What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Pete_Cavan · 24-02-2021 07:24AM

There were suggestions that Matt Hancock told Oxford to partner with AZ because of their British connection. They clearly don't have the required scale to deliver on what they signed up to. They have let down the researchers and developers at Oxford as much as anyone else, they had a great vision at the start for their vaccine and I doubt they envisaged an exclusive agree with one company. I love to know what the agreement between Oxford and AZ looks like, presumably Oxford still own the rights and have just licensed it to AZ for manufacture. Ideally they would be able to pull the plug on that for failure to deliver and open it up to others to manufacture.

24-02-2021 07:53AM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There were suggestions that Matt Hancock told Oxford to partner with AZ because of their British connection. They clearly don't have the required scale to deliver on what they signed up to. They have let down the researchers and developers at Oxford as much as anyone else, they had a great vision at the start for their vaccine and I doubt they envisaged an exclusive agree with one company. I love to know what the agreement between Oxford and AZ looks like, presumably Oxford still own the rights and have just licensed it to AZ for manufacture. Ideally they would be able to pull the plug on that for failure to deliver and open it up to others to manufacture.

Maybe not pull the plug, just licence it to Merck, GSK etc. Should get on to Adrian Hill

24-02-2021 08:19AM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There were suggestions that Matt Hancock told Oxford to partner with AZ because of their British connection. They clearly don't have the required scale to deliver on what they signed up to. They have let down the researchers and developers at Oxford as much as anyone else, they had a great vision at the start for their vaccine and I doubt they envisaged an exclusive agree with one company. I love to know what the agreement between Oxford and AZ looks like, presumably Oxford still own the rights and have just licensed it to AZ for manufacture. Ideally they would be able to pull the plug on that for failure to deliver and open it up to others to manufacture.

There are suggestions Bill Gates puts micro chips in it as well.

24-02-2021 08:42AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe not pull the plug, just licence it to Merck, GSK etc. Should get on to Adrian Hill

You are missing one major factor there. The Oxford AZ vaccine is being sold at cost, not for the massively elevated profits the big pharma companies would typically enjoy.

The AZ vaccine is currently being made around the globe and sold at cost, if nothing else their $5 vaccine acts as a very good counter to the $29 Pfizer vaccine. If Pfizer had no competition early on, can you imagine how much they would be charging?

Pete_Cavan · 24-02-2021 08:47AM

Aegir wrote: »

There are suggestions Bill Gates puts micro chips in it as well.

Nothing about that here anyway but sure if it makes you feel better you can pretend there are.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-rejected-contracts-and-a-hollywood-movie-how-uk-struck-deal-to-guarantee-vaccine-supply-12204044

The episode played out against the backdrop of the first phase of the pandemic. During March and April 2020, the University of Oxford negotiated a deal which would allow Merck to manufacture and distribute the vaccine it was in the process of developing.

The arrangement made sense. Unlike British-Swedish AstraZeneca, Merck had experience in making vaccines. Its senior executives had links to Oxford scientist and government adviser Sir John Bell.

Yet when the contract reached Matt Hancock's desk, the former adviser said, the health secretary refused to approve it, because it didn't include provisions specifically committing to supply the UK first.

24-02-2021 08:52AM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Nothing about that here anyway but sure if it makes you feel better you can pretend there are.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-rejected-contracts-and-a-hollywood-movie-how-uk-struck-deal-to-guarantee-vaccine-supply-12204044

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/10/889037310/anatomy-of-a-covid-19-conspiracy-theory?t=1614156698413

The COVID-19 pandemic is part of a strategy conceived by global elites — such as Bill Gates — to roll out vaccinations with tracking chips that would later be activated by 5G, the technology used by cellular networks.

robinph · 24-02-2021 08:55AM

Yet when the contract reached Matt Hancock's desk, the former adviser said, the health secretary refused to approve it, because it didn't include provisions specifically committing to supply the UK first.

And at the time the deals were being done there was still a massive risk that the US would still have Trump as president and zero idea of what he might or might not do at anytime. Would have been monumentally daft to let the Oxford vaccine go to a manufacturer totally outside of their control, keeping it with a UK/ Swedish company made perfect sense in those circumstances.

24-02-2021 09:04AM

robinph wrote: »

And at the time the deals were being done there was still a massive risk that the US would still have Trump as president and zero idea of what he might or might not do at anytime. Would have been monumentally daft to let the Oxford vaccine go to a manufacturer totally outside of their control, keeping it with a UK/ Swedish company made perfect sense in those circumstances.

especially when you consider that MSD were also developing their own vaccine.

broadening the supply base is definitely the right thing to do.

Pete_Cavan · 24-02-2021 09:36AM

robinph wrote: »

And at the time the deals were being done there was still a massive risk that the US would still have Trump as president and zero idea of what he might or might not do at anytime. Would have been monumentally daft to let the Oxford vaccine go to a manufacturer totally outside of their control, keeping it with a UK/ Swedish company made perfect sense in those circumstances.

Or not engage in vaccine nationalism yourself and look for a spread of production partners with equitable contracts rather than just one.

robinph · 24-02-2021 09:52AM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Or not engage in vaccine nationalism yourself and look for a spread of production partners with equitable contracts rather than just one.

Which vaccines are being produced by multiple companies?

brickster69 · 24-02-2021 10:07AM

More discrediting coming out from unnamed sources. It's shocking really, has no one learnt by now ?

What does that make to date-

Fake newpaper reports from Germany saying it is only 8% effective in older people

Macron saying he doubts it is effective in older people

German Health ministers coming out before EMA approval saying they wont approve it for older people and he expects the EMA to do likewise

The Brits stole EU vaccines

We are going to sue them

https://www.politico.eu/article/astrazeneca-insists-its-on-track-to-meet-eu-second-quarter-vaccine-targets/

24-02-2021 10:15AM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Or not engage in vaccine nationalism yourself and look for a spread of production partners with equitable contracts rather than just one.

The vaccine is being produced by a number of companies in several different countries. The biggest of the lot being the Serum institute of India.

How is that vaccine nationalism?

24-02-2021 10:17AM

brickster69 wrote: »

More discrediting coming out from unnamed sources. It's shocking really, has no one learnt by now ?

What does that make to date-

Fake newpaper reports from Germany saying it is only 8% effective in older people

Macron saying he doubts it is effective in older people

German Health ministers coming out before EMA approval saying they wont approve it for older people and he expects the EMA to do likewise

The Brits stole EU vaccines

We are going to sue them

https://www.politico.eu/article/astrazeneca-insists-its-on-track-to-meet-eu-second-quarter-vaccine-targets/

As I posted earlier in the thread. The pharma industry has a very big and powerful lobby. Yiu have to wonder where all these reports are coming from.

Every dose of non profit vaccine administered is a lost profit for a big pharma company.

brickster69 · 24-02-2021 10:20AM

Aegir wrote: »

You are missing one major factor there. The Oxford AZ vaccine is being sold at cost, not for the massively elevated profits the big pharma companies would typically enjoy.

The AZ vaccine is currently being made around the globe and sold at cost, if nothing else their $5 vaccine acts as a very good counter to the $29 Pfizer vaccine. If Pfizer had no competition early on, can you imagine how much they would be charging?

They were wanting a fair bit in the first place.

https://www.dw.com/en/biontech-pfizer-originally-demanded-54-per-vaccine-dose/a-56620748

The Merk agreement was cancelled due to them wanting exclusivity, worries about IP rights and getting guaranteed supplies.

Also sounds like the major concern was that it would not be made freely available to the poorer countries. Only through AZ, Chinese and Russians any of them are getting anything at the moment.

Got to think the landscape would be very different globally and these companies would without a doubt make an absolute fortune.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-rejected-contracts-and-a-hollywood-movie-how-uk-struck-deal-to-guarantee-vaccine-supply-12204044

Pete_Cavan · 24-02-2021 10:21AM

robinph wrote: »

Which vaccines are being produced by multiple companies?

The Pfizer vaccine is also being produced by Sanofi, pretty sure GSK will also produce vaccines for another company. The Oxford vaccine is different in that it was not created by a company and is to be sold at cost price so having more than one production partner would have made a lot of sense. Wasn't there also suggestions early on that it would be made widely available, almost open source? Partnering exclusively with only one small player was not a good idea.

brickster69 · 24-02-2021 10:22AM

Aegir wrote: »

As I posted earlier in the thread. The pharma industry has a very big and powerful lobby. Yiu have to wonder where all these reports are coming from.

Every dose of non profit vaccine administered is a lost profit for a big pharma company.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if the US rejected approval.

brickster69 · 24-02-2021 10:24AM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Partnering exclusively with only one small player was not a good idea.

They are not though are they. Just in Europe, far more going out globally from other makers.

24-02-2021 10:35AM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The Pfizer vaccine is also being produced by Sanofi, pretty sure GSK will also produce vaccines for another company. The Oxford vaccine is different in that it was not created by a company and is to be sold at cost price so having more than one production partner would have made a lot of sense. Wasn't there also suggestions early on that it would be made widely available, almost open source? Partnering exclusively with only one small player was not a good idea.

Sanofi and GSK tried to produce their own vaccine, but to date it has not been successful.

You have to wonder if the Pfizer/Sanofi deal, Macron's comments and reports of the French government bailing Sanofi out are in any way connected.

https://www.reuters.com/article/sanofi-jobs-le-maire-idUSP6N2IB02H

robinph · 24-02-2021 10:50AM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The Pfizer vaccine is also being produced by Sanofi, pretty sure GSK will also produce vaccines for another company. The Oxford vaccine is different in that it was not created by a company and is to be sold at cost price so having more than one production partner would have made a lot of sense. Wasn't there also suggestions early on that it would be made widely available, almost open source? Partnering exclusively with only one small player was not a good idea.

GSK and Sanofi only joining in once they had given up on their own vaccines. Nothing madly surprising there as they have production facilities and don't want to be seen as not joining in with the effort, and there is money to be made on producing the Pfizer vaccine.

The Oxford one seems to be being made by any company with the facilities, various names of factories in the UK that you've never heard of making it, but also one that you have in Fujifilm. Then as mentioned by others most doses being produced by another company in India. AstraZenica are just giving the final certification in most cases, not actually producing it themselves.

This setup was a requirement by Oxford along with the selling at cost.

24-02-2021 10:59AM

robinph wrote: »

GSK and Sanofi only joining in once they had given up on their own vaccines. Nothing madly surprising there as they have production facilities and don't want to be seen as not joining in with the effort, and there is money to be made on producing the Pfizer vaccine.

The Oxford one seems to be being made by any company with the facilities, various names of factories in the UK that you've never heard of making it, but also one that you have in Fujifilm. Then as mentioned by others most doses being produced by another company in India. AstraZenica are just giving the final certification in most cases, not actually producing it themselves.

This setup was a requirement by Oxford along with the selling at cost.

actually, the Fujifilm plant in Stockton on Tees is producing the Novavax vaccine.

Call me Al · 24-02-2021 11:58AM

Aegir wrote: »

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/10/889037310/anatomy-of-a-covid-19-conspiracy-theory?t=1614156698413

Why on earth are you trying to equate a known conspiracy theory with a legitimate article, detailing what Sir John Bell has said, published in mainstream media?

astrofool · 24-02-2021 12:53PM

brickster69 wrote: »

It would not surprise me in the slightest if the US rejected approval.

There has already been indications that the AZ vaccine will not get FDA approval due to concerns with how the trials were run, the proven efficacy and manufacture issues, it should come to light in the next few weeks. These details are of no surprise to most people working in the field, but I'm sure a few people will try and make it look political, and/or take a "Big pharma" angle (as if AZ themselves aren't part of this group..., and why the US would want to sour the UK/US relationship). It also may end up approved but with restrictions on who it can be used on.

Aside: not sure if Aegir is being serious or sarcastic with the Bill Gates posts

Pete_Cavan · 24-02-2021 01:05PM

robinph wrote: »

GSK and Sanofi only joining in once they had given up on their own vaccines. Nothing madly surprising there as they have production facilities and don't want to be seen as not joining in with the effort, and there is money to be made on producing the Pfizer vaccine.

The Oxford one seems to be being made by any company with the facilities, various names of factories in the UK that you've never heard of making it, but also one that you have in Fujifilm. Then as mentioned by others most doses being produced by another company in India. AstraZenica are just giving the final certification in most cases, not actually producing it themselves.

This setup was a requirement by Oxford along with the selling at cost.

AZ has licencing agreements with others, including SII, to produce the Oxford vaccine. They have outsourced production but it is all deals are still done through AZ. Oxford said they would open up IP rights and make it non-exclusive but that's not what has happened.

https://innovation.ox.ac.uk/technologies-available/technology-licensing/expedited-access-covid-19-related-ip/

24-02-2021 01:18PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

AZ has licencing agreements with others, including SII, to produce the Oxford vaccine. They have outsourced production but it is all deals are still done through AZ. Oxford said they would open up IP rights and make it non-exclusive but that's not what has happened.

https://innovation.ox.ac.uk/technologies-available/technology-licensing/expedited-access-covid-19-related-ip/

Has it not happened, or has no one taken up the offer?

I’m presuming a major part of the licence is that the products must be produced at cost.

24-02-2021 01:19PM

Call me Al wrote: »

Why on earth are you trying to equate a known conspiracy theory with a legitimate article, detailing what Sir John Bell has said, published in mainstream media?

It was a joke.

NeuralNetwork · 24-02-2021 01:33PM

Is the technology entirely Oxford IP though? Is if possible that there’s some AstraZeneca technology involved too like a adjuvant for example?

Pete_Cavan · 24-02-2021 01:34PM

[HTML][/HTML]

Aegir wrote: »

Has it not happened, or has no one taken up the offer?

I’m presuming a major part of the licence is that the products must be produced at cost.

Well we know for sure that there was at least one other company interested. They even got as far as drawing up a contract but, according to a former adviser, Matt Hancock refused to approve it. Why the health secretary gets to reject such contracts, I am not sure.

In any case, Oxford had stated the intention to "offer non-exclusive, royalty-free licences to support free of charge, at-cost or cost + limited margin supply as appropriate, and only for the duration of the pandemic, as defined by the WHO". I'm sure there would have been interest in that as there is the potential earn a margin and then to make a profit after the pandemic has officially ended. Boosters are likely to be a requirement going forward too. Hard to think that nobody else was interested, particularly when certain company's vaccines were not looking good and it would seem unlikely for rival companies to cut them into their deals last year.

robinph · 24-02-2021 01:58PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Why the health secretary gets to reject such contracts, I am not sure.

Don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if Oxford / Jenner Institute not being private companies has something to do with it and where they are funded from.

24-02-2021 01:59PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

[HTML][/HTML]

Well we know for sure that there was at least one other company interested. They even got as far as drawing up a contract but, according to a former adviser, Matt Hancock refused to approve it. Why the health secretary gets to reject such contracts, I am not sure.

In any case, Oxford had stated the intention to "offer non-exclusive, royalty-free licences to support free of charge, at-cost or cost + limited margin supply as appropriate, and only for the duration of the pandemic, as defined by the WHO". I'm sure there would have been interest in that as there is the potential earn a margin and then to make a profit after the pandemic has officially ended. Boosters are likely to be a requirement going forward too. Hard to think that nobody else was interested, particularly when certain company's vaccines were not looking good and it would seem unlikely for rival companies to cut them into their deals last year.

did you read the article you linked to?

If MSD were going to make it, then they may have wanted to use their existing production facilities in the US. That was too risky at the time. There is also the chance they wanted exclusivity.

What Hancock wanted (presuming the "Source" is to be believed), is UK based production, so they could control it and monitor it. The UK would not care less who was making it or where, as long as they secured their own supply.

Pete_Cavan · 24-02-2021 02:44PM

Aegir wrote: »

did you read the article you linked to?

If MSD were going to make it, then they may have wanted to use their existing production facilities in the US. That was too risky at the time. There is also the chance they wanted exclusivity.

What Hancock wanted (presuming the "Source" is to be believed), is UK based production, so they could control it and monitor it. The UK would not care less who was making it or where, as long as they secured their own supply.

I doubt Oxford would have gone as far as preparing a contract with Merck contract which went against their stated aim of non-exclusivity. It would be interesting to know if further negotiations were allowed to have the offending clauses removed.

In any case, the issue still remains of how do AZ square off their CEOs claims of priority production for the UK with the clause in their EU contract stating that they have no other contractual commitments which would impede supplying the EU.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments