Vaccines are not effect...need some debunking helpage

We don’t vaccinate against scarlet fever because scarlet fever is strep throat and you can cure that with antibiotics.

Some vaccines are profitable. Many are not.

For example the pharmaceutical companies expect to make billions in profit from the gardarsil vaccines that helps reduce the risk of cervical and vaginal cancers.

Many others are in short supply because the costs to manufacture them are not covered by the costs parents and doctors pay to get them.

As a result the same paper points out there have been shortages of common vacines:

There’s also more about this issue in the article Griffin1977 posted:

In other words some money but not a lot compared to other avenues of revenue.

Does that $4/dose include research/testing cost averaged out… or is it the marginal cost to produce 1 dose now after it’s been developed and cleared for sale?

Fair point - costing is as long as a piece of string.

Also there will be very real benefits from being an established vaccine supplier, getting new drugs to market involves numerous hoops - any ‘goodwill’ is pretty valuable.

In addition to LavenderBlue’s good information about vaccine costs and profits, it’s worth noting that decades ago there were many companies making vaccines…but that number is now down to a handful, and shortages occur. If vaccine production was so profitable, you’d expect far more investment in it.

The reality is that making vaccines, especially for diseases like influenza, is a crapshoot. You’re largely dependent on sales to governments, which have unpredictable and stringent production requirements. Due to all the hype and misinformation churned out by antivaxers, your sales can be affected and potential liability costs are high.

Antivaxers like to play the Big Pharma Evil card. But like all their other ploys, the truth differs considerably from their claims.