the election. ♪ >> time for a of the top stories. a building in gaza is latest to be hit by an israeli airstrike. the air force is calming it for a third day. at least 67 palestinians have been killed, including 16 children. the armed wing of hamas has launched more rockets at israel, saying it is in response to the killing of several hamas commanders. israeli media saying a six-year-old in one city has died.

that takes the total number of deaths to six. 1500 rockets have been launched from gaza since tuesday. president biden says he is optimistic that violence will not last much longer. we have this update from gaza. reporter: this is the second biggest wave of rockets fired from gaza into israel, the longer-range rockets. before the rkets of one brigade, the israelis carried out airstrikes that hit one of the internal security bases in gaza city, which is completely destroyed. so, still, there is no end positive indication that any -- any positive indication a cease-fire could be, soon.

>> tension on the streets of neighborhoods and towns per their have been right -- towns. demonstrations in support of palestinians in the occupied territory continue. these are scenes from jordan, where people rallied outside the israeli embassy. they are calling for an end to the peace treaty with israel. in greece, a fight with protesters between the police and protesters. hundreds of demonstrators chanted and burned an israeli flag, before being dispersed by police with tear gas. those are the headlines. the news continues on "al jazeera." bye for now. thanks for watching. ♪

>>, m steve clemons. his joke -- i and steve clemons. his joe biden inside the great, will it get vaccines to people around the world, pronto? let's get to the bottom line. ♪ steve: when he was running for president last year, joe biden promised to waive ip protections for coronavirus vaccines within through his support behind the effort of the wto to make it happen, touching off a political firestorm at home. they understand the pandemic doesn't respect borders, and they need help, and waving intellectual property to solve it is a big effort, so they

wonder why president biden would with pulled the rug out from beneath the makers of the vaccines. ththey say there are ways to do it without giving away ip protections. to trade protectionist, it is blasphemy to give medical secrets to others. it is not a done deal. many rich countries oppose the idea. is it a symbolic move, and what with the consequences be? today, two distinct perspectives. we will be joined by the chief u.s. correspondent of the financial times, but first, we talked to the president and ceo of the world's biggest biotech lobby, the biotechnology innovation organization. before that, she was a top executive at johnson & johnson. i think a lot of people are feeling pain and frustration as they see so many suffered with

the ravages of covid. in their minds, big pharma firms , which they see us making lots of money are sitting on property rights that if extended could help relieve that pain, suffering, and death around the world. tell me how you feel about that. michelle: let's start with the end goal. everyone shares the goal of getting as many vaccines out to every corner of the world to every person as soon as possible. we are in a race against covid variants, so it is incredibly important everybody get vaccinated, but do it quickly. no one is safe until we are all safe. this is uniformly shared amongst companies and public health professionals around the globe. we differ as to the way to get that done. what stands in the way now between shots in more arms is

not intellectual property. many companies have licensed technology to manufacturers around the world. i was recently in a conversation with one person who said what we needed is not more access. we have lots of the leading vaccine manufacturers licensing their technology to indian manufacturers, but we can't get our hands on the raw materials, because of things like the defense protection act, which has stopped a lot of the raw materials needed for vaccines at the u.s. border, preventing him from being exported, and the fact that u.s. has demanded that vaccine manufacturers reserve their supplies for the u.s. population first. these are well-meaning policies. you can understand the incentives behind them and logic, but now that we are facing a global crisis, it is more important to share. that is why bio has put together

proposals that would get us to the destination called sharing to make sure we are sharing. steve: i would like to play a clip from the director general of the who, who has commented on this. i want to ask about the ecosystem that has led to the generation of these vaccines, and why he has the perspective he does. let's listen. >> we are in an unprecedented crisis that requires unprecedented action. cases are at a record high, almost 100,000 people are dying globally each week, and we have a chronic vaccine crisis. the wto provisions for

intellectual property waivers were designed precisely for a situation like this. ste: michelle, i know the who director knows we have been through this time where there has been a miraculous set of vaccine options developed in a short time, and we are not through this tunnel. what do you think is going on here? you suggested share. others have suggested a global marshall plan that would deploy this that would not touch ip. why are we looking at ip as the conveyor of vaccines, as he describes it, that some people argue could undermine that innovative ecosystem that has created all these options? michelle: let's start with this premise that these are unprecedented times that call for unprecedented action. that is what we have seen from the manufacturers and innovators.

