What a juicy story the Telegraph have about GSK making vaccines for the government and a scientific advisor having GSK shares!

https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="💉" title="Spritze" aria-label="Emoji: Spritze">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="💉" title="Spritze" aria-label="Emoji: Spritze">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤑" title="Gesicht mit Geld-Mund" aria-label="Emoji: Gesicht mit Geld-Mund">https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤑" title="Gesicht mit Geld-Mund" aria-label="Emoji: Gesicht mit Geld-Mund">

Except... https://twitter.com/globalhlthtwit/status/1308885294721257474">https://twitter.com/globalhlt...
The trouble is that GSK is not actually making this vaccine. It is Sanofi& #39;s vacccine. GSK is sharing its technology to make vaccines better (called an adjuvant) to any firm that wants them. (And quite a lot do.)
Earlier this year, CEO Emma Walmsley said they wanted to help by sharing their adjuvant, and it wasn& #39;t a commercial venture. Because pandemic.

It was popular and is now used by covid vaccine makers such as @sanofi. Vir. @Innovax. Clover. Medicago Inc.

Remarkable, actually.
In the event GSK& #39;s tie-ups make money, firm says, "it will be invested in support of coronavirus related research and long-term pandemic preparedness, either through GSK’s internal investments, or with external partners."

Why? Because pandemic.
Even if Vallance had some control over the UK& #39;s vaccine buying (and even the Telegraph admits in almost last paragraph that ministers make the decision)... and even if Sanofi does make a profit.... and even some of this goes to GSK, ......shareholders are not going to benefit.
But why spoil a juicy story with a few boring facts?

#nonstoryalert
You can follow @natashaloder.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: