theintercept--2020-05-25--Coronavirus Monitoring Bracelets Flood the Market, Ready to Snitch on People Who Don’t Distance

around the world are licking their lips at a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cash in on the coronavirus by repositioning one of their most invasive products : the tracking bracelet .
Body monitors are associated with criminality and guilt in the popular imagination , the accessories of Wall Street crooks under house arrest and menace-to-society parolees .
Unlike smartphones , de facto tracking devices in their own right , strapped-on trackers are expressly designed to be attached to the body and exist solely to report the user ’ s whereabouts and interactions to one or more third parties ; they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many steps you took that day to sweeten the surveillance .
But a climate of perpetual bio-anxiety has paved the way for broader acceptance of carceral technologies , with a wave of companies trying to sell tracking accessories to business owners eager to reopen under the aegis of responsible social distancing and to governments hoping to keep a closer eye on people under quarantine .
Take AiRISTA Flow , a Maryland-based outfit that helps corporations track their “ assets , ” breathing or not .
In an April 21 press release , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bluetooth and Wi-Fi trackers to be worn on an employee ’ s wrist like a Fitbit — or around their neck like a cowbell .
“ When people come within six feet of each other for a period of time , ” the company wrote in a press release , “ the device makes an audible chirp and a record of the contact is made in the AiRISTA Flow software system.
” But the tracking goes far beyond audible chirps : AiRISTA ’ s platform allows employers to continuously upload a record of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing an up-to-date list of presumed social distancing violators that would double as a detailed record of workplace social interactions .
The company ’ s marketing language is explicit in talking up the nonviral benefits of tracking your workers ’ every move : By helping companies “ Locate people and things in real time ” ( the two are seemingly treated interchangeably ) , they can expect a “ Reduction in unplanned downtime , ” “ Improved asset utilization rates , [ and a ] reduced need for spares.
” In a press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flow ’ s , Boston-based Redpoint Positioning Corporation , another player in the business of tracking workers and inanimate objects , announced that it was taking its own “ cutting-edge technology … already used by leading companies worldwide in third-party logistics , auto manufacturing , mine operation ” and repackaging it for social distancing .
Like AiRISTA , Redpoint offers companies the ability to “ tag ” their equipment and employees using ultra-wideband radio signals , a wireless positioning technology only recently added to the most advanced iPhones .
Redpoint boasted in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tags to “ track the location of people and equipment with extremely high accuracy , even in complex industrial environments , ” now with a coronavirus-specific augmentation : “ If social distancing parameters , such as a 1- or 2-meter radius , are violated between workers , the tag alarm will alert them to the hazard.
” The company will also collect a history of employee interactions : “ If an infection does occur , historical data from the system will allow for highly accurate contact tracing , as records can show the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” A Redpoint spokesperson did not answer when asked if the company has any policies dictating or constraining how their technology can be used by clients .
While the AiRISTA and Redpoint trackers merely evoke the aesthetics of a police state in the workplace , Israeli surveillance outfit SuperCom is literally repackaging as a Covid-19 “ solution ” technology previously used on incarcerated or criminally convicted people .
The security company has customers in 20 countries , including the U.S. , and claims decades of experience with what it calls in a press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like border crossings and home confinement .
It ’ s the house arrest expertise that the company is now marketing as PureCare , described on the SuperCom website as a “ state-of-the-art solution for quarantine and isolation monitoring to aid government efforts in containing and limiting the reach of infectious diseases ” and , incredibly , as “ a non-intrusive patient friendly system that constantly tracks patient location within buildings , vehicles and outside.
” SuperCom Americas President Ordan Trabelsi declined to tell The Intercept where the company ’ s ankle bracelets are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it named Central America as the location of one pilot deployment , and referenced a second pilot program in some other , unspecified region , in an April 6 press release announcing a “ Coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) citizen quarantine and containment tracking technology.
” The company announced separately , on April 27 , that it had begun selling tracking devices for prisoners released from an unnamed “ United States of America correctional facility due to COVID-19.
” In the same press release , SuperCom claimed to see a spike in interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of COVID-19 among their general population ” and envisioned “ additional potential industry demand for electronic monitoring services coming from the incarcerated American population.
” One might think that a company like SuperCom would shy away from proposing that those exposed to the novel coronavirus be in any way treated like literal criminals .
But in a recent promotional YouTube interview , Trabelsi makes a point of stressing that it ’ s precisely the company ’ s work with criminal elements that makes its Covid-19 “ solution ” superior .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of our time focusing on very accurate and state of the art tracking of offenders , ” he said in the video .
“ Many customers and potential customers around the world asked us if we could use that same platform to do , you know , Covid-19 home quarantine tracking and compliance .
And we thought , of course we can because it ’ s exactly what we do in the offender tracking space .
But now we ’ ll just be tracking people that are not essentially offenders but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When asked in the YouTube interview about the privacy implications of SuperCom ’ s ankle bracelets , Trabelsi demurred — though he did note that the hardware is “ very comfortable and goes underneath their sock.
” He went on to say that how the company ’ s customers use the technology is their call , not his .
“ We leave it to them to make their decisions on rules and privacy , ” he stated .
In an interview with The Intercept , Trabelsi said interest in SuperCom ’ s coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far .
Should any of these intrigued governments decide to use SuperCom bracelets to enforce quarantines , Trabelsi said it ’ s up to them to do so responsibly .
“ Everyone has their own rules , ” he told me .
“ Some countries share that they want to put everyone who comes into the country into quarantine for 14 days , some want to put it onto people who are sick , or who have a confirmed case ; it depends what [ that government ’ s ] regulations are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want .
We just provide them with technology to track people.
” A laissez-faire approach to privacy and accountability will do little to persuade those who see SuperCom ’ s strategy as a cynical attempt to push lucrative police technology into the civilian world during a period of widespread social crisis .
Leonard Rubenstein , a human rights attorney and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health , told The Intercept that SuperCom ’ s stance has the distinction of being both dangerous and useless .
“ I found the ankle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by SuperCom ] highly inappropriate and detrimental to a public health response in being unreasonably and unnecessarily coercive , ” he said , “ a serious invasion of privacy without any safeguards , and promoting an adversarial relationship to public health authorities when the relationship should be built on trust.
” Rubenstein , who is affiliated with the school ’ s department of epidemiology , said that an invasive technology like a tracking bracelet imposes “ limitations on human rights to serve public health ends ” and must be held to particularly high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth the trade-off .
Jennifer Granick , an attorney specializing in surveillance and cybersecurity technologies at the American Civil Liberties Union , told The Intercept that SuperCom ’ s Covid-19 marketing efforts put a public health gloss on a police technology and thus helps it to “ be normalized among the general population for medical reasons .
… This should trouble us all.
” To Rubenstein , even SuperCom ’ s most humane use case for tracking bracelets , allowing temporary release of incarcerated people to spare them from a coronavirus prison outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ In the case of released prisoners , less restrictive means are also available , ” he said .
An always-on surveillance bracelet might be defensible only “ where there was an individualized determination that the person poses a high public safety risk upon release in the absence of monitoring/tracking , ” he added .
Responding to these concerns , Trabelsi told The Intercept that despite the company ’ s own emphasis on monitoring criminals , its products shouldn ’ t be understood as intended only for that purpose .
“ The product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ location of people to verify they are following the rules in order to protect themselves and our society , ” Trabelsi wrote via email .
“ The product wasn ’ t necessarily developed for offenders .
The technology also tracks patients with Alzheimer ’ s disease and other issues that require monitoring for their own safety.
” Trabelsi argued that tracking bracelets could allow people to avoid being confined to a hospital or “ government controlled facility ” while under quarantine .
“ This technology would give these individuals the option to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reduce the risk of causing harm to others , ” he added .
When asked if SuperCom had consulted with any public health experts during the design or sale of its tracking hardware , Trabelsi was unsure — “ In the past we probably have , I ’ m not certain.
” But he also seemed to push back on the notion , perfectly framing Granick ’ s worry , that this is even a public health technology to begin with : “ The technology is essentially for tracking people .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It can just tell you where people are .
It ’ s not going to keep you from getting sick .
It ’ s not going to heal you .
”

Surveillance firms around the world are licking their lips at a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cash in on the coronavirus by repositioning one of their most invasive products: the tracking bracelet.
Body monitors are associated with criminality and guilt in the popular imagination, the accessories of Wall Street crooks under house arrest and menace-to-society parolees. Unlike smartphones, de facto tracking devices in their own right, strapped-on trackers are expressly designed to be attached to the body and exist solely to report the user’s whereabouts and interactions to one or more third parties; they don’t play podcasts or tell you how many steps you took that day to sweeten the surveillance.
But a climate of perpetual bio-anxiety has paved the way for broader acceptance of carceral technologies, with a wave of companies trying to sell tracking accessories to business owners eager to reopen under the aegis of responsible social distancing and to governments hoping to keep a closer eye on people under quarantine.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Take AiRISTA Flow, a Maryland-based outfit that helps corporations track their “assets,” breathing or not. In an April 21 press release, the company announced it would begin selling Bluetooth and Wi-Fi trackers to be worn on an employee’s wrist like a Fitbit — or around their neck like a cowbell. “When people come within six feet of each other for a period of time,” the company wrote in a press release, “the device makes an audible chirp and a record of the contact is made in the AiRISTA Flow software system.” But the tracking goes far beyond audible chirps: AiRISTA’s platform allows employers to continuously upload a record of close encounters to a corporate cloud, providing an up-to-date list of presumed social distancing violators that would double as a detailed record of workplace social interactions.
The company’s marketing language is explicit in talking up the nonviral benefits of tracking your workers’ every move: By helping companies “Locate people and things in real time” (the two are seemingly treated interchangeably), they can expect a “Reduction in unplanned downtime,” “Improved asset utilization rates, [and a] reduced need for spares.”
“When people come within six feet of each other the device makes an audible chirp.”
In a press release published just a day after AiRISTA Flow’s, Boston-based Redpoint Positioning Corporation, another player in the business of tracking workers and inanimate objects, announced that it was taking its own “cutting-edge technology … already used by leading companies worldwide in third-party logistics, auto manufacturing, mine operation” and repackaging it for social distancing. Like AiRISTA, Redpoint offers companies the ability to “tag” their equipment and employees using ultra-wideband radio signals, a wireless positioning technology only recently added to the most advanced iPhones. Redpoint boasted in the announcement of its ability to use these tags to “track the location of people and equipment with extremely high accuracy, even in complex industrial environments,” now with a coronavirus-specific augmentation: “If social distancing parameters, such as a 1- or 2-meter radius, are violated between workers, the tag alarm will alert them to the hazard.” The company will also collect a history of employee interactions: “If an infection does occur, historical data from the system will allow for highly accurate contact tracing, as records can show the individuals who were near the infected party.”
A Redpoint spokesperson did not answer when asked if the company has any policies dictating or constraining how their technology can be used by clients.
While the AiRISTA and Redpoint trackers merely evoke the aesthetics of a police state in the workplace, Israeli surveillance outfit SuperCom is literally repackaging as a Covid-19 “solution” technology previously used on incarcerated or criminally convicted people. The security company has customers in 20 countries, including the U.S., and claims decades of experience with what it calls in a press release “secured boundaries projects,” like border crossings and home confinement. It’s the house arrest expertise that the company is now marketing as PureCare, described on the SuperCom website as a “state-of-the-art solution for quarantine and isolation monitoring to aid government efforts in containing and limiting the reach of infectious diseases” and, incredibly, as “a non-intrusive patient friendly system that constantly tracks patient location within buildings, vehicles and outside.”
SuperCom Americas President Ordan Trabelsi declined to tell The Intercept where the company’s ankle bracelets are currently being used for quarantine enforcement, but it named Central America as the location of one pilot deployment, and referenced a second pilot program in some other, unspecified region, in an April 6 press release announcing a “Coronavirus (COVID-19) citizen quarantine and containment tracking technology.” The company announced separately, on April 27, that it had begun selling tracking devices for prisoners released from an unnamed “United States of America correctional facility due to COVID-19.”
In the same press release, SuperCom claimed to see a spike in interest from “government agencies looking to restrict the spread of COVID-19 among their general population” and envisioned “additional potential industry demand for electronic monitoring services coming from the incarcerated American population.”
One might think that a company like SuperCom would shy away from proposing that those exposed to the novel coronavirus be in any way treated like literal criminals. But in a recent promotional YouTube interview, Trabelsi makes a point of stressing that it’s precisely the company’s work with criminal elements that makes its Covid-19 “solution” superior. “In the past, we have spent a lot of our time focusing on very accurate and state of the art tracking of offenders,” he said in the video. “Many customers and potential customers around the world asked us if we could use that same platform to do, you know, Covid-19 home quarantine tracking and compliance. And we thought, of course we can because it’s exactly what we do in the offender tracking space. But now we’ll just be tracking people that are not essentially offenders but unluckily were exposed to the virus.”
When asked in the YouTube interview about the privacy implications of SuperCom’s ankle bracelets, Trabelsi demurred — though he did note that the hardware is “very comfortable and goes underneath their sock.” He went on to say that how the company’s customers use the technology is their call, not his. “We leave it to them to make their decisions on rules and privacy,” he stated.
“They define the rules as they want. We just provide them with technology to track people.”
In an interview with The Intercept, Trabelsi said interest in SuperCom’s coronavirus product has been “mostly government” so far. Should any of these intrigued governments decide to use SuperCom bracelets to enforce quarantines, Trabelsi said it’s up to them to do so responsibly. “Everyone has their own rules,” he told me. “Some countries share that they want to put everyone who comes into the country into quarantine for 14 days, some want to put it onto people who are sick, or who have a confirmed case; it depends what [that government’s] regulations are. They define the rules exactly as they want. We just provide them with technology to track people.”
Share Your Coronavirus Story Click here to learn about contacting a reporter securely, or email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com
A laissez-faire approach to privacy and accountability will do little to persuade those who see SuperCom’s strategy as a cynical attempt to push lucrative police technology into the civilian world during a period of widespread social crisis. Leonard Rubenstein, a human rights attorney and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, told The Intercept that SuperCom’s stance has the distinction of being both dangerous and useless. “I found the ankle monitor and other tracking methods described [by SuperCom] highly inappropriate and detrimental to a public health response in being unreasonably and unnecessarily coercive,” he said, “a serious invasion of privacy without any safeguards, and promoting an adversarial relationship to public health authorities when the relationship should be built on trust.”
Rubenstein, who is affiliated with the school’s department of epidemiology, said that an invasive technology like a tracking bracelet imposes “limitations on human rights to serve public health ends” and must be held to particularly high standards to determine if it’s worth the trade-off.
“This should trouble us all.”
Jennifer Granick, an attorney specializing in surveillance and cybersecurity technologies at the American Civil Liberties Union, told The Intercept that SuperCom’s Covid-19 marketing efforts put a public health gloss on a police technology and thus helps it to “be normalized among the general population for medical reasons. … This should trouble us all.”
To Rubenstein, even SuperCom’s most humane use case for tracking bracelets, allowing temporary release of incarcerated people to spare them from a coronavirus prison outbreak, doesn’t pass muster. “In the case of released prisoners, less restrictive means are also available,” he said. An always-on surveillance bracelet might be defensible only “where there was an individualized determination that the person poses a high public safety risk upon release in the absence of monitoring/tracking,” he added.
Responding to these concerns, Trabelsi told The Intercept that despite the company’s own emphasis on monitoring criminals, its products shouldn’t be understood as intended only for that purpose. “The product vision [is] to track the location of people to verify they are following the rules in order to protect themselves and our society,” Trabelsi wrote via email. “The product wasn’t necessarily developed for offenders. The technology also tracks patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other issues that require monitoring for their own safety.” Trabelsi argued that tracking bracelets could allow people to avoid being confined to a hospital or “government controlled facility” while under quarantine. “This technology would give these individuals the option to be at their homes instead and be monitored to reduce the risk of causing harm to others,” he added.
When asked if SuperCom had consulted with any public health experts during the design or sale of its tracking hardware, Trabelsi was unsure — “In the past we probably have, I’m not certain.” But he also seemed to push back on the notion, perfectly framing Granick’s worry, that this is even a public health technology to begin with: “The technology is essentially for tracking people. It’s not a health solution. It can just tell you where people are. It’s not going to keep you from getting sick. It’s not going to heal you.”


theintercept--2020-05-26--Corporate Immunity, Mitch McConnell’s Priority for Coronavirus Relief, Is a Longtime Focus of the Co

Corporate Immunity, Mitch McConnell’s Priority for Coronavirus Relief, Is a Longtime Focus of the Conservative Right

priority for the next coronavirus relief bill , which would protect employers that face lawsuits if their workers get sick or die of Covid-19 — the disease caused by the novel coronavirus — on the job , is the culmination of a decade-old effort by conservative groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council , or ALEC .
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been focused on corporate immunity for weeks , warning that looming lawsuits related to the coronavirus could crush the nation ’ s recovery efforts going forward .
Republican proposals would limit liability for certain eligible companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that businesses follow existing safety and health guidelines specific to Covid-19 .
In remarks on the Senate floor earlier this month , McConnell thanked fellow Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas for “ thinking proactively about the issue of legal liability.
” ALEC , a Koch-backed nonprofit that drafts model bills for state legislators , has pushed similar corporate immunity measures on the state level since the early 2000s , part of a broader Republican push to overhaul tort law .
At least 10 states have adopted such measures .
In the wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now adapting existing model bills to limit liability in cases specifically related to the coronavirus , Bloomberg reported .
In Utah and North Carolina — where ALEC ’ s past chair is the state House ’ s chair of appropriations — lawmakers this month passed new business liability protections giving immunity to businesses , property owners , health care providers , and other essential businesses operating during the pandemic .
Business groups in North Carolina , including the state chamber of commerce , had opposed an earlier bipartisan bill to strengthen protections for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clauses related to the coronavirus , according to Democratic state Rep. Graig Meyer .
Under that bill , employers could rebut claims , “ but we would give the benefit of the doubt to the worker , not the employer , ” Meyer said .
At least 25 business groups in the state , including the state chamber of commerce — which lists reforming tort and liability law as a top legislative priority this cycle — put out a statement opposing the measure earlier this month .
The state chamber had previously sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state House outlining its priorities , including “ limiting coronavirus liability concerns.
” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also been pushing such legislation on the federal level .
In a mid-April memo to members , the group said legal action from workers exposed to Covid-19 was “ perhaps the largest area of concern for the overall business community , ” Roll Call reported , adding , “ Businesses say they keep their workplaces safe , but the memo indicates that major corporations privately acknowledge that many so-called essential employees will get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they won ’ t support the next relief bill if it doesn ’ t include corporate immunity , while Democrats , despite being critical , have not ruled out supporting it .
On a press call in late April , Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said McConnell was protecting corporate executives and “ wants to make it harder for workers to show up at their jobs and to hold their employers accountable for providing safe working conditions.
” Asked if she was open to McConnell ’ s push for corporate liability protections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have no red lines ” but that the “ best protection for our workers and for their employers is to follow very good OSHA mandatory guidelines .
And we have that in our bill , ” referring to elements from the Workers Bill of Rights led by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and California Rep. Ro Khanna related to hazard pay and personal protective equipment .
The speaker “ did not dismiss the possibility that liability protections would be part of a bipartisan package , ” CBS reported .
The CARES Act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the relief bill passed by House Democrats on May 15 , have included corporate bailouts and special operating privileges for health insurance , lobbying , defense , and financial industries , as well as a millionaire tax break that several Democrats did not even realize was in the legislation .
Progressives have faced criticism , including from The Intercept , for waving those bills through .
Responding to that criticism , Khanna said progressives are limited in their ability to influence legislation because CPC leadership is not in the negotiating room with party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to build better relationships with leaders and committee chairs .
“ The challenge is that , the progressives can ’ t vote down bills that are gon na put money in the pockets of working families , but they get all of these negative things attached to them , ” Khanna said , adding that the caucus is negotiating for priorities like immediate cash payments and proposals for Medicare for All in the next phase of relief .
“ The only thing I can think of is to have negotiators who are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference , ” he said .
“ It ’ s tough without seeing the bill .
It ’ s tough without having one of our own in these negotiating conversations .
”

Senate Republicans’ top priority for the next coronavirus relief bill, which would protect employers that face lawsuits if their workers get sick or die of Covid-19 — the disease caused by the novel coronavirus — on the job, is the culmination of a decade-old effort by conservative groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been focused on corporate immunity for weeks, warning that looming lawsuits related to the coronavirus could crush the nation’s recovery efforts going forward. Republican proposals would limit liability for certain eligible companies that have resumed in-person operations, provided that businesses follow existing safety and health guidelines specific to Covid-19. In remarks on the Senate floor earlier this month, McConnell thanked fellow Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas for “thinking proactively about the issue of legal liability.”
ALEC, a Koch-backed nonprofit that drafts model bills for state legislators, has pushed similar corporate immunity measures on the state level since the early 2000s, part of a broader Republican push to overhaul tort law. At least 10 states have adopted such measures. In the wake of the pandemic, the group is now adapting existing model bills to limit liability in cases specifically related to the coronavirus, Bloomberg reported. In Utah and North Carolina — where ALEC’s past chair is the state House’s chair of appropriations — lawmakers this month passed new business liability protections giving immunity to businesses, property owners, health care providers, and other essential businesses operating during the pandemic.
Business groups in North Carolina, including the state chamber of commerce, had opposed an earlier bipartisan bill to strengthen protections for workers and companies handling workers’ compensation clauses related to the coronavirus, according to Democratic state Rep. Graig Meyer. Under that bill, employers could rebut claims, “but we would give the benefit of the doubt to the worker, not the employer,” Meyer said. At least 25 business groups in the state, including the state chamber of commerce — which lists reforming tort and liability law as a top legislative priority this cycle — put out a statement opposing the measure earlier this month. The state chamber had previously sent an April 29 letter to members of the state House outlining its priorities, including “limiting coronavirus liability concerns.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also been pushing such legislation on the federal level. In a mid-April memo to members, the group said legal action from workers exposed to Covid-19 was “perhaps the largest area of concern for the overall business community,” Roll Call reported, adding, “Businesses say they keep their workplaces safe, but the memo indicates that major corporations privately acknowledge that many so-called essential employees will get sick or die.”
Republicans have said they won’t support the next relief bill if it doesn’t include corporate immunity, while Democrats, despite being critical, have not ruled out supporting it. On a press call in late April, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said McConnell was protecting corporate executives and “wants to make it harder for workers to show up at their jobs and to hold their employers accountable for providing safe working conditions.”
Asked if she was open to McConnell’s push for corporate liability protections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “we have no red lines” but that the “best protection for our workers and for their employers is to follow very good OSHA mandatory guidelines. And we have that in our bill,” referring to elements from the Workers Bill of Rights led by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and California Rep. Ro Khanna related to hazard pay and personal protective equipment. The speaker “did not dismiss the possibility that liability protections would be part of a bipartisan package,” CBS reported.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
The CARES Act, as well as the HEROES Act, the relief bill passed by House Democrats on May 15, have included corporate bailouts and special operating privileges for health insurance, lobbying, defense, and financial industries, as well as a millionaire tax break that several Democrats did not even realize was in the legislation. Progressives have faced criticism, including from The Intercept, for waving those bills through.
Responding to that criticism, Khanna said progressives are limited in their ability to influence legislation because CPC leadership is not in the negotiating room with party leaders, adding that the caucus needed to build better relationships with leaders and committee chairs. “The challenge is that, the progressives can’t vote down bills that are gonna put money in the pockets of working families, but they get all of these negative things attached to them,” Khanna said, adding that the caucus is negotiating for priorities like immediate cash payments and proposals for Medicare for All in the next phase of relief. “The only thing I can think of is to have negotiators who are in the room — that could make a difference,” he said. “It’s tough without seeing the bill. It’s tough without having one of our own in these negotiating conversations.”


theintercept--2020-05-26--At Debate, Progressive Jamaal Bowman Hits Israel Hawk Eliot Engel’s Defense Industry Backing

a primary debate for a New York congressional district that covers parts of the Bronx and Westchester , left-wing insurgent Jamaal Bowman cut right to the issue that ’ s at the center of his challenge to Rep. Eliot Engel : reliance on campaign contributions from corporate interests and the defense industry .
“ He ’ s taken more money from weapons manufacturers than 144 Republicans in the House , ” said Bowman during the debate that took place on Zoom and was aired by News 12 New York on Tuesday .
“ He ’ s completely funded by corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been in Congress since 1989 and has served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee , which he currently chairs , since 2009 .
Throughout his tenure , he has established a reputation as one of the most hawkish Democrats in Congress , particularly with regard to Israel .
His campaign is funded with major contributions from right-wing , pro-Israel groups like NORPAC , as well employee political action committees for the world ’ s largest weapons manufacturers and defense contractors , including Lockheed Martin , Northrup Grumman , and Raytheon .
Defense PACs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campaign this cycle , and more than $ 200,000 over the course of his career .
Pro-Israel groups , meanwhile , have contributed $ 177,685 , and more than $ 1.2 million throughout his three decades in Congress .
He is now facing his first competitive primary challenge since 2000 , and his appearance at the Tuesday debate — which happened after Bowman challenged him to a series of debates — is a sign that he ’ s taking it seriously .
While Engel ’ s campaign is by far the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than $ 1.6 million to Bowman ’ s $ 540,330 ) , Bowman has generated grassroots energy in the district and around the country , and racked up more than 40 endorsements , including from leading national progressive groups like Justice Democrats and the Sunrise Movement .
Bowman , who was a public middle school principal in the district for 10 years before resigning last December to focus on his campaign , is running on new deals for housing and education , and a platform built around “ anti-poverty and anti-racist policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
His platform includes support for Medicare for All , a Green New Deal , and criminal justice reforms , and his campaign is not accepting corporate PAC money .
Progressive Andom Ghebreghiorgis , a former special education teacher , is another challenger who is focused on Engel ’ s hawkishness , tying the nation ’ s massive defense budget to deepening economic insecurity in the district .
Sammy Ravelo and Chris Fink are other challengers who participated in the debate , though their campaigns have not gained much traction .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Joe Crowley , who represented a neighboring New York district but lived outside Washington , D.C. , and was unseated by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2018 .
“ The congressman hasn ’ t set foot in the district since the pandemic hit , ” said Waleed Shahid of Justice Democrats .
“ A big complaint about Crowley in 2018 was that he also didn ’ t live in the district .
That ’ s something that voters care a lot about.
” The incumbent , seemingly realizing that his absence during the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 23 election , lied about it to The Atlantic , claiming falsely that he had been splitting his time between New York and his home in suburban Maryland “ He takes every campaign seriously , ” said Tom Watson , Engel ’ s campaign spokesperson .
“ He ’ s never lost one.
” Democratic Party moves to the left on the U.S. relationship with Israel , Engel remains one of its most steadfast supporters .
Last year , he called on Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar to apologize over remarks on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her comments as a “ vile , anti-Semitic slur , ” and he spoke at an event hosted by the Zionist Organization of America , a right-wing , pro-Israel group led by Mort Klein , whom The Forward reported was the first Jewish leader to meet with the Trump Organization after Donald Trump ’ s inauguration .
This month , 200 student leaders called on the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to censure ZOA and Klein , citing “ a pattern of racist and Islamophobic behavior.
” On the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the international community has recognized have no legal validity , Engel has remained staunchly on the right .
The United Nations has said that the settlements exist in “ flagrant violation ” of international law .
At the very end of Barack Obama ’ s presidency , the United States supported a U.N. resolution criticizing settlements for the first time — a position Trump has since reversed .
Engel said in a 2017 Jerusalem Post interview that he does “ not believe that settlements are a major obstacle to peace , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to label products as coming from a settlement .
In a 2009 interview with The Observer , Engel criticized the Obama administration ’ s policy on Israeli settlements , saying that he didn ’ t think there should be new settlements but that the administration ’ s “ ironclad clamping down on natural expansion of settlements is misguided.
” Throughout his career , Engel has also taken positions more in line with Republicans than Democrats .
In a 1999 interview with Fox News ’ s Sean Hannity , Engel bragged that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crossed party lines and supported George Bush in the House vote in Operation Desert Storm.
” He later voted in support of the 2002 Iraq War authorization , while most House Democrats opposed that measure after voting for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan ( California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the 2001 AUMF ) .
In 2012 , he was one of 79 Democrats who voted against Lee ’ s 2012 amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Afghanistan , which ultimately failed by a 113-to-303 vote .
In 2015 , asked about drawing down troops in Afghanistan , Engel said that both Afghanistan and Iraq still needed “ to have some troop presence there.
” More recently , he initially opposed the Iran Nuclear Deal , which was supported by most Democrats , saying that he thought it could actually strengthen Iran ’ s position and would not succeed in stopping development of a nuclear weapon .
Engel came around to supporting the deal in 2017 .
After Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal , Engel said he would rather keep it “ and sanction the hell out of Iran , ” Roll Call reported .
Over the last couple years , Engel has taken a more progressive approach to foreign policy .
Most notably , he teamed up with California Rep. Ro Khanna last February to lead the passage of a new war powers resolution effectively ending U.S. military intervention on behalf of Saudi Arabia in Yemen ’ s civil war .
Engel had changed his tune from 2016 , when he was one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland and then-Foreign Affairs Asia Subcommittee Chair Brad Sherman of California , to oppose a resolution to ban the sale of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia .
He also joined with most Democrats in opposing Trump ’ s abrupt announcement that the U.S. would withdraw some troops from Syria and Afghanistan in late 2018 , saying , as did many other members , that it needed to be done tactically .
His campaign said his biggest accomplishments as Foreign Affairs Committee chair included helping to lead the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in opposing U.S. involvement and arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition operating in Yemen ’ s civil war , bringing attention to Trump ’ s aid cuts to Central America , and passing his House bill to authorize both future assistance and sanctions in the region .
With powers conferred by his seniority and position as chair , Engel also helped to secure $ 5 billion in coronavirus relief funding for New York hospitals , Watson said .
The campaign also noted Engel ’ s recent work to address corruption and the humanitarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was instrumental in leading 2009 efforts to reevaluate drug policy in the hemisphere .
“ Engel ’ s hawkish record has never been aligned with the values and priorities of our progressive district .
His response to the coronavirus pandemic shows how totally out-of-touch he is with our needs , ” Ghebreghiorgis said in a statement .
“ In our District ’ s most urgent time of need , Rep. Engel is not fighting for us.
” Watson said that Engel has been using his perch on the Foreign Affairs Committee to pursue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ As chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee , Congressman Engel has been very busy , ” Watson said , listing two committee briefings Engel led “ on China and authoritarianism during the pandemic.
” Engel has also recently launched two oversight inquiries dealing with the Trump administration ’ s mishandling of the pandemic , Watson added , saying that Engel was also in frequent conversations with House leadership and other committee chairs .
his district — one of the areas of the country hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic — in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent example of his absenteeism , but it ’ s an issue that goes back more than 10 years .
Like most members of Congress , he maintains a home near Washington , D.C. — but he repeatedly got in trouble with tax officials for claiming a tax credit using his Potomac , Maryland , home as his primary residence .
To qualify for the credit , a person must live in Maryland at least half the year , have a state driver ’ s license , and vote and pay income taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York license and voted and paid taxes there , the New York Times reported in 2009 .
State tax officials revoked Engel ’ s tax credit in 2005 .
Engel contested his primary-residency status and had the credit reinstated , but state officials revoked it again in 2009 .
That same year , the Office of Congressional Ethics investigated Engel and three other representatives for similar violations but ended up dropping the investigations .
Maryland officials revoked his residency status for a third time in 2013 .
Despite his appeals , Engel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulators seriously : He has not claimed the homestead exemption since 2008 , according to Montgomery County property tax records .

Introducing himself during a primary debate for a New York congressional district that covers parts of the Bronx and Westchester, left-wing insurgent Jamaal Bowman cut right to the issue that’s at the center of his challenge to Rep. Eliot Engel: reliance on campaign contributions from corporate interests and the defense industry. “He’s taken more money from weapons manufacturers than 144 Republicans in the House,” said Bowman during the debate that took place on Zoom and was aired by News 12 New York on Tuesday. “He’s completely funded by corporate PACs and big donors.”
Engel has been in Congress since 1989 and has served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which he currently chairs, since 2009. Throughout his tenure, he has established a reputation as one of the most hawkish Democrats in Congress, particularly with regard to Israel. His campaign is funded with major contributions from right-wing, pro-Israel groups like NORPAC, as well employee political action committees for the world’s largest weapons manufacturers and defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and Raytheon. Defense PACs have contributed about $23,000 to Engel’s campaign this cycle, and more than $200,000 over the course of his career. Pro-Israel groups, meanwhile, have contributed $177,685, and more than $1.2 million throughout his three decades in Congress.
He is now facing his first competitive primary challenge since 2000, and his appearance at the Tuesday debate — which happened after Bowman challenged him to a series of debates — is a sign that he’s taking it seriously. While Engel’s campaign is by far the best funded (he’s raised more than $1.6 million to Bowman’s $540,330), Bowman has generated grassroots energy in the district and around the country, and racked up more than 40 endorsements, including from leading national progressive groups like Justice Democrats and the Sunrise Movement.
Bowman, who was a public middle school principal in the district for 10 years before resigning last December to focus on his campaign, is running on new deals for housing and education, and a platform built around “anti-poverty and anti-racist policies,” he told The Intercept last year. His platform includes support for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and criminal justice reforms, and his campaign is not accepting corporate PAC money.
Progressive Andom Ghebreghiorgis, a former special education teacher, is another challenger who is focused on Engel’s hawkishness, tying the nation’s massive defense budget to deepening economic insecurity in the district. Sammy Ravelo and Chris Fink are other challengers who participated in the debate, though their campaigns have not gained much traction.
“A big complaint about Crowley in 2018 was that he also didn’t live in the district. That’s something that voters care a lot about.”
Engel’s challengers are also narrowing in on his absenteeism from the district throughout his decades in Congress. “I ask voters about our current Representative, Eliot Engel, and I hear one word: Absent,” said Bowman in a press release accompanying a new ad this week, pointing specifically to Engel’s absence from New York amid the coronavirus pandemic. “This is the worst crisis since the Great Depression and people don’t know where their Congressman is. After 31 years of the same, it’s time for a change.”
It’s an issue that hurt former Rep. Joe Crowley, who represented a neighboring New York district but lived outside Washington, D.C., and was unseated by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2018.
“The congressman hasn’t set foot in the district since the pandemic hit,” said Waleed Shahid of Justice Democrats. “A big complaint about Crowley in 2018 was that he also didn’t live in the district. That’s something that voters care a lot about.”
The incumbent, seemingly realizing that his absence during the pandemic could be a liability ahead of the June 23 election, lied about it to The Atlantic, claiming falsely that he had been splitting his time between New York and his home in suburban Maryland
“He takes every campaign seriously,” said Tom Watson, Engel’s campaign spokesperson. “He’s never lost one.”
As the Democratic Party moves to the left on the U.S. relationship with Israel, Engel remains one of its most steadfast supporters. Last year, he called on Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar to apologize over remarks on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, describing her comments as a “vile, anti-Semitic slur,” and he spoke at an event hosted by the Zionist Organization of America, a right-wing, pro-Israel group led by Mort Klein, whom The Forward reported was the first Jewish leader to meet with the Trump Organization after Donald Trump’s inauguration. This month, 200 student leaders called on the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to censure ZOA and Klein, citing “a pattern of racist and Islamophobic behavior.”
On the issue of Israeli settlements in Palestine, which the international community has recognized have no legal validity, Engel has remained staunchly on the right. The United Nations has said that the settlements exist in “flagrant violation” of international law. At the very end of Barack Obama’s presidency, the United States supported a U.N. resolution criticizing settlements for the first time — a position Trump has since reversed.
Engel said in a 2017 Jerusalem Post interview that he does “not believe that settlements are a major obstacle to peace,” and co-sponsored a 2015 resolution opposing European Union efforts to label products as coming from a settlement. In a 2009 interview with The Observer, Engel criticized the Obama administration’s policy on Israeli settlements, saying that he didn’t think there should be new settlements but that the administration’s “ironclad clamping down on natural expansion of settlements is misguided.”
Throughout his career, Engel has also taken positions more in line with Republicans than Democrats. In a 1999 interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity, Engel bragged that he was “one of those Democrats that crossed party lines and supported George Bush in the House vote in Operation Desert Storm.”
He later voted in support of the 2002 Iraq War authorization, while most House Democrats opposed that measure after voting for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan (California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the 2001 AUMF). In 2012, he was one of 79 Democrats who voted against Lee’s 2012 amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have withdrawn U.S. troops and contractors from Afghanistan, which ultimately failed by a 113-to-303 vote. In 2015, asked about drawing down troops in Afghanistan, Engel said that both Afghanistan and Iraq still needed “to have some troop presence there.”
More recently, he initially opposed the Iran Nuclear Deal, which was supported by most Democrats, saying that he thought it could actually strengthen Iran’s position and would not succeed in stopping development of a nuclear weapon. Engel came around to supporting the deal in 2017. After Trump’s 2018 decision to withdraw from the deal, Engel said he would rather keep it “and sanction the hell out of Iran,” Roll Call reported. (In a now-deleted 2015 tweet following Engel’s vote against the Iran deal, Watson, Engel’s current spokesperson, wrote that he would “back a primary challenge to my current Congressman, @RepEliotEngel – time for a change.” Asked about the tweet, Watson said, “One vote that I disagreed with doesn’t wipe out a lifetime of progressive votes that Congressman Engel has taken to fight for the people of our district,” noting that Engel later reversed course on the deal.)
Over the last couple years, Engel has taken a more progressive approach to foreign policy. Most notably, he teamed up with California Rep. Ro Khanna last February to lead the passage of a new war powers resolution effectively ending U.S. military intervention on behalf of Saudi Arabia in Yemen’s civil war. Engel had changed his tune from 2016, when he was one of only 16 House Democrats, including current Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland and then-Foreign Affairs Asia Subcommittee Chair Brad Sherman of California, to oppose a resolution to ban the sale of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia.
He also joined with most Democrats in opposing Trump’s abrupt announcement that the U.S. would withdraw some troops from Syria and Afghanistan in late 2018, saying, as did many other members, that it needed to be done tactically.
His campaign said his biggest accomplishments as Foreign Affairs Committee chair included helping to lead the impeachment investigation into Trump, leading the House in opposing U.S. involvement and arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition operating in Yemen’s civil war, bringing attention to Trump’s aid cuts to Central America, and passing his House bill to authorize both future assistance and sanctions in the region. With powers conferred by his seniority and position as chair, Engel also helped to secure $5 billion in coronavirus relief funding for New York hospitals, Watson said.
The campaign also noted Engel’s recent work to address corruption and the humanitarian crisis in Central America, where he was instrumental in leading 2009 efforts to reevaluate drug policy in the hemisphere.
“Engel’s hawkish record has never been aligned with the values and priorities of our progressive district. His response to the coronavirus pandemic shows how totally out-of-touch he is with our needs,” Ghebreghiorgis said in a statement. “In our District’s most urgent time of need, Rep. Engel is not fighting for us.”
Watson said that Engel has been using his perch on the Foreign Affairs Committee to pursue accountability in the wake of the pandemic. “As chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Engel has been very busy,” Watson said, listing two committee briefings Engel led “on China and authoritarianism during the pandemic.” Engel has also recently launched two oversight inquiries dealing with the Trump administration’s mishandling of the pandemic, Watson added, saying that Engel was also in frequent conversations with House leadership and other committee chairs.
Engel’s absence from his district — one of the areas of the country hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic — in recent weeks is perhaps the most egregious recent example of his absenteeism, but it’s an issue that goes back more than 10 years. Like most members of Congress, he maintains a home near Washington, D.C. — but he repeatedly got in trouble with tax officials for claiming a tax credit using his Potomac, Maryland, home as his primary residence. To qualify for the credit, a person must live in Maryland at least half the year, have a state driver’s license, and vote and pay income taxes in the state. Engel had a New York license and voted and paid taxes there, the New York Times reported in 2009.
State tax officials revoked Engel’s tax credit in 2005. Engel contested his primary-residency status and had the credit reinstated, but state officials revoked it again in 2009. That same year, the Office of Congressional Ethics investigated Engel and three other representatives for similar violations but ended up dropping the investigations. Maryland officials revoked his residency status for a third time in 2013.
Despite his appeals, Engel appears to have taken the warnings from regulators seriously: He has not claimed the homestead exemption since 2008, according to Montgomery County property tax records.
Update: May 27, 2020
This article has been updated to include Watson’s 2015 tweet calling for a primary challenge to Engel.


theintercept--2020-05-26--Despite the Hype, Gilead's Remdesivir Will Do Nothing to End the Coronavirus Pandemic

has been heralded as our best hope in fighting the coronavirus pandemic .
Unfortunately , the antiviral drug doesn ’ t seem of much help to patients with Covid-19 , the disease caused by the coronavirus .
And while the company ’ s clever rollout has generated excitement among investors , politicians , and the public , a combination of generic drugs that appears to be more effective in fighting the coronavirus has flown under the radar .
Desperation for the limited supply of remdesivir is so great that Virginia will hold a lottery to determine which of the almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be able to get its several hundred donated doses of the drug .
In Minnesota , state officials have come up with an action plan to allocate their supply of the Covid-19 treatment , which calls for designating “ triage officers ” who will randomly choose among equally eligible patients .
And in Alabama , physicians on a coronavirus task force set up by the governor will determine which patients get remdesivir .
Some hospitals there will receive just a single course of treatment .
Still , Alabama ’ s state health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered his thanks to Gilead , the drug ’ s manufacturer , which donated some 940,000 vials of the drug to the federal government that are being distributed by state health departments .
“ Although the total supply of remdesivir is limited , we are grateful that hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease in Alabama can receive this potentially lifesaving medication , ” said Harris .
It is amid these feelings of scarcity and indebtedness that Gilead is setting the price for its antiviral medicine .
The company , which has already arranged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is expected to begin selling it commercially as soon as June .
And while a 10-day course of the drug , which was developed as a potential Ebola treatment with at least $ 79 million in U.S. government funding , costs only about $ 10 to produce , according to an estimate by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review , its market price is expected to be several hundred times that amount .
Still , price gouging isn ’ t what has many scientists upset about remdesivir .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has boosted hopes and sent Gilead ’ s stock price ( and according to some analysts , the entire stock market ) soaring doesn ’ t seem to do much for coronavirus patients .
“ Remdesivir doesn ’ t work at all , as far as I can tell , or has only a minor effect , ” said William Haseltine , a scientist who has spent decades studying viruses and helped lead the U.S. government response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic .
“ It is comparable to Tamiflu and maybe not even as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to another antiviral drug that has been available by prescription for 20 years and is expected to be sold over the counter in the coming months .
Haseltine , who founded the divisions of biochemical pharmacology and human retrovirology at Harvard University ’ s School of Public Health , pointed out that Gilead hasn ’ t released data showing remdesivir ’ s effect on viral load in people with Covid-19 .
Meanwhile , the only available information on how the drug affects the amount of the coronavirus in patients , a Chinese study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , showed that the drug did not lower the viral load .
“ That ’ s why I call it the fuzzy-wuzzy drug , ” said Haseltine .
“ When the Chinese tried to find the antiviral effect , it wasn ’ t there.
” Instead , the excitement about remdesivir is based largely on a study sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that showed people taking the drug had a faster recovery than those who didn ’ t take it : 11 days on average compared to 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article published on May 22 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed mild improvement in hospitalized patients that took remdesivir , though the drug didn ’ t appear to be of any help to the sickest patients , who needed to receive high-flow oxygen through ventilators or other means .
Nor did the drug significantly improve a patient ’ s chance of surviving Covid-19 .
Nevertheless , at an April 29 Oval Office press conference with President Donald Trump , NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci declared that preliminary results from that trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this virus.
” Since then , remdesivir has been positioned as our savior and Gilead as its benevolent dispenser .
While some patients and their families have spent the past few weeks frantically trying to procure remdesivir , another Covid-19 treatment has been quietly been shown to be more effective .
Although neither option appears to be the much-needed cure for Covid-19 , a three-drug regimen offered a greater reduction in the time it took patients to recover than remdesivir did .
People who took the combination of interferon beta-1b , lopinavir-ritonavir , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as opposed to 12 days for those who didn ’ t take it .
Critically , the treatment has another leg up on Gilead ’ s : It clearly reduced the amount of the coronavirus in patients who took it , according to a study published in The Lancet on May 8 .
Yet so far there has been no stampede of patients demanding the new regimen or lotteries to mete out the doses , which may be due at least in part to the fact that the treatment hasn ’ t been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s worth noting that each of the three drugs in the new combination is generic , or no longer under patent , which means that no company stands to profit significantly from its use .
In contrast , Gilead , a company that had more than $ 22 billion of revenue in 2019 and stands to make money from remdesivir for many years , has been carefully orchestrating the rollout of its new treatment , doling out small , tailored bits of encouraging information to the press and highlighting its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not unusual for pharmaceutical companies to paint their products in a rosy light or go to questionable lengths to maximize profit .
And Gilead , which secured a lucrative orphan drug status for remdesivir in March before reversing course two days later , has faced widespread criticism before — particularly for the exorbitant pricing of its HIV medicine Truvada and hepatitis C drug sofosbuvir , which sells for $ 1,000 a pill .
But during the pandemic , buzz , politics , and greed are playing an even greater role than usual in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the usual scientific process for evaluating their safety and effectiveness is being sped up and curtailed .
Trump , who whipped up excitement about the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine , a drug he has taken himself despite not having Covid-19 , has led the way .
“ You have a president putting intense pressure on companies , regulators , and others in an effort to salvage his reelection , ” said Dr. Michael Carome , director of health research at Public Citizen .
The consequences , Carome warmed , could be deadly .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this hype and the press from the White House , that we ’ ll bring something to market much too quickly and harm a lot of people .
That ’ s the danger.
” Already , the risk of death has been shown to be elevated in Covid-19 patients who take hydroxychloroquine .
According to a study published in The Lancet last week , the approximately 15,000 people who received hydroxychloroquine or the closely related drug chloroquine were roughly twice as likely to die as those who didn ’ t take them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be balanced against their harms .
In the case of remdesivir , those dangers appear to include possible damage to the kidney and liver .
While the risks and benefits are typically clarified with further study , the NIAID called off the remdesivir trial that might have offered more information about both so that the patients who were getting the placebo could take the drug .
In addition to possibly hurting patients , basing decisions about coronavirus therapies and vaccines on hype rather than science also carries the risk of prematurely investing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s possible that we ’ re now investing a lot of effort in pursuing a drug that could lead to less research being done on something that could have been safer or more effective , ” Carome said about what he described as questionable enthusiasm for remdesivir .
After the drug received Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration on May 1 , Public Citizen submitted a FOIA request for the complete data underlying the decision .
The FDA has not provided the group with any documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Meanwhile , the excitement around another coronavirus development seems to be moving faster than the science .
Last week , the biotech company Moderna also moved markets with a vague announcement about the preliminary results of a study .
In this case , the company described initial findings of a trial of its potential coronavirus vaccine as “ triumphant , ” though they were based on eight people from a relatively early stage of research .
“ Most products that pass this phase ultimately fail , ” said Public Citizen ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data , it didn ’ t release it .
“ We need to see the details , but we probably won ’ t. ” The vaccine development process promises to get faster and more vulnerable to conflicts of interest .
On May 14 , Trump announced Operation Warp Speed , the administration ’ s effort to produce and distribute a coronavirus vaccine by the end of the year , despite experts ’ insistence that the process will likely take years .
The operation is being led by former pharmaceutical executive Moncef Slaoui , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million from pharmaceutical and biotech firms since 2016 .
Slaoui was also holding 155,000 shares of Moderna , whose value increased by more than $ 2 million after the good news about its vaccine hit the airwaves .
In an unusual arrangement , the compensation for his government work is only $ 1 and is exempt from the usual federal disclosure and conflict-of-interest laws .
After Sen. Elizabeth Warren called attention to his conflict of interest , Slaoui divested his shares in Moderna and announced that he would donate to cancer research the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he joined Operation Warp Speed .
While vaccination may be the best hope to bring an end to the pandemic as quickly as possible , mistakes made because of haste or conflicts of interest could be devastating .
Because the plan is to vaccinate some 1 billion people worldwide , even infrequent side effects could manifest on a huge scale .
The wrong vaccines could even spread disease .
“ They could give you a nasty cold that you could give to unvaccinated people , ” said Haseltine .
The current power of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcomes more likely .
“ I fear that the warp speed group will distort our regulatory process and that the administration will put its thumb on the scale to favor an outcome regardless of the cost to human life , ” said Haseltine .
“ People think warp means very fast , but warp also means distorting .
”

Gilead Sciences’ remdesivir has been heralded as our best hope in fighting the coronavirus pandemic. Unfortunately, the antiviral drug doesn’t seem of much help to patients with Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. And while the company’s clever rollout has generated excitement among investors, politicians, and the public, a combination of generic drugs that appears to be more effective in fighting the coronavirus has flown under the radar.
Desperation for the limited supply of remdesivir is so great that Virginia will hold a lottery to determine which of the almost 1,500 severely ill patients in the state will be able to get its several hundred donated doses of the drug. In Minnesota, state officials have come up with an action plan to allocate their supply of the Covid-19 treatment, which calls for designating “triage officers” who will randomly choose among equally eligible patients. And in Alabama, physicians on a coronavirus task force set up by the governor will determine which patients get remdesivir.
Some hospitals there will receive just a single course of treatment. Still, Alabama’s state health officer, Dr. Scott Harris, recently offered his thanks to Gilead, the drug’s manufacturer, which donated some 940,000 vials of the drug to the federal government that are being distributed by state health departments. “Although the total supply of remdesivir is limited, we are grateful that hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease in Alabama can receive this potentially lifesaving medication,” said Harris.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
It is amid these feelings of scarcity and indebtedness that Gilead is setting the price for its antiviral medicine. The company, which has already arranged for distribution of remdesivir in 127 countries, is expected to begin selling it commercially as soon as June. And while a 10-day course of the drug, which was developed as a potential Ebola treatment with at least $79 million in U.S. government funding, costs only about $10 to produce, according to an estimate by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, its market price is expected to be several hundred times that amount.
Still, price gouging isn’t what has many scientists upset about remdesivir. It’s the fact that the coronavirus drug that has boosted hopes and sent Gilead’s stock price (and according to some analysts, the entire stock market) soaring doesn’t seem to do much for coronavirus patients.
“Remdesivir doesn’t work at all, as far as I can tell, or has only a minor effect,” said William Haseltine, a scientist who has spent decades studying viruses and helped lead the U.S. government response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. “It is comparable to Tamiflu and maybe not even as good,” Haseltine added, referring to another antiviral drug that has been available by prescription for 20 years and is expected to be sold over the counter in the coming months.
Haseltine, who founded the divisions of biochemical pharmacology and human retrovirology at Harvard University’s School of Public Health, pointed out that Gilead hasn’t released data showing remdesivir’s effect on viral load in people with Covid-19. Meanwhile, the only available information on how the drug affects the amount of the coronavirus in patients, a Chinese study of the drug published in The Lancet, showed that the drug did not lower the viral load.
“That’s why I call it the fuzzy-wuzzy drug,” said Haseltine. “When the Chinese tried to find the antiviral effect, it wasn’t there.”
Instead, the excitement about remdesivir is based largely on a study sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that showed people taking the drug had a faster recovery than those who didn’t take it: 11 days on average compared to 15 for those taking a placebo. An article published on May 22 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed mild improvement in hospitalized patients that took remdesivir, though the drug didn’t appear to be of any help to the sickest patients, who needed to receive high-flow oxygen through ventilators or other means. Nor did the drug significantly improve a patient’s chance of surviving Covid-19.
Nevertheless, at an April 29 Oval Office press conference with President Donald Trump, NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci declared that preliminary results from that trial proved that “a drug can block this virus.” Since then, remdesivir has been positioned as our savior and Gilead as its benevolent dispenser.
While some patients and their families have spent the past few weeks frantically trying to procure remdesivir, another Covid-19 treatment has been quietly been shown to be more effective. Although neither option appears to be the much-needed cure for Covid-19, a three-drug regimen offered a greater reduction in the time it took patients to recover than remdesivir did. People who took the combination of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir-ritonavir, and ribavirin got better in seven days as opposed to 12 days for those who didn’t take it. Critically, the treatment has another leg up on Gilead’s: It clearly reduced the amount of the coronavirus in patients who took it, according to a study published in The Lancet on May 8.
Yet so far there has been no stampede of patients demanding the new regimen or lotteries to mete out the doses, which may be due at least in part to the fact that the treatment hasn’t been the subject of a major marketing campaign. It’s worth noting that each of the three drugs in the new combination is generic, or no longer under patent, which means that no company stands to profit significantly from its use.
In contrast, Gilead, a company that had more than $22 billion of revenue in 2019 and stands to make money from remdesivir for many years, has been carefully orchestrating the rollout of its new treatment, doling out small, tailored bits of encouraging information to the press and highlighting its compassionate use program.
It’s not unusual for pharmaceutical companies to paint their products in a rosy light or go to questionable lengths to maximize profit. And Gilead, which secured a lucrative orphan drug status for remdesivir in March before reversing course two days later, has faced widespread criticism before — particularly for the exorbitant pricing of its HIV medicine Truvada and hepatitis C drug sofosbuvir, which sells for $1,000 a pill.
But during the pandemic, buzz, politics, and greed are playing an even greater role than usual in determining which drugs are widely used while the usual scientific process for evaluating their safety and effectiveness is being sped up and curtailed. Trump, who whipped up excitement about the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, a drug he has taken himself despite not having Covid-19, has led the way.
“You have a president putting intense pressure on companies, regulators, and others in an effort to salvage his reelection,” said Dr. Michael Carome, director of health research at Public Citizen. The consequences, Carome warmed, could be deadly. “My great worry is that with all this hype and the press from the White House, that we’ll bring something to market much too quickly and harm a lot of people. That’s the danger.”
Already, the risk of death has been shown to be elevated in Covid-19 patients who take hydroxychloroquine. According to a study published in The Lancet last week, the approximately 15,000 people who received hydroxychloroquine or the closely related drug chloroquine were roughly twice as likely to die as those who didn’t take them.
The benefits of all drugs have to be balanced against their harms. In the case of remdesivir, those dangers appear to include possible damage to the kidney and liver. While the risks and benefits are typically clarified with further study, the NIAID called off the remdesivir trial that might have offered more information about both so that the patients who were getting the placebo could take the drug.
In addition to possibly hurting patients, basing decisions about coronavirus therapies and vaccines on hype rather than science also carries the risk of prematurely investing in one product at the expense of another. “It’s possible that we’re now investing a lot of effort in pursuing a drug that could lead to less research being done on something that could have been safer or more effective,” Carome said about what he described as questionable enthusiasm for remdesivir. After the drug received Emergency Use Authorization from the Food and Drug Administration on May 1, Public Citizen submitted a FOIA request for the complete data underlying the decision. The FDA has not provided the group with any documents and usually treats such data as proprietary.
Meanwhile, the excitement around another coronavirus development seems to be moving faster than the science. Last week, the biotech company Moderna also moved markets with a vague announcement about the preliminary results of a study. In this case, the company described initial findings of a trial of its potential coronavirus vaccine as “triumphant,” though they were based on eight people from a relatively early stage of research.
“Most products that pass this phase ultimately fail,” said Public Citizen’s Carome. While the company summarized its data, it didn’t release it. “We need to see the details, but we probably won’t.”
Share Your Coronavirus Story Click here to learn about contacting a reporter securely, or email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com
The vaccine development process promises to get faster and more vulnerable to conflicts of interest. On May 14, Trump announced Operation Warp Speed, the administration’s effort to produce and distribute a coronavirus vaccine by the end of the year, despite experts’ insistence that the process will likely take years. The operation is being led by former pharmaceutical executive Moncef Slaoui, who has received more than $13.5 million from pharmaceutical and biotech firms since 2016. Slaoui was also holding 155,000 shares of Moderna, whose value increased by more than $2 million after the good news about its vaccine hit the airwaves. In an unusual arrangement, the compensation for his government work is only $1 and is exempt from the usual federal disclosure and conflict-of-interest laws. After Sen. Elizabeth Warren called attention to his conflict of interest, Slaoui divested his shares in Moderna and announced that he would donate to cancer research the money he made off their increase after he joined Operation Warp Speed.
While vaccination may be the best hope to bring an end to the pandemic as quickly as possible, mistakes made because of haste or conflicts of interest could be devastating. Because the plan is to vaccinate some 1 billion people worldwide, even infrequent side effects could manifest on a huge scale. The wrong vaccines could even spread disease. “They could give you a nasty cold that you could give to unvaccinated people,” said Haseltine.
The current power of politics and greed over science make such outcomes more likely. “I fear that the warp speed group will distort our regulatory process and that the administration will put its thumb on the scale to favor an outcome regardless of the cost to human life,” said Haseltine. “People think warp means very fast, but warp also means distorting.”