Letter to MPs/Lords/DHSC/MHRA re Pfizer Supply Contract Terms and Corollary Issues
Raise awareness of supply contract terms and ask questions in the context of the UK
You can find your MP's email address here: https://members.parliament.uk/members/Commons
You can find Lords' email adresses here: https://members.parliament.uk/members/Lords
You can contact Dr. June Raine, Interim CEO of the MHRA here (use all email addresses): info@mhra.gov.uk specialpopulationsunit@mhra.gov.uk dmrc@mhra.gov.uk
You can contact Minister for Health, Sajid Javid MP here: sajid.javid.mp@parliament.uk
From:
[YOUR NAME]
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Dear [NAME],
Re: Pfizer Supply Contracts & Corollary Issues
I write to you today to:
make you aware of aspects of the Pfizer Brazil Covid-19 “vaccine” supply contracts, which have been confirmed by Pfizer Regional President LA, Carlos Murillo, in Brazilian court to be the same terms in effect with 110 countries.
Ask 11 questions of you.
Covid-19 gene therapy manufacturer supply contracts that were drafted, agreed and signed in secret have been available for over six months.
After verifiying the digital signature on the Pfizer Brazil contract, Ehden Biber has submitted the Pfizer contract to members of the House of Lords, UK, to raise awareness and question whether the contracts are by nature even legal.
Question 1: Do you believe, feel or know that it is right for a democratic nation to conduct negotiation, analysis and ultimate agreement of contracts covering all aspects of specification, purchase, supply and ongoing use of a medical product that is intended for national deployment throughout all citizens on an ongoing and potentially indefinite period, under conditions of complete secrecy and zero transparency with respect to the citizens for whom the medical product is to be given (via mandate, coercion, persuasion or other means)? Why?
Question 2: Do you personally and in your capacity as a Member of Parliament fully support the means and methods by which the UK entered into contracts with any supplier of Covid-19 “vaccines”? Why?
Carlos Murillo (Pfizer Regional President LA): Pfizer Brazil terms are in effect with 110 countries
It should be noted that the Pfizer Brazil terms are, according to the testimony given to the Brazilian court by a Pfizer Regional President, Carlos Murillo, the same terms as agreed with 110 other countries, thus it is likey that these terms are the same as those between the UK and Pfizer.
The following points are courtesy of Ehden Biber’s letter to the UK House of Lords.
The official transcript of [Murillo’s] testimony was in Portuguese. It appeared here:
https://legis.senado.leg.br/escriba-servicosweb/reuniao/pdf/9987
https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/notas-taquigraficas/-/notas/r/9987
Video of the testimony, from the official channel of the Brazilian Senate:
Here is the final report of the “Pandemic Parliamentary Inquiry Commission
(Established by Requests 1.371 and 1.372, of 2021)”:
https://legis.senado.leg.br/comissoes/comissao?codcol=2441
Or
Direct link to the PDF
Question 3: Do you know whether the UK has signed the same terms with Pfizer as Brazil?
Specific Sections Within Pfizer Brazil Contract
I wish to draw your attention to five specfic sections of the Pfizer Brazil contract by summarily paraphrasing the four of sections (5.5, 8.1, 9.4 & 9.5) in the contract: (reproduced in footnotes, below):
5.5 Purchaser Acknowledgement: The product’s components and constituent materials are still being studied. At the time of contract signing, long term effects and efficacy were unknown and whether there would be adverse effects was unknown.
8.1 Indemnification by the Purchaser: The Purchaser (Brazilian government) has totally indemnified Pfizer and any party it states is anything to do with any aspect of the “vaccine” from any liability whatsoever. Any person holding positions in any of those parties past, present or future are covered by this indemnity.
9.4 Waiver of Sovereign Immunity: The entirety of Brazil’s sovereign wealth and assets are totally exposed to Brazil’s liability to Pfizer under the contract i.e. should Brazil be found liable in any way, Pfizer could recover whatever amount is determined to be owed to it through arbitration, in the form of any asset of Brazil.
9.5 Conditions Precedent to Supply: Brazil will mantain “adequate statutory or regulatory authority and adequate funding appropriation to undertake and completely fulfil the indemnification obligations and provide adequate protection to Suppliers and all Indemnitees from liability for claims and all Losses arising out of or in connection with the Vaccine or its use” and keep doing so until the contract is fulfilled and possibly beyond, where “for clarity, the sufficiency of such statutory or regulatory requirements or funding appropriation shall be in [Pfizer’s] sole discretion.”
Question 4: Irrespective of whether or not the UK has signed the same terms with Pfizer as Brazil, do you feel, believe or know it would be right, proper and morally and legally justified for the UK to:
Advance purchase, in total secrecy and using public funds, any medical treatment, device or product intended for deployment in UK citizens when there is no efficacy, safety, adverse effect information?
Advance purchase in such a way such a product in volumes that multiply exceed the total population of the UK, in the absence of any knowledge of the product’s safety and efficacy; whether more than two doses of the product would ever be required?
Buy such aforementioned products in the aforementioned way with either the advertent or inadvertent consequence being that the/those product(s) are deployed into society while still in an experimental state?
Make such a purchase in such a way for such products but have set no publicly knowable parameters for cessation of the deployment of those products?
Use methods including but not limited to mandate, coercion, persuasion, threat of fear (mortal, moral or otherwise), calculated psychological “nudging” of varying extremes, propaganda, (excessive) repetition, use of limited information, in order to drive voluntary or involuntary irreversible uptake of such products in the UK population?
12.2 Arbitration
In the event of a breach of the contract by either party, the matter shall be settled via arbitration. The model of arbitration described is effectively that of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) that is present within some existing international trade deals and featured in the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal between the US and EU. The mechanics of this arbitration are as follows:
The nation state appoints an arbitrator (lawyer 1);
Pfizer appoints an arbitrator (lawyer 2);
Those two arbitrators together pick a third arbitrator (lawyer 3) as chair, in consultation with the nation state and Pfizer;
The three arbitrators conduct a completely secret arbitration in New York that remains secret even after arbitration, unless certain specified compelling circumstances are met which allow for a breach of that secrecy.
A relevant court may make a judgement of some form on the award the arbitrators decide upon.
Such is the power contained within the short boilerplate ISDS paragraphs of international law, one such arbitrator, Juan Fernández-Armesto, is quoted as saying:
When I wake up at night and think about arbitration, it never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all [...] Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament.
Juan Fernández-Armesto, arbitrator from Spain
If the UK bought any Pfizer Covid-19 gene therapy product from Pfizer under the same terms as Brazil, it advance purchased a product (section 5.5):
with then stated zero proven efficacy;
whose ingredients were then admitted by Pfizer not be fully tested or understood and remain so. The MHRA has stated that two of the ingredients in the product have never been used in a UK human medicine before;
whose side effect and adverse event profile was literally entirely unknown and still remains largely unknown;
for which there was never any long term data available and this remains the case.
Within the scope of this contract, Pfizer only warranted that “at the time of delivery, the Product complies in a material manner with the relevant Specifications”. In the absence of the detail of the Specifications, the express acceptance of a product with unknown efficacy means it could be possible that Pfizer is only contracted to supply a product made of the specified ingredients in a specified way (Good Manufacturing Process) that meets the Specifications, but has no specified performance. On the other hand, the Specification could have contained performance criteria tied to trial results around efficacy, for example.
Under this contract, Brazil has only 24 hours from time of receipt to exercise its ability to reject detectably defective product. This requires that Brazil has the ability to identify defects of any kind in that timeframe. What if some of those defects only manifest once administered in a subject? Therefore if Brazil can really only reject product on its limited ability to find product defects within 24 hours of receipt and before administration e.g. damaged packaging, identifiable ingredient or consistency problems, cold chain breaches etc, this right to reject is extremely constrained.
Question 5: What are the Specifications that the UK Government agreed with Pfizer in respect of Pfizer’s supply of its Covid-19 “vaccines” to the UK?
Question 6: What is the exact mechanism and capability of the UK to inspect and identify defective Pfizer “vaccine” products within 24 hours before administering them to citizens?
Question 7: How does the UK Government or any of its employees, agents or appointed or authorised persons verify the actual contents of any Pfizer Covid-19 “vaccine” product that it receives and how long do any of these verifications to confirm the absence of defects take to execute?
Question 8: Can you confirm that in the absence of any pre-administration defect detection, there is a possibility that a Pfizer Covid-19 “vaccine” product may carry an inherent product defect which only becomes apparent following adminstration to a human being?
Question 9: Can you confirm whether the mechanism of administration e.g. aspirated versus unaspirated deltoid injection, could either compound an inherent, previously undetected product defect or, in combination with such a defect or alone induce a deleterious effect in the human recipient?
