantiated generalizations are exactly the type of false arguments you have a history of giving. This is even more ironic since the report is quite detailed and specific in it’s accusations. Of course, you present no evidence to contradict it.

I’ll stop wasting my time until you have something concrete to discuss.

1) An early vaccine for a new disease gets approved for use, but not recommended on the schedule
2) the first company shows over time (by performing marketing trials) efficacy in financial objectives (reduced hospitalizations etc) using this data to justify inclusion in the recommended schedule
3) Second company comes along providing a second source of manufacturing (important to the FDA) with similar efficacy and safety data
4) It is a no brainer to allow that vaccine to also be included in the recommended schedule.

This is simple logic and happens all the time. The data required to include the second vaccine in the schedule is far less onerous than the first unless there are problems with the first one.

If the early vaccine gets subsequently removed from the schedule, there will be (and was) increased scrutiny on all vaccines of that class, and as such much more expensive for any vaccine of that type to be included in the schedule, hence the large study for Merck, and the significant post-deployment tracking requirements.

No trickery here. Just simple economics and process.

“As to the, “thanks for adding more evidence..” type of comments—I don’t see how promoting that sort of image for yourself helps your discussion. It really doesn’t reflect well upon you.”

I guess the blatent hypocracy of pointing out a relatively polite response while ignoring direct personal attacks from Isles reflects well on you? Why don’t you worry about your own objectivity first?