Thursday, October 01, 2020

This far-right militant group has recruited thousands of police, soldiers, and veterans – and they’re coming for you

Published September 30, 2020 By Sarah Toce
Oath Keepers security at Woodland Mall (Facebook)

The Atlantic investigation has unearthed a chilling far-right militant group comprised of thousands of veterans, soldiers and police. What this group intends to do on Election Day still remains to be seen, but there is a growing concern for the safety of American voters as we head toward arguably the most contentious election cycle in our country’s history.

At the start of the subject’s examination, journalist Mike Giglio read a collection of diary entries by Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes wherein he traced back to the launch of the ultra-conservative group in early 2009. Giglio would subsequently report on his findings between 2009-2015, just prior to the start of President Donald J. Trump’s campaign.

“I used them as a starting point for conversations with dozens of current and former members,” Giglio wrote. “The dominant mood was foreboding. I found people far along in deliberations about the prospect of civil conflict, bracing for it and afflicted by the sense that they were being pushed toward it by forces outside their control. Many said they didn’t want to fight but feared they’d have no choice.”

Giglio uncovered that a civil war was brewing and it went much deeper than the Oath Keepers.

“Membership in the group was often fleeting—some people had signed up on a whim and forgotten about it,” Giglio wrote. “The Oath Keepers did not have 25,000 soldiers at the ready. But the files showed that Rhodes had tapped into a deep current of anxiety, one that could cause a surprisingly large contingent of people with real police and military experience to consider armed political violence. He was like a fisherman who sinks a beacon into the sea at night, drawing his catch toward the light.”

At the heart of the conflict were guns.

“When I asked Rhodes and other people on the militant right to name concerns beyond gun rights, they mentioned how history is taught in schools, or how the Green New Deal would threaten land use, agriculture, single-family homes,” Giglio wrote. “They stressed that America is a republic, not a democracy. Liberals, Rhodes told me, want to see ‘a narrow majority trampling on our rights. The only way to do that is to disarm us first.'”

Giglio recalled that Rhodes “relentlessly demonized Black Lives Matter activists as ‘Marxists’—a foreign enemy” and said that although the Oath Keepers had participated alongside the Proud Boys during events, they were not “fucking white nationalists.”

Rhodes told Giglio to investigate militant groups “on the left such as the John Brown Gun Club, and seemed obsessed with antifa, which he said the Oath Keepers had faced down while providing security at right-wing rallies.”

“The most famous Oath Keeper after Rhodes is John Karriman, a pastor and former police trainer from Missouri who participated in the Ferguson operation,” Giglio wrote. “Rhodes would disappear for long stretches and stall on initiatives—such as a national program to offer community training in firearm safety, first aid, and disaster relief—that would have been a boon to recruiting. Wealthy donors offered money, Karriman said, but when they asked to see the group’s books, Rhodes declined.”

“One Marine veteran told me that when he signed up in 2013, he’d recently retired after seven years as a military contractor, during which he’d trained indigenous forces in Afghanistan,” Giglio said. “Senior Oath Keepers asked him to provide members with paramilitary training. He warned Rhodes that training the wrong people could lead to trouble; they might even turn on him. But he agreed after Rhodes said he could do the vetting himself.”

In 2017, the Oath Keepers faced allegations of embezzlement by the group’s IT administrator. Rhodes was accused with the cover-up and Karriman was pushed out following attempts to reform the group. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) obtained leaked membership files around this time.


The Oath Keepers are not an isolated group. Other vigilante operatives are thriving in Nashville, North Carolina and Virginia. At a recruitment meeting, Rhodes said told his attendees: “Don’t call yourselves Oath Keepers or Three Percenters. Call yourselves the militia of Rutherford County.”

Rhodes persisted, “Us old vets and younger ones are going to end up having to kill these young kids. And they’re going to die believing they were fighting Nazis.”

But it’s not even just the older vets. There are young members of far-right militias right around the corner from where you live, many 20 and 30 years old, according to Giglio’s report. In fact, 29-year-old former marine Joe Klemm, the leader of a new militia called the Ridge Runners, is a perfect example.

“I’ve seen this coming since I was in the military,” Klemm said while speaking to a crowd in Tennessee. “For far too long, we’ve given a little bit here and there in the interest of peace. But I will tell you that peace is not that sweet. Life is not that dear. I’d rather die than not live free. It’s going to change in November.”