Question 10: The UK Government has stated that the Pfizer Covid-19 “vaccine” is “safe and effective”. This is a statement of absolute certainty. How can such a statement be made when:
The manufacturer has admitted via supply contract terms that nothing was known about product efficacy or safety;
Phase 1-3 trials were limited in scope, cohort, efficacy determination and definition parameters, and transparency of process; the Phase 3 trial has been ceased early; there is proven poor practise and possible fraud within some elements of the Phase 3 trial; key trial data may have been withheld from FDA, EMA and MHRA regulators over timeframes that may have materially affected deployment decisions;
the FDA and Pfizer have actively sought to block public access to any of the Pfizer trial data for up to 75 years (now defeated in US courts), such that there now exists a Pfizer document detailing large numbers of far reaching and serious adverse event safety signals which were actively withheld from public and peer scutinty/review covering the period up to February 2021, where such information may have affected each patient’s personal decision of whether to take these irreversible Covid-19 “vaccines”?
Question 11: Do you personally and/or professionally in your role as a Member of Parliament feel, believe or know that the arbitration mechanism in the Pfizer Brazil contract that is broadly equivalent to the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism present in other trade deals and arrangements is the right way for the UK Government to resolve any and all contract disputes or breaches with any and all suppliers of goods and services to the UK government and therefore to its people? Why? If you agree with the use of this mechanism, can you confirm that you agree with totally secret arbitration methods and resultant outcome, the existence and proceedings of which the UK people will never be aware of, even when that results in a liability of its government to the contracted party?
Yours sincerely,
[NAME]
5.2 Warranties of Pfizer.
Pfizer warrants to Purchaser that:
(a)At the time of delivery, the Product (except for any non-compliance or failure to meet the relevant standard or requirement that could not be reasonably discovered given the state of medical, scientific or technical knowledge at the time when Pfizer delivered the Product):
(i) complies in a material manner with the relevant Specifications; and
(ii) has been manufactured in material accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practices.
(b) Subject to Pfizer’s disclaimer of non-infringement of Intellectual Property rights of a third party (at Section 5.4(a) and (b) below), it has good title to the Product delivered to Purchaser pursuant to this Agreement and shall pass such title to Purchaser free and clear of any security interests, liens, or other encumbrances.
(c) The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by Pfizer will not violate any agreement or instrument to which Pfizer is a party.
5.4 No Other Warranty.
Except to the extent set out expressly in this Agreement, all conditions, warranties or other terms which might have effect between the Parties or be implied or incorporated into this Agreement (whether by statute, common law or otherwise) are hereby excluded to the fullest extent permitted by Laws. Without prejudice to the general nature of the previous sentence, unless this Agreement specifically states otherwise and to the maximum extent permitted by Law, Pfizer expressly disclaims any representations or warranties with respectto the Product, including, but not limited to, any representation, warranties or undertaking as to (a) non-infringement of Intellectual Property rights of any third party; (b) that there is no requirement to obtain a license of third party Intellectual Property rights to enable the use or receipt of the Product; (c) merchantability; or (d) fitness for a particular purpose.
5.5 Purchaser Acknowledgement
Purchaser acknowledges that the Vaccine and materials related to the Vaccine, and their components and constituent materials are being rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be studied after provision of the Vaccine to Purchaser under this Agreement. Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known. Further, to the extent applicable, Purchaser acknowledges that the Product shall not be serialized.
8.1 Indemnification by Purchaser
Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer, BioNTech, each of their Affiliates, contractors, sub-contractors, licensors, licensees, sub-licensees, distributors, contract manufacturers, services providers, clinical trial researchers, third parties to whom Pfizer or BioNTech or any of their respective Affiliates may directly or indirectly owe an indemnity based on the research, development, manufacture, distribution, commercialization or use of the Vaccine, and each of the officers, directors, employees and other agents and representatives, and the respective predecessors, successors and assigns of any of the foregoing (“Indemnitees”), from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ and other counsels’ fees and other expenses of an investigation or litigation), whether sounding in contract, tort (delict), intellectual property, or any other theory, and whether legal, statutory, equitable or otherwise by any natural or legal person (collectively, “Losses”) caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the Vaccine, including but not limited to any stage of design, development, investigation, formulation, testing, clinical testing, manufacture, labeling, packaging, transport, storage, distribution, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, licensing, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, provision, or use of the Vaccine, any information, instructions, advice or guidance provided by Pfizer and relating to the use of the Vaccine, or any processing or transfer of anyone’s personal information processed and transferred by the Purchaser to the Indemnitees.
