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.)
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.
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.
“NatWest … struggles to process a mountain of data requests”. It they were just ‘requests’ they wouldn’t bother.
Good morning everyone….
children offered £1.500 to take part in covid quacksine trial…
sigh…welcome to another day in
world…
After the dozens of studies showing ‘cardiac’ problems after vaccination..here comes another one…
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.064772
Cardiovascular Assessment up to One Year After COVID-19 Vaccine–Associated Myocarditis
We evaluated the cardiovascular outcomes at up to 1 year in adolescent patients diagnosed with COVID-19 vaccine–associated myocarditis.
To our knowledge, this is the longest follow-up study to date with comprehensive cardiac evaluation and imaging of adolescent patients diagnosed with COVID-19 vaccine–associated myocarditis. Global systolic ventricular function appears to be preserved. However, impairment of LV and RV myocardial deformation and persistence of LGE in a significant subset of patients with up to 1 year of follow-up was observed. Growing evidence suggests worse prognosis in the presence of altered myocardial deformation and LGE in patients with myocarditis.
Given that impaired myocardial deformation and LGE are indicators of subclinical myocardial dysfunction and fibrosis, there exists a potential long-term effect on exercise capacity and cardiac functional reserve during stress.”
…and let’s face it this is just ONE disease from the jab…..in a list of dozens….
Yeah it just further illustrates why we’re seeing young athletes have sudden cardiac episodes and it doesn’t bode well for many of them resuming their professional career does it? I shared this yesterday.
if It isn’t on the forum here, I probably missed it..I don’t always have time to look at every story…but you are right there are serious and obvious problems with the vaccination…and if it isn’t that, then they need to come out and tell us what it is don’t they?
Also, how can they, scientifically and morally be allowed, by our Government, to perform these trials?..when that same Government doesn’t give these vaccines to healthy children in that age group….and as children in that age group don’t get seriously ill from Convid either..why would you even use them as Guinea pigs ??
I know that everyone can’t see the X Files ( as I now call the re-hashed Twitter…LOL)
But there is some interesting stuff coming out of the Australian Senate Covid Committee….hopefully it will make its way to YouTube so I can share…
…meanwhile one of the things that has come out is that Pfizer sent their employees there a ‘special batch’ of vaccines..they didn’t use the ones sent to ordinary Australian’s….!!?
…and this from Senator Antic….
”During last night’s Senate hearing into our COVID 19 Vaccine Discrimination Bill representatives from Moderna couldn’t provide the numbers of serious adverse reactions from their COVID mRNA injection.
I was so stunned I literally dropped my pen!
https://twitter.com/SenatorAntic/status/1687294055829688321
I hope people are really seeing through this crap now..and if nothing else along with the American Covid Committee, we are really getting to see these weasels squirm, as they try to defend the indefensible….!
A few days ago I posted Pfizer’s decline in covid vaccine products sales..well Moderna it would seem are going the same way…
Moderna….The company generated $344 million during the second quarter of 2023, a 93% decline from $4.75 billion it pulled down in the same period last year. Its quarterly loss came in at $1.4 billion.
Moderna has described this year as ‘transitional’ as it shifts some of its focus to other projects, including its respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine.”
So still a lot of money but nothing like last year…let’s hope the trajectory keeps going in the same direction……?
Yes Jikky broke that ages ago, I shared it a while back, I think on a Chris Martenson ( Peak Prosperity ) video initially. There’s some really interesting but shocking things coming out of that hearing, such as when they can’t explain how myocarditis is resulting from people taking their products and how nobody was forced to take a jab in Australia!
They’re just disgusting worms who have sold their souls to Big Pharma.
Yes..that was the brilliant Senator Malcolm Roberts….with the Pfizer shills saying they would have to ‘get back to him’ on that!! Outrageous!
Brett Weinstein talks about what he believes is the reason behind the jab causing myocarditis..and it’s the mRNA, which I also believe, and is very worrying as they want to use it in everything…
I have long thought that part of the ‘con’ was to get mRNA out, by stealth and to get it accepted as a ‘proven’ technology in the confusion…?
Brett’s podcast….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbkUg6c-Igk
I have found this showing a Pfizer shill not answering a question from Senator Rennick regarding the mechanism by which the injection causes Myocarditis: –
https://rumble.com/v34fn1p-australian-senator-gerard-rennick-grills-evasive-pro-vaccine-pro-pfizer-doc.html
Right at the end of your Twitter link, the guy asking the questions should have asked him to clarify what is in the placebos. That’s how they get away with it, by saying that there were no safety concerns between the vaccine group and the placebo group but not clarifying what they are injecting in the placebo group.
Yes … there are so many aspects to the utter fraud..it’s hard to know where to start!!
In this farcical ‘Covid Inquiry’ does anybody know if the hugely elaborate and unethical SPI-B nudging thing has been covered yet? Because I’d love to know what the justification could be for something like that and how these sociopaths could ever defend such behaviour. I found this ( see below ) and it’s focusing on ‘nudging’ due to a decline in vax uptake. I can’t see a date on it but it’s referring to the scamdemic, but of course this could be applied to all vaccines as childhood vax uptake has reportedly dwindled a bit, and I hope it continues to do so. But I honestly do not understand how they can get away with this approach lawfully. I mean, just present the information, pros and cons, and let competent adults make their own decisions about their’s and their kids’ health FGS. There should be zero manipulation or pressurizing involved.
”Vaccine hesitancy (VH) and the global decline of vaccine coverage are a major global health threat, and novel approaches for increasing vaccine confidence and uptake are urgently needed. ‘Nudging’, defined as altering the environmental context in which a decision is made or a certain behaviour is enacted, has shown promising results in several health promotion strategies. We present a comprehensive synthesis of evidence regarding the value and impact of nudges to address VH.
Identified interventions are presented according to a framework for behaviour change, MINDSPACE. Articles (n=48) from 10 primarily high-income countries were included in the review. Nudging-based interventions identified include using reminders and recall, changing the way information is framed and delivered to an intended audience, changing the messenger delivering information, invoking social norms and emotional affect (eg, through storytelling, dramatic narratives and graphical presentations), and offering incentives or changing defaults. The most promising evidence exists for nudges that offer incentives to parents and healthcare workers, that make information more salient or that use trusted messengers to deliver information. The effectiveness of nudging interventions and the direction of the effect varies substantially by context. Evidence for some approaches is mixed, highlighting a need for further research, including how successful interventions can be adapted across settings.
Nudging-based interventions show potential to increase vaccine confidence and uptake, but further evidence is needed for the development of clear recommendations. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic increases the urgency of undertaking nudging-focused research.”
https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/9/e006237
Handy collection of articles by PANDA here. I think if more people can see these then they’re less likely to get taken in by the next fake plandemic and also less likely to get any more toxic shots;
”Since 2020, PANDATA has consistently argued against lockdowns and heavy-handed Covid interventions. In the absence of any cost-benefit analysis, it was always evident that the harms of such interventions would grossly outweigh any benefits.
On closer reflection it has become increasingly evident that Covid never warranted ANY novel interventions. PANDATA has now published a series of articles examining the drivers of excess deaths to bring focus to this important issue. The following 7 articles demonstrate that not only was Covid neither novel nor particularly deadly, but that the Covid policies and interventions were the likely main drivers of mortality.
So where does this knowledge leave us now? Can we really stand by in silence while we witness a MULTITUDE OF HARMFUL POLICIES being rolled out globally in the name of ‘novel deadly viruses’?”
https://twitter.com/PanData19/status/1687462681215750145
Thanks for posting, Mogs. I have read a couple of the articles, which seem well-written and well-argued. One thing I noticed is that the authors do not argue that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not exist (rebadged flu) – merely that it wasn’t “novel” or particularly deadly.
To be honest I’ve not actually read from anyone in the so-called ‘freedom movement’ that the virus doesn’t exist. I still think that the majority of deaths/cases were certainly rebranded because I never believed that flu can just ‘disappear’ or be eclipsed by another respiratory virus. So I do think Covid exists but I do get a bit uncertain and wishy-washy on the details. Was it released in various locations across the globe, because expecting it to travel around the world from a single location and maintain it’s IFR seems entirely ‘Hollywood science fiction-like’ and highly improbable?
Here’s something a bit fun you might like, because it speaks to the ”conspiracy-theorist” in all of us,
Read the comments;
https://metatron.substack.com/p/saturday-morning-conspiracy-theory
I agree with your take – which seems to be consistent with Joel Smalley’s. That the virus does exist and probably was re-engineered; but that that is not critical to what followed. And there were undoubtedly many “cases” labelled “Covid” which were actually flu.
The viral sequence exists in a computer & was used to manufacture the spike protein introduced into folk via the bioweapon injections.
Dr Mike Yeadon has said that he does not believe the ‘virus’ exists.
In early 2020 homeopaths & radiologists were being informed/reporting that ‘covid’ was radiation damage. Funny that this information has been censored within the MSM.
The symptoms are very real but the underlying cause is not a virus. If treated early, radiation exposure/damage is reversible. If left untreated, repeated exposure to EMF from WiFi, mobile phones exacerbates the damage.
Lots of research into transmission of viruses ie flu which could not induce an infection in the test subjects even when mucous from lungs/nose/throat/mouth were directly introduced into their noses/throats/eyes.
It’s basically germ theory vs terrain theory. If the terrain ie the body is in a weakened, unhealthy state, then disease is more likely to occur when the body is placed under further stress.
I managed to look at some of “the end of covid” interviews to get a better idea of the germ vs terrain debate. Unsure what their availability is now and they are of mixed quality but Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan and Mark Bailey are all worth learning from. No one can say that viruses ie pathogenic, self-replicating particles don’t exist but we can be sure that the particles virologists claim to identify from sick people can’t do what they claim by way of replication, contagion, etc. I am now highly sceptical of all claims that germs, eg bacteria, cause disease as opposed to being part of life and correlated with environmental assaults, eg toxic chemicals that cause us to show symptoms of disease – a sign of detoxing. A good analogy is the presence of maggots on a dead animal found in the wild. You don’t blame the maggots for the animal’s demise.
I agree – nobody has proved that viruses exist in the form that we have been taught about. Bacteria when they get too numerous in quantity for the body to deal with result in disease but it’s the state of the terrain ie the body which determines whether disease occurs due to being unable to deal with the threat posed by the bacteria. Hence why young, healthy folk tend to do better than a frail elderly individual.
It’s certainly been interesting & challenging throwing out one’s preconceptions to get to where we currently are.
This is the Telegraph this morning…..LOL!
Forecasters have warned that the “worst storm of the year” will hit Britain on Saturday.
The Met Office said Storm Antoni would pose the greatest risk to the public in well over a year with millions facing travel chaos.
From Saturday, winds of up to 55 mph with the potential to uproot trees and heavy thundery downpours were predicted.
It is the first named storm of the season, which runs from September 2022 until the end of August 2023.
The agency names storms based on the level of impact they will have on UK citizens.
The unseasonal weather is likely to impact those travelling by land and sea with restrictions being considered by the forecaster.
Campers have also been warned about the increased likelihood of trees being ripped out of the ground by strong gusts because branches bearing leaves will catch wind more easily.
“Many people will be camping, using caravans and going to the beach as part of their summer holiday plans and this weather could pose a risk to them.
Trees with leaves are more likely to catch the strong winds and get uprooted.
BLA BLA BLA……
As I have come in from a dog walk this morning totally wet through, again…and it’s 11.7 degrees here..can somebody please send me some global boiling…..? Ta !!
Funny how the BBC weatherman yesterday said that Antoni was named by European meteorologists for its impact on them, not us. But if there’s a named Bogeyman to scare people with, it will be used.
Robert Dingwall’s article in the Mail is brilliant. As a (retired) GP I had no detailed knowledge of the pandemic plan at that time, but the general approach was Public Health 101, familiar to me from every other epidemic scare of my career. And that’s why I knew from the start that something was horribly wrong in the worldwide response to COVID.
It’s also why I felt, and still feel, grief and bewilderment not so much at the non-medics who ignored my professional knowledge and parroted the official garbage at me, but at the way the entire medical profession so quickly jumped ship on the basic epidemiology they must have been familiar with. To hear grown medics echoing the crass excuse, “We didn’t know anything about the virus at the beginning,” is still distressing three years later, because it is Tosh.
And the Inquiry looks likely to set the abandonment of science and reason in stone for the next time the cognoscenti choose to create a disease scare. Science died in 2020.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12370977/The-Covid-Inquiry-never-admit-strong-pandemic-plan-went-wrong-Leftie-scientists-panicky-politicians-writes-PROFESSOR-ROBERT-DINGWALL.html
A good article, as you say, and not behind a paywall. I hadn’t seen it so thanks for the heads-up…
You might find this an interesting read on a rainy day like today!? This is something I was aware of so I never understood the ‘we panicked because we didn’t have a plan in place’…!
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/927770/exercise-cygnus-report.pdf
Exercise Cygnus Report
Tier One Command Post Exercise
Pandemic Influenza
18-20 October 2016
Clearly the enquiry wilkl not pay attention to Dingwall’s article or evidence. It is not what they want to hear. To give it credence would undemine the intentions of the political class next time they have an excuse to control us.
All the more reason for as many lay people as possble to respond to the Hallett Inquiry’s request for experiences as part of “Every Story Matters” (google it for web page) to put on record all our doubts on whether there was a pandemic,lockdowns, jab rollouts etc.; to support those such as Hart Group who are trying to give evidence to the Inquiry, which sthe Inquiry so far has limited.
I know this could be called ”cherry-picking” and there’s no mention of if they all got the jab usefully included in the blurbs but just how common was it in prior years for women to be diagnosed with cancer before or just after giving birth? It looks really bad when put in a collection like this but I’ve no clue what the normal rate is/was so don’t want to jump to conclusions. However if it were confirmed that all of these women did get jabbed then there’s your common denominator that surely warrants a ‘signal’.
https://palexander.substack.com/p/pregnancy-and-aggressive-rapid-lethal
Deleted by me…
The Daily Sceptic is a blog created by British commentator Toby Young. It has published misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and climate change denial. Wikipedia
Founder(s): Toby Young …C’mon Toby – Defamation or what!
I’d call that a badge of honour! He’s up there with Malone, McCullough, Kory, etc and now even Clauser –
In May 2023, Clauser joined the board of the CO2 Coalition, a climate change denialorganization.[11]
Indeed. Wikipedia is now a near 100% reliable guide to who and what are shysters and who are legitimate – just look for the buzzwords “conspiracy theorist,” “misinformation,” “pseudoscience” etc and you can guarantee it’s about someone worth listening to.
Don’t know if this has been posted before but the co-founder of Wikipedia had this to say..
“The co-founder of Wikipedia has revealed a bombshell concerning long-running suspicions of US intelligence interference and manipulation on the world’s most well-known collaborative online encyclopedia. The site’s co-creator Larry Sanger spoke to journalist Glenn Greenwald on his “System Update” podcast, and outlined the known “information warfare” efforts of US intelligence, which have to some extend make Wikipedia a tool of “control” by the left-liberal Washington deep state.
Some observers who have long watched and carefully documented US government involvement in major social media platforms as well as Wikipedia itself have commented, “the CIA Is running Wikipedia, Wow, what a shocker. Sanger asserted during Greenwald’s show, “We do have evidence that, as early as 2008, that CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia,” before posing: “Do you think that they stopped doing that back then?”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wikipedia-co-founder-describes-us-intelligence-manipulation-worlds-largest-online
Strange that the NHS, with waiting-lists of millions, is going to spend resources on trans-gendering 7-year olds . . .