in the first 13 months, there were 960 development and research programs targeted to prevent covid or stop covid. we have seen the emergence of therapeutics, vaccines. we talked about the top 10 that have been approved or close to being approved, but there are over 190 covid vaccines in development. that robust response to any public health emergency is exactly what we want to see. we don't want to do anything to undermine that response by shaking confidence in the ip system that has served us so well. we need to make sure we are handling this pandemic without undermining our ability to respond to the next pandemic, because we never know when that will come. there is that. second, i understand his frustration, because he has been trying to get global leaders to take part in covax,

who-supported effort to universally come around the globe to take the resources and use them to purchase vaccines at low-cost, and distribute them around the globe so the poorest countries receive covid vaccines for free. and yet, which he has seen is a lack of response. our countries have not stepped up to the plate. the biden administration took a big step by reversing the previous administration stance and pledging to participate in covax. the u.s. had been absent from the table up to him. we only paid half of our financial commitment to covax, so only $2 billion of the $4 billion the u.s. has pledged to help purchase vaccines, so we need to take part in our global commitment and step up to the table and help all of the countries that are in a position to help distribute vaccines around the globe.

i think with the who is doing is calling her bluff, saying if this is something you care about and it is important, did not you have left us no choice to talk about ip waivers, because we tried to bring everyone to the table and have failed. steve: maybe it is a negotiating tactic. he worked at research labs and johnson & johnson, and a lot of people will know astrazeneca, johnson & johnson, pfizer with the big firms who see and feel that these firms are making lots of money in the middle of this crisis and there is something that doesn't feel right about that. i know that bio is comprised of small firms not receiving government money and making investments. i would like to tell that story. i think it has been neglected in the discussion, and why would they do what they are doing if they did not have a property

right element and moving intellectual assets to solve this crisis? michelle: right. let's talk about some of the largest companies in what they have done. johnson & johnson has publicly pledged they will sell their vaccine at cost. pfizer will sell their vaccine at not-for-profit rates, so you have the largest companies in our ecosystem stepping forward and saying we have the capacity to help, then we will, but the small companies of the lifeblood of our innovation, even pfizer has partnered with the small company to produce their vaccine , and we have companies like madonna, who were in credit -- moderna, who were incredibly small. of those projects i talked about , 90% of our global response has come from our smallest technology companies. 50% of those companies are u.s.-based, because the u.s. has

the investment ecosystem to drive that response. more covid research has been done in the u.s. than in the rest of the world combined because of our robust ecosystem that matches innovators to investors. that is precisely because we have the ability to say that the caret for these efforts -- c arrot for these efforts is to make your money back, even though nine out of 10 programs fail. the odds are against you, but we are saying the deck is stacked against you if we take intellectual property out of the occasion. -- equation. steve: what happens if a covid 20 comes down the pipe, excess except -- a successor to the pathogen, if something like intellectual property waivers protocol gets established? michelle: well, if we could turn

the clock back and imagine what it would have looked like. when we started 190 covid vaccine projects, there was no way to predict which would be successful. some of the front runners we hoped would work actually did not pan out to be successful, so we need to have a huge set of bets placed if we have any hope to combat a pandemic, it was the next one comes, i don't want the investors that made those 190 ccine research in developing programs possible to say, you know, actually, i don't want to take that bet. i don't think it is worth my investment. it's not just scientists being committed to find solutions and better companies being committed to the science and innovation. it is also the confidence of investors, so we need to maintain that confidence if we want an ability to respond