9.4 Waiver of Sovereign Immunity
Purchaser, on behalf of itself and the State of Brazil, expressly and irrevocably waives any right of immunity which either it or its assets may have or acquire in the future (whether characterized as sovereign immunity or any other type of immunity), including any assets controlled by any agency, instrumentality, central bank, or monetary authority of Brazil, in respect of any arbitration pursuant to Section 12.2 (Arbitration) or any other legal procedure initiated to confirm or enforce any arbitral decision, order or award, or any settlement in connection with any arbitration pursuant to Section 12.2 (Arbitration), whether in Brazil or any other foreign jurisdiction, including but not limited to immunity against service of process, immunity of jurisdiction, or immunity against any judgment rendered by a court or tribunal, immunity against order to enforce the judgment, and immunity against precautionary seizure of any of its assets. Purchaser, on behalf of itself and the State of Brazil, further covenants and agrees not to assert any such immunity in any proceeding in connection with this Agreement. Purchaser, on behalf of itself and the State of Brazil, expressly and irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of New York, or any other court of competent jurisdiction, for the purposes of enforcing any arbitral decision, order or award, or any settlement in connection with any arbitration pursuant to Section 12.2 and represents and warrants that the Person signing this Agreement on its behalf has actual authority to submit to such jurisdiction. Purchaser also expressly and irrevocably waives the application of any Law in any jurisdiction that may otherwise limit or cap its obligation to pay damages arising from or in connection with any Indemnified Claims. Purchaser represents and warrants that the Person signing this Agreement on its behalf has actual authority to waive such immunity and bind Purchaser and the State of Brazil to the limitations of liability and liability waivers set forth herein.
9.5 Conditions Precedent to Supply
Purchaser represents that it has and will continue to have adequate statutory or regulatory authority and adequate funding appropriation to undertake and completely fulfil the indemnification obligations and provide adequate protection to Suppliers and all Indemnitees from liability for claims and all Losses arising out of or in connection with the Vaccine or its use. Purchaser hereby covenants and acknowledges and agrees that a condition precedent to supply of the Product hereunder requires that Purchaser shall implement and maintain in effect such statutory or regulatory requirements or funding appropriation sufficient to meet its obligations in this Agreement and thereafter shall maintain such statutory and regulatory requirement and funding appropriation, each as applicable, for so long as necessary to meet all of Purchaser’s obligations under this Agreement, including, without limitation, any such obligations that, pursuant to Section 6.5, survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. For clarity, the sufficiency of such statutory or regulatory requirements or funding appropriation shall be in Suppliers’ sole discretion. Purchaser acknowledges that Suppliers’ supply of Product hereunder is in reliance (without any duty of investigation or confirmation by or on behalf of Pfizer or its Affiliates), inter alia, on Purchaser’s representations and covenants under this Section 9.5, Purchaser implementing and maintaining in effect the requirements and funding appropriation policy described in this Section 9.5 and the other representations and warranties made by Purchaser under this Agreement.
12.2 Arbitration
Any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of, relating to, or in connection with this Agreement, including with respect to the formation, applicability, breach, termination, validity or enforceability thereof, or relating to arbitrability or the scope and application of this Section 12.2 (Arbitration), shall be finally resolved by arbitration. The arbitration will be at law and shall be conducted by three arbitrators, in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”). The claimant shall nominate an arbitrator in its request for arbitration. The respondent shall nominate an arbitrator within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the request for arbitration. The two (2) arbitrators nominated by the Parties shall nominate a third arbitrator, in consultation with the Parties, within thirty (30) days after the confirmation of the later-nominated arbitrator. The third arbitrator shall act as chair of the tribunal. If any of the three (3) arbitrators are not nominated within the time prescribed above, then the ICC shall appoint the arbitrator(s). The seat of the arbitration shall be New York, New York, USA and it shall be conducted in the English language. The Parties undertake to maintain confidentiality as to all aspects of the arbitration, including its existence, content and result, and as to all submissions, correspondence and evidence relating to the arbitration proceedings. The foregoing sentence shall survive the termination of the arbitral proceedings. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Party may disclose information relating to the arbitration proceedings to the extent that disclosure is required to protect or pursue a legal right related to the arbitration; enforce or challenge an award in bona fide legal proceedings; respond to a bona compulsory order or request for information of a governmental or regulatory body; make a disclosure required by securities Laws, rules of a securities exchange, or other similar Laws,regulations, or rules; or seek legal, accounting, or other professional services. The costs of the arbitration, including, without limitation, the Parties’ reasonable legal fees, shall be borne by the unsuccessful Party or Parties. However, the arbitral tribunal may apportion such costs between the Parties if it determines that apportionment is reasonable, taking into account the circumstances of the case. The arbitration award shall be final and binding on the Parties, and the Parties undertake to carry out any award without delay. Judgment upon the award may be entered by any court having jurisdiction of the award or having jurisdiction over the relevant Party or its assets.