International Report Says Pfizer Requested “Sovereign Assets” From Argentina, Brazil

As revealed in an international journalistic investigation by an English nonprofit news organization, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, in collaboration with Audience eyes, a Peruvian media, the American pharmaceutical company Pfizer would have placed strong demands on at least three Latin American countries, Argentina, Brazil and Peru, as part of negotiating the sale of vaccines against the coronavirus. The company’s order would have included commissioning sovereign asset guarantee, as a kind of “reinsurance” to cover possible legal disputes in the future.

In the case of a Latin American country (which cannot be named since it has signed a confidentiality agreement with Pfizer), the demands of the pharmaceutical giant have led to a three months to agree on a vaccine. As for Argentina and Brazil, no national agreement has been reached.

In turn, in the case of Peru, Pfizer reportedly asked to include clauses reducing the company’s liability for possible negative effects during the negotiation process. In Argentina and Brazil, Pfizer reportedly requested that sovereign assets, such as embassy buildings, military bases and central bank reserves, have been placed as collateral to cover future legal costs.

In conflict with Pfizer over conditions, Bolsonaro threatens to veto his vaccines

At the beginning of February of this year, the now former Minister of Health of the Nation, Ginés González García, had previously warned that Pfizer intended to “unacceptable conditions“. In fact, at the end of December 2020, González García said: “We don’t understand why Pfizer has so many demands for immunity and prevention, it’s like they don’t trust the vaccine.”

For its part, Pfizer has been in contact with more than 100 countries and supranational organizations, and has supply agreements with 9 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean: Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Uruguay. However, the terms of these agreements are unknown.

“Pharmaceutical companies should not use its power to limit life-saving vaccines in low and middle income countries, ”he told the Bureau Lawrence gostin, Director of World Health Organization Collaborating Center in national and global health law. “(It) seems to be exactly what they are doing,” he said. In the same vein, he added: “The protection against responsibility should not be used as the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of desperate countries with desperate populations.”

Regarding this, Pfizer told British media: “Globally, we have allocated doses to low- and middle-income countries at a non-profit price, including an advance purchase agreement with Covax to deliver up to 40 million doses by 2021. We are committed to supporting efforts to provide developing countries with the same access to vaccines as the rest of the world. “

Norway reports 23 deaths linked to Pfizer Biontech vaccine

Disclaimer for vaccine manufacturers

Ultimately, most governments offer compensation (exclusion of legal liability) vaccine manufacturers. This means that in the event that a citizen suffers from a side effect after being vaccinated, the latter may lodge a complaint against the manufacturer and, if successful, the the government would pay compensation. It should be noted that in many cases, side effects are so rare that they do not show up in clinical trials and only manifest after thousands of people have received the vaccine.

However, when it comes to the need for other vaccines, officials from the Argentine government and the country that requested not to be mentioned in the survey indicated that they believe the Pfizer’s demands went “further than other manufacturers, and beyond the terms of Covax, “an international organization created to guarantee access to vaccines for low-income countries.

“Compensation for negligence or fraud”

In addition to the previously listed orders, Pfizer also reportedly requested a additional compensation for civil cases, which would mean that the company would not be responsible for rare side effects or its own acts of negligence or fraud. This includes those related to company practices, for example, if Pfizer sent the wrong vaccine or made mistakes during manufacturing.

“Some liability protection is guaranteed, but certainly not in cases of fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement or failure to follow good manufacturing practices,” Gostin explained. “Businesses have no right to claim compensation for these things,” he concluded.

CFT / FL