• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

The Scandalous EU Contract with Pfizer-BioNTech Has Been Online For Two Years. Why Has Nobody Seen It?

by Robert Kogon
30 August 2023 7:00 AM

A recent court order requiring disclosure of the South African COVID-19 vaccine procurement contracts has caused a stir in social media and raised hopes that some of the secret clauses offering special protection to manufacturers might finally be revealed. The Romanian Member of the European Parliament Cristian Terhes, who has long criticised Ursula von der Leyen and the EU Commission for publishing heavily redacted versions of the EU’s own procurement contracts, hailed the ruling in a tweet as a “huge win for transparency and accountability”, pointing, in particular, to the inclusion of the all-important ‘Pfizer’ contract among the documents to be released.

But why the excitement? The EU’s own procurement contract or Advanced Purchase Agreement (APA) with the consortium of Pfizer and the German company BioNTech has been available online in unredacted form for well over two years now: since, more precisely, April 2021, just shortly after vaccine rollout. It does indeed contain hair-raising clauses, which would undoubtedly have provoked massive opposition and ‘vaccine hesitancy’ had they been more widely known.

Consider, for instance, the following clause from Article 1, paragraph 4, of the Vaccine Order Form which is appended to the APA: “The Participating Member State 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.” (See full paragraph below.) How many Europeans would have rushed to take the vaccine or even consented to take it if they had known that?

But they did not know it. For here is what the same paragraph looks like in the redacted version of the APA posted by the European Commission.

This ‘acknowledgement’ clause in the order form – acknowledgement, in effect, that the manufacturers knew neither if the vaccine was safe nor if it was effective, at any rate in the long-term – is in addition to the clauses which already provide the manufacturers extremely wide-reaching indemnification in the section on indemnification of the contract proper. See, for instance, the excerpt from Article I.12.1 below.

The ‘contractor’, as specified on the first page of the APA, refers to Pfizer and BioNTech collectively.

This is how the same passage looks in the redacted version of the contract posted by the European Commission.

Here is what the full page looks like.

And the following page.

In fact, apart from the first sentence, the entire section on indemnification, covering nearly three full pages of text has been redacted in the version of the APA posted by the Commission (see pages 24-26).

It is these extensive redactions which have been the focus of Cristian Terhes and other vaccine-critical members of the European Parliament. Taking Ursula von der Leyen and the Commission to task for their lack of transparency, Terhes has made a regular practice of theatrically holding up blacked-out pages of the contract in plenary sessions. (See here, for instance, from October 2022.)

Ursula @vonderleyen must resign, since her actions are criminally investigated by @EUProsecutor.

She signed contracts to purchase 4.6 billion COVID vaccine doses worth €71, contracts that are still not fully released to the public and MEPs. #UrsulaMustResign #EUCorruption pic.twitter.com/CTHISWoFhj

— Cristian Terhes MEP (@CristianTerhes) October 18, 2022

But if the unredacted version was available anyway, why did Terhes and his colleagues not also refer to that, i.e., to the actual content of the passages which were being hidden? And how did the unredacted APA and the obviously explosive provisions it contains fail to become better known?

Well, Cristian Terhes and the other MEPs will have to answer the first question themselves. If they were unaware of the availability of the unredacted document, they were made aware of it in September 2022, namely, by the present author in a tweet-reply to Cristian Terhes to which Terhes replied in turn.

But the answer to the latter question – why the existence of the unredacted APA has not become better known – is perhaps more intriguing and would appear to have something to do with the form of stealth censorship or ‘visibility filtering’ which has since become the norm precisely on Twitter.

Thus, in July 2022, after stumbling upon the unredacted contract, I posted a thread on it on Twitter, which quickly went somewhat viral by the standards of a small account, garnering hundreds of retweets and likes and eventually, according to Twitter’s own metrics, just over 100,000 impressions. I began the thread with the same acknowledgement of the unknown efficacy and safety of the vaccine highlighted above.

On September 11th 2022, I quoted this thread in the above-mentioned tweet-reply to Cristian Terhes and asked him why he was showing redacted copies of the EU contracts when the unredacted documents were available. Terhes’s response was to call into question the authenticity of the unredacted document. “Nobody can confirm that those unredacted versions are the real one,” he wrote.

But the Pfizer-BioNTech contract was not just mysteriously floating around the web and it was not published by any obscure conspiracy website. It was published rather by the Italian public broadcaster RAI. The RAI is the Italian equivalent of the BBC.

The original April 17th 2021 RAI article, titled ‘Here Are the “Secret” Pfizer and Moderna Contracts for the Anti-Covid Vaccines’, is still available online. The article contains links to both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna contracts.

The Pfizer-BioNTech contract has been available ever since on the RAI server. (Beware that when I first tweeted the contract in July 2022, it temporarily became unavailable, perhaps because the resulting traffic was greater than the server could handle.)

Furthermore, four days after publication of the RAI article, on April 21st, the Spanish daily La Vanguardia, Spain’s third largest newspaper in terms of readership, also announced that it had come into possession of the unredacted Pfizer-BioNTech contract – presumably simply by downloading it from the RAI website! – and published an article titled ‘The Contract With the European Commission Absolves Pfizer of Liability’.

Although, unlike the RAI, La Vanguardia did not post the contract as such, it did publish photos of selected pages, including a photo of the first page of the indemnification section I highlighted above, which it likewise contrasted to the redacted version published by the Commission.

On that same day, none other than Reuters also published an article on the leaked contract, citing La Vanguardia’s scoop (even though the scoop was in fact the RAI’s). Reuters, however, discreetly avoided mentioning the issue of indemnification, merely focusing on the price of the vaccine. (See ‘Leaked EU-Pfizer contract shows price for COVID vaccines set at 15.5 euros per dose’.)

So for three major European media, the RAI, La Vanguardia and Reuters, there was no question about the authenticity of the document when it first emerged in April 2021 – and before it again fell into oblivion. In the meanwhile, incidentally, Norman Fenton has also come upon the above-cited order form from the APA via a Slovenian FOI request, thus providing further confirmation of the document’s authenticity, supposing it were really needed.

But what was especially curious about my Twitter interaction with Cristian Terhes is what happened after it. Almost immediately after flagging the unredacted APA in reply to Cristian Terhes’s tweet, my Twitter account was hit with a shadow ban. This was what the results of my shadowban test looked like on the next day.

At the time, under the old Twitter regime, being shadow-banned was still a kind of status, which could be easily and accurately verified by online shadow-ban tests (or even by users themselves by searching for their own tweets when logged out of their accounts).

Furthermore, some other Twitter users let me know that they were unable to like or retweet my reply. See below, for instance. Similar feedback in the same vein is no longer available since Twitter has permanently suspended the author’s account.

This was not all that unusual per se. It will be recalled that tweets labelled ‘misleading’ under the old regime could not be liked or retweeted. But what was ‘misleading’ about my tweet? And, more to the point, it was precisely not labelled as such. Nonetheless, it appeared – surreptitiously – to be subject to similar sorts of restrictions.

Thereafter, engagement with my reply-tweets quoting the thread plummeted in general, occasionally popping up again, but still to less than half the previous level, before trending down to essentially, and apparently permanently, non-existent under the new Twitter regime. The below graph of relevant engagement (likes plus retweets) before and after the date of the interaction with Terhes illustrates this. It only includes tweets in which I used the word ‘unredacted’.

Restricting engagement remains very much a thing on the new Twitter/X, as X CEO Linda Yaccarino readily admits and as can be seen in the below extract on ‘tweet-level enforcement’ from the X ‘Help Centre’. Indeed, the actions taken to suppress tweet visibility appear to be more extensive now than under the old regime. (‘misleading’ tweets could be quoted, for instance.)

But unlike the old Twitter, which as a rule let users know when action was being taken against a given tweet, ‘X’ no longer publicises the fact.

Interestingly, the ‘Help Centre’ also acknowledges that such action may be taken in response to a “valid legal request from an authorised entity in a given country”. Who knows what a “valid legal request” is. But presumably the European Commission would count as such an “authorised entity” – especially since the Commission is designated as the ultimate regulator of online speech under the EU’s Digital Services Act. (See, for instance, here, here and here.)

In any case, the party with the most obvious interest in suppressing the unredacted APA is, of course, the party that redacted the document in the first place: the European Commission. It is not hard to imagine why the Commission would want, so to say, to ‘re-hide’ it.

Did old Twitter restrict the visibility of the unredacted APA in response to a request from EU authorities? Is new Twitter/X continuing to do so today?

Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs. Subscribe to his Substack and follow him on Twitter.

Tags: CensorshipCOVID-19EUIndemnityPfizerPfizer/BioNTechTwitterVaccineX

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

News Round-Up

Next Post

Does ChatGPT Have a Left-Wing Bias?

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

18 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TheGreenAcres
TheGreenAcres
1 year ago

Skullduggery is afoot for sure. But why the secrecy at all? It was widely known at the time that the procurement contracts indemnified the manufacturers against any adverse effects. But I would argue that the failure to protect the public lies with the vaccine regulators not the bureaucrats.

In the case of the UK, it was the ultimate responsibility of the MHRA and the JCVI to green-light the ‘vaccines’ for human use. Furthermore, if it was later established that the manufacturer had supplied fraudulent or incomplete information in their clinical trial submissions to the regulators, then this would potentially invalidate the indemnity in any event.