further down the line. we have from this experiment already. europe has eroded their biotechnology ecosystem over the last 30 years or 40 years, and we had seen they have not generated as much response to covid as u.s. companies, so why would we repeat that mistake? steve: i would us for to take your professional medical hat off and talk as a politician, a global politician engaged in foreign affairs. my next guests, when this was treated, he said this will be great for america's brand in the world, sending a signal that america is back and reengaged, and after years of seeing that brand sink into a narcissistic position with disregard for that. his point is that it sends a signal about american concern

for the rest of the world, like nothing else can do. i'd like to hear your thoughts about that, and is there an alternative where america could send a powerful message to the world that it cares for the world and still have this question about property rights? michelle: if america was truly back in truly expressed their caring for the world, we would be fully funding covax, leading and calling on other countries to fully fund covax, donating what is estimated to be in excess of 300 million vaccine doses we will have sitting around in a few weeks to countries around the globe, and we would be opening up our raw materials to make sure everyone around the globe licensed to produce a covid vaccine would have the ingredients they need to produce a single vaccine. that is american leadership. that is saying let's solve this

probm this quickly and efficiently as possible. it does nothing to hand needy countries are recipe book with no ingredients, the lack of manpower needed to fuel and safety produce these vaccines, and undermine not only these fragile, global supply chains for these raw materials, but also to put the accountability and drop it back in their laps and say, here go take the six to 12 months it takes to stand up your own vaccine manufacturing facility, find the raw materials that barely exist, and good ck. we need to do more than that. we are a leading light in the world and we need to expect more of ourselves and to actively help. steve: michelle, thanks so much for sharing your views with us today. michelle: thank you for having

me. steve: now to get more perspective on patent waivers, were joined by the u.s. national editor and columnist for the financial times here in washington, d.c. he was also the india bureau chief for the financial times, and we know what they are going through at this moment on the subject. you have been positive about president biden's commitment to join those nations that want to waive intellectual property rights with regards to coronavirus vaccine, particularly with regards to helping india and other nations in trouble. do you think this is the solution? ed: no, no single act the biden administration or its western partners takes will be the solution. this is part of the solution, which we can get into in a moment. i think it is a very important, politically-symbolic, and geopolitically-symbolic gesture from the biden administration to the world to expect american

leadership on this. it is extremely rare, if ever meant that you see an american president take on big pharma. it just does not happen. this is not something you get up in the morning as president think, that is easy. i would do that. it just doesn't happen. the fact he is prepared to take on big pharma and do something they don't want, it will be noticed and sends a signal that the seriousness of his intent. steve: right. you applauded that intent, and in an article this week in the financial times, you swatted the president for not coordinating better with our european allies, so what are you trying to hit and criticize on that element? ed: the announcement last week was followed very quickly by irritation from angela merkel, from emmanuel macron, and from the european commission, from

brussels. with this indicated is not just that they have a more conventional stance on ip protection, which angela merkel does in particular, but in consultation with america's allies in europe on this, there has been a huge internal debate. you mentioned in your introduction the joe biden promise in the campaign to waive ip on these vaccines so it should not be a surprise, but the devil will always be in the detail, and this is a global back, not -- act. it has to be approved by consensus at the wto, meaning america's partners will need to be on the side, so i think there was a little bit of an absence of diplomacy and ground preparation by the biden administration. steve: there has been a lot of

focus on big pharma. there is also little pharma, as we just heard, little firms involved in some oncology approaches, which it has found useful in attacking the coronavirus in various efforts they are taking. one company is working on platforms for hpv virus, others on cancer issues, also finding a way to attack the coronavirus vaccine across a wide spectrum, so when small companies are hearing that their intellectual property rights might be waived, they might be waived across other efforts they are making, and these are not government-funded companies. how do you feel about that dimension? i worry that these little firms are having the rug ripped out from underneath him, after years of investment and work to help mankind. it is not run by the government.

