Contents\u00a0[hide<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n On\u00a0April 30th<\/u><\/a>, AstraZeneca and Oxford University announced a \u201clandmark agreement\u201d for the development of a COVID-19 vaccine.\u00a0The\u00a0<\/a>agreement<\/a>\u00a0involves AstraZeneca overseeing aspects of the development as well as manufacturing and distribution while the Oxford side, via the Jenner Institute and Oxford Vaccine Group, researched and developed the vaccine. Less than a month after this agreement was reached, the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership was awarded a contract from the US government as part of Operation Warp Speed, the public-private COVID-19 vaccination effort dominated by the US military and US intelligence.<\/p>\n Though the partnership was announced in April, Oxford\u2019s Jenner Institute had already begun developing the COVID-19 vaccine months before,\u00a0in mid-January<\/u><\/a>. According to a recent\u00a0BBC report<\/a>, it was in January that the Jenner Institute first became aware of how serious the pandemic would soon become, when\u00a0Professor Andrew Pollard<\/a>, who works for both the Jenner Institute and heads the Oxford Vaccine Group, \u201cshared a taxi with a modeler who worked for the UK\u2019s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.\u201d During the taxi ride, \u201cthe scientist told him data suggested there was going to be a pandemic not unlike the 1918 flu.\u201d Due to this sole encounter, we are told, the Jenner Institute then began to pour millions into the early development of a vaccine for COVID-19 well before the scope of the crisis was clear.<\/p>\n For much of 2020, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was treated as an early front-runner, though its lead would later be marred by scandals related to its clinical trials, including the death of participants, sudden trial pauses, the use of a problematic \u201cplacebo\u201d with its own host of side effects and the \u201cunintentional\u201d mis-dosing of some participants that skewed its self-reported efficacy rate.<\/p>\n The\u00a0significant issues<\/a>\u00a0that emerged during trials have provoked little concern from the vaccine\u2019s two lead developers, despite critical attention from even mainstream media of its complications. The lead developer of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, Adrian Hill, told\u00a0NBC<\/em>\u00a0on December 9th<\/sup>\u00a0that the experimental vaccine should be approved and distributed to the public before the conclusion of the safety trials, saying,\u201dto wait for the end of the trial would be the middle of next year. That\u2019s too late, this vaccine is effective, available at large scale and easily deployed.\u201d<\/p>\n Sarah Gilbert, the other lead researcher on the vaccine, seemed to believe that pre-mature safety approval was likely, telling the\u00a0BBC<\/u><\/em><\/a>\u00a0on December 13 that the chances of rolling out the vaccine by the end of the year are \u201cpretty high.\u201d Now, the UK is expected to approve the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine\u00a0shortly after Christmas<\/a>, with India\u00a0also set to approve\u00a0<\/a>the vaccine next week.<\/p>\n While the controversies surrounding the vaccine\u2019s trials did ultimately undermine its previous frontrunner status, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine remains heavily promoted as the vaccine of choice for the developing world, as it is cheaper and has much less complicated storage requirement than its main competitors, Pfizer and Moderna.<\/p>\n Earlier this month, Dr. Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of the\u00a0Lancet<\/em>\u00a0medical journal,\u00a0told\u00a0<\/a>CNBC<\/em><\/a>\u00a0that \u201cThe Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is the vaccine right now that is going to be able to immunize the planet more effectively, more rapidly than any other vaccine we have\u201d in large part because it is a \u201cvaccine that can get to lower middle-income countries.\u201d\u00a0CNBC<\/em>\u00a0also quoted Andrew Baum, global head of health care for Citi Group, as saying that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine \u201cis really the only vaccine that is going to suppress or even eradicate SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in the many millions of individuals in the developing world.\u201d<\/p>\n In addition to longstanding claims that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine will be the vaccine of choice for the developing world, this vaccine candidate has also been treated by several outlets in the mainstream and\u00a0even independent media<\/a>\u00a0as \u201cgood for people, bad for profits\u201d due to the partnership\u2019s \u201cexplicit intention of supplying [the vaccine] around the world on a not-for-profit basis, meaning that the poorest nations on the planet will not have to worry about being shut out of a cure due to lack of funds.\u201d<\/p>\n However, investigation into the vaccine\u2019s developers and the realities of their \u201cno-profit pledge\u201d reveals a very different story than that which has been spun for most of the year by corporate press releases, experts and academics tied to the vaccine and the mainstream press.<\/p>\n For instance, mainstream media has had little, if anything, to say about the role of the vaccine developers\u2019 private company \u2013 Vaccitech \u2013 in the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership, a company whose main investors include former top Deutsche Bank executives, Silicon Valley behemoth Google and the UK government. All of them stand to profit from the vaccine alongside the vaccine\u2019s two developers, Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert, who retain an estimated 10% stake in the company. Another overlooked point is the plan to dramatically alter the current sales model for the vaccine following the initial wave of its administration, which would see profits soar, especially if the now obvious push to make COVID-19 vaccination an annual affair for the foreseeable future is made reality.<\/p>\n Yet, arguably most troubling of all is the direct link of the vaccine\u2019s lead developers to the Wellcome Trust and, in the case of Adrian Hill, the Galton Institute, two groups with longstanding ties to the UK Eugenics movement. The latter organization, named for the \u201cfather of eugenics\u201d Francis Galton, is the re-named UK Eugenics Society, a group notorious for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to \u201cimprove racial stock\u201d by reducing the population of those deemed inferior for over a century.<\/p>\n The ties of Adrian Hill to the Galton Institute should raise obvious concerns given the push to make the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine he developed with Gilbert the vaccine of choice for the developing world, particularly countries in Latin America, South and Southeast Asia and Africa, the very areas where the Galton Institute\u2019s past members have called for reducing population growth.<\/p>\n In the final installment of this series on Operation Warp Speed, the US government\u2019s vaccination effort, and race, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine\u2019s ties to Eugenics-linked institutions, the secretive role of Vaccitech, and the myth of the vaccine\u2019s sale being \u201cnon-profit\u201d and altruistically motivated are explored in detail.<\/p>\n The Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research was initially established in 1995 in Compton in Berkshire as a public-private partnership between the UK government, via the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health, and the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. Following a \u201creview by the [institute\u2019s] sponsors,\u201d it was relaunched in 2005 in Oxford under the leadership of Adrian Hill, who\u2014prior to that appointment\u2014held a senior position at the Wellcome Trust\u2019s Centre for Human Genetics.<\/p>\n Hill, the lead developer of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine,\u00a0still leads a research group<\/a>\u00a0at Wellcome aimed at \u201cunderstand[ing] the genetic basis of susceptibility to different infectious diseases, especially. . . severe respiratory infections,\u201d which conducts most of its studies in Africa. The UK\u2019s Medical Research Council has also\u00a0become a collaborator<\/a>\u00a0with the Wellcome Trust, specifically on vaccine-related initiatives. The Wellcome Trust, discussed at greater length later in this article, was originally created with funding from Henry Wellcome, who founded the company that later became GlaxoSmithKline.<\/p>\n Hill\u2019s partner at the Jenner Institute and the other co-developer of the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine is Sarah Gilbert. Gilbert also hails from the Wellcome Trust, where she was a \u201cprogram director,\u201d and is a student of Hill\u2019s. Together, Gilbert and Hill have worked to position the institute to be the center of all future vaccination efforts undertaken in response to global pandemics.<\/p>\n The Jenner Institute\u2019s relocation to Oxford was largely facilitated by the Medical Research Council, which donated \u00a31.25 million between 2005 and 2006, after the decision was made to replace the institute\u2019s original sponsors (GlaxoSmithKline, the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health) with the University of Oxford and the Institute for Animal Health, now called the Pirbright Institute. The involvement of Pirbright meant that the relaunched Jenner Institute became unique in developing vaccines for both humans and livestock.<\/p>\n The relaunched Jenner Institute has come to dominate publicly funded vaccine development in the UK as well as the testing of vaccines produced by the world\u2019s largest pharmaceutical companies via clinical trials and has overseen prominent safety trials for vaccines of high media interest in recent years. Some of the Jenner Institute\u2013conducted trials later draw controversy, such as those using South African infants in 2009 in which seven infants died.<\/p>\n An investigation\u00a0conducted by the\u00a0<\/u>British Medical Journal<\/em><\/a>\u00a0found that the Hill-led Jenner Institute had, in the South African instance, knowingly misled parents about the negative results of and questionable methods used in animal studies as well the vaccine being known to be ineffective. The vaccine in question, an experimental tuberculosis vaccine developed jointly by\u00a0Emergent Biosolutions<\/a>\u00a0and the Jenner Institute, was scrapped after the controversial study in infants confirmed what was already known, that the vaccine was ineffective. The trial, largely funded by Oxford and the Wellcome Trust, was subsequently praised as \u201chistoric<\/a>\u201d by the BBC.<\/em>\u00a0Hill, at the time the study was conducted, had a personal financial stake in the vaccine.<\/p>\n Similar instances of dodgy practices in efficacy trials and the effects of increased dosages\u00a0have led<\/a>\u00a0vaccine experts to criticize the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Hill and Gilbert. Hill and Gilbert hold a considerable financial stake in the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. While the vaccine reportedly has an efficacy of over 90 percent, those figures\u2014often cited in mainstream reports\u2014are self-reported by the vaccine\u2019s developers and manufacturers (i.e., the Oxford team and AstraZeneca), which is significant given that Hill and other Jenner Institute scientists have previously been caught manipulating trial results to benefit a vaccine product in which they were personally invested.<\/p>\n The prominence of the Jenner Institute in vaccine development and testing has largely come through Hill\u2019s additional leadership role at the UK\u2019s Vaccines Network, which chooses what vaccines to develop, how to develop them, and which firms should receive \u201ctargeted investments\u201d from the UK government. The Vaccines Network also\u00a0plays a key role<\/a>\u00a0in identifying \u201cwhat vaccine technologies could play an important role in future outbreaks.\u201d Two of the main backers of the UK\u2019s Vaccines Network are the Wellcome Trust and GlaxoSmithKline.<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, the Vaccines Network\u00a0has steered<\/a>\u00a0many millions of pounds toward the Hill-run Jenner Institute, with completed projects including a \u201cplug and display\u201d virus-like particle platform for rapid-response vaccination. Also funded by the Vaccines Network were the Jenner Institute\u2019s\u00a0initial studies<\/a>\u00a0of novel chimpanzee adenovirus vaccines for coronavirus (in this case, MERS), the same viral vector used for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. In addition to the Vaccines Network, the Jenner Institute also coordinates the efforts of the EU\u2019s Vaccines Network equivalent, MultiMalVax.<\/p>\n The Jenner Institute also has a close relationship with GlaxoSmithKline and the Italian biotech Okairos, which was acquired by GlaxoSmithKline in 2014. Soon after it was acquired, Okairos, and its new owner GlaxoSmithKline, became key players in the 2014 experimental Ebola vaccine push, an effort that\u00a0mirrors<\/a>\u00a0the current COVID-19 vaccine development rush in many key ways.\u00a0The rushed safety trials<\/a>\u00a0for that vaccine were overseen by Adrian Hill and the Jenner Institute and funded by the UK government and the Wellcome Trust. GlaxoSmithKline and Okairos are the only firms represented on the Jenner Institute\u2019s\u00a0Scientific Advisory Board<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Jenner Institute, along with GlaxoSmithKline-Okairos and a small French biotech called Imaxio,\u00a0have been developing<\/a>\u00a0an experimental malaria vaccine since 2015, with human trials of that vaccine announced on December 12, 2020. Those trials will be conducted on\u00a04,800 children in Africa<\/a>\u00a0over the course of 2021, in many of the same countries where Hill\u2019s research group at the Wellcome Center for Human Genetics has been studying genetic susceptibility to several diseases. \u201cA lot more people will die in Africa this year from malaria than will die from Covid,\u201d Hill\u00a0recently said<\/a>\u00a0in regard to the soon-to-begin trials.<\/p>\n Currently, the Jenner Institute\u00a0is funded by<\/a>\u00a0the Jenner Vaccine Foundation<\/a>, but\u00a0the foundation<\/u>\u2019<\/u>s documents<\/u><\/a>\u00a0note on several occasions a considerable influx of money from Wellcome Trust Strategic Awards. A \u201cspecial review panel\u201d from the Wellcome Trust actually lobbied the Jenner Institute to apply for further \u201cstrategic core funding\u201d from the trust after visiting the institute and appraising its work. The Jenner Institute frames its funding from Wellcome as the key guidance behind its development decisions, which are made \u201cbased on the successful model of Wellcome Trust Strategic Award support.\u201d<\/p>\n The Jenner Institute\u2019s foundation, however, is not the only source of income for its lead researchers. Hill and Gilbert have been working to commercialize many of the institute\u2019s vaccines through their own private company, Vaccitech. Though media reports often describe the vaccine as being a joint effort between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford, Vaccitech is a key stakeholder in that partnership, given that the vaccine candidate relies on technology developed by Hill and Gilbert and owned by Vaccitech. A deeper look into Vaccitech offers a clue as to why the company\u2019s name has been absent from nearly all media reports on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, as it demolishes the much-touted claim that the vaccine is \u201cnonprofit\u201d and offered at low cost for charitable reasons.<\/p>\n The official reason Sarah Gilbert and Adrian Hill created Vaccitech in 2016\u00a0per\u00a0<\/u>The Times<\/em><\/a>\u00a0is because \u201cOxford\u2019s researchers [are] encouraged to form companies to commercialize their work.\u201d Vaccitech, like other \u201ccommercialized\u201d Oxford research enterprises, was spun out of the Jenner Institute via the university\u2019s commercialization arm, Oxford Science Innovations, which is currently Vaccitech\u2019s largest stakeholder at 46 percent. Hill and Gilbert are reported to maintain a 10 percent stake in the company.<\/p>\n The largest investor in Oxford Science Innovations, and by extension one of the largest shareholders in Vaccitech, is Braavos Capital, the venture-capital firm started in 2019 by Andrew Crawford-Brunt, Deutsche Bank\u2019s long-time\u00a0global head of equity trading<\/a>\u00a0at its London branch. Through its stake in Oxford Science Innovations, Braavos owns about 9 percent of Vaccitech.<\/p>\n Prior to COVID-19, Vaccitech\u2019s main focus, especially last year, was the development of a universal vaccine for the flu. Vaccitech\u2019s efforts in this regard were praised by Google, which is also invested in Vaccitech. At the same time, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was funding research to develop a universal flu vaccine, reportedly because the field of influenza vaccinology was not yet able \u201cto design a flu vaccine that would protect broadly against the strains of flu that infect people every winter and those in nature that could emerge to trigger a disruptive and deadly pandemic,\u201d according to\u00a0a\u00a0<\/u>STAT News<\/em>\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0from last year. The Gates Foundation effort originally partnered with Google\u2019s cofounder Larry Page and his wife Lucy.<\/p>\n To fully finance Hill and Gilbert\u2019s Vaccitech, and specifically its quest to develop a universal flu vaccine, Oxford Science Innovations\u00a0sought \u00a3600 million<\/u><\/a>\u00a0from \u201coutside investors,\u201d chief among them the Wellcome Trust and the venture-capital arm of Google,\u00a0Google Ventures<\/a>. This means that Google is poised to make a profit from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine at a time when its video platform YouTube\u00a0has moved to ban<\/a>\u00a0COVID-19 vaccine\u2013related content that shines a negative light on COVID-19 vaccines, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca candidate. Other investors in Vaccitech include Sequoia Capital\u2019s Chinese branch and the Chinese pharmaceutical company Fosun Pharma. In addition, the UK government has put an estimated \u00a35 million into the company and is\u00a0also expected<\/a>\u00a0to make a return on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.<\/p>\n Information on the profit motive behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has been muddied due to the extensive media promotion of the claim that Hill and Gilbert will not be collecting royalties on the vaccine and that AstraZeneca is not making a profit off the vaccine. However, this is only true until the pandemic is \u201cofficially\u201d declared over, and the virus is labeled a persistent or seasonal condition that will require the mass administration of COVID-19 vaccines at regular intervals and possibly annually.\u00a0Sky News<\/a><\/u><\/em>\u00a0reported that the determination of when the pandemic is over \u201cwill be based on the views of a range of [unspecified] independent bodies.\u201d At that point, both Vaccitech and Oxford will obtain royalties from AstraZeneca\u2019s sales of the vaccine.<\/p>\n Those tied to the vaccine have been at the center of promoting the idea that the COVID-19 vaccine will soon become an annual affair. For instance, in early May, John Bell\u2014an Oxford medical professor and an \u201carchitect\u201d of the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership\u2014told\u00a0NBC News<\/em><\/u><\/a>, \u201cI suspect we may need to have relatively regular vaccinations against coronaviruses going into the future,\u201d adding that the vaccine would likely be needed every year like the flu vaccine.\u00a0NBC<\/em>\u00a0News<\/em>\u00a0failed to note that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in which Bell is involved stands to significantly benefit financially if that does come to pass.<\/p>\n More recently, Bell\u00a0told\u00a0<\/u>The Week<\/em><\/a>\u00a0that, \u201cshould there prove to be a market for regular vaccinations against coronavirus in the future, \u2018there is some money to be made.\u2019\u201d Such sentiments have been echoed by Pascal Soriot, the CEO of AstraZeneca, who\u00a0told\u00a0<\/u>Bloomberg<\/em><\/a>\u00a0last month that the company stood to make a \u201creasonable profit\u201d once the pandemic was declared over and COVID-19 deemed a seasonal illness requiring regular vaccinations. On this matter, Vaccitech\u2019s CEO, Bill Enright, stated that Vaccitech investors would receive a \u201cbig chunk of the royalties from a successful vaccine as well as \u2018milestone\u2019 payments\u201d if and when the pandemic is declared over and COVID-19 vaccines become a seasonal event.<\/p>\n Vaccitech, in particular, appears quite certain that this possibility is slated to become reality. For all subsequent iterations of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, Vaccitech will reacquire a much larger percentage of rights to the vaccine, rights it is currently splitting with Oxford for the first iteration.\u00a0Sky News<\/a><\/u><\/em>\u00a0has noted that the technology that Vaccitech owns \u201ccould drive the second generation of COVID-19 vaccines\u201d and that it \u201chas [already] received \u00a32.3 million of public funding to develop it.\u201d<\/p>\n US government officials such as Anthony Fauci\u00a0have also signaled<\/a>\u00a0that the COVID-19 vaccine will require annual shots. Notably, the government, through Health and Human Service\u2019s BARDA, has\u00a0poured over $1 billion<\/a>\u00a0into the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine development. In addition to government officials,\u00a0several recently published<\/a>\u00a0mainstream media reports<\/a>\u00a0have claimed that the \u201cexpert\u201d consensus \u201cseem[s] to be leaning toward an annual shot like the flu vaccine\u201d with regards to the COVID-19 vaccine. For instance, Dr. Charles Chiu, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of California\u2013San Francisco, recently told\u00a0Salon<\/u><\/em>, \u201cThis may end up being a vaccine that\u2019s not a one-time thing or even a two-time thing. . .it may end up being what we call either a seasonal vaccine, or vaccine that needs to be administered every couple of years.\u201d<\/p>\n Such hints about an annual COVID-19 vaccine from 2021 onwards have recently become commonplace from the leading COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers themselves. For instance, on December 13th<\/sup>, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla\u00a0was quoted by the\u00a0<\/u>Telegraph<\/em><\/u>\u00a0as saying<\/u><\/a>, \u201cHow long this [vaccine] protection lasts is something we don\u2019t know \u2026 I think it is a likely scenario that you will need periodical vaccinations.\u201d Pfizer also recently\u00a0issued a statement<\/a>\u00a0that noted that \u201cwe don\u2019t know how the virus will change, and we also don\u2019t know how durable the protective effect of any vaccination will be,\u201d adding that its vaccine would be suitable \u201cfor repeated administration as booster shots\u201d in the event that the vaccine only induces an immune response for a few months.<\/p>\n Then, this past Tuesday, Moderna released information that suggested immunity from its COVID-19 vaccine would only last several months,\u00a0with<\/a>\u00a0Forbes<\/em><\/a>\u00a0writing that \u201cthe duration of neutralizing antibodies from the Moderna vaccine will be relatively short, potentially less than a year,\u201d an outcome that would favor the push for an annual COVID-19 shot. The developer of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, Ugur Sahin of BioNTech, also\u00a0stated on Tuesday<\/a>\u00a0that \u201cThe virus will stay with us for the next 10 years\u2026We need to get used to the fact there\u2019ll be more outbreaks.\u201d He later added that \u201cif the virus becomes more efficient\u2026we might need a higher uptake of the vaccine for life to return to normal,\u201d implying that these regular outbreaks he foresees occurring over the next ten years would be correlated with increased vaccine administration.<\/p>\n Quotes from the developers of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine themselves also point to a pandemic-dominated future and a desire for the crisis to be prolonged so that the vaccine can be widely distributed. Gilbert told\u00a0the UK\u00a0Independent<\/em><\/a>\u00a0in August that she believes COVID-19 is just the beginning and that COVID-like pandemics will become more frequent in the near future. The Jenner Institute vaccine team seems so determined to create the COVID vaccine that, in June, Hill was quoted by\u00a0the\u00a0Washington Post<\/em><\/a>\u00a0<\/em>in June as stating that he wanted the pandemic to stick around, saying, \u201cWe\u2019re in the bizarre position of wanting COVID to stay, at least for a little while. But cases are declining.\u201d He also stated that his team was in \u201ca race against the virus disappearing.\u201d<\/p>\n With the vaccine developers, \u201cmedical experts,\u201d government officials, and the CEOs of major vaccine manufacturers all agreeing that a seasonal COVID-19 vaccine is an increasingly likely outcome, it is worth considering a possible ulterior motive regarding the initial \u201cnonprofit\u201d model being used by the Jenner Institute\/Vaccitech and AstraZeneca for their joint COVID-19 vaccine.<\/p>\n Given that\u00a0vaccine guidance<\/a>\u00a0in several countries<\/a>\u00a0states that each dose of the multidose COVID-19 vaccine must be produced by the same manufacturer as previous doses, the implication is that in the event of a need for periodic COVID-19 vaccine variants, those who initially received the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine would likely be required to receive that same \u201cbrand\u201d of vaccine seasonally. In other words, those who initially received the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine would likely be required, not just to receive a second dose of the same \u201cbrand,\u201d but continue receiving that same \u201cbrand\u201d of vaccine every year. Notably, no interaction studies\u00a0have yet been conducted<\/a>\u00a0on the interactions between the COVID-19 vaccines and other medications as well as other vaccines.