A. Vaccine Makers Relied on Secret Contracts to Avoid Liability Around the World
In America, the vaccine makers avoided liability preliminarily by first selling the vaccines to the U.S. Military and having the army act as the distributer. But the main technique for avoiding liability under American law was to sell the vaccines under an Emergency Use Authorization. Vaccines sold under an EUA have not been approved by the FDA, but are shielded from liability pursuant to the idea that there is a health “emergency,” and there is no treatment for the disease other than the vaccine (which was not true in the case of Covid; the Hive simply slandered and dismissed safe and widely-used medicines like Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine).
In other countries, however, the drug companies have relied upon secret contracts, the details of which they will not divulge to the public, in order to limit liability for the adverse reactions to the vaccines. In 2021, a few of those contracts were leaked to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and US consumer group Public Citizen.
“The contracts offer a rare glimpse into the power one pharmaceutical corporation has gained to silence governments, throttle supply, shift risk and maximize profits,” said Zain Rizvi, author of the Public Citizen report.
All the profits went to the drug companies; all the risk remained with the buying governments and their citizens (who were, in many instances, forced to take the vaccines. The drug companies went so far as to demand that some Latin American countries to put up sovereign assets, such as embassy buildings and military bases, as a guarantee against the cost of any future legal cases.
Last month, a South African NGO called Health Justice Initiative won a high court challenge to gain access to all of South Africa’s covid-19 vaccine contracts. Tony Nikolic, an Australian solicitor with Ashley, Francina, Leonard & Associates, reviewed the Pfizer contract and says it reads like South Africa was “held to ransom” over the deal.
“It’s a one-sided contract. Pfizer gets all of the profits and none of the risks,” says Nikolic. “It’s akin to extortion, there’s absolutely no liability for the vaccine manufacturer in terms of injuries that may arise from their product.”
The South African government agreed to “indemnify, defend and hold harmless” Pfizer and all its affiliates from “any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses” arising from the vaccine.
It also says the government will “create, dedicate, and maintain a no-fault compensation fund sufficient to undertake and completely fulfil the indemnification obligations . . . for damage, injury, or harm arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the development, administration, or use of the vaccine.”
Nikolic says, “It’s like the manufacturers could ask for anything they wanted. There was such panic at the time and images in the media of people dying in the streets created a real sense of fear and insecurity around the world.”
Immunity from liability covers not only the initial vaccine formulation, but for “any or all related strains, mutations, modifications or derivatives of the foregoing that are procured by Purchaser.” “What this means,” explains Nikolic, “is that Pfizer can modify its vaccine to match whatever variants emerge, and still have all the same protections against liability. This is nothing more than a cash cow for Pfizer, they are privatizing the profits, whilst socializing the costs.”
Pfizer charged the South African government $10 per dose, which is nearly 33% more than the $6.75 “cost price” it reportedly charged the African Union. “In my view, this is why Pfizer wants the details kept secret, so that it can protect the various price differences between countries. It’s classic price gouging with a predatory twist, that is why procurement transparency is essential,” says Nikolic.
The contract states “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.”
“We had politicians and key opinion leaders telling people that the vaccines were ‘safe and effective,’” says Nikolic, “when the procurement contracts themselves did not make such claims.” “The contract clearly indicates that adverse effects were unknown at the time of signing. The burden of proof should never have been on the people to prove the vaccine was unsafe, it should have been on the manufacturer to prove the vaccine was safe,” he adds.
Nikolic has spent the last two years trying to access the procurement contracts signed by the Australian Government.
“Australians are still in the dark about what is contained within these contracts. We know it gave liability protection to the vaccine manufacturers like other countries, but that’s the extent of it,” says Nikolic. “We need to know what our politicians knew at the time of signing the deal. And we need to know how much money we, the taxpayer, spent for a vaccine that turned out to be far less safe or effective than promised,’ he adds.
In a recent Australian Senate committee hearing, Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts grilled Pfizer executives under oath about the indemnity clauses in its contract with the Australian government, but Pfizer refused to give details. “The contents of Pfizer’s contract with the Australian Government remains confidential,” said Pfizer Australia’s medical director Krishan Thiru.
In 2021, Nikolic mounted a legal challenge against covid-19 vaccine mandates in the New South Wales Supreme Court where he tried to subpoena the Pfizer contract, but his request was blocked. Undeterred, Nikolic submitted an FOI request to the Australian Department of Health. (Apparently, the United States is not the only country with a Freedom of Information Act.) The FOI request, however, was denied because the contracts “contain information that is confidential in nature” such as “trade secrets and commercially valuable information.” It stated:
“The documents contain commercial information regarding the procurement of vaccines to Australia. The documents contain information specifically relevant to the unique commercial arrangements between the department and third parties, including indicative prices, payment terms, professional indemnity, ongoing funding measures, manufacturing details and production measures.”
Nikolic says, “It’s unethical, potentially unlawful and immoral for them to argue that the right to preserve commercial confidence overrides the right for public safety, it just doesn’t make sense.”
He adds, “It just boggles the mind how governments just rolled over and entered into agreements with companies like Pfizer that have a long track record of breaching the False Claims Act resulting in billion-dollar criminal and civil liability.”
B. Feds Redact Pfizer Safety Report before FOIA Release
In April and May of 2021, the president, the whole White House Covid Response Team, everyone in the communications office, the US Surgeon General (Vivek Murthy), senior officials of the CDC including director Rochelle Walensky, Francis Collins, head of NIH, and Dr. Anthony Fauci of NIAID were holding crisis meetings, and sending blizzards of emails among each other, after being informed by a Pfizer safety report that the mRNA Covid vaccines produced myocarditis and blood-clotting abnormalities.
These officials then proceeded to craft a publicity campaign to tell all of us that this myocarditis was mild, extremely rare, and self-resolving (it wasn’t), and urged all Americans over twelve to keep taking the vaxx shots. Later, they expanded the vaccine program to include children down to six months old.
By 2022, all of US public health officialdom had to know that the vaccines did not prevent infection and transmission of Covid, and they certainly knew the vax was causing terrible side effects, including sudden death, neurological damage, fatal clots, heart damage, excessive menstruation, miscarriage, infertility, and much else. Yet CDC head Rochelle Walensky kept pushing the vaccines as “safe and effective” until she resigned in June, 2023, and her replacement, Mandy K. Cohen, is still pushing the mRNA booster shots despite reliable data showing a shocking rise in all-causes deaths and disabilities from heart and blood disease, neurological injury, and cancers. This month, the CDC refused to release updated information on case numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis in the USA.
The story of the 2021 cover-up emerged from a document dump prompted by a FOIA request by Edward Berkovich, a lawyer with Naomi Wolf’s Daily Clout news organization. He requested emails between February and June, 2021, that included the term “myocarditis.” The CDC sent 472 pages, followed by an additional 46 pages (believed to be sent by a whistleblower) that included emails between White House officials up to the president.
But of the 47 pages of emails, 37 were entirely redacted (whited-out, not blacked-out, that is, blank pages). Only two pages of the 46 contained no redactions. The redactions were made, the CDC said, pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6 under code 5 U.S.C. §552, which protects documents received by the president.
What? Why does the fact that a document was seen by the president confer secrecy on it? These documents have nothing to do with national security, but are extremely important to public health. The whole government is apparently on a criminal rampage that it covers up by redacting and classifying documents for no legitimate reason.
It is now clear that from early on our government lied about the safety of the vaccines, just as they were also lying about the origins of Covid-19, which was a human-designed bioweapon that escaped, or was deliberately set loose, from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They continue lying about all of this to this day, even as they appear to be preparing for a replay of the pandemic.
“So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.” Eccl. 4:1