Last edited 1 year ago by TheGreenAcres
105
0
JohnK
JohnK
1 year ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

Apart from granting indemnity to the manufacturers, the “failure to protect the public” has been at the hands of those advertising it’s use. Such as posters saying things like “safe and effective” and all the rest of it. A lot of it was more like election campaigning rather than normal service.

87
0
JaneDoeNL
JaneDoeNL
1 year ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

I think the MHRA and the EMA now take the position that if some toxic garbage has been approved by the overtly corrupt FDA, then it is approved by them as well. Isn’t it great to pay for regulatory agencies that base their position on “wot he said”.

90
0
JaneDoeNL
JaneDoeNL
1 year ago

If I understand it correctly, the unredacted version the author refers to was originally published by RAI, not by an official EU body.

I do not doubt that it is real, I have seen various ‘unredacted’ versions, they all look the same and could have been nutshelled as “you pay us gazillions and you suckers are stuck with any and all liability and toxic product that doesn’t even work – oh yeah, you also pay us if we never supply any product at all”.

But to be fair to Terhes, he is correct in showing the ‘official’ version provided by the EU. As far as I’m concerned, all member states should be suing the commission into oblivion for withholding vital information. To the extent individual health ministers signed unredacted versions, they should be imprisoned for deceiving parliament. No one should be bound by a contract that the people’s representatives never had the opportunity to peruse; a minister is still merely a representative and any signing authority must be predicated on having informed the people he represents.

In any event, this does not mean those who suffered AEs have no recourse, it just means the sucker national governments will have to pay. I.e. the taxpayer who first paid to be poisoned and must now pay again to be cured.

It does rather explain why such an extraordinary number of MPs are leaving the Dutch parliament prior to November’s election – never seen so many say they would not be returning at the next election in my life, including all 4 leaders of the current coalition parties. These rats know something is afoot.

131
0
ebygum
ebygum
1 year ago
Reply to  JaneDoeNL

..I agree, the fact that the EU ‘officially’ furnished Terhes and colleagues only with a redacted version actually says a great deal about them..…it’s actually more proof, if needed, that they could have given him the full document, but chose not to..which can only be for nefarious reasons….
In of itself it speaks volumes, and even knowing he could read the full one, he’s still right to point out their skulduggery…

12
0
Uncle Monty
Uncle Monty
1 year ago

So, as is always the case, the taxpayer will ultimately be on the hook for any and all compensation payments to injured parties and nobody at the heart of this debacle will be jailed.

74
0
JaneDoeNL
JaneDoeNL
1 year ago
Reply to  Uncle Monty

You’d be happy with them just being jailed? 😉

45
-1
BurlingtonBertie
BurlingtonBertie
1 year ago
Reply to  JaneDoeNL

There is a code of honour amongst prisoners… Life imprisonment would be very uncomfortable for these evil, spineless individuals.

25
0
stewart
stewart
1 year ago

State bureaucrats are self serving and otherwise useless creatures.

They could care less about the population they are supposed to serve as demonstrated by these contracts which place all the risk and downside on the population and none of the risk and all the upside on the pharma’s side.

Basically the pharma companies gave them a contract and said, here sign this and they said, yeah fine. Why negotiate anything, the dumb masses will pay for it and take the risk.

79
0
Freddy Boy
Freddy Boy
1 year ago
Reply to  stewart

Spot on 👍

30
-1
Grahamb
Grahamb
1 year ago

Anyone have a view of what serialised means in this context?

10
0
godknowsimgood
godknowsimgood
1 year ago
Reply to  Grahamb

“What is serialization and why is it important?

Serialization means that the manufacturer must apply a 2D barcode to every unit of finished product produced and then upload this manufacturing information to a central database. As the product moves through the distribution to the end user, the barcode is scanned and can be checked for authenticity. In a process with multiple steps (units), each with a barcode, quality control can easily be maintained. 
 
What are the benefits of serialization?

Multiple benefits arise by following this process:

  • Traceability – for each step of the manufacture
  • An effective way to ensure brand authenticity and reduce batch recalls
  • To assist with more efficient drug distribution
  • Full compliance with government traceability regulations
  • Potentially an end to counterfeit medicine…”

https://dailyclout.io/failure-of-serialization-by-pfizer-flouted-established-pharma-rules/

36
0
Grahamb
Grahamb
1 year ago
Reply to  godknowsimgood

Wow, standard and sensible protocol not to be used! Thank you

22
-2
JayBee
JayBee
1 year ago

We have seen the consequences of this in practice in Germany recently.
The government always had to take the manufacturer’s side in court and pay for the manufacturers lawyers, as well as for its own.
And the vaccine injured sued them lost, despite having officially been ruled vaccine injured before the trial started.
Resultingly, the vaccine injured was also saddled with the lawyers fees of the manufacturer and of the government on top of her own.
Pitchfork material.

56
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 year ago

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/doctors-are-bad-for-your-health/

A brief but damning look at the industrialisation of health “care.”

27
-1
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 year ago

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/how-fauci-pulled-a-rabbit-out-of-the-hat/

It was deliberate fraud which allowed for the licensing of the “vaccines.”

No, surely not.

31
0
BurlingtonBertie
BurlingtonBertie
1 year ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Fraud nullifies indemnity from prosecution, which is why all the smart lawyers have been looking at this angle.

26
0
VAX FREE IanC
VAX FREE IanC
1 year ago
Reply to  BurlingtonBertie

“Smart” and “lawyers” in the same sentence…SCARY!
<grin>

Last edited 1 year ago by VAX FREE IanC
7
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

The Lunacy of Green Finance | James Graham

by Richard Eldred
8 August 2025
7

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Student Who Called Hospital Worker a “Welsh C***” is Convicted of Racism

12 August 2025
by Richard Eldred

News Round-Up

13 August 2025
by Toby Young

Keir Starmer Humiliated as US Slams Britain’s “Worsening Human Rights” in Bombshell Report

13 August 2025
by Richard Eldred

Net Zero Nutters Suggest a Plague of Ticks Whose Bite Leads to a Potentially Fatal Red Meat Allergy

12 August 2025
by Chris Morrison

Free Speech Union to Pursue Legal Action Against Thanet Council Over Latest Public Spaces Protection Order

13 August 2025
by Richard Eldred

Student Who Called Hospital Worker a “Welsh C***” is Convicted of Racism

33

News Round-Up

25

If Rupert Lowe’s Anti-Halal Campaign Succeeds it Could Lead to a Ban on Country Sports

24

Free Speech Union to Pursue Legal Action Against Thanet Council Over Latest Public Spaces Protection Order

11

Don’t Put Expensive Items at Front of Stores, Labour Tells Shopkeepers

9

The Lucy Letby Case and the Scourge of Experts

13 August 2025
by Guy de la Bédoyère

Meet Obki the Alien: Sky TV’s Little Yellow Man Who Aims to Turn Your Children Green

13 August 2025
by Steven Tucker

If Rupert Lowe’s Anti-Halal Campaign Succeeds it Could Lead to a Ban on Country Sports

12 August 2025
by Damien McCrystal

Net Zero Nutters Suggest a Plague of Ticks Whose Bite Leads to a Potentially Fatal Red Meat Allergy

12 August 2025
by Chris Morrison

RFK Jr is Right to Defund the Development of mRNA Vaccines

12 August 2025
by Dr Angus Dalgleish

POSTS BY DATE

August 2023
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
« Jul   Sep »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

POSTS BY DATE

August 2023
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
« Jul   Sep »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Student Who Called Hospital Worker a “Welsh C***” is Convicted of Racism

12 August 2025
by Richard Eldred

News Round-Up

13 August 2025
by Toby Young

Keir Starmer Humiliated as US Slams Britain’s “Worsening Human Rights” in Bombshell Report

13 August 2025
by Richard Eldred

Net Zero Nutters Suggest a Plague of Ticks Whose Bite Leads to a Potentially Fatal Red Meat Allergy

12 August 2025
by Chris Morrison

Free Speech Union to Pursue Legal Action Against Thanet Council Over Latest Public Spaces Protection Order

13 August 2025
by Richard Eldred

Student Who Called Hospital Worker a “Welsh C***” is Convicted of Racism

33

News Round-Up

25

If Rupert Lowe’s Anti-Halal Campaign Succeeds it Could Lead to a Ban on Country Sports

24

Free Speech Union to Pursue Legal Action Against Thanet Council Over Latest Public Spaces Protection Order

11

Don’t Put Expensive Items at Front of Stores, Labour Tells Shopkeepers

9

The Lucy Letby Case and the Scourge of Experts

13 August 2025
by Guy de la Bédoyère

Meet Obki the Alien: Sky TV’s Little Yellow Man Who Aims to Turn Your Children Green

13 August 2025
by Steven Tucker

If Rupert Lowe’s Anti-Halal Campaign Succeeds it Could Lead to a Ban on Country Sports

12 August 2025
by Damien McCrystal

Net Zero Nutters Suggest a Plague of Ticks Whose Bite Leads to a Potentially Fatal Red Meat Allergy

12 August 2025
by Chris Morrison

RFK Jr is Right to Defund the Development of mRNA Vaccines

12 August 2025
by Dr Angus Dalgleish

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences