"‘The Crown’ stokes an uproar over fact vs. entertainment" by Mark Landler New York Times, November 27, 2020
LONDON — On a Saturday night in July 1986, a band of bureaucrats in raincoats — one contingent from Buckingham Palace, the other from 10 Downing St. — converged on a newsstand in a train station to snap up The Sunday Times, fresh off the presses with a bombshell headline: “Queen Dismayed by ‘Uncaring’ Thatcher.”
It’s a dramatic flourish from the latest season of the “The Crown” — except, according to Andrew Neil, the paper’s editor at the time, it never happened. “Nonsense,” he said. “All first editions are delivered to both” the palace and the prime minister’s residence, making a late-night dash to buy the paper superfluous.
Neil, who published the famous scoop about tensions between Queen Elizabeth II and Margaret Thatcher, said the invented scene had allowed Peter Morgan, creator of the hugely popular Netflix series about the British royal family, to depict 1980s London as a place of “squalor and vagabonds.”
Through four vivid seasons of “The Crown,” Morgan has never denied taking artistic license with the saga of the royals, playing out their private joys and sorrows against the pageant of 20th-century British history, yet “The Crown” is now colliding with the people who wrote the first draft of that history.
That has spun up a tempest in the British news media, even among those who ordinarily profess not to care much about the monarchy. Newspapers and television programs have been full of starchy commentary about how “The Crown” distorts history in its account of the turbulent decade in which Prince Charles married Lady Diana Spencer and Thatcher wrought a free-market revolution in British society.
The objections range from the personal (the queen’s brittle, coldhearted treatment of her emotionally fragile daughter-in-law, which the critics claim is unfair) to the political (the show’s portrait of Thatcher-era Britain as a right-wing dystopia in the grip of a zealous leader who dares to lecture her sovereign during their weekly audiences). Historians said that is utterly inconceivable.
“There has been such a reaction because Peter Morgan is now writing about events many of us lived through and some of us were at the center of,” said Neil, who edited The Sunday Times from 1983 to 1994.
Neil, who went on to be a broadcaster and publisher, is no reflexive defender of the royal family. Suspicious of Britain’s class system, he said he had sympathies for the republican movement in the 1980s. But he grew to admire how the queen modernized the monarchy after the upheaval of those years and has been critical of renegade royals like Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan.
The events involving Neil did happen: The queen became frustrated with Thatcher when she refused to join the 48 other members of the Commonwealth in backing sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa. This highly unusual clash spilled into public when The Sunday Times published its front-page report, attributed to palace officials, which said the royal family viewed Thatcher as “uncaring, confrontational and socially divisive,” but Neil disputed several elements of “The Crown’s” retelling, not least that Buckingham Palace made the queen’s press secretary, Michael Shea, the scapegoat for the incident. The show depicts his being fired for having leaked the story, even though it suggests that he did so at the queen’s behest. There is no evidence of this, Neil said, but it fits Morgan’s “left-wing agenda.”
“He gets to depict Thatcher as pretty much an ally of apartheid, while the queen is the sort of person who junks loyal flunkies when things go wrong, even when they are just doing her bidding,” Neil said.
The brickbats are not just from the right.
Simon Jenkins, a columnist for the left-leaning Guardian, regards members of the royal family as artifacts of celebrity culture irrelevant to a country grappling with real-world challenges like Brexit. “They are practically defunct,” he said. “They are like anthropomorphized figures of a head of state,” yet he, too, is angered by how “The Crown” portrayed the events of the 1980s, when, as political editor of The Economist, he wrote about how Charles had been drawn to the now-defunct Social Democratic Party. (He based the report on an off-the-record interview with the prince.) Jenkins said that because this season of the “The Crown” deals with contemporary history and people who are still alive, its liberties with the facts are less a case of artistic license than an example of “fake news.”
“I find it offensive when people dump standards of veracity in relating contemporary history,” Jenkins said. “If I did that as a journalist, I’d be hauled up before the press council, while these people get prizes.”
Like others, Jenkins pointed to an episode-by-episode analysis by Hugo Vickers, a royal historian, which found whoppers large and small in the series and has become Exhibit A for its prevarications.
Not everybody faults Morgan for filling in the missing pieces with conjured scenes, even if he jumbles the facts in the process. (Thatcher’s son, Mark, was not lost in the desert during the Paris-Dakar auto rally just as his mother was preparing to go to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands; hostilities broke out a few months after he was found.)
Charles Moore, a former editor of The Daily Telegraph who wrote a three-volume biography of Thatcher, praised Gillian Anderson’s performance as the prime minister, putting it on a par with Meryl Streep’s Oscar-winning turn in the 2011 film “The Iron Lady.” Even a much-criticized episode in which a snobbish queen plays host to a fish-out-of-water prime minister and her husband, Denis, at Balmoral Castle in Scotland, struck him as having “the ring of truth,” despite some embellishments.
“The Crown,” Moore said, is trying to have it both ways, selling itself to audiences as a true story while clearing out the extraneous debris of facts that would gum up its dramatic narrative. “There is this thing called the tyranny of fact,” he said, “but as we get to modern times, it gets harder to avoid.”
Morgan declined to respond to the criticisms, though he told The New York Times this month that he was mindful that this season would be held to closer scrutiny. The producers mined the copious news reports of the period as well as biographies of Charles and Diana, which contained firsthand accounts of their misbegotten union.
What is depicted in the family’s private moments, however, is “an act of creative imagination,” Morgan has said.
Behind the frustration with “The Crown” is a recognition that, right or wrong, its version of the royal family is likely to serve as the go-to narrative for a generation of viewers, particularly young ones, who do not remember the 1980s, let alone the more distant events covered in earlier seasons.
“They’ll watch it and think this is the way it was,” said Dickie Arbiter, who served as a press secretary to the queen from 1988 to 2000. He took issue with parts of the plot, including a scene in which aides to Charles question Diana about whether she is mentally stable enough to travel alone to New York City.
“I was actually at that meeting,” Arbiter said. “No courtier would ever say that in a million years.”
The biggest problem, said Penny Junor, who has written biographies of Charles, Diana and Thatcher, is that “The Crown” is a prodigiously effective piece of entertainment. That, she said, poses a particular threat to Charles, who arguably comes off worst in the series and who is likely to ascend the throne before memories of his grim, hunched portrayal have completely faded.
“It is wonderful television,” Junor said. “It is beautifully acted. The mannerisms are perfect, but it is fiction, and it is very destructive.”
The British government said Friday it has formally asked the country’s medicines regulator to assess whether a coronavirus vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University should be authorized for use. Oxford and AstraZeneca reported Monday that their vaccine appeared to be 62% effective in people who received two doses, and 90% effective when volunteers were given a half dose followed by a full dose. They did not mention at the time, but later acknowledged, that a manufacturing issue had resulted in “a half dose of the vaccine being administered as the first dose” to some participants. Some scientists have expressed concerns about gaps in the data and the way the results were reported. Only 2,741 people received the half dose, making it hard to know if the effectiveness seen in the group is real or a statistical quirk. A total of 8,895 people received two full doses. Eleanor Riley, professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at the University of Edinburgh, said Oxford and AstraZeneca needed to answer questions about their results “clearly and completely.” “Trust is at a premium when it comes to vaccines and we must not do anything that might in any way undermine that trust,” she said. Full results are due to be published in medical journal The Lancet, though no date has been given.
Limited supply at first, or so we are told:
"Astra-Oxford vaccine works but doses could be in short supply" by Stephanie Baker and James Paton Bloomberg, November 23, 2020
Let the scramble for doses begin.
AstraZeneca PLC and the University of Oxford followed Moderna Inc. and Pfizer Inc. in announcing that their COVID-19 vaccine appears to work. Though the UK partners’ data don’t look quite as sparkling, regulators could clear any of the shots for emergency use in coming weeks.
The world needs as many vaccines as possible to end the pandemic, AstraZeneca chief executive Pascal Soriot said. Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca “don’t have enough production capacity for the world,” he said. “There’s no competition, really.”
Even if it doesn't work, has all sorts of side effects, alters your DNA and actually infects you with the virus, and will still require masks and distance -- all for a virus with a 99.98% survival rate and one you don't even know you have until a false positive is cycled up through a faulty and flawed test.
WTF?
Pfizer and Moderna may have an initial advantage in dealing with the manufacturing challenges, as their novel messenger RNA technology can be scaled up relatively simply. The US company has said it can churn out 50 million doses of the shot it has developed with BioNTech SE by the end of the year. Moderna has said it can make about 20 million doses for the United States by January.
“We’ve always known we were going to need multiple vaccines for the world, because no one developer, no one manufacturer, is going to be able to produce enough to cover everywhere,” said Sarah Gilbert, the Oxford professor who led development of the vaccine. “We have to think about vaccinating communities, populations, reducing transmission within those populations, so that we really get on top of this pandemic.”
Oxford is in bed with Gate$.
AstraZeneca has fallen behind schedule in its UK production targets. It expects to have 4 million doses available in vials for the country by the end of the year, far fewer than the 30 million previously slated to be ready by September.
In total, the company says it will have 20 million doses of bulk substance for the United Kingdom by the end of 2020 but those shots need to be filled into vials. By the end of the first quarter, it will have 300 million finished doses available worldwide, said Pam Cheng, head of global operations.
More will be on tap if AstraZeneca wins approval for a reduced dosing regime of a half shot followed by a regular one, which was more effective than a full two-shot dosage in the results published Monday.
“These things are never easy,” said Matthew Duchars, the CEO of the UK government-backed Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre, or VMIC, which has helped with production. “It’s not the case of flicking the switch and being able to manufacture straight out of the gate.”
Getting production going for the AstraZeneca shot has taken months of preparation and test runs. It uses a harmless common cold virus to deliver the spike protein of the coronavirus to generate an immune response.
That's because the common cold is a coronavirus.
They have weaponized cold and flu season and called it COVID!
Vaccines using the technology have never been produced at this scale. The longest part of the manufacturing process involves growing cells in large stainless-steel vessels and then adding in the seed stock of the vaccine, which experts say takes a minimum of three to four weeks. The bulk substance then needs to be filled into vials and checked by regulators, taking additional time.
With the process used by Astra, there are “lots of elements that go into it,” said Rasmus Bech Hansen, CEO of London-based research firm Airfinity Ltd. “It’s like cooking. You are cooking the same soup every night and it has to taste exactly the same.”
They are cooking up something, all right, and we aren't getting a list of the experimental ingredients because it is proprietary information.
The VMIC, conceived in the wake of the Ebola outbreak more than four years ago, is using UK government funding to build a new facility south of Oxford to provide surge capacity to make vaccines to fight pandemics. When completed toward the end of next year, it will be able to manufacture 70 million doses of vaccines in as little as four months.
It's going to be NEVER-ENDING, folks, for the u$ual rea$ons as well as more nefarious designs, and the British people know it. The Globe may not cover it, but the Brits and the Germans are on the vanguard of protests against the dystopian NWO.
In the meantime, experts from the center worked with a gene therapy company called Oxford Biomedica PLC to help set up production lines for the AstraZeneca shot at its facility in Oxford. VMIC used 38 million pounds ($51 million) in government funding to buy and install 1,000-liter (220-gallon) bioreactors to brew the cells there, but it has taken time to get up and running.
The government works for the pharmaceuticals, and is NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR HEALTH AT ALL!
Oxford Biomedica began manufacturing in one suite during the summer and only got approval from British regulators to begin producing the vaccines at two additional manufacturing lines in September and October.
“The speed of the rollout is determined by the speed of the manufacture,” Health Secretary Matt Hancock said in an interview on BBC radio. “The bulk of the rollout will be in the new year.”
Outside the UK, production is ramping up, and some countries may build up stocks more rapidly. The Serum Institute of India, the world’s largest producer of vaccines, is aiming to have 100 million doses ready by December. That initial amount will go to India, according to Serum’s chief executive Adar Poonawalla. It has already produced 40 million doses and next year plans to split supplies between India and the COVAX initiative to buy shots for poor nations.
Related:
"The vaccines alliance GAVI says it has agreed to a deal with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the world’s biggest vaccine producer, India’s Serum Institute, to speed the manufacturing and delivery of up to 100 million doses of coronavirus vaccines to developing countries in 2021. The collaboration will give upfront capital to the Serum Institute so that once any effective COVID-19 vaccine is licensed, the company can mass produce the shots at scale, as early as the first half of 2021. In a statement on Friday, GAVI CEO Dr. Seth Berkley said the deal was aimed at making sure rich countries would not be the only ones with access to coronavirus vaccines. Numerous countries including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and the US have already signed multiple deals with pharmaceuticals for access to COVID-19 vaccines before they have been even licensed. Activists warn that rich countries are essentially hoarding limited vaccine supplies and that few will be left for the developing world. The Serum Institute says the vaccine candidates from AstraZeneca and Novovax, will be available for about $3 a dose, a price subsidized by investment from partners including the Gates Foundation. GAVI is heading an international plan to buy vaccines for low and middle income countries and is aiming to raise $2 billion for the effort."Looks like the end is in $ight for India, and they should know better based on past experience.
Also see:
You do $ee who is at the center of it all, right?
In the United States, AstraZeneca struck a manufacturing deal with Emergent BioSolutions after it secured a $1.2 billion deal with the White House-led Operation Warp Speed for 300 million doses, but it began production only in mid-September. Emergent executives told Bloomberg News batches can take anywhere between 3½ and 5 months to produce from start to finish, including quality-control checks on the filled vials.
The way this thing is moving leads one to believe this stuff was on the shelf and ready to go BEFORE the plannedemic, with this propaganda from the pre$$ meant to back-foot you.
Pall Corp. has helped vaccine manufacturers set up production by providing equipment such as bioreactors, tubing, and single-use bags to brew cells. Clive Glover, Pall’s director of strategy, said one of the logistical challenges facing manufacturers is the sterile handling of thousands of liters of liquids as they try to ramp up to millions of doses. Pall is part of a UK consortium formed in the spring that aimed to make 1 million doses for the United Kingdom by September.
“The initial portion of the scale-up actually went very successfully,” he said.
Astra could struggle to compete with manufacturing giants such as Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, and Merck & Co., which “know how to scale vaccines” in a big way, according to Airfinity’s chief, but if production can get up to speed, AstraZeneca could play a key role in ending the global pandemic. It signed multiple manufacturing deals with companies and governments ranging from Japan to Russia to produce more than 3 billion doses.
The AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine is much easier to store and distribute, because it only needs to be kept chilled, while the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines need to be frozen.
AstraZeneca could also offer one of the cheapest COVID vaccines, at $4 to $5 per dose, according to the company. For poor countries, it may become the shot of choice.
You get what you pay for, right?
STAT skank Helen Branswell tells us how they can make the best use of them, and.....
"if they’re not careful, they could fail to take full advantage of the opportunity scientists and governments, pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic foundations have created for us as vaccine shipments that have been pre-positioned because “there are things that the armed forces do amazingly well, and logistics is one of them, and logistics is a big challenge for this vaccination program,” the military-led Operation Warp Speed that, over time, will be graded and color-coded based on their level of efficiency.
The fact that these things are under a military and not health command is cause for pause and concern.
Make no mistake: People in public health are eager to administer Covid-19 vaccines as quickly and efficiently as possible, but Heidi Larson, director of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Larson believes more needs to be done to encourage people to want to be vaccinated when their time comes to get in line. Chelsea Clinton, who works on vaccine acceptance issues at the Clinton Foundation, agreed with Larson, saying during the recent STAT Summit that it is long past time the work to generate demand for the vaccines begins. “While what our scientists have done is extraordinary, we need to have a commensurate effort … to build public demand for an eventual and hopefully very soon-to-be Covid vaccine or vaccines, and none of that work has happened,” she said. Trusted public figures, leaders in communities of color, and notable scientists need to be enlisted to the task, Clinton said. She added one name to the roster that might seem unexpected from her: Trump, saying the president and his family could play a key role in persuading his supporters to get vaccinated.
Look who STAT is in bed with: the Clinton crime family and all the corruption that flows from it.
Now THAT is sickening!
As for the "trusted shills, forget it!
If nothing else, the pimping of the poke will discourage it.
In an ideal world, everyone would want to be vaccinated against Covid and there’d be enough vaccine to do that job. We don’t live in that world.
Thank God, and that's the mindset of the sick pharmaceutical shills you find in the Globe.
Of course, they will all be getting the saline solution in a retractable needle cartridge.
Kate O’Brien, director of the WHO’s immunization, vaccines, and biologics program, said, “Coronavirus vaccines and coronavirus itself will be the career of thousands of scientists. Absolutely.”
Who would want to ruin that, huh?
The more un$crupulou$ might even lie to promote such a thing.
Marc Lipsitch, an infectious diseases epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, agreed, saying
vaccines that at least
prevent infections in the elderly from turning into life-threatening illnesses would make a major difference. “I’m
of the opinion that if we vaccinate the very old and the people with significant comorbidities” — medical conditions — “that would be the
quickest way to get
back towards a
more normal life,” Lipsitch said, suggesting that might require as little as a third or a half of the population — “if we vaccinate the right third or a half.” Lipsitch said he’d
add teachers to his
vaccine priority list, because of how much stress closing schools places on families and society as a whole. Companies developing vaccines of any kind are reluctant to test them in pregnant people, because they don’t want to put them or their fetuses at risk. In the
case of Covid-19, it is impossible to kick the can down the road."
Someone please kick him in the ass, the lying $cumbag.
Their own reports and recommendations the last few days say the vaccines won't prevent a thing even with 95% effectiveness, and flu vaccines are often less than 50% effective.
One wonders what makes such liars as Lipstick(!).