couple of headlines, an hour to die, which grows over the astra. zeneca coded 19 vaccine, as reports claim the highest level of ethical, only shown on trial, but says the plans under a certain age i was anger in france is the country's lawmakers passed a controversial bill that bans the filming of police officers to quote malicious reasons. and the white house transition picks up pace is president elect joe biden, looks to fill his cabinet with paul, sparking concern about washington's intentions abroad and partners to russia's nord

stream pipeline. the u.s. attempts to rail a project infringement on europe. pain independence we hear from germany's energy chief on washington's maneuvering. currently, u.s. pressure over north stream to has reached an unprecedented high. it's not tempered by the americans to lobby economic interests. actually, its behavior reminds me of the matter. good afternoon, just gone 4 o'clock in moscow. you're watching r.t. international. now reports have emerged suggesting the trial results of the british swedish astra. zeneca vaccine don't shine a full light on its efficacy. but as a us government, defense and health organization is cast out, claiming the highest levels of effectiveness were only shown on young participants

. let's get more details on this. he joins me now. good afternoon, ego just talk us through then. what is the issue being raised here? about the phase $2.00 and $3.00 trials. so, i mean, that's a lot of, there's a lot of data and a lot of information that needs breaking down here. 1st and foremost, this astra zeneca vaccine is yet another in the line of other vaccines released by different manufacturers. it is also known as the oxford vaccine, and it has been very well, very much anticipated. and a lot of people pinned a lot of hopes that this particular vaccine will be probably the most effective. now that they have put it out there and they've said, well, it is ready for orders and now they are seeking the f.d.a. approval for the u.s. market. new information about this particular vaccine is being emerged. so they're saying, so now, according to some reports, the actual, the average efficiency of this vaccine affected the effectiveness of this vaccine

is not 90 percent, but 70 percent white. because apparently they tested this vaccine on to, among the participants in the clinical trial trials of 2 age groups. those who were 8 from 18 years old to 55 years old and $55.00 and above. so it was 90 percent of active, but only among the younger participants. among the participants of the younger group, and when it comes to the $55.00 and older group, it was only 62 percent effective. have a listen to a representative over the american program on spreading that vaccine in the united states because they got access to this data. here's how they describe it. there are also differences in the age brackets present in the courts in the 1st received those and those had

a cap on the asia at the age of 55. when there are all the people included in the city that received to lose and to lose. i mean this is crucial information,, isn't it that effectively what it's saying is, in the most vulnerable group, i.e., those aged 55, the effectiveness of this vaccine isn't so great. it seems to be more effective in the young which, which we know, those that aren't considered vulnerable. was this data not sort of highlighted in the national center because 1st report? no, it wasn't because astra zeneca, they just presented the proof. they presented a press release, and then they said that the full information will be published in a scientific journal when the time comes and they do time, they didn't specify what they meant by the time. but i just want to point out that this is how vaccines in general, often work, how they often work because the younger group of people, they would have a stronger immune system. so their response to

a vaccine would be better and stronger, and they would develop more antibodies. while the older, the older generation, the older population they just biologically, they tend to have not the immune systems which are not as strong. so this could be this, this difference in the efficacy of this vaccine could be due to these reasons. it could be this simple, but we don't know that yet. so the, there have been oil a geisha is made as to why this is the case. and so really we just have to look more into this vaccine and develop more tests. and do you know, just break it down further? explain then how this information was finally made public. so as i've already mentioned, astra zeneca is now seeking f.d.a. approval, f.d.a. being the federal drug agency in the united states. because the u.s. interest is a huge market for the vaccine with a huge demand given how hard it was battered. how hard with all the life loss from

covert 19. so the f.d.a. they have been looking into it and also members of the so-called operation would speed. this is an american kind of, it's not in operation of course, but it's like a group that is responsible for making any vaccine available and spreading, spreading it among the u.s. population. so they looked into, so they started breaking down this vaccine and they started asking astra zeneca for more information about it. and that's how they learned about this additional information about the difference in effectiveness and the difference in effectiveness in different age groups. so also they also also revealed that apparently some people were given only half the dose of the vaccine during the trials have a listen. this was a change in the way the quantity of vaccine the amount of vaccine was tested. and when they,

when they realized that there was an error or a change in their approach in technique used, they corrected it. so questions then being asked about astra zeneca? where does this leave this particular vaccine in the race then to find a solution to it? well, it's definitely too early to say whether or not it can be just, you know, swept from from the table and we should just disregard it completely. no, it could still be an effective, undervalue vaccine. and i mean, we've just given the fact that covert 19 has had on the world, how many people it has killed, how badly it has bass's of the global economy, the more vaccines are being put out there, the better because people really want to feel safe again they don't want to be, they don't want to wear masks all the time. they don't want to wear gloves all the time. and obviously they don't want to lose their loved ones to this disease. but obviously, given how early and excuse me, how young this virus is and how little time the population,

the humanity has had to study it. the scientists have had to study it. a lot of people will be skeptical whenever any vaccine is put out there. be it astra zeneca, or sputnik v., you know, they will want information because whether or not it is safe to put it in their bodies and so on and so forth. so really, the more transparency there will be whenever any vaccine is presented, the better. ok, thank you. that was a r.t. . if you down there, now france has seen widespread public unrest after all, make it past the 1st stage of a controversial global security bill. the act of banning the filming of police officers for quote, malicious reasons was described by critics, is undermining media freedoms.

these protests have been building now for the last few weeks and on tuesday night, as the assembly members, the parliamentarians here in france decided to pass that law, which means it's passed its 1st hurdle in becoming an official law. here in france, more protests were held across the country, a city such as paris, bordeaux, where thousands of people turned out to show their ease with this law. this is the global security law. part of it article $24.00 is particularly controversial, and that's because it will criminalize the publication, the broadcast of images of the police where they can be identified in certain

circumstances where there is an intent to harm them. now that would be punishable if this becomes an official law in france by a year in prison or 45000 euro fine journalist groups and n.g.o.s have been hugely critical of this draft law saying this essentially gives the green light for police to stop the journalists from doing their jobs,, there's also been criticism from the u.n.,, which has said this could damage democracy and the e.u., which has said it is imperative that news media are able to do their job freely. but the country's prime minister said what he thought the tax, the law was excellent, he himself would be referring this to france's highest court when comes to constitutional matters. but i would like to say here as clearly as possible that there has never been there isn't and will never be the intention of the government to infringe in any shape or form of press freedom. freedom of expression. many

suggesting that despite the assurances from the prime minister from the government, that this law will have an impingement when it comes to freedom of the press. obviously we're very, very angry with the system which favors the police which protects them. this is going to worsen the problem. we're going to be even less free and they will have even more, right, do whatever they want. the match is not over. the bill now has to go through these summits. and we have seen that despite everything, several employees from the majority, hesitating to support the bill in paris, the protest here we had a particular focus and that was on the vents that unfolded on monday evening when police used what was described as brute force and violence to dismantle a migrant camp in the city. now during that dismantlement, there are images of being pulled, cautioning journalists and migrants were attacked by police officers. and that is

what many people say brings this entire law into question. so lots of questions still remaining about this more as we mentioned, it's been passed by the national assembly, meaning the 1st hurdle is over, but it will now go to the senate in 2021 with course it could be rejected or it could be passed on to become an official law here in france. now in the united states president elect, joe biden has dismissed criticism that his administration will be an extension of the obama years. this was thrown at him after he unveiled his national security team, which does feature a number of hawks in key roles. this is not a 3rd obama term because we face a totally different world. when we finished, the obama biden or biden's white has pics have also been criticized by peace creeps

and also human rights activists. many have pointed to interventionist policies and the military ties of those in the new cabinet. and you're trying to look now at how it could shape american foreign policy. america's foreign policy needs to be properly fixed after 4 years of diplomatic rock says a who says the man whose own white house mistakes as donald trump saw them were thorley taken care of by the outgoing administration. the time has come for the u. turn to go full circle. there's been some damage done. that is going to take some time to dig ourselves out of. but there's no doubt that joe's got the right people to do it. the man taking over the oval office in 2021 was president obama's number 2. so who are the best people to set these apparent wrongs? right. well, the former deputies of obama's team, of course, how easy, i'm really starting to get that joke that barack scott himself

a 3rd term. let's take a look at the collective portrait of a deputy dream team. one squad member clearly thinks it was the meddling russians who god, donald trump, elected in the 1st place. jake sullivan biden speak for national security advisor. this was a moment where we realized that the russians had decided that they were going to actively interfere in the u.s. election. that they were going to intensively work to undermine the pillars of u.s. democracy. and that they were going to try to defeat hillary clinton. if it wasn't for the russians, if you know what i mean, this career boost would have come much earlier. after all, mr. sullivan served as an advisor for the hillary clinton campaign. and yes, he worked as a national security advisor to the vice president biden. and here we're looking at someone who was all for upping u.s. involvement in syria. tony blinken, the new man taking care of america's foreign relations in syria. it's tougher,

it's longer. it's going to take time to build up the syrian opposition, but we believe it can be done. our commitment is to help them to support them, to give them the training, to give them the equipment to give them the air, the power, to give them the advisor. and it all comes back to hillary, who, infamously said this about libya. we came, we saw he died, right. as you may have guessed, mr. blinken was among the star democrat diplomats who love the idea of getting libya sorted through intervention. his c.v. highlights include deputy secretary of state deputy national security advisor and national security advisor to the vice president. so moving on with deputy dream team, you simply don't deserve the position of intelligence director under joe biden. if you haven't been deputy to a big name blood say in the cia under obama, without further ado. here's avril haynes, the former deputy cia director also happened to serve as the deputy national

security advisor right after tony blinken. some give ms. hanes credit for making america's drone wars more transparent. her critics though, paint her with a different brush focusing on her role as the architect of the drone program. one which is associated with scores of civilian deaths. a slight stain on the record, isn't it? any great team deserves at least a few qualified veterans. this one is no exception. take john kerry, he's getting his comeback. chance to the job of special presidential envoy for climate goes to the former secretary of state. bear with me for a bit of feedback on the team from someone familiar. the incoming administration could not have chosen that to pursue now for the foreign policy and national security teams. ok, at least there are no surprises,

and the world knows what to expect. meanwhile, a growing number of republicans are voicing their discontent. some senators have even threatened to derail the confirmation hearings of biden's picks, while the outgoing secretary of state gave a candid assessment not retreat from by those. some of these folks that they took a very different view that they were been a bit of a fantasy world. they were from behind their piece. they hope the choose a different course. these are the same people who knocked over libya in 2011, leading to a decade of nightmarish civil war. and she had the terror, a case study and competence. arden's cabinet picks went to ivy league. schools have strong resumes, attend all the right conferences and will be polite and old. leak at stake is the america's decline. i support american greatness and i have no interest in returning to the normal that left us dependent on china. where the libertarian party is 2025 presidential candidates by kevin believes the new biden administration will be more

aggressive in its foreign policy, but not to the benefit of ordinary americans. i think if you like the continued expansion of u.s. imperialist foreign policy, then this is a dream team for us. we got tony blinken, we got michelle flournoy, avril haynes and others who served under the obama administration. and while they were there, they were the main cheerleaders for the expansion of the war in iraq, the involvement and expansion of the war in syria. the continuation of the u.s. sponsored genocide in yemen and the involvement and invasion of libya by the us military. if you want more dead u.s. troops and dead people overseas, if you want more trillions of dollars being run up in debt to continue this empire imperial system going, then this would be the ideal pick for us in general. if you just talk about the subject of us foreign policy, the average american wants the wars to end, the average american wants the troops to come home. the average american doesn't

think that the u.s. military should be used as the world's police or that it's done a good job at it, or that it done anything other than lead to an increasing number of veterans coming home with, you know, p.t.s.d. and other chronic health problems and not to mention the measurable suffering and harm that's being done overseas. so the average american wants this to end whether that will play out or not. and in public outcry about that remains to be seen. not germany's any change has accused the united states of the pressure campaign on european companies involved in the north trying to gas pipeline month. the u.s. state department ramped up sanctions on firms to try and hold the project. we spoke to the head of the gym, an energy committee, he described washington's behavior as small, but like it's going to be for secret, affording only the currently u.s. pressure over north stream to it has reached an unprecedented high. and it's an attempt by the americans to lobby their economic interests, and this is to go behind the backs of their supposed partners. actually,

this behavior reminds me of the matthew, matthew c. come to the restaurant and say, we must protect you. but if you don't pay for this, we will smash all your places. and it's the same thing here. the americans say they protect us from the russians. but in fact, as if we don't want this protection, we want to trade with the russians. we want russian gas, and then they say, if you don't let us protect you, we will kill you. in other words, they impose sanctions on companies, threaten them with economic collapse, for instance. and this is what's actually happening is that we must reject such methods, simply objecting to them is pointless. only real action will help if you need to and other phone finance. but do you agree with, you know, paris statement that this is all about undermining europe's energy security in an intrusion, in an it independence. we cannot allow a country to dictate to us what to do with our own energy supply. this is not about our security, this is about the americans who want to sell us their liquefied gas shale gas that

harms the environment. moreover, that type of gas is more expensive. they have problems with sales. they have too much gas and prices a so low that it's not profitable. and here they want to impose their gas on us. of course, it's way easier if we don't have an alternative. that's why we avoid this, because otherwise we will be stripped of alternative, sellars, in my opinion, the pipeline will be finished at the same time, i think for now the e.u.'s key goal is its own sanctions against the u.s. . my suggestion is simple. we introduce sanctions, tariffs on american liquefied gas. they think they have a right to dictate to us where to buy gas. we'll show them with a tit for tat move. we can do that and it's how would that affect transatlantic ties, boss? what do you mean if we're talking about sanctions? they might make the americans realize that it's unacceptable to treat us as a colony. they better treated as an independent partner. maybe they'll be

a bit confused, but if they want to carry on trading with us and maintain economic ties and cooperation in different spheres, they will have to accept the fact that we have our own interests and that we follow them. only this approach will lead us forwards. any of them to deadlock or russia is also being critical of the us stance on or trying to slamming it. unfair practices. moscow has ruled out giving up on the project though despite america imposing fiscal penalties. the gas pipeline project is meant to deliver russian gas directly to germany through the baltic sea. from the outset of the project, washington though has been trying to put europe off the deal with the threat of sanctions and accused moscow of attempts to gain leverage over the last year, the u.s. introduced sanctions when the project was just short of being completed. well, let's get some insight into this and talk to plain seat because we go live now to

karen eisel. she's or she is former foreign affairs minister and knows all about dealing with preclear issues on world affairs. thank you very much for your time again this afternoon. kerry, what's your take on america's aggressive stance over north stream? firstly, well, thank you for the invitation. once again, last dream too is a business pro checked. i have always said you don't bar build a pipeline and in order to annoy somebody or to peace and body, it's all about supply and demand. we have companies here which have to do business, which have to be accountable to their shareholders in westerners. and unfortunately, this business project has become a political topic. why has it become political venting? think? because in general it's difficult to to separate politics from very important oil and gas infrastructure. this is a given,

we have seemed all over the world. and it's regardless whether we speak of gas pipelines between, between germany and the russian federation, or whether we speak about large infrastructure projects, which ever company does it in the middle east. it always has a political dimension, no doubt about that. but nevertheless, as has been also discussed in your previous report, it, it's not up to search parties to get involved to the degree that we have been observing with small streams to over the last 2 or 3 years. what struck me here, and i mention it, because i know you've written an op ed for the sputnik news agency, but there doesn't seem to be much diplomacy when it comes to the u.s. dealing with north stream to its threat. this very doesn't seem to be much open

dialogue or reasoning. what are your thoughts on that? yes, actually there has a new topic evolved. it's also there a subject of teaching and achieve diplomacy, and in indiana and all kind of big contracts always have this diplomatic, the mansion. but we, we have seen and since then lot of very can share shale gas industry has been, can manifest in the sands of being able to explore to, to be a player in their revolution, which i personally call a temporary shelter for evolution. it's more remote, it's not so much about a revolution. it as a change to market fundamentals in the long run as maybe some has deemed might do. but there was this very strong business interest demonstrated by president obama. and even before trump came into office,

when you look at the preamble of the european council sanctions on the russia, 2 to the crimean crisis. so to 1st of july 24th, it's a scary clearly in this document by the european council of heads of state and government. that there is the decider to have alan, she lost american and she into the european union market. so we have seen ever since 2214 a desire by the u.s. industry to to have a foot in the door and this has definitely increased with was the drumbeat ministration. and i'm pretty sure you also air and next u.s. administration will stick to this goal. i think it puzzles me here is that america doesn't seem to say, look, come on, take our gas,

it's good for you because they're saying take our gas or sanction you if indeed it's not this kind of business, a roach where bulls park not speculate, cost and benefits and it's an in, it's a calculation. it's a calculation and costs in literate sense. how much do you pay and laws? american alan, cheap on the emirates costs 40 percent more up. it's also a matter of demand. and do we really need that kind of? and she is it for the refining system that exists. it's all the work and matter of technical composition and above all, as was also mentioned in the truth of the report. i personally have always been wondering, and i said it in several texts. we are at the beginning of the implementation of the european union green deal, which is very,

very ambitious that this green deal has a big say on their automotive industry. in particular, in germany, what will happen to the combustion engine? and instead of thinking twice recent in twice the ecological costs of shale oil and shale gas, there is so much you are traumatic action taken against the combustion engine in the automotive industry is a honestly, i feel it's like we've european union are shooting into our own need so what's the way forward here? because at the moment there's a lot of an awful lot of friction between a lot of countries involved. you've got germany, you've got europe, you have america. russia is on the bad end of the stick to what would be the way forward? because a keep coming back to your article. you said that the art of diplomacy is in decline. you say, you know, in politics it's bereft, which seems strange coming from a former foreign minister. well,

absence in the past was please take that bro checked back to the business people out of the media exchanges. it's about cabinet and costs. and if this grow, chip is abandoned, it's not only a matter of time and a list of legal cases that have to be fought. but if these checks would be abandoned in the last minute as it looked like in late august, september, when we had all kind of worse is in germany saying, let's not stream 2 for political reasons. if that would be the case, then we will to have a really big problem with we still ego security dealing with german companies and want to have entered into a contract. you have to preserve, you have to keep the contract. it's

a very old if you go principle that dates back to, to the day of the ancient romans pact or so and so under contract street does have to be preserved. you have to be kept. and so it's much more than just about who gets what kind of oil and gas from which source. it's really has a much wider implication. and i'm pretty sure that this indeed is in the back of the mind of many decision takers. of course, also including german chancellor angela merkel. she's very much aware of that particular aspect. and therefore it should be taken out of this daily exchanges and be taken back to much more business oriented approach. ok, karen, on that note we're going to have to leave it there, but a really good to talk to again, there is cover, nice hill or foreign affairs minister. thank you. you're most likely just go home for moscow. we're back again at the top of the.