npr--2020-12-02--Tired Of The Social Media Rat Race, Journalists Move To Writing Substack Newsletters

Tired Of The Social Media Rat Race , Journalists Move To Writing Substack Newsletters As a tech journalist for the website The Verge , Casey Newton established himself as something of a Silicon Valley institution .
Known for a mix of original reporting and gimlet-eyed analysis , his writing has become essential reading for those who want to better understand the industry .
This fall , he quit his steady job at The Verge to start an email newsletter with Substack , a San Francisco-based startup .
`` All of a sudden this thing comes along where it 's like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boss for a raise again .
All you have to do is do good work and attract customers , '' Newton said .
`` That just seems like a really fun game to play . ''
Substack provided Newton a website and slick email tools .
It offered him the added perks of a health-care subsidy and access to a legal defense fund .
Newton does his own marketing .
`` All I have to do is find a few thousand people who will pay me $ 10 a month or $ 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the best jobs in journalism , '' Newton said .
Newton joins legions of other journalists who have ditched staff gigs at established publications like Rolling Stone , The New Republic , New York Magazine , BuzzFeed and Vox to join what has been dubbed the `` Substackerati . ''
Substack co-founder Chris Best said journalists are flocking to the platform after becoming exhausted by the constant pressure of landing the next viral hit on Facebook or Twitter .
`` The platforms we 're spending all our time on incentivize that stuff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it fuel , '' he said .
`` The way to fix that is to have a better business model where that 's not true . ''
Email newsletters are far from new .
The format 's resurgence has been documented in past years .
But Best said Substack is different for two reasons : It has developed a way for independent writers to make money — that is , as long as they convert readers into paid subscribers .
And , unlike some of its competitors , Substack emphasizes the freedom it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content and their subscription lists , so they can leave the platform at any time and take their subscribers with them .
In exchange , Substack pockets a 10 % cut of a writer 's earnings from subscriptions .
Credit-card processor Stripe takes another 3 % .
But the rest of what readers pay goes directly to the writer .
Best used to work at the messaging app Kik , which is where he met Jairaj Sethi and Hamish McKenzie .
Together they founded Substack .
`` You 're subscribing directly to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And we 're providing the plumbing that makes that happen . ''
Substack 's rise has been helped along by more than the proverbial plumbing pipes .
Investors including Andreessen Horowitz and Y Combinator are making big bets that the company 's email-newsletter model will take flight , in part by placing inboxes above algorithm-driven news feeds .
`` Craigslist killed the classifieds .
Facebook and Google took over the advertising industry .
And we now live in a world where social media has kind of grabbed all of our attention .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everybody is sort of chasing engagement , '' Best said .
`` That sort of breaks everything . ''
His message hit home for Helena Fitzgerald , a New York freelance writer .
She says her primary source of income now comes from writing her Substack newsletter `` Griefbacon , '' which offers a mix of paid-for and free posts , a common Substack strategy .
`` The one-sentence pitch I have for it is that it 's like long , weird essays about love , '' she said .
Her writing can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and not as timely as it would have to be to grab attention on social media .
`` It 's something you ca n't really pitch to a site that 's looking to get a lot of clicks through an algorithm , '' Fitzgerald said .
Recently she wrote an essay about her love for sitcom pizza deliveries .
That might not have risen to the top of a Facebook news feed , but it resonated with her readers .
And while she 'd like to be able to afford an editor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bosses , anything goes .
`` But that 's part of what 's appealing to me about Substack , '' she said .
`` I can write things that I 'm just throwing at the wall and see how people react to it . ''
Call it a perfect storm : Combine frustration with social media algorithms , people hunkered down in the pandemic staring at their screens , and a media industry hammered by the economic downturn .
By one estimate , nearly 30,000 media jobs have been cut in 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ founded in 2017 , it reached new heights this year .
The number of active writers doubled between March and June , and it has continued to grow rapidly since then , according to the company .
Substack now has more than 250,000 paying subscribers .
Taken together , its top 10 publishers rake in some $ 7 million annually .
Influential voices on the right and left , historians , even an anonymous bankruptcy expert have found success on Substack .
Yet paychecks are n't guaranteed .
`` The Substack model works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have prestige and a following .
And it does n't work that well for everybody else , '' said New York University Journalism Professor Meredith Broussard .
It 's too soon to tell whether Substack will last , or be another Internet fad , eventually tapering off into obscurity .
`` We 've seen the enthusiasm before .
We 've seen this hype cycle before , '' she said .
`` If this is the time it happens , then I 'm here for it .
And if it 's not the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ na be another thing around the corner . ''
Some have suspicions about a venture capital-backed tech startup attempting to reinvent the news industry .
While that is understandable to Newton — formerly of The Verge , now of Substack — he said providing a way for more journalism to happen in the world is a good thing .
Perhaps , he said , cynicism should be set aside to give this one a chance .
`` I 'm not somebody who thinks that Substack is going to save journalism , '' he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can create a lot of sustainable journalism jobs ?
I do . ''
With time , according to tech experts , Substack will likely be pulled into the `` content moderation wars , '' forced to confront what is allowed and what is n't on their sites — the same thorny issues Facebook , Twitter , YouTube and other platforms have faced for months .
Like the dominant social networks , Substack considers itself a hands-off , neutral platform .
Yet it recruits new writers with cash offers , provides legal support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email inboxes .
When asked if the company could now or ever be considered an editorial publisher , co-founder Best had a quick response : `` Certainly not . ''
Broussard of NYU said one major challenge for Substack will be preserving civility on its platform while also maintaining breakneck growth .
`` Substack is new and shiny now , '' she said .
`` But it 's going to have a problem with becoming a cacophony once it passes a certain point in popularity . ''

Tired Of The Social Media Rat Race, Journalists Move To Writing Substack Newsletters
Enlarge this image toggle caption Substack Substack
As a tech journalist for the website The Verge, Casey Newton established himself as something of a Silicon Valley institution. Known for a mix of original reporting and gimlet-eyed analysis, his writing has become essential reading for those who want to better understand the industry.
This fall, he quit his steady job at The Verge to start an email newsletter with Substack, a San Francisco-based startup.
"All of a sudden this thing comes along where it's like, imagine never having to ask your boss for a raise again. All you have to do is do good work and attract customers," Newton said. "That just seems like a really fun game to play."
Substack provided Newton a website and slick email tools. It offered him the added perks of a health-care subsidy and access to a legal defense fund. Newton does his own marketing.
"All I have to do is find a few thousand people who will pay me $10 a month or $100 a year and I'll have one of the best jobs in journalism," Newton said.
Newton joins legions of other journalists who have ditched staff gigs at established publications like Rolling Stone, The New Republic, New York Magazine, BuzzFeed and Vox to join what has been dubbed the "Substackerati."
Substack co-founder Chris Best said journalists are flocking to the platform after becoming exhausted by the constant pressure of landing the next viral hit on Facebook or Twitter.
"The platforms we're spending all our time on incentivize that stuff and make that stuff easy and give it fuel," he said. "The way to fix that is to have a better business model where that's not true."
Social media 'breaks everything,' says Substack co-founder
Email newsletters are far from new. The format's resurgence has been documented in past years. But Best said Substack is different for two reasons: It has developed a way for independent writers to make money — that is, as long as they convert readers into paid subscribers. And, unlike some of its competitors, Substack emphasizes the freedom it gives writers, letting them own their content and their subscription lists, so they can leave the platform at any time and take their subscribers with them.
In exchange, Substack pockets a 10% cut of a writer's earnings from subscriptions. Credit-card processor Stripe takes another 3%. But the rest of what readers pay goes directly to the writer.
Best used to work at the messaging app Kik, which is where he met Jairaj Sethi and Hamish McKenzie. Together they founded Substack.
"You're subscribing directly to a writer," Best said. "And we're providing the plumbing that makes that happen."
Substack's rise has been helped along by more than the proverbial plumbing pipes. Investors including Andreessen Horowitz and Y Combinator are making big bets that the company's email-newsletter model will take flight, in part by placing inboxes above algorithm-driven news feeds.
"Craigslist killed the classifieds. Facebook and Google took over the advertising industry. And we now live in a world where social media has kind of grabbed all of our attention. And we're stuck in this mode where everybody is sort of chasing engagement," Best said. "That sort of breaks everything."
His message hit home for Helena Fitzgerald, a New York freelance writer. She says her primary source of income now comes from writing her Substack newsletter "Griefbacon," which offers a mix of paid-for and free posts, a common Substack strategy.
"The one-sentence pitch I have for it is that it's like long, weird essays about love," she said.
Her writing can be strange and messy, she said, and not as timely as it would have to be to grab attention on social media.
"It's something you can't really pitch to a site that's looking to get a lot of clicks through an algorithm," Fitzgerald said.
Recently she wrote an essay about her love for sitcom pizza deliveries. That might not have risen to the top of a Facebook news feed, but it resonated with her readers. And while she'd like to be able to afford an editor eventually, for now, without any bosses, anything goes.
"But that's part of what's appealing to me about Substack," she said. "I can write things that I'm just throwing at the wall and see how people react to it."
Passing fad or durable business model?
Call it a perfect storm: Combine frustration with social media algorithms, people hunkered down in the pandemic staring at their screens, and a media industry hammered by the economic downturn. By one estimate, nearly 30,000 media jobs have been cut in 2020.
Enter Substack. Even though it was founded in 2017, it reached new heights this year. The number of active writers doubled between March and June, and it has continued to grow rapidly since then, according to the company.
Substack now has more than 250,000 paying subscribers. Taken together, its top 10 publishers rake in some $7 million annually.
Influential voices on the right and left, historians, even an anonymous bankruptcy expert have found success on Substack. Yet paychecks aren't guaranteed.
"The Substack model works really well for some people who already have prestige and a following. And it doesn't work that well for everybody else,"said New York University Journalism Professor Meredith Broussard.
It's too soon to tell whether Substack will last, or be another Internet fad, eventually tapering off into obscurity.
"We've seen the enthusiasm before. We've seen this hype cycle before," she said. "If this is the time it happens, then I'm here for it. And if it's not the time that it happens, there's gonna be another thing around the corner."
Some have suspicions about a venture capital-backed tech startup attempting to reinvent the news industry. While that is understandable to Newton — formerly of The Verge, now of Substack — he said providing a way for more journalism to happen in the world is a good thing. Perhaps, he said, cynicism should be set aside to give this one a chance.
"I'm not somebody who thinks that Substack is going to save journalism," he said. "But do I think it can create a lot of sustainable journalism jobs? I do."
With time, according to tech experts, Substack will likely be pulled into the "content moderation wars," forced to confront what is allowed and what isn't on their sites — the same thorny issues Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other platforms have faced for months.
Like the dominant social networks, Substack considers itself a hands-off, neutral platform. Yet it recruits new writers with cash offers, provides legal support and distributes content both online and in email inboxes. When asked if the company could now or ever be considered a media company, co-founder Best had a quick response: "Certainly not."
Broussard of NYU said one major challenge for Substack will be preserving civility on its platform while also maintaining breakneck growth.
"Substack is new and shiny now," she said. "But it's going to have a problem with becoming a cacophony once it passes a certain point in popularity."


npr--2020-12-02--Virginia County Votes To Reject Gov. Northam's Coronavirus Restrictions

Campbell County , Va. , is taking a stand against Gov .
Ralph Northam 's COVID-19 restrictions as its Board of Supervisors endorsed a measure Tuesday night that calls on county agencies not to enforce Northam 's crowd-size limits and other orders .
The board declared Campbell County to be a `` First Amendment Sanctuary '' and deemed Northam 's orders to violate people 's constitutional rights .
The move echoes the county 's declaration of itself as a `` Second Amendment Sanctuary '' one year ago in support of gun owners ' rights .
Northam imposed sharp new limits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to quash a rising wave of coronavirus cases , hospitalizations and deaths .
His order capped public gatherings at 25 people rather than 250 , and mandated that everyone age 5 and above must wear face coverings in indoor public spaces .
Virginia has reported 242,480 coronavirus cases and more than 4,000 deaths .
In the state 's hospitals , intensive care units are at 77 % occupancy .
The board 's resolution urges the sheriff 's office not to help any state or federal workers in enforcing the governor 's restrictions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ go toward helping to enforce or promote Northam 's coronavirus orders .
At least one supervisor acknowledged the resolution will likely have more symbolic impact than a direct effect on day-to-day operations .
The board 's meeting was streamed on Zoom , but many supporters of the resolution visited the country 's administration building in Rustburg in person , to speak out in favor of rejecting Northam 's latest restrictions .
`` Dozens of Campbell County residents turned out to back the resolution , many a united front in camo , blue jeans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Advance reported .
`` When Concord District Supervisor Matt Cline began to read the resolution , there was a flurry of movement as they took off their face masks in a show of support .
The same solidarity brought the crowd to its feet as residents praised the county for passing the resolution and , in turn , dismissed the few residents who took to the podium to speak in opposition . ''
Some of those supporters also implied they would back the Board of Supervisors over Northam if the governor 's office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declaration .
`` I want to thank you for what you did here today , '' resident Wes Gardner said , according to local TV station ABC 13 .
`` As it 's already been said , it took guts .
Whether or not there are repercussions from Richmond , we do n't know .
But I can tell you , we 'll stand with you . ''
When Northam tightened his COVID-19 restrictions last month , Virginia was averaging 1,500 newly reported cases each day .
In its most recent 24-hour update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .

Virginia County Votes To Reject Gov. Northam's Coronavirus Restrictions
Enlarge this image toggle caption Steve Helber/AP Steve Helber/AP
Campbell County, Va., is taking a stand against Gov. Ralph Northam's COVID-19 restrictions as its Board of Supervisors endorsed a measure Tuesday night that calls on county agencies not to enforce Northam's crowd-size limits and other orders.
The board declared Campbell County to be a "First Amendment Sanctuary" and deemed Northam's orders to violate people's constitutional rights. The move echoes the county's declaration of itself as a "Second Amendment Sanctuary" one year ago in support of gun owners' rights.
Northam imposed sharp new limits on Virginians on Nov. 15, trying to quash a rising wave of coronavirus cases, hospitalizations and deaths. His order capped public gatherings at 25 people rather than 250, and mandated that everyone age 5 and above must wear face coverings in indoor public spaces.
Virginia has reported 242,480 coronavirus cases and more than 4,000 deaths. In the state's hospitals, intensive care units are at 77% occupancy.
The board's resolution urges the sheriff's office not to help any state or federal workers in enforcing the governor's restrictions. It also says county funds should not go toward helping to enforce or promote Northam's coronavirus orders. At least one supervisor acknowledged the resolution will likely have more symbolic impact than a direct effect on day-to-day operations.
The board's meeting was streamed on Zoom, but many supporters of the resolution visited the country's administration building in Rustburg in person, to speak out in favor of rejecting Northam's latest restrictions.
"Dozens of Campbell County residents turned out to back the resolution, many a united front in camo, blue jeans and ballcaps," The News & Advance reported. "When Concord District Supervisor Matt Cline began to read the resolution, there was a flurry of movement as they took off their face masks in a show of support. The same solidarity brought the crowd to its feet as residents praised the county for passing the resolution and, in turn, dismissed the few residents who took to the podium to speak in opposition."
Some of those supporters also implied they would back the Board of Supervisors over Northam if the governor's office seeks to overrule or retaliate against the declaration.
"I want to thank you for what you did here today," resident Wes Gardner said, according to local TV station ABC 13. "As it's already been said, it took guts. Whether or not there are repercussions from Richmond, we don't know. But I can tell you, we'll stand with you."
When Northam tightened his COVID-19 restrictions last month, Virginia was averaging 1,500 newly reported cases each day. In its most recent 24-hour update, the state reported more than 2,400 cases.


npr--2020-12-02--Stock Sales By Leaders At Coronavirus Testing Company Raise Legal Concerns

Early on in the coronavirus pandemic , as governments scrambled to find rapid and reliable coronavirus tests , three states ended up turning to a small public company that just months earlier had no major customers and was losing millions of dollars .
The fortunes of that Salt Lake City company , Co-Diagnostics , began to rise in April when the Utah-based tech nonprofit Silicon Slopes included Co-Diagnostics as part of a public-private partnership to increase that state 's testing capacity and `` crush the curve . ''
Then Iowa and Nebraska chose to use Co-Diagnostics ' tests , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from below $ 1 to around $ 30 at its peak , and Co-Diagnostics began bringing in millions in revenue .
Now , an NPR investigation has uncovered another side to Co-Diagnostics ' dramatic growth during the pandemic , including potential legal concerns for company leaders , and persistent questions about its tests ' accuracy .
• Two members of Co-Diagnostics ' board of directors each sold nearly $ 1 million worth of company stock in May , after the company 's share price had surged , but at a time when local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tests worked as well as advertised .
Investors often see major stock sales by company leaders as a warning sign .
So federal law requires company executives and directors to disclose stock transactions within two business days .
But Co-Diagnostics ' directors did not publicly disclose some of those sales for two weeks .
• One of those directors , Richard S. Serbin , faced allegations of insurance fraud in 2006 , according to public records obtained by NPR .
Those allegations resulted in a six-month suspension of Serbin 's law license @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The allegations have not previously been reported and were not disclosed in his official biography .
• Even as company leadership said they were confident about Co-Diagnostics ' future , in November , the CEO and chief financial officer both sold 100 % of their direct stock holdings in the company .
• Co-Diagnostics ' claim that its coronavirus tests demonstrated `` 100 % specificity and 100 % sensitivity in several independent evaluations '' has resulted in four lawsuits from groups of investors , who allege the company misled the public .
Medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration say no test is 100 % accurate all of the time .
In response to NPR , Co-Diagnostics ' attorney , Ross D. Carmel , said in a statement that the legal obligation fell on `` individual '' ( Carmel bolded and italicized the word ) board members to file their disclosures on time , and that `` this is not a Company obligation . ''
Carmel stated that oversight of board members ' disclosures is `` not in the company 's purview . ''
`` There is nothing to suggest that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Serbin acted with any illicit intent when selling their shares , or in regards to reporting such sales , '' the statement continued .
`` That being said , and as required under SEC [ Securities and Exchange Commission ] rules , the Company will properly disclose delinquent filings made by Company insiders in its 2020 10-K and subsequent proxy statement . ''
The company declined NPR 's interview requests , declined to comment regarding the allegations against Serbin , and said it would not put NPR in contact with any members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempts to reach Durenard and Serbin independently through their previous companies and lawyers representing them in shareholder lawsuits were unsuccessful .
In response to the lawsuits alleging that Co-Diagnostics misled investors , the company has said that its claims of accuracy have been `` mischaracterized '' and stated , `` Co-Diagnostics stands behind the quality of our technology platform , and performance of our testing products .
We intend to vigorously defend this matter . ''
A spokesperson for the SEC also declined to comment .
At the end of 2019 , Co-Diagnostics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a struggling company .
Co-Diagnostics focused on developing tests for infectious diseases such as the Zika virus , HIV and tuberculosis .
But at that point , the company stated , `` We currently have no major customers , '' and it had run losses worth millions of dollars .
By the close of the markets on New Year 's Eve 2019 , the company was trading for just 89 cents per share .
Then came 2020 , the coronavirus pandemic , and a string of good news for Co-Diagnostics .
In January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Egan , appeared on CNBC and Fox Business to discuss efforts to develop a coronavirus test .
By April , the company 's test received an emergency use authorization from the FDA .
Meanwhile , states were scrambling to find tests .
That search led three states to Co-Diagnostics .
Utah , Nebraska and Iowa contracted with Co-Diagnostics through another Utah company , Nomi Health , which was part of the group organized through Silicon Slopes .
Early on in the pandemic , Nomi 's CEO , Mark Newman , said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , none of us knew anything about lab testing . ''
His company partnered with Co-Diagnostics to provide the actual coronavirus tests .
The head of Silicon Slopes , Clint Betts , pledged at both a press conference with Utah 's governor and a subsequent online `` town hall '' that `` no one — no company will be making money off of the testing . ''
But in a blog post weeks later , the organization clarified that pledge , stating that what began as a `` volunteer effort '' later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , Nebraska 's annual contract with Nomi Health was worth $ 27 million , a spokesperson for Nebraska 's governor told NPR .
The contract with the state of Iowa was $ 26 million .
And between March and September , the state of Utah paid Nomi Health nearly $ 10 million .
It 's unclear precisely what portion of that money went to Co-Diagnostics , and Nomi Health declined to disclose that figure to NPR .
Co-Diagnostics had competition among other more established companies selling Coronavirus tests .
But after receiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed to have an edge .
`` In countries where we have been evaluated against other tests , we have consistently and repeatedly achieved 100 % clinical sensitivity and specificity , '' Chief Science Officer Brent Satterfield said in a press release May 1 , referencing two measures of testing accuracy , `` and you ca n't do better than that . ''
Investors were flocking to the company .
By mid-May , the company 's stock was trading for more than $ 20 per share , an increase of more than 2,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
The company 's statements about its tests ' accuracy have now led to accusations in a civil lawsuit of `` blatantly fraudulent statements . ''
Meanwhile , local news reports found that the Co-Diagnostics tests have shown a lower `` positivity rate '' — the percentage of people who take a test and receive a positive result — than other tests , raising additional concern .
Experts say a perfectly accurate test simply does not exist in the real world .
Dr. H. Gilbert Welch , a scientist at Brigham and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims of 100 % accuracy `` laughable . ''
`` All [ of ] our diagnostic tests are imperfect , '' Welch told NPR .
`` Any time someone says , ' I make a perfect product and there 's never a problem , ' I think people should be a little skeptical . ''
The FDA also says on its website , `` No test is 100 % accurate all of the time . ''
States that used Co-Diagnostics ' tests also found that they did not hit that 100 % benchmark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pete Ricketts said a lab in Nebraska had determined the test was `` 95 % accurate . ''
Three days later , Iowa Gov .
Kim Reynolds announced that the tests had achieved `` high ratings of 95 % accuracy for determining positives and 99.7 % accuracy for determining negatives . ''
Those figures may sound high , but in diseases with a relatively low prevalence in the overall population , variations in a test 's accuracy can make a big difference .
Journalists for The Salt Lake Tribune in Utah , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa , reported concerns about the accuracy and the speed of those tests .
NET , Nebraska 's public media service , reported that the Co-Diagnostics tests were returning about half of the number of positive cases as other tests , and `` the concern is that the tests miss positive cases . ''
Local officials insisted the variation was because a broader group of people was taking the test , including people without any symptoms .
Co-Diagnostics said it stood by the tests ' accuracy .
But not everyone was persuaded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started becoming more volatile .
Investors have since filed four proposed class-action lawsuits , arguing that the company misled them about the tests ' accuracy .
`` People lost millions and millions of dollars of shareholder value , and we believe that the company should be held accountable for that , '' said Michael Fasano , an attorney representing one such investor .
Co-Diagnostics has argued that the company 's statements about the test accuracy were only about specific evaluations , and that it never claimed the tests were 100 % accurate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than that it achieved the results as specified in the independent evaluations , a claim which is unequivocally and undeniably true , '' wrote Christopher P. Milazzo , an attorney for the company .
As Co-Diagnostics ' share price fluctuated , two members of the company 's board of directors — Durenard and Serbin — cashed in their stock .
And the circumstances around those trades have raised additional questions about the testing contractor .
According to his company biography , Durenard is the CEO of Hyperbolic Holdings , `` a Swiss-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company specialized in healthcare . ''
Serbin 's company biography states that he is a longtime consultant for health care companies .
Between May 19 and May 28 , after questions had been raised in local media and by a prominent short-seller called Hindenburg Research , each man sold 50,000 shares in the company .
If Durenard and Serbin had sold those shares on Jan. 2 , those sales would 've been worth less than $ 50,000 each .
But by May , Co-Diagnostics was trading for more than $ 18 per share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than $ 900,000 each .
( Today , those shares would be worth under $ 600,000 . )
Daniel Taylor , an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania , said the federal law that requires public disclosure of these stock sales is not just a technicality .
`` It 's important that shareholders and investors and other stakeholders in the company are able to monitor the trading of officers and directors to make sure that they 're acting not in their own best interests , but in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
But Durenard and Serbin of Co-Diagnostics failed to disclose their stock sales publicly until June 5 , more than two weeks after the first batch of those sales took place and long after the legally mandated deadline .
`` This is an extreme outlier , '' Taylor said .
In one case , according to the filings , the company also awarded Durenard stock options for 25,000 shares in June 2019 .
But Durenard did not disclose that until nearly a full year later .
`` I think the circumstances suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controls or intent , '' Taylor said .
The government requires individual executives and officers , rather than companies , to disclose stock purchases and sales .
But the SEC has encouraged companies to make sure the filings go out on time and has even brought cases against publicly traded companies for allegedly `` contributing to filing failures . ''
Monica Loseman , an attorney with the firm Gibson Dunn who specializes in defending companies facing SEC investigations , said issues with late filings can plague small companies such as Co-Diagnostics .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is trying to hide something from investors , '' Loseman said , `` but it 's just as plausible , maybe even more plausible , that the company is suffering from some growing pains at the moment . ''
In fact , the company has acknowledged in multiple reports to the government that some of its internal accounting procedures `` were not effective '' and could lead to errors on the company 's financial statements .
Will the SEC step in ?
Even if the violations were inadvertent , the SEC can seek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ break the laws around disclosing stock sales .
But Loseman said government investigators tend to react differently if the evidence suggests a violation was simply a mistake versus an active attempt at deception .
`` It all depends on the facts and circumstances , '' she said .
In the case of Co-Diagnostics , the government may look closely at the fact that the board members who failed to file their disclosures on time also lead the company 's internal audit and compensation committees .
Those committees are supposed to `` monitor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it follows legal requirements and other best practices .
Their positions would suggest that both Durenard and Serbin should be aware of the laws around disclosure of stock sales .
NPR also uncovered past allegations against Serbin , which may inform the SEC 's response .
In the early 2000s , the New Jersey Office of the Insurance Fraud Prosecutor investigated Serbin .
After suffering a stroke , prosecutors said , Serbin said he could no longer work , and started collecting disability benefits from his insurance company .
But prosecutors alleged that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than $ 170,000 in disability benefits from the insurance company while also making nearly $ 200,000 in consulting fees .
Serbin pleaded guilty to a charge of falsifying records .
That charge was dismissed after he paid more than $ 200,000 as part of a civil penalty and restitution to the insurance company .
The New Jersey Supreme Court later suspended Serbin 's law license for six months , and the state 's Board of Pharmacy found grounds to revoke his pharmacist 's license .
( Records from the pharmacy board indicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of facing formal disciplinary hearings . )
Co-Diagnostics declined to comment on the allegations against Serbin or how he was chosen to join the board of directors .
NPR was unable to reach Serbin and Durenard independently .
Lawyers representing the two men in court did not respond to NPR 's messages .
As the questions surrounding Co-Diagnostics have grown , the company 's share price has fallen from its peak but remains much stronger than it was at the beginning of the year .
The states of Nebraska and Iowa continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Nebraska is very pleased with the tests provided by Co-Diagnostics , '' said Taylor Gage , a spokesperson for Nebraska 's governor .
`` These tests have helped provide over 350,000 test results to date , or about 40 % of the state 's tests . ''
A spokesperson for the governor of Iowa stated that its testing program using Co-Diagnostics ' tests `` has greatly expanded testing in the state of Iowa . ''
A spokesperson for the Utah Department of Health said that the state now uses a different company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have any formal relationship with Co-Diagnostics . ''
He did not elaborate on why the state changed testing providers .
The company is now promoting a new `` ABC '' test , which combines tests for influenza A and B with a test for the coronavirus .
On Nov. 23 , CEO Egan told Bloomberg that there was `` very strong demand '' for the company 's tests around the world .
But even as he projected confidence in the company 's future , that same day , he sold more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , worth more than $ 700,000 .
Days later , Chief Financial Officer Reed Benson sold all of his company stock .
As of Nov. 25 , both Egan and Benson hold no direct stock in the company .
Co-Diagnostics did not respond to NPR 's questions about those stock sales .
Becca Costello of NET News contributed to this report .

Stock Sales By Leaders At Coronavirus Testing Company Raise Legal Concerns
Enlarge this image toggle caption Rick Bowmer/AP Rick Bowmer/AP
Early on in the coronavirus pandemic, as governments scrambled to find rapid and reliable coronavirus tests, three states ended up turning to a small public company that just months earlier had no major customers and was losing millions of dollars.
The fortunes of that Salt Lake City company, Co-Diagnostics, began to rise in April when the Utah-based tech nonprofit Silicon Slopes included Co-Diagnostics as part of a public-private partnership to increase that state's testing capacity and "crush the curve." Then Iowa and Nebraska chose to use Co-Diagnostics' tests, too. The company's share price skyrocketed from below $1 to around $30 at its peak, and Co-Diagnostics began bringing in millions in revenue.
Now, an NPR investigation has uncovered another side to Co-Diagnostics' dramatic growth during the pandemic, including potential legal concerns for company leaders, and persistent questions about its tests' accuracy.
Two members of Co-Diagnostics' board of directors each sold nearly $1 million worth of company stock in May, after the company's share price had surged, but at a time when local news reports were raising concerns about whether the tests worked as well as advertised. Investors often see major stock sales by company leaders as a warning sign. So federal law requires company executives and directors to disclose stock transactions within two business days. But Co-Diagnostics' directors did not publicly disclose some of those sales for two weeks.
One of those directors, Richard S. Serbin, faced allegations of insurance fraud in 2006, according to public records obtained by NPR. Those allegations resulted in a six-month suspension of Serbin's law license and a $50,000 civil penalty. The allegations have not previously been reported and were not disclosed in his official biography.
Even as company leadership said they were confident about Co-Diagnostics' future, in November, the CEO and chief financial officer both exercised at least 100,000 shares of stock options, all of which they then immediately sold. Neither executive currently holds common stock in the company, according to their disclosures, though the company says both executives have stock options they can potentially exercise in the future.
Co-Diagnostics' claim that its coronavirus tests demonstrated "100% specificity and 100% sensitivity in several independent evaluations" has resulted in four lawsuits from groups of investors, who allege the company misled the public. Medical experts and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration say no test is 100% accurate all of the time.
In response to NPR, Co-Diagnostics' attorney, Ross D. Carmel, said in a statement that the legal obligation fell on "individual" (Carmel bolded and italicized the word) board members to file their disclosures on time, and that "this is not a Company obligation." Carmel stated that oversight of board members' disclosures is "not in the company's purview."
"There is nothing to suggest that either Messrs. [Eugene] Durenard or Serbin acted with any illicit intent when selling their shares, or in regards to reporting such sales," the statement continued. "That being said, and as required under SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] rules, the Company will properly disclose delinquent filings made by Company insiders in its 2020 10-K and subsequent proxy statement."
The company declined NPR's interview requests, declined to comment regarding the allegations against Serbin, and said it would not put NPR in contact with any members of the board of directors.
NPR's attempts to reach Durenard and Serbin independently through their previous companies and lawyers representing them in shareholder lawsuits were unsuccessful.
In response to the lawsuits alleging that Co-Diagnostics misled investors, the company has said that its claims of accuracy have been "mischaracterized" and stated, "Co-Diagnostics stands behind the quality of our technology platform, and performance of our testing products. We intend to vigorously defend this matter."
A spokesperson for the SEC also declined to comment.
From a penny stock to multiple states' testing source
At the end of 2019, Co-Diagnostics' financial reports told a story of a struggling company.
Co-Diagnostics focused on developing tests for infectious diseases such as the Zika virus, HIV and tuberculosis. But at that point, the company stated, "We currently have no major customers," and it had run losses worth millions of dollars. By the close of the markets on New Year's Eve 2019, the company was trading for just 89 cents per share.
Then came 2020, the coronavirus pandemic, and a string of good news for Co-Diagnostics. In January, the company's CEO, Dwight Egan, appeared on CNBC and Fox Business to discuss efforts to develop a coronavirus test. By April, the company's test received an emergency use authorization from the FDA.
Meanwhile, states were scrambling to find tests. That search led three states to Co-Diagnostics.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Charlie Neibergall/AP Charlie Neibergall/AP
Utah, Nebraska and Iowa contracted with Co-Diagnostics through another Utah company, Nomi Health, which was part of the group organized through Silicon Slopes. Early on in the pandemic, Nomi's CEO, Mark Newman, said in a public Zoom call that "three weeks ago, none of us knew anything about lab testing." His company partnered with Co-Diagnostics to provide the actual coronavirus tests.
The head of Silicon Slopes, Clint Betts, pledged at both a press conference with Utah's governor and a subsequent online "town hall" that "no one — no company will be making money off of the testing."
But in a blog post weeks later, the organization clarified that pledge, stating that what began as a "volunteer effort" later involved "commercial terms."
In fact, Nebraska's annual contract with Nomi Health was worth $27 million, a spokesperson for Nebraska's governor told NPR. The contract with the state of Iowa was $26 million. And between March and September, the state of Utah paid Nomi Health nearly $10 million. It's unclear precisely what portion of that money went to Co-Diagnostics, and Nomi Health declined to disclose that figure to NPR.
Co-Diagnostics had competition among other more established companies selling Coronavirus tests. But after receiving its contracts with states, the company claimed to have an edge.
"In countries where we have been evaluated against other tests, we have consistently and repeatedly achieved 100% clinical sensitivity and specificity," Chief Science Officer Brent Satterfield said in a press release May 1, referencing two measures of testing accuracy, "and you can't do better than that."
Investors were flocking to the company. By mid-May, the company's stock was trading for more than $20 per share, an increase of more than 2,000% compared with the beginning of the year.
Claims of perfect accuracy lead to intense scrutiny
The company's statements about its tests' accuracy have now led to accusations in a civil lawsuit of "blatantly fraudulent statements." Meanwhile, local news reports found that the Co-Diagnostics tests have shown a lower "positivity rate" — the percentage of people who take a test and receive a positive result — than other tests, raising additional concern.
Experts say a perfectly accurate test simply does not exist in the real world. Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a scientist at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, called claims of 100% accuracy "laughable."
"All [of] our diagnostic tests are imperfect," Welch told NPR. "Any time someone says, 'I make a perfect product and there's never a problem,' I think people should be a little skeptical."
The FDA also says on its website, "No test is 100% accurate all of the time."
States that used Co-Diagnostics' tests also found that they did not hit that 100% benchmark.
On May 11, Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts said a lab in Nebraska had determined the test was "95% accurate." Three days later, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds announced that the tests had achieved "high ratings of 95% accuracy for determining positives and 99.7% accuracy for determining negatives."
Enlarge this image toggle caption Nati Harnik/AP Nati Harnik/AP
Those figures may sound high, but in diseases with a relatively low prevalence in the overall population, variations in a test's accuracy can make a big difference.
Journalists for The Salt Lake Tribune in Utah, and The Gazette in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, reported concerns about the accuracy and the speed of those tests. NET, Nebraska's public media service, reported that the Co-Diagnostics tests were returning about half of the number of positive cases as other tests, and "the concern is that the tests miss positive cases." Local officials insisted the variation was because a broader group of people was taking the test, including people without any symptoms.
Co-Diagnostics said it stood by the tests' accuracy.
But not everyone was persuaded, especially after the company's share price started becoming more volatile. Investors have since filed four proposed class-action lawsuits, arguing that the company misled them about the tests' accuracy.
"People lost millions and millions of dollars of shareholder value, and we believe that the company should be held accountable for that," said Michael Fasano, an attorney representing one such investor.
Co-Diagnostics has argued that the company's statements about the test accuracy were only about specific evaluations, and that it never claimed the tests were 100% accurate in all circumstances.
"Co-Diagnostics claimed nothing more than that it achieved the results as specified in the independent evaluations, a claim which is unequivocally and undeniably true," wrote Christopher P. Milazzo, an attorney for the company.
Amid market volatility, two board members cash in
As Co-Diagnostics' share price fluctuated, two members of the company's board of directors — Durenard and Serbin — cashed in their stock. And the circumstances around those trades have raised additional questions about the testing contractor.
According to his company biography, Durenard is the CEO of Hyperbolic Holdings, "a Swiss-based holding, management consulting and investment advisory company specialized in healthcare." Serbin's company biography states that he is a longtime consultant for health care companies.
Between May 19 and May 28, after questions had been raised in local media and by a prominent short-seller called Hindenburg Research, each man sold 50,000 shares in the company.
If Durenard and Serbin had sold those shares on Jan. 2, those sales would've been worth less than $50,000 each. But by May, Co-Diagnostics was trading for more than $18 per share, and those sales were worth more than $900,000 each. (Today, those shares would be worth under $600,000.)
Daniel Taylor, an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, said the federal law that requires public disclosure of these stock sales is not just a technicality.
"It's important that shareholders and investors and other stakeholders in the company are able to monitor the trading of officers and directors to make sure that they're acting not in their own best interests, but in the interests of the company," Taylor said.
But Durenard and Serbin of Co-Diagnostics failed to disclose their stock sales publicly until June 5, more than two weeks after the first batch of those sales took place and long after the legally mandated deadline.
"This is an extreme outlier," Taylor said.
In one case, according to the filings, the company also awarded Durenard stock options for 25,000 shares in June 2019. But Durenard did not disclose that until nearly a full year later.
"I think the circumstances suggest either extreme negligence, weakness of internal controls or intent," Taylor said.
The government requires individual executives and officers, rather than companies, to disclose stock purchases and sales. But the SEC has encouraged companies to make sure the filings go out on time and has even brought cases against publicly traded companies for allegedly "contributing to filing failures."
Monica Loseman, an attorney with the firm Gibson Dunn who specializes in defending companies facing SEC investigations, said issues with late filings can plague small companies such as Co-Diagnostics.
"It could certainly be that the company is trying to hide something from investors," Loseman said, "but it's just as plausible, maybe even more plausible, that the company is suffering from some growing pains at the moment."
In fact, the company has acknowledged in multiple reports to the government that some of its internal accounting procedures "were not effective" and could lead to errors on the company's financial statements.
Will the SEC step in?
Even if the violations were inadvertent, the SEC can seek financial penalties against people or companies that break the laws around disclosing stock sales.
But Loseman said government investigators tend to react differently if the evidence suggests a violation was simply a mistake versus an active attempt at deception. "It all depends on the facts and circumstances," she said.
In the case of Co-Diagnostics, the government may look closely at the fact that the board members who failed to file their disclosures on time also lead the company's internal audit and compensation committees. Those committees are supposed to "monitor and advise" the company, to ensure it follows legal requirements and other best practices. Their positions would suggest that both Durenard and Serbin should be aware of the laws around disclosure of stock sales.
NPR also uncovered past allegations against Serbin, which may inform the SEC's response. In the early 2000s, the New Jersey Office of the Insurance Fraud Prosecutor investigated Serbin. After suffering a stroke, prosecutors said, Serbin said he could no longer work, and started collecting disability benefits from his insurance company. But prosecutors alleged that Serbin actually continued to work — collecting more than $170,000 in disability benefits from the insurance company while also making nearly $200,000 in consulting fees.
Serbin pleaded guilty to a charge of falsifying records. That charge was dismissed after he paid more than $200,000 as part of a civil penalty and restitution to the insurance company. The New Jersey Supreme Court later suspended Serbin's law license for six months, and the state's Board of Pharmacy found grounds to revoke his pharmacist's license. (Records from the pharmacy board indicate Serbin voluntarily retired from practicing pharmacy, instead of facing formal disciplinary hearings.)
Co-Diagnostics declined to comment on the allegations against Serbin or how he was chosen to join the board of directors. NPR was unable to reach Serbin and Durenard independently. Lawyers representing the two men in court did not respond to NPR's messages.
As the questions surrounding Co-Diagnostics have grown, the company's share price has fallen from its peak but remains much stronger than it was at the beginning of the year.
The states of Nebraska and Iowa continue to use the company's tests. "Nebraska is very pleased with the tests provided by Co-Diagnostics," said Taylor Gage, a spokesperson for Nebraska's governor. "These tests have helped provide over 350,000 test results to date, or about 40% of the state's tests."
A spokesperson for the governor of Iowa stated that its testing program using Co-Diagnostics' tests "has greatly expanded testing in the state of Iowa."
A spokesperson for the Utah Department of Health said that the state now uses a different company to provide testing services and "does not have any formal relationship with Co-Diagnostics." He did not elaborate on why the state changed testing providers.
The company is now promoting a new "ABC" test, which combines tests for influenza A and B with a test for the coronavirus. On Nov. 23, CEO Egan told Bloomberg that there was "very strong demand" for the company's tests around the world.
But even as he projected confidence in the company's future, that same day, he sold more than 70,000 shares of stock in his company, worth more than $700,000.
Days later, Chief Financial Officer Reed Benson sold more than $900,000 worth of stock. As of Nov. 25, both Egan and Benson hold no common stock in the company, according to their disclosures.
Co-Diagnostics maintains that both executives still have stock options, and that "all officers remain committed to the success of the Company."
Becca Costello of NET News contributed to this report.


npr--2020-12-02--Afghan Government And Taliban Reach Breakthrough To Proceed With Peace Talks

Afghan Government And Taliban Reach Breakthrough To Proceed With Peace Talks The Afghan government and the Taliban have agreed to forge ahead with substantive negotiations aimed at ending decades of almost continuous war in the country , representatives from the two sides said in near-twin tweets on Wednesday .
Although peace talks ostensibly began on Sept. 12 in Qatar , the negotiations quickly bogged down in procedural matters , like which form of Islamic law should govern disputes between negotiators .
Nader Nadery , a leading member of the Afghan government negotiations team , signaled a breakthrough , tweeting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the negotiation has been finalized and from now on , the [ negotiations ] will begin on the agenda . ''
Minutes later , Taliban spokesman Mohammad Naeem echoed him : `` The procedures including its preamble of the Intra-Afghan Negotiations has been finalized and from now on , the negotiations will begin on the agenda . ''
Neither side said precisely when the more substantive negotiations would begin or offered further detail .
However , U.S. Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad , architect of the peace process , tweeted that the two sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ codifying ] rules and procedures for their negotiations on a political roadmap and a comprehensive ceasefire . ''
It was unclear when a comprehensive ceasefire would go into effect .
The Afghan government has demanded that the Taliban immediately halt its attacks , but the insurgents insist they will lay down their arms only after a peace deal is concluded .
Since the two sides first agreed to negotiations , the Talban have escalated violence across Afghanistan , particularly targeting Afghan security forces .
Suggesting he expects hostilities to continue , Khalilzad tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will work with all sides for a `` serious reduction of violence and even a ceasefire during this period . ''
Still , the near carbon-copy statements indicated the two sides were making a concerted effort to keep the talks on track .
Nadery and Naeem later issued another pair of matching tweets , saying they had formed a committee to prepare `` draft topics '' for the agenda , adding : `` The current negotiations ... show that there is willingness among Afghans to reach a sustainable peace . ''
The latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a result of the efforts of late-night informal discussions between the two sides , said Andrew Watkins , senior analyst for Afghanistan for the International Crisis Group .
`` This was beautifully the result of two sides talking to each other , '' he added .
The Afghan government negotiators in particular , Watkins said , were `` feeling all this incredible pressure , '' from the U.S. , the international community and Afghans who , he said , `` watch this process fill up the news everyday but not see it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Watkins warned the next phase of talks has its own perils .
`` The next preliminary step is a big one : discussing the agenda of these talks — what order are they going to bring up and discuss each topic ? ''
The agreement to move forward with substantive negotiations was welcomed by the United Nations , country representatives in Kabul , Afghanistan 's neighbor Pakistan and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , who described Wednesday 's announcements by the Afghan government and the Taliban as `` a major milestone .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace talks as a condition of a deal they made separately with the U.S. in February that will see most U.S. and other foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan by next spring .
This has raised questions about whether the insurgents are stalling until foreign forces withdraw .
`` I see no prospect , especially given that the Taliban is achieving its objectives without even having to give up anything , '' said retired Gen. David Petraeus , former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan .
`` We are reducing our forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Petraeus said during a video conference with the think tank , Carnegie Endowment .
He added , `` I see no prospect that the Taliban will agree to what I would think would be a durable end to the war between the Taliban and the other insurgent groups and extremists and Afghan forces . ''
Watkins , of the International Crisis Group , says the fact that the Afghan government and the Taliban have finally agreed to begin substantive talks may prompt the incoming Biden administration to view the peace process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At least , he said , the negotiations wo n't be `` written off summarily , '' as they might have been had there been no progress .

Afghan Government And Taliban Reach Breakthrough To Proceed With Peace Talks
Enlarge this image toggle caption Hussein Sayed/AP Hussein Sayed/AP
The Afghan government and the Taliban have agreed to forge ahead with substantive negotiations aimed at ending decades of almost continuous war in the country, representatives from the two sides said in near-twin tweets on Wednesday.
Although peace talks ostensibly began on Sept. 12 in Qatar, the negotiations quickly bogged down in procedural matters, like which form of Islamic law should govern disputes between negotiators.
Nader Nadery, a leading member of the Afghan government negotiations team, signaled a breakthrough, tweeting, "The procedure including its preamble of the negotiation has been finalized and from now on, the [negotiations] will begin on the agenda." Minutes later, Taliban spokesman Mohammad Naeem echoed him: "The procedures including its preamble of the Intra-Afghan Negotiations has been finalized and from now on, the negotiations will begin on the agenda."
Neither side said precisely when the more substantive negotiations would begin or offered further detail. However, U.S. Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad, architect of the peace process, tweeted that the two sides had created "a three-page agreement [codifying] rules and procedures for their negotiations on a political roadmap and a comprehensive ceasefire."
It was unclear when a comprehensive ceasefire would go into effect. The Afghan government has demanded that the Taliban immediately halt its attacks, but the insurgents insist they will lay down their arms only after a peace deal is concluded. Since the two sides first agreed to negotiations, the Talban have escalated violence across Afghanistan, particularly targeting Afghan security forces.
Suggesting he expects hostilities to continue, Khalilzad tweeted that as negotiations begin, his team will work with all sides for a "serious reduction of violence and even a ceasefire during this period."
Still, the near carbon-copy statements indicated the two sides were making a concerted effort to keep the talks on track.
Nadery and Naeem later issued another pair of matching tweets, saying they had formed a committee to prepare "draft topics" for the agenda, adding: "The current negotiations ... show that there is willingness among Afghans to reach a sustainable peace."
The latest agreement amid spiraling tensions appears to have been a result of the efforts of late-night informal discussions between the two sides, said Andrew Watkins, senior analyst for Afghanistan for the International Crisis Group.
"This was beautifully the result of two sides talking to each other," he added.
The Afghan government negotiators in particular, Watkins said, were "feeling all this incredible pressure," from the U.S., the international community and Afghans who, he said, "watch this process fill up the news everyday but not see it change their lives on the ground."
Watkins warned the next phase of talks has its own perils. "The next preliminary step is a big one: discussing the agenda of these talks — what order are they going to bring up and discuss each topic?"
The agreement to move forward with substantive negotiations was welcomed by the United Nations, country representatives in Kabul, Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who described Wednesday's announcements by the Afghan government and the Taliban as "a major milestone."
The Taliban agreed to begin Afghan peace talks as a condition of a deal they made separately with the U.S. in February that will see most U.S. and other foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan by next spring.
This has raised questions about whether the insurgents are stalling until foreign forces withdraw.
"I see no prospect, especially given that the Taliban is achieving its objectives without even having to give up anything," said retired Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We are reducing our forces without gaining anything from them in return," Petraeus said during a video conference with the think tank, Carnegie Endowment. He added, "I see no prospect that the Taliban will agree to what I would think would be a durable end to the war between the Taliban and the other insurgent groups and extremists and Afghan forces."
Watkins, of the International Crisis Group, says the fact that the Afghan government and the Taliban have finally agreed to begin substantive talks may prompt the incoming Biden administration to view the peace process brokered by the Trump administration more seriously. At least, he said, the negotiations won't be "written off summarily," as they might have been had there been no progress.


npr--2020-12-02--Putin Tells Russia To Begin Large-Scale Vaccination For Coronavirus

Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered mass immunization against COVID-19 as Russia races to reverse a surge in coronavirus cases and be the first in the world to distribute its vaccine widely .
Putin issued the order in a videoconference with officials , just hours after health authorities in Britain approved Pfizer 's coronavirus vaccine .
According to government figures , Russia has more than 2.3 million coronavirus cases , the fourth-highest caseload in the world after the U.S. , India and Brazil .
Overnight , Russia passed a new daily record of 589 COVID-19 deaths , bringing the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Kremlin is betting on a Russian-made vaccine called Sputnik V to help stop the spread of COVID-19 .
Putin announced the vaccine 's registration with the Russian Health Ministry in August when he said one of his daughters had tried it out .
Putin has since touted Sputnik V , still in phase three clinical trials , as the `` world 's first registered vaccine against coronavirus . ''
The vaccine 's name — the same as the world 's first artificial satellite , launched by the Soviet Union in 1957 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a mini-space race .
In November , after Pfizer announced that interim results showed its vaccine was more than 90 % effective , the Russian government researchers making Sputnik V said their vaccine had 92 % efficacy .
When Pfizer then raised its efficacy rate to 95 % , the developers of Sputnik V followed suit by announcing an efficacy of `` over 95 % . ''
Given the margin of error in clinical trials , the percentage differences are likely not statistically significant .
During a presentation of the vaccine Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister Mikhail Murashko said more than 100,000 people have been vaccinated with Sputnik V. The makers of Sputnik V plan to start producing the vaccine in other countries , including India and South Korea .
In his meeting with officials , Putin said Russia will have produced more than 2 million doses of Sputnik V in the coming days and can start mass vaccination at the end of next week .
Vaccination will begin with health care workers and people with chronic medical conditions .
The Kremlin says mass vaccination will be free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voluntary basis .
On Wednesday , Putin 's spokesman , Dmitry Peskov , told reporters he could not say whether Russia would need to import foreign-made vaccines .
It 's still unclear how high demand will be for Sputnik V. In one recent poll of Russians , 22 % of respondents said they were willing to get a Russian-made vaccine , while 44 % were not .
In another poll , conducted by the country 's ruling United Russia party , 73 % of respondents said they were not planning to get vaccinated @ @ @ @ @

Putin Tells Russia To Begin Large-Scale Vaccination For Coronavirus
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr./AP Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr./AP
Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered mass immunization against COVID-19 as Russia races to reverse a surge in coronavirus cases and be the first in the world to distribute its vaccine widely.
Putin issued the order in a videoconference with officials, just hours after health authorities in Britain approved Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine.
According to government figures, Russia has more than 2.3 million coronavirus cases, the fourth-highest caseload in the world after the U.S., India and Brazil. Overnight, Russia passed a new daily record of 589 COVID-19 deaths, bringing the country's official death toll to 41,053.
The Kremlin is betting on a Russian-made vaccine called Sputnik V to help stop the spread of COVID-19. Putin announced the vaccine's registration with the Russian Health Ministry in August when he said one of his daughters had tried it out.
Putin has since touted Sputnik V, still in phase three clinical trials, as the "world's first registered vaccine against coronavirus." The vaccine's name — the same as the world's first artificial satellite, launched by the Soviet Union in 1957 — suggests that the Kremlin views vaccine development as a mini-space race.
In November, after Pfizer announced that interim results showed its vaccine was more than 90% effective, the Russian government researchers making Sputnik V said their vaccine had 92% efficacy. When Pfizer then raised its efficacy rate to 95%, the developers of Sputnik V followed suit by announcing an efficacy of "over 95%."
Given the margin of error in clinical trials, the percentage differences are likely not statistically significant.
During a presentation of the vaccine Wednesday to the United Nations, Russian Health Minister Mikhail Murashko said more than 100,000 people have been vaccinated with Sputnik V. The makers of Sputnik V plan to start producing the vaccine in other countries, including India and South Korea.
In his meeting with officials, Putin said Russia will have produced more than 2 million doses of Sputnik V in the coming days and can start mass vaccination at the end of next week. Vaccination will begin with health care workers and teachers.
The Kremlin says mass vaccination will be free of charge and carried out on a voluntary basis. On Wednesday, Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters he could not say whether Russia would need to import foreign-made vaccines.
It's still unclear how high demand will be for Sputnik V. In one recent poll of Russians, 22% of respondents said they were willing to get a Russian-made vaccine, while 44% were not. In another poll, conducted by the country's ruling United Russia party, 73% of respondents said they were not planning to get vaccinated against COVID-19 at all.


npr--2020-12-02--U.N. Commission Removes Cannabis From Its Most Strict Drug Control List

U.N. Commission Removes Cannabis From Its Most Strict Drug Control List The U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs voted to reclassify cannabis Wednesday , taking it off the strict Schedule IV list that includes dangerous and highly addictive drugs such as heroin .
The U.N. still deems cannabis a controlled substance .
But the move , which the U.S. supported , could ease restrictions on research into marijuana 's therapeutic use .
The 53-member commission approved the change in a close vote , by 27-25 , with 1 abstention .
Russia was a vocal opponent of the move , calling cannabis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' The U.N. vote follows guidance from the World Health Organization and its expert committee on drug dependence , which had recommended deleting `` cannabis and cannabis resin '' from Schedule IV of the 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs .
The drug will now remain in Schedule I rather than appearing on both lists .
The vote had been closely followed by marijuana activists and the burgeoning cannabis industry , as it could bolster arguments for easing legal restrictions on marijuana and establishing consistent regulations .
Clearing the way for research In its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drugs , the WHO committee noted that cannabis can have adverse effects and cause dependence .
But it also cited the drug 's benefits in reducing pain and nausea , as well as easing symptoms of medical conditions such as anorexia , epilepsy and multiple sclerosis .
And it noted that unlike opioids such as fentanyl , cannabis is not associated with a significant risk of death .
The committee said , `` the inclusion of cannabis and cannabis resin in Schedule IV is not consistent with the criteria for a drug to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The WHO committee also said that despite `` limited robust scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis , '' the drug has been shown to be different from Schedule IV substances that have little or no therapeutic use .
`` This is a major win for cannabis advocates around the world with considerable symbolic and some practical implications for cannabis regulation , '' according to Conor O'Brien of Prohibition Partners , a global industry analyst group .
Taking cannabis off of the list of most restricted substances , he added , means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` that cannabis is not 'liable to produce ill-effects ' on the scale of other drugs in Schedule IV , and that cannabis has significant potential therapeutic value . ''
`` One of the original reasons for the WHO making these recommendations were to open up the path to research and medical product development , '' O'Brien told NPR via email .
`` Today 's results will hopefully encourage much activity in this field which will in the future enable further liberalization of cannabis and patient access . ''
He called the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more accessible and certainly from today 's verdict , more acceptable . ''
It 's up to each country to form their own drug policies and punishments .
But international drug control treaties allow their parties to ban or limit the manufacture or import of the most dangerous substances .
Under the 1961 convention , Schedule IV is reserved for drugs that are particularly liable to abuse and harm .
`` Such liability is not offset by substantial therapeutic advantages , '' the U.S. Justice Department says in its guide to complying with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differently , the calculus for studying its potential benefits is now likely to change .
Citing the FDA , the U.S. votes yes The U.S. was represented at the session by Ethan Glick , counselor for U.N. Affairs at the U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Vienna , who said , `` the legitimate medical use of a cannabis preparation has been established through scientific research , and cannabis no longer meets the criterion for placement in Schedule IV of the Single Convention . ''
Glick cited the U.S. Food and Drug Administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cannabidiol extract for use in treating rare seizure disorders in children .
And he cautioned that cannabis poses public health risks , particularly to young people and pregnant women .
But reclassifying cannabis in a less strict control category , Glick added , could spark new research into its medical benefits .
`` This action has the potential to stimulate global research into the therapeutic potential and public health effects of cannabis and to attract additional investigators to the field including those who may have been deterred by the Schedule IV status , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change how cannabis is classified was the top item on the agenda for the morning session of the commission 's virtual meetings that began Wednesday .
The sessions are a key international forum for drug policy discussions .
The proposal has gone through an extensive review .
The WHO made its recommendation nearly two years ago , setting off months of consideration and debate .
This summer alone , the Commission on Narcotic Drugs says , its virtual meetings on the proposals were attended by more than 600 experts from more than 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Buenos Aires-based advocacy group sent a letter to the commission , specifically asking it to ease access to medical marijuana .
The Grupo de Mujeres de la Argentina Foro de HIV , Mujeres y Familia said that under the current legal framework , people have been `` unjustly deprived of their liberty because they fight every day to calm their pains naturally from this plant - as alternative and traditional medicine . ''
The move to pull cannabis out of Schedule IV was the only cannabis-related initiative to win approval Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other recommendations from the WHO regarding THC and cannabis extracts .
Most of the other cannabis votes were also close – except for a broad rejection of a proposal that would have used a footnote in Schedule IV to declare that preparations containing cannabidiol , or CBD , `` are not under international control '' as long as they contain less than 0.2 % of THC , the main psychoactive component of cannabis .
That rejection came despite a plea from the European Medicinal Cannabis Association , which submitted a position paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not a narcotic . ''
A U.S. State Department spokesperson told NPR that the vote in favor of reclassification `` is not an endorsement of the use of the cannabis plant or cannabis resin for medical purposes , '' adding that it wo n't change marijuana 's status under the Controlled Substances Act or international conventions .
Countries gave a range of reasons for voting down the CBD proposal , with some saying it was overly broad or vague .
Glick said the U.S. disagreed on legal grounds : Because cannabidiol is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controlled substances , he said , a special vote is n't required to keep it off the schedule .
Instead , he said , the expert committee 's recommendation should itself be enough to establish that CBD is not subject to international control .
`` Cannabidiol has not demonstrated abuse potential , and it is not our position that cannabidiol should be or is under the control of the international drug conventions , '' Glick said .

U.N. Commission Removes Cannabis From Its Most Strict Drug Control List
Enlarge this image toggle caption Luke Dray/Getty Images Luke Dray/Getty Images
The U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs voted to reclassify cannabis Wednesday, taking it off the strict Schedule IV list that includes dangerous and highly addictive drugs such as heroin. The U.N. still deems cannabis a controlled substance. But the move, which the U.S. supported, could ease restrictions on research into marijuana's therapeutic use.
The 53-member commission approved the change in a close vote, by 27-25, with 1 abstention. Russia was a vocal opponent of the move, calling cannabis "the most abused drug globally."
The U.N. vote follows guidance from the World Health Organization and its expert committee on drug dependence, which had recommended deleting "cannabis and cannabis resin" from Schedule IV of the 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The drug will now remain in Schedule I rather than appearing on both lists.
The vote had been closely followed by marijuana activists and the burgeoning cannabis industry, as it could bolster arguments for easing legal restrictions on marijuana and establishing consistent regulations.
Clearing the way for research
In its recommendation to the U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the WHO committee noted that cannabis can have adverse effects and cause dependence. But it also cited the drug's benefits in reducing pain and nausea, as well as easing symptoms of medical conditions such as anorexia, epilepsy and multiple sclerosis. And it noted that unlike opioids such as fentanyl, cannabis is not associated with a significant risk of death.
The committee said, "the inclusion of cannabis and cannabis resin in Schedule IV is not consistent with the criteria for a drug to be placed in Schedule IV."
The WHO committee also said that despite "limited robust scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis," the drug has been shown to be different from Schedule IV substances that have little or no therapeutic use.
"This is a major win for cannabis advocates around the world with considerable symbolic and some practical implications for cannabis regulation," according to Conor O'Brien of Prohibition Partners, a global industry analyst group.
Taking cannabis off of the list of most restricted substances, he added, means that the U.N. agrees with the WHO "that cannabis is not 'liable to produce ill-effects' on the scale of other drugs in Schedule IV, and that cannabis has significant potential therapeutic value."
"One of the original reasons for the WHO making these recommendations were to open up the path to research and medical product development," O'Brien told NPR via email. "Today's results will hopefully encourage much activity in this field which will in the future enable further liberalization of cannabis and patient access."
He called the vote "an important step in cannabis becoming more accessible and certainly from today's verdict, more acceptable."
It's up to each country to form their own drug policies and punishments. But international drug control treaties allow their parties to ban or limit the manufacture or import of the most dangerous substances. Under the 1961 convention, Schedule IV is reserved for drugs that are particularly liable to abuse and harm.
"Such liability is not offset by substantial therapeutic advantages," the U.S. Justice Department says in its guide to complying with the treaties. With cannabis now classified differently, the calculus for studying its potential benefits is now likely to change.
Citing the FDA, the U.S. votes yes
The U.S. was represented at the session by Ethan Glick, counselor for U.N. Affairs at the U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Vienna, who said, "the legitimate medical use of a cannabis preparation has been established through scientific research, and cannabis no longer meets the criterion for placement in Schedule IV of the Single Convention."
Glick cited the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval in 2018 of a purified cannabidiol extract for use in treating rare seizure disorders in children. And he cautioned that cannabis poses public health risks, particularly to young people and pregnant women.
But reclassifying cannabis in a less strict control category, Glick added, could spark new research into its medical benefits.
"This action has the potential to stimulate global research into the therapeutic potential and public health effects of cannabis and to attract additional investigators to the field including those who may have been deterred by the Schedule IV status," Glick said.
The vote to change how cannabis is classified was the top item on the agenda for the morning session of the commission's virtual meetings that began Wednesday. The sessions are a key international forum for drug policy discussions.
The proposal has gone through an extensive review. The WHO made its recommendation nearly two years ago, setting off months of consideration and debate. This summer alone, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs says, its virtual meetings on the proposals were attended by more than 600 experts from more than 100 countries.
Ahead of Wednesday's vote, a Buenos Aires-based advocacy group sent a letter to the commission, specifically asking it to ease access to medical marijuana. The Grupo de Mujeres de la Argentina Foro de HIV, Mujeres y Familia said that under the current legal framework, people have been "unjustly deprived of their liberty because they fight every day to calm their pains naturally from this plant - as alternative and traditional medicine."
The move to pull cannabis out of Schedule IV was the only cannabis-related initiative to win approval Wednesday, as commission members rejected a handful of other recommendations from the WHO regarding THC and cannabis extracts.
Most of the other cannabis votes were also close – except for a broad rejection of a proposal that would have used a footnote in Schedule IV to declare that preparations containing cannabidiol, or CBD, "are not under international control" as long as they contain less than 0.2% of THC, the main psychoactive component of cannabis.
That rejection came despite a plea from the European Medicinal Cannabis Association, which submitted a position paper to the commission titled, "CBD is not a narcotic."
A U.S. State Department spokesperson told NPR that the vote in favor of reclassification "is not an endorsement of the use of the cannabis plant or cannabis resin for medical purposes," adding that it won't change marijuana's status under the Controlled Substances Act or international conventions.
Countries gave a range of reasons for voting down the CBD proposal, with some saying it was overly broad or vague. Glick said the U.S. disagreed on legal grounds: Because cannabidiol isn't currently listed on the schedule of controlled substances, he said, a special vote isn't required to keep it off the schedule.
Instead, he said, the expert committee's recommendation should itself be enough to establish that CBD is not subject to international control.
"Cannabidiol has not demonstrated abuse potential, and it is not our position that cannabidiol should be or is under the control of the international drug conventions," Glick said.