these are private firms. ed: there should be no position on intellectual property protection. those who do not think, they are living in a dinner third universe, and it should always be robust, most of us don't want to live in that, so in the real world, we will have trade-offs between the incentives to innovate and the rewards you get from innovation, but also on occasion such as this one, and overriding public interest in waving intellectual property protection. the details of what joe biden is proposing are not clear. if you look at the original demand from india and south africa, that is a sweeping proposal, not just pfizer, not just mrna, astrazeneca's traditional vaccine, but sweeping, across-the-board of all the equipment and ecosystems around it. i don't think joe biden is proposing that.

even if he were, i don't think that is what would come through a wto consensus-building process. so i think the companies that ought to be most concerned about whether this will hit the bottom line, probably moderna, pfizer, and the big suppliers. steve: i think part of the framing of this is that some of those who advocate waving property rights see this as big companies trying to keep profits , while lives are being lost, and i think that framing is working for a lot of people in the world. why do you think the alternative argument is not as compelling, that these companies, this ecosystem, private-public partnerships, in less than a year, came up with miraculous vaccines, many options, and a short time, and that is never happened before in history, so that is the alternative, but that is not to be selling as much as the other side. ed: it is a good argument.

i would quibble with some of the details. this is built on a lot of public research in private-sector innovation. as is often the case, the national institutes and departments, many science bodies have been part of this giant effort to develop these vaccines. then of course there was operation warp speed, which had generous advanced contract purchases, regardless of whether the vaccines pass regulatory approval, giving huge commercial confidence for these companies to ramp up, and of course, liability waivers. the idea this is the pharmaceutical equivalent of the genius in his garage having a lightbulb go off in his head and now he is a genius, that is not how the process works.

there are brilliant people in the private and public sector, funded by taxpayer money, and taxpayers don't claim patents. the nih had this famous by protein that is a key part of the moderna vaccine. it gave it to moderna. it did not patented. the taxpayer is not getting dividends. shareholders of moderna. -- moderna r, and i don't think that is particularly balanced in the global health emergency. steve: you are one of the best observers of global affairs and america's place in the world that i know. as it looks like now, we will have a sism with germany, france on one side and the maybe the americans and who knows on the other. the wto is a consensus-based organization, that this may fall flat on its face while people die in india and elsewhere around the world. what should we do if, in fact, that intellectual property

waiver effort by joe biden get stuck in a logjam? what should we put on the table if that goes nowhere? ed: even if it does go somewhere, we have to put everything on the table. i agree with michelle that the biden administration should be putting a lot more into covax, as should the europeans. it shod be an all hands on deck approach to this pandemic that involves taking it a lot more seriously globally than we have seen so far, and if the biden administration stop at the $3 billion from $4 billion it has pledged for covax, and the pledge to argue for the waiver at the wto for vaccines, then this would be an empty gesture, diplomacy. it has to be part of a much broader set of emergency measures on most of which we have yet to see, so i would agree strongly on that point. steve: edward, u.s. editor for

the financial times, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us today. so what is the bottom line? it is easy to see the issues of faxing patents in black and white. you are either on the side of angels and want to give away intellectual property for the sake of humankind, or on the side of the devils who value cold, hard cash over human rights, even in the middle of a pandemic they keep spreading. like many debates, it is not so simple. if washington was interested in equitable vaccine distribution why isn't doing more to get vaccines to more countries? why not announce now a global marshall plan for vaccines and do the production, airlifting to every corner of the earth? the world can't wait for a long debate on patent protection. the only thing we know for sure is this pandemic with new variants erupting around the world is testing humanity and scary ways every single day. and that is the bottom line. ♪

úúk0=0=ó■

- hey, i'm valerie june. coming uon "reel sth." - alerie] thismall tow in msissippi has - hey, i'm valerie june. a surising cim to fame. chamonships ar afterear.has wol - ing from a sll town, i n't thin i uld've kwn tt performingould be career - alerie] eir demaing direct believein the new peop, you're not unrg at it's nna take. we wl do it l night ng ifhat's at it takes. new peop, you're not unrg - alerie] t can th wibig one re time. - - alof theseeople cong cofr differe backgrounfe.