Klemm continued, “I follow the Constitution. We demand that the rest of you do the same. We demand that our police officers do the same. We’re going to make these people fear us again. We should have been shooting a long time ago instead of standing off to the side.”

His call to action was an eerie reminder of the current temperature of these secret so-called militias in the time of Trump.

“Are you willing to lose your lives?” Klemm asked. “Are you willing to lose the lives of your loved ones—maybe see one of your loved ones ripped apart right next to you?”
‘This is fascism’: Trump riles up Minnesota supporters with racist attack on Somali refugees


Published  October 1, 2020 By Jake Johnson, Common Dreams





MUSSOLINI INVADED AND OCCUPIED SOMALI, ETHIOPIA, LIBYA PRIOR TO WW II









Just 24 hours after refusing to condemn white supremacists during the first 2020 general election debate, President Donald Trump late Wednesday launched a racist attack on refugees from Somalia and other nations and parroted an unfounded right-wing claim about Rep. Ilhan Omar, sparking “lock her up!” chants from his Minnesota supporters.

“Another massive issue for Minnesota is the election of Joe Biden’s plan to inundate your state with a historic flood of refugees,” Trump said to boos from the crowd gathered at Duluth International Airport. “Coming from the most dangerous places in the world including Yemen, Syria, and your favorite country, Somalia. Right? You love Somalia… Biden will turn Minnesota into a refugee camp.”

In the middle of his xenophobic rant against refugees—which the president has made central to his Minnesota stump speech in recent weeks, given the state’s large Somali population—Trump veered into an attack on Omar, who is herself a Somali refugee.

“And what about Omar, where she gets caught harvesting?” Trump said, referring to a video released Sunday by Project Veritas, a right-wing group that is notorious for spreading deceptive footage purporting to expose Democratic lawmakers and organizations. The video Project Veritas unveiled Sunday—shortly after the New York Times published its bombshell report on the president’s tax returns—was described by researchers as “a great example of what a coordinated disinformation campaign looks like.”

Watch Trump’s comments:


Replying to @atrupar
This stuff that Trump is saying taking credit for "opening up the Iron Range" is completely made up. He's celebrating an event that didn't happen.
"Biden will turn Minnesota into a refugee camp" -- Speaking in a state with one of the largest Somali populations in the country, Trump goads his fans into booing refugees, prompting "lock her up!" chants directed at Ilhan Omar




“This is the overlap between white supremacy, the climate emergency, misogyny, and human rights abuses,” tweeted meteorologist Eric Holthaus in response to Trump’s latest attack on refugees. “This is fascism.”

Journalist Matt O’Brien echoed Holthaus’ characterization of the president’s rally Wednesday night as fascistic. “Demonizing refugees, attacking political opponents based on race, the crowd cheering for those opponents to be locked up,” O’Brien wrote, listing just some of the alarming components of the president’s event.

Trump’s Duluth campaign rally came after the president officially and unlawfully missed the deadline to establish the number of refugees who will be allowed into the United States in fiscal year 2021, effectively bringing the nation’s refugee admissions to a standstill.

“For the third year in a row, this administration is in violation of the immigration laws, specifically the refugee program requirements added by the Refugee Act of 1980,” Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said in a statement Wednesday. “This president has shown on countless occasions that he believes he is above the law. This time, refugees—including many who served alongside our troops—will be the victims of the Trump administration’s lawless approach.”

“The administration’s violations,” the lawmakers warned, “will bring our refugee admissions program to a halt, leaving thousands stranded abroad with their lives at risk.”

In a tweet late Wednesday, Omar said the U.S. refugee program “is a life or death matter to millions of children around the world.”

“I know because I was one of them,” Omar added.

REST IN POWER
Australian feminist singer Helen Reddy dies in LA

September 30, 2020 By Agence France-Presse

Singer Helen Reddy shot to global stardom with the 1971 hit 'I Am Woman' (AFP)

Australian singer Helen Reddy, best known for her feminist anthem “I Am Woman”, has died in Los Angeles aged 78, according to a statement from her children on Wednesday.

“It is with deep sadness that we announce the passing of our beloved mother, Helen Reddy, on the afternoon of September 29th 2020 in Los Angeles,” the statement on her official Facebook fan page said.

The trailblazing musician from Melbourne shot to global stardom with the 1971 hit “I Am Woman”, which became the rallying cry of the women’s liberation movement.

Born on October 25, 1941, Reddy married three times and had two children, Traci Wald Donat and Jordan Sommers.

“She was a wonderful mother, grandmother and a truly formidable woman,” they said.

“Our hearts are broken. But we take comfort in the knowledge that her voice will live on forever.”

Reddy, who lived in Los Angeles, was diagnosed with dementia in 2015

She was born to show-business parents and began performing as a small child in Australia.

Reddy later moved to the United States where she recorded a string of hits in the 1970s, including “Angie Baby” and “Delta Dawn”, topping the Billboard charts three times.

Accepting a Grammy Award in 1973, she famously thanked God “because she makes everything possible”.

An Australian biopic detailing her rise to fame premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2019.



PARKDALE CROMDALE COMMUNITY LEAGUE MY HOOD

 

The whole block continues to be an eyesore. It is definitely doing terrible things for the neighbourhood’s appearance as 86 street is a gateway from downtown to Fort Road, and beyond. Many pass by this area daily and see the negative impact portrayed. One community member says "We definitely need to push for the city to demand demolition before winter."

PCCL's Neighbourhood Development Committee is working with the problem property task force, and also drafting a letter for our mayor and councillors. In the meantime, we can report the property by calling 3-1-1 or using the APP, and if you would like to report it right now, please go to https://www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca/residential_neighbourhoods/report-a-problem-property.aspx

Please Note! link does give a warning that it could be unsafe, however, it is a City of Edmonton webpage.




Trump plans to slash refugee admissions to US to record low
SAN DIEGO-The Associated Press  


The Trump administration has proposed further slashing the number of refugees the United States accepts to a new record low in the coming year.

In a notice sent to Congress late on Sept. 30, just 34 minutes before a statutory deadline to do so, the administration said it intended to admit a maximum of 15,000 refugees in fiscal year 2021. That's 3,000 fewer than the 18,000 ceiling the administration had set for fiscal year 2020, which expired at midnight on Sept. 30.


The proposal will now be reviewed by Congress, where there are strong objections to the cuts, but lawmakers will be largely powerless to force changes.

The more than 16.5% reduction was announced shortly after President Donald Trump vilified refugees as an unwanted burden at a campaign rally in Duluth, Minnesota, where he assailed his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden. He claimed Biden wants to flood the state with foreigners.

"Biden will turn Minnesota into a refugee camp, and he said that, overwhelming public resources, overcrowding schools and inundating hospitals. You know that. It's already there. It's a disgrace what they've done to your state,'' Trump told supporters.Trump froze refugee admissions in March amid the coronavirus pandemic, citing a need to protect American jobs as fallout from the coronavirus crashed the economy.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the administration is committed to the country's history of leading the world in providing a safe place for refugees.

"We continue to be the single greatest contributor to the relief of humanitarian crisis all around the world, and we will continue to do so," Pompeo told reporters in Rome on the sidelines of a conference on religious freedom organized by the U.S. Embassy. "Certainly so long as President Trump is in office, I can promise you this administration is deeply committed to that.''

But advocates say the government's actions do not show that. Since taking office, Trump has slashed the number of refugees allowed into the country by more than 80%, reflecting his broader efforts to drastically reduce both legal and illegal immigration.

The U.S. allowed in just over 10,800 refugees, a little more than half of the 18,000 cap set by Trump for 2020 before the State Department suspended the program because of the coronavirus.

The 18,000 cap was already the lowest in the history of the program. In addition, the State Department announced last week that it would no longer provide some statistical information on refugee resettlement, sparking more concerns.


Advocates say the Trump administration is dismantling a program that has long enjoyed bipartisan support and has been considered a model for protecting the world's most vulnerable people.

Scores of resettlement offices have closed because of the drop in federal funding, which is tied to the number of refugees placed in the U.S.

And the damage is reverberating beyond American borders as other countries close their doors to refugees as well.

"We're talking about tens of millions of desperate families with no place to go and having no hope for protection in the near term,'' said Krish Vignarajah, president of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, a federally funded agency charged with resettling refugees in the United States.

Bisrat Sibhatu, an Eritrean refugee, does not want to think about the possibility of another year passing without reuniting with his wife.

For the past 2 1/2 years, he has called the caseworker who helped him resettle in Milwaukee every two weeks to inquire about the status of his wife's refugee case.
The answer is always the same, nothing to report.

"My wife is always asking me: `Is there news?'" said Sibhatu, who talks to her daily over a messaging app. "It's very tough. How would you feel if you were separated from your husband? It's not easy. I don't know what to say to her."

He said the couple fled Eritrea's authoritarian government and went to neighboring Ethiopia, which hosts more than 170,000 Eritrean refugees and asylum-seekers. Between 2017 and 2019, his wife, Ruta, was interviewed, vetted and approved to be admitted to the United States as a refugee. Then everything came to a halt.

Sibhatu, who works as a machine operator at a spa factory, sends her about $500 every month to cover her living expenses in Ethiopia.

"I worry about her, about her life," Sibhatu said, noting Ethiopia's spiraling violence and the pandemic. "But there is nothing we can do."

He hopes his wife will be among the refugees who make it to the United States in 2021.

Migrants,
Marine Corps Times busts Trump for lying about Biden ‘killing’ hundreds of thousands of troops


September 30, 2020 By Brad Reed

President Donald Trump on Tuesday night tried to deflect from the mounting death toll in the novel coronavirus pandemic by claiming that Democratic presidential rival Joe Biden was somehow responsible for the deaths of over 300,000 American troops.

However, the Marine Corps Times did a thorough fact check of the president’s claims and determined that they are false.

In fact, the Marine Corps Times has found that Trump’s entire claim rests on “a five-year-old inspector general report that found widespread problems with Veterans Affairs record keeping but does not directly connect deaths to delayed care from department officials.”

What’s more, the IG report uncovered problems in the VA that went back decades and didn’t only occur under the Obama administration.

“In one case, a veteran who died in 1988 was listed as awaiting enrollment approval until January 2015,” the Marine Corps Times writes.

In another case, the publication writes, “one veteran… who appeared to have died waiting for care was shown applying for VA enrollment for the first time in 2009, and failing to receive any help for the next five years… however, the patient actually died in 1993.”

The IG report concluded that the VA’s records system was “generally unreliable for monitoring, reporting on the status of health care enrollments, and making decisions regarding overall processing timeliness,” but it did not say that Biden was personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of troops.
Chemical detective work shows its power in latest Novichok saga

BY PATRICK WALTER1 OCTOBER 2020

Source: © Sefa Karacan/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny is reported to be recovering well after being poisoned with an unspecified Novichok nerve agent


Following the 2018 poisonings in Salisbury, this time it’s Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny who has been on the receiving end of a cold war relic – Novichok nerve agents. Once again chemists find themselves on the front line dealing with these weapons as another chemical detective story begins.

One of the earliest stories of chemical forensics uncovering a crime occurred in the UK almost 200 years ago. Chemist James Marsh was called upon by the prosecution in a murder trial to assess whether a man had been poisoned by his grandson using arsenic – also known then by the grisly nickname inheritance powder. His first efforts were not totally successful. Despite being able to infer the presence of arsenic by the formation of arsenic trisulfide as a result of passing hydrogen sulfide through tissue samples, the compound decayed before the trial and the jury was left unimpressed. Spurred on by this failure Marsh went on to develop a much more sensitive test using acid and zinc to liberate arsine gas from samples containing arsenic. When subsequently burnt the arsine left behind a telltale silvery–black residue.

Back then Marsh was searching for a single specific chemical. In Navalny’s case the forensic chemists would not have known what they were looking for. The fact that they were able to find it – quite likely at parts per billion levels – days after Navalny was exposed is incredible. The Novichok was likely first extracted from blood samples from Navalny using antibodies to target enzyme–nerve agent conjugates. Following removal of the protein the isolated nerve agent would have been subject to a battery of tests with the lab workhorse of GC-MS probably giving the team the first idea of exactly what they were looking at. Not only were the German scientists able to confirm that the weapon was a Novichok, but also that its structure was, reportedly, unknown to anyone except those who made it.

It is a testament to the trust that we have in analytical chemistry that we are now unsurprised that such rapid chemical detective work is possible. I’m certain Marsh would have been astounded by the molecular forensics that are possible today. We can marvel at how things have changed so much in such a relatively short amount of time.

The idea of a perfect poison has been a trope in literature for decades. The simple truth now is that there’s no such thing. The truth will out, and we have some incredible chemists and their tools to thank for that
Jumping the vaccine queue

BY PHILLIP BROADWITH 
Business editor, Chemistry World
25 SEPTEMBER 2020


Deals between companies and rich governments offset manufacturing risks, but must not compromise supplies to those in need

How much should a Covid-19 vaccine cost? And who should get it first? These are thorny problems that governments, companies and groups striving to secure equitable vaccine supplies are wrestling with as we inch slowly closer to a viable vaccine becoming available.



Source: © Gary Waters/Ikon Images

With the whole world waiting for Covid-19 vaccines, getting the early supplies to those who are most vulnerable must be the first priority

Well-off countries have rushed to strike deals with the various developers, to secure their own supplies. And alliances between states and non-government organisations are forming to try to ensure that those countries not in a position to commit to such deals themselves can still be provided for, rather than being sidelined by those with cash on hand.

At first glance, those huge orders resemble a kind of grossly unfair land-grab. But there is another side to these deals. Companies are committing to manufacturing vaccines before they are formally approved. That’s a big risk – developing manufacturing processes and building physical capacity is a significant cost. Guaranteed sales offset some of that risk, helping the whole system move faster – a good thing for everyone in a pandemic.

And as deal details emerge, there are signs that (at least in some cases) measures are in place to ensure the early doses are not simply doled out to governments who have splashed their cash, but distributed more according to need. Those who have pre-reserved their doses should, of course, get them in due time. But making sure the most vulnerable worldwide are at the front of the queue, regardless of where they live, will benefit us all in the long run. Time will tell how effective such measures will be.

Which brings us to prices. This is not the time for profiteering, and several companies have pledged to make minimal or zero profit from their sales during the pandemic. This virus is unlikely to be eradicated, so there will be time for more profitable sales to control future outbreaks or maintain vaccine-derived herd immunity once this pandemic is controlled.

In the meantime, the deals being struck clearly show that there are different interpretations of a ‘reasonable price’. The US deals (for which most financial details have been disclosed), range from £15–16 per dose for a Sanofi–GSK or Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine, to just over £3 for the University of Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine. Oxford–AZ’s deal with Gavi, the Vaccines Alliance is less than £2 per dose.

Clearly, the costs associated with developing and scaling up vaccines based on different technology could be wildly different – some may be able to use existing infrastructure and capacity, while others may not. And of course, not all the costs are determined yet. It will be important to scrutinise companies’ claims about their profits, or lack thereof, in due course. But the first priority should be to get safe and effective vaccines out into the world.


Covid-19 vaccine deals risk skewing supply
International accords including Covax aiming to ensure equitable distribution to poorer countries

SOURCE: © STUART KINLOUGH/IKON IMAGES

BY ANGELI MEHTA 25 SEPTEMBER 2020 CHEMISTRY WORLD

It will be months (at best) before we know if any of the vaccines being developed to protect us against Covid-19 are going to be effective, but the wealthiest nations are committing billions of pounds to secure access to them.

There are 36 candidate vaccines in human trials, with nine already in phase 3 trials with tens of thousands of volunteers. These frontrunners employ five different approaches, from established mechanisms using weakened or inactivated versions of the virus; to new technologies that introduce snippets of the virus genetic material into human cells, where they make proteins that mimic it. Another 146 vaccine candidates are in animal trials.

To speed up availability, pharmaceutical companies have begun manufacturing in parallel with clinical trials, rather than waiting for their outcomes and regulatory approval – a process that would otherwise take years. While that adds significantly to overall development costs, those costs pale into comparison with the pandemic’s global economic and health impacts.

AstraZeneca (AZ), which has the exclusive license to make a vaccine developed by the University of Oxford, UK, has signed deals to supply more than two billion doses. It’s scaling up its own manufacturing capacity as well as contracting with organisations in India, Latin America and China to make approaching three billion doses by the end of 2021. AZ says it is committed to broad and equitable access to the vaccine, although distribution is up to individual governments.



Source: © Vincenzo Pinto/AFP/Getty Images

Vaccine developers are tying up with contract manufacturers across the globe to secure capacity to produce the billions of doses that will eventually be required

Another contender, US-based biotech Moderna – working with the US National Institutes of Health – is developing what would be the first ever mRNA vaccine. It has signed deals to supply at least 276 million doses of its vaccine across the EU, Japan, Canada and the US. Through its multi-agency operation Warp Speed, the US government also has an option for another 400 million doses, assuming the vaccine gets regulatory approval. Alongside, Moderna has negotiated manufacturing capacity so supply can begin this year.

US-based Pfizer is working with Germany’s BioNTech on another mRNA candidate and has agreed to supply 270 million doses across the UK, US, Japan and Canada. The partners plan to make 100 million doses by the end of the year, and 1.3 billion by the end of 2021. On 18 September, the European commission signed a deal with Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for 300 million doses of their recombinant DNA vaccine. An upfront payment of €324 million (£297 million) will support manufacturing scale-up in Europe. The commission says vaccines will be distributed to member states based on population size.

Well-off nations are hedging their bets, to make sure their citizens get early vaccine access. The UK alone has options on 340 million doses from a mixture of frontrunners and less advanced candidates – including French group Valneva’s, which won’t go into clinical trials until the end of the year.


Ensuring there is ample supply for the rest of the world is a complex problem. World Health Organization (WHO) secretary general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has expressed concern that ‘excess demand and competition for supplies is already creating vaccine nationalism and price gouging’. The WHO has had to rethink its risk-sharing Covax initiative – which aims to pool global resources to get two billion doses of approved vaccines by the end of 2021 – after the US refused to sign up, and others delayed. By paying more up front, richer countries now get to choose which vaccines they want.


Ideally you would have one global allocation mechanism – unfortunately that is not likely to happen

The UK signed up at the last minute, meaning 64 self-financing nations will contribute, with another 38 expected to sign. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which is co-leading the initiative, said it would now start signing formal agreements with vaccine developers. Covax is supporting research, development and manufacturing of vaccines, as well as negotiating their prices, and hopes to have at least three safe and effective vaccines to offer. So far it’s raised $1.4 billion (£1.1 billion, including £250 million from the UK government) to support R&D, but requires another $800 million.

As vaccines become available, they would be distributed equitably until every country has enough for 20% of their population, to cover priority groups like healthcare workers. It’s not clear how that allocation will happen in practice, or how much the vaccines will cost, but countries will be able to opt out if prices are more than double what was expected. Thomas Cueni, director general of the International Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, told a recent panel organised by European Health Forum Gastein that ‘ideally you would have one global allocation mechanism – unfortunately that is not likely to happen … and of course, vaccine manufacturers have to respond to where do they get the support, where they get the orders from’. He added that ‘you need a mix of rich country solidarity with poor countries – only then will we be able to meet that objective of … a minimum of two billion, hopefully three billion [doses]’.

A separate mechanism aims to raise $2 billion by the end of the year for the 92 low- and middle-income countries (such as Afghanistan and Yemen) that cannot fully fund their vaccine requirements. However, by mid-September just $700 million had been pledged, leaving it unclear how much those countries will be asked to pay. The European commission has promised €400 million to the initiative, and stressed it wants manufacturers it contracts with to commit to providing future doses through Covax. The EU’s deals will also enable member states to donate some of their contracted supplies to low- and middle-income countries.

China has been engaging in its own vaccine diplomacy outside of Covax. It has four candidates in late stage trials, and is offering loans to Latin American and Caribbean nations to buy its vaccines; while promising priority access to others, such as the Philippines. However, phase 1 trials in Canada of CanSino’s candidate had to be abandoned after the Chinese government refused the company permission to ship the vaccine.


When we started talking with companies, some asked us for more than $100 per dose

One of the hallmarks of deals struck between governments and companies is a lack of transparency. Companies haven’t clearly disclosed what they’ll be paid, in spite of a hefty commitment of public funds to their vaccine endeavours. ‘Perhaps what’s so particularly stinging about that lack of transparency, is that some of these initiatives were launched with transparency cited as a key principle of their efforts, and it just hasn’t been upheld,’ says Kate Elder, senior vaccines policy adviser at Médicins Sans Frontiers (MSF). ‘That’s not in the interest of equitable access for countries in the future – it’s terribly disappointing.’

‘So the European commission is negotiating as a bloc with industry – are they communicating the prices that industry is quoting them to Gavi, which is also negotiating with the same companies? Because [otherwise] they could be inadvertently working against one another and driving up the prices.’ AZ and Johnson & Johnson have said they won’t seek to make a profit on their vaccines during the pandemic, but Elder wants them to substantiate that commitment by setting out their costs, and the funding they’ve received.

Thomas Triomphe, executive vice president for vaccines at Sanofi, told the European Parliament committee on health that his company will make the prices of its vaccines public, but the cost will depend the number of doses required and yield from the manufacturing process. Under Sanofi’s deals, doses have been reserved, not bought outright, to ensure manufacturing can start at scale. Countries will only take what they need and not necessarily the full amount of reserved doses, Triomphe explained.

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), a Washington, DC-based group that advocates for better use of knowledge, complained that Moderna hadn’t acknowledged that its vaccine development was funded by US government agencies. Moderna is one of seven companies that have received a combined $10 billion in funding from the US government. On top of its almost $1 billion in research funding, the company has a deal worth up to $1.5 billion to supply 100 million doses – around $15 a dose. ‘You’d think a pandemic would require the most transparency: everyone has a stake in knowing what’s going on,’ says KEI director James Love. ‘People funding research have also failed to require companies to share their knowhow globally, so you can have the maximum amount of capacity to manufacture as fast as possible, and the lowest prices by having competition.’

Pfizer’s US deal puts its vaccine at $19.50 per dose; while AZ’s deal with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and Gavi works out at $2.50 per dose. The European commission agreed a €336 million downpayment, but what it will ultimately pay for its first 300 million doses is unclear. However, Sandra Gallina, the commission’s deputy director-general for health and food safety, told a parliamentary committee that the EU would be paying €5–15 per dose. Clemens Auer, who is negotiating for the 27 EU member states, told the Gastein panel that ‘when we started talking nationally, bilaterally with companies, some … asked us for more than $100 per dose’.

CompanyPlatformUKUSEUCanadaJapanOthers
AstraZeneca/ University of OxfordAdenoviral vector100m300m (£930m)300m (+100m option) 120mAustralia 33.8m;
CEPI/Gavi: 300m (£584m); 
BioNTech/PfizermRNA30m100m (£1.5bn)
+ 500m option
 20m20m 
Johnson & JohnsonAdenoviral vector30m100m (£780m)200m*38m  
ModernamRNA 100m (£1.2bn)
+ 400m option
80m*56m40m* 
NovavaxProtein + adjuvant60m  76m  
Sanofi/GSKProtein + adjuvant60m100m (£1.6bn)300m   
ValnevaInactivated virus60m (£430m)
+ 130m option
     
* in negotiations
AZ manufacturing
 agreements 
Adenoviral vectorIndia: 1bn; Brazil: 110m (£280m); Latin America: 150–250m; China: 200m; South Korea: 100m

Another sticking point in the EU negotiations has been the question of liability. No vaccine is going to be 100% safe. And no vaccine will ever have been made so quickly. ‘If you move from phase 3 with 30,000 [people] to hundreds of millions, you will have adverse reactions and potential litigation,’ said Cueni. However, ‘limited liability does not mean you are exempted if you do something sloppily or do something wrong’. But the commission has insisted there would be no change to current legislation – if something goes wrong manufacturers can be taken to court, Gallina told MEPs.

All the manufacturing of candidate vaccines is ‘at risk’ – if a vaccine doesn’t work, the doses that have been made are wasted. Adar Poonawalla, chief executive of the Serum Institute of India, which AZ has contracted to make 1 billion doses for low- and middle-income countries, told the BBC it would cost $400–450 million to make the vaccine. If it fails, they’ll have wasted about $100 million, but the plant and equipment can be repurposed for another vaccine.

How easy would it be to pivot? Take the two leading mRNA vaccine developers, suggests Prashant Yadav, an expert in healthcare supply chain management at the Centre for Global Development in Washington, DC, US. ‘Imagine a scenario in which one of them has a successful vaccine and the other has an unsuccessful mRNA. The world would benefit by reconfiguring all of the capacity for the failed candidate and make it available for the successful one. That is easier said than done.’

Intellectual property, the nature of any contracts in place and the interchangeability of manufacturing steps all have a bearing. A new process configuration will take time to set up. ‘Can we start making plans for it now? It’s difficult to ask the manufacturer and the contract manufacturer – already scaling up to make one billion doses – to also get ready for the eventuality that you have to make something else instead.’ The trial results may not be clear-cut either, and a manufacturer might not be willing to reconfigure. ‘The more we can produce of the successful candidates, the better off we are,’ Yadav says. But at the same time, manufacturers’ incentives are aligned to deliver their own vaccine, not just whichever vaccines are successful.

Other issues are availability of adjuvants (used to boost the immune response) – some of these come from naturally occurring substances, and can’t yet be made synthetically. Then there are the logistics of vaccine distribution: nucleic acid vaccines require ultra-cold storage, which will make distribution challenging, even in the developed world. Even getting enough glass vials to fill with vaccines is going to be a challenge. It’s clear that having a successful vaccine get through trials and regulatory hurdles won’t be the end of the story.