<\/p>\n If this turns out to be the case, it would certainly behoove the Oxford-Vaccitech-AstraZeneca team to want their vaccine to be the most widely used one in the first year in order to guarantee the largest market for subsequent annual COVID-19 vaccines. This could be a possible motive\u00a0behind the efforts<\/a>\u00a0of the Oxford-AstraZeneca partnership \u201cto supply the entire world with the Oxford jab\u201d and to supply the vaccine \u201cto the most vulnerable groups to COVID-19.\u201d This vaccine has already been purchased, even before regulatory approval, by governments around the world, including in Europe, North America, Australia and most Latin American countries.<\/p>\n Adrian Hill currently holds a senior position at\u00a0the Wellcome Trust<\/a>\u2019s Centre for Human Genomics. The Wellcome Trust is a scientific charity based in London, established in 1936 with funds from pharmaceutical magnate Henry Wellcome. As previously mentioned, Wellcome founded the pharmaceutical company that eventually became the industry giant GlaxoSmithKline. Today, the Wellcome Trust has a $25.9 billion endowment and engages in philanthropic endeavors, including funding clinical trials and research.<\/p>\n Hill\u00a0has been closely tied<\/a>\u00a0to Wellcome for decades. In 1994, he participated in the founding of the Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics and was awarded a Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellowship the following year. He became a Wellcome professor of human genetics in 1996.<\/p>\n The\u00a0Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics<\/a>\u00a0website boasts of the large-scale genetic mapping they\u2019ve conducted in Africa. The center also publishes papers that explore genetic dispositions in relation to\u00a0male fertility<\/a>\u00a0and \u201creproductive success<\/a>.\u201d The crossroads between race and genes is important in the center\u2019s work, as an entire working group at the center,\u00a0the Myers Group<\/a>, is dedicated to mapping the \u201cgenetic impacts of migration events.\u201d The center also\u00a0funded a paper<\/a>\u00a0that argued that so long as eugenics is not coercive it\u2019s an acceptable policy initiative. The paper asks, \u201cIs the fact that an action or policy is a case of eugenics necessarily a reason not to do it?\u201d\u00a0According to<\/a>\u00a0Hill\u2019s page on the Wellcome Trust site, race and genetics have long played a central role in his scientific approach, and his group currently focuses on the role genetics plays in African populations with regard to susceptibility to specific\u00a0infectious diseases.<\/p>\n Of even greater concern, last year\u00a0Science Mag<\/em><\/a>\u00a0reported that Wellcome was accused by both a whistleblower and the University of Cape Town South Africa of illegally exploiting hundreds of Africans by \u201ccommercializing a gene chip without proper legal agreements and without the consent of the hundreds of African people whose donated DNA was used to develop the chip.\u201d Jantina de Vries, a bioethicist at the University of Cape Town South Africa told the journal that it was \u201cclearly unethical.\u201d Since the controversy, other African institutions and peoples such as the indigenous Nama peoples of Namibia have demanded that Wellcome return the DNA it collected.<\/p>\n The Wellcome Centre regularly co-funds the research and development of vaccines and birth control methods with the Gates Foundation, a foundation that\u00a0actively and admittedly engages in<\/a>\u00a0population and reproductive control in Africa and South Asia by, among other things, prioritizing the wide-spread distribution of injectable long-acting, reversible contraceptives (LARCs). The Wellcome Trust has also\u00a0directly funded<\/a>\u00a0studies that sought to develop methods to \u201cimprove uptake\u201d of LARCs in places such as rural Rwanda.<\/p>\n As researcher\u00a0Jacob Levich<\/a>\u00a0wrote in the\u00a0Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism<\/em>, LARCs afford women in the Global South \u201cthe least choice possible short of actual sterilization.\u201d Some LARCs can render women infertile for as long as five years, and, as Levich argues, they \u201cleave far more control in the hands of providers, and less in the hands of women, than condoms, oral contraceptives, or traditional methods.\u201d<\/p>\n One example is Norplant, a contraceptive implant manufactured by Schering (now Bayer) that can prevent pregnancy for up to five years. It was taken off the US market in 2002 after more than fifty thousand women filed lawsuits against the company and the doctors who prescribed it. Seventy of those\u00a0class action suits<\/a>\u00a0were related to side effects such as depression, extreme nausea, scalp-hair loss, ovarian cysts, migraines, and excessive bleeding.<\/p>\n Slightly modified and rebranded as Jadelle, the dangerous drug was promoted in Africa by the Gates Foundation\u00a0in conjunction<\/a>\u00a0with USAID and EngenderHealth. Formerly named the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, EngenderHealth\u2019s original mission, inspired by racial eugenics, was to \u201cimprove<\/a>\u00a0the biological stock of the human race.\u201d Jadelle is not approved by the FDA for use in the United States.<\/p>\n Another scandal-ridden LARC is Pfizer\u2019s Depo-Provera, an injectable contraceptive used in several African and Asian countries. The Gates Foundation and\u00a0USAID<\/a>\u00a0have collaborated to fund this drug\u2019s distribution and introduce it into the health-care systems of countries including Uganda, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Niger, Senegal, Bangladesh, and India.<\/p>\n Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, where Hill\u2019s Jenner Institute resides, is enmeshed with the Gates Foundation. His employer, the University of Oxford, has received\u00a0$11 million<\/a>\u00a0for vaccine development research from the foundation over the past three years and $208 million in grants over the past decade. In 2016, the\u00a0Gates Foundation gave $36 million<\/a>\u00a0to a team of researchers that was headed by Pollard for vaccine development. In addition, Pollard\u2019s private laboratory is funded by the Gates Foundation. Given this, it should come as no surprise that\u00a0the Global Alliance for Vaccine Initiative (GAVI)<\/a>, a public-private partnership founded and currently funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,\u00a0plans to distribute<\/a>\u00a0the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine to low-income, predominantly African and Asian, countries once it\u2019s approved.<\/p>\n Both the Wellcome Trust and Adrian Hill share a close relationship with the most infamous eugenics society in Europe, the British Eugenics Society. The Eugenics Society was renamed\u00a0the Galton Institute<\/a>\u00a0in 1989, a name that pays homage to Sir Francis Galton, the so-called father of eugenics, a field that he often described as the \u201cscience of improving racial stock.\u201d<\/p>\n In the case of the Wellcome Trust, the Trust\u2019s library is the guardian of the Eugenics Society historical archives. When the Wellcome Trust first set up its Contemporary Medical Archive Center, the first organizational archive it sought to acquire was tellingly that of the Eugenics Society-Galton Institute.\u00a0Wellcome\u2019s website<\/a>\u00a0describes the Eugenics Society\u2019s original purpose as \u201cto increase public understanding of heredity and to influence parenthood in Britain, with the aim of biological improvement of the nation and mitigation of the burdens deemed to be imposed on society by the genetically \u2018unfit\u2019.\u201d It also states the interests of the society\u2019s members \u201cranged from the biology of heredity, a subject that developed rapidly during the first half of the 20th century, to the provision of birth control methods, artificial insemination, statistics, sex education and family allowances.\u201d Lesley Hall, Wellcome\u2019s senior archivist,\u00a0has referred<\/a>\u00a0to Francis Galton, a racist eugenicist, as an \u201ceminent late nineteenth century polymath\u201d in her discussion of the Eugenics Society archive held at Wellcome.<\/p>\n Several\u00a0top governance positions<\/a>\u00a0at the former British Eugenics Society, now the Galton Institute, include individuals who originally worked at The Wellcome Trust, including the Galton Institute\u2019s president\u00a0Turi King<\/u>. Dr. Elena Bochukova, a current Galton Council Member and Galton lecturer, previously worked under the direction of Adrian Hill at the Wellcome Trust Center for Human Genetics. The Galton Institute\u2019s Senior Genetics Researcher, Dr. Jess Buxton, was previously a \u2018genetics researcher\u2019 at the Wellcome Trust and then went on to carry out independent research financed by Wellcome. Her research, which is particularly race oriented, includes creating the first genetic sequence map of a native Nigerian. Moreover, Adrian Hill himself spoke at the Eugenics Society-Galton Institute at the celebration of their 100th anniversary in 2008.<\/p>\n The Galton Institute publishes what they now call the\u00a0Galton Review<\/em>, previously titled the\u00a0Eugenics Review<\/em>, where various members of the self-proclaimed \u201clearned society<\/a>\u201d publish papers focused on population issues, genetics, evolutionary biology, and fertility.<\/p>\n A look at early issues of the\u00a0Eugenics Review<\/em>\u00a0shines a light on Galton\u2019s original ambitions. In the\u00a01955 issue<\/a>\u00a0titled \u201cThe Immigration of Colored People,\u201d an author asks, \u201cWhat will become of our national character, good workmanship etc. in the course of a few decades if this immigration of negroes and negroids continues unchecked?\u201d The article ends with an appeal to readers to write their parliamentary representatives and urge them that in view of \u201cracial betterment or deterioration\u201d something must be done urgently to \u201ccheck the present influx of africans and other negroids.\u201d<\/p>\n Today, it appears that the Galton Institute continues to see the immigration of racial minorities into European cities as an unchecked threat. Mike Coleman, an Oxford professor of demographics and a fellow at the institute runs an anti-immigration organization and advocacy group called\u00a0MigrationWatch<\/a>\u2014whose mission is to preserve the European culture of the UK by lobbying the government to stem legal immigration and publishing data that supposedly demonstrates the biological and cultural threat of increasing immigration.<\/p>\n A\u00a01961 issue<\/a>\u00a0of the\u00a0Eugenics Review<\/em>\u00a0titled \u201cThe Impending Crisis\u201d claims the function of the institute\u2019s upcoming conference is \u201cto honor Margaret Sanger\u201d and describes the population crisis as \u201cquantity threatening quality.\u201d<\/p>\n Sanger, known as the \u201cpioneer of the American birth control movement<\/a>,\u201d was a staunch advocate for promoting \u201cracial betterment\u201d and the key architect of the Negro Project, which she claimed \u201cwas established for the benefit of the colored people.\u201d But as medical ethics fellow at Harvard Medical School, Harriet Washington, argues in her book\u00a0Medical Apartheid<\/a><\/em>, \u201cThe Negro Project sought to find the best way to reduce the black population by promoting eugenic principals.\u201d Sanger was an American member of the British Eugenics Society.<\/p>\n Another early member of the Galton Institute was John Harvey Kellogg, prominent business man and eugenicist. Kellogg founded the Race Betterment Foundation and argued that immigrants and nonwhites would damage the American gene pool. Yet another example is Charles Davenport, a scientist known for his collaborative research efforts with eugenicists in Nazi Germany and his contributions to\u00a0Nazi Germany\u2019s brutal racial policies<\/a>, who was vice president of the Galton Institute in 1931.<\/p>\n Another more recent member of the Galton Institute was David Weatherall, for whom the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine at Oxford is named. Weatherall was a member of the Galton Institute when it was still named the Eugenics Society and he remained a member until his death in 2018. Weatherall, who was knighted by the British monarch in 1987 for his contributions to science, addressed the Galton Institute\u00a0on numerous occasions<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0gave a senior lecture<\/a>\u00a0on genetics at the institute in 2014, of which no transcript or video is available. As an Oxford professor, Weatherall was Adrian Hill\u2019s doctoral adviser and eventually his boss when Hill began working at the Weatherall Institute conducting\u00a0immunogenic research<\/a>\u00a0in Africa. A\u00a0key fixture<\/a>\u00a0of the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine since its founding is Walter Bodmer, a\u00a0former president<\/a>\u00a0of the Galton Institute.<\/p>\n While the Galton Institute has attempted to distance itself from its past of promoting racial eugenics with surface-level public relations efforts, it has not stopped family members of the infamous racist from achieving leadership positions at the institute. Emeritus professor of molecular genetics at the Galton Institute and one of its officers is none other than\u00a0David. J Galton<\/a>, whose work includes\u00a0Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century<\/em><\/a>.<\/em>\u00a0David Galton has written that the Human Genome Mapping Project,\u00a0originally dreamt up<\/a>\u00a0by Galton\u2019s former president\u00a0Walter Bodmer<\/a>, had \u201cenormously increased . . . the scope for eugenics . . . because of the development of a very powerful technology for the manipulation of DNA.\u201d<\/p>\n This new \u201cwider definition of eugenics,\u201d Galton has said, \u201cwould cover methods of regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells.\u201d In expanding on this new definition, Galton is neutral as to \u201cwhether some methods should be made compulsory by the state, or left entirely to the personal choice of the individual.\u201d<\/p>\n Considering the degree to which the players and institutions behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine (including the lead developer) are tied and connected to institutions that have been instrumental in the rise and perpetuation of racial eugenics, it\u2019s concerning that this particular vaccine is being portrayed by scientists and media alike as the COVID-19 vaccine for the poor and the Global South.<\/p>\n The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine sells at a fraction of the cost of its COVID-19 vaccine competitors\u2014running between 3 and 5 dollars per dose. Moderna and Pfizer cost 25 to 37 dollars and 20 dollars per dose, respectively. As\u00a0CNN recently reported<\/a>, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine will \u201cbe far easier to transport and distribute in developing countries than its rivals,\u201d several of which require complicated and costly cold supply chains. When the\u00a0Thomson Reuters Foundation<\/a>\u00a0asked several experts which COVID-19 vaccine could \u201creach the poorest soonest,\u201d all declared a preference for the Oxford-AstraZeneca candidate.<\/p>\n There is also the added fact that a host of safety issues have come to surround the vaccine. Recently, on November 21, a forty-year-old participant in AstraZeneca\u2019s clinical trial who lives in India sent a legal notice to the Serum Institute of India\u00a0alleging<\/a>\u00a0that the vaccine caused him to develop acute neuroencephalopathy, or brain damage. In the notice, the participant said he \u201cmust be compensated, in the least, for all the sufferings that he and his family have undergone and are likely to undergo in the future.\u201d<\/p>\n In response, the Serum Institute claimed the participant\u2019s medical complications are unrelated to the vaccine trial and said it would take \u201clegal action\u201d against the brain-damaged participant for maligning the company\u2019s reputation,\u00a0seeking damages<\/a>\u00a0in excess of $13 million. \u201cThis is the first time I have ever heard of a sponsor threatening a trial participant,\u201d Amar Jesani, editor of the\u00a0Indian Journal of Medical Ethics<\/em><\/a>, said of the incident. The Serum Institute has received at least $18.6 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and has a deal with AstraZeneca to manufacture a billion doses of the vaccine.<\/p>\n Other manufacturers chosen by Oxford-AstraZeneca to produce their vaccine are also no strangers to controversy. For instance, their manufacturing partner in China, Shenzhen Kangtai Biological Products,\u00a0has been at the center of controversy for years<\/a>, especially after 17 infants died from its Hepatitis B vaccine in 2013.\u00a0The\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0cited<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, as saying: \u201cImagine if a similar scandal is reported again in China\u2026It\u2019s not just going to undermine the confidence of the company manufacturing the vaccine, it\u2019s also going to hurt the reputation of AstraZeneca itself and their vaccine, too.\u201d<\/p>\n In another example, the manufacturing partner chosen to produce the vaccine in the US is the scandal-ridden company with ties to the 2001 anthrax attacks, Emergent Biosolutions. Emergent Biosolutions, previously known as BioPort, has a long track record of knowingly selling and marketing products that were never tested for safety and efficacy, including its anthrax vaccine BioThrax and its biodefense product Trobigard. The current head of quality control for Emergent Biosolutions\u2019 lead manufacturing facility in the US has no expertise in pharmaceutical manufacturing and is instead\u00a0a former high-ranking military intelligence official<\/a>\u00a0who operated in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.<\/p>\n The issues raised by their decision to partner with manufacturers with dark histories of product safety issues are compounded by the adverse reactions reported in the Oxford-AstraZeneca trials as well as the ways in which those trials have been conducted. In September, AstraZeneca was forced to pause its experimental COVID-19 vaccine trial after a woman in the UK developed a \u201csuspected serious reaction\u201d that the\u00a0New York Times<\/a><\/em>\u00a0reported was consistent with transverse myelitis. TM is a neurological disorder characterized by inflammation of the spinal cord, a major element of the central nervous system. It often\u00a0results<\/a>\u00a0in weakness of the limbs, problems emptying the bladder, and paralysis. Patients can become severely disabled, and there is currently\u00a0no effective cure<\/a>.<\/p>\n Concern over an association between TM and vaccines is well established. A review of published case studies in 2009\u00a0documented thirty-seven cases<\/a>\u00a0of TM associated with various vaccines, including hepatitis B, measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, among others in infants, children, and adults. The researchers in Israel noted, \u201cThe associations of different vaccines with a single autoimmune phenomenon allude to the idea that a common denominator of these vaccines, such as an adjuvant, might trigger this syndrome.\u201d Even the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0article on the AstraZeneca trial pause notes past \u201cspeculation\u201d that vaccines might be able to trigger TM.<\/p>\n In July, an Oxford-AstraZeneca trial participant\u00a0developed<\/a>\u00a0symptoms of TM, and the vaccine trial was paused at that time. An \u201cindependent panel\u201d ultimately concluded the illness was\u00a0unrelated<\/a>\u00a0to the vaccine, and the trial continued. Yet, as Nikolai Petrovsky from Flinders University\u00a0told<\/a>\u00a0the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, these panels are typically made up of \u201cbiostatisticians and also medical representatives from the sponsor drug company running the trial.\u201d Then, in October, a trial participant in Brazil died, though in that case, AstraZeneca\u00a0suggested<\/a>\u00a0that the person was part of the control group and thus\u00a0hadn\u2019t<\/a>\u00a0received the COVID-19 vaccine.<\/p>\n According to\u00a0Forbes<\/em><\/a>, the AstraZeneca vaccine was ineffective at stopping the spread of coronavirus in their animal trials. All six monkeys injected with AstraZeneca\u2019s COVID-19 vaccine became infected with the disease after being inoculated. All the monkeys were put to death, which means that it will remain unknown whether those monkeys would have suffered other adverse effects.<\/p>\n Another concern is that trial administrators gave the trial\u00a0control group<\/a>\u00a0(for both human and animal trials) Pfizer\u2019s Nimenrix, a meningitis vaccine, as opposed to a saline solution, which is regarded as the gold standard for controls because researchers can be sure the saline solution won\u2019t cause any adverse reactions. Using Pfizer\u2019s meningitis vaccine as the control placebo allows AstraZeneca to downplay any adverse reactions in its COVID-19 vaccine group by showing that the control group suffered adverse reactions as well. \u201cThe meningitis vaccine in the AstraZeneca trial is what I would call a \u2018fauxcebo,\u2019 a fake control whose real purpose is to disguise or hide injury in the vaccine group,\u201d said Mary Holland, general counsel at\u00a0Children\u2019s Health Defense<\/a>.<\/p>\n Despite these safety concerns and clinical trial scandals, close to 160 countries have purchased the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, and now reports are suggesting that India, the country with the second largest population on Earth, is likely to approve this vaccine by next week.<\/p>\n As documented here, while the vaccine may be heralded as \u201cvital for lower-income countries,\u201d the Oxford-AstraZeneca project is no mere philanthropic pursuit. Not only is there a significant profit motive behind the vaccine, but its lead researcher\u2019s connection to the British Eugenics Society adds another level of warranted scrutiny.<\/p>\n For those encountering stories of eugenicists, it\u2019s common to dismiss such activity as that of \u201cconspiracy theories.\u201d However, it\u2019s undeniable that several prominent individuals and institutions that remain active today have clear ties to eugenicist thinking, which was not so taboo just a few decades ago. Unfortunately, this holds true for the individuals and institutions associated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, who, as demonstrated in this article, immerse themselves in studies of race science and population control \u2013 primarily in Africa while working closely with institutions that have direct and longstanding links to the worst of the Eugenics movement.<\/p>\n As this series has shown, there are many concerns regarding the points where race and the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the US and abroad intersect, both publicly and privately. Part I of this series raised questions about the policy-shaping role of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which suggested that the US government make COVID-19 vaccines available to ethnic minorities and the mentally challenged first. Part II explained how in order to allocate COVID-19 vaccines in the US, health agencies are using a program created by Palantir, a company with a record of helping the US agencies target ethnic minorities through immigration policy and racist policing.<\/p>\n Furthermore, there are plans in place to exercise what could reasonably be described as economic coercion to pressure people to \u201cvoluntarily\u201d get vaccinated. Such coercion will be obviously be more effective on poor and working communities, meaning communities of color will be disproportionately affected as well.<\/p>\n Considering these facts, and the case for scrutinizing the safety of Oxford-AstraZeneca\u2019s \u201caffordable\u201d vaccine option made above, any harm caused by vaccine allocation policy in the US and beyond is likely to disproportionately affect poor communities, especially communities of color.<\/p>\n As such, the public should take all vaccine rollout policy with a grain of salt, even when they come cloaked in language of inclusion, racial justice, and public health preservation. As the co-founder of the American Eugenics Society (later renamed \u201cSociety for the Study of Social Biology\u201d) Frederick Osborn put it in 1968, \u201cEugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than\u00a0eugenics.\u201d<\/p>\n Report by Jeremy Loffredo and Whitney Webb for\u00a0Unlimited Hangout<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n
![\"COVID-19](\"https:\/\/greatgameindia.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/COVID-19-Vaccine-Developers-Oxford-AstraZeneca-Linked-To-UK-Eugenics-Movement-1.jpg\")
The Landmark COVID-19 Agreement<\/span><\/h2>\n
GlaxoSmithKline and the Jenner Institute<\/span><\/h2>\n
![\"Professor](\"https:\/\/greatgameindia.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Professor-Sarah-Gilbert-at-Oxford.jpg\")
![\"Professor](\"https:\/\/greatgameindia.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Professor-Adrian-Hill-at-the-Jenner-Institute.jpg\")
Vaccitech: doing well by doing \u201cgood\u201d?<\/span><\/h2>\n
![\"Vaccitech\u2019s](\"https:\/\/greatgameindia.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/Vaccitechs-homepage-showing-company-co-founders-Adrian-Hill-and-Sarah-Gilbert.jpg\")
The Wellcome Trust<\/span><\/h2>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/greatgameindia.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/The-Wellcome-Genome-Campus.jpg\")
The Galton Institute: Eugenics for the Twenty-First Century<\/span><\/h2>\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/greatgameindia.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/A-poster-published-by-the-Eugenics-Society-Galton-Institute-in-the-1930S.png\")
Who gets the safest vaccines?<\/span><\/h2>\n
Eugenics under another name<\/span><\/